Laserfiche WebLink
7-14-04; 17:40 ;Lester Bulldln� ;3203955376 # 22/ 28 <br /> Article Request Page Page 20 of 26 <br /> tanks 1 and 2,water was brought near the surface of the tanks via capiIlary action.Also,even <br /> thmugh tanks 3 and 4 were drained,capillary action maintained water soil moisture content pmfiles <br /> in the�nks similar to those in tanks 1 and 2.Third,the rate of capillary rise in tanks 1 and 2 was <br /> relatively rapid. Data ahows that water reached the bottom edge of the top ECHO probe in tank 2 <br /> only 3.5 days after the test had commenc�. In other words,while top footings in tanks 3 and 4 <br /> received water on the first day of the test,it was not long afterwards that water was introduced into <br /> top footings in tanks 1 and 2. <br /> The rate of capillary rise in the air-dried sand and maximum capillary fringe depth in the sand were <br /> determined with an apparatus specially cons�tructed to measure these phenomena.Results from <br /> these tests showed that capillary rise in the air-dried sand could be expressed as a function of time <br /> as follows: <br /> Capillary Rise,mm=28 mm+ 109 mm x log(t/minute) [3] <br /> Where capillary riae is the dist�nce between the water table and the upward moving water front in <br /> the air-dried sand and t is elapsed minutes since the dried sand was brought into contact with the <br /> water.This equation is accurate for time periods,t,greater than 1 minute and less 80,600 minutes <br /> (8 weeks).Note that the base of the top ECIiO pmbe in Tank 2 was located approximately 420 mm <br /> (16.5 in.)above the water table level in Tank 2.For the amount of time it took for the water to <br /> reach this probe(i.e.,5040 minutes)equation 3 predicts a capillary rise of 431 mm. <br /> Overall,soil moisture levels in tanks 5 and 6 due to water treabment C were higher t1�an those in the <br /> other four tanks.In retrospect, soil moisture levels due to all water treatments should have been <br /> virhially identical.The primary reason for differences was attributed to the relatively low <br /> permeability of the geotextile fabric placed in each tank's water supply/drain line to keep sand from <br /> exiting the tanks.Without fabric or with a less permeable fabric,water added every 14 days to <br /> tarilcs 3,4, 5 and 6 would have been moved more rapidly thmugh the sand by gravitational forces. <br /> Without the restricting fabric,soil moisture profilea in all tanks should have been nearly identical <br /> within a couple hours of water application to tanks 3,4,5 and 6. <br /> Because of the lugh capillary rise,we were not able to assess the degree of hydration above the <br /> capillary fringe zone in a soil.For this reason,we would use coarser and more poorly graded sand <br /> if we were to reivn this experiment.In addition,we would allow for fi�cer movement of water in <br /> and out of tas�cs,and we would set up one tank with bottom drainage so that a gmund water table <br /> was not present in the tank. <br /> Specimen Moisture Content <br /> Regardless of water treatment,bottom footings had a significantly lower compressive strength than <br /> footings located at top and middle of the tanks(see Table 3 and figure 14).While there is an <br /> obvious tendency to attribute this to the hydration process,it is likely due to relatively high <br /> moisture content oFthe bottom footings at the time of removal,coring and testing. Several sludies <br /> have shown the compressive strength of a conerete specimen is decreased if its moisture content is <br /> uniformly increased throughout its volume.A good review of this research is provided by Bartlett <br /> and MacGregor(1993). One theory for this effect is that water absorbed into the pores of the <br /> hydrating cement particles(a.k.a.gel pores)has no place to go when the specimen is loaded.This <br /> results in a build-up of hydrostatic pressure that literally helps blow the specimen apart.Another <br /> theory is that excess water in the gel forces gel surfaces further apart,thus reducing Van Der WalIs <br /> forces between gel parkicles.These adhesive forces are proportional to the specific surface energy, <br /> and thus the critical stress required for cracking. <br /> Another possble reason for wetter cores having lower compreasive strengths is that wet cores are <br /> http://asae.frymulti.com/request2.asp?JI1�5&AID=14082&CID=1nv2003&v=&i=&T=1 6/4/2004 <br />