TECHNICAL NOTE COMPACTION CONTROL OF GRANULAR FILL USED IN REINFORCED FILL WALLS

J. K. Murfitt(1), Billy Siu(2) and Robert B. S. Choy(3)

ABSTRACT
The 1992 Hong Kong General Specification applicable for compaction control at the Route 8 Shatin Height Tunnels Contract commencement in 2001 required the use of standard Proctor tests originally intended for more cohesive soils and using relatively light (compared to todays standards) compaction equipment. Almost 1200 compaction test results were compared against each of (i) standard Proctor tests, (ii) modified Proctor tests and (iii) BS1377 vibrating hammer tests. This paper reviews the appropriateness of test methods available for the selected fill imported for the Shatin Height Tunnels reinforced fill walls. Preliminary results suggest that BS1377 vibrating hammer and to a lesser extent modified Proctor tests may be more applicable baseline test methods for the granular material placed behind reinforced fill wall fill materials than standard Proctor tests. Key subject area : Geotechnical Key words : Reinforced fill walls, compaction control, granular fill, relative density, relative compaction, moisture content, Proctor tests, vibrating hammer tests.

__________________________________________________________ 1

Resident Engineer (Geotechnical), Maunsell Consultants Asia Ltd. e-mail : jksmurf@netvigator.com 2 Assistant Resident Engineer (Geotechnical). Maunsell Consultants Asia Ltd. e-mail : bwlsiu@gmail.com 3 Engineer, Civil Engineering and Development Department, Government of HKSAR. e-mail : bschoy@cedd.gov.hk

INTRODUCTION
The use of permanent reinforced fill walls has become more widespread throughout Hong Kong in recent years and many have now been incorporated into large rail and road infrastructure projects. Five reinforced fill walls were constructed for the Route 8 Shatin Heights Tunnels (SHT) project, varying from approx. 90m to 158m in length and from 6.5m to 18m in height. Compaction control during backfilling was limited to standard Proctor relative compaction (RC) tests and moisture content (m/c) controls. While relative compaction failures (using standard Proctor compactive efforts as the baseline) were relatively few and were immediately rectified, a large proportion of results exceeded 100% RC, indicating a mismatch in field vs. laboratory compactive efforts and resultant densities. A pattern of dry-side failures also emerged in the moisture control comparisons, with field moisture contents just outside the -3% lower bound limit of the allowable +/-3% range. Compaction is a relatively simple and universally wide-spread engineering concept, however the fundamentals are sometimes overlooked. This paper reviews compaction requirements for granular backfill materials, the appropriateness of the current tests and discusses whether the failed m/c results in the SHT reinforced fill wall compaction tests may have been better controlled using more applicable baseline test methods.

BACKGROUND
The compaction acceptance criteria and testing methods for reinforced fill walls in the SHT project The Hong Kong de-facto code for reinforced fill walls is Geoguide 6 (2002) Guide to Reinforced Fill Structure and Slope Design published by the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO), hereinafter referred to as Geoguide 6. The model specification for reinforced fill structures and slopes is included in Appendix A of Geoguide 6, in which: Cl. A.30 (5) requires the in-situ dry density of the compacted fill material at least 95% of its maximum dry density (MDD) during deposition, and Cl. A31 (1) states the moisture contents (m/c) of the fill material shall be within the range 3% of optimum moisture content (OMC) during compaction. Geoguide 6 does not specifically state the test method (e.g. standard or modified Proctor) that is to be used to define the maximum dry density and the OMC. Unless otherwise specified in Contract documents, the compaction requirements in the Hong Kong General Specification for Civil Engineering Works (HKGS) shall be followed. The 1992 version of the GS, Cl. 6.62, required tests to be performed to GEO Report no. 36 (Chen 1996) section 4.3.3 or 4.3.4, for determination of the MDD and OMC of the fill material. The tests in GEO Report no. 36 section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 specify only a standard Proctor (2.5 kg rammer) test. However HKGS corrigendum No. 3/2003 (Dec 2003) now references GEOSPEC 3, The Model Specification for Soil Testing which Permits the use of both 2.5kg (standard) and 4.5kg (heavy) Proctor rammers.

