Abstract

A comprehensive laboratory test programme was carried out on an artificial soil and the results
applied in the selection of design parameters for the design of an earthfill embankment dam and a
flexible pavement. The selection of design parameters was carried out with the limitations of the
various lab tests in mind. Index tests were here carried out to classify the soil and deduce its likely
field behaviour. Slope stability analyses were carried out for three critical scenarios, immediately after
construction, steady state seepage and rapid drawdown. Deterministic and probabilistic methods of
slope stability analysis were carried out, the latter due its added ability in accounting for the
variability of input parameters. The dam was shown to be stable in all three critical states.

Introduction
An artificial soil comprising 75% sand, 20% kaolinite and 5% bentonite was mixed using an industrial
mixer. Various tests were carried out on this soil and the results used to design:
- A 30 m high embankment dam founded on impermeable soil.
- A flexible pavement running along the crest of the dam

The fill placement water content was set at optimum moisture content plus 1.5%.

Soil description and classification
The behaviour of a soil under field conditions can be modelled or predicted from its classification
parameters and simple index tests. A number of tests were carried out in order to classify the soil and
thus enable the prediction of its suitability for embankment construction, its drainage characteristics,
post construction stability and suitability for pavement construction. Particle sized distribution by dry
sieving and Atterberg limits were determined for the soil.

Cone penetration test
A sample of soil was mixed with water to form a paste. A sample of the wet soil was then carefully
transferred into a small container after which the top surface was smoothed with a palette knife. Great
care was taken during the transfer of the sample to avoid trapping air. The penetration cone was
lowered to just touch the top surface of the soil, then released for 5 seconds. The cone penetration was
recorded. The procedure was repeated with a sample taken from the same soil paste. Once penetration
readings did not differ by more than 0.5 mm, the average reading was recorded. A sample from the
area penetrated by the cone was taken to determine the moisture content. The test was repeated for the
same sample after adding more water to the sample. The water content was progressively increased
and further tests performed at successively higher water contents.

The moisture content of each specimen was plotted versus the cone penetration and the moisture
content at 20 mm cone penetration is the liquid limit (wL) of the sample. The graph depicting the
relationship between the moisture content and penetration is shown in Figure 1 in the appendix.

Results
The liquid limit of the sample is 77.7%

Determination of particle relative density
A narrow necked 50 ml density bottle was weighed empty. The container was filled to the top with
water and weighed. A quantity of the soil was placed in the container and the mass of the container
and soil was recorded. The soil sample was then flooded with water and the container agitated to
remove air bubbles. The container was filled to the top with water and weighed again. The relative
density of the particles is equal to the mass of the dry soil particles divided by the mass of the water
they displace.

Results
The specific gravity of the sample was determined to be 2.6


Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index
A sample of about 20g of soil paste was moulded between the fingers and rolled between the palms
until slight cracks started to appear on the surface. A small portion of the sample was formed into a
thread about 6mm in diameter and using the fingers only, the thread was rolled into a thread of 3 mm
using forward and back movements. Five moulding and drying cycles were repeated until the 3 mm
thread sheared both longitudinally and transversely. The crumbled soil thread was gathered together
and the moisture content of the sample determined. The moisture content corresponding to this point
is the plastic limit (wp).
Results
The average of 15 different tests was taken to determine the results. Eliminating the two extreme
outliers did not change the average plasticity value.

The plastic limit of the sample is 17 %.

Plasticity Index and liquidity Index
The plasticity index, Ip was calculated from the equation:
Ip = wL wp

The plasticity index of the sample is 60.7 %.

The liquidity index, I
L
, was calculated from:
p
L
I
wp wa
I

=
where wa is the moisture content of the fraction passing the 425 m test sieve of the soil. The
moisture content of the fraction passing the 425 m sieve was calculated from:

|
.
|

\
|
=
Pa
w w
a
100

where Pa is the percentage by dry mass of the portion of the soil sample passing the 425 m test
sieve. From the particle size distribution, Pa is 71%. The equivalent moisture content wa = 23.9%.
The liquidity index is equal to 0.114.

Particle size distribution
The primary control factor on the behaviour of soil is the particle size and the size distribution. The
permeability of soils is also greatly influenced by the particle size distribution. A stack of sieves,
mesh sizes 63 m, 90 m, 125 m, 250 m, 425 m, 2 mm was placed under a mechanical shaker for
two minutes. The percentage passing each sieve was determined and the cumulative percentage by
mass passing the sieves was calculated.

Results
The particle size distribution of the sample is shown in Figure 2 in the appendix.

