CEIE 636 Year-End Geotechnical Report $ilty $and

By: Kyle Hayes, Haley Hutchins, Muhammed Emin Aytekin, and Jamal Al-Tahat

Table of Contents
Introduction 2

Laboratory Data 2

Mechanical Grain Size Distribution 2

Wet Sieve and Hydrometer Test 3

Atterberg Limits 5

Compaction 6

Specific gravity 8

Void Ratio 8

Unconfined compressive strength tests 9

Consolidation Tests 10

1
 Direct Shear Tests 11

CD triaxial tests 12

Laboratory Results 15

Index Property Tests 15

Compaction Tests: 21

Shear Strength Tests: 26

Discussions and Appropriate Correlations 32

Soil Classification Discussion and Correlations 32

Shear Strength Discussion and Correlations 34

Sand Comparison 35

Clay Comparison 37

Recommendations 38

Clay 38

Sand 39

Appendix: Additional Laboratory Data 40

Introduction
Two separate soil samples were provided for testing to determine their
individual soil properties. A clean sand from unknown location (purchased from
Home Depot) and a clay sample obtained from a location in Texas. The following
report tracks the laboratory tests that were performed to determine the physical
properties of both soil samples. Three different groups conducted 11 tests on the
samples. All but one of the tests were performed on the clay sample while only
four tests were performed on the sand sample for comparison.

Laboratory Data

Mechanical Grain Size Distribution

Background

2
 Grain size distribution separates particles into size ranges and determines
quantitatively the mass of particles in each range. The results of the tests provides
the gradation of the material which is used to calculate the coefficient of
uniformity and the coefficient of curvature. The graduation of soils is used in
engineering projects such as highway embankments, backfills, and earthen dams
for the selection of required fill materials.

Material
The test was performed on both the clay and sand samples. Both materials
were air dried prior to the test. For the clay sample, a jack hammer was used to
break up the sample and material that initially passed the ⅜ in. sieve was collected
for the sample.

Method
ASTM D6913 was used to classify the soil samples. Since we were
performing a composite sieving, method A was used in this analysis. Contrary to
the ASTM, we did not verify that a verification of the mechanical sieve shaker and
standard shaking period was performed in the last 12-24 months. Instead we just
used the Mechanical sifter CAT No. 637 “Mary Ann” for 10 minutes which has
been proven sufficient in previous tests. We performed the sieve analysis using
sieves ⅜-in. to No. 200 sieve including a pan at the bottom with an initial sample
size of approximately 500 g which well exceeded the minimum mass requirement
listed in the ASTM. In this method, the percentage passing each sieve was
recorded to the nearest one percent (1%). Material that is retained on the No. 4
sieve (4.75mm) is classified as gravel. Material that passes the No. 4 sieve, but is
retained by the the #200 sieve (0.075mm) is classified as sand. The material that
passes the #200 sieve (0.075mm) is considered fine-grained material. The fine
grained material can be separated into silt (0.002-0.05 mm) and clay (<0.002mm).

Wet Sieve and Hydrometer Test

Background
Clays consist of silica sheets and gibbsite sheets that are bonded together

3
through ion exchanges which provides the plastic behavior of the material. The
fine materials tend to adhere to the larger particles. This causes limitations in
mechanical grain size distribution test for cohesive soils and therefore affects the
final grain size distribution curve. Additional testing using the wet sieve method
and hydrometer test using a deflocculating agent will allow the fine particles to
come loose from the granular material and prove a more accurate distribution
curve.

Material
The clay sample was air dried and broken up using a jack hammer until
enough materials needed for the following tests passed through at least a ⅜ in
sieve.
Method
ASTM D1140-14 was used to perform a wet sieve analysis on the clay
sample. Method B was used as the sample is a clayey soil. Contrary to the ASTM
we did not properly mix the material but instead just used material as soon as it
passed through the required sieve after jack hammering it. The clay sample initially
weighed 500 grams and placed in water with a deflocculating agent (Sodium
Hexametaphosphate) for a minimum of 2 hours to break up the particles. We
washed the sample until the water passing through the #200 sieve was clear of
materials. It was then air dried for a week before a mechanical sieve was
performed.
ASTM D422-63 was used to perform the hydrometer test on the clay
sample. Apparatus A was used in the dispersion phase and hydrometer 151H was
used during the timed testing. A few exceptions to the procedure occurred. First
after the initial agitation period of 1 minute, the glass sedimentation cylinder was
placed directly into the controlled water bath vice between the 2- and 5-min
reading. The water bath was mistakenly turned on to a temperature higher than
room temperature and therefore the beginning of the test began with a higher
temperature than described in the ASTM. Also the sieve analysis per step 11 was
not taken using the same soil used in the hydrometer test. This is mentioned in the
above paragraph.

4
Atterberg Limits
Material
The clay material was tested for atterberg limits to determine the liquid limit,
plastic limit, and plasticity index of the fines.

