You are on page 1of 127

# INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT ON SOIL EXPLORATION AND TESTING
.

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
SR. NO.: 07-05-00-90-12-12-1-09649 Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
Geotechnical Engineering

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FINE GRAINED SOIL BY DENSITY BOTTLE
METHOD

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

16
th
August, 2012

Lab Report on Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine grained soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FINE GRAINED SOIL BY
DENSITY BOTTLE METHOD.

APPARATUS REQUIRED:
a) Five density bottles of 50 ml capacity with stoppers.
b) Oven (105
o
to 110
o
C)
c) Vacuum desiccator fitted with rubber tube.
d) Source of vacuum or vacuum pump.
e) A balance readable and accurate to 0.001g.
f) Spatula (150mm length and 3mm width )
g) Constant temperature bath of temperature 27
o
C ±0.2
o
C.
h) Thermometer
THEORY:
This test is done to determine the specific gravity of fine-grained soil by density bottle method as
per IS: 2720 (Part 3/Sec 1) – 1980 (Reaffirmed 1987).
Specific gravity is the ratio of the weight in air of a given volume of a material at a standard
temperature to the weight in air of an equal volume of distilled water at the same stated
temperature. The specific gravity is used to find out the degree of saturation and unit weight of
moist soil. Ultimately the unit weight of soil is used to determine pressure, settlement and
stability problem.
It is determined in the laboratory by using following formula:
……………..………………………………... (I)
Where
m
1
= mass of density bottle in gm;
m
2
= mass of bottle and dry soil in gm;
m
3
= mass of bottle, soil and water in gm; and
m
4
= mass of bottle when full of water only in gm.

Lab Report on Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine grained soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

The specific gravity is calculated at temperature 27
o
C ± 0.2
o
C. If the room temperature is differ
from 27
o
C, following correction is necessary:
…………………………………………………………… (II)
Where,
corrected specific gravity at 27
o
C, and
……………………….…………………… (III)

PROCEDURE
1. Five density bottles are washed in distilled water and dry it in thermostatically controlled
drying oven, capable of maintaining a temperature of 105
o
C to 110
o
C. Cool it in
desiccators.
2. Weigh the bottle with stopper to nearest 0.001 gm (m
1
).
3. Take oven dried Soil sample of 50 gm passing through 4.75 mm and Transfer 5 gm of the
oven dried soil sample in the density bottle. Weigh the bottle with stopper and soil
sample (m
2
).
4. Add sufficient air free distilled water so that soil is just covered. Place the bottle
containing water and soil without stopper in vacuum desiccators which is evacuated
gradually. The bottle is kept 1 hour in the desiccator until no further loss of air is
apparent.
5. Release the vacuum and remove the lid of the desiccator. Stir the soil in the bottle
carefully with a spatula. Before removing the spatula from the bottle, the particles of soil
adhering to it should be washed off with a few drops of air free water. Replace the lid of
the desiccator and again apply vacuum. Repeat the procedure until no more air is evolved
from the specimen. (if desiccator is not available, the entrapped air can be removed by
heating density bottle on water bath or sand bath).
6. Remove the bottle from desiccator and fill again with air free distilled water upto neck of
bottle. The stopper is placed in each bottle and kept in constant temperature bath till it
maintain constant temperature but if temperature of room is constant it is not necessary.

Lab Report on Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine grained soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

If volume of water is decreased, remove stopper and filled with water upto neck and
placed again in constant temperature bath until attained constant temperature.
7. Take out the bottle from water bath, wiped dry and weighed to the nearest 0.001gm (m
3
).
8. Clean the bottle and filled with air free distilled water upto neck, keep in water bath. If
any change in volume, fill water and again keep in water bath until constant temperature
is reached.
9. Weigh the bottle filled with water and closed with stopper (m
4
).
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
Specific Gravity of Soil Solid (Gs)
Name of Test: Specific Gravity of Fine Grained Soil Date of Testing: 14-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red silty clay Tested By: Group 2
S.N. Observations and Calculations
Determination No.
1 2 3 4 5
Observations
1 Room Temperature in
0
C 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4
2 Density Bottle No. I II III IV V
3 Mass of empty density bottle in gm (m
1
) 29.8 33.68 30.22 27.84 29.99
4 Mass of density bottle + Soil in gm (m
2
) 37.79 41.66 38.24 35.9 37.99
5 Mass of density bottle + Soil + Water in gm (m
3
) 85.51 89.02 86.16 82.9 85.77
6 Mass of density bottle + Water in gm (m
4
) 80.55 84.11 81.25 77.96 80.85
Calculations
7 m
2
-m
1
7.99 7.98 8.02 8.06 8
8 m
4
-m
1
50.75 50.43 51.03 50.12 50.86
9 m
3
-m
2
47.72 47.36 47.92 47 47.78
10 Specific Gravity using Formula in Eq. (I) 2.64 2.60 2.58 2.58 2.60
11 Average Specific Gravity (23.4
o
C) 2.59
12 Temperature correction factor K (using Eq. (III) 1.000925199
13 Corrected G (at 27
o
C), using Eq.(II) 2.59

Lab Report on Determination of Specific Gravity of Fine grained soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The specific gravity of soil sample at 27
0
C is 2.59. The value shows, the soil sample is organic
clay because the range of specific gravity for organic clay is 2.58 to 2.65 but in some book range
is 1.0 to 2.60. We know that smaller the particle size, higher the value of specific gravity and
vice versa. According to IS soil classification system, organic clay has high compressibility and
liquid limit greater than 50. Similarly, it has medium to high dry strength and high toughness but
dilatancy is very slow. It has very poor bearing capacity and also compaction characteristic is
very poor. The value as sub-grade, sub-base and base for road construction when not subjected to
frost action is poor to very poor and generally not suitable. It has practically impervious drainage
characteristics. The unit weight, CBR value and sub-grade modulus are 1.28-1.76 g/cm
3
, 5 or
less % and 0.69 to 2.77 kg/cm
3
respectively. Hence it is not suitable for civil engineering
construction work, especially for road, airfields and embankment construction. This value is used
in hydrometer analysis and useful to compute soil density.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT GRAIN
SIZES IN SOIL PASSING THROUGH 4.75 IS SIEVE AND RETAINED ON
75-MICRON IS SIEVE

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

16
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT GRAIN
SIZES IN SOIL PASSING THROUGH 4.75 IS SIEVE AND RETAINED ON 75-MICRON
IS SIEVE

APPARATUS REQUIRED:

a) Balance sensitive to 0.1 percent of the mass of sample to be weighted.
b) IS sieves (300mm dia.) of mesh sizes 4.75 mm, 2.36mm, 1.18mm, 600µ, 300µ, 150µ,
75µ with lid and pan.
c) Thermostatically controlled oven to maintain temperature between 105 and 110
0
C.
d) Trays and Buckets
e) Brushes
f) Mechanical sieve shaker
THEORY:

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. Grain size is
one of the suitable criteria of soils for road, airfield, dam and other embankment construction. It
is also used to predict soil water improvement, susceptibility to frost action and filter design of
dam. The particle size analysis is attempted to determine the relative proportion of the different
grain sizes that make up a given soil mass.
A grain size distribution curve is also used to determine the coefficient of uniformity (C
u
) and
coefficient of curvature (C
c
).
Co-efficient of Uniformity (C
u
) = ……………………………………...... (I)
Co-efficient of curvature (C
c
) = …………………………………….. (II)
Where,
D
60
= diameter of particles corresponding to 60% fines;
D
10
= diameter of particles corresponding to 10% fines, also known as effective size;
D
30
= diameter of particles corresponding to 30 % fines;
PROCEDURE:
1. Take 500gm oven dried sample passing through IS sieve 4.75mm.
2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

2. Clean the different sizes of sieve with brushes and weigh all sieves separately in balance.
3. Assemble sieve in ascending order of sizes i.e. 4.75mm, 2.36mm, 1.18mm, 600µ, 300µ,
150µ, 75µ and pan. Carefully pour the soil sample into top sieve and place lid on top.
4. Place the sieve stack in the mechanical shaker and shake for 10 minutes.
5. Remove the stack from the shaker and carefully weigh and record the weight of each
sieve with its retained soil and also weigh the soil retained in pan.

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
Sieve Analysis of Fraction Passing 4.75mm IS Sieve but Retained on 75-Micron IS Sieve
Name of Test: Grain Size Analysis Date of Testing: 09-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 1
Mass of Sample Taken for Analysis = 500 gm.
IS Sieve
Designation
Mass of soil
Retained and
Mass of
Container
Mass of
Container
Mass of
Soil
Retained
Cumulative
Mass
Retained
Soil Retained
as % of Partial
Soil Taken
Soil Passing as
Percentage of
Partial Soil Sample
Taken for Analysis
mm  gm  gm  gm  gm  %  %
I  II  III  IV=II‐III  V  VI=V/500.22%  VII=100‐VI
4.75  506.62  506.62  0  0  0.000  100.000
2.36  439.46  427  12.46  12.46  2.492  97.508
1.18  423.29  334.62  88.67  101.13  20.217  79.783
0.6  617.3  428.11  189.19  290.32  58.038  41.962
0.3  523.11  376.97  146.14  436.46  87.254  12.746
0.15  397.4  344.32  53.08  489.54  97.865  2.135
0.075  364.37  356.8  7.57  497.11  99.378  0.622
Pan  366.59  363.48  3.11  500.22  _  _

From graph,
D
60
= 0.8, D
30
= 0.47 and D
10
= 0.28;
From Eq. (I), C
u
= 2.85 < 4
From Eq. (II), C
c
= 0.986 ≈ 1

3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From grain size distribution curve it is found that, soil consists of 2% silt, 23% fine sand and
75% coarse grained sand. The coefficient of uniformity is less than 4 and coefficient of curvature
is near to 1. Hence, soil is classified as uniformly graded sand containing particle of same size
with slightly silt.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT-3
ON
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOIL BY WET SIEVE METHOD

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

21
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT GRAIN SIZES BY
WET SIEVE METHOD FOR SOIL PASSING THROUGH 4.75 IS SIEVE AND RETAINED ON
75-MICRON IS SIEVE.

APPARATUS REQUIRED:
a) Balance: - sensitive to 0.1 percent of the mass of sample to be weighted.
b) Sieves: IS sieves conforming to IS: 460 (part I)-1978: 4.75mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 600µ,
425µ, 300µ, 150µ, 75 µ and pan.
c) Oven: - thermostatically controlled maintain the temperature between 105 and 110
0
c with
interior of non-corroding material.
d) Trays or bucket:- two or more large metal or plastic watertight trays or a bucket about 30
cm in diameter and 30 cm deep (convenient sizes of trays are in the range of 45 to 90 cm
2

and 8 to 15 cm deep)
e) Brushes: - sieve brushes and wire brushes or a similar stiff brush.
f) Mechanical sieve shaker (optional)
g) Riffler

REAGANTS REQUIRED:
Sodium hexametaphosphate (NaPO
3
), chemically pure or a mixture of sodium hydroxide and
sodium carbonate or any other dispersing agent which has been found suitable.
THEORY:
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. Grain size is
one of the suitable criteria of soils for road, airfield, dam and other embankment construction. It
is also used to predict soil water improvement, susceptibility to frost action and filter design of
dam. The particle size analysis is attempted to determine the relative proportion of the different
grain sizes that make up a given soil mass.
A grain size distribution curve is also used to determine the coefficient of uniformity (C
u
) and
coefficient of curvature (C
c
).
Co-efficient of Uniformity (C
u
) = ……………………………………...... (I)
2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Co-efficient of curvature (C
c
) = …………………………………….. (II)
Where,
D
60
= diameter of particles corresponding to 60% fines;
D
10
= diameter of particles corresponding to 10% fines, also known as effective size;
D
30
= diameter of particles corresponding to 30 % fines;
PROCEDURE:
1) The soil oven dried and passing through 4.75mm is taken.
2) The riffled and weighed fraction shall be spread out in large tray or bucket and cover with
water.
3) Two grams of sodium hexametaphosphate (NaPo3) or one gram of sodium hydroxide and
one gram of sodium carbonate per liter of water used should then be added to the soil.
(The amount of dispersing agent may be varied depending on the type of soil. A
dispersing agent may not be required in the case of all soils; in such cases the wet sieving
may be carried out without the addition of dispersing agent.) The soil soaked specimen
should be washed thoroughly stirred and left for soaking.
4) The soil soaked is washed through 75 µ IS sieve until water passing the sieve is
substantially clean. The fraction retained on the sieve should be tipped without loss of
material in a tray, dried in the oven.
5) The dried soil sample is sieved through nest of sieves 4.75mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 600µ,
425µ, 300µ, 150µ, 75 µ and pan in mechanical sieve shaker.
6) The fraction retained on each sieve should be weighed separately and the mass recorded.

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
Sieve Analysis of Fraction Passing 4.75mm IS Sieve but Retained on 75-Micron IS Sieve
Name of Test: Grain Size Analysis by wet sieving Date of Testing: 16-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 2
Mass of Partial Sample Taken for Analysis = 263.22 gm.
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

IS Sieve
Designation
Mass of soil
Retained on
Container
Cumulative
Mass
Retained
Soil Retained
as % of
Partial Soil
Taken
Soil Passing as Percentage of Partial Soil
Sample Taken for Analysis
mm  gm  gm  %  %
I  II  V  VI  VII
4.75  5.98  5.98  2.272  97.728
2.36  11.95  17.93  6.812  93.188
2  4.44  22.37  8.499  91.501
1.18  24.17  46.54  17.681  82.319
0.6  52.49  99.03  37.623  62.377
0.425  22.05  121.08  46.000  54.000
0.3  31.4  152.48  57.929  42.071
0.15  66.23  218.71  83.090  16.910
0.075  44.05  262.76  99.825  0.175
Pan  0.95  263.71  100.186  _

4 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

From graph,
D
60
= 0.55, D
30
= 0.21 and D
10
= 0.12;
From Eq. (I), C
u
= 4.583 > 4
From Eq. (II), C
c
= 0.668

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From grain size distribution curve it is found that, soil consists of 52% fine sand, 40% medium 8
% coarse grained sand. The coefficient of uniformity is more than 4 and coefficient of curvature
is 0.668. Hence, soil is classified as well graded soil.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE MINIMUM DENSITY (LOOSEST
STATE) AND MAXIMUM DENSITY (DENSEST STATE) OF
COHESIONLESS SOIL

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

16
th
August, 2012

1 Lab Report on Relative Density

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF EXPERIMENT: TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM DENSITY (LOOSEST
STATE) AND MAXIMUM DENSITY (DENSEST STATE) OF COHESIONLESS SOIL.

NAME OF APPARATUS USED:
i. Vibratory table: steel table with vibrating deck about 75 x 75 cm, capacity to vibrated
over 45 kg, having 3600 vibrations per minute and amplitude of 0.05-0.25mm, should be
suitable for use with 415-V three phase supply.
ii. Moulds with guide sleeves: capacity of 3000 and 15000 cm
3.

iii. Surcharge base plates with handle: 10mm thick base plates.
iv. Surcharge masses: 24.7 ± 0.2 kg for 3000 m
3
and 86.0 ± 0.5 kg for 15000 cm
3.

v. Dial gauge holder
vi. Dial gauge
vii. Calibration bar
viii. Pouring devices
ix. Mixing pans
x. Weighing scale
xi. Hoist
xii. Metal hand scoop
xiii. Bristle brush
xiv. Timing device
xv. Metal straight edge
xvi. Micrometer

THEORY:
Density index or relative density is the ratio of the difference between the void ratio of a
cohesionless soil in the loosest state and any given void ratio to the difference between its void
ratios in the loosest and the densest state. The concept of density index (relative density) gives a
practically useful measure of compactness of soil. The compactive characteristics of cohesionless
soils and the related properties of such soils are dependent on factors like grain size distribution
and shape of individual particles. Density index is also affected by these factors and serves as a
parameter to correlate properties of soils. Various soil properties like, penetration resistance,
compressibility, compaction friction angle, permeability and California bearing ratio are found to
have simple relations with density index. Hence, for such purpose it is necessary to find out
maximum and minimum density of soil.
The minimum and maximum density can be calculated as:

Fig. General arrangement of apparatus.
(Source: IS:2720(part 14)-1983, page 173)
2 Lab Report on Relative Density

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Minimum density (γ
min.
) =W
sm
/V
c
……………………………………………..…………….. (1)
Where,
W
sm
= mass of dry soil in minimum density test in gm; and
V
c
= calibrated volume of mould in cm
3
.
Maximum density (γ
max.
) = W
s
/V
s
…………………………………………………………….. (2)
Where,
W
s
= mass of dry soil in the maximum density test in gm.
V
s
= volume of soil in maximum density test in cm3.
= V
c
– (D
i
– D
f
) A;
D
i
= initial dial gauge reading in cm;
D
f
= final dial gauge reading on the surcharge base plate after completion of vibration period in
cm; and
A = cross-sectional area of mould in cm
2

Density index (Relative Density): it expressed as percentage should be calculated as;
……………………………………………………...……… (3)
Or in terms of void ratio,
………………………………………..………………………. (4)
Where,
e
max
=void ratio of the soil at loosest state,
e = void ratio of the soil in the field and
e
min
= void ratio of the soil in its densest state obtainable in laboratory
γ
d
= the dry density of the soil in the field.