Compaction test and the California Bearing Ratio test
A soil sample made up of 4.5 kg ordinary building sand, 1.2 kg kaolinite and 0.3 kg bentonite was
mixed with a mechanical mixer for 60 seconds. Enough water was added to the sample to give a water
content of 5%. The sample was then compacted in a cylindrical metal mould by a freely falling, 4.5 kg
rammer. 56 blows were delivered per compaction and five compaction cycles per sample were carried
out. The moisture content of the compacted sample was then determined. The test was repeated for
fresh samples of the soil sample, each subsequent test carried out at a higher moisture content. Tests
were carried out at the following moisture contents:

After trimming the top of the sample level with the mould, the CBR test was conducted on the top and
base of the sample. The CBR test was carried out in order to describe the strength of the subgrade.
The test was carried out on the compacted samples of the subgrade. The plunger load was recorded
every 0.5mm to a maximum of 5 mm.

For each moisture content, the bulk density was calculated according to the equation:
3 1 2
/
1000
m Mg
M M
b

=

The dry density was calculated from:
3
/
1
m Mg
w
b
d
+
=


Results
The moisture content was plotted versus the dry density to determine the optimum moisture content.
The graph is shown in figure 3 in the appendix. The optimum moisture content of this soil is 14%

Determination of the one-dimensional consolidation properties
Oedometer Test
The primary consolidation characteristics of the soil sample were investigated from the oedometer
test. A saturated sample was loaded (axially) incrementally, each stress increment being held constant
until the primary consolidation had ceased. The decrease in height due to drainage of excess water as
a result of consolidation was noted. The load was applied centrally to the loading cap and readings
were taken at an interval of 0, 15, 30 seconds, 1, 2,4,9,16,25 minutes, 1,2, hours. The duration of the
consolidation period between successive increments was kept constant.

The initial moisture content of the sample (wo) was determined to be 13%. Initial attempts at
deducing the coefficient of consolidation from the results of the oedometer test produced nonsensical
results. The points corresponding to the end of primary consolidation and the secondary compression
were not discernible form the graph. The sample appeared to undergo primary consolidation
indefinitely as the graph below shows.


Log time method
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000
log t (min)
G
a
u
g
e

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

(
m
m
)
To estimate the consolidation settlement, the coefficient of volume compressibility was calculated
from the graph of void ratio versus effective stress (Figure 4 in the appendix). This analysis assumes
that there is no lateral strain on the embankment material. Assuming that the embankment fill is
saturated, the settlement of the embankment at a depth of 30 metres is given by:
s
c
= m
v
h
Since m
v
is not constant but depends on the stress range, the approximate vertical effective stress at a
depth of 30 metres below the crest was calculated as follows:
The placement water content of the embankment fill is 15% therefore the void ratio, e is

e = wGs
= 0.15 2.6
= 0.39

Bulk density of the embankment fill =
( )
w
s
e
w G

+
+
=
1
1

Bouyant unit weight of the fill = =
w
s
e
G

1
1

= 11.28 kN/m3

Unit weight of the fill, = 21.08 kN/m3

The vertical effective stress at depth 30 m, assuming that fill at a depth of 2 metres to 30 metres is
fully saturated and fill from the crest up to 2 metres is dry.

= (28 11.28) + (21.08 2)
= 358 kN/m2
From the graph of e versus , in the stress range 300 to 400 kPa,
o
= 300, 1 = 400, e
o
= 0.38,
e
1
= 0.33.

100
33 . 0 38 . 0
38 . 1
1
1
1
0 1
1 0
0

+
=
v
v
m
e e
e
m
o o


m
v
= 3.623 10 -4 m2/kN
m
v
= 0.36 m2 / MN

For a pressure increment of 100 kPa in excess of the present effective overburden pressure at 30 m
depth, the total settlement
c
is

c
= m
v
100 H
= 3.623 10 -4 100 30
= 1.1 m.

As expected, this value of predicted settlement is highly conservative. According to Fell et al, (2005),
a realistic expected settlement of the dam is up to 0.75% in 20 years.

Determination of the undrained shear strength in triaxial compression without measurement of
pore pressure
The undrained shear strength test was carried out to measure the strength of the soil when there is no
time for drainage to occur such as in the event of rapid drawdown. The undrained strength of the soil
was determined at constant confining pressure with no change in total moisture content.

Results
Results of the undrained tests are shown in Figure 4.
Discussion
The tangent to the stress circles is not horizontal possibly because:
- Due to the samples having a different specific volume at failure. Before failure of the sample,
it is very likely that during the application of the cell pressure, the sample swelled to its
equilibrium moisture content.
- The samples were only partially saturated allowing the compression of the sample


Consolidated Undrained Triaxial tests
The consolidated undrained strength of the soil sample was determined as follows. Three samples
were prepared and subjected to confining pressures of 50, 100 and 200 kPa respectively. The sample
was removed from its sampling tube, placed between the end caps and the membrane placed around
the sample. The sample was placed centrally on the base pedestal of the triaxial cell, after which the
triaxial cell was filled with water. The cell was pressurised and the test performed. After failure of the
sample, the moisture content was determined. The sample was consolidated by increasing the cell
pressure to 50, 100 and 200 kPa. A deviator stress was then applied to shear the sample.

