RELATIVE COMPACTION OF F I L L HAVING

OVERSIZE PARTICLES"

Discussion by Iraj Noorany,2 Member, ASCE

The author has compared three methods of oversize correction for com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pacted fills without pointing out the limitations of and fundamental differ-
ences between those methods. The purpose of this discussion is to examine
the background of each method and to clarify reasons for the differences
between them.
A compacted fill consists of fine fraction, oversize particles, and voids.
Not all of the voids are within the fine fraction; some are associated with
oversize particles. Although fines fill most of the void space between the
oversize particles, some voids are too small to be filled with fines. This
means that the presence of oversize particles introduces additional voids
and interferes with the compaction of the fines. The degree of interference
increases with the percentage of oversize particles, and it also depends on
the gradation of the fine fraction.
Eq. (1) is based on the premise that the percentage of oversize particles
is so small that their presence does not interfere with compaction of fine
material. Because this assumption is not valid at high gravel contents, the
use of (1) can lead to serious errors.
Assume a unit volume of compacted fill having a dry density yd„ and
percent (by dry weight) of oversize particles, F. The weight and volume of
oversize fraction are Fydt and (FydJGryw), respectively. The remaining vol-
ume (volume of fine fraction plus voids in fine fraction plus any voids
associated with oversize fraction) is the volume of matrix, and can be
computed as V,„ = 1 - (FydJGryw). The dry weight of matrix is W,„ =
Id, (1 - F). Dividing W,„ by V,„, we can compute dry density of matrix
ydm. The result can be rearranged as:

1
la, = , _ , (4)
+ (1 " F)
G,-7,.

Note that ydm in (4) is not dry density of fine fraction ydf; it is dry density
of matrix and is less than ydf. When there is a small amount of gravel
scattered in the matrix, ydm and ydf may be very close, but the higher the
percentage of oversize, the more the interference with compaction of fines
and the bigger the difference between ydf and ydm.
Eq. (1), used by the author for the elimination method, is the same
as (4), except that he substituted 90% of laboratory maximum density for
ydm to compute the required total dry densities, for 90% relative compac-
tion, for various oversize contents up to 50%. However, for the reasons
discussed earlier, the computed values (the upper curve on Fig. 2) are
unrealistically high, especially at high oversize contents, for 90% compaction
of total material, but are correct for 90% compaction of the matrix.
Various forms of (4) have appeared in many publications, including Holtz
"October, 1989, Vol. 115, No. 10, by Robert W. Day (Paper 23993).
2
Prof. of Civ. Engrg., San Diego State Univ., San Diego, CA 92182; and Visiting
Prof., Univ. of California, San Diego, CA 92093.

1635

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1991.117:1635-1637.

 and Lowitz (1957), Donaghe and Townsend (1976), and ASTM ("Standard
Practice" 1988), but its limitations for controlling compaction of total ma-
terial have also been emphasized in these publications. In general, (1) and
(4) overestimate the required total field dry density for a specified fill relative
compaction, except that at low oversize contents for well-graded soils the
error may be tolerable. The limiting gravel content above which the error
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is unacceptable varies for different soils: tests by the U.S. Bureau of Rec-
lamation indicate that the limiting gravel content for poorly graded soils
may be less than 10% (Donaghe and Townsend 1976); for a river terrace
gravel it was reported to be 25% (Garga and Madureira 1985); and for well-
graded gravelly soils it can be as high as 35-40% (Donaghe and Townsend
1976).
Although the use of (4) for compaction control of new fills may be con-
servative (requiring overcompaction), its use in forensic investigations of
old fills can be misleading. As the percentage of oversize particles increases,
(4) yields progressively lower values of matrix dry density ydm. If ydm is
mistaken for ydf, and compared with the laboratory-maximum dry density,
erroneously low values of relative compaction for the total material are
computed. This practice by some engineers has led to false allegations and
costly litigations in numerous projects in California in recent years.
Eq. (4) can be useful in compaction control in those cases where the
specifications require that the fill matrix be controlled rather than the fill's
total density. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation criteria for
control of dam embankments (Design of1974) requires minimum acceptable
and average desirable matrix dry densities, ydm, without specifying ydt. Also,
recognizing that for a fixed matrix density progressively higher total densities
will be required with increase in gravel content, a variable minimum matrix
density, corresponding to relative compactions from 90-95%, is specified
for gravel contents between 0% and 50%.
Eq. (3) is similar to (4), except that a value of 2.60 has already been
substituted for Gr. In addition, an empirical factor 0.05 has been introduced
in an effort to account for the interference problems mentioned earlier, and
to compute total fill density from laboratory density ydf. This is why the
results computed by this equation (bottom curve in Fig. 2) are considerably
lower than those found using the elimination method (top curve in Fig. 2).
Another empirical modification of (4) can be found in the AASHTO equa-
tion ("Correction for" 1986), which yields results very close to the lower
two curves in Fig. 2. The ASTM D1557-78 method does not utilize any of
the equations mentioned earlier, but it requires four types of laboratory-
compaction tests, depending on the percentage of the oversize fraction. The
results of this method agree closely with those of the Navy and the AASHTO
methods up to a maximum permissible gravel content of 30%. The results
of these empirical methods appear to be reasonable for control of total fill
density, but may require further research to evaluate their relative merits.
In the meantime, it is important that the limitations of the elimination
method [(1) and (4)], especially for forensic investigations, be understood
in practice.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