3 Lab Report on Relative Density

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

PROCEDURE
There are two method of obtaining minimum and maximum density i.e. using vibratory table and
vibratory hammer. Also from vibratory table, maximum density can be achieved by dry and wet
method. Here, in laboratory, we used vibratory table and done by dry method.
Followings are the procedures:
1) Calibration:
i. Determination of volume by direct measurement: volume is calculated by
measuring inside diameter and height of the mould to 0.025mm.
ii. Determination of volume by filling with water: volume is calculated by filling the
water in the mould and weights it. Then mass of water in the mould is multiplied
by volume of water per gram at measured temperature.
iii. Determination of initial dial gauge reading: six dial gauge readings should be
obtained after filling the soil sample in the mould and keeping surcharge plate
over the soil sample , three in left side and three in right side and these sixed
2) Soil sample: - oven dried representative soil sample is taken but the mass of sample
depends upon maximum size particle in the soil.
3) Procedure for determination of minimum density:
i. Measure the weight and volume of mould.
ii. Pour the sample in the mould by spout keeping 25 mm high free fall in spiral
motion from outside towards the centre to form uniform thickness without
segregation.
iii. The mould should be filled approximately 25 mm above the top and leveled with
top by one continuous path with steel straightedge.
iv. Take the weight of mould and sample.
v. Take six initial dial gauge reading including with surcharge plate and average it
4) Procedure for determination of maximum density:
i. The mould is fixed in the vibrating plate. Keep the guide sleeve at the top of the
mould and clamp it with mould.
4 Lab Report on Relative Density

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

ii. Apply Surcharge weight to the base plate over sample, inserting it in guide
sleeves.
iii. Vibrate sample for 8 minutes. Remove the surcharge weight and guide sleeves.
iv. Obtained again the six dial gauge reading and average it for final dial gauge
v. Measure the weight of sample and mould.
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
DETERMINATION OF LOOSEST AND DENSEST STATE OF COHESIONLESS SOIL
Name of Test: Density Analysis Date of Testing: 21-Aug.-
2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 2
Observations
Weight of Empty Mould 3.976 kg
Weight of Empty Mould +
Soil Sample 8.442 kg
Diameter of Mould 150 mm
Height of Mould 170 mm
Least count of dial gauge 0.01 mm
Thickness of Base Plate 115 cm
Initial Dial
Gauge
Multiplied
by L.C.
mm
Average
Value
(D
i
) cm
Final
Dial
Gauge
Multiplied
by L.C.,
mm
Average
Value
(D
f
), cm

1293  12.93
1.228
3156  31.56
3.120
ii  1134  11.34  3039  30.39
iii  1139  11.39  3142  31.42
iv  1352  13.52  3100  31
v  1235  12.35  3147  31.47
vi
1213  12.13  3137  31.37
D
i
- D
f

1.893 cm
Volume of mould (V
c
)

3004.15 cm
3

Weight of Sample(W
sm
)
4466 gm
X-Section area of mould
(A)
176.63 cm2
Minimum Density (γ
min
)
1.487 gm/cm
3

Maximum Density (γ
max
)
1.673 gm/cm
3

5 Lab Report on Relative Density

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
The minimum unit weight and maximum unit weight are 14.78 KN/m
3
and 16.73 KN/m
3

respectively.
The field density of soil sample should be lie in between minimum and maximum density. The
field density can be determined from sand replacement method. Then only we can determine
relative density of soil. But field density test of soil is beyond the scope for now.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
THE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT GRAIN SIZES IN SOIL PASSING THROUGH
75-MICRON IS SIEVE BY HYDROMETER ANALYSIS.

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

16
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE PERCENTAGE OF DIFFERENT GRAIN
SIZES IN SOIL PASSING THROUGH 75-MICRON IS SIEVE BY HYDROMETER
ANALYSIS.

APPARATUS AND MATERIAL REQUIRED:
1. Hydrometer (should be no abrupt change in dimension, graduated on the basis of liquid
having a surface tension of 55 dynes/cm, the scale is at interval of 0.0005, the basis of
scale shall be density at 27
0
c, and the permissible error should be ±0.0005).
2. Glass measuring cylinder (3 nos, 1000ml capacity of 7 cm dia. and 33cm high)
3. Thermometer (range 0.5
0
c)
4. Stirring apparatus (mechanical device, speed 8000 to 10,000 rev/min)
5. Sieves (2mm, 425 µ, 75µ, IS sieves and pan)
6. Weight balance (accuracy of 0.01 g)
7. Oven (thermostatically controlled to maintain temperature of 105 to 110
0
c with non
corroding material inside)
8. Stop watch
9. Desicator
10. Centimeter scale
11. Porcelain evaporating dishes (4.15 cm dia.)
12. Wide mouth conical flask or conical beaker
13. Funnel about 10 cm dia.
14. Measuring cylinder of 100 ml capacity
15. Glass rod
16. 7 gm Sodium carbonate (Na
2
CO
3
) and 33 gm sodium
hexametaphosphate (NaPHO
3
).

Figure 1: Hydrometer (Source: IS 2720 (part 4)-1985, Page 82)

THEORY:
Hydrometer analysis is a widely used method to determine the percentage of soil particle passing
through 75 micron IS sieve. The data are plotted in semi-log graph combined with the data from
mechanical sieve analysis (Wet sieve) to get complete grain size distribution curve.
The hydrometer analysis is based on stokes’s law which gives the relation among the velocity of
fall of spheres in a fluid, the diameter of a sphere, the specific weight of the sphere and of the
fluid, and the fluid viscosity. In equation from the relationship:

2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. (1)
Where,
υ = velocity of fall of the spheres
G
s
= specific gravity of the spheres
G
f
= specific gravity of fluid – varies with temperature
η = absolute or dynamic viscosity of fluid (g/cm.s)
D = diameter of sphere, cm (from equation 4)

PROCEDURE:
I. Calibration of hydrometer
a. Volume of hydrometer bulb (V
h
): keep 800ml water in 1000ml cylinder, take
reading and immersed hydrometer at water level, take another reading of rises
water level.
Hence, volume of hydrometer is the difference between water level after
immersion of hydrometer and before immersion of hydrometer. The rise of water
level due to stem weight is neglected.
II. Calibration
a. Cross-sectional area of 1000ml cylinder: mark the two different water levels in
the cylinder and measure the distance between them. Hence, the cross-sectional
area of the cylinder is the ration of volume of water included between two
b. The distance from the lowest calibration mark on the stem of the hydrometer to
each of the other major calibration marks (R
h
) is measured and recorded.
c. Record the distance from the neck of the bulb to the nearest calibration mark.
d. The height (H) is equal to the summation of (b) and (c).
e. Measure the distance from the neck to the bottom of the bulb.
f. Calculated the effective depth (H
R
) corresponding to the major calibration marks
(R
h
)
........................................................................................ (2)
Where,
H
R
= effective depth
H
1
= length between neck to graduation R
h
in cm
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

h = length between neck to the bottom
V
h
= volume of hydrometer bulb
A = X-sectional area of cylinder
III. Meniscus correction (C
m
) :
Insert the hydrometer in the 1000ml cylinder containing 700 ml
distilled water.
Take the reading of upper and lower water level in hydrometer
The difference between two readings is meniscus correction (C
m
) and is constant for
given hydrometer.
IV. Pre-treatment of soil
Pre-treatment of soil is necessary when soil containing more than one percent of soluble
salts, then the soil should be washed with water before use.
If the soil is lateritic soil will be attacked by the acid but unless they contain calcium,
need not be given the acid treatment. Ehen the soil containing insoluble calcium salts,
acid treatment is necessary.
V. Dispersion of soil
Take 50 gm of soil sample passing through 75µ IS sieve. (for clay 50gm and 100gm
sand)
Mixed 33 gm sodium hexametaphosphate and 7 gm sodium carbonate and mixed with
100 ml water.
Keep the soil suspension in the mechanical stirring device for 15 minutes.
Keep the sample in 1000ml cylindrical and fill the soil sample with distilled water upto
1000ml.
Take another cylinder with distilled water.
VI. Sedimentation of soil
Soaked the cylinder vigorously then keep hydrometer in the cylinder, stop watch started.
Take reading after ½ min., 1 min, 2 min, and 4 min and temperature also.
Figure 2: Calibration of Hydrometer
(Source: IS 2720 (part 4)-1985, Page 86)
4 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Removed the hydrometer slowly, rinsed in the distilled water and keep the hydrometer in
distilled water at same temperature as soil suspension.
Reinserted the hydrometer in the suspension and take readings after periods of 8, 15, 30
min, 1, 2, and 4 hrs after shaking. The hydrometer shall be removed rinsed and placed in
distilled water after each reading. This is due to avoid distributing the suspension
unnecessarily. Take 10 second for each operation.
For temperature correction, take the temperature of suspension at every reading near to
±0.5
0
c. For that, hydrometer temperature is taken at pure distilled water at same
temperature. The difference between the reading in hydrometer and that of the distilled
water is correction for temperature.
Measure the correction for dispersion agent, take reading of hydrometer by inserting in
1000ml cylinder containing distilled water and same proportion of dispersing agent. It is
also called zero correction (x).
CALCULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
Calculations:
a) Loss in mass in pre-treatment
………………………………………………………………. (3)
Where,
P = loss in mass in percentage
W
b
= mass of soil after pre-treatment
W = air dry moisture content of soil
W
a
= mass of air dry soil used
b) Sedimentation
Diameter of particles
……………………………………………………. (4)
Where,
D = diameter of particle in suspension in mm.
5 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

µ = co-efficient of viscosity of water at temperature of suspension at the time of
G = specific gravity of soil fraction used in sedimentation analysis.
G
1
= specific gravity of water
H
R
= effective depth corresponding to R
h
.
t = time elapsed between beginning of sedimentation and reading taken.
Hydrometer reading corrected for meniscus (R
h
) shall be calculated as
………………...……………………………………………….. (5)
Where,
R
h
= hydrometer reading corrected for meniscus
R

h
= hydrometer reading at upper rim of meniscus
C
m
= meniscus correction
c) % finer than D
…………………………………………..……………. (6)
Where,
G
s
= specific gravity of soil particles;
W
b
= weight of soil after pre-treatment
R
h
= hydrometer reading corrected for meniscus
M
t
= temperature correction
X = dispersion agent correction
Calculate the values of W for each values of D and expressed as percentage of
particles finer than the corresponding value of D.
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION BY HYDROMETER METHOD
Name of Test: Hydrometer Analysis Date of Testing: 29-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red clay Tested By: Group 2
Meniscus Correction (Cm) = 0.0005 h, cm = 15.7 Specific Gravity of Soil(G) = 2.59
Temperature correction (Mt) = 0.0105 V
h,
ml

= 70 Specific Gravity of water(G
1
) = 1
Dispersing Agent Correction (x) =0.0035 A, cm
2
= 38.465 Total sample (wet + hydrometer) = 500 gm
Total sample retained on 75 µ IS sieve= 263.22 gm
Date
/Time
Temp,
0
C
Elapsed
Time
(t),
min.
Hydrometer
R
,
h

Corrected
Hydrometer
R
h
=R
,
h
+C
m

Effective
depth (H
R
)
Coefficient
of viscocity
of water (µ)
Diameter
of
particle, D
(mm)
R
h
+M
t
-
x
Percentage of
Particles
Finer Than D,
W, %
Percentage
finer with
respect to
total soil
mass (Wt),%
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11
8/29,
10:10 AM
26  0  1st reading not shown
26  0.5  1.0135  1.014  14.4800  0.0096  0.0730  21  68.42  32.40
26  1  1.013  1.0135  14.6657  0.0096  0.0520  20.5  66.79  31.63
26  2  1.0125  1.013  14.8514  0.0096  0.0370  20  65.16  30.86
26  4  1.0115  1.012  15.2228  0.0096  0.0265  19  61.90  29.31
26  8  1.0112  1.0117  16.2443  0.0096  0.0193  18.7  60.92  28.85
26  15  1.0111  1.0116  16.2814  0.0096  0.0141  18.6  60.60  28.70
10:40 AM  26  30  1.011  1.0115  16.3186  0.0096  0.0100  18.5  60.27  28.54
11:10 AM  26  60  1.009  1.0095  17.0614  0.0096  0.0072  16.5  53.75  25.46
12:10 PM  26.5  120  1.007  1.0075  17.8043  0.0095  0.0052  14.5  47.24  22.37
2:10 PM  27  240  1.006  1.0065  18.1757  0.0094  0.0037  13.5  43.98  20.83
6:10 PM  27  480  1.005  1.0055  18.5471  0.0094  0.0026  12.5  40.72  19.28
1:10 AM  27  960  1.004  1.0045  18.9186  0.0094  0.0019  11.5  37.47  17.74
10:10 AM  26  1440  1.0045  1.005  18.7329  0.0096  0.0015  12  39.09  18.51
10:10 AM  26  2880  1.003  1.0035  19.2900  0.0096  0.0011  10.5  34.21  16.20

1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Combined Wet Sieve Analysis and
Hydrometer Analysis
Particle
size (mm)
%
Finer
4.75  98.80
2.36  96.41
2  95.53
1.18  90.69
0.6  80.19
0.425  75.78
0.3  69.50
0.15  56.26
0.075  47.45
0.0730  32.40
0.0520  31.63
0.0370  30.86
0.0265  29.31
0.0193  28.85
0.0141  28.70
0.0100  28.54
0.0072  25.46
0.0052  22.37
0.0037  20.83
0.0026  19.28
0.0019  17.74
0.0015  18.51
0.0011  16.20
Temp  Visc (Poise) of water

5  0.01519
10  0.01307
20  0.01002
30  0.00798
40  0.00653
50  0.00547
60  0.00467
70  0.00404
80  0.00355
90  0.00315
100  0.00282
R
h
H
1
H
R
upto 4 min  H

after 4 min
1.0300 1.6000 8.5401 9.4500
1.0290 1.9714 8.9115 9.8214
1.0280 2.3429 9.2829 10.1929
1.0270 2.7143 9.6544 10.5643
1.0260 3.0857 10.0258 10.9357
1.0250 3.4571 10.3972 11.3071
1.0240 3.8286 10.7687 11.6786
1.0230 4.2000 11.1401 12.0500
1.0220 4.5714 11.5115 12.4214
1.0210 4.9429 11.8829 12.7929
1.0200 5.3143 12.2544 13.1643
1.0190 5.6857 12.6258 13.5357
1.0180 6.0571 12.9972 13.9071
1.0170 6.4286 13.3687 14.2786
1.0160 6.8000 13.7401 14.6500
1.0150 7.1714 14.1115 15.0214
1.0140 7.5429 14.4829 15.3929
1.0130 7.9143 14.8544 15.7643
1.0120 8.2857 15.2258 16.1357
1.0110 8.6571 15.5972 16.5071
1.0100 9.0286 15.9687 16.8786
1.0090 9.4000 16.3401 17.2500
1.0080 9.7714 16.7115 17.6214
1.0070 10.1429 17.0829 17.9929
1.0060 10.5143 17.4544 18.3643
1.0050 10.8857 17.8258 18.7357
1.0040 11.2571 18.1972 19.1071
1.0030 11.6286 18.5687 19.4786
1.0020 12.0000 18.9401 19.8500
1.0010 12.3714 19.3115 20.2214
1.0000 12.7429 19.6829 20.5929
0.9990 13.1143 20.0544 20.9643
0.9980 13.4857 20.4258 21.3357
0.9970 13.8571 20.7972 21.7071
0.9960 14.2286 21.1687 22.0786
0.9950 14.6000 21.5401 22.4500
2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure1: Graph Showing Temperature vs Visocity of water

Figure2: Graph Showing Between Actual Hydrometer Reading and Effective Depth
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Hydrometer

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure3: Graph Showing Combined curve of wet sieve analysis and Hydrometer Analyais
From graph showing in figure 3,
From graph,
D
60
= 0.19, D
30
= 0.02 and D
10
= 0

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From Combined grain size distribution curve it is found that, soil consists of 18% Clay, 16% silt
and 65% sand. Hence, soil is classified as uniformly graded sand containing particle of same size
with slightly clay and silt.
INTERFERENCES:
In the figure 3, it is shown that at particle size 0.075 mm, the graph suddenly increases, because
this zone is transition zone between coarse particle and finer particle of soil. There is no particle
lesser than 10 percent finer so, we cannot calculate the coefficient of uniformity and coefficient
of curvature of soil. The disturbance happened during immersion and removal of hydrometer
during test is neglected.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMINATION OF THE LIQUID LIMIT (BY MECHANICAL
METHOD AND CONE PENETRATION METHOD) AND PLASTIC LIMIT
OF SOILS

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

4
th
September, 2012

1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE LIQUID LIMIT (BY MECHANICAL METHOD
AND CONE PENETRATION METHOD) AND PLASTIC LIMIT OF SOILS.
EQUIPMENT:
i. Mechanical liquid limit device (Casagrande’s liquid limit device)
ii. Grooving tools
iii. Porcelain evaporating dish
iv. Flat glass plate
v. Spatula (for mixing soil and water on the porcelain evaporating dish)
vi. Palette knives (for mixing soil and water on the flat glass plate)
vii. Balance (sensitive to 0.01g)
viii. Oven (thermostatically controlled with interior of non-corroding material to maintain the
temperature between 105
0
C to 110
0
C)
ix. Wash bottle or beaker (containing distilled water)
x. Containers (air tight and non corrodible for determination of moisture content)
xi. Rod (3mm in diameter and about 10cm long for plastic limit)

THEORY:
The swedish soil scientist Albert Atterberg (1911) originally defined limit of consistency to
classify fine-grained soil. This limit is based on water content of soil. If the water content of
suspension soil is gradually reduced, the soil water mixture undergoes changes from a liquid
state through a plastic state and finally into solid state. Transitions of soil from one state to
another state according to increase and decrease in water content are termed as Atterberg Limits.
So this test is also called Atterberg limit tests.
The liquid limit is the water content at which soil changes from liquid state to plastic state. At
this stage all soil behaves practically like a liquid and posses certain small shear strength. It flow
close the groove in just 25 blows in Casagrandes liquid limit device. As it is difficult to get
exactly 25 blows in the test 3 to 4 tests are conducted, and the number of blows (N) required in
ach test determined. A semi-log plot is drawn between logN and the water content (W). The
liquid limit is the water content corresponding to N=25.
2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Also the liquid limit can be determined by cone penetration method. The main principle of this
method is to observe depths of penetrations of soils at various initial moisture contents of a metal
cone of certain weight and apex angle with point barely touching the surface is allowed to drop
into surface. The plot is made between water content and depth of penetration and corresponding
value of water content at 20mm depth of penetration is liquid limit of given soil.
The plastic limit is the water content at which soil changes from plastic state to semi-solid state.
The soil in this stage behaves like plastic. It begins crumble when rolled in to threads 3mm
diameter.
Importance: The liquid and plastic limit of soils are both dependent on the amount and type of
clay in a soil and form the basis for soil classification system for cohesive soil based on the
plasticity tests. Besides their use for identification, plasticity tests give information concerning
the cohesion properties of soil and amount of capillary water which it can hold. They are also
used directly in specifications for controlling soil for use in fill. The liquid limit is sometimes
used to estimate settlement in consolidations problems and both limits may be useful in
predicting maximum density in compaction studies. These index properties of soil have also
been related to various other properties of the soil such as follows:
Plasticity index: is the difference between its liquid limit and plastic limit.
Plasticity Index (I
p
) = liquid limit (W
L
) – plastic limit (W
P
)…………..…………….. (1)
If the plastic limit is equal or greater than liquid limit, the plasticity index is reported as
zero.
Flow index: the slope of line (plotted in semi-log graph between water content and
number of blows) expressed as the difference in water contents at 10 drops and at 100
drops is reported as the flow index. The lower the flow index better is the shear strength.
………………………………………………………….. (2)
Where,
W
1
= moisture content in percent corresponding to N
1
drops, and
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

W
2
= moisture content in percent corresponding to N
2
drops.
Toughness index: is the ratio between plasticity index (I
p
) and flow index ( . The larger
is the value of toughness index; the better is the shear strength at given plasticity.
……………………………………...………………….. (3)