Background
ASTM D4318 was used to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of the clay sample we used in class. This method helps classify the
fines component of a sample and aids in predicting the behavior of that material. It
is typically used in conjunction with USCS classification for soils. As the ASTM
discusses, there are two methods for determining the liquid limit: Method A
(Multipoint Method) and Method B (One-Point Method).

Method
The plastic limit was determined by rolling three different threads sized to
3.2 mm in diameter according to the ASTM. The threads were immediately placed
in the oven for determining moisture content after the plastic limit was reached by
rolling threads. For the soil used in the plastic limit and liquid limit tests, the
samples were prepared by both wet and dry sieving methods to demonstrate errors
that can arise which are associated with dry sieve methods, and are explained
further.

The liquid limit was performed three times per specimen following Method
A (Multipoint Method) and the soil from the brass cup was immediately dried upon
testing. The moisture contents correlated to the number of blows were plotted, and
a best fit line was produced to find the moisture content associated with 25 blows
of the specimen in the brass cup per the ASTM.

A cause of error or deviation related to the plastic and liquid limits include
different user errors. For liquid limits, it was easily noticeable that between three
different lab group members performing the actions, the “steady” rate for blows to
the brass cup apparatus were slightly different and inconsistent from eachother,
even though they targeted the recommended target rate of 1.9 to 2.1 blows per

5
second, which changes the energy imparted to the grooved soil pat and will cause
error in the blow counts to reach the liquid limit.

Liquid limit test device and grooving tool. Performing the

plastic limit test.

Compaction
Background
Compaction is the mechanical process of densification of soil mass by
reducing air voids. The purpose of laboratory compaction test is to determine the
proper amount of water at which the weight of the soil grains in a unit volume of
the compacted is maximum, the amount of water is thus called the Optimum
Moisture Content (OMC). Understanding the properties produced from a
compaction test can assist in engineering projects such as engineering fill which is
compacted on site to obtain satisfactory engineering properties such as, shear
strength, compressibility, or permeability. Also, other tests require preparation of
test specimens by compacting at some molding water content to some unit weight.
The results from these tests will be used later on in the report.

Three different methods of compaction are used today: standard proctor,

modified proctor, and reduced proctor. The modified proctor test was established
to better represent field conditions as heavier equipment is used in field
compaction and the results from the standard proctor test were not sufficient. The
main difference between the two tests is that in the modified proctor test 5 layers
are used versus 3 and the hammer provides a compactive effort 4.5 times larger
which generally results in a higher maximum dry unit weight, lower optimum
moisture content, greater shear strength, greater stiffness, lower compressibility,
reduced void ratio, and decreased permeability. The reduced proctor test came
about when researchers were reviewing possible correlations between hydraulic
conductivity and water content-density criteria from standard proctor tests for
application of compacted soil liners. After reviewing many results it was
determined that such correlations were not adequate and a new method for
establishing criteria for water contents and dry unit weights evolved. The reduced

6
proctor test applies the same compactive effort as the standard proctor but only
applied 15 blows verses the 25 blows used previously. This results in a compaction
curve to the right of the standard proctor results which is preferred for soil liners as
they are compacted wet of optimum since wet-side compaction minimizes
hydraulic conductivity.
Material
Only the clay sample was tested for compaction. Each group performed a
separate method to compare the different testing methods. $ilty $ands performed
the standard proctor test, EZE performed the reduced proctor test, and Dirt Boiz
performed the modified proctor test. The optimum moisture content was estimated
at 25% and therefore each test performed 5 initial tests using the below table.

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Standard Proctor 17 21 25 29 31
Reduced Proctor 19 23 27 31 33
Modified Proctor 15 19 23 27 29

Method
During our laboratory, three (3) methods for compaction were performed on
the clay sample. For the standard proctor method ASTM D698 Method A was
used, for modified proctor method ASTM D1557 Method A was used, and for the
reduced proctor test article “Water Content-Density Criteria for Compacted Soil
Liners” by David E. Daniel and Craig H. Benson was used in conjunction with
ASTM D698. Five samples were prepared for each test for the above moisture
contents assuming an initial moisture content of the clay being 2%. Contrary to the
ASTMs, the original dry mass of the clay in each sample was 2500g. The sample
was prepared using the dry preparation method. For clay materials the required
minimum standing time is listed as 16 hours. We allowed our samples to sit for a
week prior to performing the compaction. Contrary to the ASTMs, we did not
compare the wet unit weights to ensure that a desired pattern of obtaining data on
each side of the optimum water content was met. This resulted in additional work
mentioned in the results section.

7
Specific gravity
Background
Specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of a unit weight of a soil solids to the
mass of the same volume of gas free distilled water at 20 degrees celsius. Specific
gravity is used in calculating additional index parameters such as void ratio, degree
of saturation, and density of soil solids.

Material
Two tests were performed on the clay sample by EZE and Dirt Boiz while
one test was performed on the sand sample by $ilty $and. Both materials were
collected by passing through a #4 sieve.

