laboratory report in geotechnical engineering i

7/25/2019 Laboratory Report in Geotechnical Engineering I

1/88

P a g e 1 | 88

COMPILATION OF LABORATORY REPORTS

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I

CE 131N

___________________________

Presented to

Engr. Joel G. Opon

Faculty, Civil Engineering Department

MSUIligan Institute of Technology

Iligan City

___________________________

NICOLE ALEXIS K. VIOS

BSCE

IVMARCH 24, 2015


2/88

P a g e 2 | 88

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

Cover page 1Table of Contents 2

Laboratory Report #1

Introduction 4

Apparatuses 5

Summary of Test Method 6

Data Presentation and Analysis 6

Conclusion and Observations 9

Photo Documentations 10


Introduction 11

Apparatuses 11Summary of Test Method 13Data Presentation and Analysis 14

Conclusion and Observations 16Photo Documentations 17


Introduction 19

Apparatuses 20






Introduction 28

Apparatuses 29





Laboratory Report #5Introduction 35

Apparatuses 36Summary of Test Method 37





Introduction 42

Apparatuses 43






3/88

P a g e 3 | 88

Laboratory Report #7Introduction 49



Conclusion and Observations 57Photo Documentations 59


Introduction 60

Apparatuses 60






Introduction 69


Data Presentation and Analysis 74Conclusion and Observations 75

Photo Documentations 76Laboratory Report #10

Introduction 77

Apparatuses 77





Appendices 85

Appendix A 86

Appendix B 87


4/88

P a g e 4 | 88

Laboratory Report No. 1

Measurement of Moisture Content

Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

ASTM D2216

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios Date Performed: November 12, 2014

Group No. 1

I. Introduction

Soil is one of the three (3) major natural resources, alongside air and water. In

the main, it is a naturally occurring material. Just like other construction materials, soils

has its own scientific analysis with regards to its abilities on dealing with forces. Being

the oldest construction and probably engineering material, soil is one of the most

complex fields in civil engineering to the point that when it comes to the factor of safety

in design, whatever has direct contact with soils requires a significantly higher safety

factor compared with other construction materials.

Water content or moisture content is the quantity of water contained in a

material, such as soil (called soil moisture). It is primarily used for performing weight-

volume calculations in soil. It is also a measure of the shrink-swell and strength

characteristics of cohesive soils as demonstrated in liquid limit and plastic limit testing.

For many materials, the water content is one of the most significant index properties

used in establishing a correlation between soil behaviour and its index properties. The

water content of a material is used in expressing the phase relationships of air, water

and solids in a given volume of material. It is the ratio expressed as a percent of the

mass of pore or free water in a given mass of materials to the mass of the solid

material. A standard temperature of 1105is used to determine these masses.This test method covers procedures for determining the water (moisture) content

of soils by incrementally drying soil in an oven.


5/88

P a g e 5 | 88

II. Apparatuses

a. Bucket with cover a container used to securely store the soil samples gathered

from a certain location. This soil will be used all throughout the laboratory activities

of this course.

b. Pana container made of metal used to hold the soil samples during the laboratory

activity.

c.

Trowela small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade where in this laboratory

activity was used to transfer the soil samples from the bucket to the pan.

d. Digital Weighing Scale a measuring device used to determine the different

weights that will be needed in the determination of the moisture content of the soil.


6/88

P a g e 6 | 88

e. Tongsan instrument with two (2) movable arms that are joined at one end used

to pick up the pan containing the soil samples in the laboratory oven.

f. Laboratory Ovena device used to heat the soil samples at 1105to be able toidentify its moisture content.

III.Summary of the Test Method

A suitable amount of soil samples were gathered from a certain location and

stored in a bucket with cover for secure storage. Three (3) pans for three (3) sets of soilsamples were prepared and weighed individually in the digital weighing scale. Using

the trowel, a small amount of soil samples were placed in the pan and were weighed

again. The pan containing the soil samples were transferred to the laboratory oven with

a temperature of 105 by the means of the tongs. Time intervals specified by theprofessor were observed. Every after these intervals, the pans were taken out from the

laboratory oven and were cooled down for about five (5) minutes and weighed again.

The same process was performed until a constant weight of the pan with the soil

samples were obtained. Necessary calculations were performed to determine the soil

moisture content of the soil samples.

IV.Data Presentation and Analysis

Location of the Soil Samples gathered: Near Petron Gasoline Station Tambo, Brgy.

Hinaplanon, Iligan City


7/88

P a g e 7 | 88

Table 1.1 Weight of the pans every after oven drying in certain time intervals.

Table 1.2 Continuation of the recorded weight of the pans after oven drying.

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 shows the data of the recorded weights of the soil samples

after they are oven dried but are cooled down for about five (5) minutes before weighing

again from time to time.

The calculations used to obtain necessary values in the succeeding table in

determining the moisture content are shown below.

Time Started Time Ended Pan Number Wt of Pan + Over Dried Soil (g)

9:08 AM 12:00 PM 1 72.30

2 68.10

3 77.20

12:07 PM 2:00 PM 1 69.60

2 66.30

3 73.70

2:08 PM 3:00 PM 1 69.40

2 66.00

3 73.00

3:07 PM 4:00 PM 1 69.30

2 66.00

3 72.80

4:10 PM 5:00 PM 1 69.202 66.00

3 72.70

Time Started Time Ended Pan Number Wt of Pan + Over Dried Soil (g)

1 69.80

2 66.70

3 73.40

9:33 AM 10:33 PM 1 69.602 66.40

3 73.10

10:39 AM 2:00 PM 1 68.70

2 65.80

3 72.20

2:08 PM 3:00 PM 1 68.70

2 65.80

3 72.20


8/88

P a g e 8 | 88

Formulas Used and Calculations:

Weight of Water=(Wt of Pan + Wet Soil) -(Wt of Pan +Oven Dried Soil)

Weight of WaterPan Number 1

=83.6g-68.7g=14.90g

Weight of WaterPan Number 2=79.3g-65.8g=13.50g

Weight of WaterPan Number3

=88.5g-72.2g=16.30g

Weight of Soil=Wt of Pan +Oven Dried Soil-(Wt of Pan)Weight of Soil

Pan Number 1=68.7g-31.00g=37.70g

Weight of SoilPan Number 2

=65.8g-31.10g=34.70g

Weight of SoilPan Number 3

=72.2g-30.90g=41.30g

Moisture Content= Wt of WaterWt of Soil 100%

1= 14.90g37.70g 100%=39.52%

2= 13.50g34.70g 100%=38.90%1=

16.30g

41.30g100%=39.47%

Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content ofPan #1+Pan #2+Pan #3]/3=

39.52%+38.90%+39.47%

3

=39.90%

Table 1.3Determination of the Moisture Content of Soil.

The table illustrated above is the tabulated data of the weight of the three (3)

pans, the weight of the pans with wet soil, the weight of the pans with oven dried soil

and the computed moisture content. As you can observe in the calculations shown with

Pan

Number

Wt of

Pan (g)

Wt of Pan +

Wet Soil (g)

Wt of Pan +

Over Dried

Soil (g)

Wt of

Water (g)

Wt of

Soil (g)

Moisture

Content

(%)

1 31.00 83.6 68.7 14.90 37.70 39.52

2 31.10 79.3 65.8 13.50 34.70 38.90

3 30.90 88.5 72.2 16.30 41.30 39.47

Average 39.30


9/88

P a g e 9 | 88

reference to tables 1.1 and 1.2, the weight of pan and oven dried soil used is the weight

when it is already constant. This is because when the weight is already constant, it can

be assumed that there are no more water particles present in the soil.

V. Conclusions and Observations

i.

From the results obtained in this laboratory activity, the moisture content of the

soil taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City is

39.30%.

ii. The loss of mass of the soil sample due to drying is considered to be water as

can be seen in the calculations.

iii.

It can be observed from the laboratory activity that the soil samples gained

certain amount of moisture when it was placed aside before continuing the oven

drying process in the laboratory oven. A proof of this was the increase in weight

of the soil samples as it is weighed again as shown in Table 1.2 during the

continuation of the oven drying process.

iv. The knowledge of the soil moisture content is essential in all studies of soil

mechanics. It is used in determining the bearing capacity and settlement of the

soil that will give an idea of the state of the soil in the field.


10/88

P a g e 10 | 88

VI.Photo Documentations

Fig 1. The pans and the trowel used in the

laboratory activity.

