Laboratory Report in Geotechnical Engineering I

COMPILATION OF LABORATORY REPORTS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I
CE 131N
___________________________
Presented to
Engr. Joel G. Opon
Faculty, Civil Engineering Department
MSU Iligan Institute of Technology
Iligan City
___________________________
NICOLE ALEXIS K. VIOS

BSCE IV
MARCH 24, 2015
P a g e 1 | 88
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Cover page
Table of Contents
Laboratory Report #1
Introduction
Apparatuses
Summary of Test Method
Data Presentation and Analysis
Conclusion and Observations
Photo Documentations
Introduction
Apparatuses
Introduction
Apparatuses
Introduction
Apparatuses
Introduction
Apparatuses
Introduction
Apparatuses
1
2
4
5
6
6
9
10
11
11
13
14
16
17
19
20
21
22
25
27
28
29
31
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
43
43
47
48
P a g e 2 | 88
Introduction
Apparatuses
Introduction
Apparatuses
Introduction
Apparatuses
Introduction
Apparatuses
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
49
50
52
53
57
59
60
60
62
63
66
67
69
69
73
74
75
76
77
77
81
81
83
84
85
86
87
P a g e 3 | 88
Laboratory Report No. 1

Measurement of Moisture Content
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D2216
Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios
Date Performed: November 12, 2014
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
Soil is one of the three (3) major natural resources, alongside air and water. In
the main, it is a naturally occurring material. Just like other construction materials, soils
has its own scientific analysis with regards to its abilities on dealing with forces. Being
the oldest construction and probably engineering material, soil is one of the most
complex fields in civil engineering to the point that when it comes to the factor of safety
in design, whatever has direct contact with soils requires a significantly higher safety
factor compared with other construction materials.
Water content or moisture content is the quantity of water contained in a
material, such as soil (called soil moisture). It is primarily used for performing weightvolume calculations in soil. It is also a measure of the shrink-swell and strength
characteristics of cohesive soils as demonstrated in liquid limit and plastic limit testing.
For many materials, the water content is one of the most significant index properties
used in establishing a correlation between soil behaviour and its index properties. The
water content of a material is used in expressing the phase relationships of air, water
and solids in a given volume of material. It is the ratio expressed as a percent of the
mass of pore or free water in a given mass of materials to the mass of the solid
material. A standard temperature of 1105 is used to determine these masses.
This test method covers procedures for determining the water (moisture) content
of soils by incrementally drying soil in an oven.
P a g e 4 | 88
II. Apparatuses
a. Bucket with cover a container used to securely store the soil samples gathered
from a certain location. This soil will be used all throughout the laboratory activities
of this course.
b. Pan a container made of metal used to hold the soil samples during the laboratory
activity.
c. Trowel a small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade where in this laboratory
activity was used to transfer the soil samples from the bucket to the pan.
d. Digital Weighing Scale a measuring device used to determine the different

weights that will be needed in the determination of the moisture content of the soil.
P a g e 5 | 88
e. Tongs an instrument with two (2) movable arms that are joined at one end used
to pick up the pan containing the soil samples in the laboratory oven.
f. Laboratory Oven a device used to heat the soil samples at 1105 to be able to
identify its moisture content.
III. Summary of the Test Method

A suitable amount of soil samples were gathered from a certain location and
stored in a bucket with cover for secure storage. Three (3) pans for three (3) sets of soil
samples were prepared and weighed individually in the digital weighing scale. Using
the trowel, a small amount of soil samples were placed in the pan and were weighed
again. The pan containing the soil samples were transferred to the laboratory oven with
a temperature of 105 by the means of the tongs. Time intervals specified by the
professor were observed. Every after these intervals, the pans were taken out from the
laboratory oven and were cooled down for about five (5) minutes and weighed again.
The same process was performed until a constant weight of the pan with the soil
samples were obtained. Necessary calculations were performed to determine the soil
moisture content of the soil samples.
IV. Data Presentation and Analysis

Location of the Soil Samples gathered: Near Petron Gasoline Station Tambo, Brgy.
Hinaplanon, Iligan City
P a g e 6 | 88
Table 1.1 Weight of the pans every after oven drying in certain time intervals.
Time Started Time Ended Pan Number Wt of Pan + Over Dried Soil (g)
9:08 AM
12:00 PM
1
72.30
2
68.10
3
77.20
12:07 PM
2:00 PM
1
69.60
2
66.30
3
73.70
2:08 PM
3:00 PM
1
69.40
2
66.00
3
73.00
3:07 PM
4:00 PM
1
69.30
2
66.00
3
72.80
4:10 PM
5:00 PM
1
69.20
2
66.00
3
72.70
Table 1.2 Continuation of the recorded weight of the pans after oven drying.
Time Started Time Ended Pan Number Wt of Pan + Over Dried Soil (g)
1
69.80
2
66.70
3
73.40
9:33 AM
10:33 PM
1
69.60
2
66.40
3
73.10
10:39 AM
2:00 PM
1
68.70
2
65.80
3
72.20
2:08 PM
3:00 PM
1
68.70
2
65.80
3
72.20
Tables 1.1 and 1.2 shows the data of the recorded weights of the soil samples
after they are oven dried but are cooled down for about five (5) minutes before weighing
again from time to time.
The calculations used to obtain necessary values in the succeeding table in
determining the moisture content are shown below.
P a g e 7 | 88
Formulas Used and Calculations:

Weight of Water=(Wt of Pan + Wet Soil) -(Wt of Pan +Oven Dried Soil)
Weight of WaterPan Number 1 =83.6g-68.7g=14.90g
Weight of WaterPan Number 2 =79.3g-65.8g=13.50g
Weight of WaterPan Number3 =88.5g-72.2g=16.30g
Weight of Soil=(Wt of Pan +Oven Dried Soil)-(Wt of Pan)
Weight of SoilPan Number 1 =68.7g-31.00g=37.70g
Moisture Content ()=
Wt of Water
100%
Wt of Soil
1 =
14.90g
100%=39.52%
37.70g
2 =
13.50g
100%=38.90%
34.70g
1 =
16.30g
100%=39.47%
41.30g
Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content of (Pan #1+Pan #2+Pan #3)]/3

=
39.52%+38.90%+39.47%
3
=39.90%
Table 1.3 Determination of the Moisture Content of Soil.

Pan
Wt of Wt of Pan + Wt of Pan +
Wt of
Number Pan (g) Wet Soil (g) Over Dried Water (g)
Soil (g)
1
31.00
83.6
68.7
14.90
2
31.10
79.3
65.8
13.50
3
30.90
88.5
72.2
16.30
Wt of
Soil (g)
37.70
34.70
41.30
Average
Moisture
Content
(%)
39.52
38.90
39.47
39.30
The table illustrated above is the tabulated data of the weight of the three (3)
pans, the weight of the pans with wet soil, the weight of the pans with oven dried soil
and the computed moisture content. As you can observe in the calculations shown with
P a g e 8 | 88
reference to tables 1.1 and 1.2, the weight of pan and oven dried soil used is the weight
when it is already constant. This is because when the weight is already constant, it can
be assumed that there are no more water particles present in the soil.
V. Conclusions and Observations

i.
From the results obtained in this laboratory activity, the moisture content of the
soil taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City is
39.30%.
ii. The loss of mass of the soil sample due to drying is considered to be water as
can be seen in the calculations.
iii. It can be observed from the laboratory activity that the soil samples gained
certain amount of moisture when it was placed aside before continuing the oven
drying process in the laboratory oven. A proof of this was the increase in weight
of the soil samples as it is weighed again as shown in Table 1.2 during the
continuation of the oven drying process.
iv. The knowledge of the soil moisture content is essential in all studies of soil
mechanics. It is used in determining the bearing capacity and settlement of the
soil that will give an idea of the state of the soil in the field.
P a g e 9 | 88
VI. Photo Documentations
Fig 1. The pans and the trowel used in the

laboratory activity.
Fig 2. Weighing of the empty pans in the

digital weighing scale.
Fig 3. Filling a small amount of soil

samples in the pans.
Fig 4. Placing the pans containing the soil

samples in the laboratory oven
P a g e 10 | 88

Measurement of Specific Gravity of Soil Soilds
Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils
ASTM D854
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
Specific Gravity ( ) is the ratio of the density of a substance compared to the
density of fresh water at 4 (39). Since it is a ratio, it has no units. An object with
specific gravity of less than one (1) will float and those with specific gravity of greater
than one (1) will sink.
In soils, specific gravity refers to the mass of solid matter of a given soil sample
as compared to an equal volume of water. The specific gravity of soil solids is used in
calculating the phase relationships of soils, such as void ratio and degree of saturation.
It is also used in calculating the density of the soil solids; this is done by multiplying its
specific gravity by the density of water (at proper temperature).
This test method covers the determination of the specific gravity of soil solids
which is an important weight-volume property that is helpful in classifying soils and in
finding other weight-volume properties.
II. Apparatuses
a. Digital Weighing Scale a measuring device used to determine the different
weights that are necessary in determining the specific gravity of the soil sample.
P a g e 11 | 88
b. Trowel a small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade where in this laboratory
c. Pan a container made of metal used to hold the soil samples during the laboratory
activity as it is placed in the laboratory oven.
g. Laboratory Oven a device used to dry the soil samples.
d. Mortar and Pestle used to crush the oven dried soil samples into finer textures for
the laboratory activity.
P a g e 12 | 88
e. Funnel used to transfer the distilled water and the crushed soil sample to the etched
flask.
f. Etched Flask a type of flask having spherical bottom with an etched mark used to
agitate the mixed water and soil sample to determine the specific gravity.
g. Thermometer used to measure the temperature of the distilled water to be able to

identify the correction factor, K.

