Glenn DeGroot

Engineering and Research Center

Bureau of Reclamation

May 1971
MS-230 (8-70)
Bureau of Reclamation
I C A L R E P O R T STANDARD TITLE PAGl

Soil-Cement Slope Protection on

Bureau of Reclarnation Features

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

R E P O R T NO.
Glenn DeGroot REC-ERC-71-20
9. PERFORMING 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.

C
Engineering and Research Center
Bureau of Reclamation 11. C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NO.
Denver, Colorado 80225
PE O F R E P O R T A N D PERIOD
CbVERED
12. SPONSORING A G E N C Y NAME A N D ADDRESS--
- 1
I Same
14. S P O h S O R I N G A G E N C Y C O D E

IS. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NOTES
JUL 25 1977 1
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado
16. A B S T R A C T

A summary of Bureau ot Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection is presented. Compacted
soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureau structures. Preconstruction testing,
construction equipment and procedures, construction control testing for soil-cement, and performance of
soil-cement facings are discussed. Successful performance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in
eastern Colorado was used as the basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength
test results limits established by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau
have been fine, silty sands; a summary of test results i s presented. The soil-cement is: ( 1 ) mixed in a
continuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with a combination of
sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edge of the lifts results in a stairstep
pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken at most features show low weight losses.
Performance of soil-cement facings in service has been generally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has
occurred at a few locations on Cheney Dam in Kansas. Has 17 references.

- 17. K E Y WORDS A N D DOCUMENT A N A L Y S I S

a. DESCRIPTORS--/ *soil cement/ *slope protection/ *erosion control/ sands/ gradation1soil compaction/
freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing/ compaction equipment/ performance tests/ records/
' construction/ embankments1bibliographies1soil investigations1construction controll construction equipment1
tests1 *earth dams/ dam construction/ durability

b. IDEN TIFIERS--/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kansl Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Texl Glen Elder
Dam, Kansl Starvation Dam, Utah

.
c. COSATl Field/Group 13M
18. D I S T R I B U T I O N S T A T E M E N T 19. SECURITY C L A S S 21. NO. OF PAGE
( T H I S REPORT)
A v a i l a b l e from the National Technical Information Service. Operations 104
UNCLASSIFIED
Division. Springfield. Virginia 22151. 20. S E C U R I T Y C L A S S 22. PRICE
, ( T H I S PAGE)
SOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURE8

by
Glenn DeGroot

May 1971

Soils Engineering Branch -

Division of General Re'pouci

Engineering and Reseanlr CI
Denver, Colorado

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF T H E INTERIOR * BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Rogers C. 6. Morton Ellis L. Armstrong
Secretary Commissioner
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This summary report was prepared under the supervision of A. A.

Wagner, formerly Head, Physical Properties and Construction Control
Section (retired); W. Ellis is presently Head of the Section. H. J. Gibbs
is the Soils Engineering Branch Chief. Some of the information
contained in this report has been extracted from previously published
Soils Engineering reports as referenced. Prior to publication, the text of
the report was checked by R. R. Ledzian and reviewed by C. A. Lowitz
and C. W. Jones, Head, Special Investigations and Research Section.
 CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Standard Identification Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Durability Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Compressive Strength Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Cement Content and Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Gradation and Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Durability Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Compressive Strength Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Effects of Compaction, Time Delay, Water Content, Etc. . . . . . . . . . 8

Construction Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Material Excavation and Stockpiling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Proportioning and Mixing of Materials. . . . . . . . . 12
Transporting and Placing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Compacting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Curing and Preparation for Next Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Construction Control Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Proportioning and Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Density and Compaction Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chemical Cement Content Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Construction Control Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Record Coring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

APPENDIX

Identification and Compaction Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Freeze-thaw Durability Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Wet-dry Durability Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Compressive Strength Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Compressive Strength vs. Placement Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Compressive Strength vs. Placement Water Content. . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Compressive Strength vs. Time Delay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Construction Control Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Soil-cement Record Core Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Example of Summary of Field and Laboratory Tests of Compacted Soil-cement. . . . 104

LIST OF TABLES
Table

1 Comparison of compressive strength testing methods. . . . . . . 8

2 Summary of construction control results. . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 Summary of tests on record cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 CONTENTS-Continued

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 General gradation limits for soil-cement material . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Summary of gradation test results on soil-cement
material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Soil-cementdurability test results-Bonny Test
Section .......................... 5
4 Summary of freeze-thaw durability test results
onsoil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 Summary of wet-dry durability test results on
soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6 Soil-cement compressive strength test results-
BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7 Summary of 7-day compressive strength test results
onsoil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 Summary of 28-day compressive strength test results
onsoil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9 Effect of density on compressive strength of
soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10 Effectof densityondurabilityof soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11 Effect of placement water content on compressive
strengthof soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12 Effect of time delay on compressive strength of
soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13 Effectof timedelayoncompactionof soil-cement. . . . . . . . . . . 10
14 Spreading of untreatedsoil-BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . . 10
15 Dumping of portland cement from sacks-Bonny Test
Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
16 Distribution of the dumped cement-Bonny Test Section . . . . . 11
17 Mixing cement with soil by a tractor-drawn,
self-powered, rotary-type mixer-Bonny Test
Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
18 Applying water to soil-cement prior to wet mixing-
BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
19 Initial compaction of the soil-cement with a
sheepsfoot
roller-BonnyTestSection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
20 Final compaction by pneumatic-type rolling provided
by a loaded truck-Bonny Test Section . . . . . . . . . . . 11
21 Light surface scarification of the completed
soil-cementlayer-Bonny Test Section. . . . . . . . . . . 11
22 General view of soil stockpile and pugmill for
mixing soil-cement-Lubbock RegulatingReservoir. . . . . . . . . . 12
23 Soil-cement
processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
24 Cement vane feeder and soil feed belt to pugmill-
Cheney Dam 14
""""""""""'"
25 Insideof pugmill-CheneyDam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
26 Soil-cementplacingoperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
27 Spreading soil-cement on placement area-Merritt
Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
28 Closeup view of spreader box used to place even,
uniformlift-Merritt Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

ii
 CONTENTS-Continued

Figure Page

29 Sheepsfoot roller used to compact lower portion of

the lift-Merritt Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
30 Pneumatic roller used to compact upper portion of
lift-Merritt Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
31 General view of placing and rolling operations-
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
32 General view of placing and rolling operations-
Cawker City Dike. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
33 Placing and rolling second lift-Merritt Dam upstream
slope modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
34 Power brooming to clean surface prior to placement
of next lift-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
35 Watering inplace soil-cement-Starvation Dam . . . . . . 18
36 Watering inplace soil-cement with side broom spray-
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
37 View of Bonny Test Section-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
38 View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 67+50 showing normally
anticipated wear pattern-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
39 View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 40+00 showing normally
anticipated wear pattern-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
40 View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 110+00 showing moderate
breakage of facing-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
41 View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 85+75 showing moderate
breakage of facing-October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
42 Repair of soil-cement-Cheney Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
43 General view of Cheney Dam, Station 88+00 looking
east-October 1971 ..................... 24
44 Closeup view of Cheney Dam at Station 95+90 showing
Zone 1 material exposed-October 1971 . . . . . . . . 24
45 View of patch on Cheney Dam at Station 85+80-
October 1971 ....................... 24
46 General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 18+00 looking west-
Septem ber 1968 ...................... 24
47 Closeup of Merritt Dam showing erosion of feathered
edge-September 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
48 General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 27+00 looking east-
September 1968 ............. 25
49 General view of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir showing
weathered material, Sta. 51-March 1968 . . . . 25
50 General view of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, from
outlet structure-March 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
51 View of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir showing erosion
of feathered edge-March 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

iii
 INTRODUCTION investigated. Soil-cement is usually considered for an
alternate method of slope protection if the haul
The developmen\,of projects in areas where rock riprap distance to a suitable rock source exceeds about 20
is scarce has created a need for other means of slope miles. Nevertheless, the nearest rock source, or sources,
protection. A number of alternate slope protection must be investigated so that alternate bids can be
schemes such as soil-cement, concrete paving, steel obtained if found by the designer to be desirable.
sheet, and asphaltic concrete have been investigated.
The background of these investigations is given in The following table lists the locations of soil-cement
EM-652.1* facings constructed to date. The table also gives the
year of construction, estimated yardage in the
The use of soil-cement slope protection was first tried specifications and Soils Engineering Report number
by the Bureau of Reclamation on Bonny Test Section which presents the results of the investigation testing
in eastern Colorado. Soil-cement was not used directly program.
on the face of the dam as this was considered to be
experimental work. A special embankment was The figures in the Appendix also show test results from
constructed along the south side of the reservoir and three features on which soil-cement was investigated
faced with soil-cement. Detailed descriptions of the but was not used. These three are included since the
test section and construction procedures are given in soil types were somewhat different from the soils used
EM-6521 and EM-6302. The successful performance of on other structures. These features are Little Panoche
the facing in the test section led to the conclusion that Creek Detention Dam, California (EM-712)10; Red
soil-cement could be used as slope protection on major Bluff Reservoir Bank Stabilization Area, California
hydraulic structures. (EM-692) 11; and Conconully Dam (EM-746) 12.

To date (1970), the Bureau of Reclamation has used The purpose of this report is to present a summary of
soil-cement slope protection on seven major the Bureau's experience with soil-cement facings to
water-retaining structures. Most of these structures date. In addition, the durability results in some of the
have been on the Great Plains, an area where suitable referenced reports were computed with various
rock for riprap occurs only in scattered locations. assumptions. These test results have been recomputed
with the same assumption used on all the tests.
However, one of the structures is in Utah and the
possible use of soil-cement has also been investigated A seepage test section was incorporated into the slope
for structures located in areas normally thought of as facing on the Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. This
being near mountainous areas. However, even in section included provisions for measuring the amount
mountainous areas, the haul distance for suitable rock of water which permeated the soil-cement. The data
can be many miles. If a suitable source for soil-cement collected showed that the soil-cement on that feature
material is available at a short haul distance, the use of had quite low permeability. Report No.
soil-cement may be competitive and should be REC-ERC-71-13 entitled Soil-Cement Seepage Test

Estimated
Feature Location near Year volume Reference
constructed (cu yd) report

Merritt Dam Valentine, Nebraska 1963 51,000 EM-6714

Merritt Dam Modification Valentine, Nebraska 1968 13,400 EM-6113
Cheney Dam Wichita, Kansas 1964 180,000 EM-6685
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir Lubbock, Texas 1966 53,000 EM-7296
Glen Elder Dam Beloit, Kansas 1967 -68 138,000 EM-7197
Downs Dike Beloit, Kansas 1967 63,000 EM-7378
Cawker City Dike Beloit, Kansas 1968 86,000 EM-7378
Starvation Dam Duchesne, Utah 1969 72 ,000 EM-7149

*Numbers refer to references at end of text.

Section, Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Canadian than Gradation 3 would be quite coarse to mix and
River Project, Texas,13 gives a complete summary of place as soil-cement.
the test section details and observations.
Standard Identification Tests

TEST PROCEDURES After a potential material source has been located,

more detailed testing is performed. Standard test
The first step in any construction project is to find procedures are used for gradation and Atterberg limits
suitable material and soil-cement is no exception to tests. In addition to the standard ASTM stirring
this. Although almost any material can be used to apparatus for gradation tests, the wrist shaker
produce soil-cement, certain more desirable material dispersion method has often been used. The gradation
types have been outlined. Figure 1 shows gradation test specimen is set up the same as for the standard
gradation test. However, the specimen is dispersed in a
250-milliliter Erlenmeyer flask and agitated for 10
minutes with a device known as a wrist shaker. As
implied by the name, this device imparts a motion
similar to that of shaking the flask by hand with a wrist
10
action. There are no moving parts in contact with the
80 20 soil and the dispersant action is less violent than that
obtained with the standard ASTM stirring device. A
70 30
comparison of the gradation curves obtained by the
to 0
Z
iJj 60 40
W
two methods gives a qualitative estimate of the
~<I>
a. f-
w
durability of the.. individual particles. A similar
"0:
" ~50 50 comparison could be obtained using the air dispersion
W f-
<) Z
0:
W
<) method which is now a standard ASTM test procedure.
~40 60 ffi
a.

70
If the gradation and Atterberg limits of the material
indicates that it is within acceptable limits, Proctor
80 compaction tests are performed. The cement content
required for producing soil-cement is estimated based
90
on the gradation characteristics and the Proctor
maximum dry density of the material with an average
N~
~.
0
cement content based on soil type. The average and
.074 149 .297 .590 1.19 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.1 76.2
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
estimated cement contents are shown in Tables 1 and 2
SAND GRAvEL of Portland Cement Association Publication CB-11
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
1 4. These cement contents are for use as pavement
base on highways and are generally low for use in
Figure 1. General gradation limits for soil-cement hydraulic structures. Because of the direct exposure
material. and erosion conditions, the cement contents should be
increased by about 2 percent for use as slope
limits which experience has shown to be generally protection. Proctor compaction tests are normally
acceptable materials for soil-cement slope protection. performed on the material at the cement content
The gradation of the material should be parallel to the estimated and at cement contents 2 percent above and
limits; that is, there should be a good distribution of below that estimated. Test specimens of the
the particle sizes from the smallest to the largest. The soil-cement are placed according to the compaction
limits defined by the higher numbers on the figure test results at each cement content. However, if the
would usually require lower cement contents for an compaction test results indicate that cement content
equal quality of soil-cement than the finer materials. does not change the compaction characteristics
This is due to larger surface area of particles per unit significantly, an average value may be used.
volume in the finer materials as well as the higher
percentage of voids (that is, lower density) generally Durability Tests
obtained in the finer-grained material. As previously
stated, these gradation limits do not include all the Du ra bility tests are performed on com pacted
materials which could be used for soil-cement, but specimens to determine the resistance of the
materials outside these ranges would be expected to soil-cement to the effects of wet-dry and freeze-thaw
require higher cement contents. Also materials coarser cycles. The wet-dry tests are performed in accordance

2
with ASTM Test Designation 0.559 and the 4 to 24 hours. The specimens are then capped with a
freeze-thaw tests are performed in accordance with clay-sulfur compound. The unconfined compressive
ASTM Test Designation 0-560 with the exceptions strength tests are performed in accordance with ASTM
discussed below. The ASTM procedures do not require Designation 0-1633. A hydraulic testing machine is
weights at each of the 12 brushing cycles. The weights used and the load is applied at about 20 psi (1.4 kg/sq
before and after brushing for each test cycle are cm) per second.
obtained in Bureau tests. From these data, the amount
of soil-cement brushed off at each cycle can be
determined. Since the ASTM procedures do not require CEMENT CONTENT AND MATERIAL
weights for each cycle, the loss must be computed SELECTION
from the final weight. Hydration of cement chemically
combines water which cannot be driven off by the final Gradation and Density
drying at 1100 C. Because of this chemically combined
water, a correction has to be made to the final dry The gradation of the material has considerable
weight. Assumptions for the amount of the water of influence on the workability and acceptability as a
hydration have been made based on cement content source for soil-cement. As previously mentioned,
and soil type. Obtaining the weights as done by the materials with large amounts of gravel would be
Bureau laboratories eliminates the need for the difficult to mix and place as a uniform layer. On the
assumption mentioned above. The percent loss is other hand, materials which are very fine would also be
calculated by dividing the accumulated soil-cement loss difficult to mix adequately. As shown on Figure 2,
through the 12 cycles by the initial dry weight. This
method of calculating the loss probably overstates the SIEVE ANALYSIS
loss by a small amount since the accumulated losses are
wet weights rather than dry weights. Nevertheless, the
percent losses computed from the accumulated weight 90 10
losses are usually less than those computed using the
assumption for hydration, and the losses continue to 80 20
decrease at increasing cement contents, a trend which
70
did not always develop using the assumption for 30

hydration. z :;J
"~ 60 40 Z
~
~ :;;
Compressive Strength Tests 50 "'
f-
Limits of gradatIOns from ~
Compressive strength specimens are formed at the same the 7 features an which 60"'
::'
sall- cement was used.
placement conditions as the durability specimens. The 70
procedures used for molding the specimens generally
conform to ASTM Designation 0-1632 although there 80

has been some variation of the procedure used. Molds

90
currently in use were fabricated from seamless tubing
and produce specimens 2.8 inches in diameter by 5.6 100
~
inches high (7.1 by 14.2 cm). Most specimens are .074
~
.149 .297
*oc:
0
590 1.19 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.! 76.2
compacted with the drop hammer apparatus although DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS

some specimens have been compacted using a hydraulic FINE

SAND
MEDIUM COARSE FINE
GRAVEL
COARSE
loading jack or compression machine. Either method
seems to produce suitable specimens. The soil-cement
specimens are usually left in the mold for 2 days in 100 Figure 2. Summary of gradation test results on
percent relative humidity storage prior to extruding soil-cement material.
them. Extrusion is accomplished by applying a steady
load to one end of the specimen with a hydraulic jack most of the materials tested by the Bureau of
or compression machine. After extrusion, the Reclamation on features which used soil-cement could
specimens are stored at 100 percent relative humidity be classified as fine, silty sands. These materials are
and 720 F (fog room curing). mostly in general gradation Limits 1 and the finer side
of Limits 2. Individual gradations for more detailed
Compressive strength specimens are formed for testing comparisons are shown in the Appendix on pages 29
at 3-, 7-, 28-, and 90-day ages. Prior to testing, the through 46. The exceptions to these statements are the
specimens are normally soaked in water for a period of materials from projects which did not actually use

3
soil-cement. The materials from Little Panoche Creek density at increasing cement contents on materials with
Detention Dam and Red Bluff Reservoir were sands very low percentages of fines for the following
and gravels containing up to 50 percent plus No.4, and samples: Merritt Dam 15R-49, -111; Cheney Dam
the average gradation from these features is identified 25J-X108; Glen Elder Dam 18C-X224; and Downs
on Figure 2 as coarser material. The other material was Dike 40Y-42. A review of the durability test and
from Conconully Dam and was a "rock-flour" silt compressive strength test results in the Appendix does
which contained only 5 percent sand. Although these not show any clear-cut trends for these samples. When
materials were not used, test results showed that compared to other samples from the same features
acceptable soil-cement could have been produced from which had a supposedly more favorable gradation,
them. some of the samples deficient in fines show poorer
characteristics while others show about the same
The State of New Mexico has used a material characteristics. An additional comparison of samples
5
containing 25 percent gravel on Ute Dam! . However, containing up to 40 percent fines also failed to show
the water surface on this reservoir has never been raised any definite trends. However, from the limited data
to the level of the soil-cement and no performance data available for comparison, excess fines seem to be more
of the soil-cement under wave action are available. detrimental than a deficiency of fines. These
comparisons indicate that general guidelines can be
Another thing to take into consideration in the used in the search for materials; however, each sample
selection of soil-cement material is the presence of should be tested and judged on its own merits before
"clay balls" (rounded balls of fines and sand which do potential sources of material are rejected.
not break down during ordinary processing). Alluvial
sand deposits which might otherwise be acceptable Very little soil-cement work has been done by the
often contain layers of silt and clay. These layers are Bureau on soils which have plastic fines. Fines with a
caused by low flows in the depositing stream and all slight amount of plasticity would probably mix and
alluvial deposits have this characteristic to a certain handle quite well; however, plastic fines would make
extent. "Clay balls" in the material tend to go through mixing the soil, water, and cement adequately more
the processing intact and do not disperse through the difficult.
sand. A small amount of minus 1-inch (2.5-cm) clay
balls is not considered sufficient grounds to reject Durability Tests
otherwise suitable material. On some projects, the
material was screened to remove larger clay balls before The ability of compacted soil-cement to resist the
the material was introduced into the mixing plant. destructive effects of wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles
During the investigation stage, the material should be determine to a large extent whether it will form an
screened at its natural moisture to obtain an estimate acceptable slope protection. Standard durability tests
of the amount of "clay balls" present in the deposit. are performed to determine the relative quality of the
The "clay balls" in an auger hole sample will normally materials being proposed for use. At the time the
be rather small size due to the action of the auger. Bonny Test Secton was constructed, the Portland
However, the presence of over about 10 percent "clay Cement Association did not have basic criteria for the
balls" even of the smaller sizes will probably indicate design of soil-cement to be used in hydraulic
problems during construction. Excavation procedures structures. The criteria for use on pavement base
will not usually break down the clay lenses and the course construction was that the specimen losses
result is large clods of clay within the sand stockpile. should not exceed 14 percent during the 12 cycles of
the durability tests for AASHO Soil Classifications A-1,
For the type of fine, silty sands that have been used by A-2-4, A-2-5, and A-3.!4 These sOil classifications
the Bureau of Reclamation, it has normally been include nearly all of the soils used by the Bureau
thought that 10 to 30 percent fines is the most although a few soils might fall into the A-4 if the
desirable range. The limits shown on Figure 2 show percent of fines are over 36 percent even though they
that most of the soils are near this range. Soils with less are non plastic or of very low plasticity. PCA
fines are thought to require more cement to produce recommends a cement content which will give 10
soil-cement of equal quality. This would be due to the percent or less loss for A-4 soils. It was recognized that
use of cement to fill voids which would normally be exposure on the face of a dam would be more severe
filled with fines rather than coating the soil particles to than that on a pavement base. Therefore, the cement
cement them together. Some indication of this can be content was increased 2 percent above that requ ired
seen in the increase of the Proctor maximum dry for pavement base on the Bonny Test Section.! This

4
resulted in a specified cement content of 10.4 percent losses which are higher and increase much more rapidly
by dry weight for Type A soil and 8.1 percent by dry at decreasing cement contents than similiar soils tested
weight for Type B soil. from other projects. For example, if the brushing
cycles had been performed with more than the 3
The specified cement contents on the Bonny Test pounds (1.36 kg) of force specified, the losses would
Section produced soil-cement with maximum losses of be larger. If that supposition is correct, soil-cement
about 8 percent on the freeze-thaw tests and about 6 tested according to the specified procedures which
percent on the wet-clry tests. The durability test results shows lower losses would be about the same quality.
on the two types of soil used for Bonny Test Section
are shown on Figure 3. The performance on Bonny The durability test results from all the projects are
summarized on Figures 4 and 5 and are shown on pages
12
\
\ 0 II"}
\
\ liB.'}
{
\
I- 10
:I: Freeze - Thaw

)\
'"
W \ Tests
~ Intial testing program
\
>-
a: \
12
on Merritt Dam
c '0.. , KEY
lL 8 11 l-
I 0 Merritt Dam
c
I- \ " " W
'"
;0
0 Cheney Dam
. Lubbock Reg. Res.
Z
W
U
a::
w
'0 i;:
0
u-
0
'0 . Glen Elder Dam
"'V Downs 0 ike
.a. Cawker City Dike
Cl. 6
J
(j)
13N-422 (Type A) I-
Z . Starvation Dam
W
W
-oJ
U Wet- Dry
~, ,
>-
U
"- NOTE Tests runs at even
Tests w '
cement contents. Points
C\I "'

:\
-
a::
4 ~-' plotted slightly off for
clarity.
w
l-
lL '"
« w
'"
(j)
(j)
r;:
.. 0
a
-oJ 2
Specified Cement
"'
"'
~ .
Content q
Approximate limits of
Type B ~ Type \"
\
\
. test data from the 7
'V
.a. ..
.~ ~
features
onwhichsail-
cement wasused.
\
~
0 'Va.. :::.:
6 14 \ ." o. ~~
CEMENT BY DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL \ "& i:b

Average - - -7
losses
on '-- is \.-u-"0"- ""
'VrL
Figure 3. Soil-cement durability test results-Bonny Test coarser materlQls~
0 ,
Section.
CEMENT CONTENT -PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL

Test Section was satisfactory and those limits have

Figure 4. Summary of freeze-thaw durability test results
been used as design criteria for soil-cement slope
on soil-cement.
protection. As noted on pages 47 and 57 in the
Appendix, the losses on the Bonny Test Section
materials are shown directly as reported in EM-250.16 47 through 66 of the Appendix for each feature. The
The original data for these tests were not available so specified cement contents have been 12 percent by dry
the losses could not be computed from the weight of soil on 6 of the features on which
accumulated losses as was done for the other samples. soil-cement was used and 14 percent on Merritt Dam.
Also, a comparison with durability test results shown These cement contents are above that required to
on Figures 3 and 5 indicate that the testing on the produce soil-cement with the 6 and 8 percent
samples from Bonny Test Section and initial program durability losses. The recommended cement content on
on Merritt Dam may have been performed by Little Panoche Creek and Red Bluff Reservoir were 6.3
somewhat different procedure. These test results show and 9 percent, respectively, for these coarser materials.