The SHT reinforced fill wall compaction test results Sand replacement tests (SRTs) were carried out to determine the in-situ dry density of the fill material (selected fill) compacted in the SHT reinforced fill walls. These are compared with the

MDD (determined from the standard Proctor test) and the relative compaction percentages of the samples are subsequently calculated. The OMC for each sample is also determined by the standard Proctor test. The results of the SRTs are presented in the histograms in Figures 1 and 2. A total of 44% of the relative compaction results exceed 100% relative compaction. Only 5% of m/c results are "wetter" than the OMC (and of these, there are none in the "wet" range 2%~3%, 1% in the wet range 1%~2% and 4% in the wet range 0%~1%). However a significant 8% of the m/c results were observed to fall outside the 3% of OMC range and these are all on the dry side of the curve.

The m/c dry failures In the authors experience, queries often made in the field is whether the requirement that the m/c range of 3% of the OMC could be relaxed in view of the RC having achieve the minimum 95% relative compaction requirement. Of the results reviewed, a very high proportion (44%) of the tests performed has achieved a RC in excess of 100% indicating a possible mismatch between laboratory and field compactive efforts. This study was initiated by this observation. A review of previous studies was carried out, followed by a program of alternative tests for the determination of the MDD, in order to determine reasons behind these observations and suggest a way for the results to be reliably interpreted. The authors believe the question is raised in many projects involving earth filling works control with granular fills and is not restricted to fills used in reinforced fill walls.

DISCUSSION OF THE STANDARD PROCTOR (2.5 KG RAMMER) TEST RESULTS

Compactive effort Compaction tests on soil tested at various compactive efforts generally produce a family of MDD/OMC curves which have a locus of optimums parallel to the saturation line (zero air voids line) (Lambe & Whitman 1979). As shown in Figure 5, as compactive effort increases, the OMC decreases i.e. increasing compactive effort shifts the OMC/MDD curves up and left, to a denser MDD and dryer OMC. Since the introduction of the standard (2.5 kg rammer) Proctor test, development of increasingly heavier compaction equipment has significantly improved soil compaction efficiency. It is therefore not surprising to observe that the in-situ dry density of the selected fill following compaction on site exceeded the MDD (i.e. RC>100%) determined from the standard Proctor test in 44% of the cases reviewed. The greater field compactive efforts results in a denser material with lower water content than laboratory results suggest it should have, with the MDD/OMC curve effectively shifting up (denser soil) and left (drier soil). These observations are not new; Lambe & Whitman (1979) published test results after Turnbull (1950) that illustrate the difficulty of choosing a laboratory test that reproduces a given field compaction procedure. As the soil is now drier, any attempt to subsequently wet the soil to perform compaction at a water content equivalent to the OMC determined by the standard Proctor tests, in order to comply with both RC and MC specifications, effectively results in a soil on the wet side of the higher (i.e. shifted) OMC/MDD curve, resulting in a corresponding drop in density. During field trials conducted for the sole purpose of achieving the (laboratory) OMC, sponginess of the fill surface during vibratory rolling was observed on site. A similar

observation was recorded in fine sandy soils by Arcement & Wright (2001) who note that addition of water to achieve OMC results in corresponding lower densities than had material been compacted at moisture contents dry of OMC. Note however that Arcement & Wrights (2001) study to produce recommended compaction specification for cohesionless sands was largely conducted on poorly graded sands, whereas RE wall fills tested in this study fall within the bounds of a well-graded fill.

