Bureau of Reclamation December · portions of the canal lining, flatten the slopes, and reline the...

Engineering and Research Center

Bureau of Reclamation

December 1976

Lime Stabilization on Friant-Kern Canal

I 9. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N N A M E A N D ADDRESS 10. WORK U N I T NO.

7 . A U T H O R ( S )

A. K. Howard and J. P. Bara 8. PERFORMING O R G A N I Z A T I O N

R E P O R T NO.

REC-ERC-76-20

Same

Engineering and Research Center Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado 80225

12. SPONSORING A G E N C Y N A M E A N D ADDRESS

14. SPONSORING A G E N C Y C O D E 0 1 1 . C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NO.

13. T Y P E O F R E P O R T A N D P E R I O D C O V E R E D

15. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y N O T E S

16. A B S T R A C T 1 Since construction in the late 1940's. the Friant-Kern Canal has experienced cracking, sliding, and sloughing of the side slopes in areas of expansive clays in both the concrete-lined and earth-lined portions. In the early 1970's. Bureau of Reclamation designers decided to remove portions of the canal lining, flatten the slopes, and reline the canal using a compacted soil-lime mixture in an attempt to stabilize the slopes. The project added 4 percent (based on dry soil weight) granular quicklime to the soil. Laboratory tests on the compacted soil-lime mixture showed that (1) soil-lime was about 20 times stronger than the untreated clay, (2) the strength of the soil-lime increases with time, (3) the plasticity index of the natural soil was reduced from 4 0 to 1 0 or less after adding the lime, and (4) the compressive strength of the soil-lime was dependent on the compacted density.

--

17. K E Y WORDS A N D D O C U M E N T A N A L Y S I S

a . DESCRIPTORS-/ compaction tests/ compressive strength/ "soil stabilization/ Atterberg limits/ soil mechanics/ soil properties/ " lime-soil mixtures/ slope sta bilkation/ Proctor curves/ in-place density/ soil tests/ laboratory tests/ "canal linings/ canal construction/ soil plasticity/ temperature/ "expansive clays/ clays/ "soils/

1 a. IDENTIFIERS-/ Central Valley Project/ Friant-Kern Canal, Calif. I 18. D I S T R I B U T I O N S T A T E M E N T 19. Sl

(T E C U R I T Y C L A S S 21 . NO. O F P A G E H I S REPORT) - - KASSIFIED 53 E C U R I T Y C L A S S 2 2 . P R I C E H I S PAGE)

I 1 U N C L A S S I F I E D 1 1

REC-ERC-76-20

LIME STABILIZATION ONFRIANT-KERN CANAL

byAmster K. HowardJohn P. Bara

December 1976

Earth Sciences BranchDivision of General ResearchEngineering and Research CenterDenver, Colorado

[II81 METRIC

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR * BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Th~J testing program and data reporting was the responsibilityof i\ K, Howard and J, p, Bara. civil engineers. under thesupe! vision of C. W. Jones. Head, Special Investigations andFJesearch Section of the Earth Sciences Branch. C. T. Coffeyallc L J. Cox, engineering technicians, performed the testinganj ,",,)viewed the report. R. Ferrese. Hydraulic Structures8r3i1ch, Division of Design, was responsible for the canaldesigns related to this rehabilitation work. The construction ont!iS Friant-Kern Canal was directed by Project Construction

inser E. J. Brannon, retired. and the late R. Aitkens, fieldengineer. The enthusiastic efforts of IC Otto and the laboratoryps,'s'::;nnel in securing the undisturbed samples are appreciated.

CONTENTS

Page

IntroductionApplications,Concl usionsProperties of soils for canal linings

1113

Expansive soilsEffect of lime on soilSelection of lime content

446

Construction procedures on Friant-Kern CanalUndisturbed block samplesLaboratory test results

88

13

Effect of mellow time on lime-soil materialEffect of mellow time on moisture-density curvesEffect of mellow time on strengthEffect of mellow time on durabilityEffect of mellow time on soil consistency valuesEffect of temperature on soil-limeEffect of temperature on moisture-density curvesEffect of temperature on strengthEffect of temperature on soil consistency values

131616161618181919

Bibl iography 21

Appendix A 23

Selection of lime content; 1970 testsEffect of lime on consistency limits and pH valuesUnconfined compression tests

232323

Appendix B 29

Undisturbed block samples-1973Percent lime content.In-place density and moisture contentUnconfined compression testsWet-dry tests

2929293131

Appendix C 43

Undisturbed block samples-1974Coring to obtain test specimensStandard propertiesIn-place density and moisture contentPercent lime content.Unconfined compression stren~Jth

434343484848

Table

2345

A-l

A-2A-3A-4

8-1

8-2

8-3

8-4

8-5

8-6

8-7

8-8

8-9

C-l

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-7

C-8

C-9

C-l0

CONTENTS~Continued

TABLES

Relation of soil index properties and probable volume changes

for highly plasticsoils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Properties of soilsfrom Friant-Kern Canal. . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of lime on Friant-Kern Canal soil. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Laboratory test results,undisturbed block samples. . . . . . . .

Lime stabilizationstudy, soilconsistency values. . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A

Summary of physical properties test results (in-place density)

samples No. 51Y-l through 4 . . . . . . . . . . .

Characteristicsof treated samples. . . . . . . . . .

Unconfined compressive strength of soiland soil-limesamples. . . . .

Summary of unconfined compression test results. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

APPENDIX 8

Soil-lime block samples No. 43 through 49-1973 . . . .

Summary of physical properties test results(in-placedensity)

samples No. 41Y-43 through 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent lime content samples No. 43 through 49 and 51 . . . . . . . . .

In-placedensity and moisture content samples No. 43 through 49 ....

Density and moisture contents for undisturbed soil-lime block

samples, samples No. 51Y-43 through 49-1973 . . . . . . . .

Location of block samples and in-place field densities

samples No. 51Y-43 through 49-1973 ..............

Unconfined strength of core from block samples No. 51 Y-43

through 49-1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wet-dry durability tests,undisturbed soil-limeblock samples

No. 51Y-43 through 49-1973 ..,.........

Summary of test results,undisturbed soil-limeblock samples

No. 51Y-43 through 49-1973""""""'"

. . . .

. . . .

APPENDIX C

Soil-lime block samples No. 51Y-54 through 57-1974 ..,......

Summary of physical properties test results(in-placedensity)

samples No. 51Y-54 through 57--1974"""""""

Density and moisture content, undisturbed soil-limeblock

samples, sample No. 51 Y-54 . . . . . . . . . .

Density and moisture content, undisturbed soil-lime block

samples,sample No. 51Y-55 ...............

Density and moisture content, undisturbed soil-lime block

samples, sample No. 51 Y-57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of dry densities and moisture content, samples

No. 51 Y-54 through 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent lime content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Strength relationshipto percent lime content, samples

No. 54 through57 ,.........Strength relationship to curing time, samples No. 51Y-47 and 54

Strength relationship to dry density. samples No 51Y-44, 49,55,45,

47,54,43and57 . . . . .

. . . . .

II

Page

5561419

24252627

29

303132

33

36

37

39

41

43

44

49

50

51

5152

5252

53

B-1 Compressive strength versus dry density relationships forsoil-lime core specimens 38

B-2 Soil-lime core after two wet-dry cycles 39B-3 Soil-lime core after 7 soaking days 39B-4 Soil-lime core wet-dry, after first drying period, after 7 soaking days

and 42 hours drying 40B-5 Soil-lime core wet-dry, after second drying period, after two

wet-dry cycles 40B-6 Soil-lime core wet-dry, after first drying period, after one

wet-dry cycle 40

APPENDIX C

C-1 Undisturbed hand-cut block of soil-lime being cored to obtainsamples for laboratory testing 45

C-2 Soil-lime block anchored with sand bags for stability duringdrilling 45

C-3 Core samples from hand-cut block 51 Y-55, soi I-lime 46C-4 Core samples from hand-cut block 51Y-57, soil-lime 47C-5 Soil-lime block 51 Y-54 after completion of coring to obtain

samples for laboratory testing 47

Figure

89

10

11

12

CONTENTS-Continued

FIGURES

Page

1234

Rehabilitated canal sectionsEffects of v3rying amounts of hydrated lime on expansive claysRotary mixer mixing the soil, lime, and waterLong ramps cut down along the side slopes to canal bottom in

benching operationLime being spread on canal bottom prior to mixingThe contractor is using a road grader and a three-bottom,

one-way, moldboard plow to process and mix lime intomaterial for earth lining in the canal

A self-cleaning sheepsfoot roller in use to compact lime-treatedmaterial on the canal slope

Completed canal slope of compacted soil-limePhysical properties summary plot (compaction), sample No. 51 Y-51Effect of mellow time on moisture-density curves of

compacted soi I-IimeEffect of mellow time on the strength of soil-lime compacted to

95 percent of laboratory maximum dry densityEffect of temperature on moisture-density curve of

compacted soil-lime

279

56

910

117

121315

17

18

20

APPENDIX B

III

INTRODUCTION

The Friant-Kern Canal which is part of the CentralValley Project in California. extends from theFriant Dam on the San Joaquin River east ofFresno south to the Kern River near Bakersville.It is 245 km (1 52 mi) long and delivers water tomore than 400 000 hectares (1 million acres) ofirrigated farmland in Southern California. Thenormal operating capacity is 115 m3/s4000 ft3/s) in the first 114 km (71 mi) and

gradually decreases to 57 m3/s (2000 ft3/s) atthe terminus. About one-third of the length of thecanal. from mile 34 to mile 88. traverses an areaof expansive clays (Porterville Formation). Of thisi37 km (54 mi) of canal, 37 km (23 mi) are earthlined and the remainder is concrete lined.Failures have occurred in both the concrete-linedand earth-lined sections. The canal wasconstructed during 1945 through 1951. andafter 3 years of operation, this portion of thecanal began cracking. sliding, and sides of thecanal began sloughing and has been a continuingproblem since Maintenance of the canal slopeshas been an expensive, continual problem. In theearly 1970's, the Bureau of Reclamationdecided to remove portions of .the canal lining.flatten the canal slopes, and reline the canalusing a compacted soil-lime mixture in anattempt to stablize the slopes.

Two of the worst areas were selected forrehabilitation with lime-stabilized soil. One area,at about mile 60, was in an earth-lined section.and the other, mile 82, was in the concrete-linedsection The contract. under specificationsNo. DC-6970. included 2.7 km (8900 ft) ofcompacted soil-lime lining and 0.55 km(1820 ft) of concrete lining over lime-stabilizedbackfill.

rhe general repair procedure has been toconvert the original 1-1/2 to 1 failed concretelinings. to earth sections treated with lime with2 to 1 slopes (fig. 1) as the failures occur. Thefailed earth-lined sections had the slopesflattened to 2 to 1 with the toe of theembankment moved in toward the center of thecanal. Riprap was dumped into those areaswhere large slides had occurred. These repairs,however, have also failed. The compactedsoil-lime earth lining is 0.6 m (2 ft) thick for theroads on the top 01 both nks and for the canalbotton!. The side are 1.1 m n.6 thicknormal to the slope.

For the compacted lime-treated earth fill beneaththe concrete lining, the side slopes were left at1-1/2 to 1, resulting in a thickness of 1.4 m(4.4 ft) normal to the slope. The bottom androads are 0.6 m (2 ft) thick.

APPLICA TIONS

This is the largest lime-stabilization Job by theBureau to date. and it is the first time that limehas been used to rehabilitate unstable canalembankments. Consideration should be given tofurther use of lime to condition wet claysbecause lime acts as a drying agent and alsopermits trafficability and construction underadverse weather conditions. Field observationsindicate that lime may be sufficiently erosionresistant to eliminate the need for a gravel beachbelt.

Laboratory tests indicate that the mellow timeshould be held to a minimum because higher filldensities can be attained which make thecompacted soils more erosion resistant. Of moresignificance, a reduced mellow time will permitthe contractor to keep his placing operationsclosed up, which will make futurelime-stabilization work more economical andmore competitive with other constructionmethods.

CONCLUSIONS

Since construction in the late 1940's. theFriant-Kern Canal has experienced cracking.sliding. and sloughing of the side slopes in boththe concrete-lined and earth-lined sections. inthe areas that had been built on expansive clays.To stabilize the slopes. the Bureau decided toremove portions of the canal lining. flatten thecanal slopes, and reline the canal using acompacted soil-lime mixture.

The Engineering and Research Centerlaboratories conducted tests to determine theappropriate amount of lime to be added and toevaluate the final product. The conclusions ofthese tests are as follows:

'I. For stabilization of the expansive soilsalong the Friant-Kern Canal. studies indicatedthat 4 percent hydrated lime should be added

08 M ROAD (LEFT)7.6m

I' 25 n

'~'.':tZ~..: : '.:

0 8 M ROA D (RIGHT)

7.6m25 FT.

...

1

5=.04 -.~-

"::-:

~I

f

~t10c)t\i

el-: ~,,-""

e ....1Ot\j e..., (:) tr)t\j 10"" ": "-c)t\j It)

I'-:

I-:e...."-t\j1Ot\j

1.;1-:Ie""c)1\j

COMPACTED LlME-TREATED EARTH LINING

. . ..

17.7 m58 FT.

TYPICA L EARTH REHABILI TAT/ON SECTION

N

08 M ROAD (LEFT)

7.6 m25 FT E

0 8 M ROAD (RIGHT)

7.6 m25 FT

0.77m2.53 FT.

-

5=.0'1 .....

COMPACTED LlME-TREATED EARTH FILL

COMPACTED LlME-TREATED EARTH FILL

. . .1'.