Method
Specific gravity was determined for both the clay sample and the sand
sample using ASTM D854. For the sand sample method B was performed using
the 250 mL pycnometer. Initial mass was 60.75g. The calibration of the
pycnometer was done prior to the start of our test and therefore the mass was only
determined once. The initial temperature of the water was 23C and from Table 2 in
the ASTM the mass density of the water at the calibration temperature is 0.99754
g/mL. The deairing method used was by vacuum and it was continuously agitated
using a magnet for 15 minutes vice the 2 hours listed in the ASTM. Steps 9.9 and
9.10 were not performed and the mass of the pycnometer, water, soil, and stopper
were recorded after the 15 minute agitation period. The soil and water was then
transferred into a bowl and dried for 24 hours. The mass of the dry soil was
recorded.

Void Ratio
Background
Void Ratio is the ratio of the volume of voids to the volume of solids. The
resulting void ratios can help define additional physical properties of soils through
additional calculations. If the void ratio is high it indicated a loose material whos
soil skeleton will tend to minimize under loading (contraction) which if the void
ratio is low (dense material) the soil skeleton will tend to increase under loading
(dilation). The maximum and minimum void ratios are a factor of grain size, grain
shape, nature of the grain size distribution curve, and the fines content.

8
Material
The void ratio procedure was performed on the sand material.
Method
The minimum and maximum void ratios for sand were determined using the
procedure in “Effects of Non-plastic fines on Minimum and Maximum Void Ratios
of Sand” by Poul Lade, Carl D. Liggio, Jr., and Jerry A. Yamamuro. The test was
performed three times, once by each group.

Unconfined compressive strength tests

Background
A strain- controlled application of the axial load can be used to determine
the unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils. The soil samples can either
be intact, remolded, or reconstituted. The shear strength, Su, can be determined by
taking one half of the unconfined compressive strength measured.
Material
Three tests were performed on the clay material that initially passed the No.
4 sieve. All three samples were reconstituted specimens using the different proctor
test results listed below. Standard Proctor method was performed by Dirt Boiz,
Modified Proctor method was performed by $ilty $and, and the Reduced Proctor
method was performed by EZE.

Standard Modified Reduced

Proctor Proctor Proctor
Max dry density (g/cm3) 1.64 1.82 1.54
Optimal Moisture 24 17 25.5
Content (%)

Method

9
 ASTM D2166 was used to find the unconfined compressive strength of the
clay material.
The strain rate selected was 1% / min to obtain 15% strain at the 15 minute mark
which meets two of the termination criteria if failure had not occurred yet. The data
results from this test were then corrected due to the cross-sectional area changing
with time.

Initial Sample prior to loading

Sample during loading and at failure

Consolidation Tests
Background
Consolidation is the volume change in saturated soils caused by the
expulsion of pore water from the loading. In sands, pore pressure increase
dissipates rapidly due to high permeability, whereas in clays, pore pressure
dissipates slowly due to low permeability. The test determines the magnitude and
rate of consolidation of soil when it is restrained laterally and drained axially while
being subjected to incremental applied controlled stress loading.

Material
A total of three samples were tested for consolidation using Standard Proctor
for EZE and Dirt Boiz. and Reduced Proctor for $ilty $and.

Method
One Dimensional Consolidation of soil was determined using ASTM
D2435. Test method B was used normally load is applied after saturating the fine
grained soils. The soil specimens was compacted using reduced proctor method
ASTM (D698). These test methods assume the pore space is fully saturated and are
generally applicable to soils naturally sedimented in water. However, we did not
accomplish that due to time limitation during our lab. this will have an impact on
the rate of consolidation (interpretation of the time curves) is only applicable to
fully saturated specimens.

10
Direct Shear Tests
Background
The direct shear standard for the tests performed in class follows ASTM
D3080 for direct shear under consolidated drained conditions. It is performed on a
relatively small specimen of diameter height aspect ratio of approximately 2.5 to
2:1. The specimen can be either a reconstituted sample or it can be an undisturbed
sample recovered from a shelby tube. Typically, an apparatus is built to
accommodate a 2.5-in. diameter by 1-in. height specimen. The specimen is sheared
at a constant displacement rate. The sample is confined by an apparatus that is built
in two parts. During consolidation these parts are joined together to consolidate the
specimen under the testing normal stress conditions. The apparatus is manually
separated by shear bolts that create a gap so that shearing forces go through the soil
only and not by friction of the two parts of the apparatus.

Material
The direct shear test was performed by all three groups on one sand sample
and one clay sample each. The sand sample was prepared by the raining method.
The clay sample was prepared by reconstituting a sample following the standard
proctor optimum moisture and maximum dry density.

