Walsh, K D; Houston, W N and Houston, S L (1997) Field implications of current compaction specification design practices. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(4), pp. 363-370. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The engineering properties of compacted soils are of primary importance in fill performance. However, for economic reasons, the achievement of a given relative compaction and compaction water content has become an end in itself for field compaction control. Although the profession has developed an understanding of the relationships between properties and compaction density/water content, it has become routine practice to use some combination of precedence and code rather than desired material properties to establish compaction specifications. Because of the heavy emphasis placed on relative compaction, it is extremely important that geotechnical practitioners and earthwork contractors recognize the deviations in field density that can occur as a result of typical differences in the compaction processes and in the methods of compaction control encountered. Variations in both the field density and the laboratory-determined reference maximum dry density arise from numerous sources. A corresponding spatial variability of relative compaction should therefore be anticipated. This paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of potential problems in compaction control, and addresses the sources of field variability in relative compaction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | practitioner, deviation, variability, density, profession, routine, earthwork, variation, specification, design practice, laboratory, material property |
| Subjects: | research management, design process, institututions, statistical analysis, construction methods, analytical methods, financial and cost management, contractual condition, material properties and characteristics, sociology, practitioner |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Contract Administration, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here