Liquidity index (I
L
):

……………………………………………………………..……………. (4)
Where,
W
o
= natural moisture content of the soil
W
p
= plastic limit of the soil, and
I
p
= plasticity index of the soil.
Consistency index (Ic):
……………………………………………………………………..……. (5)
Where,
W
L
= liquid limit of the soil
W
o
= natural moisture content of the soil, and
I
p
= plasticity index of the soil

PROCEDURE:
Test procedure for the determination of liquid limit (Mechanical method)
I. Take 120 gm of soil sample passing through IS sieve 425 micron, mixed the sample
thoroughly with distilled water in glass plate and left for 24 hrs for uniform distribution
of moisture. The paste should be such that requires 30 to 35 drops of the cup to cause the
required closure of the standard groove. (Note: the soil having low texture i.e. low clay
content can immediately used after mixing of distilled water).
II. Clean, dry and check the cup about free fall and adjust the liquid limit device with base
falls through exactly one centimeter for one revolution of the handle.
4 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

III. Remixed the soil before using for test and placed it in cup which is rested on base.
Thickness of sample in cup should be one centimeter at the point of maximum thickness
shown in Fig. 1 and trim the excess soil sample.
IV. Cut the soil pat by grooving tool type A. After the soil pat has been cut by proper
grooving tool, the handle is rotated at the rate of about 2 revolutions per second and the
nos. of blows counted till the two parts of the soil sample come into contact for about 12
mm length.
V. Take about a little amount of soil sample from near the closed groove and find the
moisture content by oven drying method.
VI. The soil of the cup is transferred to the dish containing the soil paste and mixed
thoroughly after adding a little more water (in no case dry soil sample is added ). Repeat
the test.
VII. By altering the water content of the soil and repeating the foregoing operations, obtain at
least 4 readings in the range of 15 - 35 blows.
Test procedure for the determination of liquid limit (Cone Penetration Method)
I. Prepare the sample as in mechanical method.
II. Transferred the wet soil paste into the cylindrical cup of cone penetrometer apparatus at
three layers that no air is entrapped into the soil sample.
III. Level the top of surface of the soil sample and placed the cone in cylindrical cup such
that cone just touches the surface of soil sample at top.
V. Released the cone to penetrate the soil sample at its own weight of 80±0.5 g and after 5
second noted the depth of penetration which should be lies between 14 to 28 mm.
VI. Take the soil sample from the mid of the cylindrical cup to determine the moisture
content.
VII. Repeat the test for at least four sets of value of penetration.
Test procedure for the determination of plastic limit
I. Mix 20 g soil passes through 425 micron IS sieve with distilled water but in case of
clayey soil, the plastic soil masses should be left for 24 hrs to ensure the uniform
distribution of water.
5 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

II. Take about 8 g of the soil and roll it with fingers on a glass plate. The rate of rolling shall
be between 80 to 90 strokes per minutes to form a 3 mm diameter.
III. If the diameter of the threads becomes less than 3 mm without cracks, it shows that water
content is more than its plastic limit. Kneed the soil to reduce the water content and roll it
IV. Repeat the process of alternate rolling and kneading until the thread crumbles.
V. Collect the pieces of crumbled soil thread in a moisture content container for
determination of water content.
VI. Repeat the process at least twice more with fresh samples of plastic soil each time.

1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

OBSERVATION AND CALCULATION
DETERMINATION OF LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTIC OF FINE GRAINED SOIL
Name of Test: Atterberg's limit Date of Testing: 21-Aug.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 2
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT
Determination Number 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
Number of Drops 22 25 28 29

Container Number
C3 C4 C7 C8 C1 C2 C5 C6
7 P-4 P-5 8 P-1 2 4 5
Weight of Container + wet
soil, g
25.29 42.05 28.51 36.36 39.43 27.52 15.78 15.94
13.62 17.39 15.03 14.25 13.05 14.18 12.09 16.38
Weight of Container + oven
dry soil, g
20.82 34.38 23.18 32.03 33.92 22.11 13.27 14.64
13.34 17.05 14.39 13.65 12.35 13.5 11.58 15.56
weight of water, g
4.47 7.67 5.33 4.33 5.51 5.41 2.51 1.30
0.28 0.34 0.64 0.60 0.70 0.68 0.51 0.82
weight of container, g
8.58 13.43 8.48 20.29 18.67 7.23 6.33 11.00
11.98 15.32 11.47 11.11 9.38 10.64 9.37 12.05
weight of oven dry soil, g
12.24 20.95 14.70 11.74 15.25 14.88 6.94 3.64
1.36 1.73 2.92 2.54 2.97 2.86 2.21 3.51
Moisture content, %
36.52 36.61 36.26 36.88 36.13 36.36 36.17 35.71
20.59 19.65 21.92 23.62 23.57 23.78 23.08 23.36
Average Moisture Content, %
36.57 36.57 36.24 35.94
20.12 22.77 23.67 23.22

RESULT SUMMARY
Liquid
Limit (WL)
Flow
Index
(Ip)
Plastic
Limit
(Wp)
Plasticity
Index (Ip)
Toughness
Index (I
T
)
Liquidity
Index (I
L
)
Consistency
Index (I
C
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36.38 4.31 22.45 13.93 3.23 _ _
1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

LIQUID LIMIT BY CONE PENETRATION METHOD
Determination Number 1 2 3 4
Depth of Penetration, cm 23.5 19.5 18.1 17.2
Container Number C1 C2 C5 C6 C3 C4 C7 C8
Weight of Container + wet
soil, g
34.51 22.38 24.21 35.60 25.32 27.81 26.35 46.22
Weight of Container + oven
dry soil, g
30.22 18.29 19.48 29.09 20.83 23.94 21.69 39.44
weight of water, g 4.29 4.09 4.73 6.51 4.49 3.87 4.66 6.78
weight of container, g 18.67 7.23 6.33 11.00 8.58 13.43 8.48 20.29
weight of oven dry soil, g 11.55 11.06 13.15 18.09 12.25 10.51 13.21 19.15
Moisture content, % 37.14 36.98 35.97 35.99 36.65 36.82 35.28 35.40
Average Moisture Content,
%
37.06 35.98 36.74 35.34

Figure : Graph Plot for Determination of Liquid Limit By Cone Penetration Test

2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure : Showing Type of Soil on according to IS Plasticity Chart

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From liquid limit and plastic limit test by mechanical method: from graph, it is found that water
content at 25 Nos of blow is 36.38%. Similarly, the plastic limit of soil is 22.45%. Flow index is
4.31. Plasticity index and toughness index are 13.93 and 3.23 respectively.
From cone penetration test: it is found that water content at 20 mm depth of penetration is 36.39
%. This is 0.01 more than that obtained from mechanical method.
The plasticity index and liquid limit obtained by mechanical methods are plotted in Indian
standard plasticity chart as shown in figure, we obtained that soil falls just above the A-line and
in between of 35% and 50% liquid limit line. Hence, according to IS soil classification chart, soil
is classified as CI i.e. inorganic clays, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays of
medium plasticity which is denoted by green colour.
But according to Unified Soil Classification (UCS) system, soil is classified as Inorganic clays
(CL) of low to medium plasticity.
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INTERFACES
Plasticity tests give information concerning the cohesion properties of soil and amount of
capillary water which it can hold.
Identification/classification of soil.
They are also used directly in specifications for controlling soil for use in fill.
The liquid limit is sometimes used to estimate settlement in consolidations problems and
both limits may be useful in predicting maximum density in compaction studies.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMINATION OF THE SHRINKAGE LIMIT AND SHRINKAGE FACTORS OF
SOIL

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

16
th
August, 2012
1 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE SHRINKAGE LIMIT AND SHRINKAGE
FACTORS OF SOIL.

APPARATUS REQUIRED:
I. Oven: thermostatically controlled to maintain the temperature between 105
0
C and 110
0
C.
II. Sieve:- 425 micron IS sieve
III. Weighing balance:- sensitive to 0.1g and 0.01g
IV. Mercury:- clean, sufficient to fill the glass cup
V. Desiccators: with any desiccating agent other than sulphuric acid.
VI. Shrinkage cups
VII. Prong Plate
VIII. Plain Plate
IX. Evaporating dish
X. Spatula
XI. Measuring cylinder

THEORY:
Shrinkage limit can be determined for both undisturbed and remoulded soil. It is used to find out
the structure of soil. The greater shrinkage, more the disperse structure. It is possible to study the
shrinkage behavior of undisturbed soil of natural or man-made deposits and get an idea of its
structure. Because any soil that undergoes a volume change (Expands or contracts) with change
in water content may be troublesome in like a) if used for highway or railway fills, it produces a
bumpy road b) if a structural foundation is placed on it, produces uneven floors and or structural
cracks seen c) if used as backfill behind a retaining wall, produces excessive thrust against the
wall, which may cause it to fail.
Volume expansion and contraction depend on period of time and both on soil type and its
mineral and change in water content from the reference value (water content at time of
construction). Soil shrinkage (or contraction) is produced by soil suction. Suction is the
phenomenon which produces a capillary rise of water in soil pores above water table. Thus it is
done to obtain a quantitative indication of how much volume change can occur and the amount
of moisture necessary to initiate volume changes.
Shrinkage limit can be done by mercury method, wax method and sand replacement method.
But here, we have followed mercury method.
2 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

From this test we can calculate shrinkage factor such as:
a) Shrinkage index(I
s
) :- it is the numerical difference between the plastic and shrinkage
limit (remoulded soil)
………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………… (1)
Where,
I
p
= Plasticity Index
W
s
= shrinkage limit in percentage.
b) Shrinkage Limit (W
s
):- the maximum water content expressed as percentage of oven dry
weight at which any further reduction in water content will not cause a decrease in
volume of the soil mass.
………………………………………………………. (2)
Where,
W
s
= shrinkage limit in percent;
W = moisture content of wet soil pat in percent;
V = volume of wet soil pat in ml.
V
o
= volume of dry soil pat in ml, and
W
0
= weight of oven-dry soil pat in gm.
When the specific gravity of soil is known, the shrinkage limit may also be calculated by
the following formula:
………………………………………………………………. (3)
Where,
W
s
= shrinkage limit in percent
R = shrinkage ratio and
G = specific gravity of soil fraction.
3 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

c) Shrinkage ratio (R) :- the ratio of a given volume change, expressed as a percentage of
the dry volume, to the corresponding change in water content above the appropriate
shrinkage limit, expressed as a percentage of the weight of the oven dried soil.
…………..…...………………………………………………………………. (4)
Where,
W
0
= weight of oven-dry pat in gm and
V
0
= volume of oven dry soil pat in ml.
d) Volumetric shrinkage (volumetric change) (V
s
):- the decrease in volume, expressed as a
percentage of the soil mass when dried, of a soil mass when the water content is reduced
from a given percentage to the appropriate shrinkage limit.
……………………………………………………………… (5)
Where,
W
1
= given moisture content in percent
W
s
= shrinkage limit and
R = shrinkage ratio
PROCEDURE:
1. Take a sample weighing about 100 gm from the thoroughly mixed portion of the material
passing through 425 micron.
2. Place about 30gm of the soil sample in the evaporating dish and thoroughly mix with
distilled water in an amount sufficient to fill the soil voids completely and to make the
soil pasty enough to be readily worked into the shrinkage dish without entrapping of
water required to obtain the desired consistency is equal to or slightly greater than the
liquid limit; in the case of plastic soils, it may exceed the liquid limit by as much as
percent.
3. Weight empty shrinkage dish and find the volume of shrinkage dish by pouring mercury
and take weight of shrinkage dish filled with mercury.
4 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

4. Coat the inside of the shrinkage dish with
a thin layer of silicone grease or Vaseline
or some other heavy grease to prevent
the adhesion of soil to the dish. Fill one
third of the dish with soil sample and
taped on the firm base so that flow allow
to flow in edges. Repeat the soil filling
and tapping three times and trim the dish
removing excess soil and level it. Three
dishes are prepared in same way.
5. Weight the dish with wet soil sample and
keep in oven for 24 hrs drying.
6. Weighed again dish and dry soil
immediately after removal from oven.
7. Fill the glass cup with mercury and level it plain glass plate.
8. Keep the soil pat over mercury in the cup and keep the prongs over soil pat.
9. Press the prong plate so that soil pat goes down in the cup mercury and till no mercury is
displaced by soil pat. Release the prongs so that no mercury spill out during releasing
from the cup. Remove the dish from cup and take the weight of dish and mercury after
displaced by soil pat. From this we can get volume of dry soil pat.
10. Repeat same procedure for all three soil pat.
Figure1: Shrinkage limit Arrangement
5 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

OBSERVATION AND CALCULATION
DETERMINATION OF SHRINKAGE LIMIT OF FINE GRAINED SOIL
Name of Test: Shrinkage limit Date of Testing: 03-Sep.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red clay Tested By: Group 2
SN Description Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Tets No. 3
1 Determination No. 1 2 3
2 Shrinkage Dish No. S-1 S-2 S-3
3 Weight of Shrinkage Dish in gm 35.82 34.92 41.13
4 Weight of Shrinkage Dish + wet soil pat in gm 79.53 77.72 85.49
5 weight of shrinkage dish + dry soil pat in gm 67.80 66.18 73.56
6 weight of oven dry soil pat (W
0
) in gm. 31.98 31.26 32.43
7 weight of water in gm 11.73 11.54 11.93
8 Moisture content (w) of soil pat in % 36.68 36.92 36.79
9 Density of Mercury (gm/ml) 13.53 13.53 13.53
10
weight of mercury filling + weight of Glass
cup
744.53 744.76 745.08
11 weight of mercury filling shrinkage dish in gm 364.06 357.96 373.09
12 weight of Glass Cup in gm 64.22 64.22 64.22
13
weight of mercury after displaced by the dry
soil pat + weight of Glass cup in gm
479.03 497.72 490.90
14 volume of wet soil pat (V) in ml 26.91 26.46 27.58
15
Weight of Mercury displaced by dry soil pat in
gm
265.50 247.04 254.18
16 volume of dry soil pat (V
0
) in ml 19.62 18.26 18.79
17 (V-V
0
)/W
0
x100 22.78 26.23 27.10
18 Shrinkage Limit from equation (2) 13.90 10.69 9.69
19 Average Shrinkage Limit (Ws), % 11.43
20 Shrinkage Ratio from equation (4) 1.63 1.71 1.73
21 Average Shrinkage Ratio ( R ) , gm/ml 1.69
22 volumetric Shrinkage from equation (5) 37.12 44.90 46.78
23 Average volumetric Shrinkage (Vs) 42.93
24 Plasticity Index (Ip) 13.84
25 Shrinkage Index (Is) from equation (1), % 2.41

6 Lab Report on Shrinkage Limit Analysis

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
The shrinkage limit of soil is 11.43%. The average shrinkage ration and volumetric shrinkage are
1.69 gm/ml and 42.93 respectively. Similarly the shrinkage index of soil is 2.41 %.
INTERFERENCES:
We have done three test for shrinkage limit but among three test, in test S-1, we get slightly
higher value than other two, it may be due to shape of dish may not be accurate as shrinkage
dish.
The volumetric shrinkage of soil is higher, it means, the volume of soil is change due to moisture
content.
It will be better when test will be done by another method and comparing the result between
these.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMINATION OF WATER CONTENT-DRY DENSITY RELATION USING
LIGHT COMPACTION

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

11
th
September, 2012
1 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: DETERMINATION OF WATER CONTENT-DRY DENSITY
RELATION USING LIGHT COMPACTION.

APPARATUS REQUIRED:
1. Moulds: dimension of mould (height 127mm and inner diameter 100 mm)
2. Sample extruder
3. Weighing balances
4. Oven
5. Container: to determine water content.
6. Steel straightedge: 30 cm in a length and having one beveled edge.
7. Sieve: 4.74mm and 19 mm IS-Sieve
8. Mixing tools: tray or pan, spoon, trowel and spatula
9. Metal rammer: having mass of moving part 2.6 kg ± 25 gm and the length of guide pipe
shall be such that as to give a fall of 310 ± 0.5 mm.

THEORY:
Compaction is the process of densification of soil by reducing air voids suing mechanical
methods. The degree of compaction of a given soil is measured in terms of its dry density. The
dry density is maximum at the optimum water content. A curve is drawn between the water
content and dry density to obtain the maximum dry density and optimum water content.
The bulk density (gm/ml) of soil is calculated as follows:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (1)
Where,
m
1
= mass in gm of mould and base;
m
2
= mass in gm of mould, base and soil and
V
m
= volume of mould
The dry density (gm/ml) can be calculated as:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (2)
Where,
W = water content of soil in percent.
Compaction method cannot remove all the air voids and therefore, the soil never becomes fully
saturated. Thus the theoretical maximum dry density is only hypothetical. The line indicating
theoretical maximum dry density can be plotted along with the compaction curve. The theoretical
dry density can be calculated from:
2 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. (3)
Where,
G = specific gravity of soil
Y
w
= density of water
The purpose of laboratory testing is to determine the proper amount of mixing water to be used,
when the compacting soil in the field and resulting degree of compactness which can be expected
from compaction at optimum moisture content.

Figure: Layout of metal rammer and Mould According to IS

PROCEDURE:
Take a representative portion of air dried soil material and of sufficient quantity such
that 6 kg of material passing through 20 mm IS sieve for soils not susceptible to
3 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

crushing during compaction, or 15 kg of material passing through 19-mm IS sieve for
soils susceptible to crushing during compaction.
Sieve the 15 kg sample through 19-mm IS sieve and broken down sample so that, it
will sieved through 4.75-mm sieve.
Take five samples each of 2.5 kg and mixed each sample thoroughly with a suitable
amount of water i.e. for sandy and gravelly soil, moisture content 4 to 6 % and for
cohesive soil, moisture content less than 8 to 10 % below plastic limit are required.
Keep the soil samples in desiccators for 16 hrs such that water is soaked uniformly.
Weight the empty mould with base plate which is m
1
and measure the volume of the
mould (V).
Place the mould in solid place and use oil or grease in mould, collar and rammer so
that soil will not attached in mould. Fill the mould with soil sample prepared in three
layers and each layer is given 26 blows from 2.6 kg rammer and from height 310mm
above soil. After each layer compaction, scrub surface of soil with spatula so that
another layer bond together then keep another layer and give 25 blows.
Remove the collar and remove the extended soil and leveled the compacted soil by
using straightedge.
Weight the mould with base plate and soil sample (m
2
).
Then remove the soil specimen from mould and take the soil of different three layers
for determination water content (w).
Repeat the test for at least five times such that maximum dry density will occur at
range of water content.