TYPICA L CONCRETE LINED REHABILITATION SECTION

Figure 1.-Rehabilitated canal sections.

to the soil. The contractor elected to usegranular quicklime, with 3.2 percentquicklime considered the equivalent of 4percent hydrated lime. The amount ofquicklime was increased to 4 percent due todifficulties in controlling the lime contentduring construction.

2. Samples of the compacted soil-lime hadunconfined compressive strengths averagingabout 20 times more than the unconfinedcompressive strength of the untreated soil.

3. The average unconfined compressivestrength of the compacted soil-lime was about2000 kPa (300 Ib/in2) 1 to 2 years afterconstruction.

4. The strength of the compacted soil-limeincreases with age.

5. The addition of lime reduced the PI(plasticity index) of the soil from about 40 toabout 10.

6. The lime content of the soil-lime rangedfrom 0.5 to 4.2 percent. Even the low limecontent showed a strength gain of eight timesthat of the untreated soil. However, somemethod of closer control of the lime contentduring construction would be beneficial toassure that the necessary amount of lime isbeing added uniformly throughout theembankment.

7. The compressive strength of the soil-limewas directly proportional to its compacteddensity.

8. After the lime and water has been mixedinto the soil. compaction can begin as soon asthe soil-lime is considered friable enough.

9. If possible. the soil should be compactedduring the first 8 hours after mixing to obtainthe maximum density. durability, and strength.

10. After a 24-hour mellow time. there islittle difference in the density or strength ofthe soil-lime for longer mellowing times.

11. The durability of the soil-lime. based onwet-dry laboratory tests. is reduced withincreased mellowing time.

12. The low air temperatures experienced

on the Friant-Kern Rehabilitation Projectduring the winter construction periodappeared to be beneficial for the constructionoperation rather than detrimental.

The following summary is based on test resultsof material from seven undisturbed soil-limeblock samples from Friant-Kern Canalrehabilitation in 1973. Specimens fordetermining in-place density. unconfinedcompressive strengths. and wet-dry durabilitywere obtained by coring the blocks with a76-mm (3-in) diameter concrete core barrel. Asummary of this test data is shown in table 8-9.

1. The effective percent lime content (CaDcontent of treated soil minus CaD content ofuntreated soil) ranged from 2.3 percent to 4.2percent.

2. The in-place dry density of the soil-limeranged from 1170 kg/m3 (73 Ib/ft3) to1710 kg/m3 (107 Ib/ft3). The natural moisturecontent of the soil-lime ranged from 21 to 44percent.

3. The densities and moisture of the blocksamples correlated well with nearby fielddensity tests results. Therefore. this laboratorydata represents the as-built condition of therehabilitated Friant-Kern Canal.

4. The unconfined compressive strengths forthe material 6 months after placement rangedfrom 1130 kPa (164 Ib/in2) to 3300 kPa(478 Ib/in2). The strengths were directlyproportional to the density of the specimens.

5. The wet-dry durability of the material wasrelated to the density of the specimens. butapparently not to the lime content.

PROPERTIES OF SOILS FORCANAL LININGS

Soil that is to be compacted and used as a canallining must meet criteria for seepage, erosion,stability, and volume change. In general. canallinings are constructed of soils with a PI(plasticity index) of 10 to 25. Such soils wouldbe classified. according to the UnifiedClassification System. as GC, SC, CL. GM. SM,ML or combinations of these. Permeability testsand triaxial shear tests are used to evaluate theseepage potential and the soil strength for

3

stability of the canal slopes. If the PI is 20 orbelow, soil workability is satisfactory and volumechange is generally not a problem. The optimummoistures of these soils average about 14 to 20percent and the shrinkage limit ranges from 10to 20 percent. Thus. when the material is placedclose to the optimum water content. it is alsoplaced near its shrinkage limit. So. regardless ofwetting and drying cycles. shrinkage andcracking is not severe. nor is it a significantproblem.

The shrinkage limit is the water content of a soilbelow which a reduction in moisture will notcause a decrease in the volume of the soil mass.If the shrinkage limit is below the placementwater content (generally close to optimum). thenas the soil goes through wet and dry cycles dueto water level fluctuations in the canal anddewatering operations, the soil can shrink andcrack due to the decrease in moisture contentfrom optimum to the shrinkage limit. If theshrinkage limit is close to optimum or above.then shrinkage and cracking are not as severe.

Clays of high plasticity. CH in the UnifiedClassification System, have optimum moisturearound 25 percent and shrinkage limits from 5to 15 percent. Therefore. CH soils would beliable to shrinkage and cracking and are notgenerally recommended for canal linings. Inaddition, CH soils can be highly expansive andas they become saturated. they swell and soften,resulting in lower strength and stability.

Expansive Soils

Expansive soils are those which exhibitsignificant volume change. expansion andshrinkage, with changes in moisture content. Fora canal lining. volume change can be a seriousproblem. Below the water level. the materialexpands due to water being absorbed into thesoil. Lower densities and strengths result. Abovethe water surface. shrinkage occurs with cracksforming several feet deep. resulting in a loss ofshear strength. As a result. canal slopes becomeunstable and slides occur as in the case ofFriant-Kern Canal. The reports listed in appendixA refer to the original studies on the soil.subsequent investigations of slide areas. and afield trial of electrochemical treatment tostabilize the expansive soil.

The expansive potential of the soil may beincreased when it is used as a constructionmaterial. The density and moisture content of anexpansive soil affect its volume changecharacteristics. In a dense soil resulting fromcompaction. more clay particles are packed intoa unit volume than in a loose soil. When themoisture content increases, greater volumechange will occur in the dense than in the loosesoil condition. The structure of an expansive soilalso affects the volume change potential. Aremolded expansive soil will expand significantlymore than an undisturbed sample of the samesoil due to thixotropic hardening of the latter.

Several remedial measures have been tried byO&M (operation and maintenance) personnel. tocontrol the deterioration of the Friant-KernCanal. The slope of the canal sides was flattenedfrom 1-1/2: 1 to 2: 1. but these slopes were alsounstable. In the 1950's an electrochemicalmethod was tried. but apparently did notincrease the soil strength enough for stabilizationnor was it economically feasible.

This report covers the current stabilizationmethod of strengthening the embankments bymixing lime with the existing clay soils. Theaddition of lime to the soil changes it from apotentially highly plastic, expansive material toa potentially nonexpansive siltlike material. Thecriteria can be analyzed to predict theexpansiveness of a particular soil (table 1) andsoil samples from Friant-Kern (table 2) illustratethe expansive potential of the soil.

To illustrate the effect of adding lime to the soilon its expansive potential. data from tests on soil51 Y-51 with 3.2 percent granular quicklime(equivalent to 4 percent hydrated lime) areshown in table 3.

Effect of Lime on Soil

Adding lime to soil has two major effects,(1) improving the soil workability and(2) increasing the soil strength.

The first effect is immediate and results from thefollowing reactions of the lime with the soil:(1) An immediate reduction in plasticity. wherethe LL (liquid limit) of the soil is decreased andthe PL (plastic limit) increased. thus reducing thePI (plasticity index) of the soil (PI = LL - PL).(2) The finer clay-size particles agglomerate to

4

Data from index tests2 Estimation ofprobable

expansion,3Colloid content Plasticity Shrinkage percent total Degree of(percent minus index limits, volume change expansion

0.001 mm) percent (dry tosaturatedcondition)

>28 >35 <11 >30 Very high20-31 25-41 7-12 20-30 High13-23 15-28 10-16 10-20 Medium<15 <18 >15 <10 Low

Index Colloid PI SL PotentialNo. content, (plasticity (shrinkage degree of

(percent minus index) limit) expansion0.001 mm)

3T-553 30 7 high554 34 7 high555 37 6 very high556 36 7 very high102 23 25 9 high104 30 30 6 high106 28 23 14 medium130 35 50 12 very high98 30 30 6 very high98 30 30 6 very high

294 32 5 very high299 50 7 very high301 36 39 7 very high302 38 7 very high

51Y-

1 37 40 9 very high2 55 41 7 very high3 51 46 7 very high5 41 37 8 very high

51 36 36 7 very high

Table 1.-Relation of soil index properties and probable volume changes for highly plastic soils 1

1This table appears as table 3 in Earth Manual, Bureau of Reclamation, 2nd Edition, p. 212, 1974.2AII three index tests should be considered in estimating expansive properties.3Based on a vertical loading of6.9 kPa (1.0 Ib/in2) as for concrete canal lining. For higher loadings the amount ofexpansion is reduced, depending on the load and on the clay characteristics.

Table 2.-Properties of soils from Friant-Kern Canal

5

Condition Colloid PI SL Potentialcontent (plasticity (shrinkage degree of

(percent minus index) limit) expansion0.001 mm)

Untreated soil 36 36 7 Very high51 Y-51

With 3.2 percent 13 28 Lowlime, 0 hoursafter mixing

72 hours after 9 30 Lowmixing

Table 3.-Effect of lime on Friant-Kern Canal soil

form larger particles. (3) The large particles (clayclods) disintegrate to form smaller particles. (4) Adrying effect takes place due to the absorbtionof moisture for hydration of the lime whichreduces the moisture content of the soil. Theresult of these reactions is to make the materialmore workable and more friable or siltlike intexture. This eliminates the constructionproblems inherent in using a wet sticky, heavyclay. Since the Friant-Kern canal operates 10months a year, speed of construction is anessential factor and the improved workability ofthe soil-lime is an important benefit.

The second effect of adding lime to soil is adefinite cementing action with the strength ofthe compacted soil-lime increasing with time.The lime reacts chemically with the availablesilica and some alumina in the soil to formcalcium silicates and aluminates.

Selection of Lime Content

The percentage of lime added to a soil dependson whether the purpose is for modification (smallpercent to increase workability) or forstabilization (sufficient lime to provide strength).For stabilization the lime percentage could bebased on pH values, plasticity index reduction,strength gain, or prevention of volumetricchanges. When the pH of a soil-lime mixturereaches 12.4, sufficient lime has been added toreact with all the soil. There is an optimum limepercentage past which adding more lime slightlyreduces the PI of the mixture but cannot beeconomically justified. If a minimum strengthmaterial is needed, enough lime can be added toobtain that strength. Or enough lime can beadded to increase the shrinkage limit to the

placement moisture or higher to preventexcessive volume change through wetting anddrying cycles.

In early 1970, block soil samples from theproposed construction sites on Friant-Kern Canalwere tested to evaluate the percentage of limerequired. The consistency limits and pH valuesof various lime percentages were determined(fig. 2) for two of the samples. Based on the pHvalues and the reduction in PI. 2 percent limewas sufficient. However, 4 percent lime wasrecommended to compensate for variations infield construction conditions and to increase theshrinkage limit to about optimum moisture(placement moisture) of the mixture. At thispoint only hydrated lime was being consideredand these tests were performed using hydratedlime.

Unconfined compressive strengths of theundisturbed clay ranged from 15 to 158 kPa(2.1 to 22.9 Ib/in2) and of the remolded clayfrom 72 to 123 kPa (10.5 to 17.8 Ib/in2). With4 percent hydrated lime added and cured for 7days, the strength was 1477 kPa (214.2Ib/in2);another specimen soaked for an additional 7days had a strength of 461 kPa (66.8 Ib/in2).Details of the 1970 tests are given inappendix B.

Either hydrated lime or quicklime was allowed inthe specifications and the contractor elected touse quicklime. Since quicklime contains about20 percent more available lime or CaO, thanhydrated lime, 3.2 percent quicklime wasconsidered equivalent to 4.0 percent hydratedlime, and 3.2 percent quicklime was approvedfor use. However, after construction started,control of the lime content became difficult so

6

80

Liquidlimit

60~Plastic

I limitI-z:WI-z:a 40u

Shrinkagea::

limitwI-

~20

W::J--.J

~::I:CL

8

0 62 4LIME CONTENT-%

16

/2

Samples 5lY-land2

40 2 4

LIME CONTENT-%6

Figure 2.-Effects of varying amounts of hydrated lime on expansive clays.

7

8

8

the amount of quicklime was increased to 4percent with the provision that extra quicklimebe added where Government inspectors felt itnecessary.

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES ONFRIANT -KERN CANAL

The first stage of the soil-lime constructionprogram was to rebuild the berm roads along thecanal banks to provide a stable roadway ofsoil-lime so that rains would not halt operations.The road was to be 0.6 m (2 ft) thick. First thetop half of the roadway material was excavatedand stockpiled; the bottom half was then ripped,quicklime and water added, mixed, allowed tomellow, and then recompacted. A large quantityof rock was present which was removed with arock rake mounted on a dozer during the mixingoperation. It was necessary, however, to addlime to the highly plastic clay soil before the rockcould be removed. Without the addition of lime,the clay stuck to the rock and prevented rockrakes from picking it up. The contractor first triedrotary mixers (fig. 3) for pulverizing and mixing,but the amount of rock present broke the mixerblades, so the soil-lime was mixed usingbulldozers and road graders. The compaction ofthe lower 0.3-m (1-ft) lift was done with avibratory sheepsfoot roller. Then the material forthe top lift was brought back, spread, 4 percentquicklime added, watered, mixed, allowed tomellow, and recompacted. The bottom of thecanal was also stabilized to a 0.6-m (2-ft)thickness and was constructed similar to theroadway.

