Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

minimum required compaction degree for reinforced fill

minimum required compaction degree for reinforced fill

minimum required compaction degree for reinforced fill

Hello what is the minimum degree of compaction for a fill reinforced with geotextile ? i believe its about 90% with or without the reinforcement

RE: minimum required compaction degree for reinforced fill

You're opening a kettle of fish on this.... :)

Are you talking dry density by modified or standard proctor?

geotextile or geogrid? I wouldnt really call fill reinforced if it had a layer of geotextile at the base. I would if it had a layer of geogrid.

Also, what degree of compaction seems to depend on your experience (based on what i have read on this forum and on other sources).

I was thought that a minimum would be 98%. We had that in our standard specification for structural filling. It was previously 95% for 10 plus years (since the spec was started) but then it was reviewed and changed to 98% by the powers to be at my company. Since then we specify 98%, regardless of if we have a geogrid/getextile or not.

If i had a 1m deep fill layer with a layer of geotextile at 0.8m depth, i think i would still be asking for 98%

RE: minimum required compaction degree for reinforced fill

I am gonna be more precise.
This is an MSE wall about 8 m high composed of crushed tuffa excellent fill material , something you guys would classify as A-1-a. the contract specifies modified proctor references while i used to believe that a standard test would be enough especially since there will be no vehicles circulating above the wall when the project is delivered. Vibratory equipment is prohibited since the MSE function is to protect a small cliff harboring an archaeological site from falling .
I made the preliminary decision of accepting about 90% of the modified Proctor MDD.

Edit: iv'e checked out some pdf on the net and some of them recommand using 95% from the T-99 AASTHO for slopes and walls and 100% for walls supporting foundations

RE: minimum required compaction degree for reinforced fill

This has always been a controversial issue and varies on a regional level in the US. The fact that MSE is involved should not alter the density requirements as it tends to be a soil strength and consolidation issue related to the function(s) of the structure. What does the MSE structure support when done? Any displacement requirements? What is the maximum lift thickness going to be? and so on.

If there are minimal fines in the A-1-a backfill( <5% would be preferred if vibratory equip is not allowed), the differences will not be significant and just use 95% of whatever you want. I do not think anyone would endorse 90% if the fill is expected to behave. If there are fines then moisture and method will come into play. The ultimate method in my opinion is to run a standard and modified density series and compare densities and moisture contents. It is pretty easy to see how the material responds to extra effort and what the moisture content does.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Functional Prototyping Using Metal 3D Printing
Functional prototypes are a key step in product development – they give engineers a chance to test new ideas and designs while also revealing how the product will stand up to real-world use. And when it comes to functional prototypes, 3D printing is rewriting the rules of what’s possible. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close