tpk72
Civil/Environmental
- Jul 3, 2006
- 18
I have a geotechncial investigation report for a berm construction project in which the following is included:
*boring logs w/ blow counts
*index testing
* Unconfined compressive tests on in-situ foundation density
*standard and modified compaction
*hydraulic conductivity tests on in-situ foundation material
*in situ density tests
Note: On-site clay will be used to construct the berms. Since the berms are low-consequence, and will not be subjected to a hydraulic head, we are looking at reduced compaction efforts at the insitu moisture content. In-situ water content ranges from 9 - 19%, and the optimum for standard compaction is ~10 - 11%.
Here's my question: I have decent data to establish the shear strength of the foundation, but no triaxials done on the compacted clay. In-situ clay is described as stiff to med stiff. Is it a decent assumption to use the same cohesion as the in-situ foundation material?
*boring logs w/ blow counts
*index testing
* Unconfined compressive tests on in-situ foundation density
*standard and modified compaction
*hydraulic conductivity tests on in-situ foundation material
*in situ density tests
Note: On-site clay will be used to construct the berms. Since the berms are low-consequence, and will not be subjected to a hydraulic head, we are looking at reduced compaction efforts at the insitu moisture content. In-situ water content ranges from 9 - 19%, and the optimum for standard compaction is ~10 - 11%.
Here's my question: I have decent data to establish the shear strength of the foundation, but no triaxials done on the compacted clay. In-situ clay is described as stiff to med stiff. Is it a decent assumption to use the same cohesion as the in-situ foundation material?