Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Objective:
The objectives set forth for this experiment were, to determine:
i)
ii)
Apparatus:
Compression Machine
Triaxial Cell
Specimen mold
Rubber membrane
Porous stones
Vacuum pump
Air-pressure source
Calipers
Figure 1 Diagram of a Triaxial Cell (Soil Mechanics & Foundations 3rd Edition, Budhu)
Theory:
The strength of a soil develops from contact between particles which have the capacity to
transmit vertical (normal) forces as well as shear stresses (i.e. interparticle forces). If at any point
in a plane within a soil the shear stresses becomes equal to its shear strength, subsequently,
failure may ensue. The effect of water (moisture) on the soil is also of importance. Said water
can lead to the creation of either positive or negative (suction) pressures in the soil according to
its concentration, bringing about effective stresses.
The relationship between the soil strength parameters is given by the equation:
where
is the cohesion,
is the
Procedures:
1. A volume of water was measured, added to the soil sample to achieve the required
moisture content and mixed thoroughly.
2. The sample was then placed into the mould in three (3) layers with fifteen (15) tamps per
layer and then extruded.
3. The height and diameter of the specimen was measured at several locations, as well as,
the mass and an average value for each parameter was determined.
4. The extruded specimen was placed into the membrane along with the base and top caps.
5. The specimen was then placed in the compression machine, the cell was filled with water
and pressurized.
6. The sample was then loaded continually and the dial (deviator) readings were recorded at
regular intervals until they became redundant.
7. Subsequently the sample was then removed from the machine and placed into the
moisture tin and weighed. The weight of the tin was previously determined.
8. Next, the moisture tin was placed into the oven and the following day it was weighed
again.
9. Procedures one (1) to eight (8) were repeated for two (2) other samples and cell
pressures.
10. These results were tabulated and used to determine the required parameters.
Results:
Sample1
Compression
Gauge
0.002
ProvingRingGauge
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
0.00573
Deformation
(mm)
Load(kN)
Deformation
(m)
Strain
Corrected
Area(m2)
Stress(kN/m2)
0
20
30
39
45
52
57
62
66
71
74
81
87
91
96
99
103
106
108
110
112
114
115
117
118
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
128
130
130
130
131
132
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
0.00
0.11
0.17
0.22
0.26
0.30
0.33
0.36
0.38
0.41
0.42
0.46
0.50
0.52
0.55
0.57
0.59
0.61
0.62
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.76
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
0.0009
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.0020
0.0022
0.0024
0.0026
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0034
0.0036
0.0038
0.0040
0.0042
0.0044
0.0046
0.0048
0.0050
0.0052
0.0054
0.0056
0.0058
0.0060
0.0062
0.0064
0.0066
0.0068
0.0000
0.0012
0.0023
0.0035
0.0047
0.0059
0.0070
0.0082
0.0094
0.0106
0.0117
0.0141
0.0164
0.0188
0.0211
0.0235
0.0258
0.0282
0.0305
0.0329
0.0352
0.0376
0.0399
0.0423
0.0446
0.0469
0.0493
0.0516
0.0540
0.0563
0.0587
0.0610
0.0634
0.0657
0.0681
0.0704
0.0728
0.0751
0.0775
0.0798
0.0011515
0.0011528
0.0011542
0.0011556
0.0011569
0.0011583
0.0011597
0.0011610
0.0011624
0.0011638
0.0011652
0.0011679
0.0011707
0.0011735
0.0011763
0.0011792
0.0011820
0.0011849
0.0011877
0.0011906
0.0011935
0.0011964
0.0011993
0.0012023
0.0012052
0.0012082
0.0012112
0.0012142
0.0012172