5
 (21.8) cement content would normally be specified somewhat
(
19.61 (17.7) higher than that point. This point is also illustrated in
. more detail on pages 51, 52, 61, and 62 of the
14 Appendix for Glen Elder Dam, Downs Dike, and
Cawker City Dike. A cement content about 2 percent
KEY
0 Meritt Dam le:;s than specified would have produced soil-cement
Cheney Dam with about the same durability test losses. However, at
.° LubbockReg. Res.
IZ
A Glen Elder Dam the lower cement contents, a further reduction in
f- cement content would have resulted in much higher
"1 Downs Dike
"W'" .. Cawker City Dike
durabil ity losses.
:0 . Starvation Dam
~Q
10 [,
Compressive Strength Tests
.
~
Q
.~ Initial testing program
f-
Z on Merritt Dam
U
"' Compressive strength test results are used mainly as a
'""'
.;, .
a.

d>-
u
~
0
~ NOTE: Tests run at even
cement contents. Points
qualitative measure of quality rather than a
quantitative measure. Compressive strength is a faster
test to perform and it is used in construction control
testing rather than using durability tests. The results of
plotted slightly off for
'""'t;: clarity. the construction control specimens can be then
'"
"'"'
"1
. Approximate limits
test data from the 7
of compared to the investigation program tests to
ascertain if soil-cement about equal in quality to that
'3 features on which soil-
cement was used. tested is being produced.
[,
.. "1 0
AO Although used mainly as an indicator, compressive

2\ Average ~
losses
coarser mat erla. I
on
J.
~4.
Y
~-'o-
"10
°
A [,0
strength does have some bearing on the design of
soil-cement. Soil-cement does need some strength to
resist breaking under the stresses caused by wave
- -
--- ) -..i: io"
IO'i7
oE-"8i'-
'\7.
action. Soil-cement slope protection can be envisioned
as a series of beams placed horizontally or nearly so up
0
. 10 the slope. This results in an offset of each successive
CEMENT CONTENT- PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT OF SOil layer equal to the product of the slope and layer
Figure 5. Summary of wet-dry durability test results on thickness; therefore, each layer has an exposed portion
soil-cement. which is not restrained on top. Waves breaking on the
surface cause pressures between the lifts if they are not
The coarser materials tend to show that a lower cement properly bonded. These pressures and the uplifts
content could be used with a material with better caused by breaking waves cause the exposed portion of
distribution of grain sizes. On most facings constructed the lift to act as a cantilevered beam. Wave action
by the Bureau, the specified cement content produced probably would not cause large stresses in this "beam"
soil-cement with losses of 3 percent or less on the but part of the stress would be in tension. Tensile
laboratory test specimens. However, if the more recent strengths are normally thought of as being 10 to 15
soil-cement tests have been performed with less brush percent of the compressive strength. Therefore, low
pressure, the quality may be about the same. In compressive strength test results might indicate the
addition, on some of these features, the test results facing would deteriorate by chunks breaking off during
shown in the reports referenced in the Introduction wave action rather than individual grains loosening by
showed higher losses than those shown in the wet-dry or freeze-thaw action.
Appendix of this report. This difference was caused by
the assumption used to calculate the results rather than The Portland Cement Association criteria on
using the actual accmumulated losses as was done in compressive strength is only that the strength should
this report. Due to the difficulties of proportioning increase with age and greater cement content.14 Figure
cement and soil accurately during construction, cement 6 shows the compressive strength test results from tlie
content is usually not specified near the content at investigation work for Bonny Test Section. The
which the losses begin to rise rapidly. For example, on specified cement content on these materials gave a
Figures 4 and 5, the upper limits of the test data begin minimum 7-day compressive strength of about 600 psi
to rise quite rapidly at 10 to 12 percent cement. The (42 kg/sq cm) and a minimum 28-day compressive

6
strength of about 875 psi (62 kg/sq cm). These
strengths have been used as minimum requirements on 0
Bureau features since that time.
- 150

0
1
100 ~
~
rI-
. "
6
r
I-
~
~ E ~ 6
8 Z
Z 1500 .Ot:.
~

(
,?"-13N-422 ~ ~ AVerage strength // 0
<r
~
(f)
100

/:'
0
I- 1000 !Type AI ~ of the coarser /It. 0 W
'" j.._D -\>
~
W --;::1:..
to
'" j
.

materIOIS-y""""'/ tJ. ~'V

'V
>
~
~
<r
I-
~ 13N-421 I -;:::..- ~ ~ 1000 /~: ~.
w
~
~
w
>
in
~
<r
~oo
(Type a)-(
,,)-~
[}~ ::''''''''~7 Day strength
I-
~
w
>
~
~
.0
~
8 /'
//

. . /'
~
vD.6.
Z
.
OeD '
011 'Median
.
~.
strength
fromthe7features
on
~
~
u

~X
~ Specified Cement Content w which soil-
go 0
0 cement was used.
8" Type B Type :>
~ A1 0
u ""
0

0
6
NOTE; Tests run at even cement contents
Points plotted slightly off for clarity
CEMENT CONTENT-PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT 0,

CEMENT CONTENT-PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT

KEY
Figure 6. Soil-cement compressive strength test 0 Merritt Dam 'V Downs Dike
0 Cheney Dam
results-Bonny Test Section. . Lubbock
Ll.Glen Elder
Reg. Res.
Dam
.. Cawker
. Starvation
City Dike
Dam

The compressive strength test results are summarized

on Figures 7 and 8 and are shown individually in the Figure 8. Summary of 28-day compressive strength test
Appendix (on pages 67 through 84) for each feature. results on soil-cement.

Figures 7 and 8. However, most of the strengths at the

NOTE: Test run at even cement contents Points specified cement content are above the minimums
plotted slightly off for clorlty

0
established on the Bonny Test Section. The median
~ 1!500
0 6 ~ strength shown is about 750 psi (52.7 kg/sq cm) for
,I
Average strength of th:
.l::. the 7-day specimens and 1,150 psi (80.9 kg/sq cm) for
I-
~
Z
coarser materlols--::>/
" ,I
I-
~
the 28-day specimens at 12 percent cement. These
~ ~6. Z
V)
l-
1000
/'
/' a.& ..
."1
w
<r values exceed the minimums by about 25 percent.
// w~ I-
> /' .'V~
~D
0
~
w
Some of this increased strength may have been due to
// 0 g. >
1:..' :v differences in testing methods as discussed below.

~
/ O. o.
~
:> /" . t:..
"D 08
o~ Additional confirmation that better-graded materials
8 !500 . 0' 00
~
_"6 0 o. 8
Median strength from 8 would produce good quality soil-cement with less
o.
0 the 7 features on which cement is also shown on Figures 7 and 8. The average
501' cement was used. strengths on these materials reach the minimums at
0
. e 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT - PERCENT BY DRY WEIGHT about 7 percent cement by dry weight of soil. This is 3
KEY
0 Merritt Dam v Downs Oike to 4 percent cement less than needed for the fine silty
.
0 Cheney
Lubbock
Dam
Reg. Res.
. Starvation Dam
.
Cawker City Dike sands to reach these same strengths.
6 Glen Elder Dam
All compression tests have been performed on
Figure 7. Summary of 7-day compressive strength test cylindrical specimens but there has been some variation
results on soil-cement. in the sizes used. The compressive strength tests for
Bonny Test Section were performed on 2- by 2-inch
(5.1-by 5.1-cm) specimens. Testing programs on
A review of the summary figures shows that the Merritt Dam and Cheney Dam were performed with 2-
increasing strength requirement is met in nearly all by 2-inch (5.1. by 5.1-cmL 2.83- by 2.83-inch (7.2- by
cases. The few cases where the strength did not 7.2-cm), and 2.83- by 5.67-inch (7.2- by 14.4-cm)
increase were probably caused by normal variability of specimens. Since. that time, all of the features have
laboratory testing. These test results also show that the been tested using the 2.83- by 5.67-inch (7.2- by
specified cement content was usually greater than that 14.4-cm) specimens although some 2- by 2-inch (5.1-
required to produce the compressive strengths by 5.1-cm) specimens were run for comparison. A
discussed above. The strengths vary over a fairly wide comparison of specimen sizes and testing methods on a
range on the features using soil-cement as shown on sample from Cheney Dam is given in Table 1.

7
 Table 1 were performed on soils selected from some of the
features.
COMPARISON OF COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH TESTING METHODS Some of the variations anticipated during construction
were percent compaction, variation from optimum
Specimen Soaking Compressive water content, and time delay from mixing to final
size Capping prior to strength (psi) compaction. The tests shown on the following figures
(inches) material testing 3-day 7-day were performed to check on these items.

2.8 by 5.7 Sulfur Not 1,213 1.462 Figure 9 shows average trends of compressive strength
soaked test results as effected by the percent compaction
2.8 by 5.7 Sulfur 1 hour 864 1,123 obtained. The results from which these trends were
2 by 2 Not Not 535 787 obtained are shown on pages 85 through 89 of the
capped soaked Appendix. These tests show that an increase in the
2 by 2 Not 1 hour 410 - compaction resulted in soil-cement of higher
capped compressive strength. However, it was not considered
2.8 by 5.7 Sulfur 4 hours 822 1,094 practical to specify greater compaction in order to
2.8 by 5.7 Not 4 hours 814 1,021 reduce the cement content. The construction
capped procedures at most features have resulted in higher
densities than the 98 percent of Proctor maximum dry
Note: Tests run on Sample No. 25J-156, Cheney Dam, density specified and this can be considered as extra
12 percent cement, placed at optimum water content quality above that required.
and 98 percent of Proctor dry density.

These data show that the 2.83- by 5.67 -inch (7.2 by

14.4-cm) specimens give higher compressive strength
results. Table 1 also shows the drop in compressive ISO
2000
strength, on that sample at least, due to soaking the
specimens prior to testing. The strengths shown on if>
,
~"-
figures in the Appendix for 25J-156 are probably ;0 ,
1500
higher than they would have been if the specimens had '" ~>-
'" 100

been soaked. There seems to be little difference due to ~t;;

'"
'"
>-
'"
soaking for 1 or 4 hours which indicates there should >
'"
if>
if> 1000 /'
be very little difference between soaking for 4 or 24 if> /' >
'"
hours. Additional comparisons of compressive strength '"
'"
"-
:>
ill
g:
::;
on different specimen sizes are shown on pages74 ,75, :>
::;
50

78, and 790f the Appendix for Glen Elder Dam and 500
Note: Lines represent
Starvation Dam. These results show divergent trends overage trends of
with higher strengths shown on 2.83- by 5.67-inch test results

(7.2- by 14.4-cm) specimens on Glen Elder Dam but

lower strengths on Starvation Dam. PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
KEY
Generally, it seems that the 2.83- by 5.67-inch (7.2- by Cheney Dam
Merritt Dam
14.4-cm) specimens give higher strengths than the 2- by --- Glen Elder Dam
2-inch (5.1- by 5.1-cm) specimens used on Bonny Test
Section. Therefore, the higher strengths obtained at the
specified cement contents on later features may not Figure 9. Effect of density on compressive strength of
indicate as conservative an approach as it would seem. soil-cement.

Effects of Compaction, Time Delay,

Water Content, Etc. Further indications of the increase in quality at higher
densities are shown on Figure 10. These durability tests
The test results discussed previously in this report were were run on material from Merritt Dam and show that
all performed under standard laboratory conditions. In the durability increases at higher densities. Although
order to estimate the effects of different conditions the losses are low, a significant decrease in the losses
which might be encountered, series of laboratory tests does occur at higher density.

8
 3
placement conditions slightly dry of optimum usually
work better. The general trends shown on Figure 11
A and the more detailed results on pages 89 through 91
'\ of the Appendix indicate that compaction of 1 to 2
...
<f) :I: ,<wet-Dry percent dry of optimum does not greatly reduce the
ILl ~
d ~ 2 ,, strength. Sufficient water would normally be available
>-
u >- for complete hydration of the cement up to 4 percent
~ ~ \. or more dry of optimum. Therefore, the reduction in
a::
ILl
lJ..
0
'\ strength for mixing dry of optimum must indicate that
...
lJ.. ...
'-A...... the cement is not as thoroughly mixed at the lower
<t Z ......
....... water contents. Mixing above optimum water content
~0 ~a:: ......
...... probably increases the water-cement ratio to a point
...J ILl ......
a. that it begins to reduce the strength.
Merritt Dam
It is impossible under construction conditions to
compact the material immediately after mix.ing. Since
0 the hydration of cement is a time-dependent reaction
90 95 100 105
once contact is made with water, some change in the
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
properties of soil-cement with time delay would be
anticipated. Pages 92 and 93 of the Appendix show the
FREEZE-THAW O results of compressive strength tests run on materials
WET-DRV A
which were mixed and then had some time delay
before being compacted. Some decrease in strength was
Figure 10. Effect of density on durability of soil-cement. found on the time delay specimens which was probably
due to breaking down the aggregation of particles after
Figure 11 shows variations in compressive strength due some initial set. Figure 12 shows results at time delays
to variations from optimum water content. Generally, of 1/4, 1/2, 1, 1-1/2, and 2 hours of material at 900 F
the highest strengths are obtained at or near the temperature. Even at this elevated temperature, the
optimum water content for the soil-cement mixture. greatest decrease seems to occur after 1/2 to 1 hour.
During construction, the material is usually placed as This is confirmed by the data on Figure 13 which
near optimum as possible. However, as discussed later, summarizes the results of compaction test results after

2000 1500
-- --
0 /-28 Day
100

1250
0 -,0
-
(f)

a... 1500
I 100
:r:
... / N
E _--6---6_- ) 75

_/ / , 1000
<9 ~ ~, 6'".., 7 Day
Z
ILl
a::
"" .--/
-- - -
.x
'" ~ ---6 6
I
co

/' ./ ".;:::---
...
(j)
-"" --- .""".- ~ ""

-z;c
I
1000
ILl
/'
--- t-
<.?
:r: I,/)
""
>
750
~

"' 50
>
(f) /'./ 7 Day Z
ILl
"' ~
(f)
a:: ~ "'
" ""
ILl 50 0. "'
a:: t-
(f)
"'
go
0
0.. u" 500
:2 ILl "8
0 500
u KEY >
(f) Materials warmed to 90'F prior to mixing
(f) 25
Cheney Dam and placing. Densities and water contents
ILl
Merritt Dam a:: of specimens based on compaction curves
250
Glen Elder Dam
0.. run at Similar time delays and temperatures.
:2
0
u
a a
4% DRY 2% DRY OPT 2% WET
a
VARIATION FROM OPTIMUM 0 0.5 10 15 2.0
WATER CONTENT TIME DELAY-HR

Figure 11. Effect of placement water content on Figure 12. Effect of time delay on compressive strength
compressive strength of soil-cement. of soil-cement.

9
 14 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

Detailed descriptions of the construction procedures

~
I /
/------- used on Bonny Test Section are given in EM-6521 and
EM-6302. The pictorial summary of the Bonny Test
~ / Section construction in Figures 14 through 21 is
Z 12 /" ./ /"
presented to contrast the procedures used on the test
W
~
Z - -y-- /"
./
./
/"
section to those used on other features.
0
0
/ --_/
/
cr Merritt Dam
w
~
q 10
~
~
:J
~
~
a..
0 8
mixed at 90° F.

125
u.
0 Figure 14. Spreading of untreated soil from the borrow
a..
I Cheney Dam area preparatory to constructing each new soil-cement
>- layer, Bonny Test Section. Photo P331-700-31
~ KEY
CJ)
Z
W
120 - Time delay with material
0
uncompacted
>-
-- Time delay with material
cr compacted, broken down
0
~ and recompacted.
~ 115
x
q
- --
~ --- --~ -
-
~------
..........
Merrit Dam """"..........

110
0 I 2 3
TIME DELAY- HR.

Figure 13. Effect of time delay on compaction of

soil-cement.
Figure 15. Dumping of portland cement from sacks
time delays up to 3 hours. Most of these results show which had been spacect to provide thei"equired percentage
very little effect up to 30 minutes and some of the of cement for the soil-cement, Bonny Test Section. Photo
tests show little effect up to 1-1/2 hours. P794-701-549

10
 F!gure 19. Initial compaction of the soil-cement with a
Figure 16. Distribution of the dumped cement on soil
sheepsfoot ro Iler .Bonny Test Section. Photo
layer with a spiked-tooth harrow prior to the start of the
P794-701-561
mixing in-place operation. Bonny Test Section. Photo
P704-701-550

Figure 20. Final compaction by pneumatic-type rolling

provided by a loaded truck. Bonny Test Section. Photo
P331-700-26
Figure 17. Mixing cement with soil by a tractor-drawn,
self-powered, rotary-type mixer. Bonny Test Section.
Photo P794-701-557

"

.'
,~
Figure 21. Light surface scarification of the completed
soil-cement layer by a spiked-tooth harrow to increase
bond to next layer to be placed. Bonny Test Section.
Photo P331-700-27

~
Material Excavation and Stockpiling The borrow areas used by the Bureau to date have been
above water table so the material could be excavated
The samples submitted for laboratory testing were by normal excavation machinery. Materials below
considered to be representative of the material source water table could be excavated by dragline or dredging
to be used in the construction of soil-cement. Test equipment, but additional processing and mixing might
results on the material submitted are used to determine be required. Materials from below water table would
the amount of cement to be added to produce have to be stockpiled long enough to allow the excess
satisfactory soil-cement. Therefore, during the water to drain. The mixing of the cement into the soil
construction of the facing, it is important that the is generally more efficient if the soil is fairly dry so
material used is uniform and similar to that tested that soil and cement are mixed before the water
during the investigation program. content is brought near optimum.

Since almost every natural deposit is variable to a Removal of oversize clay balls, if necessary, prior to
certain extent, the construction procedures used must proportioning the soil will result in a more consistent
make some provision for mixing the material. Selective soil feed but it is more difficult to do during the
excavation in the borrow area and mixing the material stockpiling operation. On most jobs, the scalping
in the stockpile is probably the most practical means of screen used to remove these clay balls is placed right
accomplishing this. If the material varies with depth, a after the soil proportioning device. If the soil contains
full face cut should be made with the excavation a fairly constant amount of clay balls, the soil feed past
machinery. However, if the material varies with the the scalping screen should still be fairly constant.
lateral extent of the borrow area, loads from alternate However, if the clay ball content varies appreciably,
spots in the borrow area should also be mixed. After the soil feed past the scalping screen may also vary.
the material has been excavated, mixing can generally
be accomplished by stockpiling and crossbucking the Proportioning and Mixing of Materials
stockpile. For example, part of the stockpiling
operating at Lubbock Regulating Reservoir is shown on Proper proportioning and mixing of soil, cement, and
Figure 22. The soil had been excavated at the borrow water is essential to producing a consistent soil-cement~
area and stockpiled there. It was then trucked to the The specifications for soil-cement construction require
reservoir site and dumped at the base of the .stockpile that the material be mixed in a stationary mixing plant.
to the left of the picture. The soil was then pushed up Either continuous flow or individual batching types are
the stockpile with a bulldozer and the soil feed was permitted, but all the soil-cement construction to date
charged at the top of the stockpile by the front-end has used the continuous flow type of plant.
loader. This operation resulted in a soil feed which was
uniform in gradation and moisture content. Similar A schematic drawing of a typical proportioning and
operations have been used on other features to achieve mixing operation as shown on Figure 23 and the main
mixing. components are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Different devices have been used or attempted to

provide a constant flow of soil to the mixing plant. The
most successful device seems to be the reciprocating
plate feeder and it has been used on most of the
Bureau soil-cement jobs. As the name implies, the soil
is fed by a plate which moves back and forth. On the
forward stroke, the plate carries a ribbon of soil out
through the orifice at the front of the feeder; as the
plate makes its backward stroke, the soil on the plate is
discharged onto the conveyor belt. Since the plate
feeder discharges soil on only half of its cycle, there is
some variation along the conveyor belt. On some
projects, this variation has been leveled off by using a
hopper on the conveyor belt which levels the material
into an even ribbon of soil. A variation of the
Figure 22. General view of soil stockpile and pugmill for reciprocating plate is the double reciprocating plate
mixing soil-cement-lubbock Regulating Reservoir. Photo feeder. This device feeds from a double bin so that
P719-D-58953 when one side of the feeder is discharging soil, the

12
 Cement storoge silo

Water meter
Soil stockpile

~ .1-:~ Vane feeder (feeds cement

onto soi I conveyor be It)

Storage hopper

m
Figure 23. Soil-cement processing.

other side is not and vice versa. Therefore, the total soil rotating cylinder with compartments formed by 12
flow is a more constant flow. vanes on the circumference. The feed rate can be
changed by changing the speed at which the cylinder
Some attempts have been made to use a simple turns. Since this device is also a volume measuring
strike-off gate on a conveyor belt to proportion the system, it is apparent that the cement must be
soil. Although this should produce a constant flow of delivered to the vane at a constant density. The most
soil, it has not worked well in practice. Soil clods tend effective way of doing this seems to be with a small
to hang up at the gate and restrict the opening and at surge hopper above the vane feeder. The level of
times the soil seems to roll or ball as it passes the gate cement in the surge hopper is kept fairly constant with
resulting in a smaller ribbon of soil on the belt. use of a pressure sensitive switch in the surge hopper to
regulate the flow from the main cement silos. Aeration
Another device used to feed the soil was a tread feeder. is used in the surge tank to minimize arching of the
This is quite similar to the strike-off gate on a conveyor cement and permit smooth flow.
belt except it has flights or treads instead of a smooth
belt. This device was used on Downs Dike construction Figures 22 and 24 show mixing plant setups for
and worked satisfactorily. Lubbock Regulating Reservoir and Cheney Dam. As
shown on the figure, the cement is usually added to the
Since these devices are all essentially volume measuring soil on the conveyor. A small plow at the vane feeder
systems, it is apparent that the soil supply to the feeder gives a furrow for the cement and this furrow is
must be uniform if a constant weight per minute is to blinded after the cement has been added to prevent the
be delivered. Variations in soil gradation result in wind from blowing the cement off the belt. Figures 22
variation of the density of the soil being discharged. and 24 can be compared to Figures 14 and 15, to see
Variations in moisture content, even on soils of similar the difference in construction procedures from Bonny
gradation, also result in density variations due to the Test Section.
bulking effects of moisture on sandy soils. This
variation causes soil-cement wetter than desired since a Since the soil feed and cement feed measure volumes,
lower weight of dry soil at a higher water content is they must be calibrated to proportion the material by
delivered and water at a constant rate is added in the weight. Both feeds are calibrated running material
mixer. through them and weighing the soil and cement
separately. The cement vane feeder can be calibrated
A vane feeder has been used to proportion the cement over the range of cement supply necessary by varying
on the features bu ilt by the Bureau. This device has a the speed of rotation. This allows adjustments for

13
 Although the specifications usually require a minimum
mixing time of 30 seconds, a shorter mixing time seems
to mix the materials sufficiently in most cases. As long
as the soil, cement, and moisture are thoroughly mixed
into a homogeneous material, shorter mixing times are
accepted.

As noted on Figure 25, the water required to bring the

soil-cement to the desired water content is supplied in
the pugmill. Generally no water is supplied at the front
of the mixer so the soil and cement are mixed prior to
adding water. The water is sprayed onto the
soil-cement as it is being mixed and water is very well
distributed by the time the soil-cement leaves the
mixer. The amount of water to be added during mixing
Figure 24. Cement vane feeder and soil feed belt to can be determined from the water content of the soil
pugmill-Cheney Dam. Photo P719-D-58954 and the desired water content of the soil-cement. If the
mixing plant has an accurate water meter, adjustments
slight variations from time to time in the soil feed rate. of the water content are quite easily made. Satisfactory
The specifications require that the measuring devices
moisture control has been exercised on some jobs
should be accurate to within 2 percent. The vane
without a water meter by making approximate
feeder is usually calibrated at the beginning of the job
adjustments of the waterline valve opening.
and checked occasionally as the job progresses. Check
calibrations do not normally change the calibration
Figures 16 through 18 show the mixing operation on
curve. The soil feed is calibrated at the beginning of the
Bonny Test Section.
job and usually checked a number of times a day
during the job. These additional checks are obtained as
Transporting and Placing
part of the construction control procedures and they
will be explained later in that part of the report.
As the material is mixed, it is discharged into trucks for
transportation to the placement area. On Bureau jobs,
The soil and cement are charged into the mixer. The
the mixing plant has been located close to the
mixer used on all the Bureau jobs to date has been a
placement area which results in a short haul time.
twin shaft pugmill. Other types of mixing equipment
Therefore, special protective measures for the
would probably also perform satisfactorily. The inside
soil-cement being transported are usually not required.
of a pugmill mixer is shown on Figure 25. The shafts
On all Bureau jobs to date, the truck hauling the
rotate in opposite directions and the soil-cement is
soil-cement has been driven up on the previous lift of
moved through the mixer by the pitch of the paddles.
soil-cement to dump the material. This requires the
construction of temporary approach ramps to the layer
being placed. Care must be exercised at the top of
these ramps so the ramp does not get so thin that it
does not protect the previous layers of soil-cement.
Current specifications require at least an 18-inch
(0.46-m) thickness at the top of the ramp to prevent
the heavily loaded trucks from breaking up the edge of
the previous Jifts.

The fresh soil-cement is dumped into a spreader which

is pushed with a crawler tractor. The use of the
spreader results in a smooth lift of uniform width and
depth. Figure 26 shows a schematic diagram of the
placement operation. Figures 27 and 28 show pictures
of the spreading operation and the resulting loose lift.
This type of spreading equipment has been used on all
Figure 25. I nside of pugmill, shafts turn in opposite
to date in order to maintain close control of lift
directions while spray bars supply water-Cheney Dam. thickness and width.
Photo P835-D-58951

14
Pneumatic roller to compact Sheepsfaat roller to Truck to haul soil-cement
upper portion of lift. compact lower Spreader to spread from pugmill to placement.
portion of lift. loose lift.