Before reconstructing the canal side slopes, therock riprap that had been dumped into slideareas had to be removed. Then all the materialthat was to be stabilized with lime andrecompacted was removed by a benchingoperation. A series of long sloping benches orramps were cut from the top of the bank downto the canal bottom with the cut extending farenough into the slope to remove the entire depthof required excavation material. Two percentquicklime was spread over the bench surfaceand 0.3 m (1 ft) of material from the bench wasmixed with the quicklime, and the lime-claymixture was pushed into the canal bottom wherethe remaining oversize material was removed.The benching operation is shown in figure 4. Thematerial was spread on the canal bottom and 2

percent additional lime added as shown in figure5. Then water was added to at least 2 percentover optimum moisture, then about 0.3-m (1-ft)depth of material was mixed with dozers andgraders as shown in figure 6, with the rock beingcontinually removed. After about 2 m (6.6 ft) ofmaterial had been mixed and cured for 24 hours,bulldozers started spreading the material on theslopes, which were then compacted with aself-cleaning sheepsfoot roller moving up anddown the slope (fig. 7).A cable winch on a cranemoved the roller up and down the slope.

The side slopes were constructed in three O.4-m(1.2-ft) compacted lifts to give the specified1.1-m (3.6-ft) compacted depth normal to theslope. The completed slope is shown in figure 8.

There are only 2 months, December andJanuary, when the canal is unwatered andavailable for construction rehabilitation. Theconstruction was started in the winter of1972-73 and completed in the winter of1973-74. There were 190000 m3(250000 yd3) of soil-lime placed, under thiscontract.

UNDISTURBED BLOCK SAMPLES

Following the placement of the soil-lime, severalundisturbed block samples were submitted tothe Bureau Engineering and Research Center fortesting. Of particular interest was thedetermination of the actual lime percentage inthe mixture, the natural density and moisture, thestrength, and the durability of the samples.Details of the testing are presented inappendices C and D.

Table 4 gives a summary of the test results onthe block samples, along with results of tests onuntreated soil. to provide a comparison. Some ofthe block samples were taken immediately afterconstruction and some were taken a year later.

The effective lime content is the difference in theCaO (calcium oxide) content of the treatedmaterial and untreated material. Samples51Y-43 through -49 were compared tountreated soil sample No. 51 Y-51 which had anatural CaO content of 3.6 percent. SamplesNo. 51 Y-54, -55, and -57 were also comparedto the untreated soil sample No. 51 Y-51. TheCaO content corresponds approximately to the

8

Figure 3.-Rotary mixer mixing the soil, I~me, and water. Photo P214-D-77913

Figure 4.-Long ramps cut down along the s~de slopes to canal bottom in benching operation. Photo P 2 14-D-779 1 1

Figure 5.-Lime being spread on canal bottom prior to m~x ing. Photo P 2 1 4-D-7791 2

2: 7 - Wfr; $ * . . mmm - - ' . ! i +* .6

'A' I* { - J k t y w -3' e U - 2' I . ---a)Lsqll

J *&+c+r. . 1" ' - - -d

lrXd . . . C a k

4

,fl s" -1

t 9 *A

" 7 .:'

Figure 6.-The contractor is using a road grader and a three-bottom, one-way, moldboard plow to process and mix lime into material for earth

lining in the canal. Photo CN805-243-6874NA

F~gure 7.-A self-cleaning sheepsfoot roller in use to compact lime-treated material on the canal slope. Photo CN805-243-6980NA

# "*P <**q 2260 to 3560 kPa (328 to 51 6 lb/in2), tor the , - in-place material

A l l the soi l- l ime samples were nonpldstrc. whereas the untreated materlal had p las t~c~ ty ~nd~ces of 30 to 46 Some of the core specimens were subjecteri to three cycles of soak~ng and dry~ng at a temperature of 38 "C (1 0 0 O F ) . As shown in table 4, some speclmens d id no t survive the three wet-dry cycles, w i t h the exceptions of specimens from the high-density, low-molsture samples The speclmens f rom blocks 44 and 49 had almost ident~cal densltres and molstures, and one crumbled during testing and one d ~ d not

Figure 8.-Completed canal slope of compacted soil-lime. Photo P214-0-77910

percent quicklime added as estimated by project personnel except for samples No. 5 1 Y-55 and -57 which showed an added lime content of 1 percent or less. If some of the soil-lime is being placed at this low lime content, perhaps some de te rmina t ion o f l ime con ten t dur ing the construction should be implemented.

The untreated m a t e r ~ a l had an unconf ined compressive strength of 1 1 0 kPa (1 6 Ib/in2). The soil-lime material had strengths ranging from 8 7 0 kPa (1 26 Ib/in2) to 3560 kPa (51 6 Ib/in2), with an average of 2 1 2il kPa (308 Ib/in2). Even the soil-lime samples with low lime content (1.0 percent or less) had strengths over 8 times as great as the untreated material.

Samples No. 5 I \ / -47 and -54 were tal:en from the same area, bu t a year apar t . There is apparently some increase in strength w ~ t h time,

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

The specifications for the Friant-Kern Canal Rehabilitation required a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7 days mel low t ime fo r the l ime-treated ear th f i l l . For th is repor t , t he following definitions are used:

a Mellow time.-The time period between the mixing of the lime wi th the soil and the compaction of the soil-lime mixture.

Cure time.-The elapsed time since the final compaction of the soil-lime mixture.

Af ter their init ial experience w i th soil-l ime construction in the winter of 1973-74, the field personnel asked the Denver office to investigate the effects of mellow time and temperature on the strength of the compacted soil-lime earthfill.

Effect of Mellow Time on Lime-soil Material

The Proctor moisture-densi ty curvt<s, soi l cons is tency values, and t he uncon f i ned compressive strengths of a soil-lime mixture were determined for the following mellow times: 0 hour, 2 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. The so11 used was from the jobsite at canal station 3 1 2 2 + 40. The lime was a sample of the granular quicklime used on the project. The water was Denver tapwater. The soil was dried and screened and the material which passed a No. 4 screen (minus No. 4 material) was used for the mellow-time study. The properties of the untreated soil are shown in figure 9. The

Effective Inplace condition Unconfined compression PercentSample Station lime Dry density, Moisture, Date Date Soaked Strenath, Wet- fines, Liquid Plasticity Shrinkage

No.' and content, percent placed samples dry (minus limit index limit

51Y- location percent kg/m3 (lb/fP) kPa (lb/in2) durability 200screen)

43 3121+00 2.6 1710 (107) 21 11-72 12-72 yes 3300 (478) goodroad

44 3173+00 4.2 1410 (88) 32 12-72 12-72 yes 1130 (164) poor

road

45 3187+00 3.6 1550 (97) 27 12-72 12-72 yes 2430 (353) good

road no 1580 (229)

46 4338+08 3.8 1170 (73) 44 1 -73 1 -73 - - -poor

slope

47 3122+40 3.0 1490 (93) 29 12-72 1 -73 yes 2260 (328) good 54 NP

bottom

48 4331+25 2.9 1190 (74) 44 12-72 12-72 - - -poor

bottom

49 3140+00 2.3 1460 (91) 30 1 -73 1 -73 yes 1990 (289)good

slope no 2250 (326)

51 3122+40 loose untreated soil 73 53 36 7


54 3122+00 3.1 1510 (94) 30 12-72 1 -74 yes 3560 (516) 37 NPbottom

55 3187+00 1.0 1460 (91) 31 12-72 1 -74 yes 870 (126) 48 NPslope

56 3162+50 un- 1470 (92) 30 1 -74 no 110 (16) 89 70 46 7treated

57 3197+20 0.5 1590 (99) 26 12-73 1 -74 yes 1860 (269) 50 NPor

1 -74


Table 4.-Laboratory test results, undisturbed block samples

~

'Sample No. Example: 51Y (representative sample index number)43 (representative sample number)

7.1565(1-70)a ofR.cl_otiooo PHYSICAL PROPERTIES SUMMA~Y PLOT (Compaction)

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS

25HR 7HR TIME READINGS U.S.STANDAROSERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENING

16~MIN 15MIN 60MIN. 19MIN 4M.N I MIN -200 .'00 -so _40.}().'6 .10.a.4 5- t"

1103" 5"6" a;

90

80

TO

'"zen 60

-

'"~>-Z~ 40cr

'"Q.

'0

20

10

0001 002 005 .009 019 .037 074 .149 29742590 1.19 2.02.38 4.76 9.52

DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS

FINES ANDFINE M IUM AR FIN

2000

~ 1800,LLJ 1600

"Z~ 1400

~ 1200on

'"It: 1000Z0 800

>-C(600

cr>-LLJ 400Z

'"Q.

>~ 1

95

COMPACTION - PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVES

SAMPLE No~lY-51 HOLE NO. DEPTH FT(_m)

.. u.,;:. G","rll88nt PriDtina Offiee~ 1973-784.'32/1211 .-Ilon 8

10

20

'00

'"Z40 :«>-

'"'0cr>-Z

60'""cr

'"70 Q.

80

90

19.1 38.1

100

76.2 127152

AV COBBLESAOS

~ 140

"-~ 120,

'"~ 100..>-~ -80on

'"crZ 600

>-.. 40cr>-

'"Z 20

'"Q.

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL~GRADATION SUMMARY

3GRAVEL ~%SAND ~%FINES -_%

ATTERBERG LIMITSLIQUID LIMITPLASTICITY INDEXSHRINKAGE LIMIT

~%

==t=%SPECifiC GRAVITY

MINUS NO.4PLUS NO 4BULKAPPARENTABSORPT ION

~

~~%

COM PACTION

:oA~A6~;RD~~~I~;~OPTIMUMWATE~ CONT.~.,..PENETRATION RESISTANCE-PSI

(~kQ/em2)

nEu

"-E<>,

>>-onz

'"'"

PERMEABILITY SETTLEMENT

PLACEMENT GONDITION-GOEFOF PERMEABILlTY_FT/YR( em/sec)SETTLEMENT UNDER_PSI

LOAD~"'"(__k<;i/cm!)

NOTES

--- -----

-----.----------

- -- --------

----

----------------------

-

Figure g.-Physical properties summary plot (compaction), sample No. 51 Y-51.

15

lime. 3.2 percent by dry weight of the soil. wasadded to the dry soil. mixed. and enough waterwas added to bring the soil-lime mixture to amoisture content about five percent aboveoptimum. Then at O. 2. 8. 24. 48, and 72 hoursafter mixing, a sample of the soil-lime mixturewas taken and Proctor moisture density curvesand consistency limits were determined andcylinders prepared for unconfined compressivestrength tests.

Effect of Mellow Time onMoisture-density Curves

The moisture-density curves for the untreatedsoil and the soil-lime for the various mellow timesare shown on figure 10. The longer the soil-limemixture mellowed, the lower the maximumdensity and the higher the optimum moisture.The largest difference in maximum density andoptimum moisture occurred between the 2-hourand the 8-hour mellow time. After the 8-hourmellow-time, the change in maximum dry densityand optimum were perceptible but insignificant.

Effect of Mellow Time on Strength

Immediately after the maximum density hadbeen determined, three unconfined compressivestrength specimens were prepared at 95percent of the maximum density. The specimenswere cured for 28 days in a sealed plastic bagand then broken in a compression testingmachine. The averages of three specimens areplotted in figure 11 along with the maximumdensity for each of the mellow-time periods. Thestrengths of the cylinders are directly related tothe density of the strength cylinders.

To see if the mellow time had a direct influenceon the strength at 72 hours. mellow strengthspecimens were prepared at 95 percent ofmaximum density for the 2 hours rather thanmaximum density for the 7 2-hour test. Theaverage strength was slightly higher than the 2hours' strength specimens.

Effect of Mellow Time on Durability

Seven cylinders of the lime-treated soil weresubjected to three cycles of soaking and twocycles of drying. The cylinders were compactedto 95 percent of Proctor maximum dry density

for their particular mellow-time period. Six of thesamples represented mellowing times of 0, 2, 8.24. 48. and 72 hours. The seventh cylinder wasprepared from material which had mellowed 72hours. but was placed at 95 percent of themaximum dry density obtained for the 2-hourmellow time. The specimen density wasequivalent to 102 percent of its respectiveProctor maximum dry density. After the thirdsoaking cycle. six of the samples had materiallydisintegrated. The other. the 72-hour cylinderplaced at 95 percent of the 2-hour density.remained relatively intact. If the soil-limeconstruction material is placed at 95 percent ofthe maximum dry density for the respectivemellowing time. the areas of the canal prism thatare subject to wetting and drying action couldsuffer surface deterioration if not protected.

Effect of Mellow Time on SoilConsistency Values

The immediate effect of adding lime to a soil isto reduce the liquid limit and increase the plasticlimit. thus reducing the plasticity of the soil(reduction in the plasticity index). Soilconsistency tests (liquid limit. plastic limit. andshrinkage limit) were performed on the soil-limemixture at the same time the Proctormoisture-density curves were being performed.Table 5 shows these values plus the plasticityindex for the various mellow times along with thevalues for the untreated soil.

The 3.2 percent lime added to the soil reducedthe PI of the soil about 70 percent. There waslittle difference in the LL. PL. PI, or the SL for thesoil-lime mixture from 0- to 7 2-hour mellow time.The biggest change in the plasticity of the soiloccurs within a few minutes of mixing. Lettingthe soil mellow for a certain time period has noadvantage with respect to the plasticity of thesoil-lime mixture.

The specifications call for 100 percent of thematerial to pass the 19-mm (3/4-in) screen and60 percent to pass the No.4 screen. In thelaboratory tests the untreated soil was minusNO.4 material. After adding lime and water, 90percent of the soil-lime mixture passed the No.4screen and 100 percent passed with slight handpressure.

