Low-Vibration Methods of Soil Compaction for Urban Utility Projects: Phase 2

MN DEPTOF TRANSPORTATION
Report
Number` ' 1-9
I-J
II 0314 00023 6934

3 0314 00023 6934
A A A
S Connected to
vacuum truck
' . .' ' A .4 Pressure gauge mtn nw.in~
Mx
36"
- 48"
Low Vibration Methods of Soil

CTS
TE Compaction for Urban Utility
210.4
.S96
1995
Projects: Phase 2
rt524LyL"f. ~s9LD viqs 06>-3234
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project was made possible by the Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB). The
LRRB was established by the Legislature in 1959. Its purpose is to develop and manage a
program of research for county and municipal state aid road improvements. The Board includes
four county representatives, two city representatives and the Directors of Mn/DOT's State Aid for
Local Transportation Division, Office of Minnesota Road Research, and Office of Research
Administration. A University of Minnesota representative serves as the tenth member.
Funding for LRRB projects comes from a designated fund equivalent to 1/4 of one percent of the
annual state aid for county and city roads. These funds can be used for:
*Conducting research for improving the design, construction, maintenance and environmental
compatibility of state aid highways.
*Constructing research elements and reconstructing or replacing research elements that fail.
*Conducting a program for the monitoring and implementation of research results.
For further information, contact the Minnesota LRRB c/o Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Office of Research Administration, 209 Ford Building, 117 University Avenue,
Mail Stop 330, St. Paul, MN 55155. Phone 612-282-2274. Fax 612-296-6599.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1.Report No. 2. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
MN/RC - 95/19
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
LOW-VIBRATION METHODS OF SOIL COMPACTION April 1995

FOR URBAN UTILITY PROJECTS: PHASE 2
6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Raymond L. Sterling
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
University of Minnesota, Underground Space Center

Department of Civil Engineering
50ePS.
500 Pillsbury Drive bury D
S.E. 11. Contract (C)or Grant (G)No.
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0220 (C) 71754 TOC #130
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report

395 John Ireland Boulevard 1993-1994
St.Paul Minnesota, 55155
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
This report presents the findings of the second phase of an exploratory project to assess the potential of non-
vibratory methods of compaction for utility-related compaction needs.
Proposed refinements and additions to existing compaction procedures are based on the use of an alternating
flooding and vacuum procedure introduced through a pipe or series of pipes embedded in the soil. This process
had been demonstrated in early Phase I laboratory tests to give better results than flooding alone for granular soils.
Phase II laboratory and field tests produced compaction results ranging from an acceptable level of compaction
to an unacceptable level. The flood/vacuum method appeared to work best in well-graded granular materials
including some, but not an excessive amount of, fine particles. The cycle times for flooding and vacuum removal
of the water appeared to be too long for practical use.
The flood/vacuum technique by itself, or without reasonable levels of static compaction, does not appear to be a
viable technique for field use. It appears that results from the technique could be significantly approved by adding
mechanical disturbance of the backfill material or vibration energy to the flooding cycle.
17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement
Soil Vacuum No restrictions. Document available from:

Backfill National Technical Information Services,
Compaction Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 130

Low-Vibration Methods of Soil Compaction
for Urban Utility Projects: Phase 2
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
Yiming Sun, Ph.D.

Raymond L. Sterling, Ph.D., P.E.
Underground Space Center

Department of Civil Engineering
University of Minnesota
500 Pillsbury Drive S.E.
Minneapolis MN 55455
April 1995
Submitted to
MINNESOTA LOCAL ROAD RESEARCH BOARD

OFFICE OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION
117 UNIVERSITY AVENUE , 2ND FLOOR
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155
This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does
not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. This report does not contain a standard or specified technique.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge several individuals and groups who provided valuable assistance to
this study.
The City of Minneapolis, and especially the Sewer Construction Division, greatly enhanced the field
testing possibilities for the project by providing a site at their yard and equipment and labor to facilitate
the field compaction test trials. A special thanks to all the engineers and staff who assisted us.
The research staff at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, including Tom Burnham, Craig
Schraeder, George Cochran, and Roger Olson are thanked for providing valuable review and suggestions
and the loan of some testing equipment. Ron Cassellius and Steve Lund were always helpful in
facilitating the contract arrangements.
The funding provided by the Local Road Research Board and the coordination role of the Center for
Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota also is gratefully acknowledged.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
Chapter Two Laboratory Tests ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Modification of laboratory test setup............................................................................ 3
2.2 Sieve analyses of lab test soils....... ......................................................................... 3
2.3 Results of laboratory scale non-vibratory compaction tests............................................ 9
Chapter Three Field Scale Non-Vibratory Compaction Tests............................. .......................... 16

3.1 Field test setup and procedure ...................................................................................... 16
3.2 Sieve analyses of field test soils ................................................................................... 17
3.3 Results of field scale non-vibratory compaction tests................................................. 22
3.3.1 Density measurements by sandcone testing .................................................... ......... 22
3.3.2 Dynamic cone penetration testing ............................................................ ............... 23
Chapter Four Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................... ............ 32
References and Bibliography .................................... ........................ . 33
Appendix A Laboratory test procedure.................................................................................. .... A-i
Appendix B Field test procedure ................................................................................ ...................... B-1
Appendix C Laboratory test data ............................................... Available upon request from MnDOT
Appendix D Field test data .......... ..................................... Available upon request from MnDOT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 A sketch of the modified laboratory test setup ............................................. .............. 5
Figure 2.2 Particle-size distribution curve for Shiely fine sand................................................... ........ 6
Figure 2.3 Particle-size distribution curve for coarse wash sand.................................... ............. 6
Figure 2.4 Particle-size distribution curve for dark sandy soil ........................................ ............ 7
Figure 2.5 Particle-size distribution curve for brown sandy soil....................................................... 7
Figure 2.6 Particle-size distribution curve for mix of dark sandy soil and Shiely fine sand............... 8
Figure 2.7 Particle-size distribution curve for mix of brown sandy soil and Shiely fine sand............ 8
Figure 2.8 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor for wash sand............................... ... 11
Figure 2.9 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor for Shiely coarse sand ...................... 11
Figure 2.10 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor for Shiely fine sand ..................... ... 12
Figure 2.11 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor for Elk River sand ...................... .... 12
Figure 2.12 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor for fine sand (Mpls.).................... ... 13
Figure 2.13 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor for dark sandy soil...................... .... 13
Figure 2.14 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor for brown sandy soil.................... ... 14
Figure 2.15 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor

for mix of dark sandy soil and fine sand ............................... ............................... 14
Figure 2.16 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor

for mix of brown sandy soil and fine sand ............................................................... 15
Figure 3.1 A sketch of the field scale test setup................................... ...................................... 19
Figure 3.2 Particle-size distribution curve for coarse sand.......................................... .............. 20
Figure 3.3 Particle-size distribution curve for fine sand.................................................................. 20
Figure 3.4 Particle-size distribution curve for class 5.................................................................. 21
Figure 3.5 Particle-size distribution curve for granite chips........................................................... 21

Figure 3.6 Particle-size distribution curve for mix of chips and fine sand.................................. .... 22
Figure 3.7 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for fine sand ................... ....24
Figure 3.8 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for coarse sand .................. 24
Figure 3.9 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for class 5....................... .... 25
Figure 3.10 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for mix of chips and sand .... 25
Figure 3.11 Penetration depth vs index for fine sand from DCP testing ............................................. 27
Figure 3.12 Penetration depth vs index for coarse sand from DCP testing .................................... ... 28
Figure 3.13 Penetration depth vs index for class 5 from DCP testing................................................. 29
Figure 3.14 Penetration depth vs index for chips and sand mix from DCP testing ....................... .... 30
Figure 3.15 Penetration depth vs index for aggregrates and granite chips from DCP testing............. 31
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Effective sizes, uniformity coefficients and coefficients of gradation soils ...................... 4
Table 2.2 Comparison of laboratory non-vibration compaction and Proctor tests......................... 10
Table 3.1 Effective sizes, uniformity coefficients and coefficients of gradation soils .................... 18
Table 3.2 Comparison of field non-vibration compaction and Proctor tests.................................. 26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report represents the findings of the second phase of an exploratory project to assess the potential
of non-vibratory methods of compaction for utility-related compaction needs. Proposed
refinements/additions to existing compaction procedures are based on the use of an alternating flooding
and vacuum procedure introduced through a pipe or series of pipes embedded in the soil. This process
had been demonstrated in early laboratory tests (Phase 1)to give better results than flooding alone for
granular soils. It was combined with other techniques to achieve improved results --e.g. (1) a static
loading at the surface and (2) the use of low levels of vibration..
In this phase of the development and evaluation of the technique, both the laboratory and the field tests
produced compaction results ranging from an acceptable level of compaction to an unacceptable level.
The results were again significantly better than for flooding alone and confirmed that simply flooding a
granular backfill generally will not produce an acceptable compaction. The compacted densities in the
Phase 2 laboratory tests ranged from 98 pcf (1.57 Mg/m 3) to 120 pcf (1.92 Mg/m 3) or, in percent Proctor,
from 82% to 91% Proctor density. Excluding one unusually poor test, the average compacted densities
in the field trials ranged from 105 pcf (1.68 Mg/m3) to 128 pcf (2.05 Mg/m 3), or from around 86% to
93% Proctor density. The dynamic cone penetrometer results for the field trials depended heavily on
whether the backfill had been allowed to fully drain before testing -- ranging from around 2 in per blow
to over 15 in per blow. The flood/vacuum method appeared to work best in well-graded granular
materials including some but not an excessive amount of fine particles.
The cycle times for flooding and vacuum removal of the water appeared to be too long for practical use
(10 to 15 minutes). The flooding times could be shortened considerably but the vacuum times are
unlikely to be reduced much since the capacity of the vacuum truck used for the trials would not be
available for normal use of the technique.
In conclusion, the flood/vacuum technique by itself, or with reasonable levels of static compaction, does
not appear to be a viable technique for field use. It appears that the results from the technique could be
significantly improved by adding mechanical disturbance of the backfill material or vibration energy to
the flooding cycle. This would make the technqiue more similar to vibroflotation techniques but using
lower energy levels and a procedure tailored for backfill use.
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
Compaction of backfill is widely used in the construction of roads, highway embankments, utility
trenches, and many other engineering structures to increase the strength characteristics of backfill
materials and decrease the amount of undesirable settlement. The most common method of compaction
in use is vibratory compaction, in which smooth-wheel rollers, rubber rollers, vibratory roller, and
tampers are used for densification of granular soils. Though most vibratory methods of compaction are
very effective in strengthening backfill soils, the nuisance caused to the occupants of neighboring
buildings and sometimes damage to adjacent structures on occasion may limit the desirable application
of vibratory methods of compaction. The concern about the problem involved with the conventional
vibratory methods of compaction gave rise to the interest in exploring some alternatives to the
conventional methods to meet special compaction requirements for small utility trench construction.
The objective of this research was to investigate non- or low-vibratory methods of compaction, and to
assess their potential for the reinstatement of utility trenches. The project was a continuation of a
previous project conducted in 1993. During the previous year's funding period, a literature survey was
conducted to examine the range of existing techniques of backfill compaction, and to explore possible
new techniques for non- or low-vibratory methods of compaction. In particular, it was hypothesized that
a compaction technique for granualr soils based on alternating flooding and application of vacuum in a
confined backfill pit might offer sufficient compaction to be interesting as a non-vibratory compaction
technique. The outcome from initial laboratory testing in the previous project was mixed but indicated
some promise for the technique. This provided the impetus for the continuation of this research to
investigate the potential of the techniques when applied at a field scale.
The compaction concept is based on an alternating flooding and vacuum introduced through a pipe or
series of pipes embedded in the backfill soil. The flooding causes a pore water pressure increase thus
reducing the effective stress at grain contacts and permitting reorientation of grains. The vacuum portion
of the cycle removes the water and increases the effective stress in the soil. The alternating water flow
can rearrange particles and fill large interstices with smaller particles. If a full vacuum could be
achieved in the soil, this would be equivalent to superimposing a surcharge soil fill about 15 ft (4.57 m)
high. Even at low levels of vacuum, the partial vacuum adds to the compaction attributable to the
alternating flow of water. The technique is most suitable for granualr backfills and pit rather than trench
reinstatement.
For commercial application, the assumed process is that water injection/suction pipe(s) would be inserted
in the hole to be backfilled. Loose granular soil would then be placed in the hole and the alternating
flood/vacuum process would be started. After compaction the hole would have additional fill added (if
necessary) and the new surface layer compacted. When compaction is complete, the pipe(s) would be
pulled and the resulting holes filled with a sand. These sand-filled holes will only represent a small
percentage of the area of the fill. To improve the compaction results, static pressure could be applied by
jacking a surface plate against the weight of a trailer carrying the flooding/vacuum equipment.
A future modification of the method could be to introduce a lateral distortion in the pipe(s) in the soil
during the flooding phase. This physical distortion would assist in grain reorientation during the period
in which the effective stresses are the lowest and could be introduced throughout the depth of the
backfill. Also, even low levels of vibration are expected to be very beneficial to the compaction results
obtained.
The research during this funding period was divided into two stages. In stage one, work was
concentrated on the continuation of laboratory non-vibratory testing. Two shop vacuums with different
suction power and a wider range of backfill materials were used. One objective of this work was to
examine the variation of vacuum power on the effectiveness of this compaction technique. Also, through
testing on several different kinds of backfill soils with different size gradation, it was possible to better
understand the range of materials for which the technique would work. During stage two, a field-scale
test setup was designed based on the laboratory testing experience as well as the machinery and
equipment availability at the test site, and then a number of backfill materials were then compacted at
field-scale to further explore the applicability of the technique to practice.
This report presents the findings of the second phase of the project to evaluate the potential and
applicability of the proposed non- or low-vibratory methods of compaction for utility-related compaction
needs. Although more laboratory tests were conducted using a slightly modified apparatus and more
types of backfill soils, principal attention during this second phase was paid to the larger scale field tests.
2
Chapter Two
LABORATORY TESTS
2.1 Modification of Laboratory Test Setup
During the laboratory testing in Phase 1 of the project, it was noticed that due to the limitation of vacuum
power used and the impervious bottom of the mold, the moisture contents in the region close to the
bottom of the soil samples were found to be much higher than elsewhere in the samples. To overcome
this moisture condition in the samples and to improve the compaction results, some modification on the
test setup was made. The main modification was to drill some drainage holes on the bottom plate of the
mold and then to place a porous stone above the bottom plate to provide a uniform drainage condition on
the bottom of the test samples. Figure 2.1 shows a sketch of the modified setup for laboratory
compaction tests.
The overall time for a complete test cycle was kept roughly the same for each particular type of soil. For
different types of soil, the time required to completely suck or drain water from a soil sample was varied
depending on the porosity or the permeability coefficient of the sample. A single flood/vacuum cycle
typcially lasted a few minutes.
To examine the effect of vacuum power or suction force on the soil compaction using the non-vibratory
compaction method, two different wet vacuums were used during the tests. According to the readings
from a pressure gauge mounted to the suction pipe, which was used to evaluate the vacuum pressure near
the outlet of the pipe, the vacuum with higher suction power generated 2.91 psi (20 kpa) vacuum
pressure in the suction pipe, which was about twice as high as the vacuum pressure generated by the
other less powerful vacuum (1.45 psi (10 kpa)) which was used in the previous Phase 1 tests.
2.2 Sieve Analyses of Laboratory Test Soils
It was not necessary to test a very broad range of soils using the proposed technique since the
effectiveness of the technique was expected to be limited to granular soils. Several different types of
soils were chosen to extend the range of soils tested in Phase 1. The soils tested included: a Shiely fine
sand, a coarse wash sand, an Elk River sand, a brown sandy soil, and a dark sandy soil. The exact names
of the last two kinds of soil are not clear, because they were obtained from materials yard of the
Minneapolis Sewer Construction Office. Both the brown sandy soil and the dark sandy soil were mixed
with the Shiely fine sand at a 50 to 50 ratio to create two new soils which are identified as mixes in the
presentation of the results. Sieve analysis tests were conducted for all the soils used in the laboratory
compaction tests, and the results of the sieve analyses are illustrated in Figures 2.2 through 2.7.
Based on the AASHTO Classification System, all soils can be classified under group A-l-b, but the
group index (GI) of each soil cannt be determined because their liquid limits (LL) and plasticity indices
(PI) were not tested. The effective size D10o, uniformity coefficient Cu and coefficient of gradation Co of
each soil are listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Effective sizes, uniformity coefficients and coefficients of gradation of soils
Soil description Effective size D30 D60 Cu Cc