4 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:

Figure: compaction characteristics curve showing zero air void line

d
)
max

OMC
1 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT
Name of Test: Light Compaction Date of Testing: 5-Sept.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red clay Tested By: Group 2
Wt. of base plate and Mould = 4.006 kg Specific Gravity (G)= 2.59
Height of Mould (Ht)= 127 mm
Diameter of Mould = 100 mm
Volume of the Mould = 0.000997 m
3

S.N.
Wt. of
Mould
with base
plate +
soil
Wt of soil
in Mould
(W), Kg.
Density
of Soil
(γ),
KN/m
3

Can
No.
Wt.
of
Can
Wt.
of wet
soil +
Can
Wt. of
Dry
soil +
Can
Wt. of
Dry
soil
(M
s
),
kg
Wt. of
Water
(M
w
),
Kg
water
Content
(w), %
Average
water
Content
(w), %
Dry
Density
(γd),
KN/m
3

Dry
Density
at zero
void,(γd),
KN/m
3

1 5.825 1.819 18.236
c-1 9.40 18.62 17.74 8.34 0.88 10.55
10.39 16.521 20.02 2 10.64 16.41 15.88 5.24 0.53 10.11
c-2 9.97 19.66 18.74 8.77 0.92 10.49
2 6.003 1.997 20.021
5 12.03 22.03 20.87 8.84 1.16 13.12
13.24 17.680 18.92 c-3 10.99 23.69 22.18 11.19 1.51 13.49
4 9.37 18.60 17.53 8.16 1.07 13.11
3 6.08 2.074 20.793
11 6.33 27.19 24.49 18.16 2.70 14.87
14.73 18.123 18.39 8 15.31 29.44 27.66 12.35 1.78 14.41
3 8.48 24.74 22.63 14.15 2.11 14.91
4 6.03 2.024 20.292
6 8.59 25.04 22.59 14.00 2.45 17.50
17.59 17.256 17.45 10 11.46 41.54 37.00 25.54 4.54 17.78
9 11.00 27.51 25.05 14.05 2.46 17.51
5 6.00 1.994 19.991
1 9.38 27.19 24.31 14.93 2.88 19.29
19.45 16.736 16.90 7 11.98 23.04 21.25 9.27 1.79 19.31
12 11.10 26.74 24.16 13.06 2.58 19.75
1 Lab Report on Light Compaction Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
The compaction characteristic curve obtained from light compaction is shown in above figure.
From figure it is observed that optimum moisture content (OMC) is 14.5% and maximum dry
density (γ
d
)
max
is 18.9 KN/m
3
. But practically it is not possible to remove 100% air void in the
field from this OMC. Because we can see in the graph that zero air void line doesn’t touch the
compaction curve, means the density obtained in laboratory is lesser than the density at zero air
voids.
INFERENCE:
The optimum moisture content and dry density of soil are used to measure the field compaction
by calculating relative compaction. OMC and dry density of soil also affect in shear strength, soil
structure, permeability, void ratio etc. Hence, these values are necessary for different civil
construction work like highway, dam, embankment etc.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF REMOULDED SOIL

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

20
th
September, 2012

Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF
REMOULDED SOIL USING CONSTANT STRAIN RATE.
APPARATUS REQUIRED:
1. Compression device: having load measured up to 0.01 kg/cm
2
and axial deformation
measured up to 0.01mm.
2. Sample ejector: to prepare sample of 38 mm dia. and 76 mm length.
3. Deformation dial gauge: with 0.01mm graduations and specific travel to permit 20
percent axial strain.
4. Scale: to measure the dimensions of sample.
5. Timer: to measure elapsed time.
6. Oven: thermostatically controlled at 110±0.5
0
C
7. Weighting balances: specimen of 100gm weighed nearest to 0.01g, and larger nearest to
0.1g.
8. Miscellaneous equipment: specimen trimming and carving tools, remolding apparatus,
water content cans etc.
THEORY:
The maximum load that can be transmitted to the sub soil by a foundation depends upon the
resistance of the underlying soil or rock to shearing deformations or compressibility. Therefore,
it is of prime importance to investigate the factors that control the shear strength of these
materials. The shearing strength is commonly investigated by means of compression tests in
which an axial load is applied to the specimen and increased until failure occurred. The use of
compression tests to investigate the shearing strength of material depends upon the fact that
failure in such tests takes place by shear on one or more inclined planes and that it is possible to
compute normal pressure and shearing stress on such a plane at the instant of failure.
Thus, the unconfined compressive strength (q
u
) is the load per unit area at which the cylindrical
specimen of a cohesive soil fails in compression.

………………………………………………………………………………………. (1)
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Where,
P = the compressive force and
A = average cross-sectional area (corrected) of the specimen for the corresponding load P.

In geotechnical work, it is standard practice to correct the area on which the load P is acting. One
of the reasons for this area correction is to make some allowance for the way the soil is actually
being loaded in the field. The original area A
0
is corrected by considering that the total volume of
the soil is unchanged as the sample shortens. The initial total soil sample volume is
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. (2)
But after some changes in specimen length of ∆L, we have
……………………………………………………………………...…. (3)
Equating equation (2) and (3), canceling terms, and solving for the corrected area A to use in
equation (1), we obtain
…………………………..……………………………………………………..… (4)
Where,
…………………………………….………………………… (5)
∆L = the change in the specimen length as read from the strain dial indicator and
L
0
= the initial length of the specimen.

With only a vertical load on the sample the major principal stress σ
1
is vertical and the minor
(horizontal or lateral) stress is σ
3
=0. From a Mohr’s circle construction of this stress state we
obtain undrained shear strength- in this case also the cohesion (Symbol C
u
) - as
……………………………………………………………………………………….. (6)
Where,
C
u
= undrained shear strength or cohesion.
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

We can also plot a curve of stress versus strain and measure the initial slope to obtain a modulus
of elasticity E
s
. The loss of confining pressure nearly always gives a value of E
s
that is too low
for most geotechnical work.
The unconfined compression test may be either strain-controlled or stress-controlled but in
produce shock during loading and may result in erratic strain response and /or the ultimate
strength falling between two stress increments. For these several reasons, strain controlled test is
mostly used in soil test rather than stress controlled method.
PROCEDURE:
1. Specimen size: the size of the specimen should be minimum diameter of 38mm and the
largest particle contained within the test specimen should be smaller than 1/8 of the
specimen diameter. The height of diameter ratio should be 2. (Because the
length/diameter ratio should be large enough to avoid interference of potential 45
0
failure planes and small enough not to obtain a “column” failure.)

2. Take two soil sample, one sample contains water
content of dry side and other
contain water content of wet side.
3. Mass of the soil can be calculated
From the unit weight of soil (γ).
4. Compacted specimen: keep the soil
Sample in tube after oiling the tube, fix
Sampler tube in jack by nut and bolt. Press
The soil sample in tube from both side.
Tightened one side completely and other side upto 76 mm left.
After Rotating 1 and ½, remove the sampler tube from the jack by releasing the one side
screw and pressing other side.
5. Measure length, diameter and weight of sample and placed on the bottom of the loading
device. The upper plate should be adjusted to make contact with the specimen.
6. Adjust the dial gauge reading to zero and fix the strain rate in ½ to 2 mm/minute, here we
use 1.2 mm/minute.
7. Record the force and deformation reading at suitable interval. Compress the sample until
failure surfaces have definitely developed or the stress-strain curve is well past its peak.
8. Keep the sample for water content and done same process of other sample.

When L/d<2, potential
failure zones overlap
When L/d>2, no
overlap failure zones
L<2d
d
Figure: L/d ratio for soil compression test
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

OBSERVATION AND CALCULATION:

DETERMINATION OF UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Name of Test: UCS Date of Testing: 11-Sept.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red clay Tested By: Group 2
Optimum Water Content = 14.70%
Least Count of Dial Gauge = 0.01mm
For Dry side sample   For Wet side sample
Water content = 13% (Approx. 5% less than OMC)  Water content = 17% (Approx. 5% more than OMC)
Dry density(γ
d
) from compaction curve = 17.20 KN/m
3
Dry density(γ
d
) from compaction curve = 17.20 KN/m
3

Unit weight of soil = 19.436 KN/m3  Unit weight of soil = 20.124 KN/m3
Volume of soil sample taken = 8.61*10
‐5
m

(dia. 38 mm, length 76
mm)
Volume of soil sample taken = 8.61*10
‐5
m

(dia. 38 mm,
length 76 mm)
Mass of soil sample (M
s
) = 167.40 gm (Taken  soil sample of more than
obtained
Mass of soil sample (M
s
) = 173.26 gm (Taken  soil sample of  more
than obtained)
Initial Length (L
o
), mm = 78

Initial Length (L
o
), mm = 76

Initial Area (Ao), mm
2
= 1133.54 Initial Area (Ao), mm
2
= 1133.54
Dial
Gauge
(KN)
Displacement
(Dial gauge
0.01)mm
Strain
(ε)
Corrected
Area (A),
mm
2

Compressive
stress (q),
KN/m
2

Dial
Gauge
(KN)
Displacement
(Dial gauge
0.01)mm
Strain
(ε)
Corrected
Area (A),
mm
2

Compressive
stress (q),
KN/m
2

0  0  0  0  1133.54  0.000  0  0  0  0  1133.54  0.000
10  0.01  0.1  0.00128 1135.00  8.811  10  0.01  0.1  0.0013  1135.03  8.810
20  0.02  0.2  0.00256 1136.45  17.599  20  0.02  0.2  0.0026  1136.53  17.597
30  0.03  0.3  0.00385 1137.92  26.364  30  0.03  0.3  0.0039  1138.03  26.361
40  0.05  0.4  0.00513 1139.38  43.883  40  0.04  0.4  0.0053  1139.54  35.102
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

50  0.07  0.5  0.00641 1140.85  61.358  60  0.05  0.6  0.0079  1142.56  43.761
60  0.1  0.6  0.00769 1142.33  87.541  90  0.07  0.9  0.0118  1147.12  61.022
70  0.12  0.7  0.00897 1143.80  104.913  140  0.1  1.4  0.0184  1154.81  86.594
80  0.15  0.8  0.01026 1145.29  130.972  190  0.12  1.9  0.025  1162.61  103.216
90  0.17  0.9  0.01154 1146.77  148.242  240  0.13  2.4  0.0316  1170.50  111.063
100  0.19  1  0.01282 1148.26  165.468  290  0.14  2.9  0.0382  1178.51  118.794
120  0.22  1.2  0.01538 1151.25  191.096  340  0.13  3.4  0.0447  1186.63  109.554
150  0.23  1.5  0.01923 1155.77  199.002  390  0.12  3.9  0.0513  1194.85  100.431
200  0.21  2  0.02564 1163.37  180.510  440  0.11  4.4  0.0579  1203.20  91.423
250  0.17  2.5  0.03205 1171.07  145.166  490  0.1  4.9  0.0645  1211.66  82.531

Determination of Actual Water Content (w %)
For dry side sample For Wet side sample
Wt. of sample + Container 190.83 gm Wt. of sample + Container 186.70 gm
Wt. of dry sample + Container 172.83 gm Wt. of dry sample + Container 163.49 gm
Wt. of Container 27.01 gm Wt. of Container 13.35 gm
Wt. of soil 145.82 gm Wt. of soil 150.14 gm
Wt. of water 18 gm Wt. of water 23.21 gm
Water Content, % 12.34 Water Content, % 15.46
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure 1: Variation of Stress under Strain in UCS Test
From the graph in Figure 1,
It is found that the unconfined compressive strength (q
u
) of dry side sample is 205 KN/m
2
and
that of the wet side sample is 119 KN/m
2
.

We draw a tangent in both graphs to find out modulus of elasticity (E
s
) of soil, it is the slope of
tangent, can be find out as follows:
For dry side soil,

For Wet side Soil,

Also, from the Mohr’s Circle, we can find the undrained shear strength (C
u
) of the soil.
For dry side,
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

For wet side soil,

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From testing two sample (one containing water content of dry side and other containing water
content of wet side), it is found that the unconfined compressive strength (q
u
) of wet side soil
specimen (119 KN/m
2
) is greater than dry side soil specimen(205 KN/m
2
).
But the modulus of elasticity (Es) of dry side soil (12605 KN/m
2
) is greater than wet side soil
(4366.81 KN/m
2
). But from this test we can found approximate value of modulus of elasticity
because it gives too low value than actual.
Though, there is no any lateral pressure (σ
3
=0), so undrained shear strength (C
u
) is just half of
unconfined compressive strength which is also justified from Mohr’s circle. The value obtained
is 125.0 KN/m
2
and 59.50 KN/m
2
for dry and wet soil specimen respectively.
From this test, it is also known that the soils which have less water content than OMC, brittle
failure is occurred but soil specimen having water content more than OMC is failed by bulging.
It may be due to soil at dry side of optimum is flocculated structure. In flocculated structure soil,
if we apply load, after sometimes it collapses suddenly. But soils in wet side have dispersed
structure, so it takes more load than flocculated structure and fails by bulging. Which, we can see
from above sketch.
INFERENCE:
This test is undrained test and is based on the assumption that there is no moisture loss during the
test. This test is one of the simplest and quickest tests used for determination of shear strength of
cohesive soils. The test results provide an estimate of the relative consistency of the soil. This
unconfined compressive and undrained shear strength parameters are used to calculate bearing
capacity of soil, shear strength and settlement calculation of soil. Almost used in all geotechnical
engineering designs (e.g. design and stability analysis of foundations, retaining walls, slopes and
embankments) to obtain a rough estimate of the soil strength and viable construction techniques.
This is quick test to obtain the shear strength parameters of cohesive (fine grained) soils either in
undisturbed or remolded state. The test is not applicable to cohesion less or coarse grained soils.
The test is strain controlled and when the soil sample is loaded rapidly, the pore pressures (water
Lab Report on Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

within the soil) undergo changes that do not have enough time to dissipate. Hence the test is
representative of soils in construction sites where the rate of construction is very fast and the
pore waters do not have enough time to dissipate.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
(CBR) OF SOIL

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

20
th
September, 2012
1 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) OF
SOIL.
APPARATUS REQUIRED:
1. Moulds with base plate, stay and wing (175 mm Length and 150 mm Dia.)
2. Collar
3. Spacer disc
4. Metal rammer
5. Weights
uniform rate of 1.25 mm/min.
7. Penetration plunger: 50 mm diameter.
8. Dial gauges
9. Sieves: 4.75mm and 19 –mm IS sieve.
10. Miscellaneous Apparatus: mixing bowl, straightedge, measuring scale, soaking tank,
drying oven, filter paper, dishes and calibrated measuring jar.

THEORY:
This test is laboratory determination of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) which was originally
published in 1965. The California bearing ratio test (usually abbreviated as CBR test) is an ad
hoc penetration test developed by the California State Highway Department of USA for the
evaluation of Subgrade strengths for roads and pavements. The results obtained by these tests are
used in conjunction with empirical curves based on experience for the design of flexible
pavements.
California bearing ratio is defined as the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil
mass with a circular plunger of 50 mm diameter at the rate of 1.25 mm/min to that required for
corresponding penetration of a standard material with standard load (load which has been
obtained from the test on crushed stone which was defined as having California bearing ratio of
100 percent).
The load penetration curve is shown in figure 1. The curve shown in figure will be mainly
convex upwards although the initial portion of the curve may be concave upwards due to surface
irregularities. A correction shall then be applied by drawing a tangent to the upper curve at the
point of contraflexure. The corrected curve shall be taken to be this tangent plus the convex
portion of the original curve with the origin of strains shifted to the point where the tangent cuts
the horizontal strain axis as shown in figure 1.
After corrected load value shall be taken from the load penetration curve, California bearing ratio
calculated as:
……………………………………. (1)
Where,
2 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

P
T
= corrected unit (or total) test load
corresponding to the chosen penetration from
P
s
= unit (or total) standard load for the same
depth of penetration as for P
s
taken from table
1.
The CBR values are generally calculated for
penetration of 2.5 mm and 5mm. generally, the
CBR value at 2.5mm penetration will be
greater than that at 5 mm penetration and in
such case the former shall be taken as the CBR
value for design purposes. If the CBR value
corresponding to a penetration of 5mm
exceeds that for 2.5 mm, the test shall be
repeated. If identical results follow, the bearing
ratio corresponding to 5mm penetration shall
be taken for design.

PROCEDURE:
Preparation of Soil sample:
Take 5 kg soil sample passing through 19-mm IS sieve but is retained on 4.75 mm IS
sieve.
Add the water according to optimum moisture content deducting natural moisture content
of soil, mixed thoroughly and left for 24 hrs for uniformly saturation.
Take the weight of mould and base plate, oiling inside the mould, keep 50mm thick metal
disc with filter paper at the bottom of mould and clamp the mould and collar with base
plate.
Fill the soil sample in three layers each layer tamped with 2.6 kg rammer and 56 blows
falling freely from 310mm height.
Remove the collar and trim the extra sample above mould and level it.
Fig. 1: Correction Load Penetration Curves
3 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Take the weight of soil sample in the mould with base plate. Reverse the mould and
clamp it with base plate, keep filter paper and surcharge weight of 4.739 kg. (In case of
soaked test submerge the sample in water for 96 hrs, remove the sample from water and
the specimen is allowed to drain down water for 15 minutes, record the mass of sample).
Keep the sample in loading machine. Placed the plunger seated under a load of 4 kg so
that full contact is established between the surface of the specimen and the plunger.
Set the stress and strain gauge to zero and fix the loading rate at 1.2 mm/minute.
Start the machine and take reading of load at certain interval strain gauges upto 12.50
mm.
Remove the sample from loading machine and mould. Take soil sample at 30 mm below
from the top for determination of water content.
Plot the strain and stress curve.

