DEPARTMENT OF

CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

LABORATORY REPORT COVER

Lab Report Two

CEGR 3258
Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Submitted By:
Sara Keranakis

Date Performed:
April 10, 2015

I, Sara Keranakis, have committed no violations of the UNC Charlotte Code of Student Academic Integrity in preparing and submitting
this report.
Signature: Sara Keranakis

Date: April 10, 2015

Executive Summary

This lab had to do with determining soil properties. The different soil properties where
found in several different ways throughout the lab times. Three tests were conducted on different
types of soils. The tests were done to determine engineering properties of soils that are vital to
building safety. The three labs were hydrometer analysis, consolidation testing, and compaction
testing.
The hydrometer test was done to find the particle grain distribution for soil too fine to be
determined by the sieve analysis. The soil was put through a test and the data found was plotted
to find the distribution curve. The soil that was tested had majority of its particles in the size
range of 0.03 mm. 48.4% of the particle fell in this range. This made the conclusion that the fine
soil was not well graded.
The consolidation testing took eleven days to collect all of the data. The data from the
different days had a different load rate for each day. This allowed a range of data to be calculated
against its self to find the slope of consolidation. Both the virgin curve and the recompression
curve were found in this lab. The virgin curve had a slope of 3.57 106 while the
recompression curve had the value of 2.28 106 .
The final test was the compaction test. This test was done to find the optimum levels of
soil. The test results allowed for the optimum moisture content and for the maximum dry weight
to be calculated. The optimum moisture content was 22%. This amount of moisture content

resulted in a maximum dry weight of 11,900

KN
.
m3

The labs that were done in this report gave information that engineers can use in ensuring
that the soil is safe enough to be able to be built on.

Table of Content

Title Page......................................................................................................................................i
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................iii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Procedures....................................................................................................................................3
i. Hydrometer Analysis..................................................................................................................3
ii. Consolidation Test......................................................................................................................3
iii. Compaction................................................................................................................................4
Results..........................................................................................................................................5
i. Hydrometer Analysis..................................................................................................................5
ii. Consolidation Test......................................................................................................................6
iii. Compaction................................................................................................................................7
Conclusions..................................................................................................................................8
i. Hydrometer Analysis..................................................................................................................8
ii. Consolidation Test......................................................................................................................8
iii. Compaction................................................................................................................................9
Reference..10

Appendix......................................................................................................................................
11

Introduction
This lab report will go over three different types of labs done. These three labs
were done in a controlled environment under the supervision of a lab instructor. Each of the labs
tested different properties of soil. Most of the soil was either clay like soil of a fine-grained
sandy soil. The soils were provided by the instructor along with the appropriate materials needs
to conduct the labs. The three labs done were hydrometer analysis, consolidation, and
compaction.
The hydrometer test was the first test conducted in the series of labs. This testing
was done according to ASTM-D422. This test was done to determine the distribution of particle
sizes in the soil. The particles that are too fine to be determined by the sieve analysis are
analyzed by the hydrometer test. These particles are larger than 74 m and retained on sieve 200
are used in this testing. This test gives engineers a better understand of the particle grain
distribution of the fine grains that cannot be determined by the sieve analysis.
The consolidation testing was the next series of test that were done in the lab. This
experiment was done according to ASTM-D2435. The test where done over a period of two
weeks. This gave the lab eleven days of data to compare for the compaction results. The result
analyzed the rate of compaction due to different loading pressures. The samples where doubly
drained and allowed water to escape from both ends of the sample. Consolidation involves the
transfer of stress from the pore water to the soil solids. The test are use to estimate the magnitude
of settlement of the soil before a structure is placed on top of it. This is important to engineers so
they can safety design around the load capacity of the ground surface.
The final test done in the lab was the compaction test. This lab used ASTM-D698
as its guidelines. The test compared the moisture content of the soil to the unit dry weight of its
self. This allowed for the relationship between the two to be shown and calculate the values for

maximum dry weight and optimum moisture content. This test is done to find the percent
compaction and moisture content needed in the fill material that may be used on site. This give
engineers the optimum conditions for fill material. This testing had two parts. One part was
finding the moisture content while the other was finding the units dry weight of the soil.