Dio (in) (in) (in)
Shiely fine sand 0.0118 0.0197 0.0394 3.33 0.83
Coarse wash sand 0.0063 0.0161 0.0370 5.88 1.12
Dark sandy soil 0.0098 0.0216 0.0591 6.0 0.81
Brown sandy soil 0.0098 0.0157 0.0551 5.6 0.46
Mix of dark soil & sand 0.0118 0.0228 0.0512 4.33 0.86
Mix of brown soil & sand 0.0098 0.0193 0.0472 4.8 0.8
4
Weight
large frame
Connected l
vacuum
^/ Ball valve Flow meter

/
z
Connected to
---- r
water source
Soil sample
9x3/4" holes in base plate
Figure 2.1 A sketch of the modified laboratory test setup

100
80
60
40
20
0 I
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle diameter (in)
Figure 2.2 Particle-size distribution curve for Shiely fine sand
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 2.3 Particle-size distribution curve for coarse wash sand

1 fA
Ivu
80
60
°,
40
20
0 4
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 2.4 Particle-size distribution curve for dark sandy soil
1lvv --
80
0i 60
g 40
0
20
0 I
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 2.5 Particle-size distribution curve for brown sandy soil

I IV
IVV
80
S60
40
20
I-
0 i
0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 2.6 Particle-size distribution curve for mix of dark sandy soil and Shiely fine sand
I f
IL
80
60
' 40
20
II 0 I I
0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 2.7 Particle-size distribution curve for mix of brown sandy soil and Shiely fine sand
2.3 Results of Laboratory Scale Non-Vibratory Compaction Tests
Figures 2.8 through 2.16 show the results from the laboratory tests with two different levels of vacuum.
To examine the effectiveness of the vacuum compaction technique proposed, standard Proctor tests were
conducted for every soil material used in the experiment. The Proctor test results are also plotted in the
corresponding figures. Table 2.2 summarizes the vacuum compaction results in comparison to the
Proctor results.
It can be seen that compared to the Proctor test results, the dry densities for most soils reached between
82% to 92% of the maximum Proctor dry densities and were generally below the typically specified
construction standard of 90% to 95% of the Proctor density. Since the basic method involves no
mechanical energy input to the soil, and involves flooding as part of the compaction cycle, the moisture
contents involved cannot be compared to the optimum moisture contents obtained under Proctor testing.
Use of the vacuum with a higher suction power resulted in visibly higher flow rates of moisture in the
sample and in lower final moisture contents but did not result in any difference in final dry density.
However, in the laboratory test setup, only a very limited area at the bottom of the inserted pipe was
available to apply the vacuum to the soil sample. In the later field trials, which used a vacuum source
with both high suction and high flow potential, it was found beneficial to increase the screened sction
area significantly. This was not done in the laboratory testing.
The creation of a bottom drainage condition improved the dry density achieved in general, because a
saturated layer at the bottom of the test mold was avoided. From the Phase 1 testing it was concluded
that a static surcharge was an important factor in determining the increase in the soil compaction and
increased the consistency of the results. A static surcharge was used in all the Phase 2 testing.
For success in this method of compaction, it is necessary to reorient the soil particles due to the flow of
water and the fluctuation of the effective contact stresses among the soil grains. When particles reorient
and smaller soil particles flow to fill voids among larger particles, soil densification can result. When
the soil is poorly graded and the grain size is too large, poor suction pressures develop, there are
insufficent fine particles to fill voids and the large particles may not reorient under the flow velocities
present. When too many fine particles are present, the resulting low permeability of the soil limits the
practical application of the technique due to slow drainage times. The best soils for use with the
technique appear to be well-graded granular soils with a limited proportion of fines but the exploratory
nature of the testing program precludes the drawing of firm conclusions from the laboratory data. There
are unexplained variations in the success of the technique among soil types with fairly similar grain-size
distriabutions. The best results from the Phase 2 laboratory testing were obtained for the mixed soils and
for the brown sandy soil obtained from the Minneapolis Sewer construction Division materials yard. For
these materials giving the best results, the level of compaction using this non-vibratory full-depth
compaction technique (around 90% Proctor) seemed acceptable for use in some compaction
applications.
Table 2.2 Comparison of laboratory non-vibration compaction and Proctor tests
Soil description Method used Dry density Moisture content

(pcf) (% by weight)
Wash sand Non-vibration 101 11.3
Proctor 114 15.3
Shiely coarse sand Non-vibration 98 10.6
Proctor 119 13.9
Shiely fine sand Non-vibration 104 11.9
Proctor 115 12.3
Elk River sand Non-vibration 99 8.2
Proctor 118 13.2
Fine sand (Mpls.) Non-vibration 105 7.4
Proctor 122 11.9
Dark sandy soil Non-vibration 103 17.1
Proctor 125 8.0
Brown sandy soil Non-vibration 120 11.2
Proctor 135 6.0
Mix of dark soil & sand Non-vibration 106 12.7
Proctor 122 9.8
Mix of brown soil & sand Non-vibration 112 11.0
Proctor 122 9.8
10
114
II, - r-
110 -
, 105 -
90% of Proctor
"oSo
' 100-
A 80 in water vacuum AA
A AA
o 40 in water vacuum
95 - -- 0-- Proctor
80% of Proctor
90 90 III
0 4 8 12 16
Moisture content (%)
Figure 2.8 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for wash sand
1 )A\
LuAJ -
-/
S110-
S -
90% of Proctor
A 40 in water vacuum
-- Proctor
A 80% of Proctor
90
90- I I. I
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.9 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for Shiely coarse sand
11
1in
SLV r
S----"
o
" 110 -
90% of Proctor
S40 in water vacuum

• 100- S80 in water vacuum
-0- Proctor
80% of Proctor
90-
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.10 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for Shiely fine sand
1In
1 Z-• -
' 110 -
90% of Proctor
O 40 in water vacuum
100- - A 80 in water vacuum
A S& -D- Proctor
80% of Proctor
90 - I i " i I I i
! I
. I I
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.11 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for Elk River sand
12
11
125 -
I
-
120 -
-
c 115 -
S 90% of Proctor
S110 -
105 - - A 80 in water vacuum

S-0-- Proctor
100 -
- 80% of Proctor
95 - 95 I ] . . I 1IIJ [
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.12 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for fine sand (Mpls.)
1Af% -
14
130 - -D- Proctor
£ 120 -
110- -90% of Proctor
100-
80% of Proctor
90- ' " I 1 i ' I ' I " ( l1 I I

0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.13 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for dark sandy soil
13
1 AA
14U -
130 -
90% of Proctor
120- - A
S80 in water vacuum
L) --- Proctor
110 - 80% of Proctor
100 1 i0 - I I I -I
0 5 10 15
Figure 2.14 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for brown sandy soil
I ~A
1 •U -
0 -
S110-
90% of Proctor
S100 -
-0---- Proctor
80% of Proctor
90 0lI I I i I
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.15 Comparison of lab compaction vs. Proctor for mix of dark sandy soil and fine sand
14
IOIN
123 -
120 -
, 115-
S 90% of Proctor
S110
S10 5 - A 80 in water vacuum

-0--- Proctor
95 I I I I I I I Ii I
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.16 Comparison of lab compaction vs Proctor for mix of brown sandy soil and fine sand
15
Chapter Three
FIELD SCALE NON-VIBRATORY COMPACTION TESTS
3.1 Field Test Setup and Procedure
Figure 3.1 illustrates the field test setup as modified following several initial trials. It includes a manhole
section with 48 in (122 cm) in internal diameter and 36 in (91 cm) in height, which acted as a surrogate
pit excavation. The use of the manhole section greatly speeded the process of preparing for each test.
The manhole section could be lifted to release the soil from the previous test and then replaced after a
front-end loader had cleared the site. The field setup also included a PVC piping system to provide the
suction to the soil. The PVC piping system consisted of a 6 in (15 cm) head pipe with 17 screened holes
on it, among which one hole was at the end and the rest of 4 in (10 cm) in diameter were drilled along the
pipe with a distance of 10 in (25 cm) from center to center longitudinally. These screened holes played a
role in supplying the suction force to soil and allowing water to be pumped through. The 6 in (15.24 cm)
head pipe was mounted to another 6 in (15 cm) pipe, which was 90 degree elbowed to two tees, one of
which was mounted with a pressure gauge that was used to monitor the suction vacuum applied and the
other was taped with a clear plastic plate to function as a monitoring window to observe the results of the
suction process, mainly to check the flow speed and volume within the pipe. The pipe was then reduced
in diameter to 3 in (7.6 cm) to connect with a plastic ball valve which was used to cut off water from
back flowing into soil after a vacuum source was shut off. The pipe then connected to a vacuum truck,
which was provided by the Sewer Construction Office of the City of Minneapolis. According to the
specification of the vacuum truck, a maximum 30 in (76 cm) of mercury (Hg) vacuum could be reached,
but during the entire tests the maximum vacuum pressured reached according to the reading of the
pressure gauge was 20 in (51 cm) Hg vacuum. The pressure readings varied from test to test depending
on the type of soil materials tested, especially their porosity. For a backfill soil with a low porosity or
void ratio, not much air flow was expected during the suction phase, and a high pressure was, therefore,
observed accompanied by a low rate of water flow. On the other hand, if the backfill material had a large
void ratio, such as for coarse rock chips or aggregates, air flow could be felt on the soil surface when the
vacuum was on. This was associated with a high rate of water flow in the system, but the vacuum level
obtained was low.
The flooding stage in the soil samples consisted of pouring water on the surface of the testing soil with a
garden water sprayer. To avoid excessive water leakage during the flooding-suction cycle, plastic sheet
was used to line the interior wall of the manhole section as well as on the bottom surface. A static
surcharge was applied on the soil during flooding-suction cycle using a steel plate loaded with a number
of concrete blocks. Each concrete block weighed about 41 lbs (182 N), and totally 60 blocks were
loaded on the steel plate, weighing about 2500 lbs (11.1 kN). The weight of the steel plate itself, which
was about 105 lbs (467 N). So the actual surcharge applied to the soil was about 1.44 psi (9.9 kPa),
which was equivalent to that used in the laboratory compaction tests.
The characteristics of densification of soil compacted were evaluated using dynamic cone penetrometer
testing (DCP) and sand cone testing (SC).
16
DCP testing is used by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in determination of
subgrade and base strengths in highway and road construction related projects. The dynamic cone
penetrometer used in this project was borrowed from the Road Research Laboratory of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The device basically consists of two 0.63 in (1.6 cm) diameter
rods coupled at midpoint. The lower rod has an anvil, a 60 degree pointed tip, and is calibrated in 0.2 in
(0.51 cm) increments. The upper rod contains 17.64 lb (78.5 N) drop hammer with a 22.6 in (57.5 cm)
drop distance, and a top grab handle. By recording the penetration of the DCP lower shaft after one or
more hammer drops, a plot of penetration index (in/blow) verses penetration depth can be derived. This
plot will indicate the relative strengths of the different soil layers with respect to depth below the soil
surface.
A calibration from DCP testing results to the soil densities is not generally available. Even though the
DCP testing may be adopted as a measure for compaction quality control, it is usually referenced to field
measurements using the sandcone testing procedure. The sandcone device used in the field tests was also
borrowed from MnDOT. The detailed information regarding the elements of the device, the testing
procedure and the method to calculate the dry density from test data can be found from the ASTM
Specifications, Designation D1556 - 90.
The detailed procedure for the field compaction tests is given in Appendix B.
3.2 Sieve Analyses of Field Test Soils
Six different backfill materials were used in the field scale compaction tests. They were fine sand,
coarse sand, coarse aggregates, class 5 fill, granite chips, and a mix of chips and fine sand. The granite
chips and aggregates were chosen to examine the effectiveness of water suction by the vacuum truck
because they contained a high percentage of void spaces to allow a large volume of air flow during the
suction. The results of sieve analyses for these materials (except for the aggregates) are illustrated in
Figures 3.2 to 3.6. Table 3.1 lists the effective size D10 , uniformity coefficient Cu and coefficient of
gradation Cc of these materials.
17
Table 3.1 Effective sizes, uniformity coefficients and coefficients of gradation of soils
Soil description Effective size D30 D60 Cu Cc

