Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FINE GRAINED SOIL BY DENSITY BOTTLE
METHOD
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
16
th
August, 2012
1
Lab Report on Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine grained soil
If volume of water is decreased, remove stopper and filled with water upto neck and
placed again in constant temperature bath until attained constant temperature.
7. Take out the bottle from water bath, wiped dry and weighed to the nearest 0.001gm (m
3
).
8. Clean the bottle and filled with air free distilled water upto neck, keep in water bath. If
any change in volume, fill water and again keep in water bath until constant temperature
is reached.
9. Weigh the bottle filled with water and closed with stopper (m
4
).
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
Specific Gravity of Soil Solid (Gs)
Name of Test: Specific Gravity of Fine Grained Soil Date of Testing: 14-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red silty clay Tested By: Group 2
S.N. Observations and Calculations
Determination No.
1 2 3 4 5
Observations
1 Room Temperature in
0
C 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4
2 Density Bottle No. I II III IV V
3 Mass of empty density bottle in gm (m
1
) 29.8 33.68 30.22 27.84 29.99
4 Mass of density bottle + Soil in gm (m
2
) 37.79 41.66 38.24 35.9 37.99
5 Mass of density bottle + Soil + Water in gm (m
3
) 85.51 89.02 86.16 82.9 85.77
6 Mass of density bottle + Water in gm (m
4
) 80.55 84.11 81.25 77.96 80.85
Calculations
7 m
2
-m
1
7.99 7.98 8.02 8.06 8
8 m
4
-m
1
50.75 50.43 51.03 50.12 50.86
9 m
3
-m
2
47.72 47.36 47.92 47 47.78
10 Specific Gravity using Formula in Eq. (I) 2.64 2.60 2.58 2.58 2.60
11 Average Specific Gravity (23.4
o
C) 2.59
12 Temperature correction factor K (using Eq. (III) 1.000925199
13 Corrected G (at 27
o
C), using Eq.(II) 2.59
4
Lab Report on Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine grained soil
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT GRAIN
SIZES IN SOIL PASSING THROUGH 4.75 IS SIEVE AND RETAINED ON
75-MICRON IS SIEVE
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
16
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
2. Clean the different sizes of sieve with brushes and weigh all sieves separately in balance.
3. Assemble sieve in ascending order of sizes i.e. 4.75mm, 2.36mm, 1.18mm, 600, 300,
150, 75 and pan. Carefully pour the soil sample into top sieve and place lid on top.
4. Place the sieve stack in the mechanical shaker and shake for 10 minutes.
5. Remove the stack from the shaker and carefully weigh and record the weight of each
sieve with its retained soil and also weigh the soil retained in pan.
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
Sieve Analysis of Fraction Passing 4.75mm IS Sieve but Retained on 75-Micron IS Sieve
Name of Test: Grain Size Analysis Date of Testing: 09-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 1
MassofSampleTakenforAnalysis=500gm.
ISSieve
Designation
Massofsoil
Retainedand
Massof
Container
Massof
Container
Massof
Soil
Retained
Cumulative
Mass
Retained
SoilRetained
as%ofPartial
SoilTaken
SoilPassingas
Percentageof
PartialSoilSample
TakenforAnalysis
mm gm gm gm gm % %
I II III IV=IIIII V VI=V/500.22% VII=100VI
4.75 506.62 506.62 0 0 0.000 100.000
2.36 439.46 427 12.46 12.46 2.492 97.508
1.18 423.29 334.62 88.67 101.13 20.217 79.783
0.6 617.3 428.11 189.19 290.32 58.038 41.962
0.3 523.11 376.97 146.14 436.46 87.254 12.746
0.15 397.4 344.32 53.08 489.54 97.865 2.135
0.075 364.37 356.8 7.57 497.11 99.378 0.622
Pan 366.59 363.48 3.11 500.22 _ _
From graph,
D
60
= 0.8, D
30
= 0.47 and D
10
= 0.28;
From Eq. (I), C
u
= 2.85 < 4
From Eq. (II), C
c
= 0.986 1
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From grain size distribution curve it is found that, soil consists of 2% silt, 23% fine sand and
75% coarse grained sand. The coefficient of uniformity is less than 4 and coefficient of curvature
is near to 1. Hence, soil is classified as uniformly graded sand containing particle of same size
with slightly silt.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT-3
ON
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOIL BY WET SIEVE METHOD
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
21
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
Co-efficient of curvature (C
c
) = .. (II)
Where,
D
60
= diameter of particles corresponding to 60% fines;
D
10
= diameter of particles corresponding to 10% fines, also known as effective size;
D
30
= diameter of particles corresponding to 30 % fines;
PROCEDURE:
1) The soil oven dried and passing through 4.75mm is taken.
2) The riffled and weighed fraction shall be spread out in large tray or bucket and cover with
water.
3) Two grams of sodium hexametaphosphate (NaPo3) or one gram of sodium hydroxide and
one gram of sodium carbonate per liter of water used should then be added to the soil.
(The amount of dispersing agent may be varied depending on the type of soil. A
dispersing agent may not be required in the case of all soils; in such cases the wet sieving
may be carried out without the addition of dispersing agent.) The soil soaked specimen
should be washed thoroughly stirred and left for soaking.
4) The soil soaked is washed through 75 IS sieve until water passing the sieve is
substantially clean. The fraction retained on the sieve should be tipped without loss of
material in a tray, dried in the oven.
5) The dried soil sample is sieved through nest of sieves 4.75mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 600,
425, 300, 150, 75 and pan in mechanical sieve shaker.
6) The fraction retained on each sieve should be weighed separately and the mass recorded.
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
Sieve Analysis of Fraction Passing 4.75mm IS Sieve but Retained on 75-Micron IS Sieve
Name of Test: Grain Size Analysis by wet sieving Date of Testing: 16-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 2
MassofPartialSampleTakenforAnalysis=263.22gm.
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
ISSieve
Designation
Massofsoil
Retainedon
Container
Cumulative
Mass
Retained
SoilRetained
as%of
PartialSoil
Taken
SoilPassingasPercentageofPartialSoil
SampleTakenforAnalysis
mm gm gm % %
I II V VI VII
4.75 5.98 5.98 2.272 97.728
2.36 11.95 17.93 6.812 93.188
2 4.44 22.37 8.499 91.501
1.18 24.17 46.54 17.681 82.319
0.6 52.49 99.03 37.623 62.377
0.425 22.05 121.08 46.000 54.000
0.3 31.4 152.48 57.929 42.071
0.15 66.23 218.71 83.090 16.910
0.075 44.05 262.76 99.825 0.175
Pan 0.95 263.71 100.186 _
4 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
From graph,
D
60
= 0.55, D
30
= 0.21 and D
10
= 0.12;
From Eq. (I), C
u
= 4.583 > 4
From Eq. (II), C
c
= 0.668
RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From grain size distribution curve it is found that, soil consists of 52% fine sand, 40% medium 8
% coarse grained sand. The coefficient of uniformity is more than 4 and coefficient of curvature
is 0.668. Hence, soil is classified as well graded soil.
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE MINIMUM DENSITY (LOOSEST
STATE) AND MAXIMUM DENSITY (DENSEST STATE) OF
COHESIONLESS SOIL
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
16
th
August, 2012
Minimum density (
min.
) =W
sm
/V
c
.... (1)
Where,
W
sm
= mass of dry soil in minimum density test in gm; and
V
c
= calibrated volume of mould in cm
3
.
Maximum density (
max.
) = W
s
/V
s
.. (2)
Where,
W
s
= mass of dry soil in the maximum density test in gm.
V
s
= volume of soil in maximum density test in cm3.
= V
c
(D
i
D
f
) A;
D
i
= initial dial gauge reading in cm;
D
f
= final dial gauge reading on the surcharge base plate after completion of vibration period in
cm; and
A = cross-sectional area of mould in cm
2
Density index (Relative Density): it expressed as percentage should be calculated as;
... (3)
Or in terms of void ratio,
... (4)
Where,
e
max
=void ratio of the soil at loosest state,
e = void ratio of the soil in the field and
e
min
= void ratio of the soil in its densest state obtainable in laboratory
d
= the dry density of the soil in the field.
3 Lab Report on Relative Density
PROCEDURE
There are two method of obtaining minimum and maximum density i.e. using vibratory table and
vibratory hammer. Also from vibratory table, maximum density can be achieved by dry and wet
method. Here, in laboratory, we used vibratory table and done by dry method.
Followings are the procedures:
1) Calibration:
i. Determination of volume by direct measurement: volume is calculated by
measuring inside diameter and height of the mould to 0.025mm.
ii. Determination of volume by filling with water: volume is calculated by filling the
water in the mould and weights it. Then mass of water in the mould is multiplied
by volume of water per gram at measured temperature.
iii. Determination of initial dial gauge reading: six dial gauge readings should be
obtained after filling the soil sample in the mould and keeping surcharge plate
over the soil sample , three in left side and three in right side and these sixed
readings averaged.
2) Soil sample: - oven dried representative soil sample is taken but the mass of sample
depends upon maximum size particle in the soil.