Particle size distribution (PSD) of the fill materials As the particle size of the compacted material plays an important role in its compaction behaviour, the laboratory and field tests appropriate to material types with reducing fines content is discussed briefly below. This study focuses primarily on the relatively cohesionless soils used predominately in reinforced fill wall backfills. Fill Classification A comprehensive three-phase embankment study carried out by the IOWA Dept. of Transportation (1998, 1999, 2002) regarding the effect of the PSD of soil on compaction (testing) method was reviewed. The IOWA study concludes that: Soils with 0~15% fines are best compacted (and tested) with vibratory compaction equipment and tested using tests for relative density (Dr). Soils with >23% fines are best compacted (and tested) with standard compaction equipment and test equipment (standard Proctor Tests). For so-called intergrade soils with 15%~23% fines, a transition in effective compaction and test methods, between vibratory and impact equipment, was observed. Cohesionless soils can be effectively densified or compacted by vibratory rollers but there are many cohesionless intergrade soils with a high fines content (15~36%) for which the effect of proper compaction equipment is not obvious. The relative density (Dr) relates the actual or in-situ void ratio (einsitu) to the maximum (emax) and minimum (emin) void ratios achievable (Lambe & Whitman, 1979) and is expressed mathematically as: e einsitu Dr = max x 100% emax emin According to the IOWA study, the test equipment and appropriate test methods are dependent on the classification of the material into either cohesive or cohesionless fill. A clear definition of what constitutes cohesionless soil is found in very few texts, however the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Field Manual (1992), offers the following Cohesionless soils have no more than 5% fines or if classified SM (5~15% fines) are cohesionless only if the fines are nonplastic. The Texas Dept of Transportation (TxDOT) testing manual Tex-114-E defines cohesionless fill as 100% passing a 9.5-mm sieve, 50% passing a 4.75-mm sieve, 25% passing a 75-mm sieve and with a SW SP classification (using the Unified Soil Classification System). Cohesionless Fill The studies and USACE design manuals referred to above that were reviewed generally agree that technically, relative density (Dr), rather than RC tests are the most appropriate for compaction control of cohesionless soils. The main conclusions on compaction criteria arising from a limited literature review can be summarised as follows:

The study conducted by the Florida Dept. of Transportation (2005) concludes that neither the standard (2.5kg hammer) nor the modified ((4.5kg hammer) Proctor test are the most applicable tests for cohesionless soils, as the Proctor tests (modified and standard) are impact tests (whereas the action of a vibratory roller causes densification by shaking as well as due to its mass). This agrees with conclusions reached by the Parsons et al. (2002), the Dept. for Transport (2002) and Gue and Liew (2001). The 3 phase study conducted by the IOWA Dept. of Transportation (1998, 1999, 2002) observes that for cohesionless material, Dr >85% should be used as the compaction criteria, with no portion < 80%. This agrees with the US Army Training Manual (1983) conclusions. Excessive settlements can occur in granular soils when standard Proctors alone are used as the compaction control as reported by Prochaska et al (2005). Construction specifications of the Reinforced Earth Company (2000) note that Dr tests should be used if >30% of the material exceeds 19mm i.e. coarse grained. Proctor tests on granular materials do not yield well-defined values of OMC and MDD, USACE (2004). This agrees with the Florida Dept. of Transportation (2004) recommendations, which also recommends that changes are needed in the construction specifications to coincide with the technological advances of the industry (p.17). Although there is a strong preference not to use Proctor (or other impact) tests, with Dr criteria being suggested as a technically more appropriate test method for cohesionless soils, there are recorded problems with unreliability of the test methods for determination of the minimum density (ASTM D-4524 in the United States) needed to calculate relative density results, as discussed in USACE (2000a, 2000b), i.e. the relative density is difficult to determine, as noted by Wright et al (2002). SHT Selected Fill PSD results Geoguide 6 tabulates two grading envelopes (Table 1) for selected fill used in the backfill of reinforced fill walls, namely Type I and Type II selected fill. Figure 3 shows the actual grading curves for the selected fills delivered to the site. The fill grading lies entirely within the Type II grading envelope and also within most of the Type I grading envelope. The SHT selected fill results shows fines content (silts and clays passing the 63 micron sieve) is in the range of 11~15% with an average around 12%. The BSCS Soil Classification System, Table 20, Geoguide 3 (1988), defines the SHT selected fill material as GM and SM and it does not fall into the classification of cohesionless material according to USACE (1992) Field Manual as the fines are not non-plastic. The liquid limit (LL) of the SHT selected fill is around 35% which according to the BS5930:1981 definition places it on the border of a Low/Intermediate Plasticity material on the Plasticity Classification Chart. (Figure 4). The MDD/OMC curves constructed from the SHT results are also typical of cohesive material i.e. pointed, not flat or inverted, as cohesionless materials commonly exhibit (U.S. Army South Regulation, 2001). The conclusion of the three-phase embankment study carried out by the IOWA Dept. of Transportation (1998, 1999, 2002), thus suggests the SHT selected fill should be compacted (and tested) with vibratory compaction equipment. A series of graphs were also constructed to determine if there is any one component or ratio of the fill grading which clearly defines the fills ability to achieve higher MDD's. The 2.5kg proctor MDD values were plotted vs. %Gravel, %Sand, %Fines, % Clays, %Coarse Fraction, % Fine Sand, Plasticity Index, Coefficient of Uniformity, Sand/Gravel ratio, (Sand+Fines)/Gravel Ratio, Fines/(Sand+Gravel). These plots indicated a slight trend of higher MDDs being achieved when the proportion of fine sand and fines (silt and clay) increases, although there is a lot of scatter in the data and this may simply be a reflection of the variability of results using this type of test on granular material. None of the remaining plots exhibited a