---------

NOTE.
Apprax. 30 min. overage time from mixer to completed rolling
with continuous efficient operation

Figure 26. Soil-cement placing operation.

The soil-cement facings have been specified as a placement area results in a greater working width
horizontal width of 8 feet (2.4 m) or normal without endangering the construction personnel or
thicknesses of 24 or 36 inches (0.61 to 0.91 m) in equipment.
some cases. This results in a rather narrow working area
for operation of construction equipment without Compaction
considerable overbu ild. In order to increase the
working width, the contractor is permitted to place the Since cement hydration changes the characteristics of
material on a slope not to exceed 8: 1. Slopes flatter fresh soil-cement quite rapidly, the compaction must
than 8: 1 are used in most cases as it is not necessary to be accomplished as soon as possible after the material
use an 8: 1 slope to obtain working widths of over 10 is spread. The specifications require that the material
feet (3.0 m). For example, if the slope of the dam is be spread within 30 minutes after mixing. After the
3:1, a placement slope of 10:1 gives a working width material is spread, compaction must be completed
of about 11 feet (3.4 m) which is adequate for most within 1 hour and cannot be left more than 30 minutes
construction equipment. A slight slope on the without having some operation performed on it.

Figure 27. Spreading soH-cement on placement Figure 28. Closeup view of spreader box used to place
area-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58952 even, uniform lift-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58949

15
On compacted earthwork, successive layers are A pneumatic-tired roller is used to compact the upper
compacted together by the use of tamping rollers. portion of the lift. As with the sheepsfoot roller, the
However, on soil-cement construction, the entire layer weights must be adjusted at the beginning of the job to
must be compacted before the time limits stated above obtain the best compaction. The weight of the roller is
are exceeded. In almost all cases, this requires that the usually increased to just under the weight which causes
entire lift be compacted because successive lifts cannot the material to squeeze or creep under the roller. If the
be placed rapidly enough to compact them together . roller cannot be loaded that heavily, the weight is
This has been accomplished by a combination of considered adequate if acceptable densities are being
sheepsfoot and pneumatic-tired rolling on all Bureau obtained. A towed-type roller such as shown on Figure
jobs except the Merritt Dam Modifications and some 30 was used on Merritt Dam and Cheney Dam but on
test sections on other jobs.

The sheepsfoot rolling is used to compact the lower

portion of the lift. The roller weights must be adjusted
at the beginning of the job to produce the best
compaction with the material being used. The best
compaction seems to be when the sheepsfoot begins to
walk out toward the end of the requ ired number of
passes. At this weight, the roller is heavy enough to
compact the material but not so heavy that it
continues to penetrate the material compacted on
previous passes. The required weight per foot depends
on the material type and lift thickness. On Glen Elder
Dam, Cawker City Dike, and Starvation Dam, a
self-propelled roller with 11-inch-Iong (27.8-cm)
tamping teeth and pneumatic front tires was used. This
roller is shown on Figure 32. Because of the longer
tooth length, a thicker lift was used at roller weights of
2,600 to 3,950 pounds per foot (3,870 to 5,880 kg/m). Figure 30. Pneumatic roller used to compact upper
On the other jobs, a 6-inch ( 15.2-cm) compacted lift portion of lift-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58947
was used and the roller was loaded from about 1,600
to 2,000 pounds per foot (2,380 to 2,980 kg/m). These the rest of the jobs, self-propelled rollers were used.
weights probably correspond to the 200 psi ( 14.1 kg/sq The towed rollers were large four-wheel rollers and
cm) knob pressure used on the Bonny Test Section.l were loaded to about 28,000 pounds (12,700 kg) total
These rollers were towed by a crawler tractor and are load. The self-propelled rollers were two-axle types
shown on Figures 29, 30, and 31. with the wheels on one axle in staggered positions
relative to the wheels on the other axle. Rollers of this
type are shown on Figures 31,32, and 33. The smooth
wheels and the overlap design on the self-propelled
rollers result in a smoother finished surface than with
the towed roller. Note on Figure 30, the slight ridges of
soil-cement caused by the tire tread dry rapidly and
also interfere with the cleanup in preparation for the
next lift. The loaded weight of the self-propelled rollers
varied from 25,000 to 35,000 pounds ( 11 ,400 to
15,900 kg) which is in the same range as the total
weight used on the towed rollers. The self-propelled
rollers were 7- and 11-wheel rollers so the wheel weight
was somewhat less.

The results of placement moisture at or above

optimum can be seen on Figure 31. The rutting during
Figure 29. Sheepsfoot roller used to compact lower pneumatic-tire rolling shown behind the roller is
portion of the lift-Merritt Dam. Photo P719-D-58950 usually due to placement water contents near or above

16
 ~~on ~p the slope as~o!'n ~ F ia!Jre

one strip of soll-cement, another stri was laid next to

I so e wo cou e compacted together (Figure 33).
~ specifj-;; d ifficulti~s -were -encountered in
compacting the material with pneumatic compaction
only.

F igure 31. General view of placing and rolling

operations-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. Photo
P662-525-5763

optimum. The fine sand materials which have been

used for soil-cement become somewhat spongy at that
water content and make it difficult to compact them
to a smooth surface. The surfaces shown on Figures 32
and 33 are much smoother and show little evidence of
rutting or surface cracking. The pneumatic rolling on
Bonny Test Section was accomplished with a loaded
truck (Figure 20). Figure 33. Placing and rolling second lift-Merritt Dam
upstream slope modification. Photo P719-701-7

Two test sections were constructed on Glen Elder Dam

to evaluate the use of pneumatic rolling only. The first
section was compacted with the same procedures as
used on the rest of the job. That is: 11-1/2-inch
(29-cm) loose lift compacted to about 8 inches (20 cm)
with eight passes of the sheepsfoot roller and six passes
of the pneumatic-tired roller. The second section was
placed with a 9-inch (23-cm) loose lift compacted by
10 passes of the pneumatic-tired roller. The following
conclusions were made on these test sections: ( 1) there
was very little difference in the densities obtained, (2)
pneumatic-tired rolling only resulted in more creep and
more wheel rutting, (3) more cleanup was required due
to wheel rutting and greater number of lifts, (4) little
difference in the bond strengths was evidenced in
F igure 32. General view of placing and rolling record coring, and (5) because more time is required
operations-Cawker City Dike. Photo P495-731-460 for the greater number of lifts, cost savings by using
pneumatic rolling only are minimal. This last
As previously stated, the soil-cement on the Merritt conclusion was probably true in the case of thicker lifts
Dam Modifications was compacted by pneumatic-tire used on Glen Elder Dam but probably would not be
rolling only. "'!:bi~ mnrlifil'~tion was made on the riah.t true where a 6-inch (15-cm) lift was used with the
~ment-w!:!ich h.aS no~ been pro.tecte~.bv ~oil-ce~e.nt. smaller sheepsfoot rollers.
-as--Dart of the oriainal-con~ru~tion-,- ~~ Cf -.:tb.8
-upS1r~~m fa~~ is 101 and it was ~ov~r~d with ~- Curing and Preparation for Next Lift
.5.2-cm) la ers of soil-cement T ..I
I cted y the Bureau which was laid The specifications have required that the soil-cement
oarallel to the slope surface Inste 0 in the stairstep surfaces be kept continuously moist until the next

17
layer of soil-cement was placed. However, moist curing
in excess of 7 days was not required. Side slopes of
permanently exposed material were required to be kept
moist for 7 days. Sealing compounds or moist earth
covers have also been used to maintain a moist
condition for 7 days on permanently exposed surfaces.

Surfaces which are to receive an overlying layer of

soil-cement must be kept clean and moist in order for
the next layer to have an opportunity to bond. These
surfaces are normally cleaned by power brooming to
remove all loose and uncemented material ahead of the
next placement, as shown on Figure 34. Usually by the
time this brooming was done, the layer being cleaned
had set sufficiently so the broom did not affect the
Figure 35. Watering inplace soil-cement-Starvation Dam.
surface of the soil-cement. Laboratory testing seemed
Photo P66-D-66533
to indicate that removing the compaction plane at the
top of the lift would increase the bond strength. This
removal would result in a surface similar to a fresh-cut
surface and could be compared to removing the
laitance layer in concrete work. Brooming was
specified after compaction to remove the compaction
plane on Glen Elder Dam, Downs Dike, Cawker City
Dike, and Starvation Dam. The time of the brooming
was dependent on the set time of the soil-cement and
was done when the soil-cement had set sufficiently to
prevent removing a large amount of material.

Figure 36. Watering inplace soil-cement with side boom

spray-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. Photo
P719-D-66534

CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
PROCEDURES
Proportioning and Mixing

The most critical construction control part of the

Figure 34. Power brooming to clean surface prior to mixing operation is to ascertain that the materials are
placement of next lift-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir . being proportioned properly. Gradation tests are
Photo P719-D-58948 performed on the stockpile material in addition to
visual observation of the excavation and stockpiling
Figures 35 and 36 show watering operations using fine operations to see that uniform material of the desired
sprays to keep soil-cement moist. The use of excessive gradation is being delivered.
water, especially immediately after placement and until
initial set, could be detrimental to developing bond to The soil feed and cement feed are set to proportion the
the next lift. Applying excess water at this time can be cement to the required percentage based on the dry
envisioned as increasing the water-cement ratio of the weight of soil. As previously stated, the calibration
fresh soil-cement or possibly washing the cement from curve on the cement vane feeder can be used to adjust
the soil particles near the surface. the cement feed. Setting the soil feed is generally

18
subject to greater variations since gradation or moisture compared to Rapid Method Test results to obtain the
changes in the soil can cause variations. As long as the percent compaction and variation from optimum.
same material and feeder setting is maintained, the feed
rate will stay about the same. The soil feed rate can be Compressive strength test specimens are remolded to
obtained by running a timed load of soil only through the fill wet density as soon as the fill wet density is
the plant and weighing it. This requires shutting down available. The material for these specimens is obtained
production and is usually done only at the beginning of at the same time the compaction material is obtained
the day or at other times when production is disrupted. and stored in a sealed container until the density test
A check on the soil feed rate can be obtained by results are available.
weighing a timed truck load of soil-cement. The dry
weight of the material can be determined by obtaining Chemical Cement Content
the water content of the material and the amount of Determ ination
cement in the soil-cement is obtained from the cement
feed rate in pounds per minute. This calculation Since the proportioning of the soil and cement are
assumes, of course, that the cement feeder is feeding subject to some variations, some check on the cement
the amount obtained from the calibration curve but content of the soil-cement as mixed was desired. A
this seems to be a reasonable assumption if calibration study by the Applied Sciences Branch indicated that a
checks show the device is reliable. These checks can be volumetric determination of the total calcium was the
made at any time but they are usually made at the time most rapid.! 7 This method requires the determination
density and compaction tests are made. of the amount of calcium in the soil and cement as well
as the soil-cement. It is only recommended where the
Calibration and check tests on the soil feed require soil being used has small amounts of acid-soluble
moisture content determinations whether soil only or calcium.! 7
soil-cement weights are obtained. In order for the tests
to have any benefit for control purposes, this moisture Chemical cement content determinations were made
content must be available quickly. Hotplate moistures on the features listed in the Introduction except
have been used in some cases and the carbide moisture Merritt Dam Modification and Starvation Dam. These
tester has also been used. This device measures the tests were not performed at Starvation Dam due to the
amount of acetylene gas produced by the reaction of high salt content of the soil. The calcium content of
the water in the soil with calcium carbide reagent the soils used at Lubbock Regulating Reservoir and
added to the soil. This device is fast and has been Downs Dike also had high calcium contents and the
found to be satisfactory for control purposes. results of the chemical cement content tests showed
greater than normal variations.
Visual observation of the soil-cement as it is discharged
from the mixer is normally adequate to determine if it Construction Control Reports
is properly mixed. The soil-cement should be uniform
in color and texture. Very little difficulty has been Construction control testing is reported on Form No.
encountered in obtaining thorough mixing. 7-1737. This form gives the location of each record test
and the results of the compaction and density tests.
Density and Compaction Testing The time of plant mixing, elapsed times for completion
of laboratory and field compaction, and field density
Density tests are made in the compacted material in test are recorded. The results of compressive strength
the same manner as for normal earthwork. However, control specimens are also recorded as they become
since the properties of the soil-cement material are available. Some of these results are not available until
time dependent, the compaction test is not performed after the report has been submitted and subsequent
on the material taken from the density hole. Material reports are therefore submitted. An example of the
for the compaction test is obtained before the material report form with data recorded is shown in the
is compacted on the placement. The spot where the Appendix.
material was obtained is marked so the field density
test can be performed at the same location. If the A brief summary of construction control results from
material is obtained at the mixing plant prior to the facings constructed by the Bureau are summarized
spreading, the spot is marked where the truckload is on Table 2. A more complete summary giving the
spread. A Rapid Method Compaction Test is performed averages for each month during construction is shown
on the material at about the same time the material is on pages 94 through 95 of the Appendix. A review of
being compacted on the placement. The field density these results shows that the density of the soil-cement
test results are obtained after compaction and has averaged 98 to 100 percent of Proctor maximum

19
 Table 2

SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION CONTROL RESULTS

Weighted Averages from Entire Job

Percent Variation Compressive strength

Feature Proctor from optimum (psi)
Density (percent) 7-day 28-day

Merritt Dam 102.1 0.3 dry 1,360 1,815

Cheney Dam 98.8 0.3 dry 1,199 1,497
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir 100.0 0.3 dry 834 1,134
Glen Elder Dam 100.8 0.7 dry 854 1,071
Down Dike 99.4 0.2 dry 748 1,201
Cawker City Dike 99.7 0.4 dry 962 1,287
Merritt Dam Modification 100.0 1.0 dry 1,006 1,556
Starvation Dam 98.1 1.6 dry 769 905

dry density. The water content has ranged mostly from Merritt Dam Modifications. Observation and testing of
optimum to 1.0 percent dry of optimum water these cores allows an evaluation of the soil-cement as it
content. These control results show that the actually exists in the facing. The drilling also
construction procedures used have resulted in determines the thickness of the soil-cement facings at
satisfactory placement conditions. The averages of the the drill hole locations. On most of the features,
7- and 28-day compressive strength specimens are also reference points have been established at the record
shown on Table 2. As previously stated, these core hole locations. A steel reinforcing rod set flush
specimens are placed at fill moisture and density with the surface and grouted in place gives a quick
conditions. Therefore, a comparison of the visual determination of the amount eroded from the
construction control test results should give an surface of the soil-cement since the reference point was
indication if the constructed soil-cement has the installed. These reference points are also used as a basis
strength anticipated in the investigations stage. These for detailed profiles of the soil-cement surface. If later
averages are also plotted on pages 69 through 79 of the inspections of the soil-cement indicate excessive wear
Appendix so they can be readily compared to the test at locations other than the reference points, an
results of the investigation stage. estimate of the wear can be made by comparison to the
original profiles.
The construction control specimens showed somewhat
higher strengths than anticipated from the initial Unconfined compression tests and durability tests are
laboratory testing for Merritt Dam, Cheney Dam, and performed on representative sections of the record
Starvation Dam. The construction control results from cores. These test specimens are normally soaked in
the other features show strengths about as anticipated water for at least 7 days prior to the beginning of the
or somewhat less. Some of the lower strengths might test to rewet the soil-cement if it has dried. The core
result from a time delay from mixing to compacting as barrel used to obtain most of these samples has a bit
indicated on Figure 12. The general conclusion to be which cuts a core approximately 2.8 inches (7.1 cm) in
drawn from construction control results is that diameter. This is the same diameter used for standard
soil-cement of at least the quality indicated by the laboratory compression specimens. The record cores
investigation tests has been produced by the selected for compression testing are cut to a
construction procedures used. length-diameter ratio of about 2 prior to soaking in
water. The specimens are capped prior to testing. The
specimens selected for durability testing are tested the
RECORD CORING same as the standard laboratory test specimens after
the curing period. The 2.8-inch (7.1-cm) diameter
After the com letion of the soil-cement faci specimen is smaller than the standard 1/30-cubic-foot
core holes were dril e on a I the features exceot the (944-cc) specimen used for the standard durability test.
r

20
 Table 3

SUMMARY OF TESTS ON RECORD CORES

Compressive Durability losses

strength (psi) (percent)
28-day
Feature Record construction Wet-dry Freeze-thaw
cores control

Merritt Dam 930 1,815 0.7 0.8

Cheney Dam 1,241 1,497 0.8 0.9
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir 782 1,134 1.5 4.3
Glen Elder Dam 1,4 78 1,071 0.7 0.8
Downs Dike 1,665 1,201 0.8 1.6
Cawker City Dike 1,493 1,287 0.5 0.7
Starvation Dam 905 905 0.8 2.3

However, the 2.8-inch (7.1-cm) specimen has about 15 showed losses less than the investigation tests. This
percent more surface area for the same volume and is a indicates that the soil-cement should be resistant to the
more severe durability test. destructive effects of wetting and drying and freezing
and thawing.
The average of test results on the record cores for each
feature are shown on Table 3, and the average of the A small percentage of the contact planes between lifts
28-day construction-control specimens is shown for .encountered during record coring were recovered as
comparison. As shown by this comparison, the bonded lifts. This a In Icate a tota ac 0
compressive strengths obtained on the record cores are bondina between lavers but it does indicate the bon s
lower than the 28-day construction-control tests jre not stron!l enouqh to withstand the stresses c~sed
except at the Glen Elder Unit features (Glen Elder JD drillina. The bonded layers recovered have all been
Dam, Downs Dike, and Cawker City Dike). on features where power brooming was used to remove
the smooth compaction plane. However, the
The cores tested all appeared to be in good condition. percentage of bonded layers recovered on these
However, some fine hairline cracking during the coring features was too small to be considered conclusive
operation may have caused some reduction in strength proof that the brooming causes much greater bond
without causing visual disturbance. The core holes at strengths. Direct shear tests have been performed on
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir were drilled normal to bonded lifts from Glen Elder Dam and Starvation Dam.
the slope which caused the core to be taken at an angle These test resu Its are shown on pages 100 and 103 of
to the top of each soil-cement layer. This may have the Appendix and show that on the bonded layers
contributed to the low strength of these record cores. tested, the strength is nearly as high as the material
above or below the contact between lifts. This
The results of the durability tests are also shown on indicates that the drilling may be breaking many of the
Table 3. A review of these test results shows that the bonded layers if they are weaker than the rest of the
average losses on the durability test specimens is very layer and the percentage of layers bonded to some
low on all the features except for the freeze-thaw tests degree may be higher than indicated.
on Lubbock Regulating Reservoir. The average loss on
freeze-thaw tests from the record cores on the slope Apparently some bonded layers have been recovered
protection on Lubbock Regulating Reservoir was 4.3 from the Bonny Test Section. The construction
percent, about 1.5 percent higher than that shown on procedure used on the section may have concentrated
the laboratory investigation testing program. cement near the bottom of the mixing depth if the soil
Comparison of the rest of record core test results with was dry and allowed the cement to "sift" down as the
the results shown on Figures 4 and 5, or the plots of material was being mixed. This may have increased the
durability test data on pages 47 through 63 of the bonding where the material was mixed to the full
Appendix, shows that the record cores in most cases depth of the layer. In other cases, wave action

21
 undercut the layers and this may have been due to the
material not being mixed to the full depth of the
layer ?

PERFORMANCE
The performance of a product during service is always
the final criteria on whether it is acceptable. Most of
the soil-cement facings in service to date have
performed very well.

Bonny Test Section has now been in place for nearly

20 years. The co.nclusions stated in Report EM-6302
still seem to be valid and the satisfactory performance
of th is test section was the basis for the use of
soil-cement on the more recent features. Figure 37 Figure 38. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 67+50 showing
shows a general view of Bonny Test Section in 1966, normally anticipated wear pattern-October 1966, 3 years
15 years after construction. Th is picture shows the after construction. Photo P835-D-56104
rather irregular stairstep pattern caused by erosion of
the improperly compacted material at the edge of the
lifts. During construction, an attempt was made to
remove these edges by blading but the soil-cement was
too hard. Experience has shown that these irregularities
are desirable to break up and reduce the runup of
waves?

Figure 39. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 40+00 showing

normally anticipated wear pattern-October 1966, 3 years
after construction. Photo P835-D-56102

e~pected to break off. The photographs show that this

was the major part of the wear to the time the features
Figure 37. View of Bonny Test Section-October 1966, were inspected. The edges of the lifts on Glen Elder
15 years after construction. Photo PX-D-58945 Dam, Cawker City Dike, and Starvation Dam were not
compacted in the same manner (see Figure 32) .The
Figures 38 through 41 show pictures of the facing at stairstep appearance should develop quite quickly on
Cheney Dam after 3 years of service. Most of the wear these features.
shown on Figures 38 and 39 has been on the edges of
the compacted lifts and was anticipated. Ourina the- Figures 40 and 41 show areas on the Cheney Dam
Cheney Dam facing which have moderate breakage. This breakage
was reported to have occurred during a storm in March
of 1966 when the reservoir was about at the level of
the eroded lifts (elevation 1413). Winds in excess of 50
.0. ~mo.oth .su~ace on the soil-ce~. mph (80 km/hr) with waves of 6 feet ( 1.8 m) breaking
However, these feathered edges were not compacted as directly on the soil-cement were reported. A survey of
tnor;;;:;ghly as the rest of th~ layer where the" material- the facing showed that some overbuild had occurred
~ more restrained and these fe~thered edaes co~ and this was in the area that the overbuild was being

22
 Figure 40. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 110+00 showing
moderate breakage of facing-October 1966. 3 years after
construction. Photo P835-D-56108 Cheney Dam, Wichita Project, Kansas. Approximate
Station 87+26, area of soil-cement to be repaired. Lake
elevation at 1418.41. One-quarter-inch-diameter rebars
were grouted into 1/2-inch-diameter holes drilled into the
soil-cement. Photo P835-D-68953

--

Figure.41. View of Cheney Dam at Sta. 85+75 showing

moderate breakage of facing-October 1966, 3 years after
construction. Photo P835.D-56106

corrected. This correction would create cantilevers of

somewhat greater length and apparently they were not
Cheney Dam, Wichita Project, Kansas. Protective surface
strong enough to resist the severe wave action. The
repair on Cheney Dam. Material was 2,500-pound
survey also indicated that there was still a normal
t ra n s i t-mix concrete shaped to configuration of
thickness of about 2 feet (0.6 m) in the broken areas.
soil-cement. Photo P835-D-68954
Similar breakouts were reported at elevation 1421
during an inspection in 1969. These apparently were
Figure 42. Repair of soil-cement, Cheney Dam.
not in areas of significant overbuild and these areas
were repaired in the spring of 1970. Figure 42 shows
the repair procedures used. inspection and repair the damaged areas. The water
surface was lowered to elevation 1413 which exposed
Another severe storm occurred in March of 1971 when considerable damage to the soil-cement between
the water surface in the reservoir was at elevation elevations 1415 and 1420. Most of this damage
1421.4. Although the damage caused by this storm did occurred between Stations 60+00 and 110+00. These
not appear to be severe above the water surface, an stations are near the center of the dam where
inspection by an underwater team indicated damage maximum wave action might be expected to occur
below the water surface. It was decided to lower the with the winds blowing generally down the length of
water surface in the fall of 1971 and make a complete the reservoir. Another underwater inspection at that

23
time indicated that no serious damage had occurred the existing soil-cement facing. In addition, reinforcing
below elevation 1413. Figure 43 shows a general view steel mesh will be embedded in the patch.
of some of the most severely damaged area. As shown
on the photo, some of the soil-cement lifts are'broken Figure 45 shows one of the patches placed in the spring
off to a nearly vertical face through the entire facing, of 1970 at Station 85+80. These patches seem to have
and in some places the soil-cement forms an overhang. survived the storm in March 1971 very well and it was
About 300 feet (91 m) of the soil-cement facing had decided to use the same general scheme of repair. It
been completely removed exposing the Zone 1 was estimated that the concrete needed to repair the
embankment materials. Figure 44 shows one of these damaged areas would be 2,000 cubic yards (1,530 cu
areas where the embankment is exposed. Another 600 m).
feet (183 m) had less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) of
soil-cement remaining over the embankment material.