Figure 2: Arrangement of Test Apparatus and Soil Specimen in Laboratory (Source: IS
2720 (part 16)-1979, Page 281)
1 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO(CBR) VALUE
Name of Test: CBR Date of Testing: 13 & 18-Sept.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red clay Tested By: Group 2
Compaction Rammer Weight= 2.6 Kg No. of Layers= 3 Dry density of Soil = 18.09 KN/m
3

Wt. of base plate and Mould = 6.486 kg No. of blows = 56 Bulk density of soil = 20.80 KN/m
3

Height of Mould (H
t
)= 175 mm Optimum Water Content = 14.5 % Liquid Limit (W
L
)= 36.29 %
Diameter of Mould = 150 mm
Weight of Mould + Base
Plate=
6.486 kg Plastic Limit (W
p
) = 22.45 %
Height of Sample in Mould = 125 mm
Weight of Mould + Base
Plate+ soil (unsoaked)=
11.08 kg Dia. of Plunger = 50 mm
Volume of the sample = 0.002209 m
3
Weight of Surcharge = 4.739 Kg Area of Plunger = 1962.5 mm
2

Weight of Mould + Base Plate+ soil
(before soaking) =
11.04 kg
Weight of Mould + Base
Plate+ soil (After soaking )=
11.241 kg
Water Observed
during soaking =
0.20 Kg
Density of soil unsoaked sample= 20.79 KN/m
3

Density of soil soaked
sample before soaking =
20.61 KN/m
3

Density of soil
soaked sample After
soaking =
21.52 KN/m
3

Water Content determination:
For unsoaked sample
Con.
No.
Wt. of
Can,
gm
Wt. of
can +
soil, gm
Wt. of
can +
Dry
soil, gm
Wt. of
soil, gm
wt. of
water, gm
Water
Content,
%
Average
Water
Content,
%
C1 31.48 49.55 47.15 15.67 2.4 15.316
15.304  C2 12.25 37.22 33.91 21.66 3.31 15.282
C3 20.3 33.93 32.12 11.82 1.81 15.313

1 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

UNSOAKED SAMPLE  SOAKED SAMPLE
Dial Gauge
pentration
Pentration
=(
*0.01)mm
KN
Stress,
KN/m2
Dial Gauge
pentration
Pentration
=(
*0.01),mm
KN
Stress,
KN/m2
0  0.00  0.00  0.00  0  0.00  0.00  0.00
25  0.25  0.21  107.01  25  0.25  0.25  127.39
50  0.50  0.35  178.34  50  0.50  0.44  224.20
75  0.75  0.47  239.49  75  0.75  0.56  285.35
100  1.00  0.60  305.73  100  1.00  0.64  326.11
125  1.25  0.70  356.69  125  1.25  0.71  361.78
150  1.50  0.80  407.64  150  1.50  0.77  392.36
175  1.75  0.90  458.60  175  1.75  0.83  422.93
200  2.00  0.98  499.36  200  2.00  0.88  448.41
225  2.25  1.06  540.13  225  2.25  0.93  473.89
250  2.50  1.14  580.89  250  2.50  0.98  499.36
275  2.75  1.21  616.56  275  2.75  1.02  519.75
300  3.00  1.28  652.23  300  3.00  1.05  535.03
325  3.25  1.35  687.90  325  3.25  1.09  555.41
350  3.50  1.41  718.47  350  3.50  1.12  570.70
375  3.75  1.47  749.04  375  3.75  1.15  585.99
400  4.00  1.53  779.62  400  4.00  1.17  596.18
425  4.25  1.57  800.00  425  4.25  1.20  611.46
450  4.50  1.62  825.48  450  4.50  1.23  626.75
475  4.75  1.66  845.86  475  4.75  1.26  642.04
500  5.00  1.70  866.24  500  5.00  1.29  657.32
525  5.25  1.75  891.72  525  5.25  1.31  667.52
550  5.50  1.78  907.01  550  5.50  1.33  677.71
575  5.75  1.81  922.29  575  5.75  1.35  687.90
600  6.00  1.85  942.68  600  6.00  1.37  698.09
650  6.50  1.92  978.34  650  6.50  1.41  718.47
700  7.00  1.98  1008.92  700  7.00  1.44  733.76
750  7.50  2.05  1044.59  750  7.50  1.47  749.04
800  8.00  2.09  1064.97  800  8.00  1.50  764.33
850  8.50  2.13  1085.35  850  8.50  1.52  774.52
900  9.00  2.18  1110.83  900  9.00  1.54  784.71
950  9.50  2.22  1131.21  950  9.50  1.56  794.90
1000  10.00  2.25  1146.50  1000  10.00  1.56  794.90
1050  10.50  2.29  1166.88  1050  10.50  1.58  805.10
1100  11.00  2.33  1187.26  1100  11.00  1.59  810.19
1150  11.50  2.37  1207.64  1150  11.50  1.61  820.38
1200  12.00  2.42  1233.12  1200  12.00  1.62  825.48
1250  12.50  2.47  1258.60  1250  12.50  1.63  830.57
2 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

UNSOAKED SAMPLE  SOAKED SAMPLE
At
Penetration
Stress
KN/m2
Unit
Standard
stress
(Kgf/cm2)
Unit
Standard
stress
(KN/m2)
CBR
%
At
Penetration
Stress
KN/m2
Unit
Standard
stress
(Kgf/cm2)
Unit
Standard
stress
(KN/m2)
CBR
%
2.5mm 580.89 70 7000 8.30 2.5mm 499.363 70 7000 7.13
5 mm 866.24 105 10500 8.25 5 mm 657.325 105 10500 6.26

Figure 3: Stress-Penetration curve for unsoaked and soaked sample
3 Lab Report on California Bearing Ratio (Cbr)

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From this test we know the values of CBR for both unsoaked and soaked sample, which are
8.30% and 7.13 % respectively.
The density of soil sample for unsoaked is 20.79 KN/m
3
and for soaked sample i.e. before
soaking and after soaking are 20.61 and 21.52 KN/m
3
respectively.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The CBR test is one of the most commonly used methods to evaluate the strength of a
sub grade soil, sub base, and base course material for design of thickness for highways
and airfield pavement.
The California bearing ratio test is penetration test meant for the evaluation of subgrade
strength of roads and pavements. The results obtained by these tests are used with the
empirical curves to determine the thickness of pavement and its component layers. This is
the most widely used method for the design of flexible pavement.
CBR test can be done for both worst case of water content (Soaked case) and field water
content (Unsoaked case).
CBR value is applicable to find out Resilient Modulus (M
R
) using empirical relationship
given by AASHTO (M
R
= 10340*CBR (kpa)).
This test is primarily used to measure volume expansion of soil under submerged
condition.
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
CO-EFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY OF SOILS USING VARIABLE

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

4
th
October, 2012

1 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: DETERMINATION OF CO-EFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY OF

APPARATUS REQUIRED:
1. Permeability device: 55 mm height and 80 mm diameter
2. Timer
3. Thermometer
4. Ring stand with test-tube clamp or other means to develop a differential head across soil
sample
5. Buret to use (with ring stand or other means of support) as a standpipe.
6. Miscellaneous apparatus: IS sieves 4.75mm, mixing pan, graduated cylinder, meter scale,
source of de-aired water.

THEORY:
The coefficient of permeability is a constant of proportionality relating to the ease with which a
fluid passes through a porous medium. Two general laboratory methods are available for
determining the coefficient of permeability of a soil directly. These are constant head and falling
head method. Both methods use Darcy’s law given as:
……………………………………………………………………………………. (I)
The corresponding flow rate (or quantity per unit time) is
……………………………………………………………………………. (II)
Where,
q = quantity of fluid flow in a unit time (cm
3
/s)
k = coefficient of permeability, or hydraulic conductivity, in velocity (cm/s)
i = hydraulic gradient = h/L = head loss across a flow path of length L (Dimensionless)
h = total head difference across the flow path of length
L = length of sample or flow path that produces the head difference, cm
A = cross-sectional area of soil mass through which flow q takes place in units consistent with k.

The constant head test is usually used for cohesionless materials and falling head test is usually
used for cohesive materials.
2 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

According to IS, this test is recommended for soils with coefficient of permeability in the range
of 10
-3
to 10
-7
cm/s and maximum particle size.
The coefficient of permeability (k) can be determined by following formula:
…………………………………………….…………………………… (III)
…………………………………………………………… (IV)
The permeability at 27
0
C is given by,
……………………………………………………………………………. (V)
Where,
K
T
= coefficient of permeability at any temperature, cm/s
Q = quantity, cm
3

A = area of specimen in cm
3

t = time in seconds.
t
f
= final time to head h
2
, sec
t
i
= initial time to head h
1
, sec
h
1
h
2
L = length of soil mass, cm
µ
T
= coefficient of viscosity of fluid at any temperature, poise
µ
27
= coefficient of viscosity of fluid at 27
0
C, poise

PROCEDURE:
1. Take the soil sample passing through 4.75 mm IS sieve and mass of soil sample taken
according to unit weight of soil which is calculated from compaction characteristics
curve, for OMC and dry density of soil. Mix water thoroughly.
3 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

2. Clean permeability device, measure the size of device.
3. Keep porous stone and filter paper at bottom. Fill soil sample and compact sample by
using static compaction.
4. Measure length of sample and keep filter paper and porous stone at top.
5. Prepared specimen is connected with through the top inlet to selected stand pipe and
marks the initial head and final interval at difference of 20 cm, 20 cm and 10 cm.
6. Open bottom outlet and the time interval required for the water level to fall from a known
initial head to a known final head as measured above the center of the outlet are recorded.
7. Refilled the stand pipe with water and the test repeated till three successive observations
give nearly same time interval; the time interval being recorded for the drop in head from
the same to final values.
8. Measure x-sectional area of buret (which is used as stand pipe) pipe.

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATION:
PERMEABILITY OF SOIL BY VARIABLE HEAD (FALLING) METHOD
Name of Test: Permeability Analysis Date of Testing: 21-Sept.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red clay Tested By: Group 2
Height of Mould = 55 mm
Dia. of Mould = 80 mm
Height of sample = 40 mm
Temperature = 27.3
0
C
Opt. water content= 14.5 %
Dry Density (γ
d
) = 18.09 KN/m
3

Unit Wt. of soil (γ)= 20.71 KN/m
3

Vol. of sample (V)= 2.010E-04 m
3

Wt. of soil taken= 416.25 gm
Area of Buret (a) = 1.75 cm
2

Initial Ht. of fall (h
1
)= 100 cm
X-Section area of sample(A)= 50.24 cm
2

Ht. of
Fall, cm
Time elapsed, sec.
Permeability
k, cm/sec
Average K, cm/sec
100 - -
2.96E-05
80 993 3.13E-05
60 2450 2.91E-05
50 3407 2.83E-05
4 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT:
The coefficient of permeability of given soil obtained from test is 2.96E-05 cm/sec at 27.5
o
C.
Also, from graph plotted between height of fall and coefficient of permeability, it is shown that
as increases in fall height of fluid to soil mass, coefficient of permeability also increases.
DISCUSSION:
Neither the constant head nor falling head laboratory test provides a reliable value for the
coefficient of permeability of a soil. Reasons for this are varied but the major ones are as
follows:
1. The soil in the permeability device is never in the same state as in the field- it is always
disturbed to some extent.
2. Orientation of the in situ stratum to the flow of water is probably not duplicated. In sands,
the ratio of horizontal to vertical flow is on the order of k
h
/k
v
≥ 3. This is impossible to
duplicate in the sample-even where the void ratio may be duplicated by careful placement
and compaction.
3. Conditions at the boundary are not the same in laboratory. The smooth wall of the
permeability mold make for better flow paths than if they are rough. If the soil is
stratified vertically, the flow in the different strata will be different, and this boundary
condition may be impossible to reproduce in the laboratory.
5 Lab Report on Grain Size Analysis by Wet Sieving

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

4. The hydraulic head h is usually 5 to 10 times larger in the laboratory test than in the field.
The high laboratory head may produce turbulent skin.
5. Considerable evidence indicates that Darcy’s law is nonlinear –at least at large values of
hydraulic gradient i so that v = k.i
n
and not v = k.i.
6. The effect of entrapped air on the laboratory sample will be large even for small air
bubbles since the sample is small.
INTERFACES:
The knowledge of the permeability is essential in the solution of many engineering problems
involving flow of water through soils such as:
1. Dewatering and drainage of excavations, backfills and subgrades;
2. Determining yield of water bearing strata;
3. Assessing seepage through the body of earth dams; and
4. Computing losses from canals.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
(C AND φ) OF SOIL BY DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

16
th
October, 2012

1 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS (C & φ)
OF A SOIL BY DIRECT SHEAR TEST.

APPARATUS REQUIRED:
1. Shear box grid plates
2. Base plates
6. Proving ring: force measuring of suitable capacity, fitted with dial gauge accurate to
0.002 mm to measure the shear force.
7. Micrometer dial gauges: accurate to 0.01 mm for both horizontal movement and vertical
compression.
8. Weighting balance
9. Measuring scale.
THEORY:
The direct shear test imposes on a soil the idealized condition, that is, the failure plane is forced
to occur at a predetermined location. On this plane there are two stresses acting- a normal stress
σ
n
due to an applied vertical load P
v
, and a shearing stress due to the applied horizontal load P
h
.
These stresses are simply computed as:
σ
n =
P/A ………………………………………..……………………… (i)
= P
h
/A …………………………………………………………………………. (ii)
Where, A is the nominal area of the sample (or of the shear box) and is not corrected for lateral
displacement under shear force P
h
. These stresses are those of coulomb’s equation and here in
terms of effective stress parameters as
…………………………………………………. (iii)
If we obtain above equation is in effective stress parameters but if is not measured then
equation (iii) corrected in terms of total stress parameters c and φ.

Fig1: Direct shear Apparatus
2 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

As there are two unknown values (C and ) in equation, a minimum of two tests at different
values of normal stress with measured shear stress must be made so that the shear strength
parameters C and can be computed. But three tests should be done to check for test error or
sample anomalies.
For cohesionless materials, the cohesion should be zero by definition and eq. (iii) becomes
……………………………………….…………………………. (iv)
The inaccuracies and surface tension effects of damp cohesionless materials may give a small
“apparent” cohesion but this should be neglected. If the cohesion intercept is large and the soil
appears and the soil parameters to be cohessionless we have to investigate if the test has been
incorrectly done.
Direct shear test may be categorized as follows:
1. Unconsolidated-Undrained or UU tests: shear is begun before the sample consolidates
v
. If the soil is cohesive and saturated, excess pore pressures may
develop.
2. Consolidated-Undrained or CU tests: the normal force is applied and the vertical dial
gauge movement is monitored until settlement stops before the shearing force is applied.
3. Consolidated-Drained tests or CD tests: the normal force is applied and shear force is
delayed until settlement stops; the shear force is then applied so slowly that the small
pore pressure that develops in the sample can be ignored.
For cohesionless soils, all three of the above tests give about the same results and independent of
saturation state unless at a very high strain rate.
For cohesive soils, soil parameters are influenced by the test method, Degree of saturation and
whether the soil is normally consolidated or overconsolidated.
PROCEDURE:
1. Measure dimension of the shear box i.e. length, width and height. Calculate x-sectional
area and volume of shear box.
2. Find out the weight of sample according to field dry density and relative density of soil.
3. Clean the shear box, grid plate and base plate.
4. Fit upper and lower part of shear box with screws and fill the sample in it.
3 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

5. Leveled the sample by pressing with level plate and keep grid plate at right angle to shear
plane. Place a porous stone over the grid plate.
7. Bring the upper half of the box in contact with proving ring. Check the contact by giving
slight movement.
KPa load in which lever weight is 0.1 kg/cm
2
and frame weight is 0.2 kg/cm
2
, place extra
0.3 kg/cm
2
9. Mount one dial gauge on the loading yoke to record vertical displacement and another
dial gauge on the container to record the horizontal displacement.
10. Set loading dial gauge and displacement dial gauge to zero and give the strain rate at
0.25mm/minute.
11. Remove the locking screws start the machine. Record the shear load and vertical
displacement at certain increment of shear displacement until the soil sample fails (means
12. Stop the machine; remove the sample from the shear box.
13. Repeat the test on identical specimens under the change in normal load for 100 Kpa and
150 Kpa.
between displacement and vertical displacement to see volume expansion behavior.
15. From peak shear stress and corresponding normal stress, plot the line and find cohesion
and angle of friction.

4 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Name of Test: Direct shear Test Date of Testing: 11-Sept.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red sand Tested By: Group 2
Shear Specimen Data
Sample Dimension:
Side = 6 x 6 cm Max Density (γ)
max.
= 17 KN/m
3

Ht. = 2.9 cm Min. Density (γ)
min
.= 14.87 KN/m
3

Area = 36 cm
2
Relative Density (D
r
) = 70 %
Volume = 104.4 cm
3
Dry Density (γ
d
) = 16.29 KN/m
3

Wt. of sample = 170.07 gm
n
)= 50 Kpa
Horizontal Dial
(Displacement)
Vertical Dial
(Vertical
Displacement)
Gauge
Horizontal
Displacement
∆H =
(I)*0.01 mm
Vertical
Displacement
(∆V)= Diff. of
dial gauges
(II)*0.002 mm
Horizontal
Shear Force =
(III)*2.04
N/DIV.
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)
0 2038 0 0 0 0
25 2035 17 0.25 0.006 34.68
50 2025 29 0.50 0.02 59.16
75 2016 36 0.75 0.018 73.44
100 2016 44 1.00 0 89.76
125 2015 50 1.25 0.002 102
150 2015 55 1.50 0 112.2
175 2015 59 1.75 0 120.36
200 2015 59 2.00 0 120.36
225 2018 60 2.25 -0.006 122.4
250 2018 61 2.50 0 124.44
275 2035 61 2.75 -0.034 124.44
300 2044 61 3.00 -0.018 124.44
350 2068 59 3.50 -0.048 120.36
400 2101 57 4.00 -0.066 116.28
450 2109 55 4.50 -0.016 112.2
500 2110 54 5.00 -0.002 110.16
550 2110 53 5.50 0 108.12
600 2110 53 6.00 0 108.12

5 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

n
)= 100 Kpa
Horizontal
Dial Gauge
(Displacement)
Vertical Dial
(Vertical
Displacement)
Gauge
Horizontal
Displacement
∆H =
(I)*0.01 mm
Vertical
Displacement
(∆V)= Diff. of
dial gauges
(II)*0.002 mm
Horizontal
Shear Force =
(III)*2.04
N/DIV.
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)
0 478 0 0 0 0
25 475 34 0.25 0.006 69.36
50 473 59 0.50 0.004 120.36
75 470 70 0.75 0.006 142.8
100 468 81 1.00 0.004 165.24
125 468 92 1.25 0 187.68
150 468 100 1.50 0 204
175 466 107 1.75 0.004 218.28
200 481 110 2.00 -0.03 224.4
225 495 113 2.25 -0.028 230.52
250 503 115 2.50 -0.016 234.6
275 509 115 2.75 -0.012 234.6
300 520 116 3.00 -0.022 236.64
350 537 114 3.50 -0.034 232.56
400 545 112 4.00 -0.016 228.48
450 568 107 4.50 -0.046 218.28
500 576 102 5.00 -0.016 208.08
550 586 97 5.50 -0.02 197.88
600 586 94 6.00 0 191.76

Normal Load Applied (σn)= 150 Kpa
Horizontal
Dial Gauge
(Displacement)
Vertical Dial
(Vertical
Displacement)
Gauge
Horizontal
Displacement
∆H =
(I)*0.01 mm
Vertical
Displacement
(∆V)= Diff. of
dial gauges
(II)*0.002 mm
Horizontal
Shear Force =
(III)*2.04
N/DIV.
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI)
0 1057 0 0 0 0
25 1042 35 0.25 0.03 71.4
50 1030 54 0.50 0.024 110.16
75 1022 68 0.75 0.016 138.72
100 1015 85 1.00 0.014 173.4
6 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

125 1004 105 1.25 0.022 214.2
150 1000 121 1.50 0.008 246.84
175 998 138 1.75 0.004 281.52
200 997 152 2.00 0.002 310.08
225 997 163 2.25 0 332.52
250 1004 172 2.50 -0.014 350.88
275 1013 178 2.75 -0.018 363.12
300 1024 182 3.00 -0.022 371.28
350 1039 191 3.50 -0.03 389.64
400 1094 194 4.00 -0.11 395.76
450 1117 190 4.50 -0.046 387.6
500 1139 184 5.00 -0.044 375.36
550 1170 173 5.50 -0.062 352.92
600 1193 164 6.00 -0.046 334.56

Figure1: Graph plotted between Horizontal Displacement and Vertical Displacement.
7 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure 2: Graph plotted between Horizontal Displacement and Horizontal Shear Force.