clearly defined trend and are hence not presented here. Wright et al. (2002) who observed no correlation between MDD results particle size distributions in their tests although note that MDD decreased with increasing proportions of fine sand. Particle Breakage Section 3.2.4 of Civil Engineering and Development Department (Geotechnical Engineering Office) Ground Investigation Note no. 1/2006 notes that for compaction tests using saprolitic, residual and colluvial soils, the fill should be assumed to be susceptible to crushing unless it can be shown otherwise. No tests were specifically conducted as part of this review to evaluate the relative contribution of changes in density due to particle crush in comparison to densification due to the different compactive efforts of each test method. Arcement & Wright (2001) conclude that particle breakage is generally not significant for weathered quartz sands while conversely, Hammer (2005) reports significant particle crushing during modified Proctor testing on fine sands of sedimentary origin (limestone and sandstone). Prochaska et al (2005) reported negligible particle breakage on sands using the BS 1377 vibrating hammer test. Crushing within the fill material on site is considered less problematic than in the laboratory as a particle of a given size experiences a lower breakage potential in a well graded sand than in a uniform (poorly graded) sand. This is because in a well-graded sand there are a greater number of inter-particle contacts, with a resultant lower load per contact than in a poorly graded sand (Lambe & Whitman, 1979), Pradhan (2004). Future test programs should include pre and post compaction particle size distribution measurements, along with an assessment of grain morphology (angularity & shape) and material composition to determine the influence of particle crush on resultant laboratory densities for various material grading profiles.

ALTERNATIVE BASELINE DENSITY TESTS FOR DETERMINATION OF MDD/OMC

To test the validity of the assumption that a more appropriate laboratory test should be used, i.e. one that mirrors site compactive efforts, 8 numbers each of the following two test types were conducted for the SHT selected fill sampled. modified Proctor (4.5 kg rammer) tests BS 1377 vibrating hammer tests The new baseline tests should theoretically push the peak of the MDD/OMC curve up (higher MDD) and left (lower OMC) of the originally standard Proctor test curves and should place both of the actual MDD and m/c results in a more realistic and indeed more correct range for the compactive effort on site. One MDD/OMC curve from each of the compaction tests (standard, modified Proctor test and the BS 1377 vibrating hammer test) are presented in Figure 5. These 3 curves were chosen from tests using samples with pre-test PSD grading curves as close as possible to each other. As expected, the peak of a typical MDD/OMC curve is higher (denser) and shifted left (lower OMC) than the 2.5kg Proctor curve, for both alternative tests. Arcement & Wright (2001) report that the energy imparted to the soil by the BS 1377 vibrating hammer test curve is greater than twice that of the standard maximum index density procedure of ASTM D4253 and considerably higher than that of a modified Proctor test. However the more effective method is also dependent on the soil type, with more fines and more plastic fines decreasing densities obtained using vibratory test methods (Arcement & Wright (2001)). This study place the BS 1377 vibrating hammer results between the 2.5 and 4.5kg Proctor curves, with the 4.5kg test achieving higher densities and lower mean OMCs than both other tests.