A certain amount of soil sample was prepared and was oven dried for about six
(6) hours. Then a 60g amount of soil sample was crushed using the mortar and pestle,
this mass is denoted as Mo. The flask was then filled with distilled water to the etched
mark using the funnel and weighed, this mass is denoted as Ma. The 60g crushed soil
sample was then transferred to the flask with distilled water using the funnel still. It was
then weighed and denoted as Mb. Due to the unavailability of vacuum in the laboratory,
the mixture of distilled water and crushed soil in the flask was then agitated by a back
and forth rolling motion and letting it settle to eliminate the bubbles of air inside. This
procedure lasted for about thirty (30) minutes. At this moment, the water temperature
was determined to identify the correction factor, K, to be used. Necessary calculations
were made to identify the specific gravity.
P a g e 13 | 88

Weight of Pan: 52.1g
Weight of Soil: 121.3g
Time placed inside the oven: 8:03AM
Time taken out from the oven: 2:08PM
Weight of Pan (g)+Soil (g)=52.1g+121.3g=173.4g
A pan weighing 52.1g was filled with a 121.3g of soil, the total mass by adding
these two (2) is then 173.4g. From 8:03AM up to 2:08PM, the soil sample was oven
dried to a heat temperature of 105.
For agitating the distilled water + crushed oven dried soil:

Time Started: 2:45PM
Time Ended: 3:15PM
The mixture of the distilled water and crushed soil sample created air bubbles
inside, thus, there is a need to agitate the flask to eliminate these air bubbles because it
will add a weight that may cause errors in the results. Due to the unavailability of
vacuum to eliminate these air bubbles, a manual agitation was performed for about
thirty (30) minutes.
Table 2.1 shows the tabulated data of the necessary weights to be used in
determining the specific gravity of the soil sample, it is shown below.
Table 2.1 Tabulated data of the different weights to be used in determining the specific
gravity of the soil sample.
Weight of Crushed Oven Dried Soil (Mo)
Weight of Pan + Crushed Oven Dried Soil
Weight of Flask + Distilled Water (Ma)
Weight of Flask + Distilled Water + Crushed Oven Dried Soil (M b)
60.0g
112.1g
648.6g
685.4g
For checking the water temperature:

Time Started: 2:49PM
Time Ended: 3:00PM
Temperature Obtained: 23
P a g e 14 | 88
Table 2.2 Temperature Correction Factor, K.
Source: Soil Mechanics Lab Manual, Michael E. Kalinski

Since the obtained water temperature is 23, and in reference to table 2.2 which
shows the temperature correction factor to be used, using the obtained temperature, the
correction factor, K, is equivalent to 0.9993.
Formulas used and Calculations:

Gs =
=
Mo
Mo +(Ma -Mb )
60g
60g+(648.6g-685.4g)
=
60g
60g+(-36.4g)
=
60g
23.2g
Gs =2.59
Water temperature: 23
K = 0.9993
Gs2o =Gs K
=2.590.9993
Gs2o =2.59
P a g e 15 | 88

i.
From the results obtained in this laboratory activity, the specific gravity of the
soil sample taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City
and applying the necessary corrections is 2.59.
ii.
There is a need to de-air the soil mixture to ensure that there are no air bubbles
in the mixture that may cause an additional weight in the mixture thus obtaining
inaccurate results.
iii.
Inadequate de-airing of the soil mixture might be one of most likely causes of
error in measuring the specific gravity which leads to and underestimate for .
iv.
The specific gravity of soil solids is an important parameter and is a factor in

many equations involving weight-volume relationships.
P a g e 16 | 88

Fig 1. The soil sample right after drying it in the oven.
Fig 2. Crushing the oven dried soil sample into finer

texture using the mortar and pestle.
Fig 3. Filling the etched flask with the crushed soil

sample.
P a g e 17 | 88
Fig 4. Determining the room temperature using the

thermometer.
P a g e 18 | 88

Analysis of Grain Size Distribution
Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
ASTM D422
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
Particle-size distribution, also known as gradation, refers to the proportions by
dry mass of a soil distributed over specified particle-size ranges. It is used to classify
soils for engineering and agricultural purposes, since particle size influences how fast
or slow water or other fluid moves through a soil.
Soil consists of an assembly of ultimate soil particles (discrete particles) of
various shapes and sizes. The objective of a particle-size analysis is to group these
particles into separate ranges of sizes and so determine the relative proportion by weight
of each size range.
The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of
soil. Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution and it is required in
classifying the soil.
This test method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of
particle size in soils. The distribution of particle sizes larger than seventy five (75)
micrometres (retained on the No. 200 sieve) is determined by sieving, while the
distribution of particle sizes smaller than 75 micrometres is determined by a
sedimentation process using a hydrometer.
This laboratory activity used the sieving method in the determination of the
particle-size of soils. The information gathered in this laboratory activity is used to
classify the soil in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
P a g e 19 | 88
II. Apparatuses
weights that will be recorded and needed in the calculations.
b. Trowel a small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade where in this laboratory
d. Laboratory Oven a device used to dry the soil samples to harden it.
P a g e 20 | 88
e. Mortar and Pestle used to crush the oven dried soil samples into finer textures and
smaller particles.
f. Sieve a device used to filter the soil samples for characterizing the particle-size
distribution of the soil.

A 750g of soil sample was placed in a pan and was oven dried and sun dried
alternatively every after two (2) hours due to the reason that only two (2) pans can fit
in in the laboratory oven. Every after two (2) hours, the soil sample is slowly crushed
into finer texture and smaller particles by the use of mortar and pestle, in this case, a
modified one due to the unavailability of the apparatus.
After crushing the soil sample, it was weighed again. The different sieves with
different diameters were prepared and below it was the pan. Each sieve and the pan was
weighed before putting the crushed soil sample in the largest diameter sieve (top of the
sieve stack) and it was manually shaken for about 10 minutes. After this process, each
sieve was weighed to determine the amount of soil sample retained in each sieve.
Necessary formulas were used and calculations were made.
P a g e 21 | 88

Table 3.1 Different Weights Recorded.
Weight of Pan
Weight of Soil Sample
Weight of Pan + Soil Sample
Weight of Pan + Crushed Soil Sample
Weight of Crushed Soil Sample
108.8g
750.0g
858.8g
708.4g
599.66
The data shown in table 3.1 above are the recorded weights that are necessary
in the analysis of the grain size distribution of the soil sample. As you can observe,
there is a great difference between the initial weight of the soil sample and its weight
after it is crushed. This discrepancy is due to the reason that during the crushing process,
some of the soil samples fell off the floor. The calculations used to obtain these results
are shown below.
Weight of Pan + Soil Sample = Weight of Pan + Weight of Soil Sample
= 108.8g+750g
= 858.8g
Weight of Crushed Soil Sample=Weight of Pan + Crushed Soil Sample-Weight of Pan
= 708.4g-108.8g
= 599.6g
Table 3.1 Percent Finer in every Sieve.
Sieve
Grain Size, Mass of Soil
Number D (mm)
Retained (g)
4
4.75
3.4
10
2.00
74
12
1.70
29.3
16
1.18
82.2
20
0.85
65.7
30
0.60
56.1
60
0.25
109.4
100
0.15
64.1
200
0.075
25.6
Pan
--89.8
Total Mass
599.6
Mass of Soil
Passed (g)
596.2
522.2
492.9
410.7
345
288.9
179.5
115.4
89.8
0
Percent Finer
(%)
99.43
87.09
82.20
68.50
57.54
48.18
29.94
19.25
14.98
0.00
P a g e 22 | 88
Table 3.1 above shows the percent finer in every sieve, this is the percentage of
the weight of the soil sample that pass a certain sieve number. The calculations used to
obtain these results are shown below.