0.0012202
0.0012233
0.0012263
0.0012294
0.0012325
0.0012356
0.0012387
0.0012419
0.0012450
0.0012482
0.0012514
0.00
99.41
148.93
193.39
222.88
257.24
281.64
305.99
325.34
349.58
363.91
397.39
425.81
444.33
467.62
481.08
499.31
512.62
521.03
529.39
537.71
545.98
549.42
557.61
561.00
569.11
572.44
575.74
579.02
582.28
585.52
588.73
591.92
595.09
593.59
601.35
599.83
598.31
601.38
604.43
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
132
133
133
134
135
135
136
136
137
137
137
137
137
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
Sample2
Compression
Gauge
0.002
0.00573
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.78
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.0070
0.0072
0.0074
0.0076
0.0078
0.0080
0.0082
0.0084
0.0086
0.0088
0.0090
0.0092
0.0094
0.0822
0.0845
0.0868
0.0892
0.0915
0.0939
0.0962
0.0986
0.1009
0.1033
0.1056
0.1080
0.1103
0.0012546
0.0012578
0.0012610
0.0012643
0.0012675
0.0012708
0.0012741
0.0012774
0.0012808
0.0012841
0.0012875
0.0012909
0.0012943
602.89
605.90
604.35
607.33
610.28
608.71
611.63
610.04
612.93
611.33
609.72
608.12
606.52
ProvingRingGauge
Load(kN)
Deformation
(mm)
0.0
0.00
Deformation
(m)
0.0000
100
0.2
0.01
200
20
0.4
400
61
600
Strain
0.0000
Corrected
Area(m2)
0.0011515
Stress
(kN/m2)
0.00
0.0002
0.0023
0.0011542
4.96
0.11
0.0004
0.0047
0.0011569
99.06
0.8
0.35
0.0008
0.0094
0.0011624
300.70
88
1.2
0.50
0.0012
0.0141
0.0011679
431.73
800
110
1.6
0.63
0.0016
0.0188
0.0011735
537.10
1000
134
2.0
0.77
0.0020
0.0235
0.0011792
651.15
1200
151
2.4
0.87
0.0024
0.0282
0.0011849
730.24
1400
162
2.8
0.93
0.0028
0.0329
0.0011906
779.65
1600
171
3.2
0.98
0.0032
0.0376
0.0011964
818.97
1800
178
3.6
1.02
0.0036
0.0423
0.0012023
848.33
2000
185
4.0
1.06
0.0040
0.0469
0.0012082
877.37
2200
192
4.4
1.10
0.0044
0.0516
0.0012142
906.08
2400
199
4.8
1.14
0.0048
0.0563
0.0012202
934.47
2600
202
5.2
1.16
0.0052
0.0610
0.0012263
943.84
2800
205
5.6
1.17
0.0056
0.0657
0.0012325
953.07
3000
207
6.0
1.19
0.0060
0.0704
0.0012387
957.53
3200
209
6.4
1.20
0.0064
0.0751
0.0012450
961.90
3400
210
6.8
1.20
0.0068
0.0798
0.0012514
961.60
3600
211
7.2
1.21
0.0072
0.0845
0.0012578
961.25
3800
210
7.6
1.20
0.0076
0.0892
0.0012643
951.78
4000
209
8.0
1.20
0.0080
0.0939
0.0012708
942.37
Sample3
Compression
Gauge
0.002
0.00573
ProvingRingGauge
Load(kN)
Deformation
(mm)
0.0
Corrected
Area(m2)
0.0011515
Stress
(kN/m2)
0.00
50
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.0012
0.0011528
4.97
100
0.2
0.02
0.0002
0.0023
0.0011542
14.89
150
0.3
0.03
0.0003
0.0035
0.0011556
29.75
200
42
0.4
0.24
0.0004
0.0047
0.0011569
208.02
250
69
0.5
0.40
0.0005
0.0059
0.0011583
341.34
300
91
0.6
0.52
0.0006
0.0070
0.0011597
449.64
350
109
0.7
0.62
0.0007
0.0082
0.0011610
537.95
400
124
0.8
0.71
0.0008
0.0094
0.0011624
611.25
450
137
0.9
0.79
0.0009
0.0106
0.0011638
674.53
500
148
1.0
0.85
0.0010
0.0117
0.0011652
727.83
600
167
1.2
0.96
0.0012
0.0141
0.0011679
819.31
700
181
1.4
1.04
0.0014
0.0164
0.0011707
885.89
800
193
1.6
1.11
0.0016
0.0188
0.0011735
942.36
900
203
1.8
1.16
0.0018
0.0211
0.0011763
988.82
1000
211
2.0
1.21
0.0020
0.0235
0.0011792
1025.32
1100
218
2.2
1.25
0.0022
0.0258
0.0011820
1056.79
1200
223
2.4
1.28
0.0024
0.0282
0.0011849
1078.43
1300
228
2.6
1.31
0.0026
0.0305
0.0011877
1099.94
1400
232
2.8
1.33
0.0028
0.0329
0.0011906
1116.53
1500
236
3.0
1.35
0.0030
0.0352
0.0011935
1133.02
1600
239
3.2
1.37
0.0032
0.0376
0.0011964
1144.64
1800
246
3.6
1.41
0.0036
0.0423
0.0012023
1172.41
2000
250
4.0
1.43
0.0040
0.0469
0.0012082
1185.64
2200
254
4.4
1.46
0.0044
0.0516
0.0012142
1198.67
2400
257
4.8
1.47
0.0048
0.0563
0.0012202
1206.83
2600
260
5.2
1.49