"Correction for Coarse Particles in the Soil Compaction Test." (1986). AASHTO
Designation T224-86, 14th Ed., The American Assoc, of State Highway and Transp.
Officials, Washington, D.C., 840-845.
"Standard practice for correction of unit weight and water content of soils containing

1636

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1991.117:1635-1637.

 oversize particles." (1988). ASTM D4718-87; Annual Book of Standards, ASTM,
Philadelphia, Penn. 04.08, 871-873.
Donaghe, R. T., and Townsend, F. C. (1976). "Scalping and replacement effects
on the compaction characteristics of earth-rock mixtures. "ASTM STP599, ASTM,
Philadelphia, Penn., 248-277.
Garga, V. K., and Madureira, C. J. (1985). "Compaction characteristics of river
terrace gravel." J. Geotech. Engrg.,ASCE, 111(8), 987-1007.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 07/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Holtz, W. G., and Lowitz, C. A. (1957). "Compaction characteristics of gravelly

soils." ASTM STP232, ASTM, Philadelphia, Penn., 67-86.
Design of small dams, U.S. bureau of reclamation. (1974). 2nd Ed., U.S. Gov.
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 599-644.

Discussion by Yakov M. Reznik,3 Associate Member, ASCE

The author compares three different methods dealing with the effect of
oversize particles [3/4 in. (19 mm) aggregate size] on the results of field/
laboratory compaction tests.
The proposed formula [(1)] describes the relationships between the values
of total dry density of the fill, the maximum dry density of soil matrix,
specific gravity of aggregate, and percent of aggregate that agrees with the
previously developed formulas (Earth Manual 1974). The accepted proce-
dure ASTM-D 4718-87 ("Standard Practice for Correction of Unit Weight
and Water Content for Soils Containing Oversize Particles") ("Soil and"
1988) states that "this practice is applicable to soils and soil-rock mixtures
in which up to 40% of the material is retained on the No. 4 sieve." The
formula suggested for the correction of unit weight is similar to the one
proposed by the author. It is clear that stability and permeability of structural
fills, generally speaking, depends on the degree of compaction of soil matrix,
degree of aggregate fracturing, and conditions along the contact surface(s)
between the different materials/fractions of the same material(s). The max-
imum value of the soil/soil-rock mixture total dry unit weight can be achieved
if the soil-matrix dry density achieves its maximum value.
Coal refuse is a by-product of a coal-mining process, and comprizes rocks
and minerals separated from the coal at surface/underground mines and
coal preparation plants. The disposal operations of coal refuse and quality
control of the created structure(s) are similar to the ones associated with
"classical" soil-rock mixtures. The percent compaction (PC) of the coal-
refuse "fine" fraction can be calculated using the following formula:

pC = 1H!H> x LZJW (5)

"^ 1 — "/total r.
tRCP
62.4 X GRCP
where 7 toUll = the total dry density of compacted coal refuse (aggregate
plus soil matrix for soil-rock mixtures/fills); yx = the maximum dry density
of the coal-refuse "fine" fraction (soil matrix for soil-rock mixtures) usually
determined in soil laboratory in accordance with ASTM standards D-698

3
Engr., 5428 Florida Ave., Bethel Park, PA 15102.

1637

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1991.117:1635-1637.