Mass of Soil Passed (g) = Total Mass (g) - Mass of Soil Retained (g)
Mass of Soil PassedSieve #4 = 599.6-3.4 = 596.2g
Mass of Soil PassedSieve #10 = 596.2-74 = 522.2g
Mass of Soil PassedSieve #20 = 410.7-65.7 = 345g
Mass of Soil PassedSieve #30 = 345-56.1 = 288.9g
Mass of Soil PassedPan = 89.8-89.8 = 0g
Percent Finer (%) = [Mass of Soil Passed (g)Total Mass (g)]100
Percent FinerSieve #4 =
596.2
100 = 99.43%
599.6
522.2
100 = 87.09%
599.6
492.9
100 = 82.20%
599.6
410.7
100 = 68.50%
599.6
345
100 = 57.54%
599.6
288.9
100 = 48.18%
599.6
179.5
100 = 29.94%
599.6
115.4
100 = 19.25%
599.6
89.8
100 = 14.98%
599.6
P a g e 23 | 88
Graph 3.1 Particle-Size Distribution Curve of the Soil.
Particle-Size Distribution Curve

100.00
Percent Passing (%)
90.00
80.00
70.00
D75 = 1.12
D60= 0.93
60.00
50.00
40.00
D30=0.16
30.00
D25=0.1
20.00
D15 = D10 = 0.075
10.00
0.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
Grain size, d (mm)
The figure above shows the semi-logarithmic graphed form of Table 3.1, this is
also known as the gradation curve having the grain size, d (mm) as the abscissa and the
percent passing (%) as the ordinate. The diameters corresponding to 60%, 30% and
10% finer are necessary to obtain the coefficients to be used in classifying the soil. By
locating these percent finer in the ordinate and connecting it to the curve produced then
projecting it in the abscissa we obtained the values as shown in the graph. As you can
observe the grain size diameter used in determining D10 is the same with that of D15,
this is because the particle size distribution curve ends with 14.98% finer.
Uniformity Coefficient (Cu):

Cu =
=
D60
D10
0.93mm
0.075mm
Cu = 12.4
Coefficient of Gradation (Cc):
D230
Cc =
D60 D10
(0.16mm)2
=
0.93mm0.075mm
Cc = 0.37
P a g e 24 | 88
Sorting Coefficient (So):

So =
D75
D25
1.12mm
=
0.11mm
So = 3.19
Based on Table 3.2 as shown above and using the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS), the following is the result of the classification of the particle-size
distribution of the soil sample in reference to Graph 3.1 which is the gradation curve
and Table 3.1 which is the summary:
Gravel = 100 99.43 = 0.57%
Sand = 100 14.98 0.57 = 84.45%
Silt and Clay = 14.98%

i.
From the results obtained in this laboratory activity, the soil from Petron
Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City is 0.57% Gravel, 84.45% Sand
and 14.98% Silt and Clay based on the Unified Soils Classification System
(USCS).
ii.
The soil sample has a uniformity coefficient of 12.4 and a coefficient of

gradation of 0.37. These results can be used in classifying the soil sample.
P a g e 25 | 88
iii.
The test method no longer included the hydrometer analysis which is the
analysis of the soil samples that are less than 0.075mm due to the unavailability
of the hydrometer device.
iv.
In determining the diameter corresponding to 10% finer, the diameter in the

14.98% finer is used which is 0.075mm since the particle-size distribution curve
ends at this point.
v.
Careful manual shaking of the sieve stack should be observed because some soil
particles might spill and cause certain errors in the calculations. Thus, necessary
adjustments should be made.
vi.
The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of

soil. Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution and it is required in
classifying the soil.
vii.
Based on the gradation curve or the graph of the particle-size distribution curve,
it can be concluded that the soil is well graded based on the standards set by the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
P a g e 26 | 88
Fig 1. Crushing the oven dried soil sample

using the mortar and pestle.
Fig 2. Determining the weight of the

different sieves.
Fig 3. Putting the crushed oven dried soil

samples in the different sieve numbers to
start the sieve analysis.
Fig 4. Recording the data obtained in the

laboratory activity and doing the necessary
calculations.
P a g e 27 | 88

Atterberg Limits Test (Liquid Limit)
Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of
Soils
ASTM D4318
Date Performed: January 7, 2015
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
In the early 1900s, a Swedish scientist named Atterberg developed a method to
describe the consistency of fine-grained soils with varying moisture content. On an
arbitrary basis, depending on the moisture content, the behaviour of soil can be divided
into four basic states solid, semisolid, plastic and liquid.
The moisture content, in percent, where the transition from solid state to
semisolid state is called the shrinkage limit while that of the semisolid state to plastic
state is plastic limit and lastly, from plastic state to liquid state is the liquid limit. The
liquid limit and plastic limit tests provide information regarding the effect of moisture
content also known as water content on the mechanical properties of soil. Specifically,
the effects of water content on volume change and soil consistency are addressed.
This test method covers the determination of the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and
Plasticity Index of soils. This test method is used as an integral part of several
engineering classification systems to characterize the fine-grained fractions of soil and
to specify the fine-grained fraction of construction materials. This laboratory report
shows the Liquid Limit part of the test method.
P a g e 28 | 88
II. Apparatuses
a. No. 40 Sieve (0.425mm opening) use to separate the coarse-grained fraction and
fine-grained fraction of the soil before continuing to the rest of the process.
b. Digital Weighing Scale use to determine the different weights to be used in the
laboratory activity that will be necessary in determining the particle-size
distribution of the soil.
c. Laboratory Oven use to dry the soil samples.
d. Ceramic Soil Mixing Bowl a container used to hold in mixing the dried and sieved
soil samples and the distilled water.
P a g e 29 | 88
e. Frosting Knife used to mix the dried and sieved soil samples and the distilled
water; as well as used to get the portion of the soil that will be oven dried for
determining the moisture content.
f. Liquid Limit Device an instrument in determining the liquid limit of soil.
g. Grooving Tool a long, narrow cut or indentation in the surface use to groove a
portion of the soil sample put in the liquid limit device.
h. Three (3) Soil Moisture Containers a very small pan used as a container of the
soil samples in putting it in the laboratory oven to determine the moisture content.
P a g e 30 | 88

The oven dried soil samples that were crushed into smaller lumps were sieved
in the No. 40 Sieve with an opening size of 0.475mm. The soils that passed this sieve
number was used in determine the liquid limit.
The fraction of soil weighing approximately 80g that passed the No. 40 Sieve
was added an amount of distilled water until it has the consistency like that of a peanut
butter. The drop height of the cup of the liquid limit device was checked if it is 10mm,
if it was not so, necessary adjustments of the apparatus was made. A flat layer of the
mixed soil sample and distilled water was spread into the cup with the frosting knife.
The grooving tool was used to cut a grove in the soil. The crank of the liquid limit
device was turned at a certain uniform speed so that the groove will close over a length
of 12.7mm (0.5in). The number of cranks was recorded and a portion of the soil in the
cup was put in the soil moisture container and placed in the oven. This method was
repeated three (3) times where the number of cranks is between ten (10) and forty (40)
but before doing another trial, all the apparatuses used were cleaned first.

Table 4.1 Initial weights of the pans recorded.
Weight of Container
Weight of Soil that passed the No. 40 Sieve(0.475mm)
Liquid Limit:
Weight of Pan Number 1
115.1g
80.1g
9.0g
9.1g
8.9g
The weight listed in table 4.1 are the different initial weights of the containers
or the pans used during the laboratory activity. An approximately 80g of soil sample
were used during the entire activity.
Table 4.2 Determination of the Liquid Limit of the Soil Sample.
Trial No. of Weight Weight
Weight of
Weight Weight of Moisture
No.
Blows of Pan of Pan + Pan + Oven of Soil Water (g) Content
(g)
Wet Soil Dried Soil
(g)
(%)
(g)
(g)
1
38
9.0
15.3
13.2
4.2
2.1
50.0
2
25
9.1
18.7
15.1
6.0
3.6
60.0
3
19
8.9
19.9
15.8
6.9
4.1
59.42
Average
56.47
P a g e 31 | 88
In table 4.2, it shows the corresponding moisture contents of the three different
trials in determining the liquid limit of the soil sample. The liquid limit of the soil is the
moisture content corresponding to a number of twenty five (25) blows. The group
obtained the moisture content when the number of blows is twenty five (25) but this is
not an assurance that this is already the liquid limit of the soil. So to obtain the accurate
liquid limit of the soil, a graphical form of the data is presented and the moisture content
corresponding to twenty five (25) number of blows is then determined. The necessary
calculations to obtain the results in table 4.1 are shown below.