0.0052
0.0610
0.0012263
1214.84
2800
262
5.6
1.50
0.0056
0.0657
0.0012325
1218.07
3000
263
6.0
1.51
0.0060
0.0704
0.0012387
1216.57
3200
265
6.4
1.52
0.0064
0.0751
0.0012450
1219.63
3400
266
6.8
1.52
0.0068
0.0798
0.0012514
1218.02
3600
268
7.2
1.54
0.0072
0.0845
0.0012578
1220.92
3800
268
7.6
1.54
0.0076
0.0892
0.0012643
1214.66
4000
269
8.0
1.54
0.0080
0.0939
0.0012708
1212.91
4200
270
8.4
1.55
0.0084
0.0986
0.0012774
1211.11
4400
271
8.8
1.55
0.0088
0.1033
0.0012841
1209.26
4600
271
9.2
1.55
0.0092
0.1080
0.0012909
1202.93
0.00
Deformation Strain
(m)
0.0000
0.0000
4800
272
9.6
1.56
0.0096
0.1127
0.0012977
1201.02
5000
272
10.0
1.56
0.0100
0.1174
0.0013046
1194.66
5200
272
10.4
1.56
0.0104
0.1221
0.0013116
1188.31
5400
270
10.8
1.55
0.0108
0.1268
0.0013186
1173.26
5600
269
11.2
1.54
0.0112
0.1314
0.0013258
1162.64
Sample1
Sample2
Sample3
V
214.18
A
214.18
F2/H2
214.18
N/A
196
331.69
201.2
330.77
207.62
MassofTinandSample(Before
Drying)(g)
MassofTinandSampleAfter
Drying)(g)
Before(g)
329.71
317.02
323.56
318.02
306.05
313.51
N/A
117.51
116.59
BeforeDrying(g)
133.71
115.82
115.94
AfterDrying(g)
MoistureContent
122.02
0.096
104.85
0.105
105.89
0.095
Tin
MassofHolder(g)
MassofHolder&Sample(g)
MassofTin(g)
Height(m)
85.15
85.21
85.26
85.21
0.0852
Diameter(m)
38.29
38.31
38.27
38.29
0.0383
Area(m )
Volume(m2)
1151.491
98114.725
1.2E03
9.8E05
BulkDensity
(kg/m3)
DryDensity
(kg/m3)
UnitWeight
(kN/m3)
DryUnit
Weight
(kN/m3)
1362.79
1243.65
13.37
12.20
GraphShowingStressvs.StrainforSample1
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
Stress
(kN/m2)
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0.0000
0.0200
0.0400
0.0600
0.0800
0.1000
0.1200
Strain
GraphShowingStressvs.StrainforSample2
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
Stress
(kN/m2)
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.0000
0.0100
0.0200
0.0300
0.0400
0.0500
0.0600
0.0700
0.0800
0.0900
0.1000
Strain
GraphShowingStressvs.StrainforSample2
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
Stress
(kN/m2)
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.0000
0.0200
0.0400
0.0600
0.0800
0.1000
0.1200
0.1400
Strain
10
GraphShowingMohrCircleConstruction
(MohrCoulombFailureCriterion)
900
700
500
300
100
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1600.00
1800.00
100
300
500
700
900
11
Sample Calculations:
0.0383
4
1.2
1.2
10
10
0.0852
&
196.00 133.71
329.71
9.8
10
0.13371
.
0.096
0.13371
9.8 10
1362.79
1 0.096
1243.65
1000
1362.79 9.81
1000
13.37
1 0.096
206.84
13.37
12.20
/
206.84
819.77
2
612.9
206.84
2
206.84
2
1362.79
9.6%
819.77
2
819.77
306.46
513.31
12
Discussion:
Several individuals have carried out extensive work in the field of soil mechanics. One of the
most important figures is Charles Coulomb, who presented to law of soil shear strength, which
states that:
The shear strength of a soil is directly proportional to the apparent cohesion and product of the
normal force and friction angle. Given by the formula:
Which means that if inter granular friction increases the normal stress acting on the shear surface
also increases. Whereas, the cohesion is dependent on the type of the soil, size of the soil grains
and the packing of the soil grains and on the suction properties of the soil.
Coulombs Law was subsequently modified to include the effect of water (pressure) on a soil,
with the subsequent parameters being known as the effective normal stress, cohesion and friction
angle, respectively, denoted by:
Where:
and
Coulombs Law proposed that failure would occur at any point given a critical combination of
shear stress and effective normal stress being developed.