Fig 2. Weighing of the empty pans in the

digital weighing scale.

Fig 3. Filling a small amount of soilsamples in the pans.

Fig 4. Placing the pans containing the soil

samples in the laboratory oven


11/88

P a g e 11 | 88


Measurement of Specific Gravity of Soil Soilds

Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils

ASTM D854


Group No. 1

I.

IntroductionSpecific Gravity is the ratio of the density of a substance compared to the

density of fresh water at 4 39. Since it is a ratio, it has no units. An object withspecific gravity of less than one (1) will float and those with specific gravity of greater

than one (1) will sink.

In soils, specific gravity refers to the mass of solid matter of a given soil sample

as compared to an equal volume of water. The specific gravity of soil solids is used in

calculating the phase relationships of soils, such as void ratio and degree of saturation.

It is also used in calculating the density of the soil solids; this is done by multiplying its

specific gravity by the density of water (at proper temperature).

This test method covers the determination of the specific gravity of soil solids

which is an important weight-volume property that is helpful in classifying soils and in

finding other weight-volume properties.

II. Apparatuses

a.

Digital Weighing Scale a measuring device used to determine the different

weights that are necessary in determining the specific gravity of the soil sample.


12/88

P a g e 12 | 88

b. Trowela small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade where in this laboratory


c. Pana container made of metal used to hold the soil samples during the laboratory

activity as it is placed in the laboratory oven.

g.

Laboratory Ovena device used to dry the soil samples.

d.

Mortar and Pestleused to crush the oven dried soil samples into finer textures for

the laboratory activity.


13/88

P a g e 13 | 88

e. Funnelused to transfer the distilled water and the crushed soil sample to the etched

flask.

f.

Etched Flaska type of flask having spherical bottom with an etched mark used to

agitate the mixed water and soil sample to determine the specific gravity.

g.

Thermometerused to measure the temperature of the distilled water to be able to

identify the correction factor, K.


A certain amount of soil sample was prepared and was oven dried for about six

(6) hours. Then a 60g amount of soil sample was crushed using the mortar and pestle,

this mass is denoted as Mo. The flask was then filled with distilled water to the etched

mark using the funnel and weighed, this mass is denoted as Ma. The 60g crushed soil

sample was then transferred to the flask with distilled water using the funnel still. It was

then weighed and denoted as Mb. Due to the unavailability of vacuum in the laboratory,

the mixture of distilled water and crushed soil in the flask was then agitated by a back

and forth rolling motion and letting it settle to eliminate the bubbles of air inside. This

procedure lasted for about thirty (30) minutes. At this moment, the water temperature

was determined to identify the correction factor, K, to be used. Necessary calculations

were made to identify the specific gravity.


14/88

P a g e 14 | 88


Weight of Pan: 52.1g

Weight of Soil: 121.3g

Time placed inside the oven: 8:03AM

Time taken out from the oven: 2:08PM

Weight of Pang+Soilg=52.1g+121.3g=173.4gA pan weighing 52.1g was filled with a 121.3g of soil, the total mass by adding

these two (2) is then 173.4g. From 8:03AM up to 2:08PM, the soil sample was oven

dried to a heat temperature of105.For agitating the distilled water + crushed oven dried soil:

Time Started: 2:45PM

Time Ended: 3:15PM

The mixture of the distilled water and crushed soil sample created air bubbles

inside, thus, there is a need to agitate the flask to eliminate these air bubbles because it

will add a weight that may cause errors in the results. Due to the unavailability of

vacuum to eliminate these air bubbles, a manual agitation was performed for about

thirty (30) minutes.

Table 2.1 shows the tabulated data of the necessary weights to be used in

determining the specific gravity of the soil sample, it is shown below.

Table 2.1 Tabulated data of the different weights to be used in determining the specific

gravity of the soil sample.

For checking the water temperature:

Time Started: 2:49PM

Time Ended: 3:00PM

Temperature Obtained:

23

Weight of Crushed Oven Dried Soil (Mo) 60.0g

Weight of Pan + Crushed Oven Dried Soil 112.1gWeight of Flask + Distilled Water (Ma) 648.6g

Weight of Flask + Distilled Water + Crushed Oven Dried Soil (Mb) 685.4g


15/88

P a g e 15 | 88

Table 2.2 Temperature Correction Factor, K.

Since the obtained water temperature is

23, and in reference to table 2.2 which

shows the temperature correction factor to be used, using the obtained temperature, the

correction factor, K, is equivalent to 0.9993.

Formulas used and Calculations:

Gs=Mo

Mo+(Ma-Mb)

=60g

60g+(648.6g-685.4g)

=60g

60g+(-36.4g)

=60g

23.2g

Gs=2.59

Water temperature:

23

K = 0.9993

Gs2o=GsK

=2.590.9993

Gs2o=2.59

Source: Soil Mechanics Lab Manual, Michael E. Kalinski


16/88

P a g e 16 | 88


i. From the results obtained in this laboratory activity, the specific gravity of the

soil sample taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City

and applying the necessary corrections is 2.59.

ii. There is a need to de-air the soil mixture to ensure that there are no air bubbles

in the mixture that may cause an additional weight in the mixture thus obtaining

inaccurate results.

iii. Inadequate de-airing of the soil mixture might be one of most likely causes of

error in measuring the specific gravity which leads to and underestimate for .iv.

The specific gravity of soil solids is an important parameter and is a factor in

many equations involving weight-volume relationships.


17/88

P a g e 17 | 88


Fig 1.The soil sample right after drying it in the oven.

Fig 2.Crushing the oven dried soil sample into finertexture using the mortar and pestle.

Fig 3. Filling the etched flask with the crushed soil

sample.


18/88

P a g e 18 | 88

Fig 4. Determining the room temperature using the

thermometer.


19/88

P a g e 19 | 88


Analysis of Grain Size Distribution

Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

ASTM D422


Group No. 1

I.

IntroductionParticle-size distribution, also known as gradation, refers to the proportions by

dry mass of a soil distributed over specified particle-size ranges. It is used to classify

soils for engineering and agricultural purposes, since particle size influences how fast

or slow water or other fluid moves through a soil.

Soil consists of an assembly of ultimate soil particles (discrete particles) of

various shapes and sizes. The objective of a particle-size analysis is to group these

particles into separate ranges of sizes and so determine the relative proportion by weight

of each size range.

The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of

soil. Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution and it is required in

classifying the soil.

This test method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of

particle size in soils. The distribution of particle sizes larger than seventy five (75)

micrometres (retained on the No. 200 sieve) is determined by sieving, while the

distribution of particle sizes smaller than 75 micrometres is determined by a

sedimentation process using a hydrometer.

This laboratory activity used the sieving method in the determination of the

particle-size of soils. The information gathered in this laboratory activity is used to

classify the soil in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).


20/88

P a g e 20 | 88

II. Apparatuses

a. Digital Weighing Scale a measuring device used to determine the different

weights that will be recorded and needed in the calculations.

b. Trowela small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade where in this laboratory




d. Laboratory Ovena device used to dry the soil samples to harden it.


21/88

P a g e 21 | 88

e. Mortar and Pestleused to crush the oven dried soil samples into finer textures and

smaller particles.

f. Sievea device used to filter the soil samples for characterizing the particle-size

distribution of the soil.

III.

Summary of the Test Method

A 750g of soil sample was placed in a pan and was oven dried and sun dried

alternatively every after two (2) hours due to the reason that only two (2) pans can fit

in in the laboratory oven. Every after two (2) hours, the soil sample is slowly crushed

into finer texture and smaller particles by the use of mortar and pestle, in this case, a

modified one due to the unavailability of the apparatus.

After crushing the soil sample, it was weighed again. The different sieves with

different diameters were prepared and below it was the pan. Each sieve and the pan wasweighed before putting the crushed soil sample in the largest diameter sieve (top of the

sieve stack) and it was manually shaken for about 10 minutes. After this process, each

sieve was weighed to determine the amount of soil sample retained in each sieve.

Necessary formulas were used and calculations were made.


22/88

P a g e 22 | 88


Table 3.1Different Weights Recorded.

The data shown in table 3.1 above are the recorded weights that are necessary

in the analysis of the grain size distribution of the soil sample. As you can observe,

there is a great difference between the initial weight of the soil sample and its weight

after it is crushed. This discrepancy is due to the reason that during the crushing process,

some of the soil samples fell off the floor. The calculations used to obtain these results

are shown below.