Figure 6a and 6b show the results for each of the two alternative tests. Theoretical RC and m/c curves are generated by comparing the MDD/OMC from the new test baselines against all previous in-situ dry density test results carried out in the SHT reinforced fill walls. Note that this assumes that the material tested for the new baselines is representative of the material in the wall. This is considered to be a valid assumption as the selected fill is a manufactured fill i.e. it is relatively uniform as indicated in Figure 3. As the results from each set of 4 tests are similar, the average OMC and MDD have been used as the new baselines.

modified Proctor (4.5 kg rammer) tests result In addition to the observation that there is a significant increase (as expected) in average MDD achieved using the 4.5kg rammer, the resultsof the frequency histograms for the modified Proctor tests show a clear shift of the RC results to lower values, such that there are considerably fewer results >100% RC (only 2%, from the original 44% overall). The distribution of the m/c is also shifted such that the majority of the results now on the wet side of the OMC and there is a much more even distribution of results about the OMC However at the low end of the RC histogram (i.e. <95% RC), quite a large percentage (45%) of the RC results now fall below the 95% range. These results may indicate that : The compactive effort of the 4.5kg rammer is too high compared with the compactive effort used on site (especially for site tests taken close to face panels where hand rammers were used) or If the site compactive effort is approximately equivalent to that provided by a 4.5kg rammer, then the fill material has not achieved 95% relative compaction assuming the modified Proctor test is the new baseline. Some other mechanism taking place during the test (such as particle crushing) markedly influences the densities of the resultant compacted material.

BS 1377 vibrating hammer tests result Although the average MDD achieved using the BS1377 vibrating hammer test is lower than that from the modified Proctor test, there is also an observed increase in density compared to the standard Proctor test. The results of the frequency histogram for the vibrating hammer shows a clear shift of the RC results to lower RC values, such that there are considerably fewer results >100% RC (only 5%, from the original 44% overall). The distribution of the m/c of the samples is shifted such that the median is approximately at the OMC, with slightly more m/c results on the wet side of the OMC. At the low end of the RC histogram, fewer (18%) of the RC results fall below the 95% range than for the modified Proctor tests. For the limited trials conducted in this review, the BS1377 vibrating hammer is thus considered to result in a baseline that more closely reflects the field compactive efforts. These results indicate that: The BS1377 vibrating hammer is a more appropriate baseline test for the selected fill material in the SHT reinforced fill walls and; As overall 18% of the RC results still fail, if the site compactive effort is equivalent to that provided by a vibrating hammer then the fill material has not achieved 95% relative compaction with the vibrating hammer as the baseline. For this material, the BS 1377 vibrating hammer test is considered to be a more applicable baseline then the modified Proctor test as it would produce more evenly distributed m/c results about the OMC, while the compactive effort more closely matches site compaction (lower