3) Procedure for determination of minimum density:
i. Measure the weight and volume of mould.
ii. Pour the sample in the mould by spout keeping 25 mm high free fall in spiral
motion from outside towards the centre to form uniform thickness without
segregation.
iii. The mould should be filled approximately 25 mm above the top and leveled with
top by one continuous path with steel straightedge.
iv. Take the weight of mould and sample.
v. Take six initial dial gauge reading including with surcharge plate and average it
for initial dial gauge reading.
4) Procedure for determination of maximum density:
i. The mould is fixed in the vibrating plate. Keep the guide sleeve at the top of the
mould and clamp it with mould.
4 Lab Report on Relative Density
ii. Apply Surcharge weight to the base plate over sample, inserting it in guide
sleeves.
iii. Vibrate sample for 8 minutes. Remove the surcharge weight and guide sleeves.
iv. Obtained again the six dial gauge reading and average it for final dial gauge
reading.
v. Measure the weight of sample and mould.
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
DETERMINATION OF LOOSEST AND DENSEST STATE OF COHESIONLESS SOIL
Name of Test: Density Analysis Date of Testing: 21-Aug.-
2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 2
Observations
Weight of Empty Mould 3.976 kg
Weight of Empty Mould +
Soil Sample 8.442 kg
Diameter of Mould 150 mm
Height of Mould 170 mm
Least count of dial gauge 0.01 mm
Thickness of Base Plate 115 cm
Dial Gauge Reading
Initial Dial
Gauge
Reading
Multiplied
by L.C.
mm
Average
Value
(D
i
) cm
Final
Dial
Gauge
Reading
Multiplied
by L.C.,
mm
Average
Value
(D
f
), cm
i
1293 12.93
1.228
3156 31.56
3.120
ii 1134 11.34 3039 30.39
iii 1139 11.39 3142 31.42
iv 1352 13.52 3100 31
v 1235 12.35 3147 31.47
vi
1213 12.13 3137 31.37
D
i
- D
f
1.893 cm
Volume of mould (V
c
)
3004.15 cm
3
Weight of Sample(W
sm
)
4466 gm
X-Section area of mould
(A)
176.63 cm2
Minimum Density (
min
)
1.487 gm/cm
3
Maximum Density (
max
)
1.673 gm/cm
3
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
THE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT GRAIN SIZES IN SOIL PASSING THROUGH
75-MICRON IS SIEVE BY HYDROMETER ANALYSIS.
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
16
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer
..(1)
Where,
= velocity of fall of the spheres
G
s
= specific gravity of the spheres
G
f
= specific gravity of fluid varies with temperature
= absolute or dynamic viscosity of fluid (g/cm.s)
D = diameter of sphere, cm (from equation 4)
PROCEDURE:
I. Calibration of hydrometer
a. Volume of hydrometer bulb (V
h
): keep 800ml water in 1000ml cylinder, take
reading and immersed hydrometer at water level, take another reading of rises
water level.
Hence, volume of hydrometer is the difference between water level after
immersion of hydrometer and before immersion of hydrometer. The rise of water
level due to stem weight is neglected.
II. Calibration
a. Cross-sectional area of 1000ml cylinder: mark the two different water levels in
the cylinder and measure the distance between them. Hence, the cross-sectional
area of the cylinder is the ration of volume of water included between two
graduation and measured distance in cm between graduation.
b. The distance from the lowest calibration mark on the stem of the hydrometer to
each of the other major calibration marks (R
h
) is measured and recorded.
c. Record the distance from the neck of the bulb to the nearest calibration mark.
d. The height (H) is equal to the summation of (b) and (c).
e. Measure the distance from the neck to the bottom of the bulb.
f. Calculated the effective depth (H
R
) corresponding to the major calibration marks
(R
h
)
........................................................................................ (2)
Where,
H
R
= effective depth
H
1
= length between neck to graduation R
h
in cm
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer
Removed the hydrometer slowly, rinsed in the distilled water and keep the hydrometer in
distilled water at same temperature as soil suspension.
Reinserted the hydrometer in the suspension and take readings after periods of 8, 15, 30
min, 1, 2, and 4 hrs after shaking. The hydrometer shall be removed rinsed and placed in
distilled water after each reading. This is due to avoid distributing the suspension
unnecessarily. Take 10 second for each operation.
For temperature correction, take the temperature of suspension at every reading near to
0.5
0
c. For that, hydrometer temperature is taken at pure distilled water at same
temperature. The difference between the reading in hydrometer and that of the distilled
water is correction for temperature.
Measure the correction for dispersion agent, take reading of hydrometer by inserting in
1000ml cylinder containing distilled water and same proportion of dispersing agent. It is
also called zero correction (x).
CALCULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
Calculations:
a) Loss in mass in pre-treatment
. (3)
Where,
P = loss in mass in percentage
W
b
= mass of soil after pre-treatment
W = air dry moisture content of soil
W
a
= mass of air dry soil used
b) Sedimentation
Diameter of particles
. (4)
Where,
D = diameter of particle in suspension in mm.
5 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer
h
= hydrometer reading at upper rim of meniscus
C
m
= meniscus correction
c) % finer than D
... (6)
Where,
G
s
= specific gravity of soil particles;
W
b
= weight of soil after pre-treatment
R
h
= hydrometer reading corrected for meniscus
M
t
= temperature correction
X = dispersion agent correction
Calculate the values of W for each values of D and expressed as percentage of
particles finer than the corresponding value of D.
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer
Combined Wet Sieve Analysis and
Hydrometer Analysis
Particle
size (mm)
%
Finer
4.75 98.80
2.36 96.41
2 95.53
1.18 90.69
0.6 80.19
0.425 75.78
0.3 69.50
0.15 56.26
0.075 47.45
0.0730 32.40
0.0520 31.63
0.0370 30.86
0.0265 29.31
0.0193 28.85
0.0141 28.70
0.0100 28.54
0.0072 25.46
0.0052 22.37
0.0037 20.83
0.0026 19.28
0.0019 17.74
0.0015 18.51
0.0011 16.20
Temp Visc(Poise)ofwater
5 0.01519
10 0.01307
20 0.01002
30 0.00798
40 0.00653
50 0.00547
60 0.00467
70 0.00404
80 0.00355
90 0.00315
100 0.00282
R
h
H
1
H
R
upto4min H
R
after4min
1.0300 1.6000 8.5401 9.4500
1.0290 1.9714 8.9115 9.8214
1.0280 2.3429 9.2829 10.1929
1.0270 2.7143 9.6544 10.5643
1.0260 3.0857 10.0258 10.9357
1.0250 3.4571 10.3972 11.3071
1.0240 3.8286 10.7687 11.6786
1.0230 4.2000 11.1401 12.0500
1.0220 4.5714 11.5115 12.4214
1.0210 4.9429 11.8829 12.7929
1.0200 5.3143 12.2544 13.1643
1.0190 5.6857 12.6258 13.5357
1.0180 6.0571 12.9972 13.9071
1.0170 6.4286 13.3687 14.2786
1.0160 6.8000 13.7401 14.6500
1.0150 7.1714 14.1115 15.0214
1.0140 7.5429 14.4829 15.3929
1.0130 7.9143 14.8544 15.7643
1.0120 8.2857 15.2258 16.1357
1.0110 8.6571 15.5972 16.5071
1.0100 9.0286 15.9687 16.8786
1.0090 9.4000 16.3401 17.2500
1.0080 9.7714 16.7115 17.6214
1.0070 10.1429 17.0829 17.9929
1.0060 10.5143 17.4544 18.3643
1.0050 10.8857 17.8258 18.7357
1.0040 11.2571 18.1972 19.1071
1.0030 11.6286 18.5687 19.4786
1.0020 12.0000 18.9401 19.8500
1.0010 12.3714 19.3115 20.2214
1.0000 12.7429 19.6829 20.5929
0.9990 13.1143 20.0544 20.9643
0.9980 13.4857 20.4258 21.3357
0.9970 13.8571 20.7972 21.7071
0.9960 14.2286 21.1687 22.0786
0.9950 14.6000 21.5401 22.4500
2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer
Figure1: Graph Showing Temperature vs Visocity of water
Figure2: Graph Showing Between Actual Hydrometer Reading and Effective Depth
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer
Figure3: Graph Showing Combined curve of wet sieve analysis and Hydrometer Analyais
From graph showing in figure 3,
From graph,
D
60
= 0.19, D
30
= 0.02 and D
10
= 0
RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From Combined grain size distribution curve it is found that, soil consists of 18% Clay, 16% silt
and 65% sand. Hence, soil is classified as uniformly graded sand containing particle of same size
with slightly clay and silt.
INTERFERENCES:
In the figure 3, it is shown that at particle size 0.075 mm, the graph suddenly increases, because
this zone is transition zone between coarse particle and finer particle of soil. There is no particle
lesser than 10 percent finer so, we cannot calculate the coefficient of uniformity and coefficient
of curvature of soil. The disturbance happened during immersion and removal of hydrometer
during test is neglected.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMINATION OF THE LIQUID LIMIT (BY MECHANICAL
METHOD AND CONE PENETRATION METHOD) AND PLASTIC LIMIT
OF SOILS
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
4
th
September, 2012
Also the liquid limit can be determined by cone penetration method. The main principle of this
method is to observe depths of penetrations of soils at various initial moisture contents of a metal
cone of certain weight and apex angle with point barely touching the surface is allowed to drop
into surface. The plot is made between water content and depth of penetration and corresponding
value of water content at 20mm depth of penetration is liquid limit of given soil.
