OPTIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION AND OTHER STRATEGIES

 

 

 

 

Balancing Engineering Requirements and Plant Growth Needs
in Slope Protection and Erosion Control Work

INTRODUCTION

A conflict appears to exist between engineering requirements to compact soil to a high density to improve its engineering properties (e.g., increased strength and decreased compressibility) and agronomic needs to maintain soil in a relatively loose condition to improve its ability to support vegetation. This conflict or contradiction, while a real issue, has also been misunderstood and overstated. The objectives of compaction from an engineering perspective have frequently been obscured in a manner that makes accommodation with plant growth needs more difficult to achieve. Furthermore, vegetation can be grown successfully in compacted soil under less than ideal conditions provided certain limits and precautions are observed.

The purpose of this article is to present information that can help engineers and other professionals make decisions regarding soil compaction so as to balance plant growth needs and engineering requirements. This balance is essential to successful installation and implementation of vegetative and soil bioengineering stabilization treatments. Several approaches can be invoked to make it possible to compact soil to a relatively high density and still allow it to support vegetative cover. In addition, a number of other strategies can be used to allow both engineering and plant growth needs to co-exist with one another.

PURPOSE OF COMPACTION

Compaction can be defined as a process of densification due to the removal of air voids when external stress is applied to a soil. The purpose of compaction from an engineering viewpoint is NOT to increase soil density. An increase in soil density is a result or consequence of compaction, but not the goal. Density is used as a target in engineering soil compaction specifications, but so too are molding water content, type of compaction, additives, and compactive effort. The purpose of compaction is to change engineering properties of a soil in a desirable direction. Relevant engineering or physical properties include strength, compressibility, volume stability (shrink-swell potential), hydraulic conductivity, and erodibility. In general, these properties change in a favorable direction with an increase in soil density. There are important exceptions, however, noted as follows: 1) swelling (heave) in clay soils tends to increase at higher densities, and 2) strength can decrease significantly in clay soils compacted wet of optimum to high densities (a phenomenon referred to as "over-compaction").

The effects of soil compaction on soil strength, compressibility, hydraulic conductivity, and volume stability have been investigated thoroughly (Lambe and Whitman, 1969; Seed and Chan, 1959). In addition, a series of standardized testing procedures and methods for specifying compaction have become widely adopted. One of the earliest and still widely used tests, the Standard Compaction Test, was developed by R. R. Proctor in the 1930’s. The procedure involves compacting soil in a standardized mold using a 5-1/2-lb hammer dropped 25 times from a height of 12 in. More recently, a so called Modified Compaction Test has been developed that uses a higher specific energy input (approximately 4 times the Standard Test effort) to simulate more closely the compactive effort that can be achieved with modern compaction plants. The density that can be achieved using this fixed energy of compaction is dependent upon both the textural composition of the soil and its moisture content at the time of the test. A typical compaction curve (or moisture density relationship) is shown in Figure 1. Densities are normally expressed in terms of dry unit weight, viz., the dry weight of solids per unit volume. The dry density is related to the moist density or unit weight by the following equation:

γ_d =     γ                             (1)
1+ ω                   

Where:

γ	=	moist unit weight or density
γd	=	dry unit weight or density
ω	=	water content (dry weight basis)

Figure 1. Typical moisture density relationships or compaction curves

Higher densities are achieved when soil particles can pack closer together. The maximum density occurs at the so called "optimum water content" which varies with the type of soil and compactive effort. At optimum, the lubrication effect of the mix water allows soil particles to become more easily realigned during the compaction procedure, which results in the closer packing and higher density. At yet higher moisture contents the lubrication effect is offset by dilution, and dry density decreases. For any given textural composition of soil and compactive effort, there is a maximum dry density that can be achieved at the optimal moisture level as shown schematically in Figure 1.