Mohr and Coulomb subsequently postulated a method to determine the point beyond which
failure of a soil would occur. This was done via the use of the effective principal stresses ( ,
which are then used to construct Mohr circles. After drawing these circles, a tangential line is
drawn touching all the circles towards the origin of the graph plotted. These constructions
produces what is known as the Mohr Coulomb failure envelope and denotes the strength
parameters for that particular soil. Any subsequent change in either of the principal stresses may
lead to failure of the soil.
In order to ascertain these major and minor principal stresses, a triaxial test was carried out in
which used three (3) different samples with a different fixed cell pressure or confining stress ( )
for each and varying normal stress ( ). The values of the normal stress were plotted against
strain and the maximum was used to construct the necessary Mohr circles. The results were
13
presented above and the cohesion of the soil was found to be -100 kN/m2 and the friction angle
was found to be 450.
The maximum values of normal stress increased as the confining stress was increased showing
that there is a direct relation between the strength of the soil and the principal stresses. This is
shown by the increasing size of the Mohr circles constructed.
Given that the soil sample was sandy the friction angle can be considered to be accurate.
Intuitively, the cohesion value cannot be negative but instead must be relatively close to zero.
Considering this, it can be said that there were obvious errors in the experiment. This was also
indicated during the preparation of the samples to be tested, where majour difficulties were
experienced when extruding the samples from the mould. As a result of this, there may be an
error with the first sample in particular since it was at this moisture content that most difficulty
was experienced.
Apart from this error, other errors brought on more so by the human factor may also have been
introduced into the experiment. These sources of error are inherent and lead to inequalities in
measured quantities as compared to their actual (true) value. It is important to note these sources
of error and take necessary precautions in order to reduce their influence. Some of the sources of
error that were inherent in this experiment were:
1. Parallax error, in taking the dial readings. Also in determining the volume of water to be
added to the soil samples.
2. Zero errors, in resetting the dials and gauges, which would lead to erroneous
displacements being found. Also zero errors in the scale used to determine the masses of
the various elements of the apparatus. Some of the equipment in the lab, due to their age,
may also be out of calibration.
3. Environmental errors, such as air drying of samples while preparations are made with the
apparatus leading to changes in the moisture content of the sample and thus affecting the
accuracy of the results obtained.
Precautions that can be taken are thus, ensure that instruments are read at eye level to minimize
parallax. Also other group member can be asked to perform an independent check in order to
verify readings obtained. Ensure that all tools used for measuring are properly zeroed before
14
commencing measurement. Finally, the samples should be handled away from any windows,
doors or fans where air can be introduced to it thus causing evaporation of water or vice versa.
Conclusion:
The internal friction angle and cohesion value of the given soil sample were determined. In this
regard it can be said that the aims and objectives set forth for this experiment were successfully
completed. In the process an appreciation was gained for the triaxial test, its suitability for
determining the aforementioned parameters of soil strength and the application of these
parameters in Civil Engineering practices.
15
Objective:
The objectives set forth for this experiment were, to determine:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
Apparatus:
Oedometer
Dial gauge
Loading device
Stop watch/ timer
Calipers
Weights
Squeeze bottle
Moisture tins
Scale
Oven
Figure 2 Diagram of Consolidation Apparatus (Principles of Geotechnical Engineering 7th Edition, Das)
16
Theory:
The gradual compression of a cohesive soil by a weight on it to drive the water and air out of the
voids in the soil, is known as consolidation. This is one of the most important concepts in Civil
Engineering, as most if not all structures built involves the placement of some load on a soil. The
usual result of said loading is settlement. Consolidation occurs in soils of low permeability and is
not the same as compaction, which is immediate and occurs only where there is some sand.
It is therefore of particular importance to determine various parameters associated with the
consolidation of a sample of soil for various load stages. These parameters are integral for the
determination of the settlement of a soil. They are:
the coefficient of consolidation cv, via the log time and root time methods
the permeability, k
the settlement,
:
:
0.848
sin
2
where
0,1,2,3
:
:
sin
2
17
Procedures:
1. The sample was prepared as set forth in the lab manual
2. The specimen was placed in the consolidation cell, sandwiched between two porous
stones.
3. The cell was then filled with water and placed in the load frame. A deformation gauge
was placed over the specimen.
4. The load was placed and the stop watch was started simultaneously and the deformation
readings were taken at the necessary time intervals.
5. The results were tabulated and used to carry out the relevant calculations for each
method.