D 10 (in) (in) (in)
Coarse sand 0.01378 0.0315 0.0984 7.14 0.73
Fine sand 0.0126 0.0350 0.1378 10.94 0.71
Class 5 0.0087 0.0551 0.2323 26.82 1.51
Granite chips 0.0787 0.1772 0.3150 4.0 1.27
Mix of chips & sand 0.0110 0.0236 0.1102 10.0 0.46
18
\0
tS
&D
ct
0:
(7
00D
0
0i
o 'E
0,
oc3
19
1Ilu
fin\
80
S60
cz
S40
20
0
0 I
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 3.2 Particle-size distribution curve for coarse sand
Ilu/fin
80
60
I 40
40
20
0 i
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 3.3 Particle-size distribution curve for fine sand
20
1(vvW-
r
80
660-
U,
S40-
20
0 1 , i
1 0.1 0.01 0.001

Figure 3.4 Particle-size distribution curve for class 5
Aýý
100
80
60
I 40
I-
20
0
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 3.5 Particle-size distribution curve for granite chips
21
100
80
60
40
20
0 I
0.1 0.01 0.001
Figure 3.6 Particle-size distribution curve for mix of chips and fine sand
3.3 Results of Field Scale Non-Vibratory Compaction Tests
3.3.1 Density measurements by sandcone testing
Sandcone tests were conducted for all field test soils to evaluate the density of test samples. Figures 3.7
to 3.10 show the dry density versus moisture content for four different soils: fine sand, coarse sand, mix
of chips and sand, and class 5. To compare the field vacuum compaction with the standard Proctor
results, the Proctor test curves for these four kinds of soils are also plotted in the corresponding figures.
To have a clear quantitative look into the effectiveness of the vacuum compaction, all data from both
vacuum and Proctor tests are listed in Table 3.2. It can be seen that although there were some early
disappointments in the field tests due to test setup and vacuum leakage, the results ranged from about
86% to 93% of compaction compared to the standard Proctor results. The comparison percentage is
difficult to define for some soils which do not provide ideal Proctor results. However, relative density
testing, used for the sand materials in the previous phase, was not carried out in this phase.
During the tests, the density measurements were taken at several spots and depths to check the soil
density variations. The results indicate, as shown in Table 3.2, that in most cases the measured density
of soil at depth was lower than that at the surface. This is thought to be due to a bridging effect, which
was caused by the limited diameter and side wall restriction of the manhole section. The static loading
applied as a surcharge on the top of soil during the tests may not have been effectively transferred to
deeper soil layers, which resulted in a less compacted soil at depth.
22
As mentioned earlier regarding the results from laboratory tests, the surcharge applied during tests
played an important role in the success of the non-vibratory compaction, and this conclusion could still
be drawn from the field non-vibratory tests.
It is also possible that the sandcone testing procedure resulted in measured density variations relative to
depth. For the top soil layers, the surrounding soil was not disturbed when the sandcone testing was
conducted, while for the deeper tests, the soil was disturbed during removal of the top soil to reach the
layer to be tested. Though care was taken in removing the top soil to reduce the disturbance to a
minimum amount, some disturbance was inevitable, especially when the soil was in a relatively loose
state.
Some test samples were left with the surcharge in place overnight to allow water in soil to drain
thoroughly. The DCP results generally were markedly improved after the additional drainage time under
surcharge. The sandcone test results however were mixed in terms of indicating an increased
effectiveness after full drainage.
3.3.2 Dynamic cone penetration testing
Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing was conducted during the field compaction to examine the
effectiveness of vacuum compaction on soil strength. DCP testing is used for quality inspection in
backfill and road projects. Although a calibration from DCP testing results to the soil density is not
available, DCP testing is still adopted as a valid measurement for relative soil properties by many
government and private agencies like MnDOT.
Figures 3.11 to 3.15 show the penetration index versus the penetration depth for six different materials
used in the field tests. The penetration indexes for most materials fell between 5 to 10 inches per blow,
but some reached a 2 to 3 inches per blow range, depending on whether the soil had been left loaded
overnight or not. Compared to the sandcone testing results, it can be seen that overnight static loading on
soils showed a much more promising result on vacuum compaction through DCP testing than through
sandcone testing. The overnight loading had provided enough time for water to drain from soils, and for
some frictional bonding among soil particles to develop. This frictional bonding would be mobilized to
counteract the cone penetration during a DCP testing. In general, these results are interpreted to mean
that DCP testing is very dependent on the moisture content of the soil during testing. For soils which are
closer to saturation at the time of DCP testing, the action of the cone penetration may create local
liquifaction pressures allowing easy penetration of the cone. When the soil has drained, even at the same
density, the DCP results may be significantly improved.
23
I'0A
130 -
A field (*)
120 - - Proctor
C'
90% of Proctor
S110
-o
'0 A A
O
Q
100- A A A80%A 80% of Proctor
90 90 , [ i I i i | i -ii1
15
12
Figure 3.7 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for fine sand (*: not left
overnight)
1 AfI
0 field (*)
A field ()
130 - -- D-- Proctor
90% of Proctor
S120-
a A
A
£-
100
0 3 6 9 12 15
Figure 3.8 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for coarse sand (*: not
left overnight; #: left overnight with loading)
24
IAt%
90% of Proctor
120
80% of Proctor
& field (*)

Sfield(**)
* field (M)
100
o field (#)
- Proctor
90 9 . . .-*. I .
A . . . . . . . I . I . I
0 3 6 9 12 15
Figure 3.9 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for class 5 (*: not ] eft
overnight; **: left overnight without loading; #: left overnight with loading)
IAA\
130-
90% of Proctor
120- S A field (*)

'D
o field (#)
-D-Proctor 8
80% of Proctor
110-
=-- - - - - - -1 1 1- t-I I - L-I - 1 I-r 1- I f- 1- I - -I i I- 1-
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 3.10 Comparison of non-vibration compaction vs Proctor tests for mix of chips and
sand (*: not left overnight; #: left overnight with loading)
25
Table 3.2 Summary of field non-vibration compaction and Proctor test results
Soil description Method used Dry density Moisture content

(pcf) (% by weight)
Coarse sand Non-vibration (*) 120 5.5
Non-vibration (#) 117 2.4
Proctor 134 8.6
Fine sand Non-vibration (*) 108 7.0
Tamper 132 7.6
Proctor 122 11.9
Class 5 Non-vibration (*) 120 6.7
Non-vibration (**) 95 6.6
Proctor 139 10.4
Mix of chips & sand Non-vibration (*) 121 5.6
Proctor 137 8.3
Granite chips Non-vibration (*) 105 1.7
Aggregates Non-vibration (*) 116 2.6

(*): not left overnight;
(**): left overnight without loading;
(#): left overnight with loading.
Tamper: a tamper was used to compact the fine sand following the conventional backfill
compaction procedure.
26
--
Penetration index (in/blow)

10 20 30
0
10
cl
-- F-FS#4-1
-- F-FS#5-1
-- F-FS#5-2
-- F-FS#6-1
-- F-FS#6-2
40
40
°vl
Figure 3.11 Penetration depth vs. index for fine sand from DCP testing
27
0
0 10 20
i
30
10
S20
30
30
AA
TV
Figure 3.12 Penetration depth vs. index for coarse sand from DCP testing
28
0 10 20 30 40
0 I
10
20
S30
40
c5
iV
Figure 3.13 Penetration depth vs. index for class 5 from DCP testing
29
10 20 30
0 ( -
1
1 I 1 f
1
I 1 - I
I
10-
--- F-MCS#I-1
--- F-MCS#1-2
'0 -- F-MCS#2-1
0S
-0- F-MCS#2-2
I- 20-
30
AJ
,Tv
Figure 3.14 Penetration depth vs. index for chips and sand mix from DCP testing
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
10
^-o
,4
20
30 -0- F-AG#1-1
- F-AG#1-2
-&-F-CP#1-1
---- F-CP#1-2
40
Figure 3.15 Penetration depth vs. index for aggregates and granite chips from DCP testing
31
Chapter 4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Both the laboratory and the field tests produced compaction results ranging from an acceptable level of
compaction to an unacceptable level. The results were significantly better than for flooding alone and
confirmed that simply flooding a granular backfill generally will not produce an acceptable compaction.
The compacted densities in the Phase 2 laboratory tests ranged from 98 pcf (1.57 Mg/m3) to 120 pcf
(1.92 Mg/m 3) or, in percent Proctor, from 82% to 91% Proctor density. Excluding one unusually poor
test, the average compacted densities in the field trials ranged from 105 pcf (1.68 Mg/m3 ) to 128 pcf
(2.05 Mg/m3), or from around 86% to 93% Proctor density. The dynamic cone penetrometer results for
the field trials depended heavily on whether the backfill had been allowed to fully drain before testing.
This was not so important if the compaction procedure had induced a dense structure in the backfill
material (for example, using the tamper procedure) but, in other tests, the character of the dynamic cone
penetrometer results changed considerably after overnight drainage. The flood/vacuum method appeared
to work best in well-graded granular materials including some but not an excessive amount of fine
particles.
The cycle times for flooding and vacuum removal of the water appeared to be too long for practical use
(10 to 15 minutes). The flooding times could be shortened considerably but the vacuum times are
unlikely to be reduced much since the capacity of the vacuum truck used for the trials would not be
available for normal use of the technique. A requested trial of the tamper technique used by the City of
Minneapolis sewer department (involving rodding a sand backfill using a hollow pipe on the end of a
hose) proved much more effective in uniform sands than the proposed flood/vacuum technique. It
demonstrated the importance of mechanical or vibration disturbance of the backfill coupled with the
flooding in achieving good compaction results.
In conclusion, the flood/vacuum technique by itself, or with reasonable levels of static compaction, does
not appear to be a viable technique for field use. It appears that the results from the technique could be
significantly improved by adding mechanical disturbance of the backfill material or vibration energy to
the flooding cycle. This would make the technqiue more similar to vibroflotation techniques but using
lower energy levels and a procedure tailored for backfill use.
32
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bell, F.G., Ed. Methods of Treatment of Unstable Ground. London: Newnes-Butterworth, 1975.
Burmister, D. M., Importance and Practical Use of Relative Density in Soil Mechanics, Proceedings,
Am. Soc. Testing Mats., Vol. 48, 1948, pp. 1249-1268.
Compaction of Soils. A Symposium presented at the Sixty-seventh Annual Meeting, Chicago, June 23,
1964. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1965.
Ford, Graham R., and Barbara E. Eliason, "Comparison of Compaction Methods in Narrow Subsurface
Drainage Trenches," Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1993.
Ground Engineering. Proceedings of the Conference organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers in
London, 16 June 1970. London: The Institution of Civil Engineers, 1970.
Ground Treatment by Deep Compaction. The Institution of Civil Engineers. London: Thomas Telford,
Ltd., 1976.
Guide to Earthwork. Construction. State of the Art Report 8. Transportation Research Board.
Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1990.
Hausmann, Manfred R. Engineering Principles of Ground Modification. New York: McGraw-Hill

Publishing Company, 1990.
Mitchell, R.J. EarthStructures Engineering. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1983.
Pettibone, H. C. and J. Hardin, Research on Vibratory Maximum Density Test for Cohesionless Soils,
Symposium on Compaction of Soils, ASTM STP 377, Am. Soc. Testing Mats., 23 June 1964, pp. 3 - 19.
Stein, D., K. M6ller, R. Bielecki. Microtunnelling:Installation and Renewal of Nonman-Size Supply and
Sewage Lines by the Trenchless ConstructionMethod. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1989.
Sterling, R.L., "Low-vibration Methods of Soil Compaction for Urban Utility Projects," Research report,
to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1993.
Welsh, Joseph P., Ed. Soil Improvement - A Ten Year Update. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 12.
New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1987.
33
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURE

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURE
Step 1: Zero in mechanical balance;
Step 2: Place assembly of base stand, probe, porous stone, mold, and mold collar on mechanical
balance;
Step 3: Weigh empty apparatus. Water and vacuum hoses are not attached when weighing;
Step 4: Adjust probe height so scribed reference line on outer probe tube is aligned with top of mold
(not mold collar). Position probe in center of mold;
Step 5: Pour soil from funnel into mold in circular motion until soil is even with top of mold collar;
Step 6: Attach water hose to faucet and to flow meter on probe. Make sure valve is closed;
Step 7: Attach vacuum hose to wet-dry vacuum and to fitting on probe;
Step 8: Turn on water supply;
Step 9: Open inlet valve on probe and adjust flow meter to desired flow rate;
Step 10: When soil surface in mold begins to rise, switch on and leave vacuum on for steps 11 through
18;
Step 11: Cycle the water into the mold by closing and opening the water valve;
Step 12: Continue the water injection and suction cycle until no more settlement is observed (duration
not specified at present);
Step 13: Shut off water at inlet valve on probe;
Step 14: Place surcharge platform and weight on soil;
Step 15: Open water inlet valve on probe;
Step 16: Continue the water injection and suction cycle until no more settlement with surcharge is
observed (duration not specified at present);
Step 17: Shut off water at inlet valve on probe;
Step 18: Continue to vacuum suction water out of soil (duration not specified at present);
Step 19: Switch off vacuum and detach vacuum hose from probe;
A-1
Step 20: Detach water hose at supply, drain, then detach from probe;
Step 21: Remove surcharge platform and weight;
Step 22: Lift mold collar and carefully screen soil even with top of mold;
Step 23: Brush and blow, with compressed air, excess soil off of mold and balance;
Step 24: Weigh apparatus with compacted, screened soil in mold;
Step 25: Subtract filled weight of mold plus soil from the empty weight to obtain the weight of
compacted soil;
Step 26: Lift out probe;
Step 27: Dump out soil and mix thoroughly;
Step 28: Obtain 3 samples for moisture content, weigh and oven dry. Follow standard moisture content
determination procedure;
Step 29: Wash off probe and mold, blow dry, and reassemble apparatus;
Step 30: Check zero on balance.
A-2
APPENDIX B
FIELD TEST PROCEDURE