Actual compaction curves for different types of soils using the Standard AASHTO (Proctor) test are shown in Figure 2. The classification/composition of these soils is described in Table 1. In general, compacted granular soils will have dry densities ranging from 1.84 to 2.16 g/cm (115 to 135 pcf) versus those of clayey to silty soils, which range from 1.36 to 1.84 g/cm (85 to 115 pcf). The corresponding optimum moisture contents for a granular soil are on the order of 10 to 12 percent for granular soils and 15 to 20 percent for silty to clayey soils compacted by the Standard Proctor test as shown in Figure 2.

Maximum density does not represent a soil with no void space remaining; rather, it represents one where the tightest possible packing arrangement is achieved for the given compaction conditions. The point of 100-percent saturation is called the saturation line or "zero air voids" curve (Figure 1). This condition cannot be reached unless the soil is completely saturated to begin with and is seldom, if ever, achieved during conventional compaction operations.

Figure 2. Compaction curves for eight different soils using the Standard (AASHTO) Proctor test (adapted from Abramson et al., 1995)

As a general rule in engineering practice, earthen fills that are part of site grading and not related to load bearing, are specified to be compacted to 90 percent of Standard Proctor maximum dry density. Load-bearing soils and other specialized fill applications call for higher compaction levels, including compactions that exceed the values achieved by the Standard Proctor test. Typical compaction requirements (dry densities) for various engineering applications are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Typical compaction requirements for different engineering applications
(from Hausmann, 1990)

• Density (usually expressed in terms of "dry" unit weight)

• Water content (molding or mix water content during compaction)

• Compactive effort (energy input/unit volume of soil)

• Type of compaction (static, dynamic, or kneading)

• Additives (cement, lime, etc)

The degree of saturation or water content of a clay soil at the time of compaction is perhaps the single most important variable that controls the engineering properties of the compacted material (Lambe, 1958). The influence of molding water content and compactive effort on hydraulic conductivity of compacted silty clay soil (Mitchell et. al., 1965) soils is shown in Table 3. Soils compacted at water contents less than optimum (dry of optimum) tend to have a relatively high hydraulic conductivity, whereas soils compacted at water contents greater than optimum (wet of optimum) tend to a relatively low hydraulic conductivity. Higher molding water contents also greatly suppress hydraulic conductivity on the wet side of optimum, even offsetting the effect of decreased dry densities (or higher void ratios).

TABLE 3. Influence of Molding Water Content of a Silty Clay Compacted to Different Degrees of Compaction on the "Wet" and "Dry" Side of Optimum

The results shown in Table 3 demonstrate that a soil compacted to the same degree of compaction on the wet side of optimum using the same compaction method but at different molding water contents can have radically different physical properties. This occurs because a soil compacted "wet" versus "dry" of optimum (refer to Figure 1) usually has a different texture or internal pore structure and pore size distribution. Soils compacted on the dry side of optimum water content tend to have a more open structure and greater distribution of larger pores. Accordingly, dry side compaction can result in hydraulic conductivities several orders-of-magnitude higher than wet side compaction, even when the soil is compacted to identical densities or degrees of compaction (see Table 3). This fact should always be kept in mind when assessing optimal compaction conditions to satisfy plant growth needs vs. engineering requirements.

INFLUENCE OF SOIL COMPACTION ON PLANT GROWTH

Soil compaction can influence plant growth in a variety of ways, both good and bad. Agronomists generally recommend minimal soil compaction so as not to impede growth and development of crops and native plants. Soil must retain enough interconnected void space to allow storage and passage of air and water in the soil. Some degree of compaction is needed after planting or insertion of cuttings to close large voids and to provide suitable soil density for appropriate plant growth. Too much void space can lead to poor contact of a seed or cutting with the surrounding soil, and subsequent desiccation.

The impacts of compaction have been studied extensively by agronomists who are concerned with the decline in soil productivity associated with modern agriculture, forestry practices, and the passage of equipment, which tend to compact soils over time. Goldsmith et al. (2001) provide a good review of these impacts on both conventional plantings and soil bioengineering installations. In general, findings show that high densities specified by engineers for mechanical strength tend to either reduce or effectively stop the development of roots. Depending on the plant species and the soil conditions, Goldsmith et al., (2001) cite evidence of limits to growth that include: 1) restriction in root growth, 2) severe reduction in length of all roots/or primary root 3) absence of root penetration of compacted soils. These authors conclude that a limiting or "threshold" bulk density appears to exist for each soil type or texture above which plant growth is severely curtailed. They further suggest that these limiting densities may be used as a predictive or management tool.