Procedures

The follow lab procedures all called for different soil samples that were collected and
supplied for the lab as a whole. Different groups did some of the tests and the data was combined
to compare results. Here are the methods that were used throughout the lab.

Hydrometer Analysis: (ASTM D422)

Materials- 50 grams of soil, stirring apparatus, hydrometer 151H, sedimentation cylinder,
thermometer, and constant-temperature room
1.
2.
3.
4.

Weigh out 50 grams of soil

Place sample in 250-ml beaker and cover with 125 ml of sodium hexametaphosphate
Stir until all soil is thoroughly wetted then disperse the sample using stirring apparatus
Transfer soil-water sample into glass sedimentation cylinder and add 1,000 ml of distilled

water
5. Invert cylinder and take hydrometer readings at the end of 2, 5,15, 30, 60 and 120 minutes.
6. To take hydrometer readings insert hydrometer about 20 to 25 seconds before reading is due
to approximately the depth it will have when the reading is taken

Consolidation Test: (ASTM D2435)

Materials- Load device, consolidometer, porous disks, deformation indicator, recess spacer
plate, balance, drying oven and miscellaneous equipment
1. Place consolidometer in the loading device and apply a seating load that results in a total
axial stress of about 5 kPa
2. Record initial deformation reading
3. Record deformation at time intervals 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30 mins and 1, 2, 4, 8 and
24 hours

Compaction: (ASTM D698)

Materials- - Mold assembly, rammer, sample extruder, balance, drying oven, and mixing tools
1. Mix different amounts of water with soil sample to obtain different amounts of moisture
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

content
Record mass of mold then connect the mold to the base plate
Compact soil in three layers even layers applying 25 blows with the manual rammer
Remove any excess soil with a scraper and record the mass of the mold
Take small sample of soil and place in a can with know weight
Place can and soil in oven and allow to dry
Record final mass and calculate moisture content

Results
The results below include the data that was collected from the lab and all of the
calculations used to find the ending values.

Hydrometer Analysis: (ASTM D422)

HydrometerAnalysis
60.00
50.00
%passing

40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
-10.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.04

GrainSize(mm)

Figure One: Hydrometer Analysis for Grain Distribution

Table One: Hydrometer Analysis Data
Actual
Elapsed
Composite Corrected Temp Effective
Readin
Time(min)
Correction Reading
[C]
Depth, L
g
2
1.016
0.001
1.015
21
12.10
5
1.006
0.001
1.005
21
14.70
15
1.001
0.001
1.000
21
16.00
30
1.000
0.001
0.999
21
16.30
60
1.000
0.001
0.999
21
16.30
120
1.000
0.001
0.999
21
16.30

k Value D (mm)
0.01336
0.01336
0.01336
0.01336
0.01336
0.01336

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00

Percent
Passing
48.40
16.13
0.00
-3.23
-3.23
-3.23

Consolidation Test: (ASTM D2435)

Consolida onCurve
1.1000
1.0900
1.0800
1.0700
1.0600
1.0500
1.0400
1.0300
1.0200
1.0100
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

P(psf)

Figure Two: Consolidation Curve

Table Two: Consolidation Data
Load (tsf) cv (in2/min.)
e
e
seating
1.077
2/3
0.0037
-0.0080
1.0690
4/3
0.0036
-0.0452
1.0318
8/3
0.0034
-0.0372
1.0398
16/3
0.0065
-0.0612
1.0158
8/3
0.0006
0.0011
1.0781
2/3
0.0026
0.0168
1.0938
8/3
0.0256
-0.0266
1.0504
16/3
0.0083
-0.0293
1.0477
32/3
0.0078
-0.0559
1.0211
16/3
0.0021
0.0013
1.0783
4/3
0.0040
0.0186
1.0956

Figures Three through Thirteen in Appendix

P(psf)
666.67
1333.33
2666.67
5333.33
10666.67
5333.33
1333.33
5333.33
10666.67
21333.33
10666.67
2666.67