The plastic limit is the water content at which soil changes from plastic state to semi-solid state.
The soil in this stage behaves like plastic. It begins crumble when rolled in to threads 3mm
diameter.
Importance: The liquid and plastic limit of soils are both dependent on the amount and type of
clay in a soil and form the basis for soil classification system for cohesive soil based on the
plasticity tests. Besides their use for identification, plasticity tests give information concerning
the cohesion properties of soil and amount of capillary water which it can hold. They are also
used directly in specifications for controlling soil for use in fill. The liquid limit is sometimes
used to estimate settlement in consolidations problems and both limits may be useful in
predicting maximum density in compaction studies. These index properties of soil have also
been related to various other properties of the soil such as follows:
Plasticity index: is the difference between its liquid limit and plastic limit.
Plasticity Index (I
p
) = liquid limit (W
L
) plastic limit (W
P
).... (1)
If the plastic limit is equal or greater than liquid limit, the plasticity index is reported as
zero.
Flow index: the slope of line (plotted in semi-log graph between water content and
number of blows) expressed as the difference in water contents at 10 drops and at 100
drops is reported as the flow index. The lower the flow index better is the shear strength.
.. (2)
Where,
W
1
= moisture content in percent corresponding to N
1
drops, and
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
W
2
= moisture content in percent corresponding to N
2
drops.
Toughness index: is the ratio between plasticity index (I
p
) and flow index ( . The larger
is the value of toughness index; the better is the shear strength at given plasticity.
..... (3)
Liquidity index (I
L
):
... (4)
Where,
W
o
= natural moisture content of the soil
W
p
= plastic limit of the soil, and
I
p
= plasticity index of the soil.
Consistency index (Ic):
... (5)
Where,
W
L
= liquid limit of the soil
W
o
= natural moisture content of the soil, and
I
p
= plasticity index of the soil
PROCEDURE:
Test procedure for the determination of liquid limit (Mechanical method)
I. Take 120 gm of soil sample passing through IS sieve 425 micron, mixed the sample
thoroughly with distilled water in glass plate and left for 24 hrs for uniform distribution
of moisture. The paste should be such that requires 30 to 35 drops of the cup to cause the
required closure of the standard groove. (Note: the soil having low texture i.e. low clay
content can immediately used after mixing of distilled water).
II. Clean, dry and check the cup about free fall and adjust the liquid limit device with base
falls through exactly one centimeter for one revolution of the handle.
4 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
III. Remixed the soil before using for test and placed it in cup which is rested on base.
Thickness of sample in cup should be one centimeter at the point of maximum thickness
shown in Fig. 1 and trim the excess soil sample.
IV. Cut the soil pat by grooving tool type A. After the soil pat has been cut by proper
grooving tool, the handle is rotated at the rate of about 2 revolutions per second and the
nos. of blows counted till the two parts of the soil sample come into contact for about 12
mm length.
V. Take about a little amount of soil sample from near the closed groove and find the
moisture content by oven drying method.
VI. The soil of the cup is transferred to the dish containing the soil paste and mixed
thoroughly after adding a little more water (in no case dry soil sample is added ). Repeat
the test.
VII. By altering the water content of the soil and repeating the foregoing operations, obtain at
least 4 readings in the range of 15 - 35 blows.
Test procedure for the determination of liquid limit (Cone Penetration Method)
I. Prepare the sample as in mechanical method.
II. Transferred the wet soil paste into the cylindrical cup of cone penetrometer apparatus at
three layers that no air is entrapped into the soil sample.
III. Level the top of surface of the soil sample and placed the cone in cylindrical cup such
that cone just touches the surface of soil sample at top.
IV. Adjust the dial gauge at zero or take the reading at any graduated mark.
V. Released the cone to penetrate the soil sample at its own weight of 800.5 g and after 5
second noted the depth of penetration which should be lies between 14 to 28 mm.
VI. Take the soil sample from the mid of the cylindrical cup to determine the moisture
content.
VII. Repeat the test for at least four sets of value of penetration.
Test procedure for the determination of plastic limit
I. Mix 20 g soil passes through 425 micron IS sieve with distilled water but in case of
clayey soil, the plastic soil masses should be left for 24 hrs to ensure the uniform
distribution of water.
5 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
II. Take about 8 g of the soil and roll it with fingers on a glass plate. The rate of rolling shall
be between 80 to 90 strokes per minutes to form a 3 mm diameter.
III. If the diameter of the threads becomes less than 3 mm without cracks, it shows that water
content is more than its plastic limit. Kneed the soil to reduce the water content and roll it
again to thread.
IV. Repeat the process of alternate rolling and kneading until the thread crumbles.
V. Collect the pieces of crumbled soil thread in a moisture content container for
determination of water content.
VI. Repeat the process at least twice more with fresh samples of plastic soil each time.
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
RESULT SUMMARY
Liquid
Limit (WL)
Flow
Index
(Ip)
Plastic
Limit
(Wp)
Plasticity
Index (Ip)
Toughness
Index (I
T
)
Liquidity
Index (I
L
)
Consistency
Index (I
C
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36.38 4.31 22.45 13.93 3.23 _ _
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
Figure : Graph Plot for Determination of Liquid Limit By Cone Penetration Test
INTERFACES
Plasticity tests give information concerning the cohesion properties of soil and amount of
capillary water which it can hold.
Identification/classification of soil.
They are also used directly in specifications for controlling soil for use in fill.
The liquid limit is sometimes used to estimate settlement in consolidations problems and
both limits may be useful in predicting maximum density in compaction studies.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMINATION OF THE SHRINKAGE LIMIT AND SHRINKAGE FACTORS OF
SOIL
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
16
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis
c) Shrinkage ratio (R) :- the ratio of a given volume change, expressed as a percentage of
the dry volume, to the corresponding change in water content above the appropriate
shrinkage limit, expressed as a percentage of the weight of the oven dried soil.
...... (4)
Where,
W
0
= weight of oven-dry pat in gm and
V
0
= volume of oven dry soil pat in ml.
d) Volumetric shrinkage (volumetric change) (V
s
):- the decrease in volume, expressed as a
percentage of the soil mass when dried, of a soil mass when the water content is reduced
from a given percentage to the appropriate shrinkage limit.
(5)
Where,
W
1
= given moisture content in percent
W
s
= shrinkage limit and
R = shrinkage ratio
PROCEDURE:
1. Take a sample weighing about 100 gm from the thoroughly mixed portion of the material
passing through 425 micron.
2. Place about 30gm of the soil sample in the evaporating dish and thoroughly mix with
distilled water in an amount sufficient to fill the soil voids completely and to make the
soil pasty enough to be readily worked into the shrinkage dish without entrapping of
water required to obtain the desired consistency is equal to or slightly greater than the
liquid limit; in the case of plastic soils, it may exceed the liquid limit by as much as
percent.
3. Weight empty shrinkage dish and find the volume of shrinkage dish by pouring mercury
and take weight of shrinkage dish filled with mercury.
4 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMINATION OF WATER CONTENT-DRY DENSITY RELATION USING
LIGHT COMPACTION
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
11
th
September, 2012
1 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test
.(3)
Where,
G = specific gravity of soil
Y
w
= density of water
The purpose of laboratory testing is to determine the proper amount of mixing water to be used,
when the compacting soil in the field and resulting degree of compactness which can be expected
from compaction at optimum moisture content.
Figure: Layout of metal rammer and Mould According to IS
PROCEDURE:
Take a representative portion of air dried soil material and of sufficient quantity such
that 6 kg of material passing through 20 mm IS sieve for soils not susceptible to
3 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test
OMC
1 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF REMOULDED SOIL
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
20
th
September, 2012
. (1)
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
Where,
P = the compressive force and
A = average cross-sectional area (corrected) of the specimen for the corresponding load P.
In geotechnical work, it is standard practice to correct the area on which the load P is acting. One
of the reasons for this area correction is to make some allowance for the way the soil is actually
being loaded in the field. The original area A
0
is corrected by considering that the total volume of
the soil is unchanged as the sample shortens. The initial total soil sample volume is
..(2)
But after some changes in specimen length of L, we have
.... (3)
Equating equation (2) and (3), canceling terms, and solving for the corrected area A to use in
equation (1), we obtain
.... (4)
Where,
. (5)
L = the change in the specimen length as read from the strain dial indicator and
L
0
= the initial length of the specimen.
With only a vertical load on the sample the major principal stress
1
is vertical and the minor
(horizontal or lateral) stress is
3
=0. From a Mohrs circle construction of this stress state we
obtain undrained shear strength- in this case also the cohesion (Symbol C
u
) - as
.. (6)
Where,
C
u
= undrained shear strength or cohesion.
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
We can also plot a curve of stress versus strain and measure the initial slope to obtain a modulus
of elasticity E
s
. The loss of confining pressure nearly always gives a value of E
s
that is too low
for most geotechnical work.
The unconfined compression test may be either strain-controlled or stress-controlled but in
stress controlled method we have to apply load increment using dead load yoke which may
produce shock during loading and may result in erratic strain response and /or the ultimate
strength falling between two stress increments. For these several reasons, strain controlled test is
mostly used in soil test rather than stress controlled method.