Weight of Soil (g)=[Weight of Pan+Oven Dried Soil (g)]-Weight of Pan (g)
Weight of SoilTrial Number 1 = 13.2g-9.0g = 4.2g
Weight of Water (g)=[Weight of Pan+Wet Soil (g)]-[Weight of Pan+Dried Soil (g)]
Weight of WaterTrial Number 1 = 15.3g-13.2g = 2.1g
Moisture Content () =
Wt of Water
100%
Wt of Soil
1 =
2.1g
100% = 50.0%
4.2 g
2 =
3.6g
100% = 60.0%
6.0g
1 =
4.1g
100% = 59.42%
6.9g

=
50.0%+60.0%+59.42%
3
= 56.47%
P a g e 32 | 88
Graph 4.1 Liquid Limit Graph of the Soil Sample.
Liquid Limit
Moisture Content (%)
65.0
60.0
LL = 57.73
55.0
50.0
y = -0.5398x + 71.227
45.0
40.0
15
20
25
30
35
40
Number Of Blows
To determine the corresponding moisture content of the twenty five (25) number
of blows using the regression lines equation, we have:
y=-0.5398x+71.227
=-0.5398(25)+71.227
y=LL=57.73

i.
The Liquid Limit of the soil sample taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy.
Hinaplanon, Iligan City is 57.73.
ii.
The results of the Atterberg Limits Test will be used in classifying the soil using
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) and to estimate the swell potential of the soil. Its objective is to obtain
the basic index information about the soil used to estimate strength and
settlement characteristics.
iii.
Careful and proper execution of the procedures of the different tests is necessary
in order to attain accurate and reliable results. This results determine the
properties and characteristics of a certain soil that will identify if the soil is
suitable for a given use i.e. highway subgrade material.
iv.
Different soils behave differently, thus, there is really a need to conduct such
tests so as not to fail in any aspect and thus have a mediocre output of a job
P a g e 33 | 88
Fig. 1 Sieving the soil samples in the

No. 40 Sieve (Opening size: 0.475mm).
Fig. 3 A part of the procedure in liquid

limit testing where the portion of the
mixed soil sample and distilled water
was get from the brass cup.
Fig. 2 Checking if the brass cup of the

liquid limit device drops a height of
10mm.
Fig. 4 The portion of the mixed soil

sample and distilled water from the brass
cup was placed in the small pan to be
oven dried in the laboratory oven.
P a g e 34 | 88

Atterberg Limits Test (Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index)
Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of
Soils
ASTM D4318
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
Plastic Limit is defined as the lowest moisture content and expressed as a
percentage of the weight of the oven dried soil at which the soil can be rolled into
threads one-eighth (1/8) inch in diameter without breaking into pieces. This is also the
moisture content of a solid at which a soil changes from a plastic state to a semisolid
state.
Plasticity Index is defined as the numerical difference between the liquid limit
and the plastic limit. It is the range within which the soil remains plastic.
The shrinkage limit of cohesive soils is defined as the water content at which
further loss of moisture will not cause a decrease in volume.
This method covers the determination of the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and
Shrinkage Limit. This test method is used as an integral part of several engineering
classification systems to characterize the fine-grained fractions of soil and to specify
the fine-grained fraction of construction materials. This laboratory report focuses on
plastic limit and plasticity index determination since the liquid limit is already identified
in the previous laboratory activity.
P a g e 35 | 88
II. Apparatuses
a. No. 40 Sieve (0.425mm opening) use to separate the coarse-grained fraction and
fine-grained fraction of the soil before continuing the experiment.
b. Digital Weighing Scale use to determine the different weights necessary to be

used in the laboratory activity.
c. Laboratory Oven use to dry the soil samples to be able to determine the moisture
contents.
d. Ceramic Soil Mixing Bowl a container used to hold in mixing the dried and sieved
soil samples and the distilled water.
P a g e 36 | 88
e. Frosting Knife used to mix the dried and sieved soil samples and the distilled
water; as well as used to get the portion of the soil that will be oven dried for
f. Three (3) Soil Moisture Containers a very small pan used as a container of the
soil samples in putting it in the laboratory oven.
g. Laboratory Glass Plate used when rubbing the mixed soil sample and distilled
water in the plastic limit test.

The last soil used in the liquid limit test was used in the plastic limit test where
it was made into little mud balls. The little mud balls were rolled into the laboratory
glass plate to form a rod with a diameter of 3mm (0.125in). If the soil crumbles the first
time, more water were added and the processes was repeated. If the rod did not crumble,
it was made into another little mud balls this will dry the soil. The process of making
a rod, rolling up in the glass plate were repeated until the soil crumbles while making
the rod. This soil was then put in the soil moisture container and placed in the oven for
P a g e 37 | 88

Table 5.1 Initial weights of the pans recorded.
Weight of Container
Weight of Soil that passed the No. 40 Sieve(0.475mm)
Plastic Limit:
115.1g
80.1g
9.1g
9.0g
9.0g
The weight listed above are the different initial weights of the containers or pans
used during the laboratory experiment. An approximately 80g of soil sample were used
during the entire activity.
i. Plastic Limit
Table 5.2 Determination of the Plastic Limit of the Soil Sample.
Trial Weight Weight of
Weight of Pan + Weight Weight
Moisture
No.
of Pan Pan +
Oven Dried Soil of Soil
of Water Content
(g)
Rolled Soil (g)
(g)
(g)
(%)
(g)
1
9.1
11.0
10.6
1.5
0.4
26.67
2
9.0
11.3
10.7
1.7
0.6
35.29
3
9.0
11.3
10.8
1.8
0.5
27.78
Average
29.91

Weight of Soil (g)=[Weight of Pan+Oven Dried Soil (g)]-Weight of Pan (g)
Weight of SoilTrial Number 1 =10.6g-9.1g=1.5g
Weight of Water (g)=[Weight of Pan+Rolled Soil (g)]-[Weight of Pan+Dried Soil (g)]
Weight of WaterTrial Number 1 =11.0g-10.6g=0.4g
P a g e 38 | 88
Wt of Water
100%
Wt of Soil
1 =
0.4g
100%=26.67%
1.5g
2 =
0.6g
100%=35.29%
1.7g
1 =
0.5g
100%=27.78%
1.8g

=
26.67%+35.29%+27.78%
3
= 29.91%
ii. Plasticity Index

The plasticity index is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic
limit. This measures the plasticity of soil where plasticity is the putty-like property of
clays that contain a certain amount of water.
PI = LL-PL
= 57.73 - 29.91
PI = 27.82
Table 5.3 Plasticity Index Description.
Table 4.5 shows the description of a certain soil based on its plasticity index.
Since the plasticity index of the groups soil is 27.82 this is a high plasticity kind of
soil. We have also learned in our lecture that in determining the plasticity index we will
be able to identify if the soil is silty or clayey. If the 10, the soil is silty and if
P a g e 39 | 88
11, the soil is clayey. Knowing that the PI of the groups soil is 27.82, therefore
it is Clayey.
iii. Shrinkage Limit

Even though no laboratory activity regarding shrinkage limit was performed,
the shrinkage limit of soil can still be obtained. According to Casagrande, the shrinkage
limit can be approximately determined if the liquid limit and plasticity index are known.
Since we have this information, we can determine the shrinkage limit of the soil.
Graph 5.1 Plasticity Chart.
Plasticity Chart
30
Plasticity Index
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Liquid Limit
A-Line
U-Line
Soil
From the chart above, it can be clearly seen that the soil is above the U-line.
And approximating the Shrinkage limit by projecting the A-line and the U-line
downward where they intersect and joining this point of intersection into the point of
the soil, we will get a shrinkage limit of approximately 4%.

i.
The soil sample taken from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan
City has its Plastic Limit as 29.91%. From this value and the corresponding
value of the Liquid Limit as obtained in the previous laboratory activity, the
Plasticity Index is obtained to be 27.82%. The soils shrinkage limit, though no
laboratory experiment is done, is obtained to be 4%.
P a g e 40 | 88
ii.
The results of the Atterberg Limits Test will be used in classifying the soil using
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) and to estimate the swell potential of the soil. Its objective is to obtain
the basic index information about the soil used to estimate strength and
settlement characteristics.
iii.
Careful and proper execution of the procedures of the different tests is necessary
in order to attain accurate and reliable results. This results determine the
properties and characteristics of a certain soil that will identify if the soil is
suitable for a given use i.e. highway subgrade material.
Fig. 1 Sieving the soil samples in the

No. 40 Sieve (Opening size: 0.475mm).
Fig. 2 A part of the plastic limit

procedure where the mixed soil sample
and distilled water were rolled back and
forth in the glass plate.
Fig. 3 The pan containing the rolled soil

sample was weighed in the digital
weighing scale.
Fig. 4 Placing the pans containing the

soil samples in the laboratory oven for
moisture content determination.
P a g e 41 | 88

Laboratory Classification of Soil
Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for
Highway Construction Purposes
ASTM D3282
Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (USCS)
ASTM D2487
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
Two elaborate soil classification systems are currently used by soil engineers
namely: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Both systems take into consideration the particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits
as determined during the previous laboratory activities.
The AASHTO classification system classifies the soil into seven (7) major
groups: A-1 through A-7. Soils of which 35% or less of the particles pass through No.
200 sieve (0.075mm) are classified as granular materials and belong to groups A-1 to
A-3 while those of which more than 35% pass through No. 200 sieve (0.075mm) are
classified under groups A-4 to A-7 as silt-clay materials.
The original form of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) was
proposed by Casagrade in 1942. At present, it is widely used by engineers. Just like
AASHTO classification system, USCS classifies soils into two broad categories:
Coarse-grained soils and Fine-grained soils. Coarse-grained soils are those with less
than 50% passing through No. 200 (0.075mm) sieve while Fine-grained soils are those
with 50% or more passing through No. 200 sieve (0.075mm).
This test methods covers the classification of soil using the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Classification
System and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
P a g e 42 | 88
II. Apparatus
No apparatus is used in this laboratory activity since data from the laboratory
numbers three (3) and four (4) are only needed.