degree of non-compliance with the 95% RC requirement when compared with the modified Proctor test results). Discussion of the alternative baseline tests result Proctor (impact) tests which mirror the compaction process of impact equipment are most commonly used to determine the MDD of cohesive soils. However as noted in a Univ. of Kansas study (Parsons et al. 2002), for cohesive soils, the larger compactive efforts exerted by modern compaction equipment requires a shift in definition of this test from standard to modified Proctor tests. The ASTM D 4523 test is another dynamic test used for maximum density determination employing a vibrating hammer. The BS 1377 vibrating hammer test is referred to positively in several publications, Dept. for Transport (2002), Prochaska et al (2005), Wright et al (2002), that review the currently unreliable performance of test methods ASTM D 4253 and ASTM D 4254. The BS 1377 vibrating hammer test, is not without its limitations; Prochaska et al (2005) recommend the test is limited to soils with plastic fines content <15% and non-plastic fines <35% and Arcement & Wright (2001) caution that they found it difficult to perform and to maintain a constant, consistent compactive effort. The large increase in RC failures with <95% arising from both alternative baseline tests in this study is not altogether unexpected. This may have occurred if, in an attempt to reduce the frequency of moisture content failures, the fill material was either: Possibly over-watered to compensate for dry side failures, thereby reducing compaction efficiency, or; Compacted with only just sufficient compactive effort in order to ensure the m/c of the samples were not adversely affected, but 95% RC (to a 2.5kg Proctor baseline) was achieved. If this was the case, this would result in insufficient densification to achieve the required relative compaction when compared against the new baseline only. The more even distribution of m/c results about the OMC, and the overall reduction in the total number of m/c failures for both test types and the number of RC >100% (significant 44% to 2.1% and 4.7% for modified Proctor and BS 1377 vibrating hammer test respectively) both indicate a baseline test with compactive effort closer to equipment being used on site is more appropriate. Adopting the alternative baseline would result in a significant number of theoretical failed RC results that would need to be rectified. In the current study, this is clearly not a practical alternative as a Contractor would only apply sufficient compactive effort to achieve a RC of 95% against the standard Proctor test baseline.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPACTION REINFORCED FILL WALL IN HONG KONG

CONTROL

OF

As discussed above, one drawback of using the standard Proctor tests is that the m/c of the selected fill samples may fall outside the acceptable OMC 3% range, while fulfilling the RC requirement. Some practitioners argue that the m/c control limits should be relaxed and the logic behind this argument is simply that the standard Proctor tests have in the past resulted in acceptable performance, where acceptable is assumed to be little or acceptable settlement due to the backfill (not foundation material) or little or no face deformation of the wall due to mesh pullout. This is not however considered a satisfactory argument, as if appropriate baseline tests are specified and the test properly performed there is no need to relax the specification criteria.

GS Cl. 6.75 of the current draft version of GS (2006) refers users to Geospec 3 (2004) test method 10.1 to 10.8 (for the methods of testing for the determination of MDD and OMC), which now include both the standard Proctor (2.5 kg rammer) and the modified Proctor (4.5 kg rammer) tests. Although the GS includes BS 1377 as a reference standard, the BS 1377 vibrating hammer test is not referred to directly, nor is it a current Geospec 3 test. There is however scope for including the BS1377 vibrating hammer test as a RC baseline test via particular specifications or contract drawings, provided that this is specified in conjunction with an appropriate material grading and field trials on material delivered to site demonstrate that the test method is applicable. While this paper reviews compaction controls of the SHT selected fill material, which is strictly classified as cohesive according to the USACE (1992) definition for cohesionless material, the Geoguide 6 Type I and II selected fill grading falls within an envelope where it may also classified as cohesionless, given the low percentage of fines that are permitted in the grading envelopes (0-10% for Type I and 0-45% for Type II) and both can be non-plastic (refer Table I). Therefore, even though the GS does not include relative density (Dr) testing in controlling compaction, practitioners drafting compaction control particular specifications could also include relative density testing for specific soil types and specify the BS1377 vibrating hammer as the test for maximum index density, as an alternative to ASTM D4253. A rigorous test programme would however be required before relative density (Dr) can be reliably used in place of relative compaction. Compaction field trials using actual compaction equipment and soil to be compacted are already recommended for suitability of compaction, however the test methods themselves could also be trialled, in order to allow one of the 2 or 3 tests appropriate to that material and plant to be specifically chosen and agreed by the Engineer on site.