FIELD TEST PROCEDURE
Step 1: Place the manhole section and line a plastic sheet on interior wall of the manhole section and
ground surface;
Step 2: Put the PVC suction piping system at the center of the manhole section, and support it with a
modified surveying tripod;
Step 3: Connect the PVC piping system to the rubber hose of the vacuum truck, and tape and seal all
connections against possible air leakage;
Step 4: Pour soil into the manhole with a bobcat loader until it is completely filled, and then even the
top surface of the soil;
Step 5: Pour water on to the soil surface using a yard water sprayer until the soil is fully saturated;
Step 6: Turn on the vacuum to suck the water out of the soil;
Step 7: Turn off the vacuum when the water flow rate observed through the monitoring window is close
to zero;
Step 8: Seat the loading steel plate on top of soil and stack the concrete blocks on the plate;
Step 9: Repeat Steps 5 through 7. Usually two or three flooding and suction cycles were felt to be
sufficient to test the effectiveness of the method. At the end of the last cycle, the ball valve is
closed right after the vacuum is turned off to prevent water from flowing back into the soil;
Step 10: For better results, leave the surcharged soil overnight to allow residual water in the soil to drain,
and to redevelop friction among the soil particles. For this arrangement, it is necessary to punch
some holes in the plastic insulating sheet, especially on the bottom, to provide drainage paths
for water to leave the soil during the overnight static loading period;
Step 11: Unload the concrete blocks and steel plate;
Step 12: Select several spots to conduct the DCP testing and record the readings;
Step 13: Choose several spots for density measurements using a sandcone device. The locations for
density measurements are selected in such a way that they are away from the DCP testing holes
by a certain distance, say 15 to 20", to avoid the disturbance in the soil caused by the DCP
testing. The density measurements are conducted for two to three different depths;
Step 14: Lift the PVC pipe out of the soil, lift the manhole to dump the soil, and clear for next test.
B-1
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST DATA

e5
- -
^ 18-
C)
04 0 00 00 Cl 00
"-4 n oo 00 C0
0
to 0
0 - o
0 § 00 00 O 0
Cl
00 00 0
0
6 ,0
0 a)
0 0- a.)
a) a)
t% mm
- 00CN
M
0- 0 0 0
lO 'o
d
q a
0o
C)
't0
0
C,
;- 0o
0
0 0 CO
'00 ^ 0-o
0
3
a.)
IC 0
CI o
U d
4-4
°°_ $-4
C--
gig
0
.£ 5f
,0
I
3
g 4)
3
_1^___
)0 0 04
*o *2 E *I
a
'0 .s-
a ? r 3 a)
0
b -3 - uo
C-1
00
'0~n o\
4) ()U
> 0 0
4- 8
Rn
(o
0. r-
00 Co
00
V-4
00 06
cl
00 |0 ON d 00
0 C0 0 0 0 d
u 6
C5
"--4 \0
N 0\
O4C) o
0 a 0 0
cu z64) o s
4)
c
o
1 0.4
0
'-4
H
0
a .
C
o
o
0 0
C. I- O
0 o
00
0
O\ 0
0 u g 6
0 6c%
Cd
0 'e-
00
6
003
0
r; o
S e
a3
u >
,0 con
0
0O CIs
I" r-
0
0
4,
s)
o4-
U,
d
6n 0
I
0
o
Cf) 0
E
:z
4) ,%N
o
4-4I
T
Q .
aou
C-,
'0
'0 **
4)-
'0
>
0
a-
0
ccld
0
^
>;
4
a-"
o a
0
00
o
S~ Cf ~ C /3 » C)
C-2
S00
.0 00 0
<-o
- % 0 o Q oo 0o
sc0-
0
0- * 0 \OC
0~
09 10 10 L0 Cl
0L c a -3 f o '
QL C/3 0 0 0 0 00 0
> 0
0
· ac N r- W
O) Cý N
S oo
0 oo oo - ON
0 o 00000 o
d
c,
a.)
0
z
H H
3 0 -
Ou r
O m N
I
0 0 o
0oo
1.0o N
o 0
- as OO o »n ao
3 ^ o\
as r cn o\ '^
bs
cn N 0t n 00 t
I
o
3
cra
z CIO
lr S0 c C l\ n
0 "-^
0
0 0 CIO
0§
IQ
0
0D
0
0 o a
0
co
A'-N
CO
o4 °,.
0 ,
o o ( au
0
0 "0 3 Z
a) 3- w
C-3
.·s ~ 00 00
Ua C. o 0\
"0
4I).-
0od
0 EOE
o
00 %o o s --
00 o0 o0
oo od
C
CM 00 \ ro <n ON
.o ON C)<0
00 Nt CM CM
0
0 oo
0 a 9
3~ C ^
o dd
60
O ·s I êa
0 &0 0M
00
oo
00
r - o
00 0'
u Zo 000
'-
4A 4)
-·
cc,6.
4o
0dd
I "0
4)e
0
c.)
4) t l 000C
E4
AOc
f
oo ao r-en
0o
O · Ne
00 00
O
ddd
co
o dd
14
00N0 0
o Z
UD
o ooo eo o, ,o
a
4) 0 C 0
P0 \0
0 "o
\0 C
0 0n
CM CM
aC C
C1) "0
0
00 CM \0 4.0
:°
Co a2"
0
Ur,
0
0 °),,.)
0§
€; 0
ri,
0
4)
0D \% o
Q? I I
S CM o,
04
0"Da
<
4>
33 I
.
s
6
4)
-•0
rc l i
o " .•o c - •
.2 ~~ S "
^ 'S 2
0•• 5
6\
2 vi& M 00
S0
"0
-&< »§
C.)
o
I C)
)
d)a§ ^
) ô
^
2 §|
C-4
0 00
*§ 5 o oo o o
000 O -
C"
0
rj 81
!
Icn
bC)
. c c
S00 ocooo oo o
oo
C
cR . 0 O 0 C
OC
U o '0
ok 4
(4) U,
4
0 O 00
Pi H H
000000
_
0 0 0 0
* I e
U r C% N q O C1 N oS
0 0 0
N 000000 00
o t 0\
0
4)
0]
0:
z U)
04
0
'0
0I '0
0
01
0r 0
4) 60 oo
Crl' en 0
d 0
40' 0
4) u i _____
0)
o
,C0 o
0
--
-Q 0
S op 0
O CI 0O r
C 2 *5
~c^t-i E2 c
C-5
00
"0 <^
I
0 0 *
z S
-
tP
6O
d
> 0I0
<
t
n r o.a
w o
2S-
0 00 00 I
0
o.
0 C 0 CM SO CO
U 0
0
C
o C,,
o0 0 00
"0 S4-
bO 00 00 O 0 0
00 00 00 600 00
6 0 000000
'5
a A U
O
0
P> C-, iH^
0
Q
0 o4-
Soo- - 0 0
H cC cn
000000
| 9 d d dd dd
c 0N N o -
F-c
I
0o
4-o
\0 O 0 00 CM
H
\O so r^- r- -
0
z
3
0 u Z
0
"0
oo
C,,
&* o o.
4-o '-
Qt on
ON, 0
6a 0O
0
0
o o
Cf)
O*Iý
0 E
o,
4-
o§- 0
'4-o 1( a,
0
va *c< 0 z
Z
E ~Z
| 0
13
- 02r z
con
C
- "- 0
U
C-6
COD 00
Ch
'0
I
€•
6
4~
bit
00
50
<OO
uC
o
O- tn 00
CnChr
0
0; U It
Ch 0
S4- *-
SCL \o
00
cl C
O
IC
N
en en
CMN
0ON
»r
Q wf
'5
000000
0 4-4
Cq 0 mC00
0 0 00 0 0m 0 00
ci) ro-o ct co oo
c[ 000000
dddddd
0
"
Q
4.) 4I a.)
0 C,,
<.
UO
a) 'S o
rj 3-4
I:
a 0- -
000000
- d en en
0
0
oo oo oo o
.! 0rt 'S *«
>
C M CM Clj
0
I
0 bC)
N 000^ clO
0
3-
4o
gj§ dddd66
z
0
§r r3
3r:
"0s
2
i
c^
"0t
0
0
0c
U,
co
c?
04
C)
00
04
0/ 4-"
00
0
20 1 0
.0
C ") qtt
0,
00
00
a.) con en
"0
-- 0
"0 A04 4-4 3
zC
0 0 0 .S 0
c)
0 >
CZ
0
~3
04
0C
0
*^ I~
gli6S ^.& 00
U:
gg
a
"0A 0 oo
0f C0 >.
C3
C-7
4'0
0l 1--0 - - -N
0r wo N
'El r: d d CN
c
04 0O N 0
0en CD0 C) e0
0%
0 cn . o o6o 66 oo o 66
oo o
0Soo ,D 0-
0(0C r
00
70 (O
O
0 00 0
Co0o
0
0 6 a;. C)
C)
0,
z C)3
C)
C) C) co c- oo__ -o
%0o -oo o - o-- o-- o
E .5g c d o 0d oo 0o a
Q) .o 0oooooo
,08 0000000
0 S
o 0
4oN cN N0 0
o o ow
N
1N
on ow o
N C
.- > 0 rd
d d d d do o\
C)
0 oo so c o
01 c oooo
z e- o oo v or w
od ddd d d d d
3-
'0
'0
0
0.
'-4
0I
coo 4a -
4
04
Cu
6f 0 9 0
i s 0
ten C)
,0 0 b0
- '0
a S' §- '0~
0
z
co 'U-C 00-
* C.
g l i g "____ 0
C)
S <S § I gg -______0
0
E oa a< co
C-8
C)O
0 B 0
a to g - or
o--
0
04o
0o
E
0 >' * d do so o o o
0 40 S 0
oo' oooo C00 0
S00 ( r o 0r O
o
z c co
,S-
.S
u)
0
iJ
4) o
E2 E
a rV
to' ^<
e -e
o o0 'o
0 o-
- c
o o
C
I11
0
a - > d da q Nd
SC4) ) __ o o
so
So O o os
oo o O
o. o6 o
0000 0
"3 4)o o o o
4- -
o
'I0
4J
0
4D 0
o0 0
\0
-o
0
C4
0
I= si V 4)
C o) \
00 S
4)
ta I
'*- E ·E§ ____
oI•. gO____
g o,.
0
-3 -
Z"3
o w o c z0
E '0 4- -
)
s,3
C)
1
0
C-9
0 0 0
o f oaoC
00 i - o- ,
4-4 0
)
o
'600
0
^0 06
oor--
JD
0
O\ w
-- -o -,
ON CN OO
- -
0 C-
o2 !£
oO
cl
I
ca
-o N
m
0
o ooooo
N oo
Z6 "
4o a N- o
o
0 0)
-,
0) o I oo r oo co
o e( H H H 0a 0 0o V00 0
S - ---- -
^
-O 3 ^ (S (M (N (M C0)
0 d d d d d
0) Ooo oo oo
!
Ur,
c6
"0
"6 T~3
0 "0
0
0
0)
a0 %0 Co 0 0aW
0;
B0 0
""S"
4 *4
eee
Ys§8_ C 0)
0)
0D
S > "- =
O0 0 "0
0
_g cl 5 z
g 1
g
ta0 fc C
__ 0
0)
| S
_|i_"__
S ~~
00 C S0 |g
? U
C-10
<-o
o
>q '0Qr
0 0 0NN N
0
-c o o
u
0·
¢q
Cs' a -oo o
0 CO
0 )) C
S0
6 ,0
0
4) ooooo o
4) H Q oeoo
0 HI
E H to
wo
bI-
2o < o o o o o o
0
4-
0 o 0 ^ci --- o
4)
0 g dddddd
0B 03 4 T- ^ ^ ^
00 n
13
U,
"0
0 0
0C
il-s ^
S0 -0
0 4)
C-I Co3
4h
T3
or I
4- 4
4-
04o
i §| i~00 IC
.0
En "" ^(^
I ^ i" EF1
ooc ___
4)
0
o• o0 =
,=^SCO -
~~• ,I=
0
i0
^ Sb
o r
C-ll
fij
>» .t; 0 eer
4.0
---II4) 4) 6-
I
CZ
S :°
.2
>0 o
*01
W it
S
S- 0
o
S8
4- 00
cl
cI
0,,,
ue 00
00
00
u
C/)
>4
0
0- 0
-g 00
o
00
0 C)
o
oo Cl 00 o0
00
4) 00 00 oo
0o
00 0e cn
00
4) 0 0 d
>9 4) "0 2 - d d
U
4)
Z6 a0
0 C)
4)
0) 4) 0
0 U~ U
o
c·0
oo
0
o
C)
00
oo
U 0 C-- 1-4-
C5
d
U
a 6 ON
c5 6 00
S
C%
^| Rqt
00 I-) Cl
3 6 0en
cs CI
0 .gp
s Cl 0*
0o0 00
6
c, c^ · ·
4)D cq 00 cs
Cl 00
o 0 0
U(
4A cl
0N
-
0r
U,
d 6
z,0 "0
Cn
I
>
?
"0
0d
0
"0
U,
0
C)
4" o
u T--(
cn
0
0~
oR
I
!
oo 0
o2
z
a0
Cý
0; 0
,c
Ccd 4-
o 0
4) Cf) L0
4)
.=
CI
so
Of 0
"0
4.4 0 § + zo00
0>
$4-1
^c l i a)
4)4. a.
-°
00
Z0
4)
"0 '4 )
gg
O Q
- U 3 $
o
r3
C-12
S0 0
4)-4
*2 c 0o »
co o oo as
C
0 qq 0 C
00 0 -
-l CDI) 07 0P 00 00 00
0 C9
cwn
666666
0
C)
4) z6
u)
0 I
0 0 0
H H
009 0 oo
0 00
id
0
d5 dd
C5
00n0
00 ml,
000 d d50
in
·
Q
!D
I
0
4)
Q^
gC) 0o
Q
(o
0*
0
4NZ
§1
4)
en~
6
d;
IC'l"0
oR o4
0 ^ 0
0 '0
O
4)
>-s
S0
4)
S0
4 204
*t
-Jl
0 '-4
bQ
4) Q* 2 0
Fn 2 V5
C-13
a
5o
i E od
20
4-
C)
O 00o o o %-- oo
0 0 OO
03
0I a 0w^
m _ oo
0000 ooV-
C'000
.g e o o cn oo o
U
b0
00
00000
H o go ------ ----
6
C.)
4)
0>
z H
4)
C,, a)
. o o oo o
8E) 4o a o
d)
0 i -0- - t-
01 %
0o 0
o
,.
0)
*o o oo 6
z 000
0i
4)
0 c o
S-ddd0 li oo
0S 0 d\O
rc
-0 0i
0
"0
'0
\o
C0 0
d
00
0 4)
tl*,
f4r 4-1 aF in
0
^/-%-
'0
?>
0
- C. C.)
z
Q) /) OQ E 0
r/
a
o Vb
a >i
4
.
)
0
u•
C-14
S"5 ? o00
s ag oo6 r
CAo
S o ( o
8
E "0
0Io
0
.SP ·- » f l^ C^ C (O 00
a o 0 Q\ 0'00 oo
o0o0
0
U
0 Vt
IRT .
0 co 00 C) 00 0 0
N 00 00
S O
c c
4 000000
r4.) 66 ooooo
.1 d 9 c^
u
0)
0
z a,
"0
T3
0 r) H H
con - o C O -o
o O ^ oooooo
0o
a C C
S-
^g 0)
o> S o o o o o o z
CA 4-4
'>
I-
0O
eZ "0
0
S? o
0S
a,
4)
eC)
Cf) Cl1
0 0o 0
Q3
r
Z ________
*w S S
cr)
g '*
E . ____ - _______________ 0i
<4 ot0 ~· --
§C
*S
0 > 5SI1
b>| 5
!S
20 '
"0 t^ 0^3 _____ IT
0 S
o
4)1Q 1-4c
<s ^ r
*C
0 . C3 4. (Î
*^
§ is
J20 ^
(S
-0 32
(U
I~
C/
| ^^______
^ g
C-15
X
~ f~
2? C
O 00
0\
I
----
4-)
0 - _
_ o
0
C.)
Cl3 Soo o Co
0
0o 00 \00 0
0 a
C,
0 co d ddo o•
Q >
bO
Cd
& oo ooo
o 00
o00 00 O
8
rS
0
4) 000000
4) 0
4)
z'o " I 0
4-4
O 0· H CH 4) Co Ct 000
o
H <u I-
0 O
&o c0> ;-
^ 0 0, 0, 0 0
C,. |B 31
o 'S^
: Mrt- 0\ - 00
· - ( 0r o
60S
^|
4)
C)
s
<
S
,.)= om
3§'
"0
3 îl
i jl~
ar:
·
0o
o
tOr
k^ 0 0
L4)
Czi
PI
Cl
0
cn
Q1 D6
4)
t^- T 0
i; p§ -- 4)
ow
&4 -
4)I§ "0
'"e "
0
z
0 . 00 4)
-o o0
Q
C-16
4) 4) _
S 0 Co 0
i e- ^ d ; oso
~C
C) 4-o
" It0
00
0
4-1
Ql ~St 0.,
.§
c
c
coowoo
0 A,0 0000 0 0
4-I
CA - --
;,** 4
Z6
z
4-
Cd) '
00
00 0 O0
te
0 4- 4- 4
S£00
' -" *^C5 oo
0 rl-
oo
0 rn
0 00 0o
CV000
05
o
u
4)
- r- - o -
>0 C)3
'4t
CC)
Ut o 4
==
0 '4
o
'0
0i
01 0; 4)
·C, *0
4) 6c
cr 0
0:
4)
0=
c1r
_i ____________
0 t*-i 0O
&
r
ies £ ° I-
8 4)
2 0 4
'0
•0
. 4)
C-17
a c
0
0 ON0
Ut
0cl
C-, 2^
0 00
lf)
Q 00
0~
00
H a) to 00
ON ON 0 0 0
U
0) cQZ
0) c34 - -------- --- --- --- --- --- --
a) H
"0 (U3Cf
H
0
0 C0' 0000
0r
Q
0 00
a d dM d
Q80 - - -
0
00 .o
0
0 t 00. 00
2>
0 *U =1
*SC~
oc * o V -S r - i
0
!§
0" 2·
0
0
Pc
6O 2ý
on
QI d0
0)
a)
"03
4- Y
a)) - \
a)
0p §
gii ^ O
05 g
a)
-
a) -O
0P
) 3-
gg U
C-18
00
<a _
e2
3- ci| d
2 d o o od (6
C)
o rd'
0
00 .o o woo
0
0
.s
'SI rt
o
oo
c1
^ o
sw Onoo
\O
0
Co
cN c0
0
coo
6 *g S N d
oo ooON NN%o o
C3
C)
a) Z 0a C 0 0 -- -
'--- - N- 0
0.
a) d)
cNNN 6c
Q * o
o 00000 o d o
0 Vo0o
0
0
0 a0
)- -t
NONNNw
r.
o0 n3 N Cf
o -
E4
00
0
12t C
°^ eeO C)
00 0 'o -a
0\ 0
o
0
Cê - N
4-j
tlký a)
00
fA
4--b 0 b C
s?ôE'I g
^
a
___
CO
bC)
Q
V* cu
ggO
- 00 a
a)
1 *S
.- 2U ^
2Cr | u
C-19
aT--4
b 010
c
> - -
o= § -
r- -- ci
oo c-
- -
0
ba
0
I'
3\
0
0
T--04 o
m 0P
o
oo \o
0
c
Ca
0o
N
W)i 0 0 n
%0 00 0
oc v 00
U >
C
C2) 00
o oo
: 00 n 00c
o 0\
o
04-J
4) _______ C5
u
4) z - -
0- CA3 C-,
0
.5 o o 00o o so o
o3o oo8
00
cZ 4) - 0'- so V c"o
0
E? I o- o oo oo
i)
4)
1-4
0 0
U,
z 0
O0
Uc If) (
0 I-
4o
W
)en 00 0
C-
0c
"0
(4-
0
§ 60c 0
0
0
^4,0 C") C")