From the particle-size distribution data obtained in laboratory #3 and the
Atterberg limits data obtained in laboratory #4, the soil can be classified using
AASHTO and USCS in reference to their procedures in classifying soils and tables.
Below is a summary of the procedure in classifying soils:
i.
AASHTO
To classify a soil according to AASHTO (A table is given in the data
presentation and analysis section which can also be found in the Appendix A), one
must apply the test data from left to right. By the process of elimination, the first
group from left into which the test data fits is the correct classification.
ii.
USCS

The tables shown below are the data obtained from the previous laboratory
activities that are necessary to be able to classify the soil in whatever soil classification
system to be used.
Table 6.1 Atterberg Limits data obtained from Laboratory #4.

Liquid Limit (LL)
57.73
Plastic Limit (PL)
29.91
Plasticity Index (PI) 27.82
P a g e 43 | 88
Table 6.2 Percent Finer of each Sieve in Laboratory #3.

Sieve
Grain Size, D Mass of Soil
Mass of Soil
Number (mm)
Retained (g)
Passed (g)
4
4.75
3.4
596.2
10
2.00
74
522.2
12
1.70
29.3
492.9
16
1.18
82.2
410.7
20
0.85
65.7
345
30
0.60
56.1
288.9
60
0.25
109.4
179.5
100
0.15
64.1
115.4
200
0.075
25.6
89.8
Pan
--89.8
0
Total Mass
599.6
Percent
Passing (%)
99.43
87.09
82.20
68.50
57.54
48.18
29.94
19.25
14.98
0.00
Table 6.3 Data obtained from Laboratory #3.

Coefficients
Uniformity Coefficient (Cu)
12.4
Coefficient of Gradation (Cc)
0.37
Percent Passing
87.09
--14.98
No. 10
No. 40
No. 200
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
i.
Percent (%)
0.57
84.45
14.98
AASHTO
Since the percent passing the No. 200 sieve (0.075mm) based in Table 5.2
is 14.98% which is less than 35%, the soil is a granular material. With reference to
Table 5.3 and referring to Appendix A Table 2, starting from left to right using the
method of elimination, the soil suitably fits the classification A-2-6 which is Silty
or Clayey Gravel and Sand. The table from Appendix A where this result is obtained
is shown below.
P a g e 44 | 88
To evaluate the quality of a soil as a highway subgrade material, one must

also incorporate a number called group index with the groups and subgroups of soil.
This index is written in parentheses after the group or subgroup designation. The
group index is given by the equation:
GI=(F200 -35)[0.2+0.005(LL-40)]+0.01(F200 -15)(PI-10)
Where: F200 = percentage passing through No. 200 sieve
LL = Liquid Limit
PI = Plasticity Index
The following are some rules in determining the group index.

1. If GI yields a negative value, it is taken as 0.
2. The GI calculated is rounded off to the nearest whole number.
3. There is no upper limit for the GI.
4. The GI of soils belonging to groups A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5 and A-3 is always
zero (0).
5. When calculating for the GI of soils that belong to groups A-2-6 and A-2-7, use
the partial GI for PI, or
GI=0.01(F200 -15)(PI-10)
P a g e 45 | 88
Since our soil belongs to A-2-6, we will apply rule number six (6). Thus,
out group index (GI) is:
GI=0.01(14.98-15)(27.82-10)
GI=-0.003564
Therefore our final classification of the soil using AASHTO is:
A-2-6 (0)
ii. USCS
P a g e 46 | 88
Referring to Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and looking at Appendix B, since more than
50% is retained on the No. 200 Sieve, we will use Fig 3. of Appendix B. From this
figure, since the gravel is less than that of the sand, the lower portion of the figure is to
be used. From Fig. 4 of Appendix B, knowing that the Liquid Limit of the soil is 56.45%
and the Plasticity Index is 29.91%, we can project that it is under CH or OH. Continuing
the process, since the amount of Gravel is less than 15%, the soil classified using the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is:
Group Symbol: SC
Group Name: Clayey Sand

i.
The standards presented above classifies soil from any geographic location
into categories representing results of prescribed laboratory tests to determine
the particle-size characteristics, the liquid limit, and the plasticity index.
ii.
The assigning of group symbol and group index in the AASHTO classification
system and group symbol and group name in USCS, can be used to aid in the
evaluation of the significant properties of the soil for highway and airfield
purposes.
P a g e 47 | 88
iii.
The various groupings of the AASHTO classification system and USCS

correlate in a general way with the engineering behaviour of soil. Also, in a
general way, the engineering behaviour of a soil varies inversely with its
group index. Thus, this provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory
investigation for geotechnical engineering purposes.

No photo documentations can be displayed in this laboratory activity since
only calculations are made.
P a g e 48 | 88

Laboratory Soil Compaction
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3 (600kN-m/m3))
ASTM D698
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
Geotechnical engineers compact fine-grained soil to improve its engineering
properties such as shear strength, compressibility and hydraulic conductivity. These
properties are dependent upon the methods used to compact the soil. Compacted soil is
extensively used for many geotechnical structures, including earth dam, landfill liners,
highway base courses and subgrades, and embankments. To predict the performance of
compacted soil, and to develop appropriate construction criteria, compaction is
performed in the laboratory using standardized methods.
The following are the objectives of soil compaction test: to determine the
relation between water content and dry density of soil; to determine optimum water
content and corresponding maximum dry density of soil and to determine the relation
between penetration resistance and water content for compacted soil.
This test method covers laboratory compaction method using the Standard
Compaction Test used to determine the relationship between moisture or water content
() and dry unit weight ( ) of soils (compaction curve) compacted in a 4 or 6-in
(101.6 or 152.4-mm) diameter mold with a 5.5-lbf (24.4-N) hammer dropped from a
height of 12-in (305-mm) producing a compactive effort of 12,400 ft-lb/ft3 (600kNm/m3).
P a g e 49 | 88
II. Apparatuses
weights to be used in the laboratory activity.
b. Trowel a small handheld tool with a flat, pointed blade used to mix the soil
samples with distilled water.
d. Laboratory Oven a device used to dry the soil samples to harden it.
P a g e 50 | 88
e. Spray Bottle a container used in holding the distilled water.
f. Cylindrical Mold with Base Plate and Hammer the equipment used in the soil
compaction test where the cylindrical mold is used to hold the soil samples and the
hammer is used to compact the soil.
g. Field Test Scale a scale used to weigh the cylindrical mold with the base plate
since it is too heavy to be weighed at the digital weighing scale.
h. Spatula a tool used to get the samples from the top and bottom of the cylindrical
mold.
P a g e 51 | 88
i.
Brush used to clean the cylindrical mold with the base plate before weighing it in
the field test scale.
j.
Sieve No. 4 (4.75mm) used to filter the crushed soil samples so that the soil
samples that passed this sieve will be used in the laboratory activity.

Soil samples were dried for about two weeks and crushed thereafter. The
crushed soil samples were passed through the No.4 sieve (4.75mm opening size)
and the soil samples that passed through this sieve number were then oven dried.
After oven drying, the soil samples were placed in a mixing pan. The compaction
cylindrical mold with the base plate were assembled and weighed in the field test
scale. The soil samples were then placed in the mold and were compacted twenty
five (25) times using the hammer in three (3) layers, take note that the top of the
final blow of the hammer should be just above the top of the mold such that it will
need to be trimmed slightly using the trowel. The collar was removed and the excess
soil at the top of the mold were trimmed. The cylindrical mold with the base plate
containing the compacted soil were weighed in the field test scale. Samples from
the top and bottom of the specimen was obtained and water content measurements
were performed on the samples to obtain the average water content.
P a g e 52 | 88
This process was repeated several times adding distilled water into the soil
samples until the weight of the specimen and the cylindrical mold with base plate
reduces as distilled water is continually added to it. After gathering all the
specimens, it was then placed in the laboratory oven for several hours and weighed
thereafter. Necessary calculations were then made to attain expected results.

Weight of Cylindrical Mold with Base Plate: 4240g
Table 7.1 Weight of the Soil Specimen in different trials.
Trial No.
1
2
3
4
5
Weight of Cylindrical Mold + Base
5645.0 5755.0 5850.0 5985.0 5900.0
Plate + Compacted Soil (g):
Net Mass of the Compacted Soil (g)
1405.0 1515.0 1610.0 1745.0 1660.0
Weight of Pan (g):
Top
9.0
8.9
9.1
11.9
52.4
Bottom
9.0
9.2
9.2
11.5
51.8
Weight of Pan + Compacted Soil Specimen (g):
Top
28.5
38.6
36.5
36.4
147.6
Bottom
24.9
28.6
43.4
42.7
191.3
Weight of Pan + Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g):
Top
27.2
34.8
32
31.3
124.1
Bottom
23.8
26.2
37.8
36.2
160.1
Weight of Water (g):
Top
1.3
3.8
4.5
5.1
23.5
Bottom
1.1
2.4
5.6
6.5
31.2
Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g):
Top
18.2
25.9
22.9
19.4
71.7
Bottom
14.8
17.0
28.6
24.7
108.3
Moisture Content (%):
Top
7.14
14.67 19.65
26.29
32.78
Bottom
7.43
14.12 19.58
26.32
28.81
Average Moisture Content (%):
7.29
14.39 19.62
26.30
30.79
Table 7.1 shows the recorded data from the very start of the laboratory activity.
The formulas used and the calculations are shown below.