Method

The consolidated drained shear strength of both the clay and sand specimens
were evaluated by ASTM D3080. The group prepared a single reconstituted
sample for both. Each specimen was 2.5-in. in diameter and 1.0-in. in height. A
GeoTac automated direct shear apparatus was used with a GeoJac motor. The other
two groups prepared samples for both as well and tested their points under
different normal stresses. These data were combined to create strength profiles for
the respective material under these loading and testing conditions.

Preparing the clay sample in the mold.

11
 Contrary to the ASTM, the clay sample was not given the appropriate time
to consolidate. Another deviation is that the clay sample was sheared much more
rapidly than recommended by the ASTM. As a general note, the ASTM
recommends a shearing rate based on the t50 or t90 from consolidation data. In lieu
of not having this data, a general recommendation (Section 9.10.3) is made for
default minimum time to failure values. Ideally, the group would have selected the
time to failure based on the consolidation t50 or t90, however due to time
constraints in class we did not select this method. Additionally, we did not select a
24 hour time to failure based on the very general recommendations due to the same
time constraints; consequently, the time to failure was selected to be just 30
minutes. The minimum distance to failure was based on the recommendation to
shear 10% of the specimen diameter, which the class adhered to. The rate of
displacement was calculated from these determinations.

Preparing the clay sample inside the mold and placing it in the apparatus prior to
shearing.

For the sand, the material was tested following the ASTM. It was set up at
an anticipated failure time of 30 minutes. The sand used in class classifies as a
clean sand, and according to section 9.10.3 in the ASTM, the minimum time to
failure for a clean sand is recommended as 10 minutes. Thus, the selected time to
failure of 30 minutes is appropriate for this test, and thus you can argue that the
criteria for direct shear as drained conditions apply.

CD triaxial tests
Background
Standard triaxial tests are symmetrical compression tests on cylindrical
samples, primarily performed to determine the shear strength of a material. The
horizontal stresses (σ2 = σ3) are imposed by water pressure; the vertical stress (σ1)
is imposed by piston load and water pressure (σ1 = F/A + σ3, with F = piston load
and A = area). In clays, drainage does not occur quickly, therefore excess pore
water pressure does not dissipate quickly. Therefore the short term shear strength
may correspond to undrained condition. Sands drain fast, therefore, under most

12
loading conditions, drained conditions exist in sands. Because of timing constraints
the test was only performed on the sand material.

Material
Three sand samples were prepared using the rain method. One important
step that we had perform is to make sure that the water used for external and
internal application of pressure to the specimen has to be de-aired to avoid
measurement errors due to compressibility of the gaseous phase.

Method
The tests were carried out according to the instructions and
recommendations for the determination of shear strength using ASTM (D7181)
using three stages:
1. Saturation,
2. Consolidation Phase, and
3. Compression/Shear Phase
Saturation pore pressure is a kind of passive pore pressure induced in the
specimen by a hydraulic pump. The pore pressure during consolidation and
compression stages is defined as back pressure, as it rises in the tested specimen as
a reaction to cell pressure and piston load. The three (3) tests were performed at
different loads (5, 10, and 20 PSI) to construct the Mohr-Coulomb envelope in the
shear stress (τ) vs. normal stress (σ_normal) diagram.

CD Sand Sample

13
CU triaxial tests
Background
The consolidated undrained triaxial test is used to determine the stress-strain
relationships of saturated cohesive soil specimens by ASTM D4767. From this test
you can calculate both the total and effective stresses and therefore the total and
effective friction angles of the subject cohesive soil from the Mohr’s circles. The
main difference between the CU and CD test described previously is that the CU
test is in undrained conditions where the drainage lines are closed, and pore water
pressure will develop.
CU test can provide both the total and effective stress failure envelope,
where the CD test only provide the effective stress failure envelope.

Material
Consolidated Undrained triaxial tests were performed at three different
effective consolidation stresses to develop a strength envelope depending on
interpretation. Dirt Boiz ran a test at 5 psi normal stress, $ilty $and ran a test at 10
psi normal stress, and Team EZE ran a test at 20 psi normal stress.

Method
The test begins by mounting the specimen correctly in the triaxial cell. The
specimen is fully saturated by the addition of water to the cell after removing the
air voids with carbon dioxide. Once the specimen is fully saturated you apply the
confining stress sigma 3 to consolidate the specimen. When the specimen is
determined to be fully consolidated, you switch to the shear step by adding
additional normal stress uniaxially through the top of the specimen.

14
The reconstituted sample after it was taken out of the mold and being placed in the
apparatus

Laboratory Results

Index Property Tests

1. Mechanical Grain Size Distribution
a. Clay
From the mechanical grain size distribution from the clay sample, it can be
seen that the mechanical method is not suitable for clays. From the shape of
our clay grain size distribution curve we have a well graded distribution that
has less than 10% fines. The resulting Cu and Cc values though were calculated
for 2 of the 3 tests since they had an effective size from the curve. The values for

15
Cu, Cc, % gravel, % sands, and % fines (listed in appendix A) were compared with
the Soil Classification Chart and Flow Chart below. This sample would classify as
a well-graded sand with clay (SW-SC) which we know to be incorrect. Due to the
large discrepancy in results from what is expected for a clay material, both a wet
sieve and hydrometer test were performed to get a more accurate representation of
the grain size of the clay sample.