The results of the test were processed, assuming that there was no volume change. An area correction
was applied.

Discussion
The deviator stress at failure is controlled by the water content of the sample, reducing for high
moisture content. During shearing, (medium dense or dense sand) dilation of the sand occurs leading
to the development of negative pore pressures. If the pore pressure falls to atmospheric pressure,
cavitation of the sample occurs as the dissolved air comes out of solution (Conforth, 2005). Even
though pore pressures were not measured, during the shear test, the pore pressure falls due to slight
dilation of the sand. Water migrates to the shear plane resulting in lower moisture content at the top
and bottom of the specimen and higher moisture content at the mid height. Only one sample was
taken to determine the moisture content so this effect was not verified in the laboratory.

Determination of the unconfined compressive strength
A portable autographic compression apparatus was used to determine the UCS. A sample of diameter
38 mm was mounted between two flat smooth metal platens after which force was applied manually
by a rotary handle and lead screw. The force applied to the specimen was recorded on a chart. The
maximum compressive stress sustained by the specimen is the UCS of the soil. This test applies to
saturated, cohesive soils free form fissuring. It is a rapid test and during the test, there is no drainage
of water into or out of the specimen.

Results
For our sample at 15% moisture content, conjugate failure planes were observed in the sample after
the test, with no single definite failure plane. This was consistent with the behaviour observed during
the triaxial test of failure by barrelling. The point representing failure of the sample was read off the
chart.

UCS = 0.014 the spring constant (8 N/mm
2
)
UCS = 92 kPa
The UCS is approximately twice the undrained cohesion value, in this case, c
u
of the sample is
estimated to be 46 kPa.

The results are comparable to the values obtained from the triaxial test (48 kPa), thus the test served to
confirm the result of the unconsolidated undrained triaxial test.




Determination of permeability by the constant and falling-head method
Constant head
The constant head method was used to determine the permeability of the sand. The internal diameter
of the permeameter was measured as well as the distance between the manometer glands. After
saturating the sample, the control valve at the base was opened to allow water to flow through the
sample. A measuring cylinder was placed under the outlet form the discharge point. The quantity of
water collected in the cylinder in 52 seconds was recorded.

Results
The permeability of the sand was determined to be 2.3 10
-4
m/s

Falling head test
The falling head test was used to determine the permeability of the soil mixture. This test is widely
applied to the determination of fine grained low permeability soils.
The average permeability of the sample was determined to be: 1.64 10
-6
m/s

Discussion and Summary of laboratory tests and data

Particle size distribution:
The particle size distribution curve shows a smooth gradation of particle sizes between 0.1 and 0.6
mm with a flat tail in the fines region and particle sizes greater than 0.6 mm. The soil is a uniformly
graded, very clayey medium SAND. The soil plots below the A line and is of very high plasticity.

The particle size distribution of the fines was not established because hydrometer tests were not
carried out. As a result, the coefficients of curvature and uniformity of the soil could not be specified.
The British standard recommends a period of automated shaking of 10 minutes and this was not
adhered to during the sieving process.

Determination of the plastic limit
There was some variation between the values obtained by different group members. These variations
could be due to a number of reasons, including:
- The method of determining the plastic limit is highly subjective and depends heavily on the
judgement of the person carrying out the test.
- The scratched glass plate introduces discrepancies in the results during rolling.
- A change in the applied rolling pressure affects the final result. It was difficult to maintain a
constant rolling pressure throughout the test.

Specific gravity
The results of this test were consistent for three groups. The incomplete removal of air form the
sample is the greatest source of error in this test. Errors also arise from not filling the container
exactly to the top with water before weighing it. Air free distilled water was added to the sample and a
vacuum desiccator should have been used to remove all the air in the sample. The temperature of the
water also influences the results obtained thus it is also important to carry out the test at a constant
temperature. One of the assumptions of the test is that the soil was dry at the beginning of the test.

Compaction tests
Errors are introduced due to crushing of soil grains during compaction, as well as inadequate mixing
of the soil and water. This was a problem particularly for the 5% water content as the amount of water
did not coat all the soil particles uniformly. Placing the sample in an airtight container for at least 16
hours is recommended in order to allow water to migrate throughout the soil. The laboratory dry
density value may not match exactly the dry density achieved by field compaction equipment