PROCEDURE:
1. Specimen size: the size of the specimen should be minimum diameter of 38mm and the
largest particle contained within the test specimen should be smaller than 1/8 of the
specimen diameter. The height of diameter ratio should be 2. (Because the
length/diameter ratio should be large enough to avoid interference of potential 45
0
failure planes and small enough not to obtain a column failure.)
2. Take two soil sample, one sample contains water
content of dry side and other
contain water content of wet side.
3. Mass of the soil can be calculated
From the unit weight of soil ().
4. Compacted specimen: keep the soil
Sample in tube after oiling the tube, fix
Sampler tube in jack by nut and bolt. Press
The soil sample in tube from both side.
Tightened one side completely and other side upto 76 mm left.
After Rotating 1 and , remove the sampler tube from the jack by releasing the one side
screw and pressing other side.
5. Measure length, diameter and weight of sample and placed on the bottom of the loading
device. The upper plate should be adjusted to make contact with the specimen.
6. Adjust the dial gauge reading to zero and fix the strain rate in to 2 mm/minute, here we
use 1.2 mm/minute.
7. Record the force and deformation reading at suitable interval. Compress the sample until
failure surfaces have definitely developed or the stress-strain curve is well past its peak.
8. Keep the sample for water content and done same process of other sample.
When L/d<2, potential
failure zones overlap
When L/d>2, no
overlap failure zones
L<2d
d
Figure: L/d ratio for soil compression test
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
Unitweightofsoil=19.436KN/m3 Unitweightofsoil=20.124KN/m3
Volumeofsoilsampletaken=8.61*10
5
m
3
(dia.38mm,length76
mm)
Volumeofsoilsampletaken=8.61*10
5
m
3
(dia.38mm,
length76mm)
Massofsoilsample(M
s
)=167.40gm(Takensoilsampleofmorethan
obtained
Massofsoilsample(M
s
)=173.26gm(Takensoilsampleofmore
thanobtained)
Initial Length (L
o
), mm = 78
Initial Length (L
o
), mm = 76
Compressive
stress(q),
KN/m
2
Dial
Gauge
Readings
Load
(KN)
Displacement
(Dialgauge
Readingx
0.01)mm
Strain
()
Corrected
Area(A),
mm
2
Compressive
stress(q),
KN/m
2
50 0.07 0.5 0.00641 1140.85 61.358 60 0.05 0.6 0.0079 1142.56 43.761
60 0.1 0.6 0.00769 1142.33 87.541 90 0.07 0.9 0.0118 1147.12 61.022
70 0.12 0.7 0.00897 1143.80 104.913 140 0.1 1.4 0.0184 1154.81 86.594
80 0.15 0.8 0.01026 1145.29 130.972 190 0.12 1.9 0.025 1162.61 103.216
90 0.17 0.9 0.01154 1146.77 148.242 240 0.13 2.4 0.0316 1170.50 111.063
100 0.19 1 0.01282 1148.26 165.468 290 0.14 2.9 0.0382 1178.51 118.794
120 0.22 1.2 0.01538 1151.25 191.096 340 0.13 3.4 0.0447 1186.63 109.554
150 0.23 1.5 0.01923 1155.77 199.002 390 0.12 3.9 0.0513 1194.85 100.431
200 0.21 2 0.02564 1163.37 180.510 440 0.11 4.4 0.0579 1203.20 91.423
250 0.17 2.5 0.03205 1171.07 145.166 490 0.1 4.9 0.0645 1211.66 82.531
Determination of Actual Water Content (w %)
For dry side sample For Wet side sample
Wt. of sample + Container 190.83 gm Wt. of sample + Container 186.70 gm
Wt. of dry sample + Container 172.83 gm Wt. of dry sample + Container 163.49 gm
Wt. of Container 27.01 gm Wt. of Container 13.35 gm
Wt. of soil 145.82 gm Wt. of soil 150.14 gm
Wt. of water 18 gm Wt. of water 23.21 gm
Water Content, % 12.34 Water Content, % 15.46
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
Figure 1: Variation of Stress under Strain in UCS Test
From the graph in Figure 1,
It is found that the unconfined compressive strength (q
u
) of dry side sample is 205 KN/m
2
and
that of the wet side sample is 119 KN/m
2
.
We draw a tangent in both graphs to find out modulus of elasticity (E
s
) of soil, it is the slope of
tangent, can be find out as follows:
For dry side soil,
For Wet side Soil,
Also, from the Mohrs Circle, we can find the undrained shear strength (C
u
) of the soil.
For dry side,
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
For wet side soil,
within the soil) undergo changes that do not have enough time to dissipate. Hence the test is
representative of soils in construction sites where the rate of construction is very fast and the
pore waters do not have enough time to dissipate.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
(CBR) OF SOIL
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
20
th
September, 2012
1 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)
P
T
= corrected unit (or total) test load
corresponding to the chosen penetration from
the load penetration curve, and
P
s
= unit (or total) standard load for the same
depth of penetration as for P
s
taken from table
1.
The CBR values are generally calculated for
penetration of 2.5 mm and 5mm. generally, the
CBR value at 2.5mm penetration will be
greater than that at 5 mm penetration and in
such case the former shall be taken as the CBR
value for design purposes. If the CBR value
corresponding to a penetration of 5mm
exceeds that for 2.5 mm, the test shall be
repeated. If identical results follow, the bearing
ratio corresponding to 5mm penetration shall
be taken for design.
PROCEDURE:
Preparation of Soil sample:
Take 5 kg soil sample passing through 19-mm IS sieve but is retained on 4.75 mm IS
sieve.
Add the water according to optimum moisture content deducting natural moisture content
of soil, mixed thoroughly and left for 24 hrs for uniformly saturation.
Take the weight of mould and base plate, oiling inside the mould, keep 50mm thick metal
disc with filter paper at the bottom of mould and clamp the mould and collar with base
plate.
Fill the soil sample in three layers each layer tamped with 2.6 kg rammer and 56 blows
falling freely from 310mm height.
Remove the collar and trim the extra sample above mould and level it.
Fig.1:CorrectionLoadPenetrationCurves
3 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)
Take the weight of soil sample in the mould with base plate. Reverse the mould and
clamp it with base plate, keep filter paper and surcharge weight of 4.739 kg. (In case of
soaked test submerge the sample in water for 96 hrs, remove the sample from water and
the specimen is allowed to drain down water for 15 minutes, record the mass of sample).
Keep the sample in loading machine. Placed the plunger seated under a load of 4 kg so
that full contact is established between the surface of the specimen and the plunger.
Set the stress and strain gauge to zero and fix the loading rate at 1.2 mm/minute.
Start the machine and take reading of load at certain interval strain gauges upto 12.50
mm.
Remove the sample from loading machine and mould. Take soil sample at 30 mm below
from the top for determination of water content.
Plot the strain and stress curve.
Figure 2: Arrangement of Test Apparatus and Soil Specimen in Laboratory (Source: IS
2720 (part 16)-1979, Page 281)
1 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)
UNSOAKEDSAMPLE SOAKEDSAMPLE
Dial Gauge
Reading for
pentration
Pentration
=(
*0.01)mm
Load,
KN
Stress,
KN/m2
Dial Gauge
Reading for
pentration
Pentration
=(
*0.01),mm
Load,
KN
Stress,
KN/m2
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
25 0.25 0.21 107.01 25 0.25 0.25 127.39
50 0.50 0.35 178.34 50 0.50 0.44 224.20
75 0.75 0.47 239.49 75 0.75 0.56 285.35
100 1.00 0.60 305.73 100 1.00 0.64 326.11
125 1.25 0.70 356.69 125 1.25 0.71 361.78
150 1.50 0.80 407.64 150 1.50 0.77 392.36
175 1.75 0.90 458.60 175 1.75 0.83 422.93
200 2.00 0.98 499.36 200 2.00 0.88 448.41
225 2.25 1.06 540.13 225 2.25 0.93 473.89
250 2.50 1.14 580.89 250 2.50 0.98 499.36
275 2.75 1.21 616.56 275 2.75 1.02 519.75
300 3.00 1.28 652.23 300 3.00 1.05 535.03
325 3.25 1.35 687.90 325 3.25 1.09 555.41
350 3.50 1.41 718.47 350 3.50 1.12 570.70
375 3.75 1.47 749.04 375 3.75 1.15 585.99
400 4.00 1.53 779.62 400 4.00 1.17 596.18
425 4.25 1.57 800.00 425 4.25 1.20 611.46
450 4.50 1.62 825.48 450 4.50 1.23 626.75
475 4.75 1.66 845.86 475 4.75 1.26 642.04
500 5.00 1.70 866.24 500 5.00 1.29 657.32
525 5.25 1.75 891.72 525 5.25 1.31 667.52
550 5.50 1.78 907.01 550 5.50 1.33 677.71
575 5.75 1.81 922.29 575 5.75 1.35 687.90
600 6.00 1.85 942.68 600 6.00 1.37 698.09
650 6.50 1.92 978.34 650 6.50 1.41 718.47
700 7.00 1.98 1008.92 700 7.00 1.44 733.76
750 7.50 2.05 1044.59 750 7.50 1.47 749.04
800 8.00 2.09 1064.97 800 8.00 1.50 764.33
850 8.50 2.13 1085.35 850 8.50 1.52 774.52
900 9.00 2.18 1110.83 900 9.00 1.54 784.71
950 9.50 2.22 1131.21 950 9.50 1.56 794.90
1000 10.00 2.25 1146.50 1000 10.00 1.56 794.90
1050 10.50 2.29 1166.88 1050 10.50 1.58 805.10
1100 11.00 2.33 1187.26 1100 11.00 1.59 810.19
1150 11.50 2.37 1207.64 1150 11.50 1.61 820.38
1200 12.00 2.42 1233.12 1200 12.00 1.62 825.48
1250 12.50 2.47 1258.60 1250 12.50 1.63 830.57
2 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)
UNSOAKEDSAMPLE SOAKEDSAMPLE
At
Penetration
Stress
KN/m2
Unit
Standard
stress
(Kgf/cm2)
Unit
Standard
stress
(KN/m2)
CBR
%
At
Penetration
Stress
KN/m2
Unit
Standard
stress
(Kgf/cm2)
Unit
Standard
stress
(KN/m2)
CBR
%
2.5mm 580.89 70 7000 8.30 2.5mm 499.363 70 7000 7.13
5 mm 866.24 105 10500 8.25 5 mm 657.325 105 10500 6.26
Figure 3: Stress-Penetration curve for unsoaked and soaked sample
3 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
CO-EFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY OF SOILS USING VARIABLE
HEAD (FALLING HEAD) METHOD
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
4
th
October, 2012
According to IS, this test is recommended for soils with coefficient of permeability in the range
of 10
-3
to 10
-7
cm/s and maximum particle size.