Flow Chart for Classifying Coarse-Grained Soils (>50% retained on No. 200
Sieve)

16
 Table from ASTM D2487

Other than the overall data not being accurate for a clay material, a few
discrepancies were annotated. about the raw results found. It can be seen that $ilty
$and has an anomaly on the curve at the #100 sieve point. It is believed that this is
due to the #100 sieve having an excess amount of material stuck in the sieve that
was unable to be removed which was noted during the testing. Also the variation is
curves between the three groups could be due to sample needing to be broken
down by the jackhammer first and then not properly mixing the material to verify
that all three tests were using a representative sample for the material as a whole.

b. Sand
From the steep slope of our sand grain size distribution we have a poorly
(uniformly) graded sand. This is confirmed by the Cu values since a uniformity

17
coefficient < 6 represents a poorly graded sand. Our Cc value is right on the border
between a well graded and poorly graded soil. Per the Flow chart above our sand is
classified as a poorly graded sand (SP) using the lower bound of Cc.

2. Wet Sieve and Hydrometer Test

The hydrometer readings were taken at the bottom of the meniscus and
therefore no meniscus correction was applied. Since the water in the sample and in
the control were warmer than 20C a temperature correction is required. An
example plot found at AASHTO Resource website with the following correction
equation was used y = -.0007x + 0.019. The hygroscopic moisture correction factor
came out to be 0.95 which brought the final oven-dry mass of the soil (W) to be
47.3 g. Once the hydrometer test was complete and the remaining soil was oven
dried the total final mass retained was 68.89 g. This is an incorrect value as the
original mass that was supposed to be used was 50 g; therefore, the mass calculated
with the hygroscopic moisture correction factor will be used for further
calculations.
The combined results from the hydrometer test and the wet sieve test were
combined to give a grain size distribution of the clay.$ilty $and and Dirt Boiz had
<30% while EZE showed ~65% fines which is more reasonable for our sample

18
since clay materials are defined as having greater than 50% pass No. 200 sieve. It
was noted in GEC 5 that the sodium hexametaphosphate solution used to disperse
the clay particles can vary in results pending the chemical makeup of the fine
grained particles. Since two of the three results shows less than expected fines
content it can be assumed that the deflocculating agent did not fully disperse the
clay particles and therefore resulted in a low clay content. Additional test results
from Atterberg limits are required to fully classify the clay.

3. Atterberg Limits
The dry and wet sieve methods for liquid limit method A are plotted on the
Casagrande plasticity chart below. In addition, a summary of liquid limits (LL) and
plasticity index (PI) for each group are summarized in the table below.
Based on the wet sieve, the clay sample has greater than 50% of the weight
of the grains passing the #200 sieve, meaning it is a fine-grained soil. For our
results, the liquid limit is approximately 58. According to ASTM D2487, an
inorganic silt or clay with a liquid limit LL greater than 50 and a plasticity index PI
above the “A” line classifies as a Fat Clay.
As seen from the Casagrande plasticity chart, both points from Dirt Boiz and
one point from EZE actually plot below the “A” line, classifying as MH. These
19
points have about the same plasticity index (PI) as the others but with a higher
liquid limits (LL). By the relation of PI = LL - PL, it means the plastic limit for the
“MH” points was lower than the “CH” points. Nonetheless, what we classified as
CH is a high plasticity material similar to the MH that was found by some of the
other groups data.

4. Specific Gravity
The two values for specific gravity of clay that were calculated by EZE and
Dirt Boiz were 2.86 and 2.99 respectively. The typical value for an illite clay is

20
2.60-2.86 which makes the first value more viable as an answer vice 2.99. The
value of specific gravity of sand calculated was 2.75. The typical range for sand is
2.65-2.67 which makes our value slightly higher than normal.
Some errors may have been caused by the water not being completely
deaerated due to reducing the amount of time listed in the ASTM. Also, transfer of
soil from pycnometer to bowl may not have been complete due to small particles
remaining in the pycnometer due to the complexity of curves in the glass and the
strength of the distilled water bottle not being enough.

5. Void Ratio
Typical values for a poorly graded sand for minimum void ratio is 0.3 and
maximum void ratio is 0.75. There may be error in our calculations due to operator
differences when tapping the sides of the cylinder during the minimum void ratio
procedure and during the rotation of the cylinder in a time frame in the maximum
void ratio procedure.