Figure 3: Graph plotted between Normal Stress and Shear Stress.
Test
No.
Normal
Stress

n
), Kpa
Shear
Force at
Failure,
KN
Shear
Stress (τ),
Kpa
1 50 0.125 34.72
2 100 0.235 65.28
3 150 0.399 110.83
399 N
235 N
125 N
8 Lab Report on Direct Shear Test

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
From figure 3, we can find the shear strenght parameters, angle of internal friction (φ) is 35
degrees and cohesion ( C ) is zero. From this values it is found that soil is purely cohesionless.
From figure 1, we can see the volume expansion charateristics of soil sample under shear load at
three different normal loading, it can be seen that first, the soil is expanded (volume increases)
and then after highest loosest state, it again compacted so volume is decreasing.

INFERENCES:
Shear strength is the principal engineering property which controls the stability of a soil mass
under loads. The shear strength parameters are used to find out bearing capacity of soils, the
slope stability problems, the earth pressure against retaining structures and other many problems.
More or less all the soil engineering problems are related with the shear strength of soil.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (UU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
TEST WITHOUT MEASUREMENT OF PORE WATER PRESSURE

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

23
th
OCTOBER, 2012

1 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS OF A SPECIMEN
TESTED  IN  UNCONSOLIDATED  UNDRAINED  TRIAXIAL  COMPRESSION  WITHOUT
MEASUREMENT OF PORE WATER PRESSURE.
OBJECTIVES: TO  DETERMINE  THE  “UNDRAINED”  SOIL  SHEAR  STRENGTH  PARAMETERS
‘Φ’  AND  ‘C’  AND  THE  “ELASTIC”  PARAMETERS  OF  STRESS­STRAIN  MODULUS  ‘E
S
’  AND
POSSION’RATIO ‘µ’ OF A SOIL.
APPARATUS REQUIRED:
1. Compression machine (strain controlled)
2. Triaxial cell (Figure 1)
3. Specimen mould, rubber membrane, membrane stretcher, rubber binding strips, and
porous stones.
4. Sample ejector: to prepare sample of 38 mm dia. and 76 mm length.
5. Measuring scale
6. Water content determination apparatus
7. Weighing balance
8. Air-pressure source with necessary pressure indicator.

Figure 1: line details of triaxial cell. (Source: Foundation Analysis and Design, Bowles)
2 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

THEORY:
One of the primary purposes of this test is to determine the shear strength parameters of soil.
These parameters are defined by Coloumb’s shear strength equation:
……...………………………………………………………………….. (I)
Where,
= shear strength Kpa,
c = soil cohesion, Kpa.
σ
n
= intergranular pressure – may be either total or effective stress value, kpa
Φ = angle of internal friction, degrees
The triaxial test allows using a range of test states that can produce shear strength parameters that
range from total stress to effective stress values. Effective stress values are generally accepted as
the “true” soil shear strength parameters.
The axial load at some deformation is also called the deviator load. The deformation reduced to
strain (Є) and is used to correct the sample area and to compute deviator stress at this strain
level.
A curve of stress versus strain can be plotted and the peak value obtained. This peak value is the
deviator stress (∆σ
1
). The initial tangent modulus is taken as E
s
and poisson’s ratio µ is usually
estimated. The peak or “failure” deviator stress from each curve is used to estimate the shear
strength parameters from a Mohr’s circle plot.
We may do the following computations using Hooke’s general stress-strain for which the vertical
principal strain is
…………………………………………………… (II)
Where, = stress changes; usually = =cell pressure in the triaxial test. There are two
unknown values, namely Es and µ. We may make an estimate of these by taking two points
along the stress-strain curve of constant σ
3
, read the strain and deviator stress and solve the
following equation
3 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

……………………………………………………………...… (III)
The triaxial test data are used to plot Mohr’s stress circles using major σ
1
and minor σ
3
principal
stresses. The two stresses for Mohr’s circle are then
= cell pressure
………………………………...…….. (IV)
From this deviator stress is obvious that the deviator stress = diameter of the Mohr’s circle.
By drawing best-fit tangent to these three (or more) circles we can obtain a graphical solution for
‘Φ’ and ‘C’.
Traiaxial data are also presented using stress paths by plotting single circle point defined by:
……………………………………………….……………. (V)
The plot coordinates p, q may be from either total or effective stress value of and . The
best-fit line through the locus of points obtained from a test series is called the K
f
- line. The line
if projected back to the p (horizontal) axis cuts the q axis with an intercept a; the slope of the K
f
-
line is scaled for angle α. From the plot geometry we can obtain
………………………………………………………………. (VI)
Triaxial stress-strain data can be normalized with respect to

provide a more compact data
presentation. To normalize the data we simply divide the deviator stress by the cell pressure to
obtain the normalized pressure NP as
……………..…………………………………………………………………… (VII)
A plot is made between NP vs. strain.
PROCEDURE:
1. From the dry density and OMC of soil, calculate bulk density and find out the volume of
soil sample (height 76mm and diameter 38mm), calculate weight of soil sample and
water by OMC minus moisture content, mix the soil sample thoroughly and make
specimen using sample ejector as prepared in unconfined compressive strength test.
4 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

2. Measure the weight of specimen and keep it in triaxial cell by putting porous stone at top
and bottom.
3. By using membrane stretcher, cover the specimen by membrane and place the rubber
binding strip at top and bottom so that no water enter into the membrane.
4. Place the Lucite cell and keep load piston at top of soil specimen, tightened the screws of
Lucite cell. Remove the bleed valve and open water valve and fill water in to cell. Close
water valve and place the bleed valve when water is expelling from cell (remove air).
5. Fix the proving dial gauge and displacement dial gauge and set to zero. Give strain rate at
1.2 mm/min. and cell pressure at 50 kpa.
6. Open the cell pressure valve.
7. Start machine and note the proving dial gauge reading at corresponding displacement dial
gauge reading at suitable interval upto 10 and 20 % strain until the specimen fails.
8. Repeat the test for cell pressure 100 and 150 Kpa.
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
UNDRAINED UNCONSOLIDATION TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Name of Test: UU Test Date of Testing: 16-Sept.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red soil Tested By: Group 2
Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
1.2 mm/min.
% by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div = 0.24 kg
Length of
Specimen(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of Specimen(Cm)=
3.8
confining Pressure (Kpa)= 50
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
179.87
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
_
Initial water content(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa) :
_
Wt. of wet specimen after
test(gm)=
179.45

Wt. of dry specimen after
test (gm)=
157.35
Final Water Con.(%)= 14.05
5 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Dial
Gauge
Proving
Ring
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2

(KN)=
(2)x0.24*
0.01
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(∆σ
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2

Normal
Stress =
∆σ
1

3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 0 0 0.00
10 3 0.10 0.001 1135.03 0.0072 6.343 0.13
20 7 0.20 0.003 1136.53 0.0168 14.782 0.30
30 13 0.30 0.004 1138.03 0.0312 27.416 0.55
40 19 0.40 0.005 1139.54 0.0456 40.016 0.80
50 35 0.50 0.007 1141.05 0.084 73.617 1.47
60 53 0.60 0.008 1142.56 0.1272 111.329 2.23
70 65 0.70 0.009 1144.08 0.156 136.354 2.73
80 75 0.80 0.011 1145.60 0.18 157.123 3.14
90 84 0.90 0.012 1147.12 0.2016 175.744 3.51
100 93 1.00 0.013 1148.65 0.2232 194.314 3.89
120 110 1.20 0.016 1151.73 0.264 229.221 4.58
150 130 1.50 0.020 1156.36 0.312 269.811 5.40
200 152 2.00 0.026 1164.18 0.3648 313.355 6.27
250 160 2.50 0.033 1172.10 0.384 327.618 6.55
300 166 3.00 0.039 1180.12 0.3984 337.592 6.75
350 173 3.50 0.046 1188.26 0.4152 349.418 6.99
400 174 4.00 0.053 1196.51 0.4176 349.014 6.98
450 177 4.50 0.059 1204.88 0.4248 352.566 7.05
500 181 5.00 0.066 1213.37 0.4344 358.012 7.16
550 185 5.50 0.072 1221.97 0.444 363.347 7.27
600 187 6.00 0.079 1230.70 0.4488 364.670 7.29
650 190 6.50 0.086 1239.55 0.456 367.874 7.36
700 195 7.00 0.092 1248.54 0.468 374.839 7.50
750 197 7.50 0.099 1257.65 0.4728 375.939 7.52
760 198 7.60 0.100 1259.49 0.4752 377.296 7.55
800 200 8.00 0.105 1266.90 0.48 378.878 7.58
850 202 8.50 0.112 1276.28 0.4848 379.853 7.60
900 204 9.00 0.118 1285.81 0.4896 380.773 7.62
950 206 9.50 0.125 1295.47 0.4944 381.636 7.63
1000 209 10.00 0.132 1305.29 0.5016 384.283 7.69
1050 206 10.50 0.138 1315.25 0.4944 375.897 7.52
1100 206 11.00 0.145 1325.37 0.4944 373.028 7.46
1150 210 11.50 0.151 1335.64 0.504 377.346 7.55
1200 208 12.00 0.158 1346.08 0.4992 370.855 7.42
1250 207 12.50 0.164 1356.68 0.4968 366.189 7.32
6 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

1300 210 13.00 0.171 1367.45 0.504 368.571 7.37
1350 213 13.50 0.178 1378.38 0.5112 370.869 7.42
1400 215 14.00 0.184 1389.50 0.516 371.356 7.43
1450 217 14.50 0.191 1400.80 0.5208 371.788 7.44
1500 220 15.00 0.197 1412.28 0.528 373.864 7.48
1520 220 15.20 0.200 1416.93 0.528 372.638 7.45
1550 221 15.50 0.204 1423.95 0.5304 372.485 7.45
1600 224 16.00 0.211 1435.82 0.5376 374.421 7.49

Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
1.2 mm/min.
% by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div
=
0.24 kg
Length of
Specimen(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of
Specimen(Cm)=
3.8
confining Pressure
(Kpa)=
100
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
180
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
_
Initial water
content(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa)
:
_
Wt. of wet specimen
after test(gm)=
179.47

Wt. of dry specimen
after test (gm)=
157.52
Final Water Con.(%)=
13.93
Dial
Gauge
Proving
Ring
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2

(KN)=
(2)x0.24*
0.01
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(∆σ
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2

Normal
Stress =
∆σ
1

3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 0 0 0.00
10 10 0.10 0.001 1135.03 0.024 21.145 0.21
20 21 0.20 0.003 1136.53 0.0504 44.345 0.44
30 27 0.30 0.004 1138.03 0.0648 56.940 0.57
40 28 0.40 0.005 1139.54 0.0672 58.971 0.59
50 30 0.50 0.007 1141.05 0.072 63.100 0.63
60 33 0.60 0.008 1142.56 0.0792 69.318 0.69
70 34 0.70 0.009 1144.08 0.0816 71.324 0.71
80 35 0.80 0.011 1145.60 0.084 73.324 0.73
90 37 0.90 0.012 1147.12 0.0888 77.411 0.77
100 40 1.00 0.013 1148.65 0.096 83.576 0.84
120 55 1.20 0.016 1151.73 0.132 114.611 1.15
7 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

150 95 1.50 0.020 1156.36 0.228 197.170 1.97
200 113 2.00 0.026 1164.18 0.2712 232.954 2.33
250 120 2.50 0.033 1172.10 0.288 245.714 2.46
300 138 3.00 0.039 1180.12 0.3312 280.649 2.81
350 143 3.50 0.046 1188.26 0.3432 288.825 2.89
400 152 4.00 0.053 1196.51 0.3648 304.886 3.05
450 161 4.50 0.059 1204.88 0.3864 320.695 3.21
500 168 5.00 0.066 1213.37 0.4032 332.299 3.32
550 175 5.50 0.072 1221.97 0.42 343.707 3.44
600 182 6.00 0.079 1230.70 0.4368 354.920 3.55
650 197 6.50 0.086 1239.55 0.4728 381.427 3.81
700 202 7.00 0.092 1248.54 0.4848 388.295 3.88
750 210 7.50 0.099 1257.65 0.504 400.747 4.01
760 214 7.60 0.100 1259.49 0.5136 407.784 4.08
800 219 8.00 0.105 1266.90 0.5256 414.872 4.15
850 225 8.50 0.112 1276.28 0.54 423.104 4.23
900 232 9.00 0.118 1285.81 0.5568 433.036 4.33
950 240 9.50 0.125 1295.47 0.576 444.625 4.45
1000 248 10.00 0.132 1305.29 0.5952 455.991 4.56
1050 256 10.50 0.138 1315.25 0.6144 467.135 4.67
1100 263 11.00 0.145 1325.37 0.6312 476.244 4.76
1150 268 11.50 0.151 1335.64 0.6432 481.565 4.82
1200 267 12.00 0.158 1346.08 0.6408 476.049 4.76
1250 267 12.50 0.164 1356.68 0.6408 472.330 4.72
1300 266 13.00 0.171 1367.45 0.6384 466.856 4.67
1350 266 13.50 0.178 1378.38 0.6384 463.151 4.63
1400 265 14.00 0.184 1389.50 0.636 457.718 4.58
1450 265 14.50 0.191 1400.80 0.636 454.027 4.54
1500 265 15.00 0.197 1412.28 0.636 450.336 4.50
1520 265 15.20 0.200 1416.93 0.636 448.859 4.49
1550 264 15.50 0.204 1423.95 0.6336 444.959 4.45
1600 264 16.00 0.211 1435.82 0.6336 441.282 4.41

Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
1.2 mm/min.
% by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div
=
0.24 kg
Length of Specimen
(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of Specimen
(Cm)=
3.8
confining Pressure
(Kpa)=
150
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
180
8 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Pore Pressure (Kpa): _
Initial water content
(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa) _
Wt. of wet specimen
after test(gm)=
179.66

Wt. of dry specimen
after test (gm)=
157.51
Final Water Con.(%)=
14.06
Dial
Gauge
Proving
Ring
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2

(KN)=
(2)x0.24*
0.01
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(∆σ
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2

Normal
Stress =
∆σ
1

3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 0.00 0 0.00
10 16 0.10 0.001 1135.03 0.04 33.832 0.23
20 35 0.20 0.003 1136.53 0.08 73.909 0.49
30 55 0.30 0.004 1138.03 0.13 115.990 0.77
40 70 0.40 0.005 1139.54 0.17 147.428 0.98
50 75 0.50 0.007 1141.05 0.18 157.750 1.05
60 90 0.60 0.008 1142.56 0.22 189.049 1.26
70 107 0.70 0.009 1144.08 0.26 224.460 1.50
80 120 0.80 0.011 1145.60 0.29 251.397 1.68
90 128 0.90 0.012 1147.12 0.31 267.800 1.79
100 137 1.00 0.013 1148.65 0.33 286.248 1.91
120 155 1.20 0.016 1151.73 0.37 322.994 2.15
150 175 1.50 0.020 1156.36 0.42 363.208 2.42
200 200 2.00 0.026 1164.18 0.48 412.309 2.75
250 217 2.50 0.033 1172.10 0.52 444.332 2.96
300 228 3.00 0.039 1180.12 0.55 463.680 3.09
350 238 3.50 0.046 1188.26 0.57 480.702 3.20
400 246 4.00 0.053 1196.51 0.59 493.433 3.29
450 252 4.50 0.059 1204.88 0.60 501.958 3.35
500 257 5.00 0.066 1213.37 0.62 508.338 3.39
550 263 5.50 0.072 1221.97 0.63 516.542 3.44
600 268 6.00 0.079 1230.70 0.64 522.629 3.48
650 273 6.50 0.086 1239.55 0.66 528.577 3.52
700 277 7.00 0.092 1248.54 0.66 532.463 3.55
750 281 7.50 0.099 1257.65 0.67 536.238 3.57
760 282 7.60 0.100 1259.49 0.68 537.361 3.58
800 285 8.00 0.105 1266.90 0.68 539.902 3.60
850 290 8.50 0.112 1276.28 0.70 545.334 3.64
900 295 9.00 0.118 1285.81 0.71 550.627 3.67
950 299 9.50 0.125 1295.47 0.72 553.928 3.69
9 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

1000 302 10.00 0.132 1305.29 0.72 555.280 3.70
1050 307 10.50 0.138 1315.25 0.74 560.197 3.73
1100 308 11.00 0.145 1325.37 0.74 557.731 3.72
1150 311 11.50 0.151 1335.64 0.75 558.832 3.73
1200 312 12.00 0.158 1346.08 0.75 556.282 3.71
1250 316 12.50 0.164 1356.68 0.76 559.013 3.73
1300 319 13.00 0.171 1367.45 0.77 559.876 3.73
1350 321 13.50 0.178 1378.38 0.77 558.915 3.73
1400 324 14.00 0.184 1389.50 0.78 559.626 3.73
1450 326 14.50 0.191 1400.80 0.78 558.539 3.72
1500 328 15.00 0.197 1412.28 0.79 557.397 3.72
1520 330 15.20 0.200 1416.93 0.79 558.957 3.73
1550 332 15.50 0.204 1423.95 0.80 559.570 3.73
1600 332 16.00 0.211 1435.82 0.80 554.945 3.70

Figure 2: Graph plotted between Deviator stress vs. strain at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.

10 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure 3: Mohr’s Circle and p, q plot at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.