0
'^ 0 0 6| 6
I-
o 0
4)• u, o,-
d) C0 C
"0 )
o CI 21E zaq
-, U 5 4)
o
4)
C-20
cN 00
0
'0
II
---
0o
Iw 0
> a °
00 tC) Cr
- - -
o
CU
4-1 CN
0\ 0 0n
- m -
- -s -
CU
·I
00 00 odd
Co
o
ra
00 00 0( 00 0 0C
a) 0 O 0o 00
. a)
CI odd o oo o
C. Q CU
0 a)
0'
"0 a) ior 0c 00 ýO
a) - -
o oo0
0
SO -
0 d
0 (ON C.
o
000
C, cod
o o co
*S ^ <^
c
roo
i -o
a) C3
CUD oc,
0 0o
0D 0
zo§
0 odd
0
b Ca
'CU
"0 0
s
r0 "0
co
0
0 -
0
0 S..' -l gC
0 0 .4
0\
00 a)
C.) 0o
€) *S
Vod
<
0 e Os a)
oC
*c
04 c
o , < 2
-. ) | ) ,
*goo Cq
C-21
d· II- 00
N
&·no
a .1
a) (
<u o ^
oo
O C ON 00 m
0C
0
"It
ON
00
4- 0
N;
»no.oi en SO
n00
N*
od 00 00
00 oo
0\ N\ 00 00 00
0 00 oo
00
0a
d
ON
c ca SO
(-
00
bb
a)
.o __ N t- 00
C
r
c-
00 od
0
o
6 "0
O 0 z o
o
CI ON V--
H H
3-
CO
'3 E-
.2
3
I 8r 0
NN 0
•-
C-4
c,,
00
r- N-
1- r-f
oN
00 0 CM
·rlb 3 @
o ON C-i eCl
0\
0 oo 0)
C)
r• I~ aor:
-4
00
-:
O i
i tee eqj bD (S
0
O
u
bD
00
0
oo 0-
^-
C
sO T-4 oo Cl
o
^t eN
9O
QZ
Scn
00 0
ON 00
r--
IO I-!
co
En rI0
aON
so o Q
0
o
qt
CtY
'*1.
en
oo
00
00
ON
o
0 en3
§jl?
ô lio S n
en,,
00
0
0 0
gg;ia en·
C
00
0
Ez C14
2 oo
0o PU
C-22
t? 00 0 00
oo -- -
o :u
. S od C crii 4 4 Sfi
00 0 - ^ ^.. "^
0=
0
U)
I\
ON
*-.f
ON
i
-
00C
-
C) D
NO "
04
NO 00
o ^
C
ON 00 '* No 0O
0 C
U
4-f ON 0 0
a)
Z
Z O
a)
co C4 w
I- F-- 1-- E-0 - o
go ^
0
o6
00 a o v \ cn cM \6 c mO
- NO NO
00
&N Cnccn NO OM
rU
o
O\
00 a)
0O\ 0 O t C O Oc
t0
5 > d o oN od d cn
- d
0
P-1 - O
<;
0 C
S4-o
Ccf
SI
a4
o
>a
a " - 0
____H, t__________________
C-23
>on
oo
00 \o < o
z e n tn l 00 00 Cf)CY_
a 0o
-f C0 4 4 060
. 8
0
0
0 0-~
0L O
r^n s0 o
%ft-w O O
4 w
S0000
4-4 00 00 00 00 00 00
0 4)c
6 CI
cu
'2 "0
o-
0 a
H3 H 8"0o3
4)
A4
4)o o
0 .p-%
1
4 ~~-
0000 -
0
U
O · --e g_
g -) -
00
0\
g
"4)
0
a -
C/3
rJ2
o o
0e __
0 2 ^ ~ o o\ o____
S.
h? r (
a^ Z_____________________
O o
_ 0
- 0
a
C-24
. < o n ON
Coo oo
i --
a) 4) c-' coo
bfi ) (ON O
2f a oo aS oo
\o o oo o
0E 4o
C) · 00
=tS= S- 0o 0o oo O 0c
Cf3
0
Q C4
tf3 > 4
O
o
0 000 00
0 ~0
6
1 C)
4)
0,
'0
4)
C-,
4)
4) 4)
H H
o oen.
Q) > 0 00
1 4)_
4-i? 4) S
0 H,
0000
0
4. e - o0 - - -
"0
*r -- 0-- - - - - -
-
c%
00
Voo '0
4)!
C.0S - '
oo 'I.
»n 0
w
CI _ _ __ _ _ _
0\ CC
hD Sb
*s ^
2^ @ 2
*a^
ON^
^-
o
o C
•( 0
^ &(
w g rô\ î
S o o
03 P
C-25
<E-ai
V) 00 \O
Q N
·*o
5
CU,
Od
06
0 0 4
I
a4- cn ON
00
r-
o §
CM
0
0
5oco
0 0 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 ON
I
0
0I
U Vn 0
0
^
ciz 00 00 r- 00 00
a) ýr
%0"
PO
" S
6
0 S
i z CIO O
a)
Cd 14. a a
00 V--4 00
as
'-4
0 .I
Cc•
o 00
0 00
oo)
0
ON ON ON ON
" % e
uQ)
$.
0
3oc
4-4 T-
0 r) S 00 CM 00 ONA 0O
ON ON
CM r--
00
o*
»n
C s CM en)
uZ
Cf) 00 ON
a)
gwOS CA
ON
0 00
r-
00
4-4 -
0C 0
oE o
-
d·
Su 00 00
a) d·
S5
E*$^
ON
0 o o - -
"0 v, 00
'4--4 P-
0
ON
a.) a 0
U, ' C. 3 6 C)
0
"0 a 0d
'-4
rcer,
0 C
C-26
i? ·a E CL
C
d)
<
O
00
r- 00
,-
00
r%
a
o o
0 kn
C4 t-
ot
0 o 0 - 0
C-4 00 CN 0•1 00 00 ON
0( 0
Q w 0
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
tN 00
4) -1q
O '0 as
z6 '0 Q
4)
c,
H
*o
0& 4
0 4)
4) 4)
0
0 c(4-
4)
U, C4
Q n00 It
'-4 0
0
0'-4
o
'" ^~ oo
0
00 ON
0
0
uU
(Nq
0k
0'
"--
9
U
E
C-,
r-- cn In
C-
00
0
en
en·
e(j
4^
00t
U Z^ ý C•
C4
00
a\
'3
00
ON
Co °U,,
4) *t-
1-4
I
. - oo
5Z1
I4b 0 00
o
00
lt
o ;o S4- )
S CM
00 00
3O 00
en
'0 4
C-27
Cc,
0\
'5; i 00 00
C)
o o
0 00
en en, CMj
o -- -
o 00 O ON
IS 00 S8-
Cs'~
U C4 0
.2
0\ ON 0O
rjn
I
c
y 0 00 00 00 00 00
0 a
r•
0
a) "0 a)
0'
a)
Ha) a)
H o
O
"0
01
Ok.
M en
Cý
0u
a)
0
00
U ^* *< 3
bD 0 N
0 .sp i ^ -- - 0--
Q ol Cc) c^
-
0 Hn
U
0 - -
"0
"0 ON
a\
00
ON -o 4- -
a
'-
C/0
o n
o\ cin
- 13
c en
4- a)
<u
4- 0
·-
0
^ io M
- I
-
0
o 0-+
N
0 On -
a) .- 0 ·
Q s
I "..
2a C *S 2L C(l
C-28
^S< C
f
4z - 00 o0 d
o\
cCr,
9
0
< _
I
4-
4-
0 o
00
cri
cq Cf)0
C5
ON
r0\ ·
CN
0\-
ON
06 r-
01 00 00 00 CN r^ IN
Q 00 0
0
·I
- -^
o
4) 00 00 04 ON
4) 06 00
0^
00
o6
0 "0
ci
C.)Z S 6 *.
'0 Q
1 o 8
0t
Cf)
ON
H o U, , i, 03
S-4
•a
.= SH^ H< H 0 9 r0
(N SON Cci rl
-o -
0
o\
d: wS O
0 00 00 T cn
Un,
S vi 00
00
0 »n 0 00 0
Q
o0 0o r-^
en~ 00
o
0 1 %0
4-
0ijco 0
00 CO; 0\
0\
6 06
00
riT-4 c0 -S6
en
"0
"0 en
CI ci ciJ
i I -L
C, 00
00 C5
0
C-
4) a §
tn
ci O-
0CO*0
0
o0 C9
00
T-4 cq
CT
Ci)
o O CO
I~t
00 Ci
r-4 en
uu,
Cfi
§ I ¢q
r-4 ND ci
o 2 00
0ý
in
en
o** 0 o
V)
C-29
Cf)
10MIN
oo
0
0\
I"o oj
o o
0 )n oo0000 tn
o Ct o6 r& V--4
o §
C) o-0
00 00
oq c-. 6
0 06 oo
r00 0;
'14.
00 r-4 00 r--
00
Q1 COP 000) 0r
4)
o
4)
oo
00
r: o cs
ci 06
"0
C,)
4)
0.
z6d "
Cl)
n
C.
Q
4)
0
i CIA)
C.
4) 4) 4 o0
4)
E-l E-< \o
H "' 1-
cn 0
0
0I v0 od
SO
:83
9 Oq
IC ON
00 d
0 0 o oo
00
0 c0 o0 en »n, Ce.
0 uS
0 'Oc'3
[- ON
a\ 00 0 C0
wiS 00
od 00
"0 0 0 0
"0 00
C•o (',
00
oo
0
C-4
^0
1-3 > o aa
4 0oo 00
V3 I0
00
06 C)
o qct
00
r-4 C)
F- uB
Cf)
to C4
C
04
S• cc> rs a 00
§
OO RI.
*a^
o~3
< C)
"0 *0 "0
11 C
<^^ 6
0n
o S'2 o\ 0q
ON
tn
'i Z>5o
S - C.)
) *S 2.
C-30
/0**%
00 0\
> 0 0
O 00 't
00 o
-o \o so r-:
ot 0 __ ^"
C.
*<**
s
II?
u41 o
1^
t
n
triCfi
ý6
S-
00
-0
00 V)
U
Q > 0 .
4 1
~4-4
01
a
Sr
·5a s~o ·d t16
r: r-^ od
00 C.
0)
zd 4,
.£
^ r= v
»n od CC
0 0)
8
F- bD C @ t 00
r^ \d vn
ilg
01
M>a
.9 9 e
3
Cý
C5,
00 0
C 00
00
M
0001%
N
0
§ 0ZJ
"0 ,~0
d or-
"0 t c n 00 0C 0N
QZ
U
05
00
OrN
0
00
Cf)
0% e
4o
04
CI 0t
C-
0N
C);
0% ON 00
0%
o g
C.n 0 ,D uj;
0 0%
cu T-4
mI
_ '0
U,
'0
*§
>
0 ^ §1+ E'sZ
c0
0\
40D
C/)
P
0
ggo
~
<tt W)
C-31
>en
"a
02
0
0Y
0
It
0
4-40
C) r#
C>
0.
00
S00 0
F-
o
0 9 B~
â a
"0 "&
Q
4-
0-0 0 ' o ^0 - ^
-. -o I I ,
I-
U, U,
4-d r i r oo
N
F- F-I - 5
C)
0 4 0
0
go
0
e(
U4
iC
00
O\
Q( ar
mO
00
000
PQ
o
S> Î £ co
N m •. Cc;, " (
S4oA ___ "_____________
C-32
>0 CO
C g0M
0o 00
go
4-4
C
4#-1 Z o o6 o6 r-- oo
o6 o o
It-
o C 0o
oO
0 >
za.
C4
0 CJ)
C.)
a)
CJo CdI
a) a~ a)
- - -
H CoD
I $ ^ - d c- o- Vo
a C^
0
0
*a
E
cq
.S 0 g 0
0s-
c
Cn
- --
cM
-
c)
PI
O
0
4- a:) o S-----
o a oo
cd
0\ oS &l _ --i- - -
00
o0
21
< PQ)
C.)
<
00
o >
^ 5^ ^
"S Igi s
a)
^ Q<>
s 0»--
C-33
oo
000
00 00 oo oo oo oo o o
0
4- 4-
0c
oo
000 h 00 0 C% 0% 00 00 000 0
0 C- 00
U 0
PO
00
' 4
d) 03& o6o t. r-: r r- v o6t- r-
o Z "0
a) a) C
4-3 4- 4
.) 0 ) E~
0N 0 r-
.P g o -.
2o o - a od 0-
cn
4-4c
o o
* g - 00 a- -------- - o c- . o oo
0
0 O - - - - - - - - - - -
U)
,.
o4--
So
0
r--4
00
0\
4-4
ck 4-4
Q~ 0
S
0 - -
_^< f-
eer
0D
____ ____ Q)
a) 1
a)
o
00 r --
T-^ i- -^
51
C1
" "= I-
a)
u,
O - aI
*-
•- 00
§ I-
i
5 m &
C-34
< o
-Pa
SE 00
- a - 8
C)
0 5 0i0 O -
0 ON ON
C) o-
O
E
0
Q
Vf 0 00
o oo o a o
0
01
O C)
6
0, H 10
0 r•
F-
a) H4)
ob -- - - -
3-IP
co o6
- o6 - - -
4o S - ON o;
ON od eN -
"0 S - Nd
oN
0
C) u I
0
"0 2
'( @ Cl 1
u,
u 0
-
ON 0
,0
00
ON i5S
- ir
0) _ C( - o\ C Ir)
y C%4
l
4-d
0
OOMN
<Cf) - -
a So- Cl
S____ ____ ____
^ 3 ~ ss
-0 S "o
CO
"
0)
0
C-35
0010%
g -
a o 3ýo u - Sw . -o - -
1
C) o-
0 It
00
.o o 0a N
00 00
> 0
0 ,0a
So oo
C)
6
14
0
H HI
0
0
0
4--4C~ -(
0
sb o c cn
0 '-& 3 °
0 ° ci
Ud
0f
0~
54 Sc c n
O0
00
iO 0
ON
0!
Q
0
. C
cn
tii cl
c
oE
E 0
00 a) OS I abC °
< * 0
^3
(so §
gli
Fn
~-**dr s
vj s
- - Ce)
'Q)g
C-36
;ON
.- <
44)
*
C1 0 0*i
v)
C4-
00
0
Cd
cn,
"o ON
4)
) e~u 0 00 00
o o
6IX r^*
\q
00
Cf)
00
0d
00
6
0 00
ON
<tt
0
QL
>4
CIO
ON
O
0 I
0
So
4-.
0- w CN
& i
0
00
O0
C14 CO
od
C) · & 00 00 V-*
r^ 00
0
JSSn ^ r- 00 r: 06
(N· r; 00
.SPg I
4-) o N
Wr 401
a)
Qo a) cu /
H
.6.-A H 0 **OO
0
cq
0 00
(D a)
U u @
b oE
us 9 00 00
11 Nq ON t1
a
0 ^ ^
E
0 ^ §
9^ ON
^8 ^ @
Mi i ClI 0N EN oR C5 en
CI
0
'i i §
s^
!> ·-
o
r^
ON
ON r' t-
le T-^ CM
r-1
06
41- i°
cn 00
\O
m
Nr 00
cE
En
.m-4
"0
SC5
00
oo 0 ON
U, en
a <, C5 CO EN
CM
U - 6 d LO
00
ON CMi
r- N
CYI 0 r-
ua C N
en
CM
o EM
N 00
en
o 0o .i gOa
00 00
CMj I -- en
0 a'" ods
SO
- - C.)
C-37
. < or o
EsoE - C n
cli
< o
4 r .4 r4 0 00
0
0-0
0I
cI
0
U C,, 0 C ---------- - - ----- -- ------ --
C l
-1
UC
0 za S CIO
Q
0' H 00 _
5-4
0 0 48
CO 0 o
0
4- -
0
.* 00 c N n
i: qi o 6 o-o6 5 o6
. c cn c Cz
7-
cn CCS CS CCf
·- 1
00IO
o\ Rr)
U,
c4 ' ci C9)C
U,~
U)
N CS Cr] (N
o4-4
S SÔ
rcO Pe
1-C ^ ^ t
- e0
00 ^
^ 2I ^^^
*530 0 V
^c^ 56 ~ o
E Ma
*C o
s=ncu
'^ <^
I
t
S 0 ____ ^t ___ __ __ _
) S
-
21C~
S2
0
0 O Q
C-38
< C - - 06 -o
CC- ClC
O i CMi C0 C0
20
ob D ' c oM C) O 4--0 r-4 4 r