GROWTH LIMITING BULK DENSITIES FOR PLANTS

Several studies appear to support the concept of a growth-limiting bulk density (GLBD) that exists for a given soil texture or type. Daddow and Warrington (1983) computed GLBDs for 80 different soil textures using a regression equation. They next plotted the GLBDs on a USDA soil textural triangle in order to locate the growth-limiting isodensity lines as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Growth-limiting bulk density textural triangle (adapted from Daddow and Warrington, 1983).

Other researchers have tried to relate bulk density to factors such as root penetration, soil strength, and compaction (Table 4). As noted previously, well-graded, non-cohesive soils tend to reach higher maximum dry densities than cohesive soils. Additionally, non-cohesive soils exhibit higher critical dry density than cohesive soils. Coppin and Richards (1990) concur that the critical dry density depends on the soil texture and suggest values of about 1.4 g/cm (87 lb/ft) for clay soils and 1.7 g/cm (106 lb/ft) for sandy soils. These threshold values are within the intervals presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Approximate Bulk Densities That Restrict Root Penetration (from Handbook of Soil Science, 1999)

Clays contain more pore space than sandy soils, but have a much smaller average pore size. The pore size distribution controls water transmission, not total porosity. Sandy soils have large pores, while clays have small pores, which transmit water slowly. On the other hand, soils with small pores retain and hold moisture more effectively. Optimal conditions occur when there are enough large pores to transmit water readily, but also enough small pores to retain and store water; therefore, plants do better in well compacted, uniform, sandy soils with relatively low porosity (high relative density) or in well graded sands where sufficient fines (silts and clays) are present to provide moisture retention. The converse is true for clays. High porosity (low relative density) clay soils allow better infiltration and water transmission to plants than do highly compacted (high relative density) clay soils while at the same time providing good moisture retention and storage. It is important to emphasize again the importance of compaction on soil structure and pore size distribution in clay soils. Remember that compaction on the wet side of optimum can reduce hydraulic conductivity (and water transmission) of a clay soil by several orders-of-magnitude, even when the soil is compacted to the same dry density or relative degree of compaction (refer to Table 3).

Taken as a whole, findings in the literature seem to suggest that compaction between 80 and 85 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density provides many of the stabilizing benefits of soil compaction without jeopardizing the viability of vegetation development and growth. Growth-limiting bulk densities or critical dry bulk densities can readily be compared to standard Proctor maximum dry densities. The critical dry density for each type of soil presented in Table 1 and Figure 2 can be determined by plotting the soils in Figure 3. The degree of compaction suitable for root growth is calculated by dividing the critical dry density by the maximum dry density for each type of soil. Compaction rates thus calculated corresponding to growth-limiting bulk densities vary (Goldsmith et. al., 2001) from 82 to 91 percent of Standard Proctor densities, with an average of 84 percent; this limit can vary, however, depending on particular soil and site conditions.

For example, Horst Schor (1980, 1992), who has pioneered and developed "landform grading" as a way of building stable and visually attractive slopes, has specified and successfully re-vegetated fill slopes compacted to 90% relative compaction. His canyon fill project above the Hollywood reservoir is a good example. Slope re-vegetation at this location has established and flourished on soil compacted to 90% of Standard Proctor as shown in Figure 4. Schor actually specified overbuilding and then scaling back the slope surface to insure achieving this degree of compaction. Part of the reason for the re-vegetation success lies in the shape and topography of the slopes (he eschews planar, uniform slopes). Careful attention is given to drainage and suitable types of vegetation are selected for a particular position/location on the slope.