Results:
Deformation/mm
TimeElapsed/min
5.424
5.370
5.356
5.346
5.338
5.330
5.324
5.318
5.316
5.312
5.308
5.300
5.294
5.288
5.286
5.282
5.276
5.274
5.272
5.268
5.254
5.252
5.250
5.250
5.250
0.00
0.25
1.00
2.25
4.00
6.25
9.00
12.25
16.00
20.25
25.00
36.00
49.00
64.00
74.00
84.00
94.00
104.00
114.00
124.00
1177.00
1237.00
1297.00
1357.00
1477.00
GraphShowingDeformationvs.Time
5.380
5.360
5.340
Deformation
(mm)
5.320
5.300
5.280
5.260
5.240
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
Time(mins)
1000.00
10000.00
GraphShowingTheoretical&Experimental
Settlementvs.Time
0.12
0.1
0.08
Settlement
(mm)
0.06
0.04
Theoretical
Values
0.02
Experimental
Values
0
1
10
100
1000
Time(mins)
19
Sample Calculations:
20
Discussion:
The graphs plotted (see appendix) were according to the Casagrande and Taylor methods, with
the former using the deformation and time (plotted on a log scale) and the latter using
deformation and the square root of time (plotted on a special graph). These were used to find the
cv values which were 0.55 and
respectively.
The values of cv were different in both methods based on the times (t50 & t90) used in either
method. This is intuitively expected since the times are different in each case. Therefore it is
important to specify which method was used to obtain the value of cv.
The third graph plotted compared the theoretical and experimental settlement values at various
times. In each instance the theoretical and experimental values complimented each other as there
was little or no major difference in the values. This shows that theoretical method can used to
receive the same results that experimentation yields, simply by using the cv value. It is also
indicative of the usefulness of cv in determining the settlement of a soil.
As mentioned previously, the consolidation test is an important one in determining the behaviour
of a soil under loading. Its results can be used to calculate void ratio changes and settlement.
This is of particular importance in the field of Civil Engineering.
There exist a few limitations to the consolidation test, based on the assumptions set forth for this
method in particular. These limitations affect the inferences that can be drawn from the
experiment but notwithstanding such, the experiment does produce useful information in terms
of soil consolidation and settlement.
In the one dimensional (1D) equation the permeability (k) and coefficient of volume
compressibility (mv) are assumed constant, but as the consolidation of a soil progresses, the void
spaces decrease and this results in a decreased permeability and therefore permeability is not
constant. In a similar fashion, the coefficient of volume compressibility also changes with stress
level. Therefore cv is not constant. Also the flow is assumed to be one dimensional (1D) but in
reality flow is three dimensional (3D). The application of external load is assumed to produce
excess pore water pressure over the entire soil but in some cases the excess pore water pressure
does not develop over its entirety.
21
As with any other laboratory experiment several errors are inherent and as a result this may
reduce the accuracy of the data obtained. Some of the errors in this experiment are:
1. Parallax error, in taking the dial readings.
2. Zero errors, in resetting the dials and gauges, which would lead to erroneous
displacements being found. Some of the equipment in the lab, due to their age, may also
be out of calibration.
3. Error in reading the dial at the exact time required.
4. Environmental errors, such as air drying of samples while leading to changes in the
moisture content of the sample and thus affecting the accuracy of the results obtained.
Precautions that can be taken are to ensure that instruments are read at eye level to minimize
parallax. Also other group member can be asked to perform an independent check in order to
verify readings obtained. Ensure that all tools used for measuring are properly zeroed before
commencing measurement. Finally, the samples should be handled away from any windows,
doors or fans where air can be introduced to it thus causing evaporation of water or vice versa.
The lab can be further improved by using a greater number of load stages and determining the
settlement from such. This would enable the parameters for the soil to be found under different
loading conditions.
Also the use of several samples from that one soil specimen can also improve the results
obtained as the soil may vary from place to place even in a relatively small location. Therefore
the more samples can lead to a better picture being painted as it relates to the consolidation and
settlement of the soil.
Conclusion:
Given the aims and objectives which were dictated for this experiment, it can be said that it was
successfully completed. The values of all required parameters were calculated and can be found
above. It can also be concluded that theoretical settlement values are indeed similar to that of
experimental values and can be used to determine the settlement of a soil, provided that the
coefficient of consolidation cv is accurately calculated. Thus the importance of consolidation
theory and settlement to the field of Civil Engineering was observed and a greater appreciation
was gained as such.
22
Bibliography:
Craig, R.F. Craigs Soil Mechanics. Seventh Edition. New York 2004.
Budhu, M. Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Third Edition. New Jersey. 2010.
Das, B.M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Seventh Edition. Connecticut. 2010.
Das, B.M. Advanced Soil Mechanics. Third Edition. New York. 2008.
Kalinski, M.E Soil Mechanics Lab Manual. 2nd Edition. New Jersey. 2011
23
Appendix:
24