*c c' o r r :; -: o d6
t- t r-
0
0,
C C
Uc
a\ bf co -- Cì cn cn* Ce CM r^ o o
$-
0
U -.
U o
a
0 00
o <3_g coo
Sn
-
w
00
-
O m
- o-
00
oo -
0 o c
o
• • • Q
S( z
0
0
-
r-4 - - ---- 4 - -4
0
0
N O\ CNN 0 n Oc
0
0
CYCl
"0 0
r-O
00 S00 00
I-0
CO
CQ 0
0o
°,I,
cn 0 e 0
C)
0a0 0--- l--
<- SCM CM CM
S
0 M a
*§ ^5 CM cn u
o <
____ ^___ _____________
S
o
7C2o
o o
J."
a) .,-f 0
C-39
Sieve Analysis
Method Used ASTM C 136 - 84a Project Compaction
Soil Description Coarse wash sand Tested by YS
Total Soil Weight (g) 988.2 Test No. / Date 8/8/94
Weight of soil Percent of soil

Sieve No. Diameter retained on retained on Percent passing
(mm) each sieve each sieve (%)
(g) (%)
12.5 0 0 100
4 4.75 0.9 0.1 99.9
10 2 139.3 14.1 85.8
40 0.425 545.3 55.2 30.6
60 0.25 154.3 15.6 15
200 0.075 136.2 13.8 1.2
pan 12.2 1.2 0
C-40
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Shiely coarse sand Tested by YS
Total Soil Weight (g) 1004 Test No. / Date 8/15/94

(g) (%)
12.5 0 0 100
4 4.75 22.8 2.3 97.7
10 2 92.9 9.3 88.4
40 0.425 671.2 66.8 21.6
60 0.25 153.6 15.3 6.3
200 0.075 54 5.4 0.9
pan 9.5 0.9 0
C-41
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Dark sandy soil Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 76 5.8 94.2
4 4.75 144.7 11.2 83
10 2 137 10.6 72.4
40 0.425 631.4 48.7 23.7
60 0.25 182.3 14 9.7
200 0.075 107.1 8.2 1.5
pan 19.1 1.5 0
C-42
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Brown sandy soil Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 71.9 8.7 91.3
4 4.75 94.6 11.4 79.9
10 2 67 8.1 71.8
40 0.425 311.7 37.5 34.3
60 0.25 202.9 24.4 9.9
200 0.075 64.5 7.8 2.1
pan 17.5 2.1 0
C-43
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Mix of dark & sand Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 25.7 2.6 97.4
4 4.75 64.3 6.5 90.9
10 2 125.3 12.6 78.3

40 0.425 604.3 60.8 17.5
60 0.25 112 11.3 6.2
200 0.075 47.2 4.8 1.4
pan 14.3 1.4 0
C-44
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Coarse sand Tested by YS

(g)(%)
12.5 100.3 9.6 90.4
4 4.75 210.4 20.1 70.3
10 2 143.7 13.7 56.6
40 0.425 468 44.8 11.8
60 0.25 74.1 7.1 4.7
200 0.075 38.7 3.7 1
pan 9.9 0.9 0
C-45
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Fine sand Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 202.2 12.4 87.6
4 4.75 374.3 22.9 64.7

10 2 215.1 13.1 51.6
30 0.6 488.2 30 21.6
60 0.25 267.2 16.2 5.4
200 0.075 68.6 4.1 1.3
pan 21.2 1.3 0
C-46
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Class 5 Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 105.5 9.1 90.9
4 4.75 449.7 38.9 52
10 2 201.9 17.5 34.5
30 0.6 149.8 13 21.5
60 0.25 128.9 11.2 10.3
200 0.075 71 6.1 4.2
pan 48.6 4.2 0
C-47
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Chips Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 4.7 0.4 99.6
4 4.75 1045.5 81.3 18.3
10 2 199.3 15.5 2.8
30 0.6 21.6 1.7 1.1
60 0.25 4.5 0.3 0.8
200 0.075 4.5 0.3 0.6
pan 5.3 0.4 0
C-48
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Mix of chips & sand Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 0 0 100
4 4.75 367.7 30.4 69.6
10 2 181.3 15 54.6
30 0.6 323.7 26.7 27.9
60 0.25 240.5 19.9 8
200 0.075 80.2 6.6 1.4
pan 17.3 1.4 0
C-49
Sieve Analysis
Soil Description Aggregates Tested by YS

(g) (%)
12.5 152.1 14.1 85.9
4 4.75 908.2 83.9 2
10 2 7.9 0.7 1.3
30 0.6 5.2 0.5 0.8
60 0.25 2.9 0.3 0.5
200 0.075 2.5 0.2 0.3
pan 3.1 0.3 0
C-50
APPENDIX D
FIELD TEST DATA

Field Sandcone Density Test Log
Method Used ASTM D 1556- 90 Project Non-vibratory compaction
Compaction Test No. F-FS#1 Test Date 08/26/94
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds without overnight loading. Pressure reading
was 17.5 in Hg.
I Test Identification Data I

Density test no. F-FS#
Depth below surface (in) 0.0
Distance from center (in) 11.5
Volume Determination (Sandcone)
A. Wt. sand & container (before) (lb) 8.5438
B. Wt. sand & container (after) (lb) 4.5880
C. Wt. sand in funnel & hole (A-B) (lb) 3.9558
D. Wt. sand in funnel (from calibration) (lb) 1.4960
E. Wt. sand in hole (C-D) (lb) 2.4598
Moisture Content Determination
F. Wet wt. soil + can (lb) 0.2099 0.2114
G. Dry wt. soil + can (lb) 0.2018 0.2043
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0081 0.0071
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0394
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1625 0.1649
Kl. Moisture content (H/J*100) (%) 5.0 4.3
K2. Average moisture content (%) 4.6
Inplace Dry Density Determination
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole +jar (lb) 3.8166
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0432
M. Total wt. wet soil from hole (L1-L2) (lb) 2.7734
N. Wt. moist. in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (lb) 0.1288
0. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (lb) 2.6446
P. Unit wt. of sand (pcf) 93.7
Q. Dry density (O/E*P) (pcf) 100.7
D-1
Method Used ASTM D 1556 - 90 Project Non-vibratory compaction
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2483 pounds.
Test Identification Data

Density test no. F-FS#2-1 F-FS#2-2
Depth below surface (in) 0.0 16.0
Distance from center (in) 12.0 12.0
A. Wt. sand & container (before) (lb) 7.3700 8.0008
B. Wt. sand & container (after) (lb) 3.9362 4.7488
C. Wt. sand in funnel & hole (A-B) (lb) 3.4338 3.2520
D. Wt. sand in funnel (from calibration) (lb) 1.4960 1.4960
E. Wt. sand in hole (C-D) (lb) 1.9378 1.7560
F. Wet wt. soil + can (lb) 0.1801 0.1937 0.2037 0.2309
G. Dry wt. soil + can (lb) 0.1729 0.1858 0.1882 0.2108
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0072 0.0079 0.0155 0.0201
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0404 0.0392 0.0394 0.0389
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1325 0.1466 0.1488 0.1719
K1. Moisture content (H/J*100) (%) 5.4 5.4 10.4 11.7
K2. Average moisture content (%) 5.4 11.1
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole +jar (lb) 3.2458 3.3348
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0547 1.0605
M. Total wt. wet soil from hole (L1-L2) (lb) 2.1911 2.2743
N. Wt. moist. in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (lb) 0.1186 0.2514
0. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (lb) 2.0725 2.0229
P. Unit wt. of sand (pcf) 93.7 93.7
Q. Dry density (O/E*P) (pcf) 100.2 107.9
D-2
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2483 pounds.