STRATEGIES FOR BALANCING PLANT GROWTH AND ENGINEERING STABILITY NEEDS

Limiting the density increase or degree of compaction to some predetermined threshold value is certainly an important strategy for balancing plant growth and engineering stability requirements; on the other hand, other strategies can be invoked as well. Furthermore, it is not only density and degree of compaction that determines water transmission character of a clay soil as explained previously (see Table 3). Other strategies include surface modification, control of molding water content during compaction, topographic modifications (landform grading and re-vegetation), soil blending, and surface amendments.

Controlling Molding Water Content

Soils compacted on the dry side of optimum water content tend to have a more open structure and greater distribution of larger pores. Dry side compaction can result in hydraulic conductivities several orders-of-magnitude higher than wet side compaction, even for two identical soils compacted to an identical dry density or relative degree of compaction, as shown previously in Table 3. In addition, static compaction, which introduces less shear strain than kneading (or impact compaction) and results in less remolding of soil pore structure also results in higher hydraulic conductivity and better water transmission. Accordingly, just as much attention should be paid to the manner of compaction as to the relative degree of compaction if the goal is to maximize plant growth as well as achieve engineering stability.

Figure 4. Plant re-vegetation and growth on canyon fill project (right, center of photo) in the Hollywood Hills, California, in which fill was overbuilt, compacted and scaled back to achieve 90% Standard Proctor compaction on the slope face. Slopes are stable, appear natural and are well vegetated. Photo taken 01-28-02.

Surface Modification

Better plant establishment and initial growth can be achieved if the soil surface is mechanically modified either by contour furrowing, scarification, disking, trackwalking, pitting, ripping, chiseling, or land imprinting. These treatments transform smooth, sealed soil surfaces with low infiltration rates into micro-rough, macro-porous surfaces that are better able to exchange water and air rapidly across the air-earth interface. They tend to loosen the surface layers and provide small indentations where seed and water can collect, thus aiding germination and establishment. Descriptions and specifications for these various mechanical treatments have been issued by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, 2000). An example of grass establishment and growth in cleat indentations formed by trackwalking using a bulldozer is shown in Figure 5. Trackwalking also helps to anchor mulch that is applied to the surface. Scarification, ripping, etc. loosen and initially increase the risk of some surficial erosion and sloughing, but this initial risk must be weighed against better long term protection that is afforded by a vigorous, well established vegetative cover. Furthermore, initial surficial erosion can be minimized or controlled by the use of hydraulically applied soil binders, fiber mulches, erosion control blankets, and soil bioengineering treatments such as the use of live fascines (Gray and Sotir, 1996).

Figure 5. Grass germination and establishment in cleat indentations on a slope surface that that has been trackwalked with a bulldozer.

Soil Blending and Artificial Gradation

Soil blending entails adding coarse, non-cohesive particles to a soil to improve water transmission properties, allow densification, and still permit good plant growth. Arborists who have to confront the contradictory demands of plant growth vs. engineering stability have often resorted to this approach. Street trees are usually grown in soil that must be compacted to a high degree to provide stability to adjoining sidewalks, roadways, and buildings. This same soil must be capable of accommodating growth, very often under less than ideal conditions. One way around this problem is to use a type of soil referred to as "structural" soil. This type of soil allows the granular portion to be compacted to a high relative density while still providing enough pore space to accommodate needed fines and plant roots in the inter-granular voids. Mitchell (1993) describes ways of actually computing the relative proportions of granular solids and fines (clay and silt) to achieve this goal.

Another version of structural soil (LASN, 2001) that has been used in street tree plantings consists of 4-5 parts crushed rock mixed with peat soil. The rock varies in size between 1.27 and 3.81 cm (0.5 and 1.5 in) in diameter. The soil is 25% silt or clay, 25% organic matter and 50% fine sand. A soil stabilizer (plant derived glue or hydrogel) is mixed in so that the soil adheres to the crushed rock. The ratio is 30 g (1.06 oz) of soil stabilizer per 100 kg (220.5 lbs) of soil and 500 kg (1102.31 lbs) of crushed rock. Preparation of this structural soil involves spreading out the rock and mixing in the soil stabilizer and soil into the rock.