16

J

'"/600

E"'-0'>

-'"'I>-t--(/)ZW0

>-a:::0 /500

/70040(% voids)

Theoretical 100 %Saturation Curve

~

/400/6 22 24 26

MOISTURE CONTENT- PERCENT (%)

18 2820

Figure 1a.-Effect of mellow time on moisture-density curves of compacted soil-lime.

45 (% voids)

30

105

'"100 ;t:.............c

I

>-t--(/)

ZW0

95 >-a:::0

90

32

170U105

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY'"

'"VS.

'"100 ....

ar.IELLOW TIME >.-.....

>.-..... J.<..oJ.<be

Q""Q.>o:

§:.:§:.:a...

a... .,....rot......,...

95~~~~1500 ::It 01)

::It 01) QQ

90

14000 24 48 72

IolellowTime, hours

1800

50

UNCONFINED NCOMPRESSIVE STRENGTH c::~....

c:>.VS. -"'".>0: ..0

r.IELLOW THffi....

~,,:';J

1400be200

...c:: be01) c::

J.<01)

... J.<U) ...

U)01)

>01)

.... >en ....en en01) enJ.< 01)

!rJ.<

0. 150

!ru 0

1000 u

l0 24 48 72

Mellow Time, hours

Figure 11.-Effect of mellow time on strength of soil-lime compacted to 95 percent of laboratory maximum dry density.

Effect of Temperature on Soil-lime the moisture-density curve determination andthe consistency tests.

The soil and lime were cooled separately to atemperature of 2.2 °C (36 OF). Tapwater at atemperature of 25 °C (77 OF) was then mixedwith soil and lime. The temperature of themixture was about 27 °C (80 ° F) immediatelyafter mixing. The mixture was then placed in acooler for 24 hours. The temperature of thematerial was 5.6 °C (42 ° F) at the beginning of

Effect of Temperature on Moisture-density Curves

The compaction curve for the cool soil-limemixture is compared with the curves for theroom temperature mixture in figure 12. Themaximum dry density was 64 kg/m3 (4 Ib/ft3)

18

Condition Liquid Plastic Plasticity Shrinkagelimit limit index limit

Untreated soilsample 1 56.1 19.9 36.2 -sample 2 53.3 17.0 36.3 7.3

O.hrs mellow 47.7 34.8 12.9 28.32 hrs 42.8 31.4 11.4 30.98 hrs 40.4 33.2 7.2 31.624 hrs 41.8 31.1 10.7 30.948 hrs 42.6 32.3 10.3 30.072 hrs 40.9 31.9 9.0 30.4

Low temperature sample24 hrs 39.5 35.1 4.4 27.0

Table 5.-Lime stabilization study, soil consistency values

higher than the soil-lime mixture which hadmellowed 24 hours at room temperature. Theoptimum moisture content was 2 percent less.The cooler temperature apparently retards thechemical processes. Thus. cooler temperaturesduring the placement of soil-lime earthworkwould be an asset rather than a liability.

Effect of Temperature on Strength

The specimens for unconfined compressivestrength tests were prepared immediately afterthe compaction tests. The test specimens werecured for 7 days at 0 0 C (32 0 F). Half of thespecimens were then removed and cured atroom temperature. The strength tests wereperformed at the end of 28 days.

Even though their density was higher. thestrength of the cooled soil-lime was lower than

the soil-lime placed at room temperature. Thestrengths of the specimens cured for 7 days at0 0 C (32 0 F)and 21 days at room temperaturewere higher than the specimens cured at 0 0 Cfor 28 days. With a longer curing period atwarmer temperatures. the strength of soil-limeplaced during cool weather should be equal toor greater than soil-lime placed at warmtemperature.

Effect of Temperature on SoilConsistency Values

The consistency tests were performed at thesame time as the compaction tests. The PI of thecool soil-lime was 4.4 compared to 10.7 for thesoil-lime at room temperature for a 24-hourmellow time. The lower plasticity of the cooltemperature material would be an advantage forthe contractor during mixing and compactionoperations.

19

r<>

100 +-'+-"-.c

I>-

~45 (% voids) -Cf)zw0

95 >-0::0

N0

r<> /600E

........CT>

~I

>-~Cf)zw0

>-a:::0 /500

/400/6

/70040{% voids)

105

Theoretical 100 %Satu ration Curve

<>----"""..""""" ~,

24 h~ "P ~at

6° C 8 nf

90

/8 22

MOISTURE

322820 24 26

CONTENT - PERCENT (%)

30

Figure 12.-Effect of temperature on moisture-density curve of compacted soil-lime.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bureau of Reclamatio.. LaboratoryReports, Publications, and Specification

[1] "Laboratory Tests on Earth Materials,Friant-Kern Canal, Central Valley Project."No. EM-78, October 12, 1945.

[2] "Laboratory Tests on Sub-base Soils andFilter Materials for Under Drainage ofConcrete Lining, Station 71° to 1848,Friant-Kern Canal, Central Valley Project."No. EM-1O1, May 15, 1946.

[3] "Laboratory Tests on 'Adobe' Soils fromFriant-Kern, Delta-Mendota, and Contra-CostaCanals to Determine the Volume ChangeCharacteristics, Central Valley Project,"No. EM-128, February 24, 1947.

[4] "Laboratory Studies on Expansive Clays,Lindmore Irrigation District. Friant-KernDistribution System, Central Valley Pi'oject"No. EM-267, April 30, 1951.

[5] "Laboratory Studies on Samples ofExpansive Clays, High Level Reservoir,Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District,Friant-Kern Distribution System, Central ValleyProject" No. EM-285, December 29, 1951.

[6] "Laboratory Studies of Slide Materials,Sta. 3113 to 31 90, Friant-Kern Canal. CentralValley Project" No. EM-297, April 15, 1952.

[7] "Laboratory Studies of SOil Sa ~!e,Stations 1807+31,1807H31. 1BO} Ji!.3

°8 2 + 4 0, 3 0 8 5 -+-00. 3 (, B 8 i 1 0,

3318+70, and 4315+00, Fi!anH,trnCanal. Central Valley Project." ~,Io fM-:'j /2,April 8, 1954.

[8] "Laboratory Study of Electrochen'llcalTreatment of Expansive Clay Soils in theEmbankments and Subgrade of theFriant-Kern Canal, Central Valley ProJect.California," No. EM-391,September 27, 1955.

[9] "Laboratory Tests on TrerlCil BacklillMaterial, Lateral 137.2. Shafter-WascoIrrigation District. Friant-Kern DistributionSystem, Central Valley Project." No EM-443,December 30, 1955.

[1°] "Report on Studies for PI"obable SeepageLosses and Necessity for Lining of Fiiant-Kei"nCanal, Central Vallc,! Project." [\Jo. G-83.May 17, 1946.

[11] "Earth Manuai ..second editl n,

p. 453-465,1974.

[12] Specifications I\Jo DC-697O. F'lal-!t-i~l!l-ilCanal Rehabilitation Station 31121 75 toStation 3201 + 70 and Station 4330-r f16 ri6to Station 4349+06.49. Bureau ofReclamation. September 1972.

21

Sample, Location, Position Elevation,No. mile- on canal m (ft)

51Y- section

1 79.92 right slope 125 (411)2 79.92 right slope 126 (414)3 79.85 left slope 126 (412)5 79.94 right slope 126 (412)

APPENDIX A

Selection of Lime Content; 1970 Tests

In January 1970. four undisturbed blocksamples were received from the Friant-KernCanal for tests from which evaluation was madeof the lime treatment. The original locations ofthe blocks and the laboratory identificationnumbers are as follows:

A summary of the results of the consistencylimits. gradation analysis. specific gravity. naturalmoisture and density. and unconfinedcompressive strength tests are shown on tableA-1. In addition to this. unconfined compressivestrength tests were run on air-dried. soaked. andremolded samples. To determine the percentageof lime required. 2. 4. and 6 percent hydratedlime was added and the pH and consistencylimits determined for each mix. As a result ofthese tests. 4 percent hydrated lime wasrecommended.

Effect of Lime on ConsistencyLimits and pH Values

Different amounts of hydrated lime, 2, 4. and 6percent were added to the clay and theconsistency limits and pH of the mixture. Thesedata are shown on table A-2, and for samples51 Y-1 and -2 are plotted and shown on figure2 in the main text.

A 2-percent lime content appeared to besufficient. based on the pH values and thereduction in PI. However 4 percent hydratedlime was required to increase the shrinkage limitto about optimum moisture (placement moisture)of the mixture. Quicklime was not used for thesetests because only hydrated lime was beingconsidered for the project. However 3.2 percentquicklime is considered equivalent to 4 percenthydrated lime.

Unconfined Compression Tests

Four unconfined compression tests wereperformed on each sample as follows:

(a) One at natural moisture and density

(b) One at natural density but soaked for1 week

(c) One air-dried to approximate shrinkagelimit then soaked for 1 week

(d) One remolded sample placed at naturaldensity and moisture

In addition, material from sample No. 51 Y-2 wasmixed with 4 percent lime and five specimenswere prepared and tested as follows:

(a) One with 7-day cure

(b) One soaked for 7 days

(c) One air-dried to approximate shrinkagelimit. then soaked 7 days

(d) One with 28-day cure

(e) One cured for 7 days at 60 0 C (140 0 F)

The results are shown in table A-3. The strengthsat natural density and moisture ranged from 28to 158 kPa (4.0 to 22.9 Ib/in2) with an averageof 61 kPa (8.8 Ib/in2). Soaking the samples for 1week reduced the average strength to 22 kPa(3.2 Ib/in2) with a range of 15 to 30 kPa (2.1 to4.4 Ib/in2).

Air drying the specimens gave a range ofstrengths from 14 to 32 kPa (2.0 to 4.6 Ib/in2)with an average of 20 kPa (2.9 Ib/in2).Remolding the samples increased the strength.with a range of 46 to 123 kPa (6.6 to17.8 Ib/in2) for an average of 83 kPa(12.1 Ib/in2).

Adding 4 percent lime to the soil increased thestrength (based on the remolded specimen) from83 to 1480 kPa (12 to 214 Ib/in2) (7-day cure)

23

PROJECT rpntr~l V"lJ Py

IDENTIFICA TION

'"w110::IE:::>% c:w c: 0 c:...I 0'- 0.- ...D.. ...

'".;;

::IE'"

>'"~ci)~"LU 0...J

I--

51Y-

1 mile 79.92

I'.) 411

~2mile 79.92

~414}>aJ

mile 79.85r 3m

412

4 Imile 79.94412

FEATURE Fri.Ant-J{prn r."TI"J .1EET -.L OF

~PARTICLE-SIZE FRACTIONS CONSISTENCY i~INPERCENT LIMITS SPECIFIC GRAVITY I iNPLACE DENSITY !

...I FINES PLUS NO. ~! I' j

0 E E E 1P110 E- E E"'E

~;::IE ...E

"'E....- wE ~)(

~% E "E ":E. E

U" w !:: ~*~'"~E ... ?;-c E ... "'.... I- <> :!!% 0" -.... -" c:i >- ~I:rE ...

~'i ......; ~~-c- i ~...I I- % I- 'U)(T)0 I-E"

...1- % %

"...;= 0:> ."

I::; >- w

'"w 0

ViC'")c: ...

"'.,., :;::... 0-"' ;= Q),+- :;; c:-c 0 zi

fI- U

=>...I

'"~1$ Q--. .-

Q)~Wo c:ic:i <> U -c % => -c D.. .c 0'"...10 0

~F

'"110 D..

'"<>...... >-- ~§II. ...10 I- %% => ;= ~i D.. 0 >-

00 0-c .,.,

f0

'"-c

'" "'.-: u'" ::IE 0 ::;

'"110

'"-c <>-c

'"0 ...I ~-c...I 0 D..

U

--t---2.7" 11<;7 R"-.? 117ril!:ht CH .-§.? 30 -2..... - 66 40 9

-~-- --slone--

..- -120"- RO R 1? 0ri g!i!- --<:;'1:.1 66 29 5 - 68 41 7 2.7

sloDef------

--~1, ?<:;oleft CH 63 29 8 - 70 46 7 2.7 7Q ~'HI 7

slODe--t---- --+--- 1---- --- f--

ril!:ht CH 52 27---1- --21 - 57 37 8 2.7L 11/'43~ -90 1 "n ')--- ~----

slODe----1---

(j)

Imm~

1-

0.,.,

1-

Table A-1.-Summary of physical properties test results (in-place density) samples No. 51 Y-1 through 4

-- -----~-f---f

'--~

- --

f--

I

Sample Lime Liquid Plasticity Shrinkage pHNo., added, limit index limit value51Y- %

1 0 8.22 11.94 12.46 12.6

2 0 68 41 7 8.62 68 23 9 11.94 65 13 28 12.46 70 9 43 12.6

3 0 70 46 7 8.52 73 26 13 11.84 65 17 35 12.46 69 16 42 12.7

5 0 8.92 12.24 12.46 12.5

Table A-2.-Characteristics of treated samples.

and 1740 kPa (252 Ib/in2) (28-day cure).Soaking the soil-lime specimen for a weekresulted in a strength of 460 kPa (67 Ib/in2) andair drying for a week resulted in a strength of124 kPa (18 Ib/in2).

Table A-3 also shows the natural density andmoisture of samples cut from the undisturbedblocks and measured by the suspension in air andwater method, or Designation E-1 0, "EarthManual," (see Bibliography).