Density test no. F-FS#3-1 F-FS#3-2 F-FS#3-3
Depth below surface (in) 0.0 0.0 13.2
Distance from center (in) 9.5 10.0 10.0
A. Wt. sand & container (before) (lb) 7.6822 7.4598 7.5933
B. Wt. sand & container (after) (lb) 4.4780 4.3448 4.4972
C. Wt. sand in funnel & hole (A-B) (lb) 3.2042 3.1150 3.0961
D. Wt. sand in funnel (from calibration) (Ib) 1.4960 1.4960 1.4960
E. Wt. sand in hole (C-D) (lb) 1.7082 1.6190 1.6001
F. Wet wt. soil + can (lb) 0.2133 0.2525 0.1961 0.2200 0.2549 0.2170
G. Dry wt. soil + can (Ib) 0.2018 0.2372 0.1857 0.2079 0.2399 0.2044
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0115 0.0153 0.0104 0.0121 0.0150 0.0126
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0394 0.0404 0.0392 0.0394 0.0389
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1625 0.1978 0.1453 0.1687 0.2005 0.1655
Kl. Moisture content (H/J*100) (%) 7.1 7.7 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.6
K2. Average moisture content (%) 7.4 7.2 _ 7.5
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 3.0826 2.9290 2.9280
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0608 1.0558 1.0298
M. Total wt. wet soil from hole (L1-L2) (lb) 2.0218 1.8732 1.8982
N. Wt. moist. in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (lb) 0.1497 0.1342 0.1433
0. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (lb) 1.8721 1.7390 1.7549
P. Unit wt. of sand (pcf) 93.7 93.7 93.7
Q. Dry density (O/E*P) (pcf) 102.7 100.6 102.8
D-3
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2483 pounds, and the loading plate was found to be stopped
on a coupler's edge from moving with sand. Water level was 34" below surface.

H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0092 0.0116 0.0119 0.0094
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0404 0.0392
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1511 0.1947 0.1683 0.1343
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 2.7694 2.9842
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0304 1.0592
N. Wt. moist. in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (Ib) 0.1047 0.1354
D-4
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2483 pounds, and was left overnight.

H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0081 0.0063 0.0102 0.0108
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0404 0.0392
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.2058 0.1719 0.1500 0.1797
LI. Wt. wet soil from hole +jar (lb) 2.1994 2.0616
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0635 1.0520
N. Wt. moist, in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (Ib) 0.0432 0.0647
D-5
Comments Wet compaction together with vibratory tamper.

H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0135 0.0135 0.0140 0.0124
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0404 0.0392
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1633 0.1969 0.1790 0.1683
LI. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 2.1512 2.1506
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0459 1.0655
D-6
Compaction Test No. F-CS#1 Test Date 09/15/94
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2483 pounds without overnight loading.

Density test no. F-CS#1-1 F-CS#1-2 F-CS#1-3
D. Wt. sand in funnel (from calibration) (lb) 1.4960 1.4960 1.4960
E. Wt. sand in hole (C-D) (Ib) 1.6992 1.5988 2.5286
F. Wet wt. soil + can (Ib) 0.2284 0.2112 0.2406 0.2884 0.2758 0.2403
G. Dry wt. soil + can (lb) 0.2211 0.2048 0.2312 0.2741 0.2662 0.2327
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0073 0.0064 0.0094 0.0143 0.0096 0.0076
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0404 0.0392 0.0394 0.0389
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (Ib) 0.1818 0.1653 0.1908 0.2349 0.2268 0.1938
K1. Moisture content (H/J*100) (%) 4.0 3.9 4.9 6.1 4.2 3.9
K2. Average moisture content (%) 3.9 5.5 4.1
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole +jar (lb) 3.0618 3.2222 3.9992
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0544 1.0522 1.0578
M. Total wt. wet soil from hole (L1-L2) (Ib) 2.0074 2.1700 2.9414
N. Wt. moist. in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (Ib) 0.0792 0.1195 0.1199
O. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (Ib) 1.9282 2.0505 2.8215
D-7
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2483 pounds and left overnight

Density test no. F-CS#2-1 F-CS#2-2
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0056 0.0041 0.0082 0.0077
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0404 0.0392
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.2177 0.1871 0.2173 0.2029
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0459 1.0305
D-8
Compaction Test No. F-C5#1 Test Date 09/20/94
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds. *: measured after one cycle without surcharge;
**: measured three hours after two cycles and loading.

Density test no. F-C5#1-1* F-C5#1-2**
C. Wt. sand in funnel & hole (A-B) (Ib) 2.7566 2.5518
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0171 0.0165 0.0125 0.0126
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0391 0.0384 0.0390 0.0399
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (Ib) 0.1919 0.2220 0.1778 0.2026
L2. Wt. jar (Ib) 1.0568 1.0478
D-9
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds. All measurements were taken 20 hours after
three cycles and loading overnight.

Density test no. F-C5#1-3 F-C5#1-4 F-C5#1-5
H. Wt. water (F-G) (Ib) 0.0129 0.0143 0.0117 0.0133 0.0156 0.0167
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0404 0.0392 0.0404 0.0392
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1732 0.1814 0.1981 0.1998 0.1961 0.2153
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole +jar (lb) 2.7166 2.2852 2.4250
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0427 1.0497 1.0463
0. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (lb) 1.5456 1.1579 1.2704
D-10
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds. Measurements were taken 20 hours after
Test Identification Data I

Density test no. F-C5#1
E. Wt. sand in hole (C-D) (Ib) 0.8716
F. Wet wt. soil + can (Ib) 0.2159 0.2065
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0084 0.0088
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0391 0.0384
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1684 0.1593
LI. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 2.0998
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0302
D-11
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds. All measurements were taken about 20 hours
after three cycles, and the soil was unloaded after the cycles.

Density test no. F-C5#2-1 F-C5#2-2 F-C5#2-3
D. Wt. sand in funnel (from calibration) (lb) 1.4960 1.4960 1.4960
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0120 0.0134 0.0122 0.0151 0.0150 0.0148
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0393 0.0394 0.0404 0.0393
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (Ib) 0.1873 0.1952 0.1591 0.2103 0.1786 0.2052
LI. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 2.4272 2.0054 2.1528
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0584 1.0302 1.0570
0. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (Ib) 1.2780 0.9028 1.0103
D-12
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds. *: measured 1.5 hours after unloading.

Density test no. F-C5#3-1* F-C5#3-2*
A. Wt. sand & container (before) (Ib) 7.3522 7.1070
C. Wt. sand in funnel & hole (A-B) (Ib) 2.3802 2.3420
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0107 0.0129 0.0198 0.0213
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0394 0.0390 0.0392 0.0384
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1933 0.2019 0.2217 0.2458
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (Ib) 2.1308 2.0468
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0655 1.0457
M. Total wt. wet soil from hole (L1-L2) (Ib) 1.0653 1.0011
D-13
Soil Description Mix of 50% chips & 50% sand Tested by YS
Compaction Test No. F-MCS#1 Test Date 09/19/94
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds. Measurement was taken right after two cycles
and loading.

Density test no. , F-MCSi
Distance from center (in) 13.C
C. Wt. sand in funnel & hole (A-B) (Ib) 2.7954
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0092 0.0103
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0404 0.0392
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1609 0.1916_
LI. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 2.8104
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0295
N. Wt. moist. in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (Ib) 0.0988
Q. Dry density (O/E*P) (pcf) 121.3 _
D-14
Comments Surcharge was equal to about 2524 pounds. All measurements were taken 20 hours after

Density test no. F-MCS#1-2 F-MCS#1-3 F-MCS#1-4
E. Wt. sand in hole (C-D) (Ib) 1.0720 1.0698 1.3288
G. Dry wt. soil + can (Ib) 0.2145 0.1959 0.2179 0.2244 0.2196 0.2588
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0055 0.0061 0.0067 0.0075 0.0082 0.0092
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395 0.0404 0.0392 0.0394 0.0390
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.1752 0.1564 0.1775 0.1852 0.1802 0.2198
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 2.5452 2.5144 2.8040
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0292 1.0532 1.0588
N. Wt. moist. in soil from hole (M*K2/100) (lb) 0.0534 0.0572 0.0762
O. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (lb) 1.4626 1.4040 1.6690
D-15
Compaction Test No. F-AG#1 Test Date 09/15/94
and loading.

Density test no. F-AG#
Distance from center (in) 12.(
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0091 0.0108
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0755 0.0770
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (lb) 0.4042 0.3655
K1. Moisture content (H/J*100) (%) 2.3 3.0
Ll. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (Ib) 2.4982
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0578
D-16
Soil Description Granite chips Tested by YS
Compaction Test No. F-CP#1 Test Date 09/19/94
and loading.

Density test no. F-CP#
B. Wt. sand & container (after) (Ib) 4.6234
F. Wet wt. soil + can (Ib) 0.2037 0.2017
H. Wt. water (F-G) (lb) 0.0025 0.0031
I. Wt. of can (lb) 0.0393 0.0395
J. Wt. dry soil (G-I) (Ib) 0.1619 0.1591
L1. Wt. wet soil from hole + jar (lb) 2.3374
L2. Wt. jar (lb) 1.0536
0. Dry wt. of soil from hole (M-N) (Ib) 1.2614
D-17
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Log
Method Used Non-vibration Project Compaction
DCP test no. No. of blows DCP depth Midrange DCP depth Penetration index
(distance from center) (in) (in) (in/blow)
F-FS#4-1* 0 0.00
(11.5") 1 13.80 6.90 13.80
2 22.32 18.06 8.52
3 38.16 30.24 15.84
4 38.40 38.28 0.24
5 38.88 38.64 0.48
*: Pressure was 15" Hg, and surcharge was about 2483 lb. The loading plate was found
to be stopped on a coupler's edge from moving with sand. Water level was 34" below surface.
D-18
F-FS#5-1* 0 0.00
(10.5") 1 10.92 5.46 10.92
2 18.84 14.88 7.92
3 25.68 22.26 6.84
4 36.84 31.26 11.16
5 37.32 37.08 0.48
F-FS#5-2** 0 0.00
(9.5") 1 11.76 5.88 11.716
2 20.76 16.26 9.00
3 29.28 25.02 8.52
4 36.12 32.70 6.84
5 37.08 36.60 0.96
*: Tested after one cycle without loading;

**: Tested after two cycles with loading.
D-19
Method Used Vibratory tamper Project Compaction
F-FS#6-1 0.00
(14") 1 2.28 1.14 2.28
2 3.84 3.06 1.56
3 5.04 4.44 1.20
4 5.76 5.40 0.72
5 6.60 6.18 0.84
6 7.20 6.90 0.60
7 7.80 7.50 0.60
8 8.28 8.04 0.48
9 8.76 8.52 0.48
10 9.24 9.00 0.48
11 9.84 9.54 0.60
12 10.32 10.08 0.48
13 10.80 10.56 0.48
14 11.28 11.04 0.48
15 11.88 11.58 0.60
16 12.36 12.12 0.48
17 12.96 12.66 0.60
18 13.44 13.20 0.48
19 13.80 13.64 0.36
20 14.16 13.98 0.36
21 14.64 14.40 0.48
22 15.00 14.82 0.36
23 15.48 15.24 0.48
24 15.84 15.66 0.36
25 16.32 16.08 0.48
26 16.68 16.50 0.36
27 17.04 16.86 0.36
28 17.52 17.28 0.48
29 18.00 17.76 0.48
30 18.48 18.24 0.48
31 18.96 18.72 0.48
32 19.56 19.26 0.60
33 20.16 19.86 0.60
34 20.76 20.46 0.60
35 21.48 21.12 0.72
36 22.08 21.78 0.60
37 22.92 22.50 0.84
38 23.64 23.28 0.72
39 24.48 24.06 0.84
40 25.20 24.84 0.72
41 25.92 25.56 0.72
42 26.64 26.28 0.72
43 27.36 27.00 0.72
...-
j 44 i 28.08 --A 27.72 I 0.72
D-20
Method Used Vibratory tamper Project Compaction