Compaction: (ASTM D698)

Table Three: Compaction Data

Massmold
Trial No
(kg)
1
2
3
4
5

3.946
4.400
3.918
3.927
3.940

CompactionProcessData
Massmold+
Mass
pwet
Compacted
soil (kg) (kg/m3)
Soil (kg)
4.792
0.846
895.973
5.548
1.148 1216.243
5.264
1.346 1426.014
5.190
1.263 1338.292
5.171
1.231 1304.389

Unitweight
UnitWeight
wet
Dry(KN/m3)
(KN/m3)
8789.496
7776.36
11931.348
10128.06
13989.194
11514.78
13128.640
10411.36
12796.059
9803.58

Table Four: Moisture Content Data

MositureContentData

Can# Canmass(gr)
74
12
16
28
76

13.58
13.95
13.89
14
13.76

Canmass+ Canmass+
wetsoil (gr) drysoil (gr)
26.68
28.44
28.25
36.37
34.67

25.17
26.25
25.71
31.74
29.78

W%
13.03
17.80
21.49
26.10
30.52

Compac onData
DryUnit Weight(kn/m3)

14000.00
12000.00
10000.00
8000.00
6000.00
4000.00
2000.00
0.00
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

MoistureContent (%)

Figure Fourteen: Compaction Data Curve

30.00

35.00

Conclusion and Analysis

The following section explains what the results that were calculated in the lab mean. This
section will discuss the data and describe what the data represents.

Hydrometer Analysis: (ASTM D422)

The hydrometer test allowed for the particle grain distribution to be found even though
the particles were smaller than the 200 sieve. The hydrometer showed that 48.40 percent of the
particles tested where 0.03 mm in size. With this number so close to half we can assume that this
is not a well graded fine soil. The soil had most of its size in the range of 0.03 mm to 0.02 mm.
These percent passing shown in table one do not completely add up to 100 therefore some error
had taken place in the collection of data and or the calculating of the values. Equations one, two
and three in the appendix show sample calculation on how the value of k, percent passing and
particle size (d) where found.

Consolidation Test: (ASTM D2435)

The raw data from figures three through thirteen where use to plot figure two. From
figure two equations four and five in the appendix where used to find the slope of the virgin
curve and the recompression curve. The slope of the virgin curve ( C c ) was found to be
6

3.57 10

. The slope of the recompression curve ( Cr ) was found to be 2.28 106 .

Many calculations where used to find these values. Equations six and seven show a sample
calculation of how C v and e where found.

Compaction: (ASTM D698)

The compaction data found in tables three and four where plotted against each other. The
data created the compaction data curve. The curve gave the maximum dry weight and the
optimum moisture content. The trial numbers match directly to the can number respectively. The
varying moisture contents allowed for a curve with a peak value. The figure showed that the

maximum dry weight in around 11,900

KN
3
m

and a optimum moisture content of 22 percent. A

sample calculation for moisture content is located in the appendix as equation eight.

References

ASTMD422(2007).StandardTestMethodforParticleSizeAnalysisofSoils.AmericanSocietyfor
TestingandMaterials,WestConshocken,PA

ASTMD698(2012).StandardTestMethodforLaboratoryCompactionCharacteristicofSoilUsing
StandardEffort.AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials,WestConshocken,PA

ASTMD2435(2010).StandardTestMethodforOneDimensionalConsolidationPropertiesofSoils
UsingIncrementalLoading.AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials,WestConshocken,
PA

Appendix

2.652.63
0.01328k
=
k=0.0133
2.652.70 0.013480.01328

Equation one:

100,00
G
(
M )
P=
( RG )

Equation Two:

GG1

Equation Three:

D=k

Equation Four:

C c=

rise
1.07811.021
6
=
=3.57 10
run 5,333.3321,333.33

L
T

Cr =

Equation Five:

T 50

Equation Six:

Equation Seven:

rise
1.0691.0477
6
=
=2.28 10
run 1,333.3310,666.66

C v=

e=e 0ei

H
N

( )

t 50