The coefficient of permeability (k) can be determined by following formula:
For constant head method,
. (III)
For falling head method,
(IV)
The permeability at 27
0
C is given by,
. (V)
Where,
K
T
= coefficient of permeability at any temperature, cm/s
Q = quantity, cm
3
A = area of specimen in cm
3
i = hydraulic gradient
t = time in seconds.
t
f
= final time to head h
2
, sec
t
i
= initial time to head h
1
, sec
h
1
= initial head, cm
h
2
= final head, cm
L = length of soil mass, cm
T
= coefficient of viscosity of fluid at any temperature, poise
27
= coefficient of viscosity of fluid at 27
0
C, poise
PROCEDURE:
1. Take the soil sample passing through 4.75 mm IS sieve and mass of soil sample taken
according to unit weight of soil which is calculated from compaction characteristics
curve, for OMC and dry density of soil. Mix water thoroughly.
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
RESULT:
The coefficient of permeability of given soil obtained from test is 2.96E-05 cm/sec at 27.5
o
C.
Also, from graph plotted between height of fall and coefficient of permeability, it is shown that
as increases in fall height of fluid to soil mass, coefficient of permeability also increases.
DISCUSSION:
Neither the constant head nor falling head laboratory test provides a reliable value for the
coefficient of permeability of a soil. Reasons for this are varied but the major ones are as
follows:
1. The soil in the permeability device is never in the same state as in the field- it is always
disturbed to some extent.
2. Orientation of the in situ stratum to the flow of water is probably not duplicated. In sands,
the ratio of horizontal to vertical flow is on the order of k
h
/k
v
3. This is impossible to
duplicate in the sample-even where the void ratio may be duplicated by careful placement
and compaction.
3. Conditions at the boundary are not the same in laboratory. The smooth wall of the
permeability mold make for better flow paths than if they are rough. If the soil is
stratified vertically, the flow in the different strata will be different, and this boundary
condition may be impossible to reproduce in the laboratory.
5 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving
4. The hydraulic head h is usually 5 to 10 times larger in the laboratory test than in the field.
The high laboratory head may produce turbulent skin.
5. Considerable evidence indicates that Darcys law is nonlinear at least at large values of
hydraulic gradient i so that v = k.i
n
and not v = k.i.
6. The effect of entrapped air on the laboratory sample will be large even for small air
bubbles since the sample is small.
INTERFACES:
The knowledge of the permeability is essential in the solution of many engineering problems
involving flow of water through soils such as:
1. Dewatering and drainage of excavations, backfills and subgrades;
2. Determining yield of water bearing strata;
3. Assessing seepage through the body of earth dams; and
4. Computing losses from canals.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
(C AND ) OF SOIL BY DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
16
th
October, 2012
n
due to an applied vertical load P
v
, and a shearing stress due to the applied horizontal load P
h
.
These stresses are simply computed as:
n =
P/A .. (i)
= P
h
/A . (ii)
Where, A is the nominal area of the sample (or of the shear box) and is not corrected for lateral
displacement under shear force P
h
. These stresses are those of coulombs equation and here in
terms of effective stress parameters as
. (iii)
If we obtain above equation is in effective stress parameters but if is not measured then
equation (iii) corrected in terms of total stress parameters c and .
As there are two unknown values (C and ) in equation, a minimum of two tests at different
values of normal stress with measured shear stress must be made so that the shear strength
parameters C and can be computed. But three tests should be done to check for test error or
sample anomalies.
For cohesionless materials, the cohesion should be zero by definition and eq. (iii) becomes
.. (iv)
The inaccuracies and surface tension effects of damp cohesionless materials may give a small
apparent cohesion but this should be neglected. If the cohesion intercept is large and the soil
appears and the soil parameters to be cohessionless we have to investigate if the test has been
incorrectly done.
Direct shear test may be categorized as follows:
1. Unconsolidated-Undrained or UU tests: shear is begun before the sample consolidates
under the normal load P
v
. If the soil is cohesive and saturated, excess pore pressures may
develop.
2. Consolidated-Undrained or CU tests: the normal force is applied and the vertical dial
gauge movement is monitored until settlement stops before the shearing force is applied.
3. Consolidated-Drained tests or CD tests: the normal force is applied and shear force is
delayed until settlement stops; the shear force is then applied so slowly that the small
pore pressure that develops in the sample can be ignored.
For cohesionless soils, all three of the above tests give about the same results and independent of
saturation state unless at a very high strain rate.
For cohesive soils, soil parameters are influenced by the test method, Degree of saturation and
whether the soil is normally consolidated or overconsolidated.
PROCEDURE:
1. Measure dimension of the shear box i.e. length, width and height. Calculate x-sectional
area and volume of shear box.
2. Find out the weight of sample according to field dry density and relative density of soil.
3. Clean the shear box, grid plate and base plate.
4. Fit upper and lower part of shear box with screws and fill the sample in it.
3 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test
5. Leveled the sample by pressing with level plate and keep grid plate at right angle to shear
plane. Place a porous stone over the grid plate.
6. Place shear box with sample in direct shear frame. Keep loading pad on the box.
7. Bring the upper half of the box in contact with proving ring. Check the contact by giving
slight movement.
8. Mount the loading yoke on the ball placed on loading pad. First test is done by placing 50
KPa load in which lever weight is 0.1 kg/cm
2
and frame weight is 0.2 kg/cm
2
, place extra
0.3 kg/cm
2
load.
9. Mount one dial gauge on the loading yoke to record vertical displacement and another
dial gauge on the container to record the horizontal displacement.
10. Set loading dial gauge and displacement dial gauge to zero and give the strain rate at
0.25mm/minute.
11. Remove the locking screws start the machine. Record the shear load and vertical
displacement at certain increment of shear displacement until the soil sample fails (means
load is decreasing)
12. Stop the machine; remove the sample from the shear box.
13. Repeat the test on identical specimens under the change in normal load for 100 Kpa and
150 Kpa.
14. Plot graph between displacement and loading and find peak shear load. Also plot graph
between displacement and vertical displacement to see volume expansion behavior.
15. From peak shear stress and corresponding normal stress, plot the line and find cohesion
and angle of friction.
4 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test
Figure 2: Graph plotted between Horizontal Displacement and Horizontal Shear Force.
Figure 3: Graph plotted between Normal Stress and Shear Stress.
Test
No.
Normal
Stress
(
n
), Kpa
Shear
Force at
Failure,
KN
Shear
Stress (),
Kpa
1 50 0.125 34.72
2 100 0.235 65.28
3 150 0.399 110.83
399 N
235 N
125 N
8 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test
INFERENCES:
Shear strength is the principal engineering property which controls the stability of a soil mass
under loads. The shear strength parameters are used to find out bearing capacity of soils, the
slope stability problems, the earth pressure against retaining structures and other many problems.
More or less all the soil engineering problems are related with the shear strength of soil.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (UU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
TEST WITHOUT MEASUREMENT OF PORE WATER PRESSURE
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
23
th
OCTOBER, 2012
THEORY:
One of the primary purposes of this test is to determine the shear strength parameters of soil.
These parameters are defined by Coloumbs shear strength equation:
..... (I)
Where,
= shear strength Kpa,
c = soil cohesion, Kpa.
n
= intergranular pressure may be either total or effective stress value, kpa
= angle of internal friction, degrees
The triaxial test allows using a range of test states that can produce shear strength parameters that
range from total stress to effective stress values. Effective stress values are generally accepted as
the true soil shear strength parameters.
The axial load at some deformation is also called the deviator load. The deformation reduced to
strain () and is used to correct the sample area and to compute deviator stress at this strain
level.