-
F-FS#6-2 0.00
(14") 1 2.64 1.32 2.64
2 4.80 3.72 2.16
3 5.76 5.28 0.96
4 6.48 6.12 0.72
5 7.20 6.84 0.72
6 7.80 7.50 0.60
7 8.40 8.10 0.60
8 9.00 8.70 0.60
9 9.48 9.24 0.48
10 10.08 9.78 0.60
11 10.56 10.32 0.48
12 11.16 10.86 0.60
13 11.64 11.40 0.48
14 12.12 11.88 0.48
15 12.60 12.36 0.48
16 12.96 12.78 0.36
17 13.44 13.20 0.48
18 13.92 13.68 0.48
19 14.28 14.10 0.36
20 14.76 14.52 0.48
21 15.12 14.94 0.36
22 15.60 15.36 0.48
23 16.08 15.84 0.48
24 16.56 16.32 0.48
25 17.04 16.80 0.48
26 17.40 17.22 0.36
27 17.88 17.64 0.48
28 18.24 18.06 0.36
29 18.72 18.48 0.48
30 19.20 18.96 0.48
31 19.56 19.36 0.36
32 19.92 19.74 0.36
33 20.40 20.16 0.48
34 20.88 20.64 0.48
35 21.36 21.12 0.48
36 21.72 21.54 0.36
37 22.20 21.96 0.48
38 22.56 22.38 0.36
39 23.04 22.80 0.48
40 23.52 23.28 0.48
D-21
F-CS#1-1* 0 0.00
(11.5") 1 20.16 10.08 20.20
2 39.12 29.64 18.90
3 39.60 39.36 0.50
4 39.84 39.72 0.20
F-CS#1-2** 0 0.00
(9") 1 4.32 2.16 4.32
2 10.32 7.32 6.00
3 15.36 12.84 5.04
4 21.12 18.24 5.76
5 23.28 22.20 2.16
6 32.04 27.66 8.76
7 35.04 33.54 3.00
F-CS#1-3** 0 0.00
(13") 1 5.76 2.88 5.76
2 10.80 8.28 5.04
3 15.48 13.14 4.68
4 20.76 18.12 5.28
5 30.00 25.38 9.24
6 40.92 35.46 10.92
7 41.40 41.16 0.48
*: Tested after one cycle without loading;

**: Tested after two cycles and a loading of 2483 lbs.
D-22
F-CS#2-1* 0 0.00
(10") 1 7.44 3.72 7.44
2 12.66 10.05 5.22
3 17.16 14.91 4.50
4 20.04 18.60 2.88
5 23.58 21.81 3.54
6 25.68 24.63 2.10
7 28.80 27.24 3.12
8 31.68 30.24 2.88
9 34.74 33.21 3.06
10 36.84 35.79 2.10
11 37.44 37.14 0.60
12 38.16 37.80 0.72
F-CS#2-2* 0 0.00
(10") 1 8.28 4.14 8.28
2 13.08 10.68 4.80
3 17.16 15.12 4.08
4 21.24 19.20 4.08
5 24.48 22.86 3.24
6 27.48 25.98 3.00
7 30.48 28.98 3.00
8 33.00 31.74 2.52
9 35.64 34.32 2.64
10 37.08 36.36 1.44
11 38.04 37.56 0.96
12 38.40 38.22 0.36
*: Tested after a surcharge of 2483 lbs kept over a weekend.

D-23
F-C5#1-1* 0 0.00
(8") 1 8.88 4.44 8.88
2 15.48 12.18 6.60
3 30.72 23.10 15.24
4 38.88 34.80 8.16
5 39.36 39.12 0.48
F-C5#1-2** 0 0.00
(10") 1 5.28 2.64 5.28
2 9.36 7.32 4.08
3 13.92 11.64 4.56
4 19.32 16.62 5.40
5 23.88 21.60 4.56
6 28.80 26.34 4.92
7 31.92 30.36 3.12
8 35.64 33.78 3.70
9 39.84 37.74 4.20
10 40.92 40.38 1.08
11 41.52 41.22 0.60
12 41.88 41.70 0.36
*: Tested right after two cycles with loading;

**: Tested after two cycles and a surcharge of 2483 lbs kept for 3 hours.
D-24
F-C5#1-3* 0 0.00
(10") 1 3.84 1.92 3.84
2 6.96 5.40 3.12
3 9.36 8.16 2.40
4 11.76 10.56 2.40
5 14.76 13.26 3.00
6 17.76 16.26 3.00
7 21.36 19.56 3.60
8 24.24 22.80 2.88
9 27.96 26.10 3.72
10 31.92 29.94 3.96
11 34.32 33.12 2.40
12 36.72 35.52 2.40
13 38.88 37.80 2.16
14 40.20 39.54 1.32
15 40.56 40.38 0.36
16 40.80 40.68 0.24
F-C5#1-4* 0 0.00
(10") 1 2.28 1.14 2.28
2 5.04 3.66 2.76
3 7.56 6.30 2.52
4 10.08 8.82 2.52
5 12.24 11.16 2.16
6 15.24 13.74 3.00
7 18.00 16.62 2.76
8 20.64 19.34 2.64
9 22.92 21.78 2.28
10 25.56 24.24 2.64
11 27.84 26.70 2.28
12 30.72 29.28 2.88
13 33.48 32.06 2.76
14 35.64 34.56 2.16
15 37.80 36.72 2.16
16 39.36 38.58 1.56
17 40.20 39.78 0.84
18 40.68 40.44 0.48
*: Tested after two cycles and a surcharge of 2483 lbs kept for about 20 hours.
D-25
F-C5#2-1* 0 0.00
(10") 1 13.92 6.96 13.92
2 19.32 16.62 5.40
3 25.08 22.20 5.76
4 28.80 26.94 3.72
5 31.08 29.94 2.28
6 33.00 32.04 1.92
7 35.04 34.02 2.04
8 37.32 36.18 2.28
9 38.76 38.04 1.44
10 39.36 39.06 0.60
F-C5#2-2* 0 0.00
(13") 1 13.92 6.96 17.16
2 19.32 16.62 4.20
3 25.08 22.20 12.60
4 28.80 26.94 3.48
5 31.08 29.94 3.60
6 33.00 32.04 0.48
*: Tested right after two cycles with loading;
D-26
F-C5#2-3* 0 0.00
(14") 1 10.92 5.46 10.92
2 16.08 13.50 5.16
3 22.80 19.44 6.72
4 30.12 26.46 7.32
5 36.00 33.06 5.88
6 41.16 38.58 5.16
7 42.60 41.88 1.44
8 43.20 42.90 0.60
F-C5#2-4* 0 0.00
(14") 1 6.00 3.00 6.00
2 12.48 9.24 6.48
3 18.48 15.48 6.00
4 30.24 24.36 11.76
5 38.52 34.38 8.28
6 42.60 40.56 4.08
7 44.76 43.68 2.16
8 45.12 44.98 0.36
9 45.72 45.42 0.60
*: Tested 16 hours after a surcharge removed.
D-27
F-C5#3-1* 0 0.00
(11") 1 21.36 10.68 21.36
2 33.36 27.36 12.00
3 37.20 35.28 3.84
4 38.16 37.68 0.96
5 39.60 38.88 1.44
6 39.60 39.60 0.00
F-C5#3-2* 0 0.00
(10.5") 1 7.32 3.66 7.32
2 17.28 12.30 9.96
3 22.56 19.92 5.28
4 26.88 24.72 4.32
5 31.20 29.04 4.32
6 36.36 33.78 5.16
7 36.72 36.54 0.36
F-C5#3-3** 0 0.00
(12.5") 1 12.36 6.18 12.36
2 23.40 17.88 11.04
3 27.48 25.44 4.08
4 34.08 30.78 6.60
5 37.20 35.64 3.12
6 39.60 38.40 2.40
7 40.56 40.08 0.96
F-C5#3-4** 0 0.00
(13") 1 12.00 6.00 12.00
2 15.12 13.56 3.12
3 18.72 16.92 3.60
4 27.60 23.16 8.88
5 36.36 31.98 8.76
6 37.92 37.14 1.56
7 38.16 38.04 0.24
*: Tested right after three cycles and a loading of 2483 lbI **: Tested 1.5 hours after unloading.
D-28
F-MCS#1-1* 0 0.00
(11") 1 7.92 3.96 7.92
2 14.28 11.10 6.36
3 19.20 16.74 4.92
4 23.04 21.12 3.84
5 26.40 24.72 3.36
6 39.12 32.76 12.72
7 39.60 39.36 0.48
F-MCS#1-2* 0 0.00
(11") 1 7.92 3.96 7.92
2 12.72 8.32 4.80
3 19.44 16.08 6.72
4 26.16 22.80 6.72
5 31.92 29.04 5.76
6 39.84 35.88 7.92
7 40.56 40.20 0.72
*: Tested after two cycles and a surcharge of 2524 lbs.
D-29
F-MCS#2-1* 0 0.00
(10") 1 4.56 2.28 4.56
2 7.92 6.24 3.36
3 10.80 9.36 2.88
4 13.80 12.30 3.00
5 16.32 15.06 2.52
6 19.20 17.76 2.88
7 22.08 20.64 2.88
8 25.08 23.58 3.00
9 28.20 26.64 3.12
10 31.92 30.06 3.72
11 35.64 33.78 3.72
12 38.40 37.02 2.76
13 38.64 38.52 0.24
14 39.00 38.82 0.36
15 39.24 39.12 0.24
F-MCS#2-2* 0 0.00
(10") 1 6.24 3.12 6.24
2 10.20 8.22 3.96
3 13.68 11.94 3.48
4 17.04 15.36 3.36
5 19.92 18.48 2.88
6 23.40 21.66 3.48
7 26.40 24.90 3.12
8 29.40 27.90 2.88
9 32.16 30.78 3.06
10 35.88 34.02 2.10
11 39.60 37.74 0.60
12 40.20 39.90 0.72
13 40.56 40.38 0.36
*: Tested after a surcharge of 2524 lbs kept for 18 hours.
D-30
Compaction Test No. F-AG#1 Test Date 09/15/94
F-AG#1-1* 0 0.00
(12") 1 5.28 2.64 5.28
2 24.48 14.88 19.20
3 31.68 28.08 7.20
4 32.28 31.98 0.60
5 32.64 32.46 0.36
F-AG#1-2* 0 0.00
(11") 1 4.08 2.04 4.08
2 15.96 10.02 11.88
3 22.32 19.14 6.36
4 24.36 23.34 2.04
5 32.64 28.50 8.28
6 35.76 34.20 3.12
7 36.48 36.12 0.72
8 36.84 36.66 0.36
*: Tested after two cycles and a surcharge of 2442 lbs.
D-31
Soil Description Chips Tested by YS
Compaction Test No. F-CP#1 Test Date 09/19/94
F-CP#1-1* 0 0.00
(13") 1 17.52 8.76 17.52
2 32.88 25.20 15.36
3 33.60 33.24 0.72
4 33.84 33.72 0.24
F-CP#1-2* 0 0.00
(11") 1 9.36 4.68 9.36
2 15.36 12.36 6.00
3 18.72 17.04 3.36
4 25.44 22.08 6.72
5 34.56 30.00 9.12
6 37.44 36.00 2.88
7 38.88 38.16 1.44
8 39.12 39.00 0.24
*: Tested after two cycles and a loading of 2524 lbs.
D-32

Low-Vibration Methods of Soil Compaction for Urban Utility Projects: Phase 2

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Low-Vibration Methods of Soil Compaction for Urban Utility Projects: Phase 2

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MN DEPTOF TRANSPORTATION

II 0314 00023 6934

Low Vibration Methods of Soil

*Conducting a program for the monitoring and implementation of research results.

LOW-VIBRATION METHODS OF SOIL COMPACTION April 1995

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

University of Minnesota, Underground Space Center

Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement

Soil Vacuum No restrictions. Document available from:

Unclassified Unclassified 130

Yiming Sun, Ph.D.

Underground Space Center

MINNESOTA LOCAL ROAD RESEARCH BOARD

Chapter One Introduction............................................................................................................... 1

Chapter Two Laboratory Tests ........................................................................................................ 3

Chapter Three Field Scale Non-Vibratory Compaction Tests............................. .......................... 16

Chapter Four Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................... ............ 32

References and Bibliography .................................... ........................ . 33

Appendix A Laboratory test procedure.................................................................................. .... A-i

Appendix B Field test procedure ................................................................................ ...................... B-1

Figure 2.5 Particle-size distribution curve for brown sandy soil....................................................... 7

Figure 2.15 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor

Figure 2.16 Comparison of laboratory compaction vs. Proctor

Figure 3.1 A sketch of the field scale test setup................................... ...................................... 19

Figure 3.2 Particle-size distribution curve for coarse sand.......................................... .............. 20

Figure 3.3 Particle-size distribution curve for fine sand.................................................................. 20

Figure 3.4 Particle-size distribution curve for class 5.................................................................. 21

Figure 3.5 Particle-size distribution curve for granite chips........................................................... 21

Table 2.2 Comparison of laboratory non-vibration compaction and Proctor tests......................... 10

Table 3.2 Comparison of field non-vibration compaction and Proctor tests.................................. 26

2.1 Modification of Laboratory Test Setup

2.2 Sieve Analyses of Laboratory Test Soils

Soil description Effective size D30 D60 Cu Cc

Shiely fine sand 0.0118 0.0197 0.0394 3.33 0.83

Coarse wash sand 0.0063 0.0161 0.0370 5.88 1.12

Dark sandy soil 0.0098 0.0216 0.0591 6.0 0.81

Brown sandy soil 0.0098 0.0157 0.0551 5.6 0.46

^/ Ball valve Flow meter

9x3/4" holes in base plate

Figure 2.1 A sketch of the modified laboratory test setup

Figure 2.2 Particle-size distribution curve for Shiely fine sand

Figure 2.3 Particle-size distribution curve for coarse wash sand

1 0.1 0.01 0.001

Particle diameter (in)

Figure 2.4 Particle-size distribution curve for dark sandy soil

Particle diameter (in)

Figure 2.5 Particle-size distribution curve for brown sandy soil

0.1 0.01 0.001

Particle diameter (in)

Particle diameter (in)

Soil description Method used Dry density Moisture content

Wash sand Non-vibration 101 11.3

Proctor 114 15.3

Shiely coarse sand Non-vibration 98 10.6

Proctor 119 13.9

Shiely fine sand Non-vibration 104 11.9

Proctor 115 12.3

Elk River sand Non-vibration 99 8.2

Proctor 118 13.2