Figure 4: Plot of Normalized stress-strain data at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.
Failure line
K
f
‐ line
11 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

From figure 2
σ
3, Kpa
∆σ
1, Kpa
σ
1
= σ
3
+∆σ
1, Kpa
=(σ
1

3
)/2, Kpa

1

3
)/2,
Kpa
50 384.28 434.28 192.14 242.14
100 481 581 240.5 340.5
150 562 712 281 431

From Mohr's Circle Plot (Figure 3)
From failure line From K
f
-line (Eq. VI)
c, Kpa Φ, deg.
a,
Kpa
α,
degree
c', Kpa Φ', deg.
83 29.12 72 25.96 82.61 29.36

From strain vs. Normalized pressure curve
Modulus of Elasticiy (E), kpa
E
1
E
2
E
3

4500 16000 45000

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
Result obtained from the unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial test are as Followings:
1. The shear strength parameters i.e. cohesion “c” and angle of internal friction “Φ” of soil
are 83 Kpa and 29.12 degress respectively.
2. The stress paths are also drawn from p and q for each test and compute “a” and “α”
which are 72 kpa and 25.96 Kpa. From stress path, cohesion and angle of internal friction
“Φ” are 82.61 kpa and 29.36 degrees which is almost similar to that obtained from failure
line.
3. From the stress-strain curve, the moduli of elasticity for all three cell pressure are
calculated which are 4500, 16000 and 45000 kpa for cell pressure 50, 100 and 150 kpa
respectively.
4. Membrane correction for each test using strain at the “failure” ∆σ
1
stress and an average
membrane thickness of 0.15 mm are checked and it is seen that the correction value is
very much small than ∆σ
1
, so membrane correction is ignored.

12 UU test without pore water pressure measurements

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INFERENCES:
This test is suitable for both cohesive and cohesionless soil to determine shear strength
parameters as well as elastic parameters. When we correlate this test from field condition, this
test is suiatble for soil between impervious stratum. Because the soil between impervious layer is
generally unconsolidated and undrained.
Shear strength is the principal engineering property which controls the stability of a soil mass
under loads. The shear strength parameters are used to find out bearing capacity of soils, the
slope stability problems, the earth pressure against retaining structures and other many problems.
More or less all the soil engineering problems are related with the shear strength of soil. Also,
the elastic parameters are used to calculated settlement problem.
PHOTOGRAPHS:

Figure 5: Laboratory set up of UU Triaxial test. Figure 6: Soil Specimen after failure.
Group, (Source: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore)
Bulging
Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION WITH
MEASUREMENT OF PORE WATER PRESSURE.

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

28
th
November, 2012

1 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO  DETERMINE  THE  SHEAR  STRENGTH  PARAMETERS  OF  A
SPECIMEN TESTED IN CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION WITH
MEASUREMENT OF PORE WATER PRESSURE.
OBJECTIVES:
1. To present procedures for obtaining pore-water pressure during a consolidated-undrained
Triaxial shear test.
2. To use excess pore pressure to obtain the “effective” stress parameters from the measured
total stress shear strength parameters c and Φ.
EQUIPMENT:
For conducting the CU test, the testing system consists of the following five major functional
components:
a) A system to house the sample, that is, a triaxial cell;
b) A system to apply cell pressure and maintain it at a constant magnitude;
c) A system to apply additional axial axis;
d) A system to measure pore water pressure; and
e) A system to measure changes of volume of the soil sample.
Others are;
a) Specimen mould, rubber membranes, rubber binding strips, and porous stones
b) Calipers (or other sample measuring equipment)
c) Sample-trimming equipment as necessary.
THEORY:
Laboratory and field observations in early 1930s recognized that Coulomb’s shear strength
equation was a total stress case which is as
………………………………………...……………………………….. (1)
But a more correct formulation to include the pore pressure term and “effective” stress
parameters is given by following equation:
……………………………………………………………. (2)
2 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

The effective stress parameters require that the normal stress on the shear plane be reduced by
any excess pore pressure that develops on that plane during shear. Actually, equation (2) is
the “general “coulomb shear strength case since varying the pore pressure term produces
anything from the undrained case to actual effective stress parameters.
The disadvantages of this test are that the time-duration may be the range of a week or more. It
has the advantage, however, of being the more precise-particularly if the degree of saturation
S<100%.
If the soil is saturated (S=100%) direct pore-pressure measurements during a consolidated-
undrained test provide the most rapid means to obtain the “effective” stress parameters and with
careful attention to detail are probably as accurate as any method but in CU test the major
problem is to ascertain if the soil sample is saturated. In order to be sure that the excess pore
pressure measured at sample ends also exists on the shear plane it is essential to use saturated
samples.
Skempton (1954) suggested that the excess pore pressure in either saturated or partially saturated
soil under some applied stresses can be described as:
…………………………………………………………. (3)
Where, = change in pore pressure due to any incremental increase in confining pressure
or in the deviator stress .
A, B = Skempton’s pore-pressure coefficients (or parameters)
The sample is assumed to be saturated when B is in range of about 0.95 to 1.0.
Equation (3) can be used to estimate pore pressure increases in the field for embankment
constructions for dams, levees, roads and so on.
PROCEDURE:
1. From the dry density and OMC of soil, calculate bulk density and find out the volume of
soil sample (height 76mm and diameter 38mm), calculate weight of soil sample and
water by OMC minus moisture content, mix the soil sample thoroughly and make
specimen using sample ejector as prepared in unconfined compressive strength test.
2. Measure the weight of specimen and keep it in triaxial cell by putting porous stone at top
and bottom.
3 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

3. By using membrane stretcher, cover the specimen by membrane and place the rubber
binding strip at top and bottom so that no water enter into the membrane.
4. Place the Lucite cell and keep load piston at top of soil specimen, tightened the screws of
Lucite cell. Remove the bleed valve and open water valve and fill water in to cell. Close
water valve and place the bleed valve when water is expelling from cell (remove air).
5. Allow the sample for consolidation by applying cell pressure and open the drained valve.
Also, apply the back pressure less than cell pressure (at difference of 50 Kpa generally)
for saturation of soil sample and also used to obtained change in pore water pressure. The
cell pressure and back pressure are increased until sample fully saturation. Soil sample is
considered to be fully saturated when the Skempton pore water pressure parameter B
(ratio of change in pore water pressure to change in cell pressure) is equal to 0.95 to 1. It
takes approximately one week.
6. After sample is fully saturated, make the cell pressure at 50 Kpa and close the drain valve
because test is consolidated- undrained test. So no drainage is allowed. Now the sample is
prepared for shearing.
7. Fix the proving dial gauge and displacement dial gauge and set to zero. Give strain rate at
0.25 mm/min. and cell pressure at 50 kpa.
8. Start machine and note the proving dial gauge reading at corresponding displacement dial
gauge reading at suitable interval upto 10 and 20 % strain until the specimen fails. Also
the change in pore water pressure during shearing is noted with pore water pressure
measuring device.
9. Repeat the test for cell pressure 100 and 150 Kpa.
Computations part:
1. Compute the unit strain from the deformation-dial readings as

Also compute the area correction value 1-Є and enter in appropriate column of the data
sheet. Compute the corrected area A’ as

4 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

3. Compute the deviator stress and if necessary for the membrane correction ∆σc

Or,
4. Plot a curve of unit deviator stress vs. unit strain and obtain the stress at peak point unless
the stress at 15 percent strain occurs first. Show this value of deviator stress on the graph.
5. With maximum, deviator stress from step 4, compute the major principal stress for each
test as

Also compute the pore pressure ∆u corresponding to the maximum deviator stress from a
plot of deviator load vs. pore pressure. Compute the effective principal stresses σ1 and σ3
as

6. Plot the Mohr’s circles for both total and effective principal stresses and find the value of
shear strength parameters for both drained and undrained case. Also find the young
modulus of elasticity of soil and Poisson’s ratio for all three loading.
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:

CONSOLIDATION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
Name of Test: CU Test Date of Testing: 5,21,26-Nov.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red soil Tested By: Group 2
Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
0.25 mm/min.
% by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div =
_ _
Length of
Specimen(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of Specimen(Cm)=
3.8
5 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

confining Pressure
(Kpa)=
440
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
179.87
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
4.37
Initial water content(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa) :
390
Wt. of wet specimen
after test(gm)=
206.88

Wt. of dry specimen
after test (gm)=
177.35
Final Water Con.(%)=
16.65
Dial
Gauge
Proving
Ring
KN
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2

Pore
Pressure, u
bar*100=
Kpa
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(∆σ
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2

Normal
Stress =
∆σ
1

3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0.00 0.000 1133.54 390.00 0 0.00
10 0.03 0.10 0.001 1135.03 390.00 26.431 0.06
20 0.06 0.20 0.003 1136.53 391.00 52.792 0.12
30 0.08 0.30 0.004 1138.03 392.00 70.297 0.16
40 0.1 0.40 0.005 1139.54 393.00 87.755 0.20
50 0.11 0.50 0.007 1141.05 394.00 96.403 0.22
60 0.12 0.60 0.008 1142.56 395.00 105.027 0.24
70 0.13 0.70 0.009 1144.08 396.00 113.629 0.26
80 0.14 0.80 0.011 1145.60 397.00 122.207 0.28
90 0.15 0.90 0.012 1147.12 398.00 130.762 0.30
100 0.16 1.00 0.013 1148.65 398.00 139.293 0.32
120 0.17 1.20 0.016 1151.73 398.00 147.605 0.34
150 0.19 1.50 0.020 1156.36 398.00 164.308 0.37
200 0.2 2.00 0.026 1164.18 398.00 171.795 0.39
250 0.21 2.50 0.033 1172.10 398.00 179.166 0.41
300 0.21 3.00 0.039 1180.12 398.00 177.947 0.40
350 0.22 3.50 0.046 1188.26 398.00 185.144 0.42
400 0.23 4.00 0.053 1196.51 398.00 192.225 0.44
450 0.24 4.50 0.059 1204.88 398.00 199.190 0.45
500 0.24 5.00 0.066 1213.37 399.00 197.797 0.45
550 0.24 5.50 0.072 1221.97 399.00 196.404 0.45
600 0.24 6.00 0.079 1230.70 399.00 195.011 0.44
650 0.24 6.50 0.086 1239.55 399.00 193.618 0.44
700 0.24 7.00 0.092 1248.54 399.00 192.225 0.44
750 0.23 7.50 0.099 1257.65 399.00 182.881 0.42
760 0.23 7.60 0.100 1259.49 399.00 182.614 0.42
800 0.23 8.00 0.105 1266.90 400.00 181.546 0.41
850 0.23 8.50 0.112 1276.28 400.00 180.211 0.41
900 0.23 9.00 0.118 1285.81 400.00 178.876 0.41
6 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

950 0.23 9.50 0.125 1295.47 400.00 177.541 0.40
1000 0.23 10.00 0.132 1305.29 400.00 176.206 0.40
1050 0.22 10.50 0.138 1315.25 400.00 167.268 0.38
1100 0.22 11.00 0.145 1325.37 400.00 165.991 0.38
1150 0.22 11.50 0.151 1335.64 400.00 164.715 0.37
1200 0.22 12.00 0.158 1346.08 400.00 163.438 0.37
1250 0.22 12.50 0.164 1356.68 400.00 162.161 0.37
1300 0.22 13.00 0.171 1367.45 401.00 160.884 0.37
1350 0.22 13.50 0.178 1378.38 401.00 159.607 0.36
1400 0.22 14.00 0.184 1389.50 401.00 158.330 0.36
1450 0.21 14.50 0.191 1400.80 401.00 149.915 0.34
1500 0.21 15.00 0.197 1412.28 401.00 148.696 0.34
1520 0.21 15.20 0.200 1416.93 401.00 148.208 0.34

Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
0.24
mm/mi
n. % by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div =
0.003647
KN/Div
.
Length of
Specimen(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of
Specimen(Cm)=
3.8
confining Pressure (Kpa)=
450
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
180
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
4.43
Initial water
content(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa) :
350
Wt. of wet specimen
after test(gm)=
182.07

Wt. of dry specimen
after test (gm)=
149.48
Final Water
Con.(%)=
21.80
Dial
Gauge
g
Proving Ring
IV.
Compressi
on of
Sample =
(1)x0.01
mm
Strain
Correcte
d Area
mm
2

Pore
Pressur
e, u
bar*100
= Kpa
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stre
ss
(∆σ
1
),KN/m
2

=
(6)/(5)*1000
2

Normal
Stress
=
∆σ
1

3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0.00 0.00 0.000 1133.54 351 0 0.00
10 0.01 0.10 0.001 1135.03 352 9.639 0.02
20 0.03 0.20 0.003 1136.53 353 25.671 0.06
30 0.06 0.30 0.004 1138.03 354 51.274 0.11
40 0.07 0.40 0.005 1139.54 358 57.608 0.13
50 0.08 0.50 0.007 1141.05 364 70.316 0.16
7 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

60 0.09 0.60 0.008 1142.56 369 76.607 0.17
70 0.09 0.70 0.009 1144.08 374 79.693 0.18
80 0.09 0.80 0.011 1145.60 377 82.771 0.18
90 0.11 0.90 0.012 1147.12 381 95.378 0.21
100 0.14 1.00 0.013 1148.65 385 123.826 0.28
120 0.17 1.20 0.016 1151.73 389 147.605 0.33
150 0.23 1.50 0.020 1156.36 392 198.899 0.44
200 0.24 2.00 0.026 1164.18 396 206.154 0.46
250 0.24 2.50 0.033 1172.10 399 204.761 0.46
300 0.25 3.00 0.039 1180.12 402 210.144 0.47
350 0.25 3.50 0.046 1188.26 403 208.705 0.46
400 0.25 4.00 0.053 1196.51 405 207.265 0.46
450 0.25 4.50 0.059 1204.88 408 205.826 0.46
500 0.25 5.00 0.066 1213.37 411 204.387 0.45
550 0.24 5.50 0.072 1221.97 415 199.963 0.44
600 0.24 6.00 0.079 1230.70 415 198.545 0.44
650 0.24 6.50 0.086 1239.55 415 197.126 0.44
700 0.24 7.00 0.092 1248.54 415 195.708 0.43
750 0.24 7.50 0.099 1257.65 415 191.390 0.43
760 0.24 7.60 0.100 1259.49 416 194.006 0.43
800 0.24 8.00 0.105 1266.90 416 192.872 0.43
850 0.24 8.50 0.112 1276.28 416 191.454 0.43
900 0.24 9.00 0.118 1285.81 416 190.036 0.42
950 0.24 9.50 0.125 1295.47 416 188.617 0.42
1000 0.25 10.00 0.132 1305.29 416 189.993 0.42
1050 0.25 10.50 0.138 1315.25 417 188.554 0.42
1100 0.25 11.00 0.145 1325.37 417 187.115 0.42
1150 0.25 11.50 0.151 1335.64 417 185.675 0.41
1200 0.25 12.00 0.158 1346.08 417 184.236 0.41
1250 0.24 12.50 0.164 1356.68 417 180.108 0.40
1300 0.24 13.00 0.171 1367.45 418 178.690 0.40
1350 0.24 13.50 0.178 1378.38 418 174.626 0.39
1400 0.24 14.00 0.184 1389.50 418 173.229 0.38
1450 0.24 14.50 0.191 1400.80 418 171.832 0.38
1500 0.24 15.00 0.197 1412.28 419 173.017 0.38
1520 0.24 15.20 0.200 1416.93 419 172.450 0.38

8 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Pore Pressure:
_
Fiber Type:
_
_
Wt. of Fibre (Gm)
_
Strain rate (% min.)
0.24 mm/min.
% by wt. of fiber =
_
Proving Ring-1 div =
_ _
Length of Specimen
(Cm)=
7.6
Dial Gauge-1 div=
0.01 mm
Dia. of Specimen
(Cm)=
3.8
confining Pressure
(Kpa)=
540
Initial Wt. of
Specimen(gm)=
180
Pore Pressure (Kpa):
5.35
Initial water content
(%)=
14.05
Back Pressure (Kpa)
:
390
Wt. of wet specimen
after test(gm)=
181.35

Wt. of dry specimen
after test (gm)=
149.31
Final Water Con.(%)=
21.46
Dial
Gauge
Proving
Ring
KN
Compression
of Sample =
(1)x0.01 mm
Strain
Corrected
Area
mm
2

Pore
Pressure,
u
bar*100=
Kpa
Vertical (or
Deviator)Stress
(∆σ
1
),KN/m
2
=
(6)/(5)*1000
2

Normal
Stress =
∆σ
1

3
(=7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0.01 0.00 0.000 1133.54 391.00 8.82 0.02
10 0.02 0.10 0.001 1135.03 394.00 17.621 0.03
20 0.05 0.20 0.003 1136.53 399.00 43.994 0.08
30 0.09 0.30 0.004 1138.03 404.00 79.084 0.15
40 0.14 0.40 0.005 1139.54 412.00 122.857 0.23
50 0.18 0.50 0.007 1141.05 422.00 157.750 0.29
60 0.2 0.60 0.008 1142.56 432.00 175.045 0.32
70 0.22 0.70 0.009 1144.08 438.00 192.295 0.36
80 0.23 0.80 0.011 1145.60 443.00 200.768 0.37
90 0.23 0.90 0.012 1147.12 448.00 200.501 0.37
100 0.24 1.00 0.013 1148.65 450.00 208.940 0.39
120 0.24 1.20 0.016 1151.73 451.00 208.383 0.39
150 0.26 1.50 0.020 1156.36 452.00 224.843 0.42
200 0.28 2.00 0.026 1164.18 454.00 240.513 0.45
250 0.29 2.50 0.033 1172.10 456.00 247.420 0.46
300 0.3 3.00 0.039 1180.12 458.00 254.211 0.47
350 0.31 3.50 0.046 1188.26 460.00 260.885 0.48
400 0.31 4.00 0.053 1196.51 461.00 259.086 0.48
450 0.32 4.50 0.059 1204.88 462.00 265.586 0.49
500 0.32 5.00 0.066 1213.37 463.00 263.729 0.49
550 0.32 5.50 0.072 1221.97 464.00 261.872 0.48
600 0.3 6.00 0.079 1230.70 464.00 243.764 0.45
9 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