Weight of Pan+Soil Sample= Weight of Pan+Weight of Soil Sample=108.8g+750g

=858.8gWeight of Crushed Soil Sample=Weight of Pan+Crushed Soil Sample-Weight of Pan=708.4g-108.8g

=599.6gTable 3.1Percent Finer in every Sieve.

Weight of Pan 108.8g

Weight of Soil Sample 750.0g

Weight of Pan + Soil Sample 858.8g

Weight of Pan + Crushed Soil Sample 708.4g

Weight of Crushed Soil Sample 599.66

Sieve

Number

Grain Size,

D (mm)

Mass of Soil

Retained (g)

Mass of Soil

Passed (g)

Percent Finer

(%)

4 4.75 3.4 596.2 99.43

10 2.00 74 522.2 87.09

12 1.70 29.3 492.9 82.20

16 1.18 82.2 410.7 68.50

20 0.85 65.7 345 57.54

30 0.60 56.1 288.9 48.18

60 0.25 109.4 179.5 29.94

100 0.15 64.1 115.4 19.25

200 0.075 25.6 89.8 14.98

Pan --- 89.8 0 0.00

Total Mass 599.6


23/88

P a g e 23 | 88

Table 3.1 above shows the percent finer in every sieve, this is the percentage of

the weight of the soil sample that pass a certain sieve number. The calculations used to

obtain these results are shown below.


Mass of Soil Passedg=Total Massg-Mass of Soil Retained (g)Mass of Soil PassedSieve #4=599.6-3.4=596.2gMass of Soil PassedSieve #10 =596.2-74=522.2gMass of Soil PassedSieve #12=522.2-29.3=492.9gMass of Soil PassedSieve #16=429.9-82.2=410.7gMass of Soil PassedSieve #20

=

410.7-65.7

=

345g

Mass of Soil PassedSieve #30=345-56.1=288.9gMass of Soil PassedSieve #60=288.9-109.4=179.5gMass of Soil PassedSieve #100=179.5-64.1=115.4gMass of Soil PassedSieve #200=115.4-25.6=89.8gMass of Soil PassedPan =89.8-89.8=0g

Percent Finer

%

= [Mass of Soil Passed

g

Total Mass

g

]100

Percent FinerSieve #4= 596.2599.6

100=99.43%Percent FinerSieve #4 = 522.2

599.6100=87.09%

Percent FinerSieve #4 = 492.9599.6

100=82.20%Percent FinerSieve #4 = 410.7599.6 100=68.50%Percent FinerSieve #4 = 345599.6 100=57.54%Percent FinerSieve #4 = 288.9

599.6100=48.18%

Percent FinerSieve #4 = 179.5599.6

100=29.94%Percent FinerSieve #4 = 115.4

599.6100=19.25%

Percent FinerSieve #4 =89.8

599.6 100=14.98%


24/88

P a g e 24 | 88

Graph 3.1Particle-Size Distribution Curve of the Soil.

The figure above shows the semi-logarithmic graphed form of Table 3.1, this is

also known as the gradation curve having the grain size, d (mm) as the abscissa and the

percent passing (%) as the ordinate. The diameters corresponding to 60%, 30% and

10% finer are necessary to obtain the coefficients to be used in classifying the soil. By

locating these percent finer in the ordinate and connecting it to the curve produced then

projecting it in the abscissa we obtained the values as shown in the graph. As you can

observe the grain size diameter used in determining D10is the same with that of D15,

this is because the particle size distribution curve ends with 14.98% finer.

Uniformity Coefficient (Cu):

Cu

=

D60

D10

= 0.93mm0.075mm

Cu=12.4Coefficient of Gradation (Cc):

Cc= D302D60D10

=

(0.16mm)

2

0.93mm0.075mm

Cc=0.37

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.010.101.00

PercentPassing(%)

Grain size, d (mm)

Particle-Size Distribution Curve

D60= 0.93

D30=0.16

D15 = D10 = 0.075

D75 = 1.12

D25=0.1


25/88

P a g e 25 | 88

Sorting Coefficient (So):

So=D75D25

=1.12mm0.11mmSo=3.19

Based on Table 3.2 as shown above and using the Unified Soil Classification

System (USCS), the following is the result of the classification of the particle-size

distribution of the soil sample in reference to Graph 3.1 which is the gradation curve

and Table 3.1 which is the summary:

Gravel = 10099.43 = 0.57%

Sand = 10014.980.57 = 84.45%

Silt and Clay = 14.98%


i. From the results obtained in this laboratory activity, the soil from Petron

Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City is 0.57% Gravel, 84.45% Sand

and 14.98% Silt and Clay based on the Unified Soils Classification System

(USCS).

ii. The soil sample has a uniformity coefficient of 12.4 and a coefficient of

gradation of 0.37. These results can be used in classifying the soil sample.


26/88

P a g e 26 | 88

iii. The test method no longer included the hydrometer analysis which is the

analysis of the soil samples that are less than 0.075mm due to the unavailability

of the hydrometer device.

iv. In determining the diameter corresponding to 10% finer, the diameter in the

14.98% finer is used which is 0.075mm since the particle-size distribution curve

ends at this point.

v. Careful manual shaking of the sieve stack should be observed because some soil

particles might spill and cause certain errors in the calculations. Thus, necessary

adjustments should be made.

vi. The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of

soil. Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution and it is required in

classifying the soil.

vii. Based on the gradation curve or the graph of the particle-size distribution curve,

it can be concluded that the soil is well graded based on the standards set by the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).


27/88

P a g e 27 | 88


Fig 1.Crushing the oven dried soil sample

using the mortar and pestle.

Fig 2. Determining the weight of the

different sieves.

Fig 3.Putting the crushed oven dried soil

samples in the different sieve numbers to

start the sieve analysis.

Fig 4. Recording the data obtained in the

laboratory activity and doing the necessary

calculations.


28/88

P a g e 28 | 88


Atterberg Limits Test (Liquid Limit)

Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of

Soils

ASTM D4318

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios Date Performed: January 7, 2015

Group No. 1

I. Introduction

In the early 1900s, a Swedish scientist named Atterberg developed a method to

describe the consistency of fine-grained soils with varying moisture content. On an

arbitrary basis, depending on the moisture content, the behaviour of soil can be divided

into four basic statessolid, semisolid, plastic and liquid.

The moisture content, in percent, where the transition from solid state to

semisolid state is called the shrinkage limit while that of the semisolid state to plastic

state is plastic limit and lastly, from plastic state to liquid state is the liquid limit. The

liquid limit and plastic limit tests provide information regarding the effect of moisture

content also known as water content on the mechanical properties of soil. Specifically,

the effects of water content on volume change and soil consistency are addressed.

This test method covers the determination of the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and

Plasticity Index of soils. This test method is used as an integral part of several

engineering classification systems to characterize the fine-grained fractions of soil and

to specify the fine-grained fraction of construction materials. This laboratory report

shows the Liquid Limit part of the test method.


29/88

P a g e 29 | 88

II. Apparatuses

a. No. 40 Sieve (0.425mm opening)use to separate the coarse-grained fraction and

fine-grained fraction of the soil before continuing to the rest of the process.

b. Digital Weighing Scale use to determine the different weights to be used in the

laboratory activity that will be necessary in determining the particle-size

distribution of the soil.

c. Laboratory Ovenuse to dry the soil samples.

d.

Ceramic Soil Mixing Bowla container used to hold in mixing the dried and sievedsoil samples and the distilled water.


30/88

P a g e 30 | 88

e. Frosting Knife used to mix the dried and sieved soil samples and the distilled

water; as well as used to get the portion of the soil that will be oven dried for

determining the moisture content.

f. Liquid Limit Devicean instrument in determining the liquid limit of soil.

g.

Grooving Toola long, narrow cut or indentation in the surface use to groove a

portion of the soil sample put in the liquid limit device.

h.

Three (3) Soil Moisture Containers a very small pan used as a container of the

soil samples in putting it in the laboratory oven to determine the moisture content.


31/88

P a g e 31 | 88


The oven dried soil samples that were crushed into smaller lumps were sieved

in the No. 40 Sieve with an opening size of 0.475mm. The soils that passed this sieve

number was used in determine the liquid limit.

The fraction of soil weighing approximately 80g that passed the No. 40 Sieve

was added an amount of distilled water until it has the consistency like that of a peanut

butter. The drop height of the cup of the liquid limit device was checked if it is 10mm,

if it was not so, necessary adjustments of the apparatus was made. A flat layer of the

mixed soil sample and distilled water was spread into the cup with the frosting knife.