25

Initial specimen data UnconfinedAs prepared Wetted compression

Sample Specimen Moisture Degree of Moisture Degree of Axial Treatment

no., no. Drv density, content, saturation, Drv density, content, saturation, strain, StrenQth,

51Y- kg/m3 (lb/ft3) percent percent kg/m3 (lb/ft3) percent percent percent kPa (lb/in2)

1 1 1340 (83.7) 33.6 88 0.6 28 (4.1) Natural moisture

2 1355 (84.6) 33.4 89 1362 (85.0) 36.1 97 1.3 20 (2.9) Soaked 1 week

3 1373 (85.7) 34.0 - 1363 (85.1) 35.9 97 3.9 17 (2.5) Air-dried, then soaked 1

4 1333 (83.2) 33.3 86 4.9 92 (13.4) Remolded


2.

1317 (82.2) 32.5 82 1314 (82.0) 37.0 93 1.6 14 (2.1) Soaked 1 week


4 1296 (80.9) 32.3 79 4.1 72 (10.5) Remolded


2 1251 (78.1) 39.3 91 1266 (79.0) 41.2 98 2.0 22 (3.2) Soaked 1 week


4 1269 (79.2) 37.5 89 5.7 46 (6.6) Remolded


2 1413 (88.2) 31.2 90 1383 (86.3) 35.1 98 1.5 30 (4.4) Soaked 1 week


4 1469 (91.7) 28.1 89 5.6 123 (17.8) Remolded

12 1 1418 (88.5) 27.9 - 0.5 1477 (214.2) Humidity2

2 1410 (88.0) 28.8 84 1360 (84.9) 33.4 90 1.3 461 (66.8) Humidity,2 soaked3

3 1415 (88.3) 28.5 - 1362 (82.5) 35.6 91 3.6 122 (17.7) Humidity,2 air-dried, soa

4 1402 (87.5) 29.1 - 0.5 1740 (252.4) 28 days, 100% reI. humidi

5 1403 (87.6) 29.4 - 0.5 2826 (409.8) Sealed 7 days at 1400F

Table A-3.-Unconfined compressive strength of soil and soil-lime samples

I\.)

0>

wk.

wk.

wk.

wk.

ked3ty

1With four percent hydrated lime added.2Seven days in 100 percent relative humidity3Then one week soaked in water

IDENTI FICATlON >- iii: INITIAL SPECIMEN DATA TEST VALUES AT FAIL.~~% I- w WETTED URE, MAX (11 - (13) .- iiJ0 :> III AS PREPARED 01- -

"..J

~..J::I VC)",

"" III~,: .c ::;) .,. .,.

..J'; 0% 5 . -.ciii: .,. .,.w'" 0 0 .co % >-- ,,-' >-- IL <1('" .,. 1/1. ~~:?%"'VoJw !:!III

C) ~M W,OZ ~.... w. OZ !2 ~::i...... ~..... ..... % - E

"'~ - E ..~ :.:.iw,

oJ'IL::I V .. u 0 .. u 0 ::Iw::1::1 0"- "-w z"'" :>z w-

z"'":>z w- <l(Z iLl-- '" "'...<1(:> ..... <II <II ->- IL ::I w i ~w w~ w co ~w w~ ~.. u :>C> ;:c:C z"!". w......

"Z ..- > u :::'" ~~..<I( o~ ~~",<I( <1(:> ..... oJz0'"

""S~.c<II Q) 0 .c U U 0- Oz C>'" Oz C>'" ..J", .: 0<1( <1(" v::J..-...... ....:I ..J w w >-- ::10 w:> >-u ::10 w:> Il::: - >:z: ~V ILI--- "'::. o~ .. ... o~ u

"%1Ii:U)f':I v ... ... u u "-.. ::::.

SlY'" '"

0 <I( 0 <I(w... ::;)..... ..

1 mi I p 7(L <)7 ri "ht r.H 7 75 1 81.7 31 6 88 0 6 4. 1 IN".. mni,,"411 "Ion.. ') R4.6 33 4 89 85 0 36 1 97 1 3 2..9 1 T."'''~

3 85.7 34.0 85.1 35.9 97 i:t'-Dr "d. tmt 3.9 2.5 ISoak d 1 wee14 83.2 33.3 86 4 9 13,4

2 mile 79.92 rilZht CH 2.75 1 79.5 33.7 80 1 4 4.3 Nat. moist414 sloDe 2 82.2 32.5 82 82.0 37.0 93 1.6 2.1 Soak d 1 T.7..ek

3 80.6 32.5 78.7 40.3 94 i:t'-Dri :d then 4.8 2.0 ISoak d 1 T.7....k4 80.9 32.3 79 4.1 10 0; ,

3 mile 79.85 left CH 2.73 1 78.0 39.2 90 3.5 4.0 Nat. moist.412 slope 2 78.1 39.3 91 79.0 41.2 98 2.0 3.2 Soak d 1 week

3 79.8 37.7 79.5 46.4 97 i:t'-Dri !d then 4.8 2.5 Soak d 1 week4 79.2 37.5 89 5.7 6.6 Remo ded

5 miler79.9L; right CH 2.74 1 90.9 29.3 91 2.0 22.9 Nat. moist.-412 slope 2 88.2 31.2 90 86.3 35.1 98 1.5 4.4 Soak d 1 week

3 91.1 30.1 91. 5 31.0 98 i :t'-Dried then 2.4 4.6 Soak d 1 wee~-- 17.84 91.7 28.1 89 5.6 Remo ded

2 with 4% hv rated lime 1 88.5 27.9 davs 1: 0'. R.H. 0.5 14.2added 2 88.0 28.8 84 84.9 33.4 90 daY§1l Q7._R.H 1.3 66.8 Soak d 7 !IDcr~y~

3 88.3 28.5 82.5 35.6 91 7davsH 0% R.H. 3.6 17.7 m--Dried salked4 87.5 29.1 28daw 07, R. H. 0.5 752.45 87.6 29.4 7davs t 0.5 409.8

1400 Fseal d

"->J

Table A-4.-Summary of unconfined compression test results

PROJECT Friant-Kern Canal SHEET ~ OF-.Lr."ntr"l Vall"y FEATURE

~»(IJrm

(f)Imm~

I0

"

l

Sample Location Elevation, LimeNo., Station on canal m (ft) added,'51Y- section percent

43 3121+00 road 1324 (434.5) 3.328 m (93 ft)

right2 ofcenterline

44 3173+00 road 132.6 (435.0) 5.026 m (85 ft)

right

45 3187+00 road 132.3 (434.0) 4.027 m (88 ft)

right

46 4338+08 slope 126.8 (416.0) 4.012 m (40 ft)

right

47 3122+40 bottom 126.3 (414.5) unknown6 m (19 ft)

right

48 4331+25 bottom 122.2 (401.0) 4.03 m (10 ft)

left

49 3140+00 slope 126.5 (415.0) 4.012 m (38 ft)

right

APPENDIX B

Undisturbed Block Samples-1973

Seven undisturbed soil-lime block samples werereceived in February 1973 from the Friant-KernCanal rehabilitation construction site. Table B-1gives the original locations and laboratoryidentification numbers.

The following tests were performed on thesamples: density. moisture content, unconfinedcompression. percent lime content, wet-drydurability. and permeability.

The specimens for testing were obtained bycoring the undisturbed blocks with a 76-mm(3-in) diameter concrete core barrel. A summaryof the results are shown in table B-2.

Percent Lime Content

Material from each block and from sacks ofuntreated soil submitted with the blocks. weretested for percent CaO (table B-3) by the AppliedSciences Branch of the Division of GeneralResearch.

In-place Density and Moisture Content

Four specimens from each block were obtainedby coring; the diameters and lengths weremeasured. and the specimens weighted todetermine the in-place wet densities. Onespecimen from each block had the moisturedetermined after the specimen was tested inunconfined compression. Another moisturesample was taken from the excess material fromeach block. In addition. an initial moisture

Table B-1.-Soil-lime block samples No. 43 through 49-1973

'As estimated by project personnel.2Right-facing downstream

29

PROJECT Central Valley FEATURE Friant-Kern Canal Rehahi I i tation SHEET --L- OF-L-

IDENTIFICATIONPARTICLE-SIZE FRACTIONS CONSISTENCY

SPECIFIC GRAVITY INPLACE DENSITYIN PERCENT LIMITS

'" -' FINE~

-LP1PLUS NO.4

W 0'"

>,"' '"

+J I(

N

"' ~~~~E ~E "'E 0"; E E~~E '"

X::J >- >- ~~0

co 0 ~iN'2

(j

'"2 E

6~ :!~ ~~",'"W U

""U

'-'... E ...~ >- o :!(j)

>-0(j 2 J:E ~g if'

OM <lJ IW (j...; 0 0 ~~-. ~'

oN -,- :! ~-' E -0 ':':-0 >- 00 H-'

>- E g:!,.;~~Q. 0 +J oM >- 0

~;

-' >- W -.J <lJ <lJ "'M(jM ;:J

'-'~0"; co +J ... "'", 6 N"'t o. M. >-"

U~ ~(j<lJ (j<lJ.<:: 2 E <lJ'-'

+J (j

~+J > co U We0

I

g~ i ~, "...

''';2 -0 <::'''; > or! ~.u w.......

<==1"-' 00 <lJ-'0 U

'" "-'-(j)

~"-"M 4-1'1'"'10 "b()CO <lJ U ... -'6 >- ::J ....... OM'-'+J.--< 0 ...

'"

0 >- 2 o";~ -0 <:: (jOO (j00

(j>-.:.: ~..o 0

(j

CI)"" ....:i"' .~ <:> '" '"

U -0 0 000 000 <lJ'"

H..., ~0'"

~.... .(1-'" -'

... «"... 0

-'~<lJ U U<lJ U<lJ H

<==1 u

51¥- -'e '" '"

0 Q. 0. (jH (jH +J

U..,.,1 C> U CI) ::Oo. ::0 o.CI)

43 3121+00-------,---',r<:JacJ 2

434.5 ~3'2~t---._---,--

W ---- ---- ----

0 44 3173+00 road 26~------ (8~' f~C=435.0

--------- -----

-1 ---- -~:t> 45 3187+00 road 27(!J

---'-" --.--(88~--Rtr 434.0

m ------...----

------- -------'----- --.-_u_---

146 4338+08 slope 12-_u_-- (~Q'TiC-

-l

.416.0

47 3122+40 bottom '6 21 33 46- ------- - (l9'')Rt

-',-414.5

C/) 48 4331+25I -----m 401.0m-1

I

49 3140+00 5 1o~!~415.0 (38')r~gI1

0-- -----..---

'1 51 3122+40 untreated

I

.

Table B-2.-Summary of physical properties test results (in-place density) samples No. 41Y-43 through 51

2.6 3296- ----

478 1714-. ------

107-

_.2L .-

_4 2. U..3.l 164 .sa 32.-

3.6 24:34 353 1554. 92. XL

- ---3.8 1169 1.1.. 44

~. .--- ----

mec . di .N.P.2.82::

22R 320":=~;I=

£---:3. 1.29.3289 145.8.. - 9.1. .W

--- ~-- n- --

Sample Lime added1 Laboratory Effective

No. during test percent lime

51Y- construction, total CaG, (treated minus% % untreated),

%

43 3.3 6.2 2.6

44 5.0 7.8 4.245 4.0 7.2 3.646 4.0 7.4 3.847 unknown 6.6 3.048 4.0 6.5 2.949 4.0 5.9 2.351 untreated 3.6 -

Table B-3.-Percent lime content samples No. 43 through 49 and 51

I As estimated by project personnel.

content was back-calculated from data obtainedon specimens tested in unconfined compressionafter soaking for 7 days. The moistures anddensities for individual specimens and theaverage for each block is shown in table B-5, andsummary of those data in table B-4.

Table B-6 shows the densities and moisturecontents of the undisturbed blocks compared tonearby fill densities and moistures reported bythe project. The block densities and moisturescorrelate very well to the field in-place densitiesand moistures.

Unconfined Compression Tests

Two core specimens from each block weretested in unconfined compression. Onespecimen was tested at the natural moisture, andone specimen was soaked for 7 days beforetesting. The strengths appear to be related to thelength of the sample and the density, butapparently have no correlation with moisture orlime content. The specimens were divided intotwo groups according to their length, 152 mm(6 in) and 114 to 140 mm (4.5 to 5,5 in). TableB-7 shows the two groups along with theirstrengths, density, and moisture. Figure B-1shows the strengths of the specimens versustheir density, illustrating the correlation betweenstrength and density. The unconfinedcompression tests were conducted about 6months after construction.

Wet-dry Tests

The wet-dry durability tests were performedaccording to procedures established forsoil-cement. The samples were soaked for 7days, oven-dried at 71 0 C (160 0 F) for 42 hours,weighed and measured, soaked for 5 hours,weighed and measured; then back to the ovenfor 42 hours, and the process repeated. Threecycles of drying and wetting were completed. Asshown in table B-8, some of the specimens didnot survive the three cycles. With the exceptionof specimens from blocks 51 Y-44 and -49, thehigh-density, low-moisture samples were moredurable than the low-density, high-moisturespecimens. The specimens from blocks 51 Y-44and -49 had almost identical densities andmoistures, and the former crumbled duringtesting while the latter did not. The percent limehad no apparent effect on the differences inwet-dry durability since the lime content of51 Y-44 was twice that of 51 Y-49.

Figure B-2 shows sample No. 51 Y-45 after thesecond drying period as an example of a corethat remained intact. Figures B-3, B-4, and B-5show the progressive deterioration of sampleNo. 51 Y-48 through two drying cycles. FigureB-6 shows the shrinkage cracks in the clay ballspresent in specimen 51 Y-44.

It was apparent that the wet-dry durability testprocedures used for soil-cement were toostringent for lime-clay soils. The drying cycle wastoo severe and did not represent actual fieldconditions.