Figure 45. View of patch on Cheney Dam at Station

85+80-0ctober 1971, 1.1/2 years after patch was placed.
Figure 43. General view of Cheney Dam from Station Photo P835-D-70306.
88+00 looking east. View shows some of the area of most
severe breakage-October 1971,8 years after construction. Figures 46, 47, and 48 show the appearance of Merritt
Photo P835-D-70305 Dam in the fall of 1968, about 6 years after
construction. This is considered to be in generally
excellent condition, The normal water surface has been
at and above the light colored area shown in Figure 46.
Below that elevation, the facing had been continually

Figure 44. Closeup view of Cheney Dam at Station 95+90

showing Zone 1 material exposed-October 1971,8 years
after construction. Photo P835-D-70510

The damaged areas of the soil-cement facing are being Figure 46. General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 18+00
repaired by about the same procedures shown in Figure looking west-September 1968, 6 years after
42. Reinforcing steel will be used to tie the patches to construction. Photo P637-D-66530

24
 Figure 49. General view of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir
Figure 47. Closeup of Merritt Dam showing erosion of
showing weathered material, Sta. 51-March 1968, 1 year
feathered edge-September 1968, 6 years after
after construction. Photo P719-D-66536
construction. Photo P637-D-66531

Figure 50. General view of Lubbock Regulating

Reservoir, from outlet structure-March 1968, 1 year
Figure 48. General view of Merritt Dam, Sta. 27+00
after construction. Photo P719-D-60589
looking east-September 1968,6 years after construction.
Photo P637-D-66532

covered by water and almost no erosion had taken

place as evidenced by the asphaltic curing compound
still being intact on the surface. Above that elevation,
the stairstep pattern up the slope was beginning to
develop but it did not appear that the erosion had
progressed past the feathered edges.

Figures 49, 50, and 51 show the appearance of

Lubbock Regulating Reservoir in March of 1968, about
1 year after construction. Very little wear had occurred
on this feature. The fetch on this reservoir is much less
than on the dams faced with soil-cement and the
rubble broken loose on the feathered edges does not
get completely swept down the slope. Some weathering Figure 51. View of Lubbock Regulating Reservoir
in place is shown on Figure 49 but this seems to be showing erosion of feathered edge-March 1968, 1 year
superficial and is not considered serious. after construction. Photo P719-D-66535

25
Poor bond between lavers may also cause somewhat Slope Protection-Glen Elder Dam-Solomon
more severe breaka!)p. rlurin!) ~evere wave action. The Division-Missouri River Basin Project, Kansas," Soils
bond between layers does not seem to have been very Engineering Branch Report No. EM-719, June 24, 1965
ood on the first soil-cement features constructed b e
Bureau. As previously mentioned, t e removal of the 8. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on Proposed Borrow
smooth compaction plane at the top of each lift seemed Materials for Soil-Cement Slope Protection-Downs
to increase the bonding in laboratory tests. It is too early Dike and CaWker City Dike-Glen Elder Unit-Missouri
to tell if this has resulted in significantly increased River Basin Project, Kansas," Soils Engineering Branch
bonding under field construction conditions. ~ Report No. EM-737, August 1, 1966
means of increasing the bond, such as applyinQ a ce~t
paste between lifts and varying r.urina condition~ are 9. Hartman, V. B., "Laboratory Tests of Proposed
being investigated. Soil-Cement for Slope Protection-Starvation
Dam-Bonneville Unit-Central Utah Project, Utah,"
The short time of exposure on most of the soil-cement Soils Engineering Branch Report No. EM-714, April 6,
facings constructed since Bonny Test Section does not 1965
allow a complete projection of performance. Additional
evaluations should be made and published as more 10. Guy, S. D., "Laboratory Tests on Proposed
performance data become available. Soil-Cement for Slope Protection-Little Panoche Creek
Detention Dam-San Luis Unit-Central Valley Project,
California," Soils Engineering Branch Report No.
REFERENCES EM-712, March 12, 1965

1. Holtz, W. G. and Walker, F. C., "Utilization of 11. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on Borrow
Soil-Cement as Slope Protection for Earth Dams," Soils Materials and Undisturbed Riverbank
Engineering Report No. EM-652, May 8, 1962 Materials-Channel Improvement Area and Riverside
Estates Bank Stabilization-Red Bluff
2. Coffey, C. T., and Jones, C. W., "10-year Test of Reservoir-Sacramento River Division-Central Valley
Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Embankments," Earth Project, California," Soils Engineering Branch Report
Laboratory Report No. EM-63O,November 6, 1961 No. EM-692, July 20, 1964

3. Jones, C. W., "Laboratory Tests on Proposed 12. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on Soil-Cement
Soil-Cement Slope Protection Merritt Dam-Ainsworth Materials for the Modification of Conconully
Unit, Missouri River Basin Project," Earth Laboratory Dam-Okanogan Project, Washington," Soils
Report No. EM-611, March 22, 1961 Engineering Branch Report No. EM-746, April 1967

4. Ellis, W., "Results of Supplemental Tests on 13. DeGroot, G., "Soil-Cement Seepage Test Section,
Soil-Cement for Dam Facing-Merritt Dam-Ainsworth Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Canadian River Project,
Unit, Missouri River Basin Project, Nebraska," Soils Texas," Report No. REC-ERC-71-13, February 1971
Engineering Report No. EM-671, March 19, 1963
14. Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams:
5. Ellis, W., "Laboratory Studies for Final Design on Laboratory Tests-Portland Cement Association-CB-ll
So i Is Proposed for the Dam Emban kment and
Soil-Cement Slope Protection-Cheney Dam-Wichita 15. Soil-Cement Slope Protection at Ute Dam-Portland
Project, Kansas," Soils Engineering Report No. EM-668, Cement Association-C138
May 14, 1963
16. McMechen, R. S., "Laboratory Studies of
6. DeGroot, G., "Laboratory Tests on Proposed Borrow Soil-Cement Materials for Test Installation of Riprap
Materials for Soil-Cement Slope and Bottom Substitutes-Specifications No. 3227-Bonny Dam-St.
Protection-Lubbock Regulating Reservoir-Main Francis Unit-Upper Republican Division-Missouri
Aqueduct-Canadian River Project, Texas," Soils River Basin Project," Earth Materials Laboratory Report
Engineering Branch Report No. EM-729, January 20, No. EM-25O, November 1, 195°
1966
17. Tramutt, P. R., "Field Method for Determination of
7. Ledzian, R. R. and Hartman, V. B., "Laboratory Cement Content in Soil-Cement Mixtures," Report No.
Studies for Final Design on Embankment and ChE-n, December 1967
Foundation Soils and on Proposed Soils for Soil-Cement

26
APPENDIX

27
TEST RESULTS

29
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS II VE A IALYSII
7H1l. TIMI. "IEADINGS U. S. STANDA"D -"lEi CLEA"
. SOUME OPENINGS
4iII""Iii( IIMlll
I
10- "II1I/I. 4MIN. IMIN. "II 10 -100 "fIO 4f4081O -. - "'. I SO rr.-
0
""

10

10

10
Q
III
40!
c...

Cement
Wt. Vol.
(%) Froe.
Dens.
Opt.
Water
801

0
...
10111
III
..
706.
(per) (%)
8_3 10.0 123.0 8.1 10
10.0 12.0 123.8 8.1
H.8 14.0 124.5 8.1 to

.oat .ooe.OOI .019 .017 .074 .149 .n-r..Do,590 1.19 ."'38 4.'11 ... II.I 8.1 7U I~ite
100
DIAMEff" OF PA"TteLE IN MILL~tl£TE"S
CLAY ('LUTIOI TO SILT (NON-'LASTIOI YIN~ I COIILES

SM G"AVEL .-l.."
OLA''''ICATION IYIIII80L ATTE"IE"G LIMITS
lAND. 8.1."
PECIFIC G"AVITY
-- LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTICITY INDEX
liLT TOCLAY J.O.."
NOTEs:--B.Q.Qn;}!..I.es 1..5. e~.t.
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAlCflATORY'AMPLE No.
13N-420 ~IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH ~.

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE AI ALYSIl

1I.'HIt...
4i IIIN IIMI
I
MIll.
7 H1t... . .--
Till'" "EADINGS
IOMIN. "II1I/I. 4MIN. IMIN. "II 10 -100
U. S. STAHDA"D IUIEI
-10 - ~IO -. -
OLlA". SOUME.OPENINGS
"'. I .. SO rr.. 1-
~
0

10

10 10

7 10
. Q
III
! 40!
:I
f
c...

...
.
...
i...
Cement
llt. Vol.
(%) Froe.
Dens.
Opt.
Water
801
...
10111
0.
.
III
6.10
(pel') (%) 706.

e ~.1 10.0 125.5 8.0 to

9.8 12.0 126. 2 8.0
10 11.6 14.0 126.8 8.0 to

100
II" .oat .ooe ,001 .01' .074 .057 .149 .m .Do~.590 1.1' .1&3' 4.'11 ... II.I 8.1 7U I~Al!D'
DIA.Eff" OF PA"TICLE lit MILL~tl£TE"S
CLAY ('LUTK:I TO SILT (NON-'LASTIO) COI.LEI
L
OLA.WICATtOIt IYMIIOI. SM ATTUIEIt8 LIMITI G"AVEL"""""""7TI "
IPECIFIC G"AVITY LIQUID LIMIT ""'D
liLT TOCLAY -zu""
NOTE 1&~~.l!Y.J'~-~ ~-§_~~!=J.on PLASTICITY INDEX