Compaction Tests:
1. Compaction
Each sample was compacted by each member of $ilty $and following the
standard proctor method. Each material was prepared to the desired water content
discussed at the beginning of class, shown in the table in the methods section, and
the material was assumed to have an initial moisture content of 2%. There may
have been error in the estimation of the initial moisture content of the sample. This
is evident in that the moisture content taken from the reconstituted sample was
significantly larger than the target value, by about an average excess of 4 - 5%
moisture. One example is that our sample at 21% target moisture resulted in a
sample with 27% moisture content.This means that the initial moisture content
may have been higher than originally anticipated. On another sample though we
targeted 29% a moisture but it resulted in 40% moisture content. In this case there
must have been an error when calculating the required additional water needed or

21
during the additional of water portion as this is too large of a difference due to
initial moisture content alone.
Another reason could be due to an uneven distribution of the moisture within
the sample in both the initial moisture determination and also from where we
sampled the reconstituted sample for the final moisture content. In the initial
moisture determination we pulled the sample from the top of the sample which
could be more dried out than the rest of the sample. Also contrary to the ASTM,
we pulled the final moisture content from the center of the sample vice getting a
representative sample from all three of the lifts.
In addition, upon drawing the initial proctor curve, more points sat on the
wet side of optimum, meaning that the original estimation of the optimum moisture
content was overestimated. To aid in validating the optimum moisture content and
to draw a more complete curve, the group reconstituted an additional sample
following the same preparation procedures and prepared at 15% moisture content.
The point that was replaced is shown in gray on the below compaction test results
from our standard proctor test, in addition to the five points used in creating the
proctor curve.
The group Dirt Boiz who performed modified proctor has a “kink” in their
points to the right of optimum, which is due to that sample being shaved off
incorrectly. They also did not have a maximum peak in their curve and therefore
performed two additional tests prepared at 11% and 13% moisture content to
establish the peak.

22
 The maximum dry relative density should decrease from modified to
reduced proctor and the optimum moisture content should increase with tests and
the compaction effort reduces. Our results are appropriate for the maximum dry
relative density but are not appropriate for the optimal moisture content. We
believe the reduced proctor peak was not selected properly. The realistic results
would put the optimum moisture content around 26%. if the curve had its peak
between points 2 and 3 and then graph in Appendix D. Because of this potential
error new approximate values for maximum relative density and optimum moisture
content were determined when comparing all three graphs together. The new
values are listed in the table below and were used in the tests requiring
reconstituted samples.

23
 2. Consolidation Tests
Power outages occurred multiple times during the 13 day procedure. After
the initial power outage the calibration factors for the equipment were not correct
so all data beyond point 7 are invalid. Due to this error only Cr, Cc and
preconsolidation pressure can be calculated from our results. Also the
preconsolidation pressure for reduced proctor should be smaller than for standard
proctor test. This is not the case and could be due to error preparation phase when
reconstituting the sample. We believe that the sample was overly consolidated and
therefore resulted in a much larger value. Also, possible errors could have occured
when taking the sample out of the reconstituted sample as you have to apply a
pressure when inserting the mold into the sample. This should be a relatively small
pressure compared to the pressures seen during reconstitution but could still have
a small effect on the results.

Typical values for Cc of a fat clay (CH) per the table below are 0.5-0.9. All
three tests provided a much smaller value than expected.

24
 The typical laboratory values of cv for CH are .0003-.0006 ft2/day. This does
not match our results as our values are both inside and outside of that band. The
error can be due to the fact that the consolidation period was set at a constant 24
hours for each stress. This did not provide enough time for the clay to consolidate
fully and the resulting graphs when calculating the values for cv were not 100%
accurate.

25
Shear Strength Tests:
1. Unconfined compressive strength tests
The results from the three qu tests show two different types of materials. For
the modified proctor method the graph illustrates an overconsolidated clay while
the standard and reduced proctor methods shows a normally consolidated clay. We
believe this overconsolidation occurred when reconstituting the modified proctor
sample within the triaxial mold. The same hammer was used for all three samples
but the driving energy was different pending the person operating the hammer. In
most cases the results are conservative but due to the large value obtained in the
modified proctor test we recommend throwing out those results. This is verified by
the table below comparing consistence to unconfined compressive strength.

26
 Table of General Relationship of Consistency and Unconfined Compressive
Strength of Clay

2. Direct Shear
For sample preparations of the clay sample, our group prepared the
reconstituted specimen in two lifts into the direct shear apparatus. The other groups
prepared a reconstituted specimen slightly different in that they prepared a slightly
taller specimen using a triaxial mold. From the triaxial mold they extracted the
specimen and cut the sample down to the appropriate 1-in. height.

27
 A possible issue with the sample preparation differences is the location of
the forced shear plan at approximately the mid-height of the sample height.
Because our group prepared the sample inside the shear box apparatus that lift
interface may coincide or be very close to coinciding with the shear plane. Our
group properly scarified the first layer prior to placing and compacting the clay,
however even after applying the consolidation load this interface may influence the
forced shear plan on the direct shear test. This problem is not expected with the
direct shear tests from the other groups as they were able to cut a specimen of
appropriate height from a taller specimen to purposely ensure that there was no
interface on or near the forced shear plane.