31

Sample Dry density, Moisture content,No., kg/m3 (lb/ft3) %

51Y-

43 1710 (107) 2144 1410 (88) 3245 1550 (97) 2746 1170 (73) 4447 1490 (93) 2948 1460 (74) 4449 1458 (91) 30

Table B-4.-ln-place density and moisture content samples No. 43 through 49

32

Table B-5.-Density and moisture contents for undisturbed soil-lime block samples, samples No. 51 Y-43 through 49-1973

Sample Specimen Wet density, Moisture Dry density,no., no. kg/m3 (lb/ft3) content, kg/m3 (lb/ft3) Test method

51Y- percent

43 21.51 2079 (129.8) Direct moisture determination2 2030 (126.7) 21.2 1676 (104.6) Density by measurement, direct moisture

determination3 2076 (129.6) 19.9 1732 (108.1) Density by measurement, moisture back

calculated4 2075 (129.5)

AVERAGE 2075 (128.9) 20.9 1703 (106.30 Density by measurement128.9 1708 (106.6) Dry density based on wet density1.209

44 29.3 Direct moisture determination1825 (113.9) 36.2 1339 (83.6) Density by measurement, direct moisture

determinationw 2 1877 (117.2) Density by measurement, direct moisturew

determination3 1871 (116.8) 31.7 1421 (88.7) Density by measurement, direct moisture

determination4 1882 (117.5) Density by measurement, direct moisture

determi nation

AVERAGE 1863 (116.3) 32.4 1379 (86.1) Density by measurement116.33 = 1408 (87.9) Dry density based on wet density1.324

45 27.6 Direct moisture determination1 1998 (124.7) Density by measurement2 1962 (122.5) Density by measurement3 1946 (121.5) 27.6 1525 (95.2) Density by measurement, moisture back

calculated4 1983 (123.8) 27.2 (97.3) Density by measurement, direct moisture

determi nation

AVERAGE 1972 (123.1) 27.4 1559 (96.3) Density by measurement123.14 = 1545 (96.6) Dry density based on wet density1.274

Table 8-5 Continued.-Density and moisture contents for undisturbed soil-lime block samples, samples No. 51 Y-43 through 49-1973

Sample Specimen Wet density, Moisture Dry density,no., no. kg/m3 (lb/ft3) content, kg/m3 (lb/ft3) Test method51Y- percent

46 45.3 Direct moisture determination43.8 Direct moisture determination

1664 (103.9) 45.0 1149 (71.7) Density by measurement, moisture backcalculated

2 1717 (107.2) Density by measurement3 1680 (104.9) Density by measurement4 1690 (105.5) 41.8 1192 (74.4) Density by measurement, direct moisture

determination

AVERAGE 1689 (105.4) 44.0 1169 (73.0) Density by measurement105.4 = 1173 (73.2) Dry density based on wet density

1.440

47 30.0 Direct moisture determination1894 (118.2) 29.2 1466 (91.5) Density by measurement, direct moisture

w determination.j:>. 2 1969 (122.9) 28.1 1536 (95.9) Density by measurement

3 1962 (122.5) Density by measurement4 1886 (117.7) Density by measurement

AVERAGE 1927 (120.3) 29.1 1501 (93.7) Density by measurement120.3 1493 (93.2) Dry density based on wet density1.291

48 43.5 Direct moisture determination44.8 Direct moisture determination

1719 (107.3) 45.0 1185 (74.0) Density by measurement directmoisture determination

2 1664 (103.9) Density by measurement3 1685 (105.2) 41.8 1189 (74.2) Density by measurement, direct

moisture determination4 1689 (105.4) Density by measurement

AVERAGE 1690 (105.5) 43.8 1187 (74.1) Density by measurement105.5 1176 (73.4) Dry density based on wet density1 .438

Sample Specimen Wet density, Moistureno., no. kg/m3 (lb/fP) content,

51Y- percent

49 30.61871 (116.8)

2 1895 (118.3) 30.03 1908 (119.1)4 1911 (119.3) 29.3

AVERAGE 1897 (118.4) 30.0

118.4

1.300

1458 (91.0)

1479 (92.3)

1469 (91.7)

1459 (91.1)

Table 8-5. Continued-Density and moisture contents for undisturbed soil-lime block samples, samples No. 51Y-43 through 49-1973

Dry density,

kg/m3 (Ib/fP) Test method

Direct moisture determinationDensity by measurement, moisture

back calculatedDensity by measurementDensity by measurementDensity by measurement, direct moisture

determination

Density by measurement

Dry density based on wet density

wU1

Sample Density Distance Location MoistureNo. test Station from in content,

51Y- identification' centerline2 canal Elevation Dry density, percentm (ft) prism m (ft) kg/m3 (Ib/fP)

43 3121+00 28 r (93) Road 132.4 (434.5) 1710 (107) 2111-22-A-1 3113+00 26 r (87) Road 133 (435) 1750 (109) 1611-22-A-2 3116+00 26 r (86) Road 133 (435) 1670 (104) 19

44 3173+00 26 r (85) Road 133 (435) 1410 (88) 3212-7-A-2 3171+00 28 r (92) Road 133 (435) 1360 (85) 35

45 3187+00 29 r (88) Road 132 (434) 1550 (97) 2712-7-A-1 3192+50 26 r (86) Road 133 (435) 1680 (105) 21

46 4338+08 12 r (40) Slope 127 (416) 1170 (73) 441-7-A-1 4337+05 11 r (35) Slope 127 (416) 1220 (76) 391-11-A-1 4338+75 11 r (35) Slope 125 (415) 1220 (76) 45

47 3122+40 6 r (19) Bottom 126 (415) 1490 (93) 2912-18-A-1 3120+00 1 r (3) Bottom 125 (415) 1810 (113) 3012-23-A-4 3120+00 8 r (25) Bottom 126 (415) 1710 (107) 20

48 4331+25 3 I (100) Bottom 122 (401) 1190 (74) 4412-23-A-1 4331+60 Bottom 122 (401) 1280 (80) 42

49 3140+00 12 r (38) Slope 126 (415) 1460 (91) 30

Table B-6.-Location of block samples and in-place field densities samples No. 51 Y-43 through 49-1973

W0>

'Data obtained from Construction (L-29) Progress Reports.2Distance as shown, (r) right or (I) left, from centerline

Sample No. Specimen Strength, Density, Moisture, Plotted in51Y- No. Soaked kPa (lb/in2) kg/m3 (lb/fP) percent Comments figure

B-1

152 mm (6-in) specimens

43 3 Yes 3300 (478) 1710 (106.6) 20.9 x44 3 Yes 1130 (164) 1410 (87.9) 32.4 x45 3 Yes 2430 (353) 1550 (96.6) 27.4 x45 3 No 1580 (229) 1560 (97.1) 27.6 Clay

inclusion47 1 Yes 2260 (328) 1500 (93.2) 29.1 Two pieces x49 2 Yes 1990 (289) 1460 (91.1) 30.0 x49 4 No 2250 (326) 1460 (91.1) 30.0 x

114- to 140-mm (4% to 5% in) specimens

44 1 No 3090 (448) 1410 (87.9) 32.4 x46 1 Yes 2560 (371) 1170 (73.2) 44.0 x47 2 No 1700 (247) 1490 (93.2) 29.1 Poor sample48 1 Yes 2070 (301) 1180 (73.4) 43.8 x

Table B-7.-Unconfined strength of core from block samples No. 51Y-43 through 49-1973

37

x"":400 Z

~l-

t:. cr.....::-V:.J.

'"'!-

~300 ..;-j =.

'"'z

I:z

2J~

4000

GIIc..

"'"

;:r::....:...')Zi&::0::I-<II)

3000

~.....II)VJ

~~u0~z.....;....z0uz;:.

2000 rI

~

1000

I70

DRY DENSITY - Ib/ft3

I I80 90

I100

t:.

0

1200 1400 1600

3JRY )ENSrTY - ~g/m

Figure B-l.-Compressive strength versus dry density relationships for soil-lime core specimens.

38

'OOr~

Table B-8.-Wet-dry durability tests, undisturbed soil-lime block samples No. 51 Y-43 through 49-1973 -- -

w = moisture content (O/O)

yd = dry density (unit weight)

Figure B-2.-So~l- l ime core (5 1 Y -45 core No. 1. tag No. 220 wet-dry after second d ry ing per iod ) af ter t w o wet-dry cycles Photo E-232 7-22NA

Sample no., 51 Y-

43 44

45 46

47 48

49

Figure 6-3.-Soil-lime core (5 1 Y-48 core No. 4 tag No. 230 wet-dry, after soaking 1 day) after 7 soaking days. Photo E-2327-9NA

Effective quick lime,

percent

2.6 4.2

3.6 3.8

3.0 2.9

2.3

Condition, (after three

wet-dry cycles)

good crumbled

cycle 2 good crumbled

cycle 2 good crumbled

cycle 2 good

Specimen'

w O/O

20.9 32.4

27.4 44.0

29.1 43.8

30.0

Y d

i;9/m3 (Ib/ft3)

1710 (106.6) 1410 (87.8)

1550 (96.6) 1170 (73.2)

1490 (93.2) 1180 (73.4)

1460 (91 . l )

F i g u r e 0 - 4 . - S o i l - l i m e c o r e (51 Y-48 (4) tag No. 230) wet-dry after first drying period, after 7 soaking days and 42 hours drying ( o n e w e t - d r y c y c l e ) . P h o t o E-2327-18NA

F i g u r e 0 - 6 . - S o i l - l i m e c o r e (51 Y-44 (2) tag No. 239) wet-dry, after first dry~ng period, after o m wet-dry cycle (see fig. 8-4). Photo E-2327-13NA

Figure 0-5.-Soil-lime core (51Y-48 (4) tag No. 230) wet-dry, after second drying period. after two wet-dry cycles (see fig 8-4). Photo E-2327-26

Block Eleva- Added Moisture Unconfined compressive Wet-No., Station Location tion, CaD Dry density content, strength dry51Y- m (ft) content, kg/m3 (lb/fP) percent kPa' (lb/in2) kPa2 (lb/in2) dura-

percent bility

43 3121+00 Road 132.4 (434.5) 2.6 1710 (107) 21 3300 (478) Good44 3173+00 Road 132.6 (435.0) 4.2 1410 (88) 32 1130 (164) 3090 (448) Poor45 3187+00 Road 132.2 (434.0) 3.6 1550 (97) 27 2430 (353) Good

1580 (229)46 4338+08 Slope 126.8 (416.0) 3.8 1170 (73) 44 2560 (371) Poor47 3122+40 Bottom 126.3 (414.5) 3.0 1490 (93) 29 2260 (328) 1700 (247) Good48 4331+25 Bottom 122.2 (401.0) 2.9 1190 (74) 44 2080 (301) Poor49 3140+00 Slope 126.5 (415.0) 2.3 1460 (91) 30 1990 (289) Good

2250 (326)

Table B-9.-Summary of test results, undisturbed soil-lime block samples No. 51 Y-43 through 49-1973

.j:>.

176-mm by 152-mm (3-in by 6-in) specimens.276-mm by 114-mm to 140-mm (3-in by 4%-in to 5%-in) specimens.

Sample Location Elevation Year LimeNo. Station on canal m (ft) placed added

51Y- section

54 3122+00 bottom 126.5 (415.0) 1973 yes5m(15ft)

Iright of centerline

55 3187+00 slope 128.0 (420.0) 1973 yes

12m (38ft)right of centerline

56 3162+50 34m (110ft) 133.5 (438.0) - noleft of centerline

57 3197+20 slope 128.9 (423.0) 1974 yes

14 m (46 ft)left of centerline

APPENDIX C

Undisturbed Block Samples-1974

In February 1974. four undisturbed blocksamples were received from the Friant-KernCanal Rehabilitation Project. The table belowgives the original locations and laboratoryidentification numbers:

The following tests have been run on the samplesand the results summarized in table C-2.

Consistency limitsGradation analysis

Moisture contentUnconfinedcompressionPercent lime contentSpecific gravity

Density

Coring to Obtain Test Specimens

As shown in figure C-1. a portable drill rig wasclamped to the front of a forklift and a 76-mm(3-in) diameter diamond bit core barrel was usedto core the undisturbed soil-lime blocks to obtainsamples for testing. The blocks were anchoredwith sandbags as shown in figure C-2. This wasa quick and simple method compared to handcutting specimens from the soil-lime blocks. Inthe poorer samples. recovery of intact core wasdifficult as shown in figure C-3. Obtaining a core

with the necessary 2 to 1. length to diameterratio. for unconfined compression testing was aproblem. However. in the better samples. it waspossible to get a core extending the depth of theblock as shown in figure C-4. Block 51 Y-54 isshown in figure C-5 after twenty-four 76- by152-mm (3- by 6-in) samples had been coredfrom this block. Test specimens from the blockwith no lime were obtained by hand cutting andtrimming.

Standard Properties

The untreated block sample was classified asCH. highly plastic clay. according to the UnifiedClassification System. The lime treated materialwould have been classified as either SM (siltysand) or ML (sandy silt). if it were treated as a soil;however. since it is a unique material. it will notbe classified according to the normal soilclassification procedures.