SH"INKAQE LIMIT
~~~!:_~-_._._...._---

,
LAlCflATORYIAMPLE No. 13N-421 ~IELD DUlGNATION UCAVATION No. ne:PTH ~.

31
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS II VI[ A I&LYSII
TIMI: RUDING. U.I. STANDARD
IIRII14 CLEARSQUAREOPEN,NeI
~.
7H1l
8tf( UIN, IMIN,4It10 '100 ..0 f40e1O -. - Iii r ..~
Ii
11111116.80 11ft ItIM
'"~ ~
10

10 10

I 70 10
Q
~.
!IO 40!
...

~:I
2 ~- 801
~.
§ ... Cement (%) Frae. ~Opt. 10:
i
...
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water:
&.10 (per) (%)70 &.
8.6 10.0 119.2 10.5
10.4 12.0 10
120.3 10.4
10
12,2 14.0 121.4 10.3 10

-~'T
100
.a I .001 .008.008 DI' D37 .074 ,14' '1I1'.Qo1"610 1.1' .Jg31 4."" 8.81 1.1 .1 71.1 I~...CO
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLrfllETERI
CLAY (PLUTIC) TO liLT (NON-PLASTICI COB.LEI
I "I HI I /lUM I

8M ATTERBERG LIMITS
.RAVtL D.,
OLAIBII'ICATION BVMIOL
BAND M...
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-- L.IQUID LIMIT

PLASTICITY INDEX
liLT TO CLAY ~ '.
NOTE.Bonny- -T.es.1:-.s.e etlon
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
Iyp-~-"'- --- - ..---
LAIOUTOItV BAMPLENo. 13N-422 '1 EL D D£IIGHATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH "T.
,_.
.~ .-', "
: ~ <'-c <", ".,..
I HYDROMETER ANAL YS,S SI EVE ANALYSIS
25HIl 7HR TIME READINGS
...L
u, S. STANDARD SERIES"'o .! CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
4SMIPl
I
15Mlit. tOMIN 19MIN 4MIN I MIN
-,"" "100 "50 '40'10 '16 .. '4 'loa" '1(0" III{ r 5"6" ~
90 10
-- f-- --
.
-
80 20

70 -- 10
Q
-- III
!" 60 40!
II) c
II) ~
f ...
50 ,- , 50 It:
1--. {--- -- - -4 ..-- --
~Z -
-- - = --- -- ----- --- -.-!-- -
~
Z
~4O .. .. 80~
It: -- 1-- ,-' -- --= 't-
...
...
30
Cement (oj,) Froe. opt. -= 70~It:
Wt . Vol. Dens. Water==
(per) ( ]fI') --
20
14.0 15.6 118.8
.rJ."

11'.2
== 80

10 u
==
==90
--
0 100
,0 I 002 005 ,009 019 ,037 .074 149 297 .590 1.19 ,IR.38 4.16 9.52 19.1 38,' 76.2 0
12~5l
DIAMETER OF PAR-PfhE IN MILLfilETER'S

CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) I 'IN~ SA~D'U" COARR FIN COBBLES

A

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL SM GRAVEL . ~,

ATTERBERG LIMITS
SAND --.§.L~
SPECIFIC GRAVITY ~- LIQUID LIMIT
SILTTOCLAY, ,l3 ~
PLASTICITY INDEX
NOTELt1~_r:!"_~~_t:.
- P.?~ -- - - -- SHRINKAGE LIMIT
9_~~ ~!y~
-
-~()~s- ~!_~~--t. ~:>.~
--

LABORATORYSAMPLE No 15R-132 FIELD D£SIGNATION EXCAVATIONNoS tockp i l~EPTH FT,

-
32
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS II V[ A ~YSIS
TIMe; READINGS U. S. STANDARD KRIEI CLIAR S~UARE DP£NI"'I
I
.. iIIN: 111111111.80 IIIIIt "1IItII.
.\I~, 1H1l.
41111N. 11il1N... 10 -100 "10 4f408ao -.. - 'lilt' I W' t'
....
0

10

80 10

! 10 JO
CI
~.
!80
...
4O!
~: c
~
8011
~if
~Z ~
11140 Cement (%) Frac. Opt. 8O~
i
III
Wt. Vol. Dells. Water:
Lao (pef) (%) 10
L

8.0 8.7 111.0 11.8

1.0 10
10.0 10.9 112. 5 11.2
1.0 12.0 13.0 114.0 10.7 10

.(II .oat .000.001 .019 .031 ..014

DIAIilETER
.149 .291.D'!I9O
OF PARTI~LE
1.19
1
JI
IN MILLII ETERS
4.11 '.111 II.' "I
1U
III r'
lfl;l,IC

CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SILT (NON- PLASTIC) CO"LES

SP GRAVlL ..JL.,
OLAIII'ICATIOIil IYMeOL ATTERBERG LIMITS
IAIilD. ..9.L'
IPECIFIC GRAVITY
-- LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTICITY INDEX
"'"
liLT TOCLAY ~,
NOTEs~r.itj;_P.a.nL --- SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
Left Abut.
LAIOItATOItY IAM..LE No. 15R-£i.9 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION
No.TP-A DEPTH
0- 31. 0 .,-;

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE A IALYIII

IIHII.. 1H11.. TIMe; READINGS U.I. STANDARD
SERIEI ~LlAR lQUARE.,OftENI.1
{ii.."IN. 1II1II1t1. 8O"1It ""IN. 41111N. 11il1N."10 -'00 .80 -4,08ao." '. ' lilt' I... r
.0

10

80 10

10 JO
. CI
...
! 40!
: c
f ~
8011
~ ~
Z
11140
Cement (%) Frae. Opt.
iIII 80S
LJO
Wt. Val. Dens. Water ...

(pef) (%) 10L

1 ~.o 7.8 99.5 18.0 10

10.0 9.6 99.3 18.0
1.0 12.0 11.3 99.2 18.0 10

D I .oat .ooe.OO9 .014 .141

.01' .031
.291 Q 1I'!I9O 1.11 4.11 '.111 1U Itr!.lqolOO
1 J' II.'
"I 1111
DIAMETER OF "ARTICLE 1111MILLII [TERI I
CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIO) COI.LES

OLA...,ICATtC* IYIUO\..
SM IRAVlL 9,
ATTIReERG LIMITS
IA..D ...Jij,
IPECI'IC GRAVITY LIOUID LIMIT
liLT TOCLAY -15,
NOTE
.:Merritt.. j)am._- ---- "LAITICITY INDEIe
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------

LAIOItATOItYIAM"LE No. 15R-X59 "IELD DESIGNATION No.,AH-30lA

EXCAVATIOIII n(PTH 0-7,0 lOT.

33
 HYDROMETER ANALYS'S S, VE ANALYSIS

Ii
...L 7HR.
8tH: IIIlIliI.
TIII£ READINGS
IOIItM IIMIN, 4IIIN, IIIIN, "20 -'00
U.S. STANDAIID"RIIEI
-eO '404Iao'l8 . .~.
CL.EAR SQUAIIE ~NIN8S
I tI' r r..
0

10

10 10

I ~G
70 10
G
III
!IO
~.,
.
4O!
c
~
101
~flO
~Z ~
Cement (%) Proe.
III
iIII
&.10
Wt . Vol.
Dens.
(per)
Opt.
Wate;r
(%)
IO~

70&.
:
I
8.0 8.3 104.8 14.0 10
10.0 10.2 105.6 13.6
10 12.0 12.1 106.4 13 3 . 10

:e I ,001 .00II .00II .011 .on .074 ,14' .217 Q'8IO I." 3. 4.78 '.111 II.' 11.1 II1:I iC~OO
DIAIiETE R OF PARTI~LE IN MILL~ ETERS
"I lit

CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) .~ OOIILES

~M .RAVlL .-Dor.
CLASSIFICATION IYM.OL
- ATTERIERG LIIiITS
IAIIID. .-.l.5.,.
SP£CIFIC GRAVITY --- LIOUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
liLT TO" CLAY
,. "" ~.,.

NOTES:M~rAjJ;.t- J2al.Il_- -- --
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
768' West
LAIOIIA'TOIIY'AMPLE No. 15R-X60 'IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION
No...from DH-DEPTH1.5- 7.8 I'T,

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE A ALVlII

;a
I
IIHR... 7HR...
1111( 1111111.
TillE READINGS
10 IIIN IIMIN. 4 MIN, IMIN. 8t! 10 -100
U. S. STANDARDSERIEI
-50
'~50'"
. . .
C~AII SOVAIIE ~rNIN8S
1 Ii r tf'r
0

10

10 10

70 10
G G
III
Z
40Z
if C
~
101
~Z ~
11140 Z

. :
10111
i
III
&. Cement (%) Proe. Opt
70&.
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water
I (per) (%) 10
12.0 12.4 107.8 14.7
10
14.0 13.8 106.2 13.3 10

IJ I DOl .00II .00II .olf .on .074 ,141 .217 4.78 '.111 II.I 71.1 II7:TI If'O
0 1J!'8IO 1.1' ~~. "I
DIAMEUR OF P""TICLI IN IIILL~ ErERS III
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTlO)
COIILES

CLAS.HfICATtOfII IYMIIOL ~- ATTEltIERG LIMITS

.RAVlL Q. .,.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
..,.D. ..,.. ...8.l...,.
LIOUID LIMIT
"LT TOCLAY 19 .,.
NOTU:.Mer.r.i.tt.. .Dam. . ....-. PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
~------------

LA8OUTOIIY 'AM"LE No. 15R-11OJ'IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. nEl"TH I'T,

34
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS liVE ANALYIIS
CLUR SQUARE OPENI...I
» --I
.iN:
1HIl
IlIIIlIit.
TIM!: READINGS
eo III'" IIIIIIN. 4 MIN. IIilIN. "e 10 8100
U. S. STANDARD KRIES
8110 '40830 8.
.1
84"
-""
t W' SO r r
0
I""-

10

10
Q
...
eo!
c...
lOll!
...
.
-
IO~
Cement (%) Froe. Opt.
10&.
:
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water
(per) (%) 10
12.0 12.9 113.7 10.0
14.0 14.9 114.2 10.5 to

.ooe .008.001 019 031 I.. II.I 11.1 18.1 1V:1.1

III
~
DIAO~~TERI490F ':fl~'~ IN 1~~LL~~;~ER:_18
CLAY (PL.UTIC) TO SILT (NON-PL.ASTIC) COIILES

OLAIIIFICATION IYMIOL SP ATTERBERG LIMITS

GRaVEL ~..
IAND 21...
PECIFIC GRAVITY
-- L.IQUID LtM IT

PLASTICITY INDEX
liLTTOCLAY J..
NOTESN~ti t..Dam-- --
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOItATOItYIAMPLE No. 15R-lll ~IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH I'T,

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE A ALYI

-~HR.. 1HR.. TIMe; READINGS U. I. ITANDARD SERIEI' ~AR SOU""E OPENI...I
I
j"'-IIIK 1811111. eoll... IIIIIIN. 4MIN. IIIIft "e 0 8100 810 840830 ..- . I W' SO rr
"-"" 0

10

to 10

10 10
.. Q
...

,
i
eo!
c...
lOll!
.
...
...
...
.
¥III eol
...
&.10 10&.
Cement (%) Proe. Opt.
1 Wt. Vol. Dens. Water 10
(per) (%) ,
10 10
14.0 14.7 112.8 11.2
100
.ooe .ooe.OOl 019 .oa1 014 .149 ., DjflllO 1.'1 1 &JI 4.18 I.. 11.1 11.1 1U 111:! 1
" DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILL.I ETUI '11
CLAY ('L.UTICI TO liLT INON-'L.AlTIO) COIILII

CUI..ICAT. "M8OL ~M IRAVEL 2..

ATTlRIERe LIMITS
IPECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID 'IMIT
IAIIID. .~..
liLT TOCLAY 21..
NOTEI:M.et'J:.U:.t. 11I1IJL PLASTICITY INDEX
- - - - --
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------

LAIOItATOItYIAMPLE No. 1 '1R-ll R ~IELD DUlGNATION EXCAVATION No. "EPTH I'T,

35
 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIE VE ANALYSIS
18 7HR. TIME READINGS U. S. STANDARD KRIES' CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGI
-50 'I4o*ao -.. .1
-4 ~' 11ft' I' t' ....
..oc~ I5l1lit. 801111 11II1II. 4111N. IIIIN "210 -'00
I 0

CLAY (PLAlTlC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) CO..LfI

SP GRAVEL 1,
CLASSIfICATION SVII.OL ATTERIERG
LIOUID LIMIT
LIMITS
IAND ~ ,
IPECIFIC GRAVITY
-- PLASTICITY INDEX
liLTTOCLAY --1,
NOTE
sChen.e.y_..Dam. -- -- SHRINKAGE LIMIT

---.------------------------
LAIIORATORYIAMPLE No. 25J-X108 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH I'T.

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE A ALYSII

.9'Hlt.. 7H1t.. TIME READINGS U. I. ITANDARD IERIEI O~AR IOVARE _OPENINGI
1 IUIII..
j""_IIIIK 801111 IIIIIN. 4 MIN. IIIIN "e 10 -100 -10 -4O"ao -.. - '11ft' I .,. r tf''' 10

to

80 10

710 10
.. Q
z 40!
III

if c
~
801
~ ~
Z z
11140
¥
III
lOi
III
"10
Cement (%) Proe. Opt. 70"

1 Wt. Vol. Dens. Water 10

(per) (%)
110 12.0 13.7 120.6 9.6 10

.CIH .ooa .ooe.ooe 101' DS7 1074 .141 ft7

~ 11'Il1O 1.1' .I5JI
DIAIIET E R OF PARTICLE IN MILLftlETERS
4." 1.81 lal _I
7" 111;11
III
~
CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SILT ,NON-PLAITIO)
~ 00 ilL t:8

CLA""'ICAT-' .VIIIOL SM ATTER'UG LIMITI

GRAWL .-.Q,
IAIIIID 115,
SPECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT
lILT TOCLAY --U.,
NOTEKCheney- ..Dam- -- ---- PLAITICITY INOaX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
-----------------------.----

LAlCMTORY,,,,IILI No. 2.~X147 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. TP- 2 D€ItTH 13.0-18.0 lOT.
36
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS u. S. STANDARD SERIES"IO CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
4~5~~
10
IJ~~ii. 60MIN. 19MIN. 4MIN. IMIN "200
"'00 "50 "40"30 "16 "8 "4 " ~. IV." 3" 5"6" ~
10

20

30
Q
...
40Z
Ci
....
...
50 It:
....
Z
60~
It:
...
1011.
Cement (%) Proc. Opt.
Vlt. Vol. Dens . Water 80
(per) (%)
12.0 13.9 122.0 11.8 90

100
.005 .009 .019 .037 .014 .149 .291 .590 1.19 11\38 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.1 16.2 121 200
152
DIAMETER OF PARf>f~LE IN MILLfMETERS
(PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) RA
CLAY FIN MEOIU COA FIN COA E COBBLES

GRAVEL 1!.,.
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL ~L- ATTERBERG LIMITS
SAND ~.,.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT
-- SILTTOCLAY ~.,.
PLASTICITY INDEX
NOTES:C-heney-.~Dam_n unnnn-
SHRINKAGE LIMIT

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

LABORATORY SAMPLE No. 25J-149 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No AH- 265 DEPTH 0-8.0 FT.

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS

2 TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES"IO CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
455~~ IJ~~ii 4MIN. IMIN. "Jo 1\1{
10
60 MIN. 19MIN -100 "50 "40"30 "16 "8 "l ...." ~." 3" 5"6" 0

90 I0

80 20

0 30
0
...
"!6 0 4 OZ
Ci
'"
'" 0
....
...
~5 u-
~50 It:
.... ....
Z Z
~40 Cement (%) Froe. Opt. 6 0'"
0
It:
...
11.3
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water It:
...
0 (per) (%) 10'"

20
10.0 12.2 126. 5 9.8 80
12.0 14.5 127.3 9.3
0 14.0 16.5 126.1 10.0 90

0 I00
.0 I .002 .005 .009 .019 .031 .014 .149 .291 1.19 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.1 16.2 121!
fA~.590 ~38 152 2j
DIAMETER OF PAR I LE IN MILLf' ETERS

CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)

FINE U CO FIN COA COBBLES

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL ~M GRAVEL..------..--~.,.

ATTERBERGLIMITS
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SA"ID--.... --..... --Jl6..,.
LIQUID LIMIT
SILT TO CLAY...... 14.,.
NOTES:£hene: y -J)am..------- PLASTICITY INDEX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------

LABORATORYSAMPLE No. 25J-X150FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH FT.

37
 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25HR 7HR TIME READINGS U. S. STANDARD SERIES"'o CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN 15MI~. 60 MW I9MIN 4 MIN IMIN ~ 0 8100 8so 840830 816 .1
84 \fa' \It' lilt' j' s' ff'
I 0

to 10

80 10

I 70 .30
Q
~ell III
! 80 40Z
~1ft
1ft
C
~
III
50 SOC
~If
~Z ...
Cement (%) P:roe. Opt. ;-=- 80:
~<IO .- 0
Water --=70: C
C
...
II. Wt. Vol. Dens.
30
(per) (%) =
20 12.0 D.9 125.1 8.6 , ==80
14.0 16.2 125.9 8.8 --
10 =80
-
&, .002 .005 .009 .0'9 .037 .074 .49 .297012.590 1.19 2r,8 4.16 9.52 19.1 38.1 78.2 127 2 J?>
152
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLI ETERS
CLAY (PLASTIC! TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) FINE IUM COARse: FINE ICOBBLES

GRAVEL ~...
CLASSIFICATION SYfII80L ~M-SP ATTERBERG LIMITS
SAND. 2.l....
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-- LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTICITY INDEX
SILTTOCLAY -2-...
NOTEsCheney-..Dam. -- -- ---- SHRINKAGE LIMIT
-----------------------------
N384,S"OO
LABORATORY SAMPLE No. 25J-156 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No R? 1 QR J
? 'i&TH 1 .5-8. La. FT.

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS

25HIl 7H1l TIME READINGS U. S. STANDARD SERIES!!! CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
60 MIN.t9MtN 4 MIN. IMIN "2 )0 .100 'SO .40830 .18 ~ .4.1
11 MIN' ISM,iI. fro' ~' ."" 3' (f' 6" "-
"0

to 10

80 10

70 30
(%) Froe. =~-<IOZ
ell
! 60
Cement Opt.
1ft
1ft Wt. Vol. Dens. Water = c...
If 50 (per)
- 8011!
... .. (%) =
Z ..
6.0 6.9 116.7 11.3 =
-'"
~<IO
C 7.0 8.0 116.8 11.4 :: loeC
...
II.
SO 8.0 9.1 117.6 11.6 =
=70:
10.0 11.2 117.8 12.0 -
=
-=80
20 12.0 D.2 118.1 11.8
10
14.0 15.1 118.1 11.7 =
=80
.~
-
0 I .002 .005.009 DI9 D37 .074 149 .297 0.590 1.19 tl\38 4.16 8.52 19.1 38.1 78.2 127 2 ~oo
DIAMETER OF PARTI~LE IN MILLIIlETERS 152
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC) I IUM
I
COBBLES
FINE

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL ~M-~C GRAVEL 2...

ATTERBERG LIMITS
SAND. """ ..fU....
SPECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT 22 SILT TO CLAY -3.2. ...
NOTE s;J..ubJ,2~tck... .Reg.,__ReJi.. PLASTICITY INDEX ')
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
MiBture of TP-3,4,6, and 11
LABORATORY SAMPLE No.39U-X16 FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. PEPTH FT.

38
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SI VE ANAL,Y!I!I
CLEAR SQUARE.OHNI"I
.-- fill IIIlIli.
4i: THIl TIMe:READINGS
80- IIJIIIN. 4MIN. IIIIN. "210 -100 U.S.
-10STANDARD
~IO KRIES
-.. .!
-.' lilt' 1..- r ....
1 0

CLAY (PLAITIC) TO SlI..T (NON-PLASTIC) COI.LEI

CLASSifICATION IYMeOL SM ATTERBERG I..IMITS

IRAVlL"" .-.J!..
LIQUID LIMIT
IAND M..
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
--- III..T TO CLAY ...l,g,..
PLASTICITY INDEX
NOTES G.lelL.Eld.er._Damu
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
Mixture of AH-l through AH-6
LAIOIUITORY
IAMPLENo. 1 RC':-X??'hIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION
No DEPTH 0-4.0 1fT.

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALY."

j"'-
TIM..
J!I:::'il IIIlIlIl
TIMI. RUDINGS
10IIIN.11- 4 MIN. 11I1fI."t 0 -100
U.lo l'1.:ANDARD IERIES
-10 -40810 -..
.!
-.'
OLlAR SQUARE.OftENI"1
lilt' I... r 0

80

80 10

T 10
.z 40!
Q
101

Ii c
If lOll!
~
Z
~Cement (%) Proe. Opt. ~z
10140
~ Wt. Vol. Dens. Water 8O~
III
"JO
(per) (%) :
8.0 9.4 118.8 9.7 TO"

I 10.0 11.7 120.7 9.3 10

12.0 13.9 122. 3 8.7
10
14.0 16.2 124.0 8.2 to

Q t .001 .DOI.OOI .01' .051 .aT4 .141

~.o a'lIIO 1.1' I
3. 4.11 ue II.I 8.1 TU 'V:l.'
III r'
DIAMETER Of 'ARTICLE IN MILLI ETERI
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO liLT (NON- PLAITIO)
CO..LEI

CL.88.IOAT- IYM80L SP-SM IRAVEL.." .~

ATTIR.E" LIMITS
1A1III0. 9.2....
SPECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT
81LTTOCLAY ~..
NOTE S: _G.t~!L !1:J.Q~]:,-- Il~ PLAITICITY INDeX
--
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
Mixture of AH P-l through AH P-6
LAIORA'TORYIAM'LE No. 18C-X224"IELO DEStiNATION EXCAVATIONNo. ftll"TH0-4. 0 1fT.
39
 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 5111V[ ANALYSIS
.tlHIl. 7H1l.
elltN 15M"" IOMIN. TIME RUDINGS
ItMIN.4MIN. IMIN."10 U. S. ITANDARD 8IRI£I<
-100 -10 '~IO -.. - .
CLEAR $OUAltE})PENIN81
r rr
I --' '. 0

80

80 10

I .: 70 10
Q
~ !IO 40Z
III

~ f ~
. lOW
... - ...
Z
~ "'40 Cement (%) Proe. Opt. 80:1
~
.., Wt. Vol. Dens. Water:
6.10
(per) (%) 706.

10.0 11.3 118.4 10.4 80

12.0 13.2 118.6 10.6
10 14.0 15.2 118.6 11.0 10

KIO
.e I .001 .008.001 .oil
.01' .1" .037
'":..Q ".He) 1.18 .3' 4." 1.81 .... 71.1 II~! IC
DIAMETER .oF PARTICLE IN MILLJ EnRI -'1 Itl

CLAY,'LAtnC) TD SILTINON-'LASTIC) ~IN~ ~II. CO.'LEI

Cl..AIIiFICATIOIII IYM.DL SM ATTER.ERG LIMITS

GRAVEL .--5...
LIQUID LIMIT
IAND ~...
IPECIFIC GRAVITY -~ liLT TOCLAY......_...
PLASTICITY INDEX
NDTEI:DaWns- .Dike -- -- ----
SHRINKAGE LIMIT

----------------------------
Barnes Pit ~verburden
LAIOItATOItY IAMPLE No. 4 OY 41- FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATlDN No. DEPTH
0-5.0 I'T.
r HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYIIA
TIMEREADINGI U.I. ITANDARD
IERI£I CLiARlOUAltEOftENIN81
a'r.i 7:\
I5MI IOMIN. ItIiltN. 4 MIN. IMIN"~ -100 -so -~IO -.. - . l1li' '..- r rr
I .0
80

80 10

7.0
.Z 10

40!
Q
III

Ii
f :
lOW
...
Z
Cement (%) Proe. Opt. ...
III Wt. Z
Vol. Dens. Water 80111
~ (per)
III
6.10
(%) ~III
706.
8.0 9.0 117.6 9.8
I 10.0 11.3 118. 5 9.6 10
12.0 13.4 120.1 9.5
1.0 14.0 15.5 121.2 9.3 80

.a I .001 .ooe.OOI .051 .07. .148 ..,.

.0" ~'IHe) 1.18 ~~. '.tI '''I -.1 71.1 1~!.IC~oo
181
DIAMETER OF PAR~fI
I LE IN MILL~ ETERI
CLAY "LAIT,C) TO liLT (NON-'LA8T1CI
C018LEI

Cl..AII.,ICATtOfII I'I'MIOI.. SP-SM ATTlR.ERG LIMITS

GRAVEL 1.....
SPECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT
IMD ~...
liLT TO CLAY.. -5......
NOTE I: _D.D.Wns -j) i.l<.E..- PLASTICITY INol1C
- - ----
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
Barnes Pit Stockpile
LA8ORATORY SAMPLE No. 40Y-42 FIELD DOIGNATION EICCAVATIOIII No. DEPTH0- 30.0 I'T.
40
 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS IIEVE A~YIII
AlMIl. THIl TIM" READINGS.. MIN. IMIN.
1""-1It1( IIIMlil. 80-"-
"e 0 -100U.S. STANDARD 8IRIII~
"eO4f40880 -. J4II - CLUR
'lilt' SOUME.,onNI...I
I.. r r..
0

10

80 lei

I 10
Q
~.
. 40!
101

~i ~
tOW
~f
."'40
...
.
"'.

Cement (%) Proe.

-
..- ---. . ,...

Opt.
.........

tO~
...

i101 Wt. Vol. Dens. Water!

L80 (per) (%) TOL
10
10.C 11.4
12.0 13.4
119.7
119.5
10 1
10.0
. 80

10 14.0 15.3 119.5 10.3 80

r
100
.01 .001 .008.001 D.9 DST ... 11.1
"I
TI.I IV;~I
DIA~~TE~I490F ::;fl~'~ IN 1~~LL.f&:~ER:.7I
CLAY (PLASTIC)TO liLT (NON-PLASTIC) C08lLES

OI..A...FICATIOIiI IYMtIOL SM ATTERIERa LIMITS

aRAVEL ~ ..
lAND " 5.8..
SPECIFIC aRAVITY
-- L.IQUID L.IMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
liLT TOCLAY.."" -19...
NOTEsC.BJalker - _CiLy. - Dike-
SHRINKAGE L.IMIT
----------------------------
Shearer Pit Overburden
LAIOMfOltY IAM~LE No. 40M-134 FIEL.D DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH
0-5.0 ~

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE ANALYS"

TIM" RIEADINGS U. .. ITANDARD I!RIEI ~l:IAIt
. lOUME.OHNI"'1
, r
AI::k IIIMI.
TI:iI IOMIN ItMIN. "MIN. IMIN. .. 0 -100 -10 -~IO -. .!
lilt' rr
j'D- 0
10

80 lei

..
10
Q
101
40!
if c
...

....
...

i101
Cement
Wt. Vol.
(%) Proe.
Dens.
Opt.
Water
~. .

.
tOl

eDi
~
LIO
(per) (%) ~r
.
8.0 9.4 121.3 8.5
1 10.0 11.6 122.3 8.980
12.0 13.7 122.9 8.6
to
-~ ...~

g 100
.001 .ooe.OOl DI' .on .oT" ..49 .lIT JI c.1IO 1.1' .I, ".71 ... ItI "I TI.I 1V;.IIj
DIAMUER OF ~AItTICLE IN MIL.d ~TI!R'
CLAY (PLASTIC)TO liLT ,_-PLA.TIO) C08lLES

OLA...ICATtON IVMect SW-SM .ItAVEL 5..

ATTEIt'EM LIMITS 83
IPECIFIC aRAVITY L.IQUIDL.IMIT IA"'D...""""" "1'2'''
liLTTOCLAY""..-..
NOTEs:Cs.wkeJ:._City- .fiik.e. PL.AITICI.TY INOII;II
SHRINKAU L.IMIT
----------------------------
Shearer Pit
L.AIOMfOltY IAM~LE No. 40M-135 FIEL.D DUlaNATION EXCAVATION No. D("H ') 0- '0 0 ~.
41
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE A IALYIII
18 -- 1H1l Till!: "EADINGS U.I. ITANDA"DK"IEI OLU" IOUME OHNI..I
4i till IIIlIlil 80 - a-
"II1II. 4111N. IIIIN. "'II10 -100 "eO f408JO -.. - 'lilt' I~ r rr rr
I 0

10

80 10

I 10 10
D
~.
a 40!
III

~i Cement
---

(%) Proe. Opt. ~801

~f
~Z
wt. Vol. Dens. Water
~(per) (%) 80111 .
.III
~40
10.0 11.3 ~III
119.9 11.5. 101L
ILJO
12.0 13.4 120.7 11.5
I 14.0 15.3 120.7 11.3 80
16,0 17.2 121.1 11.0
10 Ave. Used 119.5 11.5 10

100
lJl .001 .008 .008 .019 .057 .014 .141 .n-r.~ 1.610 I." J' 4.1'1 ... II.I .1 11.1 I~~I 0
DIAMETE" OF pA"TleLE IN MILL J En"l
eLAY (PLUTIC) TO SILT CNON-PLASTIC) COBBLEI

SM ATTERBERG LIMITS
t"AVEL .--0..
OI..A"IFICATION IVII80L
lAND 8l..
LIQUID LIMIT
SPECIFIC G"AVITY
-- PLASTICITY INDEX
liLTTOCLAY ..ll..
NOTU:.S.ta.t::.YAti.9Jl. {>liJIL
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOItATOItYIAMplE No J.1Q.::X9.DIELD D£SI8NATION EXCAVATION No. II£pTH .,..

I
I
..-HI!..
HYDROMETER
III( elllill
ANALYSIS
TI... READINGI
HI!.. lei; 4111N. IIIIN. .., io -100
U.I. ITANDA"Dl£ltlll
-10 -40810 -..
IIEVE A ALYI
. -"It lOUAltE ~E
":"'.
'lilt" oJ'-
NI"" I
r -rrrr 0

10

80 10

10
.! 10

40!
D
III

= ...
c

.11140
f L...

801
... Cement (%) Proe. Opt. ...
Wt. Vol. Dens. Water .
80111
~
III (per) (%) ~III
ILJO 101L
10.0 11.3 119.2 11.3
12.0 13.4 119.1 1l.9
I 10
14.0 15.3 119.5 11.7
1.0 Ave. Used 119.5 11.5 10

lJ I .oat .000.oat .01' .031 .014 .141 .nr.

~ 1t'6IO
DIAMETER OF PUTleLE
1.1. .
IN MILL~ ETE"I
4.1'1 ... II.I .1 11.1 I~!. I
181
~
CLAY (PLA,TICJ TO liLT (NON-PLA.TIO)
~ COBBLEI

~-8M
OL"IWICATto. IVMIOL
tItAVEL .--0..
LIMITS
IPECIFIC G"AVITY
ATTE"II'" IAIVD. ~..
LIOUID LIMIT
