Laserfiche WebLink
<br />{( <br /> <br />(c <br /> <br />(Yj <br /> <br />,- <br />, .. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />~ <br />. <br /> <br />{~ :) <br /> <br />c:) <br />-\ <br />'-- <br /> <br />TABLE 5-1: Summary of Atterberg Limits Shrinkage Limits <br />and X-Ray Diffraction and Consolidation-Swell Test Data <br /> <br />~ of <br />Prominent <br />Clay <br />Mineral <br />( Illite) <br /> <br />Shrinkage % <br />Limi t Swell <br /> <br />Liquid <br />Limit <br /> <br />Plastic <br />Limit <br /> <br />Plasticity <br />Index <br /> <br />Pediment Soils <br />C-4 3-10 20 13 7 14.4 NA <br />C-17 7-20 27 10- 12 14.7 NA <br />EP-1 3-10 21 16 5 9.7 0.1 <br />Residual Soils <br />C-13 10-20 26 19 7 16.3 0.2 <br />C-18 10-30 35 19 16 16.3 0.8 <br />EP-2 10-20 30 22 8 16.7 1 <br /> <br />Examination of this data in relation to specifications for liner <br />placement are provided in Table 5-2. The potential linear <br />shrinkage of a liner placed at optimum moisture content (OMC) and <br />2% and 4% above optimum was estimated based on the shrinkage <br />limit of each soil. As shown by the data, little to no shrinkage <br />of the liner material occurs when it is placed close to optimum <br />moisture content. However, as the placement moisture content of <br />the liner material increases above the materials shrinkage limit, <br />the potential for liner shrinkage increases. This agrees well <br />with observations at the site where most soils had natural <br />moisture contents below their shrinkage limit and few shrinkage <br />cracks were observed. The actual shrinkage of the liner will be <br />a function of several variables including placement moisture <br />content, shrinkage limit, weather conditions, and the length of <br />time its exposed. <br />