The physical properties are listed in table C-2.Two different methods. mechanical dispersionand air dispersion. were used in the gradationanalysis of the soil-lime mixture and the results(table C-1) vary considerably. one from the other.The mechanical dispersion breaks down theparticles more than does the air-dispersion

Table C-1.-Soil-lime block samples No. 51Y-54 through 57-1974

43

IDENTIFICATIONPARTICLE.SIZE FRACTIONS CONSISTENCY

SPECIFIC GRAVITY INPLACE DENSITYIN PERCENT LIMITS-

'"-I FINES

E E E >, PLUS NO. 4W 0

**

+JCD CD E- E E

"'EOM s

(N

~2E 2E

'"E ... E "'- ~E * x > 0 '"

g ~>, 0?;; .... E . E f- P-< 0°"

::> ~Z E ":E ~E W'"

+J U'"'

N MZ 0 ~« E 0... ~N ","" f- <> ! ~~-"u --- .,... +JZ 0.... -.... «~ ~.D >-W ~OM 0 :J:E

'" ;:<t ",.0 ! ~-I'"

<1)!: '"

<1) (u~-I 0 +J OM 0 f-E

"" .'" ~= -1- +J'"

.--{~'"

~;:j0... OM'"

+J ~"'",0

~-'f 0-

I-I >- W U ~~<1),.1:<1) ~('t") <1) +J ;j +J ~U)

2E « C Zz M' f- C> ~4!..c~+J >'"

We>~~<>

« OM 0 ;:: > w.e ~..... +J +J'"«

'"<1) u ~-10 0 cio

fu

"..... u ~OM oM>,", <>--.... -.. (J) <1) U).<1)

'"+J .--{ 0 II. -I' f- ZZ

~M::> ~OM ~U) """.-'Ib() 00 >,.D 0"

+J ~U)«0 !:! Z ~(J)~ >-- U) ~....:I'" '" f '"

it; u <1) 0 (J)

'"-"

~.--{ 0 ~0'"

~0 :::.... -I « <1) S u <1) OWQ)<> ~)':: 0 u« 0

81 -I :J: 0.. OM ~~uQ)'~ u51Y -I c ...'"

U) ....:I ~0.. ~~+JU ~=

--- t---------- --~-~-=r==

- --

bott;~-'1----- -- -~~

--.24 3122+00~--- 19- 2~ 60 3 lTle5J} disp. ~_.__.t-lhI'... 2.81 3. 1 !'iA'i 520 'i(\/;' ..91L 'HI 1973

0. 5 ') _R,l----=

1-----.-

415o_~~---

3 9 ..§2- 3 ~+disD

I-----.-.u_--- -- ~_._- 1------- -~ --I----11034 h.458 ql55- 3187+00 [o:s1 ~e__~ ~__n 21 ~.1L- ~8- _3- 1Tl"_~ ~i.sJ)- '-----

N.P. 2.82 1.0 150 31 I 1973-

420.0 8 ') Rt--.1-

10 80 3 aL~ ~i~----.-- -------c --------...-.. --- ..-

--- -- --- --.--..- ~-- r-46 --~.16 3162+00 ~!~a~ 3~111..__~ 66 23 11 0 71 8 2.84 _0 no 16 474 92 30438.0 ralo..'l_~

--. _u--- --- ---- ----~ ---- --- --- 1---'--

~u_--- _n- j- ------ -- -

_..~-- -----" -

.- ..--

~--- -iT r-3Z- ~--- --'-"--' ----0- -- -~-- --- 1---- --- '-- -- -- Qg 2f.57 3197+00 ~~--14ITL.- 49 2 mech. d~ N.P. 2.82 0.5 79;L JQQ f1-586 1974--.--- -- - - - - --.- --(46 'L!_el!. 5 13 80 2 air

~-- --~.--- --'- --_..__."-- -- ---- -- --- --~- 1------

---- I---~--- 1------------ !---- -- --- f----- I-- -- -- ~- --~-~ ~-

-.- 1------- ---- -- ---~ -- 1----- ------ ----- f---- --- -'---~- --- 1---.-- ----~- - I---~-- -

-- 1------ ----- -------- ---- ---.- ~------ !----- --- - ......---- -- -- -- -----

1--------- -~---~~ --- --- ------ -- --- -- 1----__n-

--- 1--- ---- !----- ---'."- -- f- -- --- ~~--~ 1----- ---- --- -- -----

!------- ---- --- - -- 1------

--~---- 1----- --- --- --.- --- ---- ----I-' ---- 1----- -- --- 1----- -------- --- ---

-- -- ~_..~----------- ---- ----- -- ----~ ----- 1--- ----- - -- ---- -

,.....--- ~~-- ~---- ---------. ~- -- ---- --- ----- -- -- - -~--- ---~- --- r-- --

-- ~- ----- 1---- --- t- ---- ----- ----- ~--- - --

I'---- I

..----- ---- t----

~~

Table C-2.-Summary of physical properties test results (in-place density) samples No. 51Y-54 through 57-1974

PROJECT r.entrR] VR]Jey Fri~nt-~prn C~n~l Rph~h;l;r~t;on SHEET L- OF-L-FEATURE

-I:J>IJJrm

C/JImm-I

I0"Tl

I

Figure C-I .-Undisturbed hand-cut block of soil-l~me be~ng cored t o o b t a i n s a m p l e s f o r l a b o r a t o r y t e s t l n g P h o t o P-2 14-3-77905

Figure C-2.-Soil-lime block anchored with sand bags for stab~lity during drilling. Photo P-214-D-77906

Figure C-3 . -Core samples f r o m hand-cu t b lock 5 1 Y - 5 5 , so i l - l ime. Pho to P-214-D-77907

F i g u r e C - 4 . - C o r e s a m p l e s f r o m hand-cut block 5 1 Y-57, soil-l ime. Photo P-214-D-77908

Figure C-5.-Soil-lime block 51 Y-54 after completion of coring to obta~n samples for laboratory testing. Photo P-2 1 4-D-77909

method. thus increasing the sand sizes about 50percent and the percent of fines about 300percent. Atterberg limits of the fine fraction ofthe material showed the fines to be non plastic.

In-place Density and Moisture Content

The specimens obtained from coring weremeasured (9 diameters and 3 lengths. for eachspecimen) and weighed to determine thedensities of the blocks. Some of the smallerpieces of core were used for moisturedeterminations only. In the cores which weresoaked prior to testing in unconfinedcompression. the final moisture content wasdetermined and the initial moisture contentback-calculated. In addition. densities of some ofthe pieces were determined by the"suspension-in-air-and-water" method. Whereboth methods were used on the same sample.the suspension method density was generally16 kg/m3 (1 Ib/ft3) higher than the density bymeasurement. The moistures and densities forindividual specimens and the average for eachblock is shown in tables C-3 through C-5.

The blocks were 254 mm (10 in) to 406 mm(16 in) deep. representing one compacted liftplacement which was 400-mm (1 4-in) averagedepth on the job. Since a sheepsfoot roller wasused which had shorter teeth than thecompacted thickness. the specimens weredivided into top and bottom categories to see ifthere were any differences in density ormoisture. The density and moisture wereuniform throughout blocks 51Y-54 and 51Y-57.Block 51 Y-5 5 showed some difference but therewere not enough samples to make a reliabledetermination. The center of block 51 Y-54 wasdefinitely less dense or stable than the top andbottom. and this was obvious during the coringoperation.

The densities and moistures are summarized(table C-6) with the densities adjusted for the16-kg/m3 (1-lb/ft3) higher value determined fromthe "suspension-in-air-and-water" method overthe density. determined from measurements ofthe specimens.

Percent Lime Content

Material from the top and bottom of each blocksample was tested by the Bureau WaterTreatment Section for percent CaO. and

compared with the percent CaO in a sample ofuntreated soil. The effective lime content equalsthe difference between that of the untreated andtreated soil. Sample 51 Y-54 (table C-7) shows2.7 to 3.5 percent or the expected amount ofeffective lime. Block samples obtained a yearago showed effective lime contents of 2.3 to 3.8percent with the average 3.2 percent.

Sample No. 51Y-55 from the 1972-73construction period. and sample No. 51 Y-5 7from the 1973-74 construction period showed0.2 to 1.2 percent effective lime content. Thelow lime content of these two samples is ofparticular concern because they are from thecanal side slopes where the greatest strength isneeded. Some consideration should be given toestablish a field determination of percent CaOcontent so the quality of the product can beassured during construction.

Unconfined Compression Strength

Five 76- by 1 52-mm (3- by 6-in) cylindricalspecimens from block 51 Y-54 were tested inunconfined compression. The strengths rangedfrom 2350 kPa (341 Ib/in2) to 4830 kPa(700 Ib/in2) with an average of 3560 kPa(516 Ib/in2) (table C-8). Three 76- by 102-mm (3-by 4-in) specimens from this block had strengthsthat ranged from 3170 to 4210 kPa (460 to610 Ib/in2) with an average of 3590 kPa(520 Ib/in2). There was one 76- by 152-mm (3-by 6-in) specimen tested from block 51 Y-55 witha strength of 870 kPa (126 Ib/in2). Three 76- by102-mm (3- by 4-in) specimens from this blockhad strengths that ranged from 700 to1510 kPa (102 to 219 Ib/in2). with an averageof 1150 kPa (166 Ib/in2). The strengths of five76- by 15 2-mm (3- by 6-in) specimens fromblock 51 Y-5 7 ranged from 1630 to 2040 kPa(236 to 296 Ib/in2). with an average of1860 kPa (269 Ib/in2). Three 76- by 102-mm (3-by 4-in) specimens from this block had strengthsthat ranged from 1450 to 2060 kPa (210 to2981b/in2) for an average of 1820 kPa(264 Ib/in2).

Five specimens were hand cut from the block ofuntreated soil. 51 Y-56. and tested in unconfinedcompression. The strengths ranged from 100 to120 kPa (14 to 18 Ib/in2). with an average of110 kPa (16 Ib/in2).

48

Specimen Wet density, Moisture Dry density, LocationNo. kg/m3 (lb/ft3) content, kg/m3 (1b/ft3) in block

percent

Moisture 330.5 TopMoisture 330.8 TopMoisture 330.7 Top1-A1 '1918 (119.7) 330.1 1474 (92.0) Top

21953 (121.9) 330.1 1501 (93.7) Top1-B1 '1932 (120.6) 430.3 1483 (92.6) Top1-C1 '1946 (121.5) Top1-D1 '1950 (121.7) 430.3 1496 (93.4) Top2-A1 '1945 (121.4) 429.7 1498 (93.5) Top2-B1 '1935 (120.8) Top2-C1 '1974 (123.2) Top2-D1 '1977 (123.4) Top3-A1 '1934 (120.7)

I

Top3-B1 '1945 (121.4) Top3-C1 '1940 (121.1) 430.1 1491 (93.1) Top3-D1 '1938 (121.0)4-A1 '1932 (120.6) Top4-B1 '1951 (121.8) TopAverage '1945 (121.4) 30.3 1488 (92.9) Top

30.1 1501 (93.7)

Dry density based on average wet densityand moisture = 1493 kg/m3 (93.2 Ib/ft3)

4-C1 '1980 (123.6) Center

Moisture 331.9 BottomMoisture 330.0 BottomMoisture 333.7 Bottom1-A2 1890 (118.0) Bottom

1-B2 '2007 (125.3) I Bottom1-C2 '1910 (119.2) Bottom1-D2 '2043 (127.5) Bottom2-A2 '1985 (123.9) 425.6 1580 (98.6) Bottom2-B2 '1908 (119.1) 430.8 1459 (91.1) Bottom2-C2 1919 (119.8) Bottom2-D2 1908 (119.1) Bottom3-A2 1954 (122.0) Bottom3-B2 1928 (120.4) Bottom3-C2 1938 (121.0) 431.4 1475 (92.) Bottom3-D2 1928 (120.4) Bottom4-B2 I 1917 (119.7) 431.5 1458 (91.0) BottomAverage 1942 (121.2) 30.7 1493 (93.2)

Dry density based on average wet densityand moisture = 1485 kg/m3 (92.7 Ib/ft3)

Table C-3.-Density and moisture content, undisturbed soil-lime block samples, sample No. 51Y-54

'Density determined from measurements.2Density determined by suspension in air and water.3Moisture content measured.4Moisture content calculated.

49

Specimen Wet density, Moisture Dry density, LocationNo. kg/m3 (lb/ft3) content, kg/m3 (lb/ft3) in block

percent

Moisture I 336.3 TopMoisture 333.4 TopMoisture 331.6 TopDensity 21892 (118.1) 330.9 1445 (90.2) Top1-B1 11836 (114.6) Top2-A1 11858 (116.0) 431.1 1417 (88.5) Top2-C1 11831 (114.3) 433.9 1367 (85.3) Top3-A1 11892 (118.1) 429.4 1463 (91.3) Top3-C1 1815 (113.3) TopAverage 11847 (115.3) 32.4 1415 (88.4)

30.9 1445 (90.2)

Dry density based on average wet density andmoisture content = 1395 kg/m3 (87.1 Ib/ft3)

2-A2 11777 (110.9) Center2-B2 11748 (109.1) CenterAverage 1762 (110.0)

Moisture 328.3 I BottomMoisture 329.0 BottomMoisture (120.0) 332.1 Bottom1-B2 11922 (120.0) Bottom2-B3 11936 (120.8) 328.9 1501 (93.7) Bottom

328.9 1522 (95.0) Bottom2-C2 11924 (120.1) Bottom3-A2 11862 (116.2) 431.0 1421 (88.7) Bottom3-B1 11860 (116.1)

I

BottomAverage 11900 (118.6) 29.9 1461 (91.2)

28.9 1522 (95.0)

Dry density based on average wet density andmoisture content = 1463 kg/m3 (91.3 Ib/ft3)

Speci men Moisture Dry density, LocationNo. content, kg/m3 (lb/ft3) in block

percent

1-B 330.2 1480 (92.4) Top1-C 329.5 1490 (93.0) Top2-A1 329.6 1503 (93.8) Top

2-A2 329.6 1461 (91.2) Bottom2-C2 331.1 1440 (89.9) BottomAverage 330.0 1474 (92.0)

Table C-4.-Density and moisture content, undistUrbed soil-lime block samples, sample No. 51 Y-55

sample no. SlY-56 (no lime)

1 Density determined from measurements.

2Density determined by suspension in air and water.3Moisture content measured.4Moisture content calculated.