liLTTOCLAV ~..
NOTE
S:. ..st.arJl~QD.. .DSDL. PLAITICITY INDEX
SH"INKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------

LAIOItATOItYIAMPLE No. 17Q-X70 FIELD DESI8NATION fXOAVATION No. ~PTH I'T,

42
 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III V£ ANALYSIS
,'u 1HR.. TIM!: READINGS U. S. STANDAItD SEItIEl CLEAIt SOUAltE OPENINGI
yo
.~ ':it 15MIll. 80 Mill ,,- 4 MIN. IMIN. "e 10 I Il1o' I r fI'
I -100 -110'40'130 -.. - ' 0
"

10

30
c:a
...
4O!
c
~Cement (%) loW
Proe. Opt.
~Wt. Vol. Water .
Dens. .O~
(per) (%) .
...
10.0 1l.3 118. 4 10.5 10IL
12.0 13.4 119.0 10.8 80
-- 14.0 15.3 119.9 10.7
Ave. Used 119.5 11.0 80

.001 .ace.oct .01' .037 .074 .211 j),1190 I.. ...1 '00
.14' 1.1' .IR.31 4.'18 "I 1'" I~!..
DIAMETEIt OF PAltTI~LE IN MILLlii£TEItS
CLAV (P~AITIC) TO SILT (NON-P~AITIC) COIILEI

CLAIIIFICATION IVMtOL 8M
-.--.- ATTERBERG LIMITS GRAVEL"""" .-'l,
LIQUID LIMIT "ND ~,
SPECIFIC GItAVITY
--- P~ASTICITY INDEX
liLTTOCLAV '
NOTEs:_S..t.8I.va.t w.lLDam ...-
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOIUITOItY IAMPLE No. 17Q-X11. --FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH I'T.

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS IIEV£ A I&LY..'

TIM!: READINGI U. I. STANDARD IERIEI
a'::'il
I
7:'"
"M. 80 Mill "MIN. 4111N. IMilt "e 10 -100 -10 -40'130 -.. -
°L:&AR lOUAltE. OPENI..I
'Il1o' Iiw' yo r fI' ~
80

80 10

10 10
.. c:a
...
4O!
if c
~

....
~

iIII
lOW
~
101
.
...
"10 10IL

. 80

10 80

100
.a .ooe .ooe.oct .0" .037 .014 .141 j) 11.110
~ 1.1.
. I 4.'18 ... .... .1 1'" .~~
0
" DIAMETER OF PAItTlCLE IN MILLII ETEItI
CLAV (PLAlTlC) TO liLT (NON-P~AlTIO) COIILEI

OL.AIWICAT- IVIIII80L
IItAVEL ,
ATTIItIE... LIMITI
II"ECIFIC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT ""D
liLTTOCLAV
''
NOTEI:- --- --------- PLASTICITV INDIX
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------

LAIOUTOItV 'AM~I No. FIELD DDIINATION EXCAVATIOIII No. IW!OTH rr.

43
 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS AIEV£ ANAl.YAIl
.~~,
,.1Miil. 7HR.
15Mlit.
TIM£ READINGS
80 MIN. "MIN. 4 MIN. I MIN. ~ 10 -100
U. S. STANDARD SERIEI-
-50 "404'30 -..
.!
-4'
CLEAR SOUARE OHN/NOS
lilt' lit' t'
,.
t' 0

CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)

I CO.SLES

GM gRAVEL .-5.0,
OLAlllflCATION IYM80L ATTERSERg LIMITS
IAND ~,
IPECIFIC GRAVITY -- LIOUID
PL.ASTICITY
L.IMIT
INDEX
liLT TOCLAY - ,
NOTEs,_Lit.t.le. _P.a.n.Qche. _..
SHRINKAGE L.IMIT
~~!!_~1s__~~~_!. Jll!IA.. -- - --- --
Composite of APPY-360 0-6', -361 0-6', -362 2-8'
LAIDRATORYIAMPLE No. 41 P-X140 FIEL.D DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH lIT.

I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 5IEV£ & Al.Y

IIMII.. 7H11. TIM£ READINGS U.I. STANDARD
IERI!I. loR IOUARE
, ~ENIN8I
fi "IN. IIIMlil 80 MIN."MIN. 4 MIN. IMIN. "II 10 -100 -50 -404'30 -.. - ",' . ,,' r r r
0

10

80 10

70
.It 10

40!
Q
III

Ii - :
If
I-
It Cement (%) Proe. Opt., I-
~.
.TO&.i
III
¥... Wt. VoJ.. Dens. Water
&.30
(per) (%) III
6.0 8.0 133.7 8.0
I 8.0 10.5 134.0 8..0
110
10.0 13.0 133.1 7.8
10 Ave. 133.8 7.9 10

~ t.OCII .ooe.OO8 D.. .037 .074 ..It .187 .,Il1O I.It .J8 4.,. t.. lal _I 7U 117!.IC?'
DIAMETER Of
JI
'''''TlCLE IN MILL~ ETERI I.
CLAY (PLAtTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLAITIO) ICOllLEI

OLA...fCATtOIII IYMIOI.. ~M ATTIRIEM LIMITI

'RAVf:L
1A1II0
,-8
,
,
IPECIFIC gRAVITY L.IOUID LIMIT
liLT TO CLAY.. ...1Q..
NOTEI:Little -P-al:1ocl1e--- 'LAITICITY INDEX ""

_CrJee1l_D~t D~_____--- IHRINKA8E LIMIT

14 fraction of 41P-X140
LAlCMTOItY IAM'LE No. 41P-X141 FIELD Dt:II8NATION E)fCAVATIONNo. ne:""H lIT.

44
 I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS sil V[ ANALYSIS
.'" TlM£ READINGS U.S. STANDARDKRIEStle I CLEARSQUAREOPENINGS
r,;,
..I::.z ~~16. 10- ItMIN. UIN. IMIN. "e 0 -'00 -sO '.oe50 -II 1"1 -4 lilt' I' r rr
I . 0
Gradation Tested
10

80 10

! 10 50
a
~.
!IO 40!'"
~II c...
II
lOW
~f
...
Z
"'40 Cement (%) Froe. Opt. 80'"
...
z

~'" Wt. Vol. Dens. Water:

"50 (per) (%) 10"

10 8.0 10.3 133. 5 7.2 10

10.0 12.7 134.3 7.3
10 12.0 15.1 135.1 6.6 10

100
lJl .0De .000 .009 .01' .031 .074 .14e .117 1).510 1.1t .IR3I 4.'" ... I'" 11.1 1U I~~I 10
DIAMETER OF PARTI!LE IN MILLftl£TERS
CLAY (P~UT'C1 TO SILT (NON-P~UTIC) C088LES

CLASSIfICATION SYM80L r.M ATTERBEItG LIMITS

'RAVEL ~ ..
lAND. 54
"14"
SP£CIFIC GRAVITY
-- LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTICITY INDEX
liLT TO CLAY
"
NOTEs:Jle.~L:51~ f.l. -~~!!_'- --
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
---------------------------- Composite of TP-101, -102, -103, 106, -107, -108
LAIOItATORYIAMPLE No. 40U-X22 I'IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. DEPTH ~.
I
-~HR...
.UIII(
I
I 1""-
18Mil.
HYDROMETER
TI.~
ANALYSIS
READINGS
IOMIN. ItMIII. 4 MIN. IMIN. .. () -100 -10 -.oe50 .11
II EVE
U. S. STANDARD SERIEI~
I'll
..
-
-~~-
A

--
. .
ALY

~-
~ AR lOUAltE OPENINGI
'... r r r
0
Gradation Tested
10

10 10

10 10
.z a
101
4O!
if c...
lOW
... ...
Z Z
10110 80101
~... ~
101
"50
Cement (%) Froe. Opt. 10"

1 Wt. Vol. Dens. Water 10

(per) (%)
to 9.0 1l.9 138.4 .7.3 10
-
lJ I .ooe .DOII.009 .01' .037 .D74 .148 ., Do11.510 1.1. .s. 4.'" ... 1..1 11.1 1U 111:1.1 IfD
I.
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILL~ ETERI
CLAY (P~""TlC) TO liLT (NON-P~""TlO) COI.LEI

CLAI.IfICATtOIII I'MBOI.. GC ATTIR.IIt. LIMITS

'RAVEL ~51 ..
IAIilD. "-r7"
SPECifiC GRAVITY LIQUID LIMIT 73 liLT TO CLAY
NOTEs:R.e.d.Bluf.f 8 "
- Res. ,,---
PLASTICITY IND£X

SHRINKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
80% t'p-506 and 509 20% from Player's Plant
LAIOItATOftY IAMPLE No. 40tJ-38 "IELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No.
~""H I'T.
45
 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III vr A IAL.YIII
..'IIL 7H1l. TIMe; READINGII
l'!Ibiiii II ""l 80- 111M. 4 MIN. IMitt "8 0 .,00
U.I. ITANDARDKRIEI'
"80 4f4081O -. - . ".
CLUR IOUAltE..OI'£NINGI
II t' If r
0

10

10

10
Q
101
40!
:
Cement
Wt.
(% )
Vol.
Prac.
Dens.
Opt
Water
. lOW
~

80i
(pef) (%) 101
70 IL
10.0 10.2 105.2 18.3
15.0 :14.4 106.0 17.8 80
20.0 18.4 106.0 IS. 1
25.0 22.2 106.4 17.5 80
.u no

.ooe .008.008 DI' DS7 D7" .149 .!t'1'j) 11'890 JI 4.'11 ... 11.1 8.1 7U 'I1;L.I:po
III
DIAMETE" OF PARTICLE IN "" MILL.r £TE"I
CL:AY(PLASTIC)TO liLT (NON-PLASTIC) ICO.ILEI

Ql.A...,ICATtOlll IYMIOL ML ATTERIERQ LIMITI '''AVtL .-4),

LIQUID LIMIT 25 lAND. 2,
SPECIFIC G"AVITY
-- PLASTICITY INDEX
2 liLT TOCLAY 95,
NOTEI~JU:QI}H.lb_Jl'!lL -- SH"'NKAGE LIMIT
----------------------------
LAIOMI'OItY ltLE No. 47P-l FIELD DESIGNATION EXCAVATION No. IIf:I8TH "T.

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS III VE AI AL.'!IJL.

11 II!'!. 1H1l. TIM& READINeS -100 u. S.
.80STANDARD
HRIEI -~.R IO\IME..OI"ENINGI
..
i1Ib~ IIM'I. 80... ""'. "MIN. IMltt "810 -'10 -. - ,''- 0

10

10

.. 10

8O!
Q
101

Ii
2
:
801
~
.
101
i101 801
.
~

IL 101
70IL

10

10 10

KID
.0~ .0- .OOI.DOt .017 D74
DI' .., II11'890 1.1' I . ...'11 ... 11.1 8.1 7U
I~.II
I)
DIAMnE" OF ItARTCLE IN MILLI nUl
CLAY(PLASTIC)
TO liLT (_-PLASTIOI COIIUI

OUI...ICATtOII IYMIOL
8ItAVtL '
ATT.RI.M LIMITI
I"-ECIFIC GRAVITY LIOUID LIMIT "-'0. ..-,
liLTTOCLAY -,
NOTEI:- ----- - -- -- ---- ItLAlTIC'TY INDIII
SHRINKAQIELIMIT
----------------------------

U8CIItATOItY I-ItLIE No. FIELD Dlll8NATION UCAVATION No. "'18TH "T.

46
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
16

S ECIFIED C MENT CaNT NT

14

12

.c..IJ\
II
~

-.. 10
~
'"tJ

C
0

II
~
.
II
Q.

~..J 8 \
~ \ I TYPE A)
~ '\
I
; ! \ I
~
-c(
6 LI\: ~ +---- 1 I

-- ----.--

~
..J

.
~ !
AVERAGE ~ECORD \
.
\

\
i
II
I
I

I
13N-420

''\
4 ---1L---~ L J ---

SOIL <R
--~13t~-421 TYPE B)
I
:'-
i AVERAG1 RECORD C RE
2 I
---+v-P-£-t-A---Wl-l:--
I
I

0 N TE: Loss S AS REPO TED IN EM 250

6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW~ WET-DRY-

BONNY TEST SECTION

47
 SOIL-CEMENT URABILITY TEST RESULTS
16
19.4

14
I

12 l~~, -

~
15R-~59)
I
\ \'

~10+
!

I
15R-X60
~c I

;d 8 ~
I
I

SPEqIFIED CEMENT
~ dONTENT
; I
i 1

~ 6 NOTE~_~ T E~LJil;_SJ.LL,IS-+O~u_-:-110 ------

~ AND -Ill $ASED ON A4CUMULATED

~ WET WEIGHT
'
LOSSES,
!
OTHER
15-R-X6Y
: I I

4 SAMPLES ACCUMULAI~JPR'C_u~ J u ---

WEIGHT LO~SES. t, '"

i
V 15R-111
Ii",
I

2 '"

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW1- WET-DRY-

MERRITT DAM
48
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

7
I

...
6 l i /BASED
~--t---

TESTf
pN ESTIMAT D LOSSES
DI SCONTI ~UED AT LE S THAN
PN

.c
01
GI
!
.
~ 12 C CLES '
~ 5
-
-0
0
...
C
GI
u
Gi
C1.

~...J 4
t~ I!..
SPECIFIED!
CONTENT
CEMENT

CI::
w,.
I
1
~C 3 ~~ L ~,.-+
. I
~ --~~

V) ", I
V) ". !
0 ..1
...J

I
I
I I 25J-X108
2 +I ~
~- ---J
I
---
,
I
I
I
I
25J-14
I
AVERtGE RECORD,
1
25J-X1 7
ORE !
25J-15 (HIGH
1 +€MP
I

2SJ-XlSr
\25J- 56
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW--2L- WET-DRY-

CHENEY DAM
49
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITYTEST RESULTS
0
16 18.4

14

,
II
I RECORD C1RE, BOTTOM PROTECTIO
12
I
..01
..c
GI
I

~
~ 10
-..
"'0

C
--+

I
GI
u
~Q. I

I
~ 8
-IU
>-
U PPECIFIED
N I
....
CI:: I
W
~~ 6 ~- J~.9JJ-pr-1- ----------

V) PROTECTION
,
V)
0
-I

4 ' -

--f:~~~:c:::

2 J I
I
\---------
;

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW~ WET-DRY-

LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIR

50
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

6 -J I

..
.J:
CJI
U
~~5 I
,I
-..
"C
0
c
U
u
Gi
t
1\
Do

V)
. I
\
w
..J
4
U
>-
U \
N
.... \ SPECIF ED
~
w \ .
I
CEMEN CONTENT
~3
<II(
~-~ u_-\ +-
I
n- --- ~-

V)
V) \ !I
0
..J \
\
\
2 ~ ---
i'I'
I
i
", ,.
18~-X223 I

1
i
1
:j
"-
"
"-
AVER GE RECORDICORE '
I

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW1- WET-DRY-

GLEN ELDER DAM

51
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

7 -~-

i
i
, I
6 -+~ + -ur --L
I
! I :
[ I
I
+-
-C
01
I

GI
~

-
"
~
0
5 r +-
+-
C SP~CIFIED CEMjENT
GI
~
GI
Q. i
CONTEN+__u
~ 4
...J
--

U
>-
U
I
I,,
-
N

~
,,
i

~ 3
IL
b. y-------------- .--------
~
~ : 40Y 41
~
0
: \
I
Q},
...J '
\
I~ 40M-134
I \ I

. 2 40M-135 -
\-i- i .'~- ----
:

40t-42~\
I
: ~'
i
\~-, AVERAGERECORD
1 --.. ---..- , C-OREI
T---
I -- ----
AVERA E RECORD ClORE
CAWKER CITY DI KIE
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW~ WET-DRY-
DOWNS DIKE 40Y
CAWKER CITY DIKE 40M
52
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

7
I
I

6 I
I
l---l-
I I i
II i
...
..c
i
0>
CII
. I ;
~
5 -,
-~
-g --r- ~
-I--~
: I

...
0 :
.

I
I
c
CII
u
Qj SPElcIFIED CEM~NT
0.. i
CONTENT
~
..J 4
U
>-
U I
N
~

~
w
4 ! ~
i ~

$ 3
~---~

I nn_nt-__~~,---
nn- n.- ----

~
0
' "-
..J I ~
i
AVERAGE ~ECORD COR~
2 +__n -.-
37Q-~71
I ""
,
I 37Q- X69 i
I
" '-'-...
, I
I I
1 +I j
i
~_.

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW--X- WET-DRY-

51 ARV A 110N DAM

53
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

I
I

! I

i
i

6 I---~
I I
-J I
1
: I
!
..
...c ! I

CI
GI
I
~
5
-..
~
""tI

0
C
--+---

I
GI
u
Gi
II
Do

~
..J 4
U RECOM ENDED CEME T
>
U
CONTENT I
-
N

~
I
,1
I

!
!

t
w
t-< 3 +- --
t-
~

V)
V)
0
..J " '"
I
:
i

'"
'" , I
2 , J ---
I I
"4
.r41P-xO.41
I
I

"-..(
,! I

\
I

"t
1 1---
I

r------------

41P-~140

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTeNT - percent by dry weight of soi I

FREEZE-THAW-X- WET-DRY-

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM

54
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

6 ~-
I
i
-j-
I
- JI

I I

I
i

.. '
'

..:
tII !

II

"
~
~
-0
..
5 r
!
+
C i

II
~
II
I

I
I
Q. I

'

~ 4
u
-'
~
u ,
I !

~
W
I
I

L +
I
i

~ 3 ---U'--- -- ------

;
g V
S~ECIFIED
i CONTENT
C MENT

2
._j_J ~_m__-
I I

tr-4dU-38 !
I

1 ~------------

i40U-X22
i

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW-X- WET-DRY-

RED BLUFF RESERVOIR

55
 SOil-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

i
6 1- - -t-- - J.

Ii!
I I I
\ I :
..
..r. I I .
01
GI
l I
~
5 -+
-..C
~
"'t:I

0
I I
I

GI
U
Gi
i
I ,
I

a.

~ 4 -
...J
U
~
~- RECOM'MENDED CE ENT
U
N II ~ CONTENT
~

0:: i I
. I

W
~
~
3 ~
~ n ~----
~ .--
.~
~---

VI
VI
0
...J

1
!
I

--r r ~-
i

a
8 12 16 20 24
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW~ WET-DRY-

CONCONULLY DAM
56
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
16

SPE IFIED CEM NT CONTEN

TYPE A
14

, I
I

12
:I I
I I
i
i

l.
! 10 .
j
J---~
~ !

I
I

~ I I I

8
i~
'-+1...-

0 i
~
6-
i

i \ I

---
I

__n___-

--~-'~.

~
: \ I''[;J
I

4 T~~~--~-+---~-~ ---+ ~~- ----

\\ i '~13N-422 (TYPE A)

2 --nI--=--~
i
I

r-------
--
~
I
13N-421 (TYPE B)

0
No E: LOSSE AS REPOR ED IN EM- 50
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~

BONNY TEST SECTION

57
 SOIL-CEMENT URABILITY TEST RESULTS
16
19.6

14

12 I
I
~ I;
; 10
r +-- !5_149

i I

I
I

3 8
t-.
t I 15R-X&O~
~
:
I
:

: SPEqlFIED
$
V)
6
f
~
tc-or~T-ENT
:
-~ ""-
~

~
~
: ii
, I

SEE NOTE ~N FIGURE 19 I

4 ~---
! i I
I5~-
x6i---~--

15R-11d
,i !

2
~-t-15R-lll==>-',
AVERAqE RECORD ORE
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRy-1L

MERRITT DAM
58
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

i '.. I
i i

6 I-~--- ~-- I
.

I "./ BASfD ON ESTI I ATED LOSSES ON

.. TE~TS DISCONTINUED AT ESS
...c
01 !

i
'.
. THAN 12 CYCLES I
..
~ :
~ 5 --r-~;---+~-
-
"'C
0
..c
I
:
.
.
I
I
..
u SPECI'fIED! CEMENT
Gi I
Co I CONTENT
~ 4
..J
U
>- '. I
U .
N . I:
; i '.1
wi'i
$ 3
L + --- ~-~
---~

on
on
0
..J

2 ~--+
,, ~
-
-~--, ----

AVERAG
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY---X-

CHENEY DAM
59
 SOIL.CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS

16 21.8

14 -~'-

12 !
1- --L--1-
SPE~IFIED CEM~NT CONTENT
i ;
. '
....
..c i
CI BOTTOM P~OTECTION SLOPE P OTECTION
GI

-
~
~
~10
0
r
, + -~~

....
C
[

GI
u
~Q.

~~ 8 -~----

u
>-
U I
N
~

0::
I
W
r« 6 ~n_! ---- , ~._.
' ~

V) RECORD CbRE,
V) ,
0
~ OTTOM '
PROTECTION

4 nn nL~ n
n- --~--
I
I

2
i --t-
I -- -
SLO~~--

RE~~~~~~~~~~

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY~

LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIR

60
 S2L-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8
9.5
\
\
\
7
\
\
\
6 1 --J--~L~-~

\ i I
I ''

.. \ iI
~
01
CII
\ I :
~
~ 5 ~_-i_d Jv'¥8C-X221
-..
~

c
CII
'

,
I
\ I I

I
:
~
CII
Q.
I
, \ i I
i
\
'

SPECIFIE CEMENT
\ ~
~ 4
...I
U
I CaNT NT
>-
U \ i
N
.... \I
~
w \'
~3
~
~--,--
n -1 - ~
-~ -.
---------

VI
VI
0
!\
...I 1\
i
I
\
\ ",\ I

2 ~
r

j n ~~

ii \ I

, "I
"-
! It "-
1 r
:
",---
i 1
"-
AVERAGE ~ECORD CORE "-

I
I

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~
GLEN ELDER DAM
61
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

I I

6 I

iI
I
t- I
I

...
..c
01
CII
t \
I

~
5 401_~
-~
-a
0
...
--
TV
:.
'

c
CII
\ I

I
u \ I
I
SPECIFI D CEMENT
\
Gi
Q.
CON ENT
~
~
4 \
---

~
u \
N
.... \
~
W
.
I
\ j

~
~
3 ~- \ t ---
~ _.~--

40M-135:
I
\ I

~~ \ il
\1
\ I

I
2 ---1 J_-
I
i"

I~~I
j

AVERAGER CORD
1 CO~---
I
DOWNS D KE
i

CAWKER ITY DIKE

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~
DOWNS DIKE 40Y
CAWKER CITY DIKE 40M
62
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

6 J I
i
..
...c
01
GI
~
5
-..
~
"0
C
r--~---+

GI
u I

Gi
Q.

~
..J
4 1-+
U
>-
U
N
....
0::
II
W i I
~.c( 3 r~__n t_nn -----
I : SPECI FI; D CEMENT
~ 1 I
g : CON ENT

1
2 ---+" ,,, ~ ~--

I
iI
37Q-X69
""
:
" ",I/37Q-X7
37Q-XYO ---:
1
AVER
-+----

GE RECORD[CORE
I
~

- -- -----
I

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY---X-

51 ARV A110N DAM

63
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

7
I
.
I

...
...c
6
I

j~
::
I
I
I
~I-~--
I
I
J I
I
.''
-L
'
01 ,.
I
I
'
III
~
~ 5 ...

~
-
"tJ

0
...
c
I i
I
III
~
III i
Q. I

~ 4 --+--
-I
U
>- I
U I
I
N I

i
~

0::
W
~ 3 . ---~-

<C
In t-RECO~~~ND~~-~~~k~-
In
0 I
-I CONTENT
:
i
I
I
I
"2 + 1 ---
I
I
.
I
I
I
I

41P-~141
1 - --~
i
I

f------------

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY ~

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM

64
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

7 --~

6
I
i

I
'J
I
!I

+~--
:
I
I
I I
I

...
.J:
01
i
I
I
:
,
GI
~
~ 5 ~~ 1- --~
-
-
"'tI
0
i I

...
C
I

GI
U I

Gi
a.
I
I
I

I I

,I

~
..J
4
U
>-
U
N
~

0:::
W

~
<C
3 r t - -----
In S~ECIFIED C MENT
In
0
iI
..J
I
r
I I
CONTENT

I
2 -r--- \-------------

,
i

1 I

~~ ~--

\4oulX38
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY~

RED BLUFF RESERVOIR

65
 SOIL-CEMENT DURABILITY TEST RESULTS
8

7
I
II
i

6 -I --I
I
iI I
I
..
..c
CI
I
GI
~
~5 -4-
-
"'t:I

0
..C I
GI
U
II
Ci i
.
Q.

~4
..J
u
>-
U
II I
I

-
N

CI::
I i
IU
~_~RE EMENT
~3
~
-:- O~6~i~~~
VI I I
VI I
0 I
..J I
II
I
I I
II
2 ---T---I I
-

I I
I
I,
I
47P-1
1 --t----
I
I
I

i
I

8 12 16 20 24
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight of soil

FREEZE-THAW- WET-DRY~

CONCONUllY DAM
66
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 250

3000
SPEC FlED CEME T CONTENT
200

.......
N
.; 2500 E
Q. ~CJI
,
:r:
l-
--
-"=

e> :r:
z I-
w
~
~w 150
~ 2000 ~
l-V)
w
>
V)
W
V) ~V)
w V)
~Q. w
~Q.
~
81500 ~u
I 100
I i
13N-42~ (TYPE A)
1000 --+ I
i
i
1 N-420 50
3N-421 (T PE B)
500

0
1 HOUR OAKING TI E
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2 X 2 in. ( 5 X 5 cm) CURE 7 days

BONNY TEST SECTION

67
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 -'~ "---

-~ 250

IFIED CEM NT CONTEN

3000
200

~
N
.-2500 E
c..
III

~CJI
::c ~
l- --
e> ::c
z I-
w ~
~ w 150
~2000 ~
I-
\I)
w
> w
\I)
\I) >
w \I)
~
\I)
w
0- ~
~ 0-
~
81500 0
u
100

1000

50

500

0
1 HOUR SOAKING IME.
6 8 10 12
0
14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2 X 2 in. ( 5 X 5 cm) CURE 28 days

BONNY TEST SECTION

68
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250
3500

3000
SPECIF ED CEMENT
200
CO TENT
--
...
-;;;2500 E
Q.
~ g\
~
::I: ---
l- ::I:
e> l-
z e>
w z 150
0::: w
1;;2000 0:::
w l-
V)
>
V)
W
V) >
V)
W V)
0::: W
~ 0:::
~
0 AVERAGE 0 7-DAY CO STRUCTIONI ~
~
u
1500 0
u
CONTRoLjSPECIMENS 100

S ECIMENS O~ 15R-110, -Ill,

:

NOTE:
I
AND -1l8~3~~ 167 INCHES ~15R-ll8
1000
I 15R 110", 'I

~-;t-15R-X6l
50
15R-X59 /-
---
500
15R-49
---- 15R-111
~15R X60
0
6
0
8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 2.83 in.( 7.2 X 7'4m) CURE 7 days

MERRITT DAM
69
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 250

SPECI lED CEMEN

C NTENT
3000
200

~...
.-ell 2500 E
~a..
. AVE AGE OF 28 DAY CONST UCTION a>
~...,
::z:::

C) ~C NTROL SPE IMENS :I:

~z C)
w
0=:
z
W
150
~2000 0=:
~ILl V)
> NOTE: S ECIMENS 0 15R-110, -Ill, w
V)
~V)
w AND -118 2.83 x 5 67 INCHES V)
V)
0=:
Q. W
::e 0=:
Q.
81500 ~u
100

AVERAGE R CORD CORE

/

1000 /~15R III

15R-
59~/-
/' 50
/'
./ ./ 15R-X6
500

0
0
6 8 10 12 14 16

CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 2.83 in. (7.2 X 7.2 cm) CURE 28 days

MERRITT DAM
70
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 -- 250
--r

3000
SPEC FlED CEME T 200
ONTENT
.- 2500
III
--
N
E
~Co
, QI
~:I:
C)
--
~:I:
~'Z C)
w
'Z
~w 150
~~w~2000 V)
>V) 25J-156 2.83 x 5. 7 INCHES w
~V)
w V)
SPECIM NS, NOT S V)
Q. AKED)L- ~W
~:::E
8 1500 - I
Q.

u
100
~AVERAG OF 7-DAY~CONSTRUCT :N I
I
CONT OL SPECIM NS
I
I

1000 ..---1 t---

50
500
25J-X108

0 1 HOU SOAKING IME.

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2 X 2 in. ( 5 X 5 em) CURE 7 days

CHENEY DAM
71
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 250

3000
Sp CIFIED CEtENT
200
CONTENT

N
~.-25~O E
'"
~Co
CI
..ot
:J: '-'
.... :J:
C) / ....
z 25J- 56 (2.83 5.67 INC ES / C)
w / z 150
~SP CIMENS, N T SOAKED) / w
!;;2000 ~....
w V)
>
V)
w
V) >
V)
w V)
AVERA E OF 28-D Y CONSTRU TION ~W
Q.
~~CON ROL SPECI ENS Q.
81500
u 100
~AVERA
E RECORD ~ORE

1000

50
500

0 1 H UR SOAKIN TIME.
6 0
8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2 X 2 in. ( 5 X 5 cm) CURE 28 days

CHENEY DAM
72
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250
3500
SPECIFIED CEMENT CO TENT

BOTTOM SLOPE
3000
PROTEC ION PROTE TION
200

~
...
.;;;2500 E
a.. u
'-...
CJI
..¥
:r:::
... --:r:::
~
z
...
~
W
D:::
z
W
150
~ 2000 D:::
...
V)
w
>
ii)
24 HOURS SOA ING TIME w
V) I >V)
W AVERAGE OF CONSTR CTION CONIROL V)
D::: W
0.. SPECIM NS, SLOPE PROTECTIOli D:::
~ 0..
8 1500 ~U
39U-X16 100

-
---
CURE~,
1000 "
i
AVERA E RECORD
CORE SLOPE 50
PROT CTION

AVERAGE 0 CONSTRUC ION CONTR L

SPECIMEN , BOTTOM ROTECTION
28-DAY
0
7-DAY
0
6 8 10 12 14 16

CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in.(7.2 X 14.cfJ.,) CURE days

LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIR

73
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250
3500

3000
200
SPECIFIED CEMENT
CONTE T
......
N
.-VI 2500 E
~Do
CJ\
...>o!
::c
~...
C) ::c
...
z C)
w
011: z
W
150
~2000 011:
...
V)
W
> w
V)
~V) NUMB RS IN PAR NTHESES A E TEST
V)
w
011:
Q..
RES LTS ON 2- X 2-INCH PECIMENS.
V)
W
011:
~Q..
8 1500 ~u
100

1000 (499)

/'
/'
/' AVERAGE F 7-DAY 50
500 - /'
/' CONSTRU TION
CONTROL SPECIMENS

0
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2 x14.4cm) CURE 7 days

GLEN ELDER DAM

74
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 -------.-
250

3000
SPECIFIED CEMENT
200
CONTE T

--
N
.- 2500 E
U
Q.
'" "-en
:c
~~I-
C) :c
Z I-C)
w
CI:: z
w
150
~2000 IN PAREN HESES ARE TEST CI::
w I-V)
>V) ON 2- X -INCH SPECIMENS w
~V)
w
I
8C-X223 V)
V)
CI:: W
D.. CI::
D..
8 1500 ~AVERAGE RECORD CORE
./
~./ u
I 100
(785) ./ ././~8C-X224,
I
I
1000 -+
AVERAGE OIF 28-DAY
CONSTRUCfrION
CONTROL ~PEC)MENS
50
500

0 4-HOUR S AKING TI E
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (~cm) CURE 28 days

GLEN ELDER DAM

75
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 --------._---~---
-_._--~~- 250

3000
SPECIFIED CEMENT
-]
200
CONTE T

~....
.- 2500
III E
~Q.
DI
:r: ~.......
... :r:
C) ...
z C)
w z 150
0=: W
!;; 2000 0=:
...
W V)
> w
V)
V) >
V)
w V)
0=: W
:I: ~0=:
~8
1500
u
100
~40M-13f

1000

50
500

0
24-HOUR OAKING TI E
6 8 10 0
12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2x 14.4cm) CURE 7 days

DOWNS DIKE 40Y
CAWKER CITY DIKE 40M
76
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 ~ -~---
250

SPECIFIED CEMENT
CONTE T
3000
200

N
~";;;
Q.
2500 E

~en
...10:
::z::
~I-
C) ::z::
I-C)
Z
w
D::: z
W
150
!;; D:::
2000 I-V)
w
>V) w
~V)
w
D:::
Q.
AVERAG RECORD C RE

///
/t V)
V)
W
D:::
~Q.
8 1500 a-40M~_134
~/ ~' u
?- 40Y-41 100

I
F 28-DAY