Net Mass of the Compacted Soil (g)=
[(Weight of Cylindrical Mold + Base Plate + Compacted Soil (g))
-(Weight of Cylindrical Mold with Base Plate (g))]
P a g e 53 | 88
Net Mass of the Compacted SoilTrial Number 1 =5645.0g-4240g=1405g

Weight of Water (g)=
(Weight of Pan + Compacted Soil Specimen(g))[
]
(Weight of Pan + Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g))
Top
Weight of WaterTrial Number 2 =38.6-34.8g=3.8g
Weight of WaterTrial Number 3 =36.5g-32g=4.5g
Bottom
Weight of WaterTrial Number 2 =28.6-26.2g=2.4g
Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g)=
[(Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g))-(Weight of Pan (g))]
Top
Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil SpecimenTrial #1 =27.2g-9.0g=18.2g
P a g e 54 | 88
Bottom
Moisture Content (%)=
Weight of Water (g)

100%
Weight of Oven Dried Compacted Soil Specimen (g)
Top
1.3
100%=17.14%
18.2
3.8
Trial Number 2 =
100%=14.67%
25.9
4.5
Trial Number 3 =
100%=19.65%
22.9
5.1
Trial Number 4 =
100%=26.29%
17.4
23.5
Trial Number 5 =
100%=32.78%
71.7
Trial Number 1 =
Bottom
1.1
100%=7.43%
14.8
2.4
Trial Number 2 =
100%=14.12%
17.0
5.6
Trial Number 3 =
100%=19.58%
28.6
6.5
Trial Number 4 =
100%=26.32%
24.7
31.7
Trial Number 5 =
100%=28.81%
108.3
Trial Number 1 =
Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content of (Top+Bottom)]/2

(7.14+7.43)%
=7.29%
2
(14.67+14.12)%
Average Moisture Content Trial Number 2 =
=14.39%
2
P a g e 55 | 88
(19.65+19.58)%
=19.62%
2
(26.29+26.32)%
=26.30%
2
(32.78+28.81)%
=30.79%
2
Table 7.2 Dry Unit Weight of the Soil Specimen.

Trial Number Moisture Content (%) Moist Unit
Weight (kN/m3)
1
7.29
14.60
2
14.39
15.74
3
19.62
16.73
4
26.3
18.13
5
30.79
17.25
Dry Unit Weight

(kN/m3)
13.61
13.76
13.99
14.36
13.19
Table 7.2 shows the tabulated data of the moisture content, moist unit weight
and the dry unit weight of the soil samples that will be used in the graph. The formulas
used and the calculations made to obtain such results are shown below.

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

1.405*9.81
3
=14.60kN/m
0.000944
1.515*9.81
3
2 =
=15.74kN/m
0.000944
1.610*9.81
3
3 =
=16.73kN/m
0.000944
1.745*9.81
3
4 =
=18.13kN/m
0.000944
1.660*9.81
3
5 =
=17.25kN/m
0.000944
1 =
Dry Unit Weight
(d )=/(1+ 100 )
d1 =
14.6
3
=13.61kN/m
(1+0.0729)
d2 =
15.74
3
=13.76kN/m
(1+0.1439)
P a g e 56 | 88
d3 =
16.73
3
=13.99kN/m
(1+0.1962)
d4 =
d5 =
18.13
3
=14.36kN/m
(1+0.263)
17.25
3
=13.19kN/m
(1+0.3079)
Fig 7.1 Determination of the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).
Moisture Content Vs. Dry Unit Weight

14.6
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)
14.4
14.2
14
y = -0.0007x3 + 0.034x2 - 0.479x + 15.568
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.2
13
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Moisture Content (%)
From the graph shown above, locating the maximum moisture content and
projecting it to the dry unit weight, it can be clearly seen that the Optimum Moisture
Content (opt ) is approximately 22.90% with a maximum dry unit weight of 14.39
kN/m3.

i.
The Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) of the soil from Petron Gasoline
Station, Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City is approximately 14.39 kN/m3 having a
maximum dry unit weight of 22.90%.
ii.
Soil placed as an engineering fill embankments, foundation pads, road bases,

is compacted to a dense state to obtain satisfactory engineering properties.
Foundation soils are often compacted to improve their engineering properties.
P a g e 57 | 88
iii.
Laboratory compaction tests provide the basis for determining the percent
compaction and water content needed to achieve the required engineering
properties and for controlling construction to assure that the required
compaction and water contents are achieved.
iv.
This laboratory activity is a bit of a trial and error process since it cannot be
easily identified what amount of water is to be added into the soil samples for it
to be able to decrease its weight. Just like what the group experienced, they had
five (5) trials before reaching the decrease of the weight of the specimen.
v.
Compaction increases the shear strength of soil and it reduces the void ratio thus
lessening the penetration of water through soil. It can also prevent the build-up
of large water pressures that causes soil to liquefy during earthquakes.
P a g e 58 | 88
Fig 1. Crushing the soil samples that were dried for almost
two weeks.
Fig 2. Hammering the soil samples placed in the mold

twenty five (25) times each layer.
Fig 3. Getting soil samples from the top and bottom of the
cylindrical mold.
Fig 4. Weighing the soil samples placed in the pan that

were taken from the top and bottom of the cylindrical mold.
P a g e 59 | 88

Field Measurement of Dry Unit Weight and Moisture Content
Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the SandCone Method
ASTM D1556
Date Performed: February 18, 2015
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
When soil is used to construct highway subgrade and base courses, waste
containment liners, earth dams, embankments, and other purposes, the soil must be
compacted in accordance with construction specifications. Specifications for
compacted soil are typically given in terms of an acceptable range of moisture content
and/or dry unit weight based on results of laboratory compaction tests.
The sand-cone method is used to measure the total unit weight of compacted
earth materials. When accompanied with moisture content measurements of the same
material, the sand-cone method can be used to measure both moisture content and dry
unit weight to confirm that the earth materials are compacted in accordance with
construction specifications.
This test method may be used to determine the in-place density and unit weight
of soils using a sand cone apparatus.
II. Apparatuses
i.
Small Digging Tools (e.g. trowel, spoon, spatula) used to dig the test hole for
the laboratory activity.
P a g e 60 | 88
ii.
Sand Cone Device with Base Plate the device used to determine the density
and unit weight of the soil specimen.
iii.
Digital Weighing Scale an instrument used to determine the different weights

that will be used in the computations.
iv.
Field Test Scale a scale used to weigh heavier materials, in this case, the sand
cone device containing Ottawa Sand.
v.
Pan used to hold the soil samples that will be used in determining the moisture
content.
P a g e 61 | 88
vi.
Laboratory Oven used to dry the soil samples that are placed in the pans to
determine the moisture content.
III. Summary of Test Method

i.
Calibration of the Sand Cone Device

The sand container was filled with dry sand (Ottawa Sand) and the
funnel was placed on the container. The mass of the filled sand cone device was
recorded as M1.
The base plate was placed on a clean, flat surface and the inverted sand
cone device was placed over the base plate. The valve was opened in the funnel
to allow the sand to fill the base plate and the funnel. The valve was closed right
after the base plate and funnel were filled. The sand cone device was removed
from the base plate, weighed and the mass was recorded as M2. The mass of the
sand in the base plate and funnel was calculated and recorded as M.
By determining the diameter and the height of the proctor mold, the
volume of the proctor mold was calculated.
The sand container was refilled with dry sand (Ottawa Sand), weighed
and recorded as M3. The base plate was placed over the proctor mold of known
volume as calculated. The inverted sand cone device was placed over the base
plate, the valve was opened and the base plate, funnel and proctor mold was
filled with sand. After the base plate, funnel and proctor mold was filled with
sand, the valve was closed and the sand cone device was removed, weighed and
recorded as M4. The mass of the sand in the proctor mold was calculated and
recorded as M. By this data, the unit weight of the Ottawa Sand was also
calculated.
P a g e 62 | 88
ii.
Performing the Sand Cone Measurement

The sand cone device was filled with Ottawa Sand as used during the
calibration. The mass of the sand cone device filled with sand is weighed and
recorded as M5. A test hole spot that is flat and level was located and the base
plate was placed on the surface. The test hole was excavated to a depth of two
and a half inches (2 ) deep that has a shape of concave upward. The excavated
soil was placed in a pan and weighed, three (3) smaller pans were used as a
container to hold the soil samples for moisture content determination. The filled
sand cone device was positioned over the excavated test hole. The valve was
opened and the test hole, base plate and funnel was filled with sand. After filling,
the valve was closed and the sand cone device was removed, weighed and
recorded as M6. The mass of the sand used to fill the test hole, funnel and base
plate was calculated and recorded as M. Other necessary calculations were also
done to obtain the density and the dry unit weight of the sand in the field.