50

Specimen Wet density, Moisture Dry density, LocationNo. kg/m3 (lb/fP) content, kg/m3 (Ib/fP) in block

percent-.-.-- --.--.-.-- ...------ ---

Moisture 324.8 TopMoisture 326.8 TopMoisture 326.0 Top2-A1 325.5 1557 (97.2) Top2-B1 325.7 1559 (97.3) Top2-C1 11970 (123.0) 425.9 1565 (97.7) Top3-B1 11977 (123.4) 425.9 1572 (98.1) TopAverage 11974 (123.2) 25.8 1568 (97.9)

1557 (97.2)

'--_._'-~

3-A1 11975 (123.3) Center3-C1 11966 (122.7) 325.4 1567 (97.8) Center

325.4 1576 (98.4) CenterAverage 11971 (123.0) 25.4 1567 (97.8)

1576 (98.4)

---Moisture 327.0 BottomMoisture 26.2 BottomMoisture 330.5 Bottom1-A1 11967 (122.8) 425.9 1562 (97.5) Bottom1-B1 11956 (122.1) 426.4 1548 (96.6) Bottom1-C1 11969 (122.9) 426.2 1560 (97.4) Bottom2-A2 11967 (122.8) Bottom2-B2 11970 (123.0) 425.6 1568 (97.9) Bottom2-C2 11967 (122.7) 426.1 1559 (97.3) Bottom3-B2 11972 (123,1) 426,5 1559 (97.3) Bottom3-C2 11954 (122.0) 325,6 1556 (97.1) Bottom

325.6 1567 (97.8)Average 11966 (122,7) 26.6 1559 (97,3)

Dry density based on average wet density andmoisture content = 1552 kg/m3 (96,9 Ib/fP)

1Density determined from measurements.2Density determined from suspension in air and water.3Moisture content measured.4Moisture content calculated.

-Sample Dry density, Moisture content,

No" kg/m3 (lb/fP) percent Material51Y-

54 1510 (94) 30 soil-lime55 1460 (91) 31 soil-lime56 1470 (92) 30 soil57 1590 (99) 26 soil-lime

Table C-5 Density and moisture content, undi<:f," bed soil-lime block samr/es, sample No, 51Y-57

Table C-6.-Summary of dry densities and moisture content, samples No. 51 Y-54 through 57

51

'- -.' ,,-~

-,-~." '_., M'._-

Table C..T--Percent lime content

---'~ "---'---

i'J\).51Y

'--<' '-'r----I CaO content"I oercentI .

Effective CaOcontent,percent

7.16.3

4.34.84

IiI!

--i

i!

~" '?! ,~-

54-.-..----'-_0 "-~ ,--"-,--~

55

(bottom)(top)

(bottom)(center)(top)

(bottom)(top)

untreated

'j[

51.. ~ , ,,-,-_.~ ,.--<., ,.-

as fY;fcentage of soil weight.

3.52.7

cn

4.43.8

3.6

(.' ,'~

0.2

Table C-8.-Strength relationship to percent lime content, samples No. 54 through 57

--~s~::';;~F -k~~J:~-=--=r Ef~~~;:n:;~--T-s~;"PI;;SO"~----

---5E-- .- + --~~1

.

'

.

'

1

..

;~~f I---~~f-.

----

I-~~

.

~..

..:

.

::-:;~:~ i~;

.

.

.

:;

__JL1_--,l;&_J~: _l. ~--~ __~~ii!~~"".O~19(4__-

Block 51 Y-54 was a companion sample to onesubmitted a ear ago. 51 Y-4 7, which wasobtained after construction, to compare theincrease in strength over a year's curing period.which is shown to be (tab!e C-9) over 50 percent

The strength of sa.mples from the 1972-73construction period were dependent on thedensity of he sample. Those samples with

comparable densities are listed ble (.." 0)along with the spec;rnens from the 1973through '1974 constrc,,;i'on period.

The lower strengths cf samples NO.5'j Y-55 and51 Y-5 7 are obviotJsiv due to t!Wir low limE!contenT However, eV8(i/vith as !it1!eas 0.5 to1.0 percent effective iirne. the strength of thematerial was at least eight times greater than theuntreated soil.

Tabie C-9 Strength relationship to curing time, samples No. 51y.. . £,nd 54

--'Sample~

1

Stati~~--

1' Locati~n-~i;~ I C~~:,,:g--r==~~~--~'~;--

.

g;!~

.

~~--=-

~~~-= ~~;-~t~~~ J -_:_~~'--- __K_:~-~~~lr;2~<..-47 I 22140 bottom' 414.5 I 1 month (328)

_54_J_:'2:~- ~~~

It)

---=o_J_-=-- _7;;:~;~-

52

Sample Effective Dry

i"':.' Cbi) Gnntent, d~nsity,51'(- (~fo

kg/m3 (lb/ft3)

44 .4rj

1410 (88)"'£b

49 (2) 2" 1460 (91).049 (4) 2.3 1460 (91)55 1.0 1460 (91)

n,c u; \550 (97)-.-.,)

4/ '.0 .i90 (93)54 3 1510 (94)

43 2.(; 1rlO (107)57 0.5 1590 (99)

Table C-10.--Strength relationship to dry density, samples No. 51Y-44, 49, 55, 45, 47, 54 43 and 57.

---Stre':l..[~ri..

kPa (Ib/ili}

1130 (164)1990 (289)2250 (326)1030 (150)

2430 (3532260 (3283590 (520

3300 (478;1

53

Construction; ,J:.;::nod,I year 19-1 --------------

I

72 thru 73, 72 thru 73I f2 thru "l3

,) thru -'4

t~d 1.\

tllJU 74

i 1"2 thru 7:3

J- -

__thru_!~__-

CPo 844 - 364

, ,..""""""'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' , """,""""""""""""""""""""""'"........-

ABSTRACT ABSTRACT

Since construction in the late 1940's. the Friant-Kern Canal has experiencedcracking. sliding. and sloughing of the side slopes in areas of expansive claysin both the concrete-lined and earth-lined portions. In the early 1970's. Bureauof Reclamation designers decided to remove portions of the canal lining. flattenthe slopes. and reline the canal using a compacted soil-lime mixture in anattempt to stabilize the slopes. The project added 4 percent (based on dry soilweight) granular quicklime to the soil. Laboratory tests on the compactedsoil-lime mixture showed that (1) soil-lime was about 20 times stronger than theuntreated clay. (2) the strength of the soil-lime increases with time. (3) theplasticity index of the natural soil was reduced from 40 to 10 or less afteradding the lime. and (4) the compressive strength of the soil-lime wasdependent on the compacted density.

Since conSTruction in U1e iate 1940's. the Fr:an! !.'''i'r, Carlal hoS experlell:>:cracking. sliding. and sioughing of the side slopes In areas of expansve claysIn both the concrete-lined and earth-lined portions. in the early 1970's. Duree:of Reclamation designers decided to remove portions of the canal lining. fiatt:the slopes. and reline the canal using a compacted soil-lime mixture inattempt to stabilize the slopes. The project added 4 percent (based on dryweight) granular quicklime to the soil. Laboratory tests on the compactc'"soil-lime mixture showed that (1) soil-lime was about 20 times stronger thanuntreated clay. (2) the strength of the soil-lime increases with time. (3}iplasticity index of the natural soil was reduced from 40 to 10 or less <Feadding the lime. and (4) the compressive strength of the soil-lime

"dependent on the compacted density,

"""",,,,,,,,,,""""""""""""""""""""",,"""""""""""""'"'''''''''''''''''''''',."..,..

"""""""""""""""""""""'"''''''''''""""""""""""'""...,

ABSTRACT ABSTRAC'-

Since construction in the late 1940's. the Friant-Kern Canal has experiencedcracking. sliding. and sloughing of the side slopes in areas of expansive claysin both the concrete-lined and earth-lined portions. In the early 1970's. Bureauof Reclamation designers decided to remove portions of the canal lining. flattenthe slopes. and reline' the canal using a compacted soil-lime mixture in analtemat to stabilize the slopes. The project added 4 percent (based on dry soilweight) granular quicklime to the soil. Laboratory tests on the compactedsoil-lime mixture showed that (1) soil-lime was about 20 times stronger than theuntreateo clay. (2) the strength of the soil-lime increases with time. (3) theplasticity Index of the natural soil was reduced from 40 to 10 or less afteradding tile lime. and (4) the compressive strength of the soil-lime wasdependent on the compacted density,

Since "inns:' uel10n In the fate 1940's. the Fna','-i-.err.Cana: "'as f-'>:Der!G~"crBck;n~. slicing. ane sloughing of tne side slopes In areas oj exp;;r'Siup CC

I:"!both the concrete-linea and earth-lined portjon~_, tIle ::;drh: 19 C's r~;u'Of Rec!amation des;~J'~\crs dec/deo to remove portions ~he CEinE-:! iir\in9 flaithe slopes. and reline the canal uSing a compacted sCIl-llme [0:X1urio Ina,t~'npt to stabilize tne slopes The prOject added 4 percent (basec or cry s(weight) granular qUlck!!me to the SOIl. Laboratory tests on the cornpacl8

S'Jil-llme rnlx1U'8 Showea that '1.1 so'i."me was aDaut 20 limes strangei' trr"runFeal~c1 ciay, (2} tr1e strength of the soil-lime Increases with time (3,plasticity Index of tne natural sOli was reduced lion! 40 to 10 or le:,;s' 3

addln" the iime, and (4) the compressive strer1gth 0' rh" s,""ii'n'j V'dependent on the camoactec density

REC-ERC-76-20How3rd, A. K., Bara. J. P.LIME STABiLIZATION ON FRIANT-KERN CANALOur neciam Rep REC-ERC-76-20. Dlv Gen lies,ileclamatlon, Denver, 53 p, 23 fig, 28 tab

Dee '1873. 8ureau of

REC-ERC-76-20i-ioward, A. K., Bara, J. P.UME STi\BILIZATION ON FRIANT-KERN CAN.'\;.Bur !lee lam f1ep REC-ERC 76-20, Oiv Ger~ ResFk:wmatlon, Denver, 53 p, 23 fig, 28 tab

G 8u feat of

DESCH!PTORS-! compaction tests! compressive strength! "soil stab:lization/limlts/ soil mechanics! soil propertles/ "Iime.soil fLixtiHOSS/sloe,,;

s!a'JI!!l:,)'!;.";/ Proctor curves! in-place density/ sOii tests/ :ab:)r,>tory kSI','iICdn,:il linings/ cCJnai construction/ soil plasticitV/ 'temperature/ t,expansive

,~Iays/ "sods/IDU'; 'WIERS--! Central Valley Project! Friant-ICem Canal, Caiif

DESCRIPTORS-/ compaction tests! compressive strength/ :;0:1..;1ablilzat!:JniAtt8't;erg limits! soil rnechanics! soli properties/ 'lime-so.! mixtures/ s!"tJes,aO: ::Jtion/ Proctor curves! in-place denSlty/ soii tests/ laboratory t8"'.3'

cana: construction! soil plastlclty/ temperature/ "expiJi',,\![!"'501IS/

Cen~ra, Valley Project! Friant-Kern Canal. Calif.

HlC-f.:F!C--7 6--:'~O ri!:::C-ERC--76..20/\.~' sara, J. P.

,~g!1 Ii.> liON ON FRIANT-KERN CANALIsm i:up REC-ERC-76-20, Div Gen Res. Dee 1,n

Fkc<".:ction, L\)!1ver, 53 p, 23 fig, 28 tab

;"-jo\v.:yd_,r.., K., Bara, ?

t3drcnI\M: ;'7' A81L1ZA liON 01\1 Ff1IAt'HKERN C,,o,N\:

Rep REC-ERC-76-20 Div Ger nes OE<~HeCii.n:at:o[l, Denvei', 53 p, 23 fig, .28 tab

JlJ r,?;~,'

r";~

i ()riS-/ compaction tests! compressive strengH1! "so" s,a;),'17,'illnit", soil mechanics! soil properties/ .'ime-so'l nw<!!,,-;,/ ,;101)':

PiQctor curves! in-place density! soil tests/ :8l)()(.Y'):\f :dsls/""lflgS! ,~anal construction! soil plasticity! temperature/ 'e,qJiH1SiVe

"soils/Central Valley Project! Friant-Kern Canal. Calif.

:JESCR!P ;')(:S"./ :;Dr::peicti:Jn -;esrs/ conlpreS~"\ :'-"f:(;d;/~

,';1 -;10.:)j!i:-:a,i'(i;L;,/ sa:! i'T1:;ct-:Dnics./ sod proper

'Y~:,--lL~(0S/ S: ;)8

Pi'OClO~ G~HV8S/ in-place denslt'.,' '.i?~!!S/ ;;-)C;C2t')ry tG.:<',s/

"c[;:lal Ijriing~J (;":ii1al ;,:onstructlon/ soil piaSl!Clty/ LCH11peraiu!(;, f'ax:~~;'3n.j:ve

:!=iVS/ "S01IS/ERS-/ Cent,'j: VaHey Project! Friant-Kern Cara!, Cn:ii

Bureau of Reclamation December · portions of the canal lining, flatten the slopes, and reline the...

Documents

Transcript of Bureau of Reclamation December · portions of the canal lining, flatten the slopes, and reline the...