It should be known that none of the consolidation loads for any direct shear
test test points in class were held long enough to allow the sample to fully
consolidate under the normal load prior to switching over to the shearing phase.
This act allows significant voids to be present in the sample during shearing which
possibly influence the shear strength. Also, incomplete consolidation of that test
point will not be representative of the shear strength of that particular material at
that normal stress, and thus the strength profile of the test is not representative of
the loads used to create it. Because it is an engineering test, it is only applicable to
the conditions and decisions it has been tested at.

a. Direct Shear on Clay

The results for direct shear on clay were interpreted as undrained conditions
with undrained shear strength of 2.7, 3.47, and 4.65 psi corresponding to 5, 10, and
20 psi effective consolidation stress, respectively. As discussed, an undrained
interpretation was made based on the shearing rate being too fast for the clay
sample to drain properly following the ASTM guidelines which may have resulting
in a higher undrained shear strength.

28
 b. Direct Shear on Sand

The results for consolidated drained direct shear on sand equate to an

effective friction angle of 35.7 degrees. This is determined by a best fit line
through the three test points plotted as corrected normal stress versus corrected
shear stress. The R-squared value is 0.9841 showing that the line is a good fit.
However, it can be seen that there a negative y-intercept and therefore a negative
cohesion plotted which is an issue of concern. This means we may have had some
additional tension in the combination of tests such as not lifting the top of the shear
box from the lower half far enough, which can create eccentric loading in the
sample if shearing is ensured through the shearing plane imposed by the shearing
box setup.

Additionally, the sand was not allowed to fully consolidate in our direct
shear tests due to class time limitations. This may lead to errors similar to the clay
in that the strength we develop from the test data is not actually representative of
the normal stresses we set out to test. Not being fully consolidated may actually
increase the permeability and therefore increase the drainage rate, but not being
fully consolidated does not make the test representative of the testing conditions
we are attempting to simulate. However, as discussed previously, it is our belief

29
that the sand direct shear test was drained appropriately based on recommended
times to failure tabulated in ASTM D3080.

3. CU Test

The four different failure modes used are max sigma 1-sigma 3 (deviator
stress), maximum obliquity (sigma 1/sigma 3), stress path p-q, and residual (user
defined at approximately 14% strain). The corresponding effective friction angles
are 20.1, 22.3, 19.8, and 15.6 degrees respectively. It makes sense that the residual
friction angle is a few degrees lower than the average of the other three.

30
 Failure plane of CD test

Consolidated - Undrained for consolidated and over consolidated Clays

4. CD Test
Since there is no excess pore pressure, the total stress will equal the effective
stress . The result of our test shows that the effective friction angle ranges between
38.7 to 39.5 degrees. The values for max deviator stress, obliquity, and stress path

31
p-q are 38.7, 38.7, and 39.5 degrees, respectively. The 14% strain failure criteria,
which can also be called the residual value, is considerably lower at 31 degrees.
The magnitude of these differences make sense. Pore pressure was shown to not be
equal to zero as expected during the test, therefore the calculated friction angle
may be larger than expected.

This graph shows the Mohr Circles for the Max sigma 1-sigma 3 (solid lines) and
the Mohr Circles for 12% strain (dashed lines).

Effective friction angle At max shear- tan^-1 38.74 deg

from Triaxial CD test on (0.8023) = 31.0 deg
Sand At 12% strain- tan^-
1(0.6)=

Discussions and Appropriate Correlations

Soil Classification Discussion and Correlations

The sand sample is classified as a poorly graded sand (SP) from the
mechanical grain size distribution. It had a specific gravity of 2.75 which is higher
than expected.
32
 From the GEC 5 from the FHWA, our Atterberg Limit results plot the clay
material above the A-line as a CH. This correlates to Illite clay. Also with our PI of
about 30 it shows that we have a highly plastic clay. This is confirmed with the
results of the wet sieve and hydrometer data showing greater than 50% fines and
using the LL value of >50 on the soil classification chart to indicate CH. The
specific gravity for clay was determined to be 2.86 which is on the high end of
expected values.

Using the combined data from the consolidation test and the atterberg limits
test we can compare the LL to the cv value. For a LL of approximately 60 the
33
undisturbed virgin curve typical value if 1x10-3 cm3/sec and the typical value for
the upper limit remolded is 3x10-4, which our value for the reduced proctor test
meets. The results for the standard proctor tests are well below these typical values
but we assume that due to the discrepancies during the consolidation testing that
they are erroneous values.

Figure from GEC 5

Shear Strength Discussion and Correlations

Summary Table:

34
Sand Comparison
For the sand sample during the direct shear and CD tests the relative density
calculated indicates a dense sand.