1000
CONTROL SPECIMENS
I

I
CAWKER ITY DIKE 50
DOWNS D KE
500

0
24-HOUR OAKING TI E
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.6Z-in. ~cm) CURE 28 days

DOWNS DIKE 40M
CAWKER CITY DIKE 40M
77
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250

SPECIFIED CEMENT 200

CONTE T

~";;; 2500 N
E
A.
~, C\
::c
C) ~~::c
~% C)
IU
1:11:
%
IU
150
~IU
~2000 DI:
\I)
> IU
\I)
~\I)
IU \I)
\I)
1:11: Nu ERS IN PA ENTHESES
a.. RE TEST IU
DI:
::f a..
81500
RES LTS ON 2- X 2-INCH PECIMENS
~u
100

Av RAGE OF 7 DAY CONST UCTION

1000
C NTROL SPE IMENS

(1018
-- - --- 50
500

0
4-HOUR
6 8 0
10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. cl.2x 14.4cm) CURE 7 days

STARVATION DAM
78
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250
3500

3000

SPECIFIED CEMENT 200

CONTE T
.- 2500 --
N
E
III
~Co
, QI
:z:
~~...
C) :z:
z ...
C)
w
OIl: z
w
150
~2000 OIl:
...
V)
W
> w
V)
~V)
IN PA ENTHESES RE TEST
V)
w
OIl:
Q..
ON 2- X 2-INCH PECIMENS. V)
W
OIl:
:i: Q..
8 1500 I
I
u
~AVE AGE OF
28~DAY CONSTRUCTION I 100
CON ROL SPEC I ENS 37Q-X~0 (1227)
1000
(11891)
-- --- -
7Q-X71
50
500

0 4-HOUR S AKING TIM

0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. J.2x 14.4cm) CURE 28 days

STARVATION DAM
79
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 250

3000
200

~N
.- 2500
III
E
~a.
CI
..ot
:J:
I-C) '-'
:J:
z RECOM ENDED CEM NT I-C)
w z 150
a: w
~2000 CONT NT a:
w I-en
> W
en
~en
W en
en
a: w
Q. a:
:::i Q.
8 1500
u
I 100
I
~/4-41P-Xl 1 I
/'
/'
I
1000 -+-

/'
;' i
/'
/'
/'
/'
50
/'
500

0 4-HOUR OAKING TI E
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in.l.2x14.4cm) CURE 7 days

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM

80
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250
3500

3000
200

.-~Q.2500 --
N
E
'" REc MMENDED C MENT I:n
%: ~--
I-C) C NTENT %:
Z I-C)
w z
~w
150
~2000 ~I-
I/)
W
> w
in
~I/)
I/)
w I/)
Q. ~41P- 141 w
~~Q.
81500 ~0
u
II 100
./
./
./ 41P- 140 I
/' I
/'
/'
I
100 -t--
i
I
50
I

500

0
4-HOUR OAKING TI E
0
6 8 10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

SpeeimenSize 2.83 X 5.67 in.l.2 X 14.4 em) CURE 28 days

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK DETENTION DAM

81
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 250

3000
200

~.-2500 N
E
1/1
~Do

--
CJI
X -¥
I-to:) SPECIFIED CEMENT x
Z I-
w to:)
DI: CONTE T z
W 150
!;; 2000 DI:
w
I-V)
>
V)
w
~V)
V)
w V)
DI: W
Q..
DI:
:2! Q..
8 1500 ~u
100
I
I
1000
40U-X22
I

50
lY-4 U-38

0 24-HOUR SOAKING TIME

6 8 0
10 12 14 16
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight

SpeCimenSize~in. (~cm) CURE 7 days

RED BLUFF RESERVOIR

82
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250
350

300

200

......
.-
1/1
250 C'O
E
~Go SPECIFIE CEMENT
U'
:z:
~...
C) CONTE H :z:
...
:z C)
w
01: :z
w
150
~200 01:
...
W en
> w
en
~en
w en
en
Ol: w
Q. 01:
~Q.
8 150 ~u
100

50

500

0
24-HOUR OAKING TI E
6 8 10 12 14 16
0
CEMENT CONTENT. percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (~cm) CURE 28 days

RED BLUFFRESERVOJR
83
 SOll.CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 250

3000
200

.-III 2500 --
...
E
CI.
~DI
:J:
I ~REC MMENDED C MENT
~
... '/ CONTENT --
C) :J:
z ...
C)
w z 150
a:: w
:;; 2000 a::
...
w V)
>
V) ~>
V)
-
V)
w
a::
~
- V)
w
~ a::
~
8 1500 ~u
100

1000
I
I
7-DAr CURE 50

500

24-HOUR SOAKING T ME
0
0
8 12 16 20 24
CEMENT CONTENT - percent by dry weight

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in.c7.2x14.4cm) CURE days

CONCONULLY DAM
84
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 .-' ~--

~ -~---~~ 250

3000
200

--
N
.-CII 2500 E
u
.
Co

::r:
'-..at
...,
-"
.... ::r:
C) ....
z C)
w z 150
ell:: W
~2000 ell::
....
w V)
>
V)
90- AY7/
w
~V) I
V)
w , V)
ell:: 2-HOUR DELAY PRIOR w
~~8
/ 28- AYfr. ~TO FORMING 011:

SPECIMENS
1500 ~u
100

I ./ l:::..
I
I
-DAY ).-./"
1000 ---;~ r--------

./"

50
500

PROJECT LABORATOR DATA

0 6% FINES
0
100 105
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
SpecimenSize 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2X14.4cm) CURE days

CHENEY DAM
85
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 ---_.-
250

3000
200

........

.-.. 2500 C'O

E

.
a.
:z::
~~
...,
~

l- :z::
e>
% l-
w '" e>
% 150
~ w
!;; 2000 ~
l-
w V)
>
en
V)
w
~
. I
w
>
en
V)
w
Q.
2:
28-DA~-'-D ~
Q.
0
8 1500 !
I u
I 100
I

I
7-DAy~~A
1000 I

I,
r ~ ~~
"..,.,

50

500

PROJEC LABORATO Y DATA

0 7% FINES
0
90 95 100 105
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
Specimen Size 2.83 )( 5.6L-in. cl 2..xl!lJl cm) CURE days

CHENEY DAM
86
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 ------ 250

3000
200

.- 2500
-
N
E
ell
~a.
, en
..¥
:r: --
I-C) :r:
Z I-
w ~C)
z 150
a:: w
~2000 '" a::
I-I/)

./
w
> ' w
I/)
~I/)
I/)
w 0 I/)
a::
/'" w
CL.
28-DAY a::
~CL.
8 1500 ~0 u 100

Y
1000 ~--L---4~-Q~
~-

500 1 50

PROJECT LABORATOR DATA

0 8% FINES
0
90 95 100 105
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
Specimen Size 2.83 x 5.67 in. c7 .2 X 14.4 cm) CURE days

CHENEY DAM
87
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

.
,
--------.-.. 250
3500
' ---~--

300
200

--
.-en 2500 N
E
u
a.
.
:z:
"-
~
g\

I- --
:z:
~
Z
I-
~
W Z 150
0::: W
!;; 2000 0:::
l-
w V)
>
V)
W
V) I ~
V)
W V)
0::: I
W
Q.
::( 128-DA: 0:::
Q.

8 1500 ,
I
~
U
100

/ 7-DAY
i

1000 --- ~
cD
L~____-

,/ ./
j ./
Jt
,/

3- DA Y
/1 :
I
'
---~-

50

500

15R-l 2, STOCKP LE
DURI G CONSTRU TION
0 0
95 100 105
PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (~lbm) CURE days

MERRITT DAM
88
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500
._._n~__.__-~.-
-_.- ----~-- ----
250

3000
200

......
-- NE
I
.- 2500
tit
Q. ~goo
:c
~
......
t-e,:) I :c
% t-
1&.1 ~ 150
0=: 1&.1
~ 2000 -~ 0=:
t-
V)
1&.1
>
V)
1&.1
V) I >
V)
1&.1 V)
0=:
Q. 1&.1
:JE
81500 ---1
~/1 0=:
Q.
~
/i u
100

.....----[
J~tDAY:> I
-~I
0 I

- -
1000 --/-1:. ~<7~~--i'r'ft~--,-- ~-:-
i --
6:" ~//
D- ,- - - -~ 28-DAY
[-' -- __-4
I

50
7-DAY
500 A -- t ---
L - ---- -~

C 211
X 2/1
SF ECIMENS

0 I I 18C-X2~ 3
0
2% DRY OPT 2% WET 95 100 105
WATER CONTi PERCENT OF PROCTOR DENSITY
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5 67 j in. V~cm) CURE days

GLEN ELDER DAM

89
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 ~ ~-- -----

--------
250

3000
200

~N
.-1/1 2500 E
~Q.
. 0>
:z:
~I-
C) :z:
Z I-
C)
w z 150
a:: w
!;;2000 PTIMUM WA ER CONTEN a::
w I-
\I)
> w
\I)
~\I)
w \I)
\I)
a:: w
CL a::
~CL
81500 I u
100
~28-tAY
I~
L-- -'0
I

I/O -~- -
1000
-------~7-~ /75? - -' - I
.
I

J~7-DA I

tY/ 50
500
3-DAY
SPE IMENS PLA ED AT 98% PROCTOR A D
M ISTURE CO TENTS SHO N
0 14, CEMENT B DRY WEIG T, 15R-11
0

MOISTURE CONTENT- %
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. ( 7.2 X 14. ~m) CURE days

MERRITT DAM
90
 SOil-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

3500 -----
----- 250

3000

/
.~ '
.-..
200

t'<
";;j 2500 E
u
:c
.
Go

~ 'd.
..M
-.-
I-~ :c
Z I-
IU ~
~ IU 150
~ 2000 ~
l-
V)
IU
>;;; IU
V) >
;;;
IU V)
~
Q. IU
:i ~
Q.
81500 ~
u
100

f_L-
1000 - -

50

500
S ECIMENS P ACED AT 9 % PROCTOR AND
MOISTURE ONTENTS SOWN
2% CEMENT BY DRY WE GHT, 25J- 56
°q 8 10 12 14
0

MOISTURE CONTENT- %
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (7.2x14.4cm) CURE days

CHENEY DAM
91
 SOIL-CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

250
3500 ~---
- -~-~ -~-~-~-

.....

3000
~ .....

200
.......

.......

.-III 2500 N
E
u
c.
"'-C\
~
::c
l- I ~

e> I ::c
l-
%
w
a:
~' e>
% 150
w
!;;2000 a:
I-
w 01)
> 28- AY W
01)
01) ~
01)
w SPECIM~N PLACED 01)
a: w
CL AT ~8% ROCTOR a:
~ AFTER 2 HOUR CL
8 1500 ~
U
100

7tDAY
~ --,--
---
~
I
I
1---_._-----_.--
-
31DAY

50

SPECI ENS PLACE AT

500 0 ROCTOR

PROJECT LABORAt<>R DATA

7% FINES
0 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
TIME DELAY - HOUR
Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. (~cm) CURE days

CHENEY DAM
92
 SOIL-CEMENTCOMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
4000

3500 ~-- -----

250

3000 ----

200

--
.- 2500
III
N
E
Q.
. ~IJI
::c -'t
--
~
C) ::c
z ~
w
~
~w 150
~2000 ~
~
w V)

> w
\i;
V) >V)
w

--
V)
~ w
~ 4~-- I 90-DA~ ~

81500 --Ll
[b-- -----
-
- - --,
Q..
~u
100
~DA'

1000 --- ~--~~L

I
I
-- ~
~
I
I

I ---

{L7-DA\
"
---
t
I

500
(

L ~)-DAY
,,)
50

PROJECT LABORATOR~ DATA

0
]6% FINES
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
TIME DELAY - HOUR

Specimen Size 2.83 X 5.67 in. ( 7.2 X 14.2cm) CURE days

CHENEY DAM
93
 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL RESULTS

Reporting 'tardage No.of Percent Variation Av 7-day A v 28-day

period placed accepted Proc dens from opt comp str romp str
ending (cu yd) tests (av) (av-percent) (psi) (psi)

Merritt Dam-DC-5462

11-26-63 30,000 83 102.0 0.2 dry 1,410 1,884

12-26-63 16,000 34 102.5 0.5 dry 1,239 1,646

Weighted averages 102.1 0.3 dry 1,360 1,815

Cheney Dam-DC-5744

4-30-64 14,200 45 99.8 0.2 dry 1,010 1,330

5-31-64 14,900 40 98.2 0.3 dry 1,090 1,340
6-30-64 23,400 57 98.6 0.3 dry 1,085 1,415
7-31-64 30,800 88 98.5 0.2 dry 1,175 1,395
8-31-64 33,900 84 98.7 0.4 dry 1,205 1,530
9-30-64 43,300 99 99.2 0.5 dry 1,360 1,705
10-31-64 18,000 23 98.6 0.4 dry 1,425 1,680

Weighted averages 98.8 0.3 dry 1,199 1,497

Lubbock Regulating Reservoir-DC-6000

10-30-66 5,100 17 98.9 0.3 dry 954 1,249

11-25-66 21 ,000 53 100.2 0.3 dry 830 1,146
12-27-66 *21,000 45 100.2 0.7 dry 508 692
1-13-67 * 500 1 102.8 0.6 dry 669 589
1-13-67 5,400 11 101.1 0.2 dry 671 901

Weighted averages 100.0 0.3 dry 834 1,134

Down~ Dike-DC-6405

9-26-67 11 ,330 26 98.3 0.5 dry 827 1,368

10-26-67 38,405 85 99.0 0.1 dry 675 1,062
11-26-67 19,076 46 100.6 0.3 dry 836 1,355

Weighted averages 99.4 0.2 dry 748 1,201

*Bottom lining with 7.0 percent cement, not included in the averages.

94
 CONSTRUCTION CONTRO L RESULTS-Continued

Reporting Yardage No. of Percent Variation Av 7-day Av 28-day

period placed accepted Proc dens from opt comp str comp str
ending (cu yd) tests (av) (av-percent) (psi) (psi)

Glen Elder Dam-DC-6147

9-26-67 16,179 57 100.6 0.6 dry 918 1,191

10-26-67 33,070 88 101.5 1.0 dry 975 1,245
11-26-67 21,276 33 102.7 1.3 dry 949 1,387
4-26-68 21,091 47 100.7 0.8 dry 1,029 1,165
5-26-68 31,702 71 100.8 0.4 dry 847 986
6-26-68 31,196 78 100.4 0.8 dry 648 878
7 -26-68 28,142 72 100.1 0.4 dry 849 1,026
8-26-68 9,337 21 98.6 0.9 dry 650 874

Weighted averages 100.8 0.7 dry 854 1,071

Cawker City Dike-DC-6548

8-26-68 9,886 22 100.4 0.5 dry 788 1,009

9-26-68 27,043 58 99.7 0.7 dry 897 1,200
10-26-68 30,512 66 100.2 0.3 dry 896 1,178
11-25-68 6,599 17 100.4 0.3 dry 987 1,367
4-26-69 7,803 22 99.6 0.2 dry 1,085 1,468
5-26-69 20,072 40 98.9 0.3 dry 1,113 1,531
6-11-69 8,678 21 98.8 0.2 dry 1,097 1,447

Weighted averages 99.7 0.4 dry 962 1,287

Merritt Dam Modifications-DC-6654

11-14-68 13,440 38 100.0 1.0 dry 1,006 1,556

Starvation Dam-DC-6488

8-26-69 9,394 24 99.7 1.3 dry 895 1,060

9-26-69 70,272 143 97.8 1.7 dry 640 880

Weighted averages 98.1 1.6 dry 769 905

95
 MERRITT DAM
Soil-cement Record 'Cores

Core Elevation Compressive

No. Station (top of hole) Percent loss strength (psi)

Wet-dry Tests

3 21+70.2 2884.9 0.3

4 22+02.1 2876.1 0.2
5 27+73.6 2919.0 0.2
7 22+76.0 2931.7 0.7
9 3+77.9 2880.5 0.3
10 4+27.5 2902.0 0.5
12 15+00.0 2950.0 1.7
13 20+00.0 2950.0 0.7
15 20+69.0 2899.3 0.6
16 25+00.0 2926.5 1.6
17 30+00.0 2951.6 1.4

Average = 0.7 percent

Freeze-thaw Tests

3 21+702 2884.9 0.5

4 22+02.1 2876.1 0.5
6 26+14.2 2943.7 0.5
11 5+89.1 2912.8 1.0
9 3+77.9 2880.5 0.4
13 20+00.0 2950.0 0.8
15 20+69.0 2899.3 1.8
16 25+00.0 2926.5 0.9

Average = 0.8 percent

Unconfined Compression Tests

2-1 26+00.0 2927.8 1,333

2-2 26+00.0 2927.8 903
3 21+70.2 2884.9 967
5 27+73.6 2919.0 609
7 22+76.0 2931.7 1,236
10-1 4+27.5 2902.0 1,077
10-2 4+27.5 2902.0 805
12 15+00.0 2950.0 860
14-1 23+50.0 2948.0 1,046
14-2 23+50.0 2948.0 1,158
16-1 25+00.0 2926.5 1,006
16-2 25+00.0 2926.5 903
17 30+00.0 2951.6 1,057

Average = 930 psi

Average of 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,815 psi

96
 CHENEY DAM
Soil-cement Record Cores

Laboratory
Sample Hole Station Elevation Percent loss
No. 25J- No. (top of hole)

Wet-dry Tests

178B 3 109+70.1 1400 0.7

178C 3 109+70.1 1400 0.5
181B 6 101+62.9 1424.1 0.9
183F 8H 99+66.4 1425.5 0.8
184D 9H 94+88.2 1417.9 1.4
185C 10 88+31.5 1400 0.7
187D 12 88+52.5 1444.6 0.8
188B 13 8Ot94.6 1400 0.6
191C 16H 68+62.9 1415.3 0.7
192A 17 65+84.4 1400 0.5
198B 23 49+88.4 1400 1.4
200B 25 49+75.7 1444.5 0.5
209B 34H 116+00 1423 0.7

Average = 0.8 percent

Freeze-thaw Tests

176B 1 119+89.9 1425.9 1.5

177C 2 119+90.1 1445.8 0.5
182B 7 101+67.7 1445.1 0.8
184E 9H 94+88.2 1417.9 0.9
185D 10 88+31.5 1400 0.8
187A 12 88+52.5 1444.6 1.2
187B 12 88+52.5 1444.6 0.8
188C 13 8Ot94.6 1400 0.6
188D 13 8Ot94.6 1400 0.8
191B 16H 68+62.9 1415.3 1.5
194B 19 65+86.8 1444.5 0.8
198D 23 49+88.4 1400 1.5
200D 25 49+75.7 1444.5 0.6

Average = 0.9 percent

Note: H indicates area placed during high temperature (approximately 1000 F).

97
 CHENEY DAM
Soil-cement Record Cores

Laboratory
Sample Hole Station Elevation Compressive
No. 25J- No. (top of hole) strength (psi)

176D 1 119+89.9 1425.9 883

177D 2 119+90.1 1445.8 888
179C 4 110+01.1 1445.0 1,668
180B 5 101+61.1 1400 1,018
181B 6 101+62.9 1424.1 1,393
182C 7 101+67.7 1445.1 1,245
183C 8H 99+66.4 1425.5 733
183G 8H 99+66.4 1425.5 1,481
186C 11 88+53.1 1424.8 866
186E 11 88+53.1 1424.8 1,215
187E 12 88+52.5 1444.6 1,358
189B 14 80+92.1 1422.2 828
190C 15 80+90.6 1438.7 1,589
192C 17 65+84.4 1400 1,142
193D 18 65+86.1 1424.4 1,364
194C 19 65+86.8 1444.5 1,256
198C 23 49+88.4 1400 888
199D 24 49+81.0 1423.8 839
200C 25 49+75.7 1444.5 1,373
204D 29 41 +04.4 1444.1 2,033
204E 29 41+04.4 1444.1 J,808
209C 34H 116+00 1423 ~,599
209D 34H 116+00 1423 1,086

Average = 1,241 psi

Average of 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,497 psi

Note: H indicates area placed during high temperature (approximately 1000 F).

98
 LUBBOCK REGULATING RESERVOIR
Soil-cement Record Cores

Laboratory Compressive
Sample Hole Station Elevation Percent strength
No. 39U- No. (top of hole) loss (psi)

Wet-dry Tests

21 A-3 6+50 3270.6 1.5

26 A-1-A 6+50 3278.6 1.4
30 C-2 26+00 3275.6 0.8
34 0-1 37+25 3281 .6 2.8
35 E-3 43+00 3272.6 0.8
42 #2 25+50 (288 ft Rt) 3264.3 * 6.3

Average (slope) = 1.5

F reeze- thaw Tests

24 A-3-A 6+50 3270.6 2.3

28 B-2 14+30 3274.2 4.2
30 C-2 26+00 3275.6 4.7
33 0-2 37+25 3276.6 6.8
38 E-3-A 42+90 3272.8 4.3
39 E-2-A 42+90 3280.9 3.4
41 #1 39+90 (152 ft Rt) 3264.3 *14.0

Average (slope) = 4.3

Unconfined Compression Tests

24 A-3-A 6+50 3270.6 700

26 A-1-A 6+50 3278.6 736
29 C-3 26+00 3270.6 689
31 C-1 26+00 3280.6 670
33 0-2 37+25 3276.6 881
38 E-3-A 42+90 3272.8 864
39 E-2-A 42+90 3280.9 936

Average = 782
Average of 52- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,134

*Bottom lining

99
 GLEN ELDER DAM
Soil-cement Record Cores

Laboratory Depth Compressive

Sample Hole Station Elevation of core Percent strength
No. 18C- No. (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)

Wet-dry Tests

424 5 119+00 1438.9 0 to 0.6 0.9

426 12 72+00 1454.7 2.0 to 2.6 0.5
429 23 52+00 1484.6 1.3 to 1.7 0.5
431 32 65+00 1500.2 0.9 to 1.5 0.6
432 33 72+00 1470.1 1.6 to 2.2 0.8
433 37 81+00 1485.1 2.2 to 2.8 0.9
434 39 91+00 1470.1 0.0 to 0.7 0.4
436 46 105+50 1447.8 0.5 to 1.2 0.3
439 53 111+00 1500.8 0.5 to 1.1 0.8
441 57 119+00 1485.3 0.0 to 0.6 1.3
442 61 131+00 1448.0 1.4 to 1.9 0.4

Average = 0.7

Freeze-thaw Tests

426 12 72+00 1454.7 0.0 to 0.6 1.8

426 12 72+00 1454.7 2.8 to 3.4 1.2
429 23 52+00 1484.6 0.6 to 1.3 0.9
430 25 58+00 1455.2 1.1 to 1.8 0.5
432 33 72+00 1470.1 1.1 to 1.6 0.8
433 37 81+00 1485.1 1.5 to 2.2 0.5
434 39 91+00 1470.1 0.7 to 1.2 0.6
437 47 105+50 1470.6 1.8 to 2.4 0.7
438 50 111+00 1448.6 0.0 to 0.6 0.6
439 53 111+00 1500.8 1.1 to 1.8 0.9
441 57 119+00 1485.3 1.1 to 1.7 0.5

Average = 0.8

Unconfined Compression Tests

425 9 100+50 1441 .0 1.1 to 1.6 1,4 71

I

Average of 176 tests performed on record cores by project laboratory 1,4 78

Average of 427- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,071

Direct Shear Tests on Bonded Layers

DH-5, Station 119+00, Elevation 1438.9 (top of hole)

Depth of Shear strength (psi)

bonded layer At bonded About 1-1/2 inches About 1-1/2 inches
(feet) layer above bond below bond

1.3 205 254 231

1.9 115 226 116

100
 DOWNS DIKE
Soil-cement Record Cores

Laboratory Hole Depth Compressive

Sample No. Station Elevation of core Percent strength
No.40Y- DH- (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)

Wet-dry Tests

53 4 100+00 1472.3 1.2 to 1.7 1.2

55 13 75+35 1498.0 1.1 to 1.6 0.6
56 15 60+50 1482.7 1.9 to 2.4 0.6

Average = 0.8

Freeze-thaw Tests

53 4 100+00 1472.3 1.7 to 2.2 1.9

54 12 75+35 1483.3 1.7 to 2.2 1.5
57 20 43+00 1498.0 1.2 to 1.7 1.3

Average = 1.6
I
Unconfined Compression Tests

55 13 75+35 1498.0 2.3 to 2.8 1,752

56 15 60+50 1482.7 1.3 to 1.9 1,391
57 20 43+00 1498.0 0.1 to 0.6 1,049

Average = 1,397

Average of 86 tests performed on record cores by project laboratory 1,665

Average of 110- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,201

CAWKER CITY DI KE
Soil-cement Record Cores

Laboratory Hole Depth Compressive

Sample No. Station Elevation of core Percent strength
No.40M- DH- (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)

Wet-dry Tests

150 5 55+25 1471.1 1.2 to 1.7 0.6

151 9 46+35 1486.0 1.1 to 1.6 0.5
153 16 17+06 1486.0 0.6 to 1.1 0.6
154 21 36+00 1500.1 0.8 to 1.4 0.3
155 25 68+00 1470.0 1.9 to 2.4 0.4
157 36 100+00 1485.0 1.9t02.5 0.3

Average = 0.5

Freeze-thaw Tests

150 5 55+25 1471.1 0.6 to 1.2 0.9

151 9 46+35 1486.0 0.5 to 1.1 0.8
152 13 26+08 1464.0 1.7t02.2 0.6
153 16 17+06 1486.0 1.1 to 1.6 0.7
155 25 68+00 1470.0 0.4 to 0.9 0.6
157 36 100+00 1485.0 0.5 to 1.2 0.8

AveraQe = 0.7
Average of 125 tests performed on record cores by project laboratory 1,493
Average of 244- 28-day construction control strength specimens 1,287
101
 STARVATION DAM
Soil-cement Record Cores

Laboratory Hole Depth Compressive

Sample No. Station Elevation of core Percent strength
No. 370- DH- (top of hole) (feet) loss (psi)

Wet-dry Tests

115 1 15+00 5625 1.8 to 2.3 0.6

119 5 15+00 5705 1.4 to 2.0 0.6
121 7 20+00 5645 2.1 to 2.6 0.5
122 8 20+00 5665 1.8 to 2.6 1.1
123 9 20+00 5685 1.9 to 2.5 1.0
126 12 25+00 5645 0.5 to 1.0 0.8
127 13 25+00 5665 1.6 to 2.2 0.8
129 15 25+00 5706 0.6 to 1.2 0.7
I
Average = 0.8
Freeze-thaw Tests

117 3 15+00 5665 1.9 to 2.4 1.3

118 4 15+00 5685 0.9 to 1.5 2.5
119 5 15+00 5705 2.0 to 2.5 2.9
120 6 20+00 5625 2.4 to 3.0 1.1
121 7 20+00 5645 0.5 to 1.0 2.5
126 12 25+00 5645 2.2 to 2.8 1.3
127 13 25+00 5665 0.2 to 0.7 3.7
129 15 25+00 5706 1.2 to 1.7 3.0

Average = 2.3

Unconfined Compression Tests

116 2 15+00 5641 1.1 to 1.7 817

116 2 15+00 5641 1.7 to 2.3 774
117 3 15+00 5665 2.4 to 3.0 780
118 4 15+00 5685 2.1 to 2.7 777
121 7 20+00 5645 2.6 to 3.2 821
122 8 20+00 5665 1.3 to 1.8 761
123 9 20+00 5685 1.4 to 1.9 733
124 10 20+00 5705 1.5 to 2.1 814
124 10 20+00 5705 2.1 to 2.7 752
125 11 25+00 5625 0.9 to 1.5 782
125 11 25+00 5625 1.5t02.2 780
126 12 25+00 5645 1.0 to 1.6 726
127 13 25+00 5665 2.2 to 2.9 753
128 14 25+00 5685 1.4 to 1.9 590
128 14 25+00 5685 1.9 to 2.5 682
129 15 25+00 5706 2.2 to 2.9 741

Average = 755

Average of 28-day construction control strength specimens 905

102
 Direct Shear Tests on Bonded Layers

Laboratory Depth Shear strength (psi)

Sample Hole Station Elevation of core At Above Below
No. 370- No. (top of hole) (feet) bond bond bond

118 4 15+00 5685 1.5 94 226 201

120 6 20+00 5625 1.2 139 130 181
120 6 20+00 5625 1.8 137 181 242
122 8 20+00 5665 1.0 52 174 184
125 11 25+00 5625 3.4 * 264 211
127 13 25+00 5665 1.5 54 215 216

*Specimen broke on bonded layer before test.

103
 7-1737
~~;:~~1 or
""C~."~TION SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LASaRA roRY TESTS OF COMPACTED SOIL - CEMENT
TOTAL PROJECT___----
CU- YDS. SOil-CEMENT PLACED THIS PERIOD:
----

24,761 (pay Estimate 10-26 to 11-26) FEATURE--

FACING

SPECIFICATIONS NO.
~--
OTHER_- ---

PERIOD or REPORT: FROM___19-=-~l ~TO 11-25 DATE OF REPORT: MONTH_- YEAR-

LOCATION WATER CONTENT CEMENT CONTENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

TIM E Proctor Test (Ib_persq In,)
OF SOURCE OF SOIL METHOD OF DRIYDe~i~~~~t;;~~f~~
II II,
I E-24, E-251 6 ('YG)

TEST TEST
YARDAGE

~REPRESENTED
MATERIAL
CLASSIFI-
CATION MINUS
SYMBOL NO
, 200
" ~SH-SHEEPS FOOT
~1
COMPACT ION
f---;;n
~@
~z
a FILL DRY 1~_..FILL WATER
CONTENT I CALIBRATION
FROM PLANT
NO ~5Y (BORROW AREA, (UNifiED
CLASSIFI-
~a RT-RUBBER TIRED
a
'I>
~~t:
z oc ~~~"
~-- -- LABOR-
DENS'T'Ic~; RATIO - ~I I LA80R-
VARIAT-
ION
i: ~~~I
i: :I ~>
STATION FIELD DENSITY REQUIRED CATION DES ~:'J ~'DT;J;USIMAXIMUMLAB. MAX MATERIAL,
ATORY FILL DRY I ATORV FROM
4
(~OTE II
OFFSET TEST EXCAVATION
ETC,}
SYSTEM) E-68 g NOOFPASSES ~".~g
>"
0 g ""0 ~~4 ..-
ISTANOAR DEN. TO
TOTAL;
- M'NUS
NO.4 i
OPTIMUMOPT'MUM
(wo)
:1,
I(w -w) 3~~ 3~~1~~~ a I

I
z > ~~MATERIAL, NO.4

."
0 !
COORDINATES 6 >a (p,cO ; (p ct,) !DRY(g)EN i (wI) ~N
ID~~_~IJt
DES ROLLER NOS a I.) ~- " i
ELEV.ETC. E,;3 0 i !!:!
'rG ; 0"1. ~(I) ~~~~~~i~.~
~<.)
,or I ,or ,,, :; jlO} ;;: (II) 1 " (13) (14) I I
%
(16) 117)
%
118) (19)
'YG
I
I G
(20) (211(1), (22)(1) (23) (2S (26) ,:,
.,,-'"
I
1" 'n ' ' '1~1
- -

I
11-16-~-~ '" ~~~f 320
'" 3_277.2
'" " 10:30 40 30 '"35 116.Q,n6.0 12.2 12.3( 12. -" - I -

i
;1l8'_8~7'6 12'~loPt. ---h-,
~"'-2 U+3(L~O'RI' 1l<L 3276.7 6Sll-4iri:- 12: 50 _n--- 30 35~ 102.6rn']~2.J~12.3 O'-~
-
310 327_6.7 " ,
36 1l9'lr9'6iU~'~
116.9116.91116.610().3 11.3 11.8_E,3~0.5D
Jl-~~-A-3 n+36 43_;M- 6SH-4RT 12:50
10:50
37 I 30
50 ~~-=tt~
1l-17-A-l
11-17-A~'~
V+50 38 'RL c~~-
46+004Q'RJ
480
490
3279.0
._.2.EI,J;_-u
"
:"..,,-.~ 6SH-4RT- l]~
3() -25
Jtf15 30 g~:~ m:"J :ii~:~iroJ:lHU i~:6 i;~6t~~ -{~:- u_(Z--1 :~~T~~~~~
631 797 - 1477
l-IR-A-l HZ!) . .3B'l\J-
-~- 32Z8.L - II
" 6~1I-4RT 15:00!45 fl()
.
~"O
1l~.6.115.611l6.5: 9L2p3.3 113~~, 13.0, Q_.~JoI , H}- 828 1015 1445 -
lJ"-tm-W61
11-19-A-L- iltOO