650 0.3 6.50 0.086 1239.55 464.00 242.022 0.45
700 0.3 7.00 0.092 1248.54 465.00 240.281 0.44
750 0.3 7.50 0.099 1257.65 466.00 238.540 0.44
760 0.3 7.60 0.100 1259.49 467.00 238.192 0.44
800 0.29 8.00 0.105 1266.90 468.00 228.906 0.42
850 0.29 8.50 0.112 1276.28 468.00 227.222 0.42
900 0.29 9.00 0.118 1285.81 468.00 225.539 0.42
950 0.29 9.50 0.125 1295.47 468.00 223.856 0.41
1000 0.29 10.00 0.132 1305.29 469.00 222.173 0.41
1050 0.28 10.50 0.138 1315.25 469.00 212.887 0.39
1100 0.28 11.00 0.145 1325.37 469.00 211.262 0.39
1150 0.28 11.50 0.151 1335.64 469.00 209.637 0.39
1200 0.28 12.00 0.158 1346.08 469.00 208.012 0.39
1250 0.28 12.50 0.164 1356.68 469.00 206.387 0.38
1300 0.27 13.00 0.171 1367.45 470.00 197.449 0.37
1350 0.27 13.50 0.178 1378.38 470.00 195.881 0.36
1400 0.27 14.00 0.184 1389.50 470.00 194.314 0.36
1450 0.27 14.50 0.191 1400.80 470.00 192.747 0.36
1500 0.26 15.00 0.197 1412.28 470.00 184.100 0.34
1520 0.26 15.20 0.200 1416.93 470.00 183.496 0.34
SATURATION/CONSOLIDATION DETAILS
S.N.  DATE  TIME   CP/BP, KPA  PP, Kpa  B  Vol. of Water  Remarks
1  5/11/2012  2:30  50‐  0.12
2  "  3:30  50‐40  0.29
3  "  5:00  100‐40  0.51  0.44
4  "  5:45  100‐90  0.84
5  6/11/2012  10:00  150‐90  1.1  0.52
6  "  11:30  150‐140  1.37
7  "  12:30  200‐140  1.68  0.62
8  "  1:30  200‐190  1.9
9  8/11/2012  9:30  250‐190  2.25  0.7
10  "  10:30  250‐240  2.41
11  "  11:00  300‐240  2.82  0.82
12  "  11:30  300‐290  2.94
13  "  12:00  350‐290  3.38  0.88
14  "  12:15  350‐340  3.46
15  "  12:35  400‐340  3.94  0.96     SATURATED
16  "  1:00  400‐390  3.98
17  8/11/2012  2:30  440‐390  4.37

10 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

S.N.  DATE  TIME   CP/BP, KPA  PP, Kpa  B
Vol. of
Water
Remarks
1  15/11/2012  4:30  50‐  0.06
2  "  5:00  50‐40  0.35
3  16/11/2012  10:00  100‐40  0.51  0.32
4  16/11/2012  11:30  100‐90  0.9
5  16/11/2012  2:30  150‐90  1.14  0.48
6  "  4:00  150‐140  1.4
7  "  17:00  200‐140  1.7  0.6
8  "  6:00  200‐190  1.9
9  20/11/2012  10:30  250‐190  2.24  0.68
10  "  0:20  250‐240  2.42
11  "  2:00  300‐240  2.75  0.66
12  "  2:40  300‐290  2.92
13  "  15:10  350‐290  3.36  0.88
14  "  15:40  350‐340  3.44
15  "  18:00  400‐340  3.92  0.96     SATURATED
16  21/11/2012  10:30  400‐390  3.94
17  21/11/2013  0:00  450‐350  4.43

S.N.  DATE  TIME   CP/BP, KPA  PP, Kpa  B
Vol. of
Water
Remarks
1  15/11/2012  4:30  50‐  0.12
2  "  5:00  50‐40  0.38
3  16/11/2012  10:00  100‐40  0.5  0.24
4  16/11/2012  11:30  100‐90  0.89
5  16/11/2012  2:30  150‐90  1.12  0.46
6  "  4:00  150‐140  1.4
7  "  17:00  200‐140  1.68  0.56
8  "  6:00  200‐190  1.89
9  20/11/2012  10:30  250‐190  2.27  0.76
10  "  0:20  250‐240  2.42
11  "  2:00  300‐240  2.77  0.7
12  "  2:40  300‐290  2.97
13  "  15:10  350‐290  3.39  0.84
14  "  15:40  350‐340  3.45
15  "  18:00  400‐340  3.94  0.98     SATURATED
16  21/11/2012  10:30  400‐390  3.96
17  21/11/2013  0:00  540‐390  5.35

11 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure 1: Graph plotted between Deviator stress vs. strain at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.

Figure 2: Plot of Normalized stress-strain data at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa.
12 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure 3: Mohr’s Circle plot at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa for TOTAL STRESS

Figure 4: Mohr’s Circle plot at cell pressure 50, 100 &150 Kpa for EFFECTIVE STRESS
13 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Figure5 : change in porewater pressure vs strain
σ3  ∆σ1
σ1 =
σ3+∆σ1
τ=(σ1‐
σ3)/2
(σ1+σ3)/2
440  199.190 639.189683 99.5948 539.59484
450  210.144 660.144048 105.072 555.07202
540  265.586 805.586244 132.793 672.79312
σ3'  ∆σ1
σ1' =
σ3+∆σ1‐∆u
τ'=(σ1‐
σ3)/2
(σ1'+σ3')/2
42.00  199.190 241.190  99.5948 141.59484
48  210.144 258.144  105.072 153.07202
78.00  265.586 343.586  132.793 210.79312

From Mohr's Circle Plot
Total shear parameter
Effective shear parameter
c, Kpa
Φ, deg. c', Kpa Φ', deg.
63  14.93  40  27.02

From strain vs. Normalized pressure curve
Modulus of Elasticiy (E), kpa
E
1
E
2
E
3

7894  8421

17727

14 Lab Report on CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED (CU) TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
Results obtained from the consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial test are as Followings:
1. The Total shear strength parameters i.e. cohesion “c” and angle of internal friction “Φ” of
soil are 63 Kpa and 14.93 degrees respectively.
2. The Effective shear strength parameters i.e. cohesion “c” and angle of internal friction
“Φ” of soil are 40 Kpa and 27.02 degrees respectively.
3. From the stress-strain curve, the modules of elasticity for all three cell pressure are
calculated which are 7894, 8421 and 17727 kpa for cell pressure 50, 100 and 150 kpa
respectively.
4. Membrane correction for each test using strain at the “failure” ∆σ
1
stress and an average
membrane thickness of 0.15 mm are checked and it is seen that the correction value is
very much small than ∆σ
1
, so membrane correction is ignored.

INFERENCE:
Total and effective Shear strength parameters are the principal engineering property which
controls the stability of a soil mass under loads. The shear strength parameters are used to find
out bearing capacity of soils, the slope stability problems, the earth pressure against retaining
structures and other many problems. More or less all the soil engineering problems are related
with the shear strength of soil. Also, the elastic parameters are used to calculated settlement
problem.

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISc)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
BANGALORE, INDIA

LAB REPORT
ON
DETERMININATION OF THE CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF
SOIL

Submitted By: Submitted To:
Arvind Kumar Jha Dr. P. Anbazhaghan
Ph. D. Student Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

10
th
December, 2012

1 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

NAME OF TEST: TO DETERMINE THE CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOIL.
APPARATUS AND MATERIAL REQUIRED:
I. Consolidation ring: rigid, non corrosive, inner diameter 60mm, the height of ring shall
not be less than 20 mm with diameter to height ratio of about 3.0 and further the
specimen height shall not be less than 10 times the maximum particle size.
II. Porous stone: flat, clean and free of cracks and chips.
III. Filter paper
IV. Teflon or silicon oil
V. Consolidation ring: capable of being filled with water to a level higher than the top of the
upper porous stone, of having an axial vertical load applied to the top of the specimen
and of allowing measurement of the change in height of the specimen on its central axis.
VI. Dial gauge: accuracy of 0.01 percent of the specimen height and have a travels of at least
50 percent of the specimen height.
specimen is deforming with a variation of less than ± 1 percent of the applied load.
Located on firmed base, free from vibrations and other mechanical disturbances.
VIII. Jack and frame: for extruding the soil from sampling jacks.
IX. Equipment for measuring initial height of test specimen to an accuracy of 0.1mm: vernier
calipers.
X. Weighting balance sensitive to 0.01 gm: for weighing the specimen and moisture content.
XI. Timing device readable to one second.
THEORY:
When any soil is subjected to an increase in pressure or load, a readjustment in the soil structure
occurs that may be considered as consisting primarily of plastic deformation with a
corresponding reduction in void ratio (e). a small amount of elastic deformation may also take
place, but considering the magnitude of loads (or contact pressure) involved and that the
modulus of elasticity of the soil particles is on order of 20 Mpa, the elastic deformation-
recoverable on removing the load- is negligible.
When the load is applied to a dry, partially saturated, or fully saturated coarse grained soil, or to
a dry or partially saturated fine grained soil, the process of plastic deformation with void ratio
reduction takes place in short enough period of time for the process to be considered
2 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

instantaneous. This can be explained by the fact that for dry and partially saturated soils the pore
fluid has almost no viscosity or flow resistance. Similarly, if the soil is coarse-grained the
coefficient of permeability k is large and the pore water can be quickly flow out. A consolidation
test is not required in these cases.
When the load is applied to a fine-grained soil that is either nearly or completely saturated the
time for all the plastic deformation and void ratio reduction to take place is much longer. The
length of time for this process to take place will depend on several factors, of which the primary
ones are
a) Degree of saturation
b) Coefficient of permeability of soil
c) Viscosity and compressibility of the pore fluid
d) Length of path the expelled pore fluid must take to find equilibrium.
Hence, consolidation may be defined ad that plastic deformation with void ratio reduction
(generally termed as settlement ∆H) which is a function of time and excess pore water pressure,
or
∆H = f (t)
One dimensional consolidation is that, with a metal ring confining the sample no lateral soil or
water movement takes place – all water flow and soil movement are in the vertical direction.
The main purpose of consolidation test is to obtain soil data which are used in predicting the rate
and the amount of settlement of structure. The two most important soil properties furnished by a
consolidation test are the coefficient of compressibility (a
v
), through which one can determine
the magnitude of compression and the coefficient of consolidation (C
v
) which enables the
determination of the rate of compression under a load increment. It also gives the useful
information about stress history of the soil. It is used to predict the settlements of structures in
the field.
PROCEDURE:
1. Weight the empty consolidation ring (W
1
)
2. Measure the dimension of the consolidation ring i.e. inside diameter and height and
calculate volume of ring.
3. Calculate the weight of soil sample according to OMC and Dry density and take soil
passing through IS sieving 425 micron.
3 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

4. Reduce the wall friction inside consolidation ring; oiling is done by Teflon or silicon oil.
Keep the consolidation ring in metal plate; fill the sample in consolidation by pressing
with circular disc by hand. Compact the sample in static compaction device and measure
initial height (Ho) and weight of soil sample with ring (W
2
).
5. Assemble the consolidometer: Place the bottom porous stone, bottom filter paper,
specimen, top filter paper and the top porous stone, one by one.
6. Position the loading block centrally on the top porous stone. Mount the mould assembly
system.
7. Set the dial gauge in the position. Allow sufficient margin for the swelling of the soil.
8. Connect the mould assembly to the water reservoir having the water level at about the
same level as the soil specimen. Allow the water flow into the specimen till it is fully
saturated.
9. Take the initial reading of the dial gauge.
10. Apply an initial setting load to give a pressure of 0.05 kg/cm
2
to the assembly so that
there is no swelling and allow the setting load to stand till there is no change in the dial
11. Normal sequence of pressure to be applied is 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0 and 16.0 kg
/cm
2
and take the dial gauge reading after application of each load at a time sequence of
0.25, 1.0, 2.25, 4.0, 6.25, 12.25, 16, 20, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, 144, 169, 196, 225,
289, 324, 361, 400, and finally 1440 minutes.
¼ of the last load and allow it stand for 24 hours. Take the dial gauge reading after 24
hours. Further reduce the load to ¼ of the previous load and repeat the above procedure,
likewise further reduce the load to ¼ of the previous and repeat the procedure. Finally
reduce the load to the initial setting load and keep out for 24 hours and take the final dial
13. Dismantle the assembly. Take out the ring with the specimen. Wipe out the excess
surface water using bloating paper and remove the filter paper both side the specimen.
14. Take weight of the ring with specimen (W
3
).
15. Dry the specimen in oven for 24 hours and determine the dry weight of the specimen.
16. Determine the specific gravity of soil from the dried specimen (W
4
).
Computations part:
1. Determination of coefficient of consolidation (C
v
): plot the dial gauge versus square root
of t or versus log of time for each load increment and draw smooth curve joining the
points. From using the square root of time plot, find time required to consolidate 90% and
using the log of time plot, find the time required to consolidate 50%. Then
4 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Using the square root of time plot: the coefficient of consolidation, c
v
increment under consideration may be calculated from the formula:

Using the log of time plot:

Where, H
av
is the average specimen thickness for the load increment, and C
v
has units of
(length)
2
per unit time consistent with the units used.
2. Determination of compressibility:
From the dry weight of specimen W
s
, the volume of soil solids, V
s
shall be obtained as:

Where, G
s
is specific gravity of the solid particles and unit weight of water.
The equivalent height of soil solids can be determined as:

Determine ∆H, the height of specimen at the end of each pressure increment, H can be
determined by subtracting ∆H of a particular increment from H of the specimen prior to
application of that increment.
Void ratio (e) is obtained as,

Find the change in void ratio (∆e) and change in pressure (∆P), the coefficient of compressibility,
a
v
, with units of inverse of units for stress shall be calculated as:
5 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

3. Compression index, C
c
:
Plot the void ratio, e versus logp. The slope of the straight line proportion that is for the
soil in the normally consolidated state in designed C
c
. this can be directly obtained from
the plot or calculated as:

1 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:
ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST
Name of Test: Consolidation Test Date of Testing: 5-Nov.-2012
Location of Test: Soil Mechanics Lab, IISc, Bangalore, India.
Description of Soil: Red soil Tested By: Group 2
Pressure Increment Data
Project

Test
No.:

Sample

L.C. of Dial Gauge: 0.002 Date:
Soil Identification
Red clay

Page
No:

Pressure Increment Pressure Increment Pressure Increment Pressure Increment
From…0… To 6.25KPa From 6.25 To 12.5KPa From 12.5 To 25 Kpa From 25 To 50.Kpa
Date and
Time
Elapsed
Time
(min-h)
Dial
Date
and
Time
Elapsed
Time (min-
h)
Dial
Date
and
Time
Elapsed
Time
(min-h)
Dial
Date
and
Time
Elapsed
Time
(min-h)
Dial
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
10:30 AM  0  1650
10:30
AM
0  1684
10:10
AM
0  1680
10:10
AM
0  1235
0.25  1655     0.25  1684     0.25  1680     0.25  1235
0.5  1658     0.5  1684     0.5  1680     0.5  1231
1  1658     1  1684     1  1680     1  1223
2  1658     2  1684     2  1680     2  1217
4  1658     4  1684     4  1680     4  1214
8  1659     8  1684     8  1680     8  1211
15  1668     15  1684     15  1680     15  1209
30  1668     30  1684     30  1679     30  1208
2 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

60  1668     60  1684     60  1678     60  1206
120  1672     120  1684     120  1678     120  1204
240  1676     240  1684     240  1677     240  1202
480  1680     480  1684     480  1675     480  1200
960  1682     960  1684     960  1675     960  1198
1440  1684     1440  1684     1440  1674     1440  1196
1  567     1  550     1  537     1  502
480        480  553     480        480
1440  585     1440  561     1440  546     1440  535

Pressure Increment Pressure Increment Pressure Increment Pressure Increment
From 50 To 100KPa From 100 To 200 KPa From 200 To 400 Kpa From 400 To 800.Kpa
Date and
Time
Elapsed
Time
(min-h)
Dial
Date
and
Time
Elapsed
Time
(min-h)
Dial
Date
and
Time
Elapsed
Time
(min-h)
Dial
Date
and
Time
Elapsed
Time
(min-h)
Dial
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
10:30 AM  0  966
10:30
AM
0  810
10:10
AM
0  620
10:10
AM
0  487
0.25  965     0.25  797     0.25  612     0.25  484
0.5  963     0.5  791     0.5  605     0.5  481
1  958     1  783     1  597     1  478
2  952     2  774     2  589     2  473
4  945     4  766     4  581     4  468
8  939     8  757     8  573     8  462
15  934     15  750     15  565     15  453
30  930     30  744     30  562     30  451
60  921     60  740     60  551     60  445
120  915     120  736     120  549     120  441
3 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

240  910     240  730     240  547     240  435
480  909     480  724     480  546     480  430
960  908     960  720     960  545     960  424
1440  907     1440  718     1440  544     1440  419
1  466     1        1  442     1  422
480        480        480  446     480  422
1440  473     1440        1440        1440  435

PRESSURE - VOID RATIO DATA
Project: Specimen Measurements Water Content
Sample No: Diameter, D, cm: 6 Can No.:
Soil Identification: Area, A cm2 : 28.26
Wt. of can + wet
soil: 305.8
Specific Gravity: 2.59 Thcikness Ho: 15
wt. of can + dry
soil: 291.95
Specimen
Preparation: Wt. of Ring (W1): 210 wt. of can: 210
Procedure:
Wt. of Specimen+Ring
(W2) 301.08 wt. of water: 13.85
Type of water used:
Final Wt. of Specimen
(W3)
89.49 wt. of dry soil:
81.95

Dry Wt. of spec+ ring
(W4) 291.95 Water Content,%: 16.90
Dry wt. of specimen, Ws
81.95

Equiv. Ht. of Soilds, Hs,
cm 1.10
4 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

Applied
pressure
KPa
Final
Dial
Comp.
∆H,
mm
Specimen
Ht., mm
e=(H/H
S
)-1 ∆e ∆p
a
v
=∆e/∆p,
m
2
/KN
t
90
,
min
Averg.
t
90
,min
H
av
, cm
C
v
,
cm
2
/min
Cc
6.25  1684  ‐0.068  13.568 0.231 0.000 6.25 0
18  12.4063 3.63  0.13
12.5  1684  0  13.568 0.231 0.000 6.25 0
25  1674  0.02  13.548 0.229 0.002 12.5 0.0145  14
50  1196  0.956  12.592 0.142 0.087 25 0.3468  16
100  907  0.578  12.014 0.090 0.052 50 0.1048  18
200  718  0.378  11.636 0.055 0.034 100 0.0343  17
400  544  0.348  11.288 0.024 0.032 200 0.0158  18
800  418  0.252  11.036 0.001 0.023 400 0.0057  25

5 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

1 Lab Report on determination of consolidation properties of soil

Prepared By: Arvind Kumar Jha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
The average value of coefficient of consolidation using the log of time root method (Cv) is 3.63
cm
2
/min. and from the slope of curve plotted between logarithmic of pressure versus void ratio,
the value of compression index (Cc) is 0.13. Similarly, average value of coefficient of
compressibility (a
v
) is 0.087 m
2
/KN.
INFERENCE:
The main purpose of consolidation test is to obtain soil data which are used in predicting the rate
and the amount of settlement of structure. The two most important soil properties furnished by a
consolidation test are the coefficient of compressibility (a
v
), through which one can determine
the magnitude of compression and the coefficient of consolidation (C
v
) which enables the
determination of the rate of compression under a load increment. It also gives the useful
information about stress history of the soil. It is used to predict the settlements of structures in
the field.
PHOTOGRAPHS:

Fig: Arrangement of consolidation apparatus.

Fig: Consolidation Cell