Table 8.1 Calibrated Mass of Ottawa Sand to fill the Cone.
Initial Mass
7545g
Final Mass
5860g
1685g
Calibrated Mass of Ottawa Sand to fill the Cone = 7545g 5860g = 1685g
Table 8.2 Mass of Sand to fill the Proctor Mold and Cone.
Initial Mass
7555g
Final Mass
1305g
6250g
Mass of Sand to fill the Proctor Mold and Cone = 7555g 1305g = 6250g
Mass of Sand to Fill the Proctor Mold = 6250g 1685g = 4565g = 4.565kg
Tables 8.1 and 8.2 shows the tabulated data of different masses of sand needed
to be able to determine the dry density of the sand. The calculations to obtain such
results are also shown.
P a g e 63 | 88
Table 8.3 Determination of the Volume of the Proctor Mold.

Diameter of the Proctor Mold (d):
0.1524m
Height of the Proctor Mold (h):
0.166878m
Volume of the Proctor Mold (V):
0.0030441 m3
To be able to determine the dry density of the Ottawa Sand, the volume of the
proctor mold needs to be known first. Measuring the diameter and height of the proctor
mold as shown in table 8.1, the volume can now be calculated:
d2
0.15242
Vcylinder =
h=
0.166878=3.0410-3 m3
4
4
Calibrated Dry Density of Ottawa Sand (kg/m3):

Mass of Sand to fill the Proctor Mold (kg)
4.565kg
kg
=
=1,499.62 3
-3
3
3
Volume of the Proctor Mold (m )
m
3.0410 m
Table 8.4 Masses obtained during Sand Cone Measurement.

Mass of Funnel + Jar + Sand (Before use)
7290g
Mass of Funnel + Jar + Sand (After use)
4635g
Mass of Sand to fill the test hole + cone
2655g
Mass of Sand to fill the test hole
970g
Volume of the test hole
6.47x10-4 m3
Mass of Sand to fill the test hole+cone (g) = Mass of Funnel+Jar+Sand (Before-After)
Mass of Sand to fill the test hole+cone (g)=7290g-4635g=2655g
Mass of Sand to fill the test hole (g) =[(Mass of sand to fill the test hole+cone (g))(Calibrated mass of Ottawa Sand to fill the cone (g))]
Mass of Sand to fill the test hole (g)=2655g-1685g=970g
Volume of the test hole (m3 )=
Mass of Sand to fill the test hole (kg)

kg
Calibrated Dry Density of Ottawa Sand( 3 )
m
Volume of the test hole=
0.970
=6.4710-4 m3
1,499.62
When the sand-cone method is already conducted, the masses obtained are
tabulated in table 8.4. Calculations in obtaining such results follow, as shown above.
P a g e 64 | 88
Table 8.5 Determination of Moisture Content.

Mass of Large Pan
89.4g
Mass of Large Pan + Moist Soil
1218.1g
Mass of Moist Soil
1128.7g
Pan # Mass of Mass of Pan Mass of Pan + Mass of Mass of
Moisture
Pan (g)
+ Moist Soil Oven Dried
water
Oven Dried Content
(g)
Soil (g)
(g)
Soil (g)
(%)
1
9.0
38.2
35.1
3.1
26.1
11.88
2
11.5
22.1
20.7
1.4
9.2
15.22
3
9.0
35.4
32.5
2.9
23.5
12.34
Average Moisture Content
13.15

Mass of Moist Soil (g)=[(Mass of Large Pan+Moist Soil (g))-(Mass of Large Pan (g))]
=1218.1g-89.4g
Mass of Moist Soil (g)=1128.7g=1.1287kg
Mass of Water=(Mass of Pan + Moist Soil) -(Mass of Pan +Oven Dried Soil)
Mass of WaterPan Number 1 =38.2g-35.1g=3.1g
Mass of Soil= (Mass of Pan +Oven Dried Soil)-(Mass of Pan)
Mass of SoilPan Number 1 =35.1g-9.0g=26.1g
Wt of Water
100%
Wt of Soil
1 =
3.1g
100%=11.88%
26.1g
2 =
1.4g
100%=15.22%
9.2g
1 =
2.9g
100%=12.34%
23.5g
P a g e 65 | 88

=
11.88%+15.22%+12.34%
3
=13.15%
The mass of moist soil is essential in computing for the moist unit weight of the
soil. Also the moisture content of the soil is necessary to be able to identify the dry unit
weight of the soil. The determination of the moisture content is shown in table 7.5 and
the calculations in obtaining such results are also shown above.
Moist Unit Weight of the Soil:

=
Mass of Moist Soil (kg)Acceleration due to gravity, g (

Volume of Test Hole (m3 )
m
)
s2
1.1287*9.81
6.47x10-4
kN
= 17.11 3
m
Dry Unit Weight of the Soil:
(1+ 100 )
kN
17.11 3
m
=
13.15
(1+ 100 )
kN
d(Field) =15.12 3
m
d(Field) =

i.
From the laboratory activity, it is known that the moist unit weight and the field
dry unit weight of the soil located at Tennis Court, MSU-IIT, is equal to
17.11kN/m3 and 15.12kN/m3, respectively.
ii.
Since the results of sand cone testing are highly dependent upon the particular
sand cone device and type of sand used, it is very important to calibrate the
device first like what was initially done in the laboratory activity.
P a g e 66 | 88
iii.
The test should not be performed where there are significant vibrations (e.g.
heavy equipment operation) and proper care is to be observed during the test so
as not to move or shake the device during filling.
iv.
The test method being used to determine the unit weight of compacted soils
placed during the construction of earth embankments, road fill, and structural
backfill, it is often used as a basis of acceptance for soils compacted to a
specified unit weight or percentage of a maximum unit weight determined by a
test method 95% to 100%.
Fig. 1 Calibration of the Dry Density of Ottawa Sand

after the calibrated mass of Ottawa Sand has been
determined.
Fig. 2 Digging the test hole using the digging tools.

Notice that the base plate must be stepped on so that it
will be in place.
P a g e 67 | 88
Fig 3. The Sand-Cone Method being perfomed. This is

the part where the test hole is being filled with Ottawa
Sand.
Fig 4. Determining the final mass of the sand-cone

device after the sand-cone method has been performed.
P a g e 68 | 88

Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Granular Soils Using a Fixed Wall
Permeameter
Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils
ASTM D2434
Date Performed: March 19, 2014
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
It is important to quantify the volume of groundwater flow from areas of high
potential to low potential. This information is useful in estimating the performance of
landfill liners, the migration of contaminated water, and other applications. To quantify
flow through soil, the hydraulic conductivity also known as permeability of the soil
must be known.
Hydraulic conductivity of granular soils, including sands and gravels, is
measured in the laboratory using a fixed-wall permeameter. In this laboratory activity,
Hydraulic Conductivity will be determined using the constant head method.
This test method covers the determination of the coefficient of permeability by
a constant head and falling head test methods for the laminar flow of water through
soils.
II. Apparatuses
i.
Mortar and Pestle used to crush the soil samples into finer textures and smaller
pieces which will be used in sieving.
P a g e 69 | 88
ii.
Sieve No. 30 the soil sample retained on this sieve number is used during the
entire laboratory activity.
iii.
Pan used to hold the soil samples gathered after sieving.
iv.
Iron Stand used to hold the funnel where the water flows.
v.
Fixed-Wall Permeameter device used in the determination of the hydraulic

conductivity of soils.
P a g e 70 | 88
vi.
Measuring Tape/Ruler an instrument used to measure the height of the fixedwall permeameter and the head in the constant-head test method.
vii.
Funnel used to transfer the water into the fixed-wall permeameter.
viii.
Graduated Cylinder used to hold the water to be used in the falling-head test
method.
ix.
Timer used to record the time to fill a certain volume.
P a g e 71 | 88
Fig. 9.1 Illustration of the fixed-wall permeameter (schematic).
Fig. 9.2 Illustration of the fixed-wall permeameter (photograph)
P a g e 72 | 88

Soil samples were crushed using the mortar and pestle and passed through sieve
numbers 4, 30 and 200. Those soil samples that were retained in sieve number 30 were
then filled in the fixed-wall permeameter. The fixed-wall permeameter was filled with
the soil samples in three layers, each layer is compacted a little using the pestle. Initially,
the soil specimen was saturated by allowing water to flow through the funnel and the
tubes until the soil specimen is saturated this is known when water comes out in the
effluent side of the tube. When the soil specimen was saturated, a constant head was
set. Water was allowed to infiltrate through the soil specimen until it fills a certain
volume, in this case, 10mL portion of the graduated cylinder. The time to fill the
graduated cylinder was recorded. After this, necessary calculations were made to obtain
the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. A schematic diagram of the Constant-Head Test
Method is shown below.
Fig. 9.3 Constant-Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test Configuration.
P a g e 73 | 88