~-~2
3]' R~
~~l!cl
3§0
2§0
32113.6_
3_2Z1.6 "
6~H-4RT 10:45:
~J!H,4R:r
~~-~. i 119.5119.51116.9,102.2112.7
U2,l,;122.4116.9i104.7 12.0
12.6jI2.5Q,LW
10.4 11.81,4-,) il.(-=:- 13.3
-
-lq-A-'-~ llilJL 12'M -- ~§~ ~-- :t2I'L1 " 14:30' 15-125 ! 25 115.7: 115.7117.7 _2.'Ld2_.2 2.30 r-lLJ! ~:::: ~~.~
-20-A-l ~~i4+70'-;:,"'; -- 520 3275.6 .. ~~-
iQ,j~ui~_4iTij~ ~~g4J1l6.3100.9
98'~11O~
13.5 12.8 13.40.6n 12. - -~
12.4 63i'f 745 'lOSS -
.l~-, 4+00 39'_U 520
3§0. -~
3~77.3
3277.8
.f:F 14:351 36
I 3~ ~40
r
1l7.21117.21118.1n.~2112.3
-
12.6. 12,5.Q,l~ 12. . 12.3 651
732
893'
776118S-'-::-
- 1607
1-21-A-L ~~Rl 116.3~ 116.3!ll6.7 99'UI3.2 L 13.0, ~o~t.
....
0
_01_A_~
I1_01_A_'
26+00 34' R~
~-!:2L~Jt'R<'-
3§<L
360 ml.3
~79.7 "
~"

I'
--- --
6SH-4RT
~6SH-4RT
-()_Stl_~_4.RT
------1--

"""
:
-- .-- ---
112.6 112~6i11X:~ lOLl 15~§-:i5.4Tl",6,
+"
117.9117.9114.8102.7113.2 12.9' 13.~0.9D
O.8W
12.
ft ~~7 1;24-
62t-t
610
7391055860--=-- -
.j::o 11. "-A-l ,...,n,,' Re 400 _311Q,L__- -------1 --
iiJ H "~' ill~~Iii6.2 101.il3.6~ii3:iti2:80.4W 12. - - 594 724 - -
~2~1~-
-LG22-A_? 35""0-U' R~ d-
4Q<L----~ 3281.8 --:: I---t-t~~~tg 11 :3M 50 35 3~ 114.8, 114.81114.9r.2
1~"1--1l'H
13.0.1 .1D
-lli--t -,-~~~2_.--=--
~-A-' 38+75 28 'Re~ -"QQ-- -
~__22/g.~ 14:45' 55 30 33 114.21114.2115.5 98.9 13.2 lL3, 12.9 jJ.~ 1~ c-ll.~.~:i 643 763
-
11-23-A-l _ili-29_-1:t'_Ri 580 3_279. § "29.1 2.66 6SH-4RT 12:101 50 ,30 35 l!I.~jll7.2116.,,1Q!!.l11.9, 11.91 12.6~,ZD 12 . 12~ 713 797 f153
--:;u
i-u-n-A-.L. 4+00 31' Re -.5~--- -~-
3281J..j;~-
" I 6SH,4RT 14:j]Jl~()::Eo
. 40 35 118,4.118.4 ,1l5.7,102n-3 111111.81 12.4 Q"-~J!
~H --+- 562
765 '800 iU7
623 795
11- "-A-1 25+00 25'RI 650 3282.3 -
~-~ 6SH..~EL 50 60 114.5114.5116.298"21£.8 13.41 13.1 12. 0.3W
" ~--I----- Q'l~~
f--u--2->c &L 27_+00
-14' Re- __~50_u--1 }282. 8 '~6SH-4RT 14:15 7IJ 55 60 115.0115.0 116.2 99.0 13.4 I 13.5 0.5D 12~q ~8~~7~---=---
" - 13.0r -r- -
1------- ~I ~-- ,-
-- - ---- tests ~~9.6i62Q9:616197.
3r~0&616~;~5[~~~~. 6~~~ 15.~. ~----
~- To ~~!!- ~r 53
-~ f----u_~ -~
----------- I-
.-
.-+~T~
_-AY ~IQ.L2 3__t~sii__- 117:2117.2 '116.-0"100.2 !12.3 12.2r 12-:5 0.30 13.3 655 830 140 141'

f--- ~n
-- L.I~
~---- f---

-- ----- ~-
____n____-
---------

-
-- --
- C ~j

jI
Cm~.

j
.~
'n.
f-,-
1-
~- ~c ~~--
---
u_-

--
-- '----

--
- E~ -1
-~- -~- I~- -~ ~~~-
~---- - - -~ - -
--- ---- ---- ----- -- I -- --
__n r---- ---+
-- --- - ~-- I -
-~ f----
- --
-~ -
.-
--

l~
. ..... ~~~-- -.
---~--
--- -- - -- - --- ---- - -- - -
_.~~
~- -----~ f-~
---- -
-~- c~ --~ -~-
--- ,---1 -
- - -
---_.._-~
-- - ---t 1
--- ---- -------
._~-
-~
---
--_-Cn ..
1-=='---
~~-
------- --
~-
-
~--- f---
-~~ ~..
~+
.. ~- ~I ~.. .T-- -+-+-
--- ----------- - ---- -~- - ~-- - .--+- --
-- - -- -

NOTE I NOTE 2 9 to dencte t,me completed

*~~~;';O~~~~r re-working ~~~IS~Uf~/I~~~~~~~~ ~~E~YsD;rN~IJ:s:sE:;; S~~~~IIRED (17) WaterContent as spread $heeT_of-
H
* Columns iC.I'ond 12 denote elapsed
whicheverjsqreoter time fro~, piant-mix
'0
time (18) Water Content af'~er compaction
,,\
Refers to Manll~l-- 1st Edit-i~n (20) variation from of)thm.tm after com'P8ction
Note 3: Offset refers to distance Note 4: All soil from Caprock
"'.-('OTTt
centerl ioe of Sand and Gravel Company
r'omoact.~d embankment. pit.
7-1750 (3-71)
Bureau of Reclamation

CONVERSION FACTORS-BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

The following conversion factors adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation are those published by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM Metric Practice Guide, E 380-68) except that additional factors (*)
commonly used in the 8ureau have been added. Further discussion of definitions of quantities and units is given in
the ASTM Metric Practice Guide.

The metric units and conversion factors adopted by the ASTM are based on the "International System of Units"
(designated SI for Systeme International. d'Unites), fixed by the International Committee for Weights and
Measures; this system is also known as the Giorgi or MKSA (meter-kilogram (mass)-second-ampere) system. This
system has been adopted by the International Organization for Standardization in ISO Recommendation R-31.

The metric technical unit of force is the kilogram-force; this is the force which, when applied to a body having a
mass of 1 kg, givesit an acceleration of 9.80665 m/sec/sec, the standard accelerationof free fall toward the earth's
center for sea level at 45 deg latitude. The metric unit of force in SI units is the newton (N), which is defined as
that force which, when applied to a body having a mass of 1 kg, gives it an acceleration of 1 m/sec/sec. These units
must be distinguished from the (inconstant) local weight of a body having a mass of 1 kg, that is, the weight of a
body is that force with which a body is attracted to the earth and is equal to the mass of a body multiplied by the
acceleration due to gravity. However, because it is general practice to use "pound" rather than the technically
correct term "pound-force," the term "kilogram" (or derived mass unit) has been used in this guide instead of
"kilogram-force" in expressing the conversion factors for forces. The newton unit of force will find increasing use,
and is essential in SI units.

Where approximate or nominal English units are used to express a value or range of values, the converted metric
units in parentheses are also approximate or nominal. Where precise English units are used, the converted metric
units are expressed as equally significant values.

Table I

QUANTITIES AND UNITS OF SPACE

Multiply By To obtain

LENGTH

Mil ...... 25.4 (exactly) , Micron

Inches. .. . 25.4 (exactly) """"""" Millimeters
Inches. .. . .,""" . 2.54 (exactly)* """""
. . . ...... . . .. Centimeters
Feet 30.48 (exactly) , Centimeters
Feet. . ... .. .. ... .... 0.3048 (exactly) * Meters
Feet. . ... .. .. .. . .. .. 0.0003048 (exactly) """"""""'" . . . . . . . .. Kilometers
*
Yards . 0.9144 (exactly) . . . . . . Meters
Miles (statute) 1,609.344(exactly)* """"
... , Meters
Miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.609344 (exactly) ..
""' . . . . . .. Kilometers

AREA
Square inches 6.4516 (exactly) ...,.... Square centimeters
Square feet. *929.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square centimeters
Square feet. . 0.092903 Squ are meters
Square yards. . .. ... .. .. 0.836127 """"""'"
.... . Square meters
Acres.. .. .. 0.40469 . . . . . . . . .. Hectares
*
Acres. . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. *4,046.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square meters
Acres.. .. .. .. .. .. *0.0040469 .. .. ... . Square kilometers
Square miles. . .. .. ... .. 2.58999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square kilometers

VOLUME

Cubicinches. . . . . . . . . . . 16.3871 . . . . . ... .. . Cubic centimeters

Cubicfeet. ....... 0.0283168 .... " Cubic meters
Cubicyards. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.764555 .. . . . . . . . . . . .. Cubic meters
CAPACITY

Fluid ounces (U.S.) 29.5737. . . . . . . . . . , . .. Cubic centimeters

Fluid ounces (U.S.) ""'"
.,..... 29.5729 . . Milliliters
Liquid pints (U.S.) . . . . . . . . 0.473179 . . Cubicdecimeters
Liquid pints (U.S.) . . . . . . . . 0.473166 Liters
Quarts (U .S.) ,..... *946.358 """""""""""" ,. Cubic centimeters
Quarts (U.S.) . . . . . . . ""'
*0.946331 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Liters
Gallons (U.S.) *3,785.43 . . . .. ..... Cubic centimeters
Gallons (U.S.) ., . 3.78543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubic decimeters
Gallons (U.S.) 3.78533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., Liters
Gallons (U.S.) . . . . . . . "0.00378543 . . .. Cubic meters
Gallons (U.K.) 4.54609. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubicdecimeters
Gallons (U.K.) """"" ,..... 4.54596 . ......... Liters
Cubic feet. ............ 28.3160 . . . . . .. .. Liters
Cubic yards. ........... *764.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., Liters
Acre-feet. ... .. .. "1,233.5 . . . . . . . . .. .. .... Cubic meters
Acre-feet ....... *1,233,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . ., Liters
 Table II Table II-Continued

QUANTITIES AND UNITS OF MECHANICS Multiply 8y To obtain

Multiply By To obtain WORK AND ENERGY*
MASS British thermal units (Btu) ..... *0.252 Kilogram calories
Britishthermal units (Btu) 1,055.06 . ."""""""",."""""
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Joules
Grains (1/7,000 Ibl 64.79B91(exactly) ...................... Milligrams
Btu per pound "'" 2.326 (exactly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joules per gram
Troy ounces (480 grains)
"""'" ., . . . . 31.1035 " Grams Foot-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . *1.35582 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Joules
Ounces (avdp) 2B.3495 """""""""""""""" Grams
Pounds (avdp) """"" 0.45359237 (exactly). . . .
"""""""""""""""" .......... . Kilograms POWER
Short tons (2,000 """"""
Ib) 907.1 B5 . Kilograms
Short tons (2,000 Ib) """" 0.9071B5 .. . . . . . . . . .
""""""""""'" . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Metric tons
Horsepower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745.700 , Watts
Long tons (2,240 Ib) ........
"""" 1,016.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms
8tu per hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.293071.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Watts
Foot.pounds per second 1.35582. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Watts
FORCE/AREA --
HEAT TRANSFER
Pounds per square inch 0.070307 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms per square centimeter
Pounds per square inch 0.689476 ..... ............ Newtons per SQuare centimeter Btu in.lhr ft2 degree F (k,
Pounds per square foot 4.88243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms per square meter thermal conductivity) . . 1.442 Milliwatts/cm degree C
Pounds per square foot. . . . 47.BB03 ,. Newtons per square meter Btu in.lhr ft2 degree F (k, """"'"
thermal conductivity) . . . . . . . 0.1240 ....... Kg cal/hr m degree C
MASSIVOLUME (DENSITY) Btu ft/hr ft2 degree F . . . . . . . . *1.4880 Kg cal m/hr m2 degree C
Btu/hr ft2 degree F (C, ",,"""""""'"
Ounces per cubic inch. . . . . . . . 1.72999 ............... ..... Grams per cubic centimeter thermal conductance) 0.568 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milliwattslcm2 degree C
Poundsper cubic foot. . . . . . . . 16.0185 Kilograms per cubic meter Btu/hr ft2 degree F (C, "
Pounds per cubic foot. . . . . . . . 0.0160185"""""""""'" """" Grams per cubic centimeter thermal conductance) 4.882 , Kg cal/hr m2 degree C
Tons (long) per cubic yard. . . . . 1.32894 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grams per cubic centimeter DegreeF hr ft2/Btu (R,
thermal resistance) 1.761 , Degree C cm2/milliwatt
MASS/CAPACITY 8tu/lb degree F (c, heat""""capacity) . 4.1B68 , J/g degree C
Btu/lb degree F *1.000 Cal/gram degree C
Ounces per gallon (U.S.) 7.4B93 Grams per liter Ft2/hr (thermal diffusivity)
"""" """"",,"""""""
Ounces per gallon (U.K.) 6.2362 """"""""""""'" Grams per liter
Ft2/hr (thermal diffusivity) *~:~~~O: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .cm~~';':,~

Pounds per gallon (U.S.) 119.829 """"""""""""'" Grams per liter

Pounds per gallon (U.K.) 99.779 """""""""""""" Grams per liter
.""""."""."""."" WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION
BENDING MOMENT OR TORQUE
Grains/hr ft2 (water vapor)
transmission) . . . . . . . 16.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Grams/24 hr m2
Inch-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.011521 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. Meter-kilograms 0.659 . . . . . . . . . .. Metricperms
Perms (permeance) .
Inch-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12985 x 106 . . . . . . . . . . ., . .. . . . . . . . Centimeter-dynes
Foot-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . Perm-inches (permeability) .. . .. 1.67 . """""
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metricperm-centimeters
0.138255 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. Meter-kilograms
Foot-pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.355B2x 107 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Centimeter-dynes
Foot-poundsperinch. . . . . . . . 5.4431 Centimeter-kilograms per centimeter
Ounce-inches.. . . . . . . . . . . . 72.008 Gram-centimeters
""""""
VELOCITY

Feet per second. .. .. 30.48 (exactly) Centimeters per second

Feet per second. ." . . . ." . . . ". . 0.3048 (exactly)*""""""""" Meters persecond
Feet per year . . . . .. .. . . . *0.965873 x 10'-6 """"""""'" Centimeters per second
Miles per hour. . . ". . . . . . . . . 1.609344 (exactly) """"""'" , Kilometers per hour
Miles per hour. ........... 0.44704 (exactly) Meters per second
""""""""'" Table III
ACCELERA TION*
OTHER QUANTITIES AND UNITS
Feet per second2 ........... *0.3048 , Meters per second2
Multiply By To obtain
FLOW
Cubic feet per square foot per day (seepage) *304.8 ...,. Liters per square meter per day
Cubic feet per second Pound-seconds per square foot (viscosity) . . "". . . . *4.8824 , Kilogram second per square meter
(second-feet) . . . . . *0.028317 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubic meters per second
Square feet per second (viscosity) -. *0.092903 . . . . . . . . . .. Square meters per second
Cubic feet per minute. ..... 0.4719 Liters per second Fahrenheit degrees(change)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/9 exactly. . .. Celsius or Kelvin degrees (change) *
Gallons (U.SJ per minute. . . . . . 0.06309 ."""""""""""""
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Liters per second Volts per mil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03937 Kilovolts per millimeter
Lumensper squarefoot (foot-candles) . . . . . . .
-
10.764 . . . . . . . . . . . Lumens persquaremeter
FORCE* Ohm-circular mils per foot. ............. 0.001662 . . . . .. "
Ohm-squaremillimetersper meter
Millicuriesper cubicfoot -. *35.3147 Millicuries per cubic meter
Pounds. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. *0.453592 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Kilograms Milliampsper square foot. ,""""""
. . . .. .. . .... . *10.7639 ,""""" ,. Milliamps per squaremeter
Gallonspersquareyard. -
.. .. .. . .. .. .. . . *4.527219 . . . . . . . Litersper square meter
Pounds. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. *4.4482 Newtons
Pounds. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. *4.44B2x ",,""""""""""""'"
105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dynes Poundsper inch. . . . . . ......... .... . . *0.17858 Kilograms per centimeter
""""'"
GPO 839-978
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
....
ABSTRACT ... ABSTRACT
..
...
A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection is A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection is
presented. Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureau presented. Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureau
structures. Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, construction structures. Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, construction
control testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successful ... control testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successful

....
performance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used as performance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used as
the basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limits the basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limits

...
established by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau have established by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau have
been fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented- The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in a been fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented. The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in a
continuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with a
combination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edge ... continuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with a
combination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edge
of the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken at
most features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has been .... of the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken at
most features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has been
generally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on Cheney
... generally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on Cheney
Dam in Kansas. Has 17 references.
. Dam in Kansas. Has 17 references.

.....
I .:
.....
~

...
ABSTRACT .. ABSTRACT

A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection is

.. A summary of Bureau of Reclamation experience with soil-cement slope protection is
presented -
Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureau .. presented. Compacted soil-cement has been used as a riprap substitute on 7 major Bureau

.....
structures- Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, construction structures. Preconstruction testing, construction equipment and procedures, construction
control testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successful control testing for soil-cement, and performance of soil-cement facings are discussed. Successful
performance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used as performance of a soil-cement test section at Bonny Reservoir in eastern Colorado was used as
the basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limits ... the basis for the design of the facings, and durability and compressive strength test results limits
established by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau have
been fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented. The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in a ... established by the test section have been generally followed. Most soils used by the Bureau have
been fine, silty sands; a summary of test results is presented. The soil-cement is: (1) mixed in a

....
continuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with a continuous flow mixing system, (2) placed, and (3) compacted in nearly horizontal lifts with a
combination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edge combination of sheepsfoot and pneumatic rolling. Erosion of uncompacted material at the edge

...
of the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken at of the lifts results in a stairstep pattern of the slope. Durability tests on record cores taken at
most features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has been most features show low weight losses. Performance of soil-cement facings in service has been
generally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on Cheney generally satisfactory. More than normal breakage has occurred at a few locations on Cheney

....
Dam in Kansas. Has 17 references. Dam in Kansas. Has 17 references.

..
REC-ERC-71-20 REC-ERC-71-20
DeGroot, G DeGroot, G
SOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURES SOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURES
Bur Recla~ Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 ref, append 104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 ref, append

DESCRIPTORS-/ "soil cement/ "slope protection/ "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soil DESCR IPTO RS-/ "soil cement/ "slope protection/ "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soil
compaction/ freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing/ compaction equipment/ compaction! freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing! compaction equipment/
performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies/ soil investigations/ performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies/ soil investigations/
construction control/ construction equipment/ tests/ "earth dams/ dam construction/ construction control! construction equipment/ tests/ "earth dams/ dam construction/
durability durability
IDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/ IDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/
Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah

REC-ERC-71-20 REC-ERC-71-20
DeGroot, G DeGroot, G
SOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURES SOIL-CEMENT SLOPE PROTECTION ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FEATURES
Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-71-20, Div Gen Res, May 1971. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 re' append 104 p, 51 fig, 6 tab, 17 ref, append

DESCRIPTORS-/ "soil c,ment/ "slope protection/ "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soil DESCRIPTORS-/ "soil cement/ "slope protection! "erosion control/ sands/ gradation/ soil
compaction/ freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests! mixing/ compaction equipment/ compaction/ freeze-thaw tests/ wetting and drying tests/ mixing! compaction equipment/
performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies/ soil investigations/ performance tests/ records/ construction/ embankments/ bibliographies! soil investigations/
construction control/ construction equ ipment/ tests! "earth dams/ dam construction/ construction control/ construction equipment/ tests/ "earth dams/ dam construction/
durability durability
IDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/ IDENTIFIERS-/ Merritt Dam, Nebr/ Cheney Dam, Kans/ Lubbock Regulating Reservoir, Tex/
Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah Glen Elder Dam, Kans/ Starvation Dam, Utah