The grooving tool was used to cut a grove in the soil. The crank of the liquid limit

device was turned at a certain uniform speed so that the groove will close over a length

of 12.7mm (0.5in). The number of cranks was recorded and a portion of the soil in the

cup was put in the soil moisture container and placed in the oven. This method was

repeated three (3) times where the number of cranks is between ten (10) and forty (40)

but before doing another trial, all the apparatuses used were cleaned first.


Table 4.1Initial weights of the pans recorded.

The weight listed in table 4.1 are the different initial weights of the containers

or the pans used during the laboratory activity. An approximately 80g of soil sample

were used during the entire activity.

Table 4.2Determination of the Liquid Limit of the Soil Sample.

Weight of Container 115.1g

Weight of Soil that passed the No. 40 Sieve(0.475mm) 80.1g

Liquid Limit:

Weight of Pan Number 1 9.0g



Trial

No.

No. of

Blows

Weight

of Pan

(g)

Weight

of Pan +

Wet Soil

(g)

Weight of

Pan + Oven

Dried Soil

(g)

Weight

of Soil

(g)

Weight of

Water (g)

Moisture

Content

(%)

1 38 9.0 15.3 13.2 4.2 2.1 50.0

2 25 9.1 18.7 15.1 6.0 3.6 60.0

3 19 8.9 19.9 15.8 6.9 4.1 59.42Average 56.47


32/88

P a g e 32 | 88

In table 4.2, it shows the corresponding moisture contents of the three different

trials in determining the liquid limit of the soil sample. The liquid limit of the soil is the

moisture content corresponding to a number of twenty five (25) blows. The group

obtained the moisture content when the number of blows is twenty five (25) but this is

not an assurance that this is already the liquid limit of the soil. So to obtain the accurate

liquid limit of the soil, a graphical form of the data is presented and the moisture content

corresponding to twenty five (25) number of blows is then determined. The necessary

calculations to obtain the results in table 4.1 are shown below.


Weight of Soilg=Weight of Pan+Oven Dried Soilg-Weight of Pan (g)Weight of Soil

Trial Number 1=13.2g-9.0g=4.2g

Weight of SoilTrial Number 2

=15.1g-9.1g=6.0gWeight of Soil


Weight of Waterg=Weight of Pan+Wet Soilg-[Weight of Pan+Dried Soilg]Weight of Water


Weight of WaterTrial Number 2 =18.7g-15.1g=3.6gWeight of WaterTrial Number 3 =19.9g-15.8g=4.1g


1= 2.1g4.2 g

100%=50.0%2= 3.6g6.0g 100%=60.0%

1= 4.1g6.9g 100%=59.42%

Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content ofPan #1+Pan #2+Pan #3]/3= 50.0%+60.0%+59.42%

3

=56.47%


33/88

P a g e 33 | 88

Graph 4.1Liquid Limit Graph of the Soil Sample.

To determine the corresponding moisture content of the twenty five (25) number

of blows using the regression lines equation, we have:

y=-0.5398x+71.227

=-0.539825+71.227y=LL=57.73


i. The Liquid Limit of the soil sample taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy.

Hinaplanon, Iligan City is 57.73.

ii.

The results of the Atterberg Limits Test will be used in classifying the soil using

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS) and to estimate the swell potential of the soil. Its objective is to obtain

the basic index information about the soil used to estimate strength and

settlement characteristics.

iii. Careful and proper execution of the procedures of the different tests is necessary

in order to attain accurate and reliable results. This results determine the

properties and characteristics of a certain soil that will identify if the soil is

suitable for a given use i.e. highway subgrade material.

iv. Different soils behave differently, thus, there is really a need to conduct such

tests so as not to fail in any aspect and thus have a mediocre output of a job

y = -0.5398x + 71.227

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

15 20 25 30 35 40

MoistureContent(%)

Number Of Blows

Liquid Limit

LL = 57.73


34/88

P a g e 34 | 88


Fig. 4 The portion of the mixed soil

sample and distilled water from the brass

cup was placed in the small pan to be

oven dried in the laboratory oven.

Fig. 3 A part of the procedure in liquid

limit testing where the portion of the

mixed soil sample and distilled water

was get from the brass cup.

Fig. 2 Checking if the brass cup of the

liquid limit device drops a height of

10mm.

Fig. 1 Sieving the soil samples in the

No. 40 Sieve (Opening size: 0.475mm).


35/88

P a g e 35 | 88


Atterberg Limits Test (Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index)

Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of

Soils

ASTM D4318


Group No. 1

I. Introduction

Plastic Limit is defined as the lowest moisture content and expressed as a

percentage of the weight of the oven dried soil at which the soil can be rolled into

threads one-eighth (1/8) inch in diameter without breaking into pieces. This is also the

moisture content of a solid at which a soil changes from a plastic state to a semisolid

state.

Plasticity Index is defined as the numerical difference between the liquid limit

and the plastic limit. It is the range within which the soil remains plastic.

The shrinkage limit of cohesive soils is defined as the water content at which

further loss of moisture will not cause a decrease in volume.

This method covers the determination of the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and

Shrinkage Limit. This test method is used as an integral part of several engineering

classification systems to characterize the fine-grained fractions of soil and to specify

the fine-grained fraction of construction materials. This laboratory report focuses on

plastic limit and plasticity index determination since the liquid limit is already identified

in the previous laboratory activity.


36/88

P a g e 36 | 88

II. Apparatuses

a. No. 40 Sieve (0.425mm opening)use to separate the coarse-grained fraction and

fine-grained fraction of the soil before continuing the experiment.

b. Digital Weighing Scale use to determine the different weights necessary to be

used in the laboratory activity.

c. Laboratory Ovenuse to dry the soil samples to be able to determine the moisture

contents.

d. Ceramic Soil Mixing Bowla container used to hold in mixing the dried and sieved

soil samples and the distilled water.


37/88

P a g e 37 | 88

e. Frosting Knife used to mix the dried and sieved soil samples and the distilled

water; as well as used to get the portion of the soil that will be oven dried for


f. Three (3) Soil Moisture Containers a very small pan used as a container of the

soil samples in putting it in the laboratory oven.

g. Laboratory Glass Plate used when rubbing the mixed soil sample and distilled

water in the plastic limit test.

III.

Summary of the Test MethodThe last soil used in the liquid limit test was used in the plastic limit test where

it was made into little mud balls. The little mud balls were rolled into the laboratory

glass plate to form a rod with a diameter of 3mm (0.125in). If the soil crumbles the first

time, more water were added and the processes was repeated. If the rod did not crumble,

it was made into another little mud ballsthis will dry the soil. The process of making

a rod, rolling up in the glass plate were repeated until the soil crumbles while making

the rod. This soil was then put in the soil moisture container and placed in the oven for



38/88

P a g e 38 | 88


Table 5.1Initial weights of the pans recorded.

The weight listed above are the different initial weights of the containers or pans

used during the laboratory experiment. An approximately 80g of soil sample were used

during the entire activity.

i. Plastic Limit

Table 5.2Determination of the Plastic Limit of the Soil Sample.


Weight of Soilg=Weight of Pan+Oven Dried Soilg-Weight of Pan (g)Weight of Soil



=10.7g-9.0g=1.7g


=10.8g-9.0g=1.8g

Weight of Waterg=Weight of Pan+Rolled Soilg-[Weight of Pan+Dried Soilg]Weight of Water


Weight of WaterTrial Number 2

=11.3g-10.7g=0.6g


=11.3g-10.8g=0.5g

Weight of Container 115.1g

Weight of Soil that passed the No. 40 Sieve(0.475mm) 80.1g

Plastic Limit:




Trial

No.

Weight

of Pan

(g)

Weight of

Pan +

Rolled Soil

(g)

Weight of Pan +

Oven Dried Soil

(g)

Weight

of Soil

(g)

Weight

of Water

(g)

Moisture

Content

(%)

1 9.1 11.0 10.6 1.5 0.4 26.67

2 9.0 11.3 10.7 1.7 0.6 35.29

3 9.0 11.3 10.8 1.8 0.5 27.78

Average 29.91


39/88

P a g e 39 | 88


1= 0.4g1.5g

100%=26.67%

2= 0.6g1.7g 100%=35.29%1= 0.5g

1.8g 100%=27.78%Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content ofPan #1+Pan #2+Pan #3]/3

=26.67%+35.29%+27.78%

3

=29.91%ii. Plasticity Index

The plasticity index is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic

limit. This measures the plasticity of soil where plasticity is the putty-like property of

clays that contain a certain amount of water.