Specimen Cross-sectional Area:
A=
D2
where: D diameter of the soil specimen in the permeameter
A soil specimen cross-sectional area
The diameter of the soil specimen was measure before starting the test method
and it was recorded to be 6.4cm. Substituting this obtained value of the diameter into
the formula for the cross-sectional area, we get:
(0.064m)2
A=
=3.2210-3 m2
4
Hydraulic Conductivity:
QL
k= Aht
where: Q volume of water to be filled

L length of the soil specimen
A cross-sectional area of the specimen
H - length of the constant head as set initially
t time to fill the volume of water
The values to obtain the hydraulic conductivity were recorded and are as
follows:
Q = 1x10-5 m3
L = 0.15 m
A = 3.22x10-3 m2
H = 0.92m
t = 744 sec
Substituting these values to the formula of the hydraulic conductivity, we get:
k=
(110-5 )(0.15)
(3.2210-3)(0.92)(744)
=6.8110-7 m/s
P a g e 74 | 88

i.
During the saturation of the soil sample, it took a long time for the water to
penetrate into the soil. This implies that the soil may contain clayey particles. It
may also be prone to runoff because the water is withheld in the upper portion.
This kind of soil is not recommended for agriculture because water cannot
percolate into the bottommost part of the soil where the roots of the plants may
be located.
ii.
In the constant-head test method, after the initial setting of the constant head,
the group no longer added additional water into the funnel to maintain a constant
head.
iii.
From the laboratory activity using the constant-head test method, it is known
that the hydraulic conductivity of the soil from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy.
Hinaplanon, Iligan City is equivalent to 6.8110-7 m/s.
P a g e 75 | 88

Fig. 1 Crushing the soil sample into smaller pieces using the
mortar and pestle.
Fig. 2 Filling the fixed-wall permeameter with the soil

sample in three layers and compacting it using the pestle.
Fig. 3 Saturating the soil sample by allowing the water to

flow through the funnel and the tubes.
Fig. 4 Filling the 10mL volume of the graduated cylinder

with the water that infiltrated into the soil specimen.
P a g e 76 | 88

Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Granular Soils Using a Fixed Wall
Permeameter
Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils
ASTM D2434
Date Performed: March 19, 2014
Group No. 1
I. Introduction
Aside from constant-head method, hydraulic conductivity can also be
determined by using another method which is the falling-head test method. The
difference between the two is that the head in the latter method is changed as time
changes from t=0 to t=t.
Hydraulic conductivity of granular soils, including sands and gravels, is
measured in the laboratory using a fixed-wall permeameter. In this laboratory activity,
Hydraulic Conductivity will be determined using the falling-head method.
This test method covers the determination of the coefficient of permeability by
a constant head and falling head test methods for the laminar flow of water through
soils.
II. Apparatuses
i.
Mortar and Pestle used to crush the soil samples into finer textures and smaller
pieces which will be used in sieving.
P a g e 77 | 88
ii.
Sieve No. 30 the soil sample retained on this sieve number is used during the
entire laboratory activity.
iii.
Pan used to hold the soil samples gathered after sieving.
iv.
Iron Stand used to hold the funnel where the water flows.
v.
Fixed-Wall Permeameter device used in the determination of the hydraulic

conductivity of soils.
P a g e 78 | 88
vi.
Measuring Tape/Ruler an instrument used to measure the height of the fixedwall permeameter and the head in the constant-head test method.
vii.
Funnel used to transfer the water into the fixed-wall permeameter.
viii.
Graduated Cylinder used to hold the water to be used in the falling-head test
method.
ix.
Timer used to record the time to fill a certain volume.
P a g e 79 | 88
Fig. 10.1 Illustration of the fixed-wall permeameter (schematic).
Fig. 10.2 Illustration of the fixed-wall permeameter (photograph)
P a g e 80 | 88

After the constant-head test, the same soil specimen was used during the fallinghead test method. This soil specimen is already saturated. Thus, the only difference is
that instead of having a constant head difference, the head is varied as time approaches
from t=0 to t=t. Necessary calculations are also done to obtain the hydraulic
conductivity of the soil. A schematic diagram of the Falling-Head Test Method is
shown below.
Fig. 10.3 Falling-Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test Configuration.

Specimen Cross-sectional Area:
A=
D2
4
where: D diameter of the soil specimen in the permeameter

A soil specimen cross-sectional area
The diameter of the soil specimen was measure before starting the test method
and it was recorded to be 6.4cm. Substituting this obtained value of the diameter into
the formula for the cross-sectional area, we get:
P a g e 81 | 88
(0.064m)2
A=
=3.2210-3 m2
4
Hydraulic Conductivity:
k=
aL
At
ln( H1 )
2
where: a cross-sectional area of the falling head water reservoir

L length of the soil specimen
A cross-sectional area of the soil specimen
t time to fill the volume of water
H1 initial head
H2 final head
The same values are obtained in the falling-head test method except the following:
a = 7.85x10-5 m2
H1 = 1.05 m
H2 = 0.95 m
t = 607 sec
Substituting these values to the hydraulic conductivity formula for falling-head test,
we get:
k=
(7.85x10-5)(0.92)
(3.2210-3 )(607)
1.05
ln (0.95) =3.7010-6 m/s
P a g e 82 | 88

i.
During the saturation of the soil sample, it took a long time for the water to
penetrate into the soil. This implies that the soil may contain clayey particles. It
may also be prone to runoff because the water is withheld in the upper portion.
This kind of soil is not recommended for agriculture because water cannot
percolate into the bottommost part of the soil where the roots of the plants may
be located.
ii.
The difference in time of the constant-head and falling-head test methods may
be due to some leaking in the apparatus during the falling-head test method.
iii.
From the laboratory activity using the falling-head test method, it is known that
the hydraulic conductivity of the soil from Petron Gasoline Station, Brgy.
Hinaplanon, Iligan City is equivalent to 3.7010-6 m/s.
P a g e 83 | 88

Fig. 1 Crushing the soil sample into smaller pieces using the
mortar and pestle.
Fig. 2 Filling the standard pipe with water.
Fig. 3 Initial head set when t=0 seconds.
Fig. 4 Final head when the time reached to t=t.
P a g e 84 | 88
APPENDICES
P a g e 85 | 88
P a g e 86 | 88
P a g e 87 | 88
P a g e 88 | 88

Laboratory Report in Geotechnical Engineering I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laboratory Report in Geotechnical Engineering I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPILATION OF LABORATORY REPORTS

NICOLE ALEXIS K. VIOS

Laboratory Report No. 1

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios

Date Performed: November 12, 2014

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

III. Summary of the Test Method

IV. Data Presentation and Analysis

Formulas Used and Calculations:

Moisture Content ()=

Average Moisture Content=[Moisture Content of (Pan #1+Pan #2+Pan #3)]/3

Table 1.3 Determination of the Moisture Content of Soil.

V. Conclusions and Observations

VI. Photo Documentations

Fig 1. The pans and the trowel used in the

Fig 2. Weighing of the empty pans in the

Fig 3. Filling a small amount of soil

Fig 4. Placing the pans containing the soil

Laboratory Report No. 2

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios

Date Performed: November 19, 2014

g. Laboratory Oven a device used to dry the soil samples.

g. Thermometer used to measure the temperature of the distilled water to be able to

III. Summary of the Test Method

IV. Data Presentation and Analysis

For agitating the distilled water + crushed oven dried soil:

For checking the water temperature:

Table 2.2 Temperature Correction Factor, K.

Source: Soil Mechanics Lab Manual, Michael E. Kalinski

Formulas used and Calculations:

V. Conclusions and Observations

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

VI. Photo Documentations

Fig 2. Crushing the oven dried soil sample into finer

Fig 3. Filling the etched flask with the crushed soil

Fig 4. Determining the room temperature using the

Laboratory Report No. 3

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios

Date Performed: November 26, 2014

III. Summary of the Test Method

IV. Data Presentation and Analysis

Formulas Used and Calculations:

Graph 3.1 Particle-Size Distribution Curve of the Soil.

Particle-Size Distribution Curve

Percent Passing (%)

D15 = D10 = 0.075

Grain size, d (mm)

Uniformity Coefficient (Cu):

Sorting Coefficient (So):

V. Conclusions and Observations

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

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

The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of

VI. Photo Documentations

Fig 1. Crushing the oven dried soil sample

Fig 2. Determining the weight of the

Fig 3. Putting the crushed oven dried soil

Fig 4. Recording the data obtained in the

Laboratory Report No. 4

Name: Nicole Alexis K. Vios

Date Performed: January 7, 2015

c. Laboratory Oven use to dry the soil samples.

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

III. Summary of the Test Method