Quantcast Table 7. Physical Properties of Sediment Grab Samples

 

Order this information in Print

Order this information on CD-ROM

Download in PDF Format

     

Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Table 7. Physical Properties of Sediment Grab Samples
Back | Up | Next

Click here for a printable version

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home


   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Combat
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
USMC
   
Products
  Educational CD-ROM's
Printed Manuals
Downloadable Books
   

 

Share on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Stumble Upon
Back
Figure 13. Cumulative grain size distribution (by weight) curves for pre- dredged, post-placed, and original foundation materials after mechanical dredging and dump scow placement
Up
doerd2
Next
Figure 15. Comparison of water content definitions
ERDC TN-DOER-D2
September 2004
Table 7
Physical Properties of Sediment Grab Samples
Sample
Gs
LL
PL
PI
% sand
% silt
% clay
Class
LA Riv
2.66
-
-
-
90
10
0
SP
Fill
2.67
-
-
-
54
27
19
SM
Foundation
2.75
71
36
35
2
48
50
MH
Table 8
Median and Mean Grain Size (by weight) for Sediment Grab Samples
Sample
Median, mm
Mean, mm
LA River material
0.42
0.79
Dredged fill material in pit
0.09
0.18
Foundation material
0.005
0.018
The original sediment appears to have been transformed from a poorly graded sand into a silty
sand material by the time it was deposited into the subaqueous pit and subsequently sampled.
Several reasons may account for this change. Spatial particle size distribution variability in the
pit may have occurred as the coarser-grained material filled the pit bottom prior to the finer-
grained material (winnowing), sampled materials may have a high degree of grain-size heteroge-
neity, or sediment mixing with the soft fine-grained foundation material may have occurred. The
most likely scenario was sediment mixing and displacement of the very soft foundation material.
Modeling the foundation material's stress­displacement as a function of cap stress (overburden
weight) demonstrated upward and outward displacements of the soft foundation material at the
sideslope interfaces with the dredged fill material (Lee 2001).
Regardless of the reasons for material property changes due to dredging operations, the lessons
illustrated here are that those changes do occur and must be accounted for in proportion to the
importance of quantifying subsequent engineering behavior changes. It may not be important to
know that dredged fill grain size distributions may change unless quantifying the subsequent
engineering behavior in that fill is important. As an example, porosity is only one of the many
material properties influenced by grain size distribution variability. Changes in porosity may not
need to be known for routine maintenance dredging, but computer models for water quality and
environmental fate depend on accurate porosity values.
VARIABILITY DUE TO DEFINITIONS: In addition to the changes in geotechnical properties
and engineering behavior in dredged materials, there are uncertainties in assigning property
parameters based on possible alternate definitions of those parameters. For example, the physical
property of water content may be defined in two or three different ways, depending on the test or
reporting method.
The standard method for water content (ASTM 1998) calculates the weight of water divided by
the weight of dry solids. Alternate but commonly used methods calculate the weight of water
divided by the total wet weight, or by a volumetric basis. Figure 15 compares three definitions of
water content referenced to the geotechnical standard (ASTM method):
13

Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us - Support Integrated Publishing

Integrated Publishing, Inc.