PI= LL-PL=57.73-29.91PI=27.82

Table 5.3Plasticity Index Description.

Table 4.5 shows the description of a certain soil based on its plasticity index.

Since the plasticity index of the groups soil is 27.82 this is a high plasticity kind of

soil. We have also learned in our lecture that in determining the plasticity index we will

be able to identify if the soil is silty or clayey. If the

1 0, the soil is silty and if


40/88

P a g e 40 | 88

11, the soil is clayey. Knowing that the PI of the groups soil is 27.82, thereforeit is Clayey.

iii. Shrinkage Limit

Even though no laboratory activity regarding shrinkage limit was performed,

the shrinkage limit of soil can still be obtained. According to Casagrande, the shrinkage

limit can be approximately determined if the liquid limit and plasticity index are known.

Since we have this information, we can determine the shrinkage limit of the soil.

Graph 5.1Plasticity Chart.

From the chart above, it can be clearly seen that the soil is above the U-line.

And approximating the Shrinkage limit by projecting the A-line and the U-line

downward where they intersect and joining this point of intersection into the point of

the soil, we will get a shrinkage limit of approximately 4%.


i. The soil sample taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan

City has its Plastic Limit as 29.91%. From this value and the corresponding

value of the Liquid Limit as obtained in the previous laboratory activity, the

Plasticity Index is obtained to be 27.82%. The soils shrinkage limit, though no

laboratory experiment is done, is obtained to be 4%.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

PlasticityIndex

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Chart

A-Line U-Line Soil


41/88

P a g e 41 | 88

ii. The results of the Atterberg Limits Test will be used in classifying the soil using

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS) and to estimate the swell potential of the soil. Its objective is to obtain

the basic index information about the soil used to estimate strength and

settlement characteristics.

iii. Careful and proper execution of the procedures of the different tests is necessary

in order to attain accurate and reliable results. This results determine the

properties and characteristics of a certain soil that will identify if the soil is

suitable for a given use i.e. highway subgrade material.


Fig. 4 Placing the pans containing thesoil samples in the laboratory oven for

moisture content determination.

Fig. 3 The pan containing the rolled soil

sample was weighed in the digital

weighing scale.

Fig. 2 A part of the plastic limit

procedure where the mixed soil sample

and distilled water were rolled back and

forth in the glass plate.

Fig. 1 Sieving the soil samples in the

No. 40 Sieve (Opening size: 0.475mm).


42/88

P a g e 42 | 88


Laboratory Classification of Soil

Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for

Highway Construction Purposes

ASTM D3282

Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (USCS)

ASTM D2487


Group No. 1

I. Introduction

Two elaborate soil classification systems are currently used by soil engineers

namely: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Both systems take into consideration the particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits

as determined during the previous laboratory activities.

The AASHTO classification system classifies the soil into seven (7) major

groups: A-1 through A-7. Soils of which 35% or less of the particles pass through No.

200 sieve (0.075mm) are classified as granular materials and belong to groups A-1 to

A-3 while those of which more than 35% pass through No. 200 sieve (0.075mm) are

classified under groups A-4 to A-7 as silt-clay materials.

The original form of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) was

proposed by Casagrade in 1942. At present, it is widely used by engineers. Just like

AASHTO classification system, USCS classifies soils into two broad categories:

Coarse-grained soils and Fine-grained soils. Coarse-grained soils are those with less

than 50% passing through No. 200 (0.075mm) sieve while Fine-grained soils are those

with 50% or more passing through No. 200 sieve (0.075mm).

This test methods covers the classification of soil using the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) ClassificationSystem and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).


43/88

P a g e 43 | 88

II. Apparatus

No apparatus is used in this laboratory activity since data from the laboratory

numbers three (3) and four (4) are only needed.


From the particle-size distribution data obtained in laboratory #3 and the

Atterberg limits data obtained in laboratory #4, the soil can be classified using

AASHTO and USCS in reference to their procedures in classifying soils and tables.

Below is a summary of the procedure in classifying soils:

i. AASHTO

To classify a soil according to AASHTO (A table is given in the data

presentation and analysis section which can also be found in the Appendix A), one

must apply the test data from left to right. By the process of elimination, the first

group from left into which the test data fits is the correct classification.

ii. USCS

IV.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The tables shown below are the data obtained from the previous laboratory

activities that are necessary to be able to classify the soil in whatever soil classification

system to be used.

Table 6.1Atterberg Limits data obtained from Laboratory #4.

Liquid Limit (LL) 57.73

Plastic Limit (PL) 29.91

Plasticity Index (PI) 27.82


44/88

P a g e 44 | 88

Table 6.2Percent Finer of each Sieve in Laboratory #3.

Table 6.3Data obtained from Laboratory #3.

i. AASHTO

Since the percent passing the No. 200 sieve (0.075mm) based in Table 5.2

is 14.98% which is less than 35%, the soil is a granular material. With reference to

Table 5.3 and referring to Appendix A Table 2, starting from left to right using the

method of elimination, the soil suitably fits the classification A-2-6 which is Silty

or Clayey Gravel and Sand. The table from Appendix A where this result is obtained

is shown below.

Sieve

Number

Grain Size, D

(mm)

Mass of Soil

Retained (g)

Mass of Soil

Passed (g)

Percent

Passing (%)

4 4.75 3.4 596.2 99.43

10 2.00 74 522.2 87.09

12 1.70 29.3 492.9 82.20

16 1.18 82.2 410.7 68.50

20 0.85 65.7 345 57.54

30 0.60 56.1 288.9 48.18

60 0.25 109.4 179.5 29.94

100 0.15 64.1 115.4 19.25

200 0.075 25.6 89.8 14.98

Pan --- 89.8 0 0.00

Total Mass 599.6

Coefficients

Uniformity Coefficient (Cu) 12.4

Coefficient of Gradation (Cc) 0.37

Percent Passing

No. 10 87.09

No. 40 ---

No. 200 14.98

Percent (%)

Gravel 0.57

Sand 84.45

Silt and Clay 14.98


45/88

P a g e 45 | 88

To evaluate the quality of a soil as a highway subgrade material, one must

also incorporate a number called group index with the groups and subgroups of soil.

This index is written in parentheses after the group or subgroup designation. The

group index is given by the equation:

GI=F200-350.2+0.005LL-40+0.01(F200-15)(PI-10)Where:

F= percentage passing through No. 200 sieve

LL = Liquid Limit

PI = Plasticity Index

The following are some rules in determining the group index.

1. If GI yields a negative value, it is taken as 0.

2. The GI calculated is rounded off to the nearest whole number.

3. There is no upper limit for the GI.

4. The GI of soils belonging to groups A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5 and A-3 is always

zero (0).

5. When calculating for the GI of soils that belong to groups A-2-6 and A-2-7, use

the partial GI for PI, or

GI=0.01(F200-15)(PI-10)


46/88

P a g e 46 | 88

Since our soil belongs to A-2-6, we will apply rule number six (6). Thus,

out group index (GI) is:

GI=0.0114.98-1527.82-10GI=-0.

003564

Therefore our final classification of the soil using AASHTO is:

A-2-6 (0)

ii. USCS


47/88

P a g e 47 | 88

Referring to Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and looking at Appendix B, since more than

50% is retained on the No. 200 Sieve, we will use Fig 3. of Appendix B. From this

figure, since the gravel is less than that of the sand, the lower portion of the figure is to

be used. From Fig. 4 of Appendix B, knowing that the Liquid Limit of the soil is 56.45%

and the Plasticity Index is 29.91%, we can project that it is under CH or OH. Continuing

the process, since the amount of Gravel is less than 15%, the soil classified using the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is:

Group Symbol: SC

Group Name: Clayey Sand


i.

The standards presented above classifies soil from any geographic location

into categories representing results of prescribed laboratory tests to determine

the particle-size characteristics, the liquid limit, and the plasticity index.

ii.

The assigning of group symbol and group index in the AASHTO classification

system and group symbol and group name in USCS, can be used to aid in the

evaluation of the significant properties of the soil for highway and airfield

purposes.


48/88

P a g e 48 | 88

iii. The various groupings of the AASHTO classification system and USCS

correlate in a general way with the engineering behaviour of soil. Also, in a

general way, the engineering behaviour of a soil varies inversely with its

group index. Thus, this provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory

investigation for geotechnical engineering purposes.