35
 From ERPI

From the consolidated drained direct shear test, the effective friction angle is
35.7 degrees. From triaxial CD test, the average maximum effective friction angle
is 39 degrees. The residual angle is 35.7 degrees.
From the Typical Values of drained angles of friction of sands and silts, it
can be seen that for dense rounded grain sand the effective angle is in the range of
35 to 38 degrees. This is an estimate as this range is for rounded sands and we did
not perform a scanning electron microscope analysis to determine the angularity of
the grains and to validate rounded grains. If the sands are angular the range can be
between 35-45 for medium to dense sands. By selecting the rounded grain sands
we are selecting a more conservative solution. There may have been some
variability in the relative angularity of particles between each test, which could
explain the higher friction angles at the top of the range from the Triaxial CD test.
However, this range corresponds well with our recorded friction values and make
sense given the classification and relative density of our sand that was prepared in
a systematic manner.

Typical Values of Drained Angle of Friction of Sands and Silts (Principles of

Geotechnical Engineering Ninth Edition by Braja M. Das Page 470)

Though these correlations match up well with the sand sample, the prepared
sample may not have been completely consolidated in direct shear (maybe only
about 90% total consolidation under consolidation normal stress). Not fully
consolidating the specimen prior to the shearing phase would decrease the strength
36
of the specimen, so we anticipate under a full testing condition with a proper
consolidation phase that the effective friction angle from direct shear would be
greater than the written value here of 35.7 degrees. It is still expected that the
proper test would yield a friction angle value in the applicable range of 35 to 38
degrees for a dense sand.

Triaxial testing actively tracks pore water pressures and controls the strain
rate to calculate development of excess pore water pressure, whereas the direct
shear on sand is a shear rate based on general time to failure recommendations,
based on material classification. Though we sheared slower than the recommended
rate for clean sands, it is possible that excess pore pressures developed during
shearing in the direct shear test, especially when you consider that the shear plane
is forced through the middle of the specimen, unlike the triaxial specimen.

Clay Comparison
For the clay material, though the material was tested following the ASTM
D3080 for direct shear under consolidated drained conditions, the test was in no
way tested at a rate that would allow for drained conditions. The specimen was
sheared at 0.0083 in./min. These results of friction angle are heavily overpredicted
due to the likely generation of excess pore pressures from shearing 10%
displacement (approximately 2.5 inches) in a faster shear to failure time of 30
minutes. Additionally the direct shear apparatus is not set up with a means to
calculate pore water pressure, thus there is no way of back-calculating a correct
undrained value from this test method. It is more appropriate to calculate the
strength profile based on the undrained shear strength instead of a typical Mohr
Coulomb failure line.
The variation between the undrained shear strength of the direct shear on
clay and the shear strength of the clay from the Triaxial CU could be due in part to
the fact that the direct shear test forces a shear plane through the middle of the
specimen vice the natural shear plane from the CU test. Due to the undrained
nature of the the direct shear test on clay we are unable to compare friction angles
with the results from the CU test.

37
 Using the above relation of Plasticity Index PI to Effective Friction Angle
from Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri, there is a correlation between PI and Friction
Angle for soft to stiff clays. In our case, the measured friction angles from direct
shear and Triaxial CU tests are 0 degrees and 20.6 degrees, respectively. The
average liquid limit LL and average plasticity index PI for the class results are 61
and 31, respectively, from the results table in Appendix C. Plotting our results
here, it can be seen that our results match well with the scatter in this relationship.
Being on the lower friction angle side of the scatter could be due to the fact that the
samples we prepared are reconstituted samples and should be expected to having
possibly lower shear strength than an in-situ test or undisturbed test. One way to
validate this with future testing is to perform the same tests on samples recovered
from a shelby tube and comparing the friction angle values. At this time the
sensitivity of this clay is not known.

Recommendations

Clay
The clay classifies as Fat Clay (CH). This is an unsuitable material for
roadways and as backfill material partly due to its low permeability. A lower

38
permeability means water is not free draining and this can be detrimental to
structural integrity especially if the material swell behind a structure.

It may be suitable however for structures that retain water such as earthen
dams. The dams should be constructed following a slope stability analysis that
considers the undrained shear strength (short term conditions) of the clay. The long
term condition should consider limiting the allowable movement of the structure,
as we can see from our strength at 14% strain there is a reduction of effective
friction angle from 20.7 to 15.6 degrees.

Sand
The sand classifies as a clean Poorly Graded Sand (SP). This is a suitable
backfill material as it is relatively free draining. The results found in this report are
for a reconstituted sand sample by the raining method. In the field the use of
equipment to further densify the material will increase the strength. If required, a
proctor for the optimal values of the sand may be appropriate for lab verification
and field quality control of the material.

Figure from GEC 5

39
Appendix: Additional Laboratory Data
Mechanical Grain Size Distribution

Clay Samples:

40
Sand Sample:

41
Wet Sieve & Hydrometer Data

42
43
Compaction

Specific Gravity

44
Consolidation Test

45
Direct Shear Test

46
47
Consolidated Undrained Test (CU Triaxial)

48
49
Consolidated Drained Test (CD Triaxial)

50
51
52