A curve of stress versus strain can be plotted and the peak value obtained. This peak value is the
deviator stress (
1
). The initial tangent modulus is taken as E
s
and poissons ratio is usually
estimated. The peak or failure deviator stress from each curve is used to estimate the shear
strength parameters from a Mohrs circle plot.
We may do the following computations using Hookes general stress-strain for which the vertical
principal strain is
(II)
Where, = stress changes; usually = =cell pressure in the triaxial test. There are two
unknown values, namely Es and . We may make an estimate of these by taking two points
along the stress-strain curve of constant
3
, read the strain and deviator stress and solve the
following equation
3 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
... (III)
The triaxial test data are used to plot Mohrs stress circles using major
1
and minor
3
principal
stresses. The two stresses for Mohrs circle are then
= cell pressure
..... (IV)
From this deviator stress is obvious that the deviator stress = diameter of the Mohrs circle.
By drawing best-fit tangent to these three (or more) circles we can obtain a graphical solution for
and C.
Traiaxial data are also presented using stress paths by plotting single circle point defined by:
.. (V)
The plot coordinates p, q may be from either total or effective stress value of and . The
best-fit line through the locus of points obtained from a test series is called the K
f
- line. The line
if projected back to the p (horizontal) axis cuts the q axis with an intercept a; the slope of the K
f
-
line is scaled for angle . From the plot geometry we can obtain
. (VI)
Triaxial stress-strain data can be normalized with respect to
provide a more compact data
presentation. To normalize the data we simply divide the deviator stress by the cell pressure to
obtain the normalized pressure NP as
.. (VII)
A plot is made between NP vs. strain.
PROCEDURE:
1. From the dry density and OMC of soil, calculate bulk density and find out the volume of
soil sample (height 76mm and diameter 38mm), calculate weight of soil sample and
water by OMC minus moisture content, mix the soil sample thoroughly and make
specimen using sample ejector as prepared in unconfined compressive strength test.
4 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
2. Measure the weight of specimen and keep it in triaxial cell by putting porous stone at top
and bottom.
3. By using membrane stretcher, cover the specimen by membrane and place the rubber
binding strip at top and bottom so that no water enter into the membrane.
4. Place the Lucite cell and keep load piston at top of soil specimen, tightened the screws of
Lucite cell. Remove the bleed valve and open water valve and fill water in to cell. Close
water valve and place the bleed valve when water is expelling from cell (remove air).
5. Fix the proving dial gauge and displacement dial gauge and set to zero. Give strain rate at
1.2 mm/min. and cell pressure at 50 kpa.
6. Open the cell pressure valve.
7. Start machine and note the proving dial gauge reading at corresponding displacement dial
gauge reading at suitable interval upto 10 and 20 % strain until the specimen fails.
8. Repeat the test for cell pressure 100 and 150 Kpa.
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
UNDRAINED UNCONSOLIDATION TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Name of Test: UU Test Date of Testing: 16-Sept.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red soil Tested By: Group 2
Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
Lead Screw Travel:
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
1.2 mm/min.
% by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div = 0.24 kg
Length of
Specimen(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of Specimen(Cm)=
3.8
confining Pressure (Kpa)= 50
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
179.87
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
_
Initial water content(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa) :
_
Wt. of wet specimen after
test(gm)=
179.45
Wt. of dry specimen after
test (gm)=
157.35
Final Water Con.(%)= 14.05
5 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
Dial
Gauge
Reading
Proving
Ring
Reading
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2
Load
(KN)=
(2)x0.24*
0.01
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2
Normal
Stress =
1
/
3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 0 0 0.00
10 3 0.10 0.001 1135.03 0.0072 6.343 0.13
20 7 0.20 0.003 1136.53 0.0168 14.782 0.30
30 13 0.30 0.004 1138.03 0.0312 27.416 0.55
40 19 0.40 0.005 1139.54 0.0456 40.016 0.80
50 35 0.50 0.007 1141.05 0.084 73.617 1.47
60 53 0.60 0.008 1142.56 0.1272 111.329 2.23
70 65 0.70 0.009 1144.08 0.156 136.354 2.73
80 75 0.80 0.011 1145.60 0.18 157.123 3.14
90 84 0.90 0.012 1147.12 0.2016 175.744 3.51
100 93 1.00 0.013 1148.65 0.2232 194.314 3.89
120 110 1.20 0.016 1151.73 0.264 229.221 4.58
150 130 1.50 0.020 1156.36 0.312 269.811 5.40
200 152 2.00 0.026 1164.18 0.3648 313.355 6.27
250 160 2.50 0.033 1172.10 0.384 327.618 6.55
300 166 3.00 0.039 1180.12 0.3984 337.592 6.75
350 173 3.50 0.046 1188.26 0.4152 349.418 6.99
400 174 4.00 0.053 1196.51 0.4176 349.014 6.98
450 177 4.50 0.059 1204.88 0.4248 352.566 7.05
500 181 5.00 0.066 1213.37 0.4344 358.012 7.16
550 185 5.50 0.072 1221.97 0.444 363.347 7.27
600 187 6.00 0.079 1230.70 0.4488 364.670 7.29
650 190 6.50 0.086 1239.55 0.456 367.874 7.36
700 195 7.00 0.092 1248.54 0.468 374.839 7.50
750 197 7.50 0.099 1257.65 0.4728 375.939 7.52
760 198 7.60 0.100 1259.49 0.4752 377.296 7.55
800 200 8.00 0.105 1266.90 0.48 378.878 7.58
850 202 8.50 0.112 1276.28 0.4848 379.853 7.60
900 204 9.00 0.118 1285.81 0.4896 380.773 7.62
950 206 9.50 0.125 1295.47 0.4944 381.636 7.63
1000 209 10.00 0.132 1305.29 0.5016 384.283 7.69
1050 206 10.50 0.138 1315.25 0.4944 375.897 7.52
1100 206 11.00 0.145 1325.37 0.4944 373.028 7.46
1150 210 11.50 0.151 1335.64 0.504 377.346 7.55
1200 208 12.00 0.158 1346.08 0.4992 370.855 7.42
1250 207 12.50 0.164 1356.68 0.4968 366.189 7.32
6 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
1
/
3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 0 0 0.00
10 10 0.10 0.001 1135.03 0.024 21.145 0.21
20 21 0.20 0.003 1136.53 0.0504 44.345 0.44
30 27 0.30 0.004 1138.03 0.0648 56.940 0.57
40 28 0.40 0.005 1139.54 0.0672 58.971 0.59
50 30 0.50 0.007 1141.05 0.072 63.100 0.63
60 33 0.60 0.008 1142.56 0.0792 69.318 0.69
70 34 0.70 0.009 1144.08 0.0816 71.324 0.71
80 35 0.80 0.011 1145.60 0.084 73.324 0.73
90 37 0.90 0.012 1147.12 0.0888 77.411 0.77
100 40 1.00 0.013 1148.65 0.096 83.576 0.84
120 55 1.20 0.016 1151.73 0.132 114.611 1.15
7 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
1
/
3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 0.00 0 0.00
10 16 0.10 0.001 1135.03 0.04 33.832 0.23
20 35 0.20 0.003 1136.53 0.08 73.909 0.49
30 55 0.30 0.004 1138.03 0.13 115.990 0.77
40 70 0.40 0.005 1139.54 0.17 147.428 0.98
50 75 0.50 0.007 1141.05 0.18 157.750 1.05
60 90 0.60 0.008 1142.56 0.22 189.049 1.26
70 107 0.70 0.009 1144.08 0.26 224.460 1.50
80 120 0.80 0.011 1145.60 0.29 251.397 1.68
90 128 0.90 0.012 1147.12 0.31 267.800 1.79
100 137 1.00 0.013 1148.65 0.33 286.248 1.91
120 155 1.20 0.016 1151.73 0.37 322.994 2.15
150 175 1.50 0.020 1156.36 0.42 363.208 2.42
200 200 2.00 0.026 1164.18 0.48 412.309 2.75
250 217 2.50 0.033 1172.10 0.52 444.332 2.96
300 228 3.00 0.039 1180.12 0.55 463.680 3.09
350 238 3.50 0.046 1188.26 0.57 480.702 3.20
400 246 4.00 0.053 1196.51 0.59 493.433 3.29
450 252 4.50 0.059 1204.88 0.60 501.958 3.35
500 257 5.00 0.066 1213.37 0.62 508.338 3.39
550 263 5.50 0.072 1221.97 0.63 516.542 3.44
600 268 6.00 0.079 1230.70 0.64 522.629 3.48
650 273 6.50 0.086 1239.55 0.66 528.577 3.52
700 277 7.00 0.092 1248.54 0.66 532.463 3.55
750 281 7.50 0.099 1257.65 0.67 536.238 3.57
760 282 7.60 0.100 1259.49 0.68 537.361 3.58
800 285 8.00 0.105 1266.90 0.68 539.902 3.60
850 290 8.50 0.112 1276.28 0.70 545.334 3.64
900 295 9.00 0.118 1285.81 0.71 550.627 3.67
950 299 9.50 0.125 1295.47 0.72 553.928 3.69
9 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
Figure 3: Mohrs Circle and p, q plot at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.
Figure 4: Plot of Normalized stress-strain data at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.