Conclusions The test methods in current Hong Kong General Specifications for compaction control of reinforced earth walls are more appropriate to the fill material used and compactive efforts applied than available at the time of commencement of the works at the RE Walls on the project reviewed. Field trials of not only the ability to adequately compact fill materials but of the compaction test types applicable to that material grading are strongly recommended. The BS1377 vibrating hammer test and to a lesser extent the modified Proctor test results in a baseline that more closely reflects the field compactive efforts of the granular soil reviewed in this particular study. This study serves as a reminder of the limitations and pitfalls of all compaction control methods. It is hoped the results will foster a better understanding between Contractors and site supervisory staff and improve local practice. More research into testing of reinforced fill wall backfills, for a range of particle size distributions and investigating the results of the various test methods discussed in this paper is needed.

Acknowledgements China State China Railway Joint Venture (CSCRJV) assistance with sampling and testing, VSL (HK Ltd.) and Maunsell-Aecom Ltd technical input, and the useful comments by the reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.

References: Arcement, B.J., & Wright, S.G. (2001), Evaluation of Laboratory Compaction Procedures for Specification of Densities for Compacting Fine Sands, Federal Highway Administration research report FHWA/TX-02/1874-1. Chen, P.Y.M., GEO Report No.36, methods of test for Soils in Hong Kong for Civil Engineering Purposes (Phase I Tests), Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department. Hong Kong (1996) Dept. for Transport, Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways, 2nd Edition. London Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC). The Stationery Office Books (pubs). U.K. (2002) Florida Department of Transportation, Soils and Foundations Handbook. U.S. (2004) Florida Dept. of Transportation Report, Laboratory simulation of field compaction characteristics, Phase I & II dated Mar 2003. U.S. (2005) Geoguide 3, Guide to Rock and Soil Descriptions. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering & Development Department. Hong Kong (1998) Geoguide 6, Guide to Reinforced Fill Structure and Slope Design. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering & Development Department. Hong Kong (2002) Geospec 3, Model Specification for Soil Testing. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering & Development Department. Hong Kong (2004) Gue, S.S., and Liew, S.S., Fill compaction and its consequences of non-compliance. Conference Technology CONTEC-2001. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Malaysia (2001) Hammer, K.P. (2005) Analysis of Crushing of Granular Bases in Pennsylvania Highways, MSc Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 2005 Hong Kong Government, General Specification for Civil Engineering Works, 1992 Edition. Hong Kong (1992) Hong Kong Government, General Specification for Civil Engineering Works, 2006 Edition. Hong Kong (2006) IOWA Dept. of Transportation Report TR-401, Embankment Quality Phase I. U.S. (1998) IOWA Dept. of Transportation Report TR-401, Embankment Quality Phase II. U.S. (1999) IOWA Dept. of Transportation Report TR-401, Embankment Quality Phase III. U.S. (2002) Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V., Soil Mechanics SI version, ,John Wiley & Sons, New York, SI Version (1979) Parsons, R.L., Foster, D.H., & Cross, S.A., Compaction and Settlement of Existing Embankments. Kansas Department of Transportation. U.S. (2002) Pradhan, B., (2004) Study of Pullout Behaviour of Soil Nails in Completely Decomposed Granite Fill, MSc Thesis, University of Hong Kong, 2004. Prochaska, A.B., Drnevich, V.P., Kim, D., & Sommer, K., A vibrating hammer compaction Test for Granular Soils and Dense Graded Aggregates, TRB Annual Meeting. U.S. (2005) Reinforced Earth Company - Construction Quality control Procedures Manual Concrete Facings Large Panels (2000) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Field Manual FM5-410, Military Soils Engineering. U.S. (1992) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Architectural and Engineering Instructions Manual (AEIM). Southwestern Division. U.S. (2000a) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-1913, Engineering and Design - Design and Construction of Levees. Department of the Army, USACE. U.S. (2000b) U.S. Army South Regulation 415-4. Design Criteria and General Construction Specifications. U.S. Army. U.S. (2001) Texas Dept. of Transportation, Test Procedures for Soils and Aggregates Manual Tex-114-E (2/2005), Laboratory Compaction Characteristics and Moisture-Density Relationship of Subgrade, Embankment Soils, and Backfill Material