Surface Amendments and Treatments

Specially formulated soil mixes can also be added to the soil surface to improve plant growth and establishment, and to minimize runoff and erosion. A good example is the recent development of an organic based soil (Durant, 2001) that mimics the texture and micro-biology of native topsoil at depths of 30 cm to 91 cm (12 in to 36 in) and remains stable on 1V:1H slopes or steeper. This soil mix reportedly does not erode, rill, or slump during test simulations with intense rainfall on steep slopes. The organic soil mix contains the necessary bacteria, fungi, and mycorrhizae that promote vigorous plant growth and that help to modify the underlying compacted, mineral soil and make it more hospitable to plant growth in the long run.

Topographic Modification (Landform Grading)

Landform grading (Schor, 1992; Schor and Gray, 1995) entails modifying surface topography and drainage so that slopes are stable against erosion and mass wasting.

Landform grading mimics stable natural slopes. Vegetation is selected and planted in a way that is compatible with hillside hydro-geology. Grasses and groundcovers are planted in drier convex shaped slopes or interfluves while trees and shrubs are planted in wetter concave shaped valleys, swales, and depressions. Careful attention is applied to drainage, which follows natural drop lines on a slope in a manner to minimize gradients. So, even if soil conditions are not entirely favorable to plant growth and establishment, at least all the other site conditions are favorable. Photos of a landform graded canyon fill project are shown in Figures 6 and 7. In spite of relatively high soil compaction, vegetation has become well established at this site.

Figure 6. View of canyon fill (top center) after landform grading and establishment of protective groundcover and vegetation. Conventionally treated cut slope is shown at left. Hollywood Hills canyon fill project. Photo taken 06-06-1999.


Figure 7. View of landform graded canyon fill after intense rainstorms. Vegetation is well established and no erosion is visible in the drainage swales or hillside areas. Photo taken 02-24-2000.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L.W., Lee, T.S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G.M. (1996). Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods. John Wiley & Sons: New York, N.Y.

Coppin, N. J., & Richards, I. (1990).  Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering. Butterworths: Sevenoaks, Kent (England).

Daddow, R.L. & Warrington, G.E. (1983). Growth-Limiting Soil Bulk Densities as Influenced by Soil Texture. WDG Report, WSDG-TN-00005, USDA Forest Svc. (pdf)

Durant, J. (2001). What About the Soil? Landscape Architect and Specifier News, Vol. 17, No. 11, pp. 28-31 http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article.php?id=413 [Retrieved October 2003]

Goldsmith, W., Silva, M., & Fischenich, C. (2001). Determining Optimum Degree of Soil Compaction for Balancing Mechanical Stability and Plant Growth Capacity. ERDC-TN-EMRRP-SR-26, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://www.wes.army.mil/el/emrrp (pdf)

Gray, D. H. & Sotir, R.  (1996).  Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N. Y.

Hausmann, M.R. (1990). Engineering Principles of Ground Modification. McGraw- Hill, Inc., New York

Lambe, T. W., (1958) The Permeability of Compacted Fine-Grained Soils, Special Technical Publication 163, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 55 - 67.

Lambe, T.W. & Whitman, R.V. (1969). Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York

Mitchell, J.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior (2nd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York

Mitchell, J. K., Hopper, D. R., & Campanella, R. G. (1965). Permeability of Compacted Clay, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 41 – 65.

Schor, H. (1980). Landform Grading: Building Nature's Slopes, Pacific Coast Builder, June 1980, pp. 80-83. (pdf)

Schor, H. (1992). Hills Like Nature Makes Them. Urban Land, March 1992

Schor, H. & Gray, D.H. (1995). Landform grading and slope evolution. Journ. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE) 121(10): 729-734.

Seed, H. B. & Chan, C. K., (1959). Structure and Strength Characteristics of Compacted Clays, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 87 – 128.

LASN (2001). Structural Soil. Landscape Architect and Specifier News, Vol.16, No. 8, p. 48.

Sumner, M.E. ed, (1999). Handbook of Soil Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

USDA (2000). Mechanical Land Treatment. Natl. Resources Cons. Svc. Conservation Practice Specification, Code 548. (pdf)