Failureline
K
f
line
11 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
From figure 2
3, Kpa
1, Kpa
1
=
3
+
1, Kpa
=(
1
-
3
)/2, Kpa
(
1
+
3
)/2,
Kpa
50 384.28 434.28 192.14 242.14
100 481 581 240.5 340.5
150 562 712 281 431
From Mohr's Circle Plot (Figure 3)
From failure line From K
f
-line (Eq. VI)
c, Kpa , deg.
a,
Kpa
,
degree
c', Kpa ', deg.
83 29.12 72 25.96 82.61 29.36
From strain vs. Normalized pressure curve
Modulus of Elasticiy (E), kpa
E
1
E
2
E
3
4500 16000 45000
RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
Result obtained from the unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial test are as Followings:
1. The shear strength parameters i.e. cohesion c and angle of internal friction of soil
are 83 Kpa and 29.12 degress respectively.
2. The stress paths are also drawn from p and q for each test and compute a and
which are 72 kpa and 25.96 Kpa. From stress path, cohesion and angle of internal friction
are 82.61 kpa and 29.36 degrees which is almost similar to that obtained from failure
line.
3. From the stress-strain curve, the moduli of elasticity for all three cell pressure are
calculated which are 4500, 16000 and 45000 kpa for cell pressure 50, 100 and 150 kpa
respectively.
4. Membrane correction for each test using strain at the failure
1
stress and an average
membrane thickness of 0.15 mm are checked and it is seen that the correction value is
very much small than
1
, so membrane correction is ignored.
12 UU test without pore water pressure measurements
INFERENCES:
This test is suitable for both cohesive and cohesionless soil to determine shear strength
parameters as well as elastic parameters. When we correlate this test from field condition, this
test is suiatble for soil between impervious stratum. Because the soil between impervious layer is
generally unconsolidated and undrained.
Shear strength is the principal engineering property which controls the stability of a soil mass
under loads. The shear strength parameters are used to find out bearing capacity of soils, the
slope stability problems, the earth pressure against retaining structures and other many problems.
More or less all the soil engineering problems are related with the shear strength of soil. Also,
the elastic parameters are used to calculated settlement problem.
PHOTOGRAPHS:
Figure 5: Laboratory set up of UU Triaxial test. Figure 6: Soil Specimen after failure.
Group, (Source: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore)
Bulging
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION WITH
MEASUREMENT OF PORE WATER PRESSURE.
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
28
th
November, 2012
The effective stress parameters require that the normal stress on the shear plane be reduced by
any excess pore pressure that develops on that plane during shear. Actually, equation (2) is
the general coulomb shear strength case since varying the pore pressure term produces
anything from the undrained case to actual effective stress parameters.
The disadvantages of this test are that the time-duration may be the range of a week or more. It
has the advantage, however, of being the more precise-particularly if the degree of saturation
S<100%.
If the soil is saturated (S=100%) direct pore-pressure measurements during a consolidated-
undrained test provide the most rapid means to obtain the effective stress parameters and with
careful attention to detail are probably as accurate as any method but in CU test the major
problem is to ascertain if the soil sample is saturated. In order to be sure that the excess pore
pressure measured at sample ends also exists on the shear plane it is essential to use saturated
samples.
Skempton (1954) suggested that the excess pore pressure in either saturated or partially saturated
soil under some applied stresses can be described as:
. (3)
Where, = change in pore pressure due to any incremental increase in confining pressure
or in the deviator stress .
A, B = Skemptons pore-pressure coefficients (or parameters)
The sample is assumed to be saturated when B is in range of about 0.95 to 1.0.
Equation (3) can be used to estimate pore pressure increases in the field for embankment
constructions for dams, levees, roads and so on.
PROCEDURE:
1. From the dry density and OMC of soil, calculate bulk density and find out the volume of
soil sample (height 76mm and diameter 38mm), calculate weight of soil sample and
water by OMC minus moisture content, mix the soil sample thoroughly and make
specimen using sample ejector as prepared in unconfined compressive strength test.
2. Measure the weight of specimen and keep it in triaxial cell by putting porous stone at top
and bottom.
3 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
3. By using membrane stretcher, cover the specimen by membrane and place the rubber
binding strip at top and bottom so that no water enter into the membrane.
4. Place the Lucite cell and keep load piston at top of soil specimen, tightened the screws of
Lucite cell. Remove the bleed valve and open water valve and fill water in to cell. Close
water valve and place the bleed valve when water is expelling from cell (remove air).
5. Allow the sample for consolidation by applying cell pressure and open the drained valve.
Also, apply the back pressure less than cell pressure (at difference of 50 Kpa generally)
for saturation of soil sample and also used to obtained change in pore water pressure. The
cell pressure and back pressure are increased until sample fully saturation. Soil sample is
considered to be fully saturated when the Skempton pore water pressure parameter B
(ratio of change in pore water pressure to change in cell pressure) is equal to 0.95 to 1. It
takes approximately one week.
6. After sample is fully saturated, make the cell pressure at 50 Kpa and close the drain valve
because test is consolidated- undrained test. So no drainage is allowed. Now the sample is
prepared for shearing.
7. Fix the proving dial gauge and displacement dial gauge and set to zero. Give strain rate at
0.25 mm/min. and cell pressure at 50 kpa.
8. Start machine and note the proving dial gauge reading at corresponding displacement dial
gauge reading at suitable interval upto 10 and 20 % strain until the specimen fails. Also
the change in pore water pressure during shearing is noted with pore water pressure
measuring device.
9. Repeat the test for cell pressure 100 and 150 Kpa.
Computations part:
1. Compute the unit strain from the deformation-dial readings as
Also compute the area correction value 1- and enter in appropriate column of the data
sheet. Compute the corrected area A as
4 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
confining Pressure
(Kpa)=
440
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
179.87
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
4.37
Initial water content(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa) :
390
Wt. of wet specimen
after test(gm)=
206.88
Wt. of dry specimen
after test (gm)=
177.35
Final Water Con.(%)=
16.65
Dial
Gauge
Reading
Proving
Ring
Reading,
KN
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2
Pore
Pressure, u
bar*100=
Kpa
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2
Normal
Stress =
1
/
3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 390.00 0 0.00
10 0.03 0.10 0.001 1135.03 390.00 26.431 0.06
20 0.06 0.20 0.003 1136.53 391.00 52.792 0.12
30 0.08 0.30 0.004 1138.03 392.00 70.297 0.16
40 0.1 0.40 0.005 1139.54 393.00 87.755 0.20
50 0.11 0.50 0.007 1141.05 394.00 96.403 0.22
60 0.12 0.60 0.008 1142.56 395.00 105.027 0.24
70 0.13 0.70 0.009 1144.08 396.00 113.629 0.26
80 0.14 0.80 0.011 1145.60 397.00 122.207 0.28
90 0.15 0.90 0.012 1147.12 398.00 130.762 0.30
100 0.16 1.00 0.013 1148.65 398.00 139.293 0.32
120 0.17 1.20 0.016 1151.73 398.00 147.605 0.34
150 0.19 1.50 0.020 1156.36 398.00 164.308 0.37
200 0.2 2.00 0.026 1164.18 398.00 171.795 0.39
250 0.21 2.50 0.033 1172.10 398.00 179.166 0.41
300 0.21 3.00 0.039 1180.12 398.00 177.947 0.40
350 0.22 3.50 0.046 1188.26 398.00 185.144 0.42
400 0.23 4.00 0.053 1196.51 398.00 192.225 0.44
450 0.24 4.50 0.059 1204.88 398.00 199.190 0.45
500 0.24 5.00 0.066 1213.37 399.00 197.797 0.45
550 0.24 5.50 0.072 1221.97 399.00 196.404 0.45
600 0.24 6.00 0.079 1230.70 399.00 195.011 0.44
650 0.24 6.50 0.086 1239.55 399.00 193.618 0.44
700 0.24 7.00 0.092 1248.54 399.00 192.225 0.44
750 0.23 7.50 0.099 1257.65 399.00 182.881 0.42
760 0.23 7.60 0.100 1259.49 399.00 182.614 0.42
800 0.23 8.00 0.105 1266.90 400.00 181.546 0.41
850 0.23 8.50 0.112 1276.28 400.00 180.211 0.41
900 0.23 9.00 0.118 1285.81 400.00 178.876 0.41
6 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
1
/
3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0.00 0.00 0.000 1133.54 351 0 0.00
10 0.01 0.10 0.001 1135.03 352 9.639 0.02
20 0.03 0.20 0.003 1136.53 353 25.671 0.06
30 0.06 0.30 0.004 1138.03 354 51.274 0.11
40 0.07 0.40 0.005 1139.54 358 57.608 0.13
50 0.08 0.50 0.007 1141.05 364 70.316 0.16
7 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
Lead Screw Travel:
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
0.24 mm/min.