Wright, S.G., Archement, B.J., & Marx, E.R., Recommended Compaction Requirements for Placement of Uniform Fine Sand Backfill Materials. Centre for Transportation Research. (2002)

Standard Proctor (2.5 kg rammer) Test

Dry Side

OMC

Wet Side
600 500

Frequency

400 300 200 100 0

-6.50%-5.50%-4.50%-3.50%-2.50%-1.50%-0.50%0.50% 1.50% 2.50% Difference (%)

Figure 1 Frequency histograms of m/c for the SHT selected fill with standard Proctor (2.5 kg rammer) tests as baseline

Standard Proctor (2.5 kg rammer) Test

100% RC NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE 450 400 350 Frequency 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 90.5% 91.5% 92.5% 93.5% 94.5% 95.5% 96.5% 97.5% 98.5% 99.5% 100.5% 101.5% 102.5%

RC %

Figure 2 Frequency histograms of relative compaction for the SHT selected fill with standard Proctor (2.5 kg rammer) tests as baseline

Figure 3 PSD grading curves for the SHT selected fill and the Geoguide 6 Type I and II selected fill

Figure 4 SHT Selected Fill Data. LL and PI results from finer part (average approx. 20%~31% passing the 425micron BS Sieve) of the overall grading.

Overlay of Results of Proctor Test for 2.5kg rammer, 4.5kg rammer and BS 1377 vibrating hammer 2.18 2.14
Dry Density (Mg/m^3)
4.5kg rammer Proctor test 2.5kg rammer Proctor test BS 1377 vibrating hammer test

2.10 2.06 2.02 1.98 1.94 1.90 3 5 7

Moisture Content (%)

11

13

Figure 5 MDD/OMC curves for different compaction tests on SHT selected fill

Modified Proctor (4.5 kg rammer) Test

Dry Side OMC Wet Side
600 500 Frequency 400 300 200 100 0
-6.5% -5.5% -4.5% -3.5% -2.5% -1.5% -0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 2.5% 5.5% 3.50% 4.50% 6.50% 7.50% 8.5% 9.50% 10.50%

Difference (%)

Modified Proctor (4.5 kg rammer) Test

100% RC NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE 450 400 350 Frequency 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 88.5% 90.5% 92.5% 94.5% 96.5% 98.5% 100.5% 102.5%

RC %
Figure 6a Frequency histograms of m/c and RC for the SHT selected fill with modified Proctor (4.5 kg rammer) tests as baseline

BS 1377 Vibrating Hammer Test Dry Side OMC Wet Side

600 500 Frequency 400 300 200 100 0
-6.5% -5.5% -4.5% -3.5% -2.5% -1.5% -0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 2.5% 5.5% 3.50% 4.50% 6.50% 7.50% 8.5% 10.50% 9.50%

Difference (%)

BS 1377 Vibrating Hammer Test

100% RC NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE 450 400 350 Frequency 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 88.5% 90.5% 92.5% 94.5% 96.5% 98.5% 100.5% 102.5%

RC %
Figure 6b Frequency histograms of m/c and RC for the SHT selected fill with BS 1377 vibrating hammer tests as baseline

Table 1

Geoguide 6 grading requirements for selected fill Type I Selected Fill 150 25-100 10-100 0-10 5 Not Applicable Not Applicable Type II Selected Fill 150 10-100 0-45 0-10 5 45 20

Maximum Size (mm) % Passing 10mm BS Sieve Size % Passing 600micron BS Sieve Size % Passing 63micron BS Sieve Size % Smaller than 2microns Coefficient of Uniformity Liquid Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%)