No photo documentations can be displayed in this laboratory activity since

only calculations are made.


49/88

P a g e 49 | 88


Laboratory Soil Compaction

Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3(600kN-m/m3))

ASTM D698


Group No. 1

I. Introduction

Geotechnical engineers compact fine-grained soil to improve its engineering

propertiessuch as shear strength, compressibility and hydraulic conductivity. These

properties are dependent upon the methods used to compact the soil. Compacted soil is

extensively used for many geotechnical structures, including earth dam, landfill liners,

highway base courses and subgrades, and embankments. To predict the performance of

compacted soil, and to develop appropriate construction criteria, compaction is

performed in the laboratory using standardized methods.

The following are the objectives of soil compaction test: to determine the

relation between water content and dry density of soil; to determine optimum water

content and corresponding maximum dry density of soil and to determine the relation

between penetration resistance and water content for compacted soil.

This test method covers laboratory compaction method using the Standard

Compaction Test used to determine the relationship between moisture or water content

and dry unit weight ( of soils (compaction curve) compacted in a 4 or 6-in(101.6 or 152.4-mm) diameter mold with a 5.5-lbf (24.4-N) hammer dropped from a

height of 12-in (305-mm) producing a compactive effort of 12,400 ft-lb/ft3 (600kN-

m/m3).


50/88

P a g e 50 | 88

II. Apparatuses

a. Digital Weighing Scale a measuring device used to determine the different

weights to be used in the laboratory activity.

b. Trowel a small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade used to mix the soil

samples with distilled water.



d. Laboratory Ovena device used to dry the soil samples to harden it.


51/88

P a g e 51 | 88

e. Spray Bottlea container used in holding the distilled water.

f. Cylindrical Mold with Base Plate and Hammer the equipment used in the soil

compaction test where the cylindrical mold is used to hold the soil samples and the

hammer is used to compact the soil.

g.

Field Test Scale a scale used to weigh the cylindrical mold with the base platesince it is too heavy to be weighed at the digital weighing scale.

h.

Spatulaa tool used to get the samples from the top and bottom of the cylindrical

mold.


52/88

P a g e 52 | 88

i. Brushused to clean the cylindrical mold with the base plate before weighing it in

the field test scale.

j. Sieve No. 4 (4.75mm) used to filter the crushed soil samples so that the soil

samples that passed this sieve will be used in the laboratory activity.


Soil samples were dried for about two weeks and crushed thereafter. Thecrushed soil samples were passed through the No.4 sieve (4.75mm opening size)

and the soil samples that passed through this sieve number were then oven dried.

After oven drying, the soil samples were placed in a mixing pan. The compaction

cylindrical mold with the base plate were assembled and weighed in the field test

scale. The soil samples were then placed in the mold and were compacted twenty

five (25) times using the hammer in three (3) layers, take note that the top of the

final blow of the hammer should be just above the top of the mold such that it will

need to be trimmed slightly using the trowel. The collar was removed and the excess

soil at the top of the mold were trimmed. The cylindrical mold with the base plate

containing the compacted soil were weighed in the field test scale. Samples from

the top and bottom of the specimen was obtained and water content measurements

were performed on the samples to obtain the average water content.


53/88

P a g e 53 | 88

This process was repeated several times adding distilled water into the soil

samples until the weight of the specimen and the cylindrical mold with base plate

reduces as distilled water is continually added to it. After gathering all the

specimens, it was then placed in the laboratory oven for several hours and weighed

thereafter. Necessary calculations were then made to attain expected results.


Weight of Cylindrical Mold with Base Plate: 4240g

Table 7.1 Weight of the Soil Specimen in different trials.

Table 7.1 shows the recorded data from the very start of the laboratory activity.

The formulas used and the calculations are shown below.


Net Mass of the Compacted Soilg=[

(Weight of Cylindrical Mold

+

Base Plate

+

Compacted Soil

g

)

-(Weight of Cylindrical Mold with Base Plateg)]

Trial No. 1 2 3 4 5

Weight of Cylindrical Mold + Base

Plate + Compacted Soil (g):

5645.0 5755.0 5850.0 5985.0 5900.0

Net Mass of the Compacted Soil (g) 1405.0 1515.0 1610.0 1745.0 1660.0

Weight of Pan (g):

Top 9.0 8.9 9.1 11.9 52.4

Bottom 9.0 9.2 9.2 11.5 51.8

Weight of Pan + Compacted Soil Specimen (g):

Top 28.5 38.6 36.5 36.4 147.6

Bottom 24.9 28.6 43.4 42.7 191.3

Weight of Pan + Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g):

Top 27.2 34.8 32 31.3 124.1

Bottom 23.8 26.2 37.8 36.2 160.1

Weight of Water (g):

Top 1.3 3.8 4.5 5.1 23.5

Bottom 1.1 2.4 5.6 6.5 31.2

Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g):

Top 18.2 25.9 22.9 19.4 71.7

Bottom 14.8 17.0 28.6 24.7 108.3

Moisture Content (%):

Top 7.14 14.67 19.65 26.29 32.78

Bottom 7.43 14.12 19.58 26.32 28.81Average Moisture Content (%): 7.29 14.39 19.62 26.30 30.79


54/88

P a g e 54 | 88

Net Mass of the Compacted SoilTrial Number 1

=5645.0g-4240g=1405g


=5755.0g-4240g=1515g


=5850.0g-4240g=1610g

Net Mass of the Compacted SoilTrial Number 4=5985.0g-4240g=1745g


=5900.0g-4240g=1660g

Weight of Waterg= (Weight of Pan+Compacted Soil Specimeng)-(Weight of Pan+Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g))

Top

Weight of WaterTrial Number 1=28.5g-27.2g=1.3g


=38.6-34.8g=3.8g


=36.5g-32g=4.5g


=36.4g-31.3g=5.1g


=147.6g-124.1g=23.5g

Bottom


=24.9g-23.8g=1.1g


=28.6-26.2g=2.4g


=43.4g-37.8g=5.6g


=42.7g-36.2g=6.5g


=191.3g-160.1g=31.2g

Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimeng=[(Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen g)-(Weight of Pang)]Top

Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil SpecimenTrial #1

=27.2g-9.0g=18.2g


=34.8g-8.9g=25.9g


=32.0g-9.1g=22.9g


=31.3g-11.9g=19.4g


=124.1g-52.4g=71.7g


55/88

P a g e 55 | 88

Bottom


=23.8g-9.0g=14.8g


=26.2g-9.2g=17.0g

Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil SpecimenTrial #3=37.8g-9.2g=28.6g


=36.2g-11.5g=24.7g


=160.1g-51.8g=108.3g

Moisture Content%= Weight of Water (g)Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g)

100%

Top

Trial Number 1= 1.318.2

100%=17.14%

Trial Number 2=3.8

25.9100%=14.67%

Trial Number 3=4.5

22.9100%=19.65%

Trial Number 4=5.1

17.4100%=26.29%

Trial Number 5

=23.5

71.7100%=32.78%

Bottom

Trial Number 1=1.1

14.8100%=7.43%

Trial Number 2=2.4

17.0100%=14.12%

Trial Number 3=5.6

28.6100%=19.58%

Trial Number 4=6.5

24.7 100%=26.32%

Trial Number 5=31.7

108.3100%=28.81%

Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content ofTop+Bottom]/2Average Moisture Content

Trial Number 1=

7.14+7.43%2

=7.29%

Average Moisture ContentTrial Number 2= 14.67+14.12

%

2 =14.39%


56/88

P a g e 56 | 88

Average Moisture ContentTrial Number 3

=19.65+19.58%

2=19.62%


=26.29+26.32%

2=26.30%


= 32.78+28.81%2 =30.79%

Table 7.2Dry Unit Weight of the Soil Specimen.

Table 7.2 shows the tabulated data of the moisture content, moist unit weight

and the dry unit weight of the soil samples that will be used in the graph. The formulas

used and the calculations made to obtain such results are shown below.


Moist Unit Weight=Weight of Soil in the MoldVolume of the Proctor Mold

1=

1.405*9.81

0.000944=14.60kN/m

3

2=

1.515*9.81

0.000944=15.74kN/m

3

3=

1.610*9.81

0.000944=16.73kN/m

3

4=

1.745*9.81

0.000944 =18.13

kN/m3

5=

1.660*9.81

0.000944=17.25kN/m

3

Dry Unit Weight(d)=/(1+ 100 )

d1=

14.6

(1+0.0729)=13.61kN/m

3

d2= 15.74(1+0.1439)=13.76kN/m3

Trial Number Moisture Content (%) Moist Unit

Weight (kN/m3)

Dry Unit Weight

(kN/m3)

1 7.29 14.60 13.61

2 14.39 15.74 13.76

3 19.62 16.73 13.99

4 26.3 18.13 14.36

5 30.79 17.25 13.19


57/88

P a g e 57 | 88

d3

=16.73

(1+0.1962)=13.99kN/m

3

d4

=18.13

(1+0.263)=14.36kN/m

3

d5

=17.25

(1+0.3079)=13.19kN/m

3

Fig 7.1Determination of the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).

From the graph shown above, locating the maximum moisture content and

projecting it to the dry unit weight, it can be clearly seen that the Optimum Moisture

Content opt is approximately 22.90% with a maximum dry unit weight of 14.39kN/m3.


i. The Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) of the soil from Petron Gasoline

Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City is approximately 14.39 kN/m3having a

maximum dry unit weight of 22.90%.

ii. Soil placed as an engineering fillembankments, foundation pads, road bases,

is compacted to a dense state to obtain satisfactory engineering properties.

Foundation soils are often compacted to improve their engineering properties.

y = -0.0007x3 + 0.034x2 - 0.479x + 15.568

13

13.2

13.4

13.6

13.8

14

14.2

14.4

14.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

DryUnitWeight(kN/m

3)

Moisture Content (%)

Moisture Content Vs. Dry Unit Weight


58/88

P a g e 58 | 88

iii. Laboratory compaction tests provide the basis for determining the percent

compaction and water content needed to achieve the required engineering

properties and for controlling construction to assure that the required

compaction and water contents are achieved.

iv. This laboratory activity is a bit of a trial and error process since it cannot be

easily identified what amount of water is to be added into the soil samples for it

to be able to decrease its weight. Just like what the group experienced, they had

five (5) trials before reaching the decrease of the weight of the specimen.

v.

Compaction increases the shear strength of soil and it reduces the void ratio thus

lessening the penetration of water through soil. It can also prevent the build-up

of large water pressures that causes soil to liquefy during earthquakes.


59/88

P a g e 59 | 88

VI. Photo Documentations

Fig 1. Crushing the soil samples that were dried for almost

two weeks.

Fig 2.Hammering the soil samples placed in the mold

twenty five (25) times each layer.

Fig 3.Getting soil samples from the top and bottom of the

cylindrical mold.

Fig 4. Weighing the soil samples placed in the pan that

were taken from the top and bottom of the cylindrical mold.


60/88

P a g e 60 | 88


Field Measurement of Dry Unit Weight and Moisture Content

Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-

Cone Method

ASTM D1556

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios Date Performed: February 18, 2015

Group No. 1

I. Introduction

When soil is used to construct highway subgrade and base courses, waste

containment liners, earth dams, embankments, and other purposes, the soil must be

compacted in accordance with construction specifications. Specifications for

compacted soil are typically given in terms of an acceptable range of moisture content

and/or dry unit weight based on results of laboratory compaction tests.

The sand-cone method is used to measure the total unit weight of compacted

earth materials. When accompanied with moisture content measurements of the same

material, the sand-cone method can be used to measure both moisture content and dry

unit weight to confirm that the earth materials are compacted in accordance with

construction specifications.

This test method may be used to determine the in-place density and unit weight

of soils using a sand cone apparatus.

II. Apparatuses

i. Small Digging Tools (e.g. trowel, spoon, spatula)used to dig the test hole for

the laboratory activity.


61/88

P a g e 61 | 88

ii. Sand Cone Device with Base Plate the device used to determine the density

and unit weight of the soil specimen.

iii.

Digital Weighing Scalean instrument used to determine the different weights

that will be used in the computations.

iv. Field Test Scalea scale used to weigh heavier materials, in this case, the sand

cone device containing Ottawa Sand.

v. Panused to hold the soil samples that will be used in determining the moisture

content.


62/88

P a g e 62 | 88

vi. Laboratory Oven used to dry the soil samples that are placed in the pans to

determine the moisture content.

III.Summary of Test Method

i. Calibration of the Sand Cone Device

The sand container was filled with dry sand (Ottawa Sand) and the

funnel was placed on the container. The mass of the filled sand cone device was

recorded as M1.

The base plate was placed on a clean, flat surface and the inverted sand

cone device was placed over the base plate. The valve was opened in the funnel

to allow the sand to fill the base plate and the funnel. The valve was closed right

after the base plate and funnel were filled. The sand cone device was removed

from the base plate, weighed and the mass was recorded as M2. The mass of the

sand in the base plate and funnel was calculated and recorded as M.

By determining the diameter and the height of the proctor mold, the

volume of the proctor mold was calculated.

The sand container was refilled with dry sand (Ottawa Sand), weighed

and recorded as M3. The base plate was placed over the proctor mold of known

volume as calculated. The inverted sand cone device was placed over the base

plate, the valve was opened and the base plate, funnel and proctor mold was

filled with sand. After the base plate, funnel and proctor mold was filled with

sand, the valve was closed and the sand cone device was removed, weighed and

recorded as M4. The mass of the sand in the proctor mold was calculated and

recorded as M. By this data, the unit weight of the Ottawa Sand was also

calculated.


63/88

P a g e 63 | 88

ii. Performing the Sand Cone Measurement

The sand cone device was filled with Ottawa Sand as used during the

calibration. The mass of the sand cone device filled with sand is weighed and

recorded as M5. A test hole spot that is flat and level was located and the base

plate was placed on the surface. The test hole was excavated to a depth of two

and a half inches (2 ) deep that has a shape of concave upward. The excavated

soil was placed in a pan and weighed, three (3) smaller pans were used as a

container to hold the soil samples for moisture content determination. The filled

sand cone device was positioned over the excavated test hole. The valve was

opened and the test hole, base plate and funnel was filled with sand. After filling,

the valve was closed and the sand cone device was removed, weighed and

recorded as M6. The mass of the sand used to fill the test hole, funnel and base

plate was calculated and recorded as M. Other necessary calculations were also

done to obtain the density and the dry unit weight of the sand in the field.


Table 8.1 Calibrated Mass of Ottawa Sand to fill the Cone.

Calibrated Mass of Ottawa Sand to fill the Cone = 7545g5860g = 1685g

Table 8.2Mass of Sand to fill the Proctor Mold and Cone.

Mass of Sand to fill the Proctor Mold and Cone = 7555g1305g = 6250g

Mass of Sand to Fill the Proctor Mold = 6250g1685g = 4565g = 4.565kg

Tables 8.1 and 8.2 shows the tabulated data of different masses of sand needed

to be able to determine the dry density of the sand. The calculations to obtain such

results are also shown.

Initial Mass 7545g

Final Mass 5860g

1685g

Initial Mass 7555g

Final Mass 1305g

6250g


64/88

P a g e 64 | 88

Table 8.3Determination of the Volume of the Proctor Mold.

To be able to determine the dry density of the Ottawa Sand, the volume of the

proctor mold needs to be known first. Measuring the diameter and height of the proctor

mold as shown in table 8.1, the volume can now be calculated:

Vcylinder= d24

h= 0.152424

0.166878=3.0410-3m3

Calibrated Dry Density of Ottawa Sand (kg/m

3

):

Mass of Sand to fill the Proctor Mold (kg)

Volume of the Proctor Mold (m3)=

4.565kg

3.0410-3m3=1,499.62

kg

m3

Table 8.4Masses obtained during Sand Cone Measurement.

Mass of Sand to fill the test hole+cone (g) = Mass of Funnel+Jar+Sand (Before-After)

Mass of Sand to fill the test hole+cone (g)=7290g-4635g=2655g

Mass of Sand to fill the test hole (g) =[(Mass of sand to fill the test hole+coneg)-(Calibrated mass of Ottawa Sand to fill the coneg)]

Mass of Sand to fill the test holeg=2655g-1685g=970gVolume of the test hole (m3)=

Mass of Sand to fill the test hole (kg)

Calibrated Dry Density of Ottawa Sand(kg

m3)

Volume of the test hole= 0.9701,499.62

=6.4710-4m3

When the sand-cone method is already conducted, the masses obtained are

tabulated in table 8.4. Calculations in obtaining such results follow, as shown above.

Diameter of the Proctor Mold (d): 0.1524m

Height of the Proctor Mold (h): 0.166878m

Volume of the Proctor Mold (V): 0.0030441 m3

Mass of Funnel + Jar + Sand (Before use) 7290g

Mass of Funnel + Jar + Sand (After use) 4635g

Mass of Sand to fill the test hole + cone 2655g

Mass of Sand to fill the test hole 970g

Volume of the test hole 6.47x10-4m3


65/88

P a g e 65 | 88

Table 8.5Determination of Moisture Content.


Mass of Moist Soil

g

=

[(Mass of Large Pan+Moist Soil

g

)-

(Mass of Large Pan

g

)]

=1218.1g-89.4g

Mass of Moist Soilg=1128.7g=1.1287kgMass of Water=(Mass of Pan + Moist Soil) -(Mass of Pan +Oven Dried Soil)

Mass of WaterPan Number 1=38.2g-35.1g=3.1g

Mass of WaterPan Number 2=22.1g-20.7g=1.4g

Mass of WaterPan Number 3

=35.4g-32.5g=2.9g

Mass of Soil=Mass of Pan +Oven Dried Soil-(Mass of Pan)Mass of SoilPan Number 1=35.1g-9.0g=26.1g

Mass of SoilPan Number 2=20.7g-11.5g=9.2g

Mass of SoilPan Number 3=32.5g-9.0g=23.5g

Moisture Content=Wt of Water

Wt of Soil 100%1= 3.1g26.1g 100%=11.88%2= 1.4g

9.2g 100%=15.22%1= 2.9g

23.5g 100%=12.34%

Mass of Large Pan 89.4g

Mass of Large Pan + Moist Soil 1218.1g

Mass of Moist Soil 1128.7g

Pan # Mass of

Pan (g)

Mass of Pan

+ Moist Soil

(g)

Mass of Pan +

Oven Dried

Soil (g)

Mass of

water

(g)

Mass of

Oven Dried

Soil (g)

Moisture

Content

(%)

1 9.0 38.2 35.1 3.1 26.1 11.88

2 11.5 22.1 20.7 1.4 9.2 15.22

3 9.0 35.4 32.5 2.9 23.5 12.34

Average Moisture Content 13.15


66/88

P a g e 66 | 88

Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content ofPan #1+Pan #2+Pan #3]/3=

11.88%+15.22%+12.34%

3

=13.15%

The mass of moist soil is essential in computing for the moist unit weight of the

soil. Also the moisture content of the soil is necessary to be able to identify the dry unit

weight of the soil. The determination of the moisture content is shown in table 7.5 and

the calculations in obtaining such results are also shown above.

Moist Unit Weight of the Soil:

= Mass of Moist SoilkgAcceleration due to gravity, g ( ms2 )Volume of Test Hole (m3)

=1.1287*9.81

6.47x10-4

= 17.11kN

m3

Dry Unit Weight of the Soil:

d(Field)

=

(1+ 100

)

=17.11 kN

m3

(1+13.15100

)

d(Field)

=15.12kN

m3


i.

From the laboratory activity, it is known that the moist unit weight and the field

dry unit weight of the soil located at Tennis Court, MSU-IIT, is equal to

17.11kN/m3 and 15.12kN/m3, respectively.

ii.

Since the results of sand cone testing are highly dependent upon the particular

sand cone device and type of sand used, it is very important to calibrate the

device first like what was initially done in the laboratory activity.


67/88

P a g e 67 | 88

iii. The test should not be performed where there are significant vibrations (e.g.

heavy equipment operation) and proper care is to be observed during the test so

as not to move or shake the device during filling.

iv. The test method being used to determine the unit weight of compacted soils

placed during the construction of earth embankments, road fill, and structural

backfill, it is often used as a basis of acceptance for soils compacted to a

specified unit weight or percentage of a maximum unit weight determined by a

test method95% to 100%.


Fig. 1Calibration of the Dry Density of Ottawa Sand

after the calibrated mass of Ottawa Sand has been

determined.

Fig. 2 Digging the test hole using the digging tools.

Notice that the base plate must be stepped on so that it

will be in place.


68/88

P a g e 68 | 88

Fig 3. The Sand-Cone Method being perfomed. This is

the part where the test hole is being filled with Ottawa

Sand.

Fig 4. Determining the final mass of the sand-cone

device after the sand-cone method has been performed.


69/88

P a g e 69 | 88


Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Granular Soils Using a Fixed Wall

Permeameter

Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils

ASTM D2434

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios Date Performed: March 19, 2014

Group No. 1

I. Introduction

It is important to quantify the volume of groundwater flow from areas of high

potential to low potential. This information is useful in estimating the performance of

landfill liners, the migration of contaminated water, and other applications. To quantify

flow through soil, the hydraulic conductivity also known as permeability of the soil

must be known.

Hydraulic conductivity of granular soils, including sands and gravels, is

measured in the laboratory using a fixed-wall permeameter. In this laboratory activity,

Hydraulic Conductivity will be determined using the constant head method.

This test method covers the determination of the coefficient of permeability by

a constant head and falling head test methods for the laminar flow of water through

soils.

II. Apparatuses

i. Mortar and Pestleused to crush the soil samples into finer textures and smaller

pieces which will be used in sieving.


70/88

P a g e 70 | 88

ii. Sieve No. 30the soil sample retained on this sieve number is used during the

entire laboratory activity.

iii.

Panused to hold the soil samples gathered after sieving.

iv.

Iron Standused to hold the funnel where the water flows.

v. Fixed-Wall Permeameter device used in the determination of the hydraulic

conductivity of soils.


71/88

P a g e 71 | 88

vi. Measuring Tape/Ruleran instrument used to measure the height of the fixed-

wall permeameter and the head in the constant-head test method.

vii. Funnelused to transfer the water into the fixed-wall permeameter.

viii. Graduated Cylinderused to hold the water to be used in the falling-head test

method.

ix.

Timerused to record the time to fill a certain volume.


72/88

P a g e 72 | 88

Fig. 9.1Illustration of the fixed-wall permeameter (schematic).

Fig. 9.2Illustration of the fixed-wall permeameter (photograph)


73/88

P a g e 73 | 88


Soil samples were crushed using the mortar and pestle and passed through sieve

numbers 4, 30 and 200. Those soil samples that were retained in sieve number 30 were

then filled in the fixed-wall permeameter. The fixed-wall permeameter was filled with

the soil samples in three layers, each layer is compacted a little using the pestle. Initially,

the soil specimen was saturated by allowing water to flow through the funnel and the

tubes until the soil specimen is saturatedthis is known when water comes out in the

effluent side of the tube. When the soil specimen was saturated, a constant head was

set. Water was allowed to infiltrate through the soil specimen until it fills a certain

volume, in this case, 10mL portion of the graduated cylinder. The time to fill the

graduated cylinder was recorded. After this, necessary calculations were made to obtainthe hydraulic conductivity of the soil. A schematic diagram of the Constant-Head Test

Method is shown below.

Fig. 9.3 Constant-Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test Configuration.


74/88

P a g e 74 | 88


Specimen Cross-sectional Area:

A= D24

where: Ddiameter of the soil specimen in the permeameter

Asoil specimen cross-sectional area

The diameter of the soil specimen was measure before starting the test method

and it was recorded to be 6.4cm. Substituting this obtained value of the diameter into

the formula for the cross-sectional area, we get:

A= (0.064m)24

=3.2210-3m2

Hydraulic Conductivity:

k=QL

Aht where: Qvolume of water to be filled

Llength of the soil specimen

Across-sectional area of the specimen

H - length of the constant head as set initially

ttime to fill the volume of water

The values to obtain the hydraulic conductivity were recorded and are as

follows:Q = 1x10-5m3

L = 0.15 m

A = 3.22x10-3 m2

H = 0.92m

t = 744 sec

Substituting these values to the formula of the hydraulic conductivity, we get:

k=(110

-5)(0.15)

(3.2210-3

)(0.92)(744)=6.8110-7m/s


75/88

P a g e 75 | 88


i. During the saturation of the soil sample, it took a long time for the water to

penetrate into the soil. This implies that the soil may contain clayey particles. It

may also be prone to runoff because the water is withheld in the upper portion.

This kind of soil is not recommended for agriculture because water cannot

percolate into the bottommost part of the soil where the roots of the plants may

be located.

ii. In the constant-head test method, after the initial setting of the constant head,

the group no longer added additional water into the funnel to maintain a constant

head.

iii. From the laboratory activity using the constant-he

laboratory report in geotechnical engineering i

Documents