% by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div =
_ _
Length of Specimen
(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of Specimen
(Cm)=
3.8
confining Pressure
(Kpa)=
540
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
180
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
5.35
Initial water content
(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa)
:
390
Wt. of wet specimen
after test(gm)=
181.35
Wt. of dry specimen
after test (gm)=
149.31
Final Water Con.(%)=
21.46
Dial
Gauge
Reading
Proving
Ring
Reading,
KN
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2
Pore
Pressure,
u
bar*100=
Kpa
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2
Normal
Stress =
1
/
3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0.01 0.00 0.000 1133.54 391.00 8.82 0.02
10 0.02 0.10 0.001 1135.03 394.00 17.621 0.03
20 0.05 0.20 0.003 1136.53 399.00 43.994 0.08
30 0.09 0.30 0.004 1138.03 404.00 79.084 0.15
40 0.14 0.40 0.005 1139.54 412.00 122.857 0.23
50 0.18 0.50 0.007 1141.05 422.00 157.750 0.29
60 0.2 0.60 0.008 1142.56 432.00 175.045 0.32
70 0.22 0.70 0.009 1144.08 438.00 192.295 0.36
80 0.23 0.80 0.011 1145.60 443.00 200.768 0.37
90 0.23 0.90 0.012 1147.12 448.00 200.501 0.37
100 0.24 1.00 0.013 1148.65 450.00 208.940 0.39
120 0.24 1.20 0.016 1151.73 451.00 208.383 0.39
150 0.26 1.50 0.020 1156.36 452.00 224.843 0.42
200 0.28 2.00 0.026 1164.18 454.00 240.513 0.45
250 0.29 2.50 0.033 1172.10 456.00 247.420 0.46
300 0.3 3.00 0.039 1180.12 458.00 254.211 0.47
350 0.31 3.50 0.046 1188.26 460.00 260.885 0.48
400 0.31 4.00 0.053 1196.51 461.00 259.086 0.48
450 0.32 4.50 0.059 1204.88 462.00 265.586 0.49
500 0.32 5.00 0.066 1213.37 463.00 263.729 0.49
550 0.32 5.50 0.072 1221.97 464.00 261.872 0.48
600 0.3 6.00 0.079 1230.70 464.00 243.764 0.45
9 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
Figure 1: Graph plotted between Deviator stress vs. strain at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.
Figure 2: Plot of Normalized stress-strain data at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.
12 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
Figure 3: Mohrs Circle plot at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa for TOTAL STRESS
Figure 4: Mohrs Circle plot at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa for EFFECTIVE STRESS
13 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
Figure5 : change in porewater pressure vs strain
3 1
1=
3+1
=(1
3)/2
(1+3)/2
440 199.190 639.189683 99.5948 539.59484
450 210.144 660.144048 105.072 555.07202
540 265.586 805.586244 132.793 672.79312
3' 1
1'=
3+1u
'=(1
3)/2
(1'+3')/2
42.00 199.190 241.190 99.5948 141.59484
48 210.144 258.144 105.072 153.07202
78.00 265.586 343.586 132.793 210.79312
From Mohr's Circle Plot
Total shear parameter
Effective shear parameter
c, Kpa
, deg. c', Kpa ', deg.
63 14.93 40 27.02
From strain vs. Normalized pressure curve
Modulus of Elasticiy (E), kpa
E
1
E
2
E
3
7894 8421
17727
14 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
Results obtained from the consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial test are as Followings:
1. The Total shear strength parameters i.e. cohesion c and angle of internal friction of
soil are 63 Kpa and 14.93 degrees respectively.
2. The Effective shear strength parameters i.e. cohesion c and angle of internal friction
of soil are 40 Kpa and 27.02 degrees respectively.
3. From the stress-strain curve, the modules of elasticity for all three cell pressure are
calculated which are 7894, 8421 and 17727 kpa for cell pressure 50, 100 and 150 kpa
respectively.
4. Membrane correction for each test using strain at the failure
1
stress and an average
membrane thickness of 0.15 mm are checked and it is seen that the correction value is
very much small than
1
, so membrane correction is ignored.
INFERENCE:
Total and effective Shear strength parameters are the principal engineering property which
controls the stability of a soil mass under loads. The shear strength parameters are used to find
out bearing capacity of soils, the slope stability problems, the earth pressure against retaining
structures and other many problems. More or less all the soil engineering problems are related
with the shear strength of soil. Also, the elastic parameters are used to calculated settlement
problem.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha
INDIANINSTITUTEOFSCIENCE(IISc)
DEPARTMENTOFCIVILENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
BANGALORE,INDIA
LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF
SOIL
Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
10
th
December, 2012
instantaneous. This can be explained by the fact that for dry and partially saturated soils the pore
fluid has almost no viscosity or flow resistance. Similarly, if the soil is coarse-grained the
coefficient of permeability k is large and the pore water can be quickly flow out. A consolidation
test is not required in these cases.
When the load is applied to a fine-grained soil that is either nearly or completely saturated the
time for all the plastic deformation and void ratio reduction to take place is much longer. The
length of time for this process to take place will depend on several factors, of which the primary
ones are
a) Degree of saturation
b) Coefficient of permeability of soil
c) Viscosity and compressibility of the pore fluid
d) Length of path the expelled pore fluid must take to find equilibrium.
Hence, consolidation may be defined ad that plastic deformation with void ratio reduction
(generally termed as settlement H) which is a function of time and excess pore water pressure,
or
H = f (t)
One dimensional consolidation is that, with a metal ring confining the sample no lateral soil or
water movement takes place all water flow and soil movement are in the vertical direction.
The main purpose of consolidation test is to obtain soil data which are used in predicting the rate
and the amount of settlement of structure. The two most important soil properties furnished by a
consolidation test are the coefficient of compressibility (a
v
), through which one can determine
the magnitude of compression and the coefficient of consolidation (C
v
) which enables the
determination of the rate of compression under a load increment. It also gives the useful
information about stress history of the soil. It is used to predict the settlements of structures in
the field.
PROCEDURE:
1. Weight the empty consolidation ring (W
1
)
2. Measure the dimension of the consolidation ring i.e. inside diameter and height and
calculate volume of ring.
3. Calculate the weight of soil sample according to OMC and Dry density and take soil
passing through IS sieving 425 micron.
3 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil
4. Reduce the wall friction inside consolidation ring; oiling is done by Teflon or silicon oil.
Keep the consolidation ring in metal plate; fill the sample in consolidation by pressing
with circular disc by hand. Compact the sample in static compaction device and measure
initial height (Ho) and weight of soil sample with ring (W
2
).
5. Assemble the consolidometer: Place the bottom porous stone, bottom filter paper,
specimen, top filter paper and the top porous stone, one by one.
6. Position the loading block centrally on the top porous stone. Mount the mould assembly
on the loading frame. Centre it such that the load applied is axial in the lever-loading
system.
7. Set the dial gauge in the position. Allow sufficient margin for the swelling of the soil.
8. Connect the mould assembly to the water reservoir having the water level at about the
same level as the soil specimen. Allow the water flow into the specimen till it is fully
saturated.
9. Take the initial reading of the dial gauge.
10. Apply an initial setting load to give a pressure of 0.05 kg/cm
2
to the assembly so that
there is no swelling and allow the setting load to stand till there is no change in the dial
gauge reading or for 24 hours. Take the final gauge reading under the initial setting load.
11. Normal sequence of pressure to be applied is 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0 and 16.0 kg
/cm
2
and take the dial gauge reading after application of each load at a time sequence of
0.25, 1.0, 2.25, 4.0, 6.25, 12.25, 16, 20, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, 144, 169, 196, 225,
289, 324, 361, 400, and finally 1440 minutes.
12. After the last load increment had been applied and the reading taken, decrease the load to
of the last load and allow it stand for 24 hours. Take the dial gauge reading after 24
hours. Further reduce the load to of the previous load and repeat the above procedure,
likewise further reduce the load to of the previous and repeat the procedure. Finally
reduce the load to the initial setting load and keep out for 24 hours and take the final dial
gauge reading.
13. Dismantle the assembly. Take out the ring with the specimen. Wipe out the excess
surface water using bloating paper and remove the filter paper both side the specimen.
14. Take weight of the ring with specimen (W
3
).
15. Dry the specimen in oven for 24 hours and determine the dry weight of the specimen.
16. Determine the specific gravity of soil from the dried specimen (W
4
).
Computations part:
1. Determination of coefficient of consolidation (C
v
): plot the dial gauge versus square root
of t or versus log of time for each load increment and draw smooth curve joining the
points. From using the square root of time plot, find time required to consolidate 90% and
using the log of time plot, find the time required to consolidate 50%. Then
4 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil
3. Compression index, C
c
:
Plot the void ratio, e versus logp. The slope of the straight line proportion that is for the
soil in the normally consolidated state in designed C
c
. this can be directly obtained from
the plot or calculated as:
1 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil
Applied
pressure
KPa
Final
Dial
Reading
Comp.
H,
mm
Specimen
Ht., mm
e=(H/H
S
)-1 e p
a
v
=e/p,
m
2
/KN
t
90
,
min
Averg.
t
90
,min
H
av
, cm
C
v
,
cm
2
/min
Cc
6.25 1684 0.068 13.568 0.231 0.000 6.25 0
18 12.4063 3.63 0.13
12.5 1684 0 13.568 0.231 0.000 6.25 0
25 1674 0.02 13.548 0.229 0.002 12.5 0.0145 14
50 1196 0.956 12.592 0.142 0.087 25 0.3468 16
100 907 0.578 12.014 0.090 0.052 50 0.1048 18
200 718 0.378 11.636 0.055 0.034 100 0.0343 17
400 544 0.348 11.288 0.024 0.032 200 0.0158 18
800 418 0.252 11.036 0.001 0.023 400 0.0057 25
5 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil
1 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil