A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Effect of the Geosynthetic Installation on the Compaction Curve and Compaction Efficiency
Abstract Compaction is performed to avoid ground settlement during backfilling or embankment construction. In this study, Proctor compaction tests according to KS F 2312 were performed by installing geosynthetics (with and without geosynthetics) and changing the compaction type (A and D), type of geosynthetics (geogrid and polyester (PET) mat), number of reinforced geosynthetic layers (1-4 layers), and number of blows per layer (55, 50, 45, and 40). Using a geogrid (or PET mat) reduced the optimum water content (ωopt) by 7.5% (8.3% for PET mat) and 12.7% (8.2% for PET mat) and increased the maximum dry density (γdmax) by 3.9% (4.2% for PET mat) and 5.5% (4.8% for PET mat) for compaction test types A and D, respectively. In compaction without geosynthetics, the required compaction energy increased by 1.35 and 1.27 times compared to the value to achieve the identical γdmax with 4 geosynthetic layers for the geogrid and PET mat, respectively. Thus, efficient compaction is possible by decreasing the compaction energy required to achieve the target dry density with geosynthetic installation. The effect of geosynthetics during compaction to improve the compaction degree has also been proven with a field test.
Effect of the Geosynthetic Installation on the Compaction Curve and Compaction Efficiency
Abstract Compaction is performed to avoid ground settlement during backfilling or embankment construction. In this study, Proctor compaction tests according to KS F 2312 were performed by installing geosynthetics (with and without geosynthetics) and changing the compaction type (A and D), type of geosynthetics (geogrid and polyester (PET) mat), number of reinforced geosynthetic layers (1-4 layers), and number of blows per layer (55, 50, 45, and 40). Using a geogrid (or PET mat) reduced the optimum water content (ωopt) by 7.5% (8.3% for PET mat) and 12.7% (8.2% for PET mat) and increased the maximum dry density (γdmax) by 3.9% (4.2% for PET mat) and 5.5% (4.8% for PET mat) for compaction test types A and D, respectively. In compaction without geosynthetics, the required compaction energy increased by 1.35 and 1.27 times compared to the value to achieve the identical γdmax with 4 geosynthetic layers for the geogrid and PET mat, respectively. Thus, efficient compaction is possible by decreasing the compaction energy required to achieve the target dry density with geosynthetic installation. The effect of geosynthetics during compaction to improve the compaction degree has also been proven with a field test.
Effect of the Geosynthetic Installation on the Compaction Curve and Compaction Efficiency
Kim, Changyoung (author) / Im, Jong-Chul (author) / Yoo, Jae-Won (author)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering ; 22 ; 4841-4851
2018-10-31
11 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Effect of the Geosynthetic Installation on the Compaction Curve and Compaction Efficiency
| Online Contents | 2018
Assessment of the Compaction Process (The Compaction Calibration Curve, C.C.C.)
| British Library Online Contents | 1993
Theoretical modelling of the compaction curve
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2008
Evaluation of the effect of compaction on the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls
| Online Contents | 2012
Landfill compaction equipment efficiency
| Engineering Index Backfile | 1969