You are on page 1of 34

FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
LAB GEOTECHNIC

FULL REPORT
Subject Code

BFC 31901
U2 DIRECT SHEAR TEST & UNCONFINED
Code & Experiment Title
COMPRESSION TEST
Course Code
3 BFF
th
Date
18 SEPTEMBER 2012
Section / Group
SECTION 11 / GROUP 2
Name
Mohd Safwan bin Mohd Yusoff
AF 100112
Members of Group
1. Eric Cheah Keng Yang
AF 100226
2. Fong Kar Guan
AF 100240
3. Iryanie binti Rosli
AF 100151
4. Lee Chee Aun
AF 100246
5. Maryam binti Ramli
AF 100203
6. Wan Mohd Ikhwan Shafiq
AF 100076
EN. MUSTAFFA BIN ANJANG AHMAD
Lecturer/Instructor/Tutor
EN. BASIL DAVID DANIEL
Received Date
24th SEPTEMBER 2012

Comment by examiner

Received

STUDENT CODE OF ETHIC


(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UTHM
I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own effort. I also admit not
to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

_________________
Student Signature

Name

Matric No. :
Date

STUDENT CODE OF ETHIC


(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UTHM
I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own effort. I also admit not
to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

_________________
Student Signature

Name

Matric No. :
Date

STUDENT CODE OF ETHIC


(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UTHM
I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own effort. I also admit not
to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

_________________
Student Signature

Name

Matric No. :
Date

STUDENT CODE OF ETHIC


(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UTHM
I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own effort. I also admit not
to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

_________________
Student Signature

Name

Matric No. :
Date

STUDENT CODE OF ETHIC


(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UTHM
I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own effort. I also admit not
to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

_________________
Student Signature

Name

Matric No. :
Date

STUDENT CODE OF ETHIC


(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UTHM
I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own effort. I also admit not
to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

_________________
Student Signature

Name

Matric No. :
Date

STUDENT CODE OF ETHIC


(SCE)
DEPARTMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UTHM
I, hereby confess that I have prepared this report on my own effort. I also admit not
to receive or give any help during the preparation of this report and pledge
that everything mentioned in the report is true.

_________________
Student Signature

Name

Matric No. :
Date

TEST 1: DIRECT SHEAR TEST


1.0 OBJECTIVE
To determine the parameter of shear strength of soil, cohesion, c and angle of friction,
for sand.
2.0 LEARNING OUTCOME
At the end of this experiment, students are able to:
Determine the shear strength parameter of the soil
Handle shear strength test, direct shear test
3.0 THEORY
The general relationship between maximum shearing resistance, and normal stress, for
soils can be represented by the equation and known as Coulombs Law:
= c + tan
where:
c = cohesion, which is due to internal forces holding soil particles together in a solid mass
= friction, which is due to the interlocking of the particles and the friction between them
when subjected to normal stress.
The friction components increase with increasing normal stress but the cohesion
components remain constant. If there is no normal stress the friction disappears. This
relationship shown in the graph below that is equal to the angle of shearing resistance of
the soil, and its intercept on the vertical (shear stress) axis being the apparent cohesion,
denoted by c.

4.0 EQUIPMENTS & MATERIALS


4.1. Shear box carriage
4.2. Loading pad
4.3. Perforated plate
4.4. Porous plate
4.5. Retaining plate
4.6. Weights

4.7. Sand sample


5.0 PROCEDURES
5.1. The internal measurements of the shear box were verified by using vernier calipers.
The length of the sides, L and the overall depth, B.
5.2. The base plate was fixed inside the shear box. Then porous plate was put on the
base plate. Next, perforated grid plate was fitted over porous so that the grid plates
were at right angle to the direction of shear.

Figure 5.1: Shear box carriage

Figure 5.2: Arranging the plates in shear box


5.3. Two halves of the shear box was fixed by means of fixing screws.
5.4. For cohesive soils, the soil sample was transferred from square specimen cutter to
the shear box by pressing down on the top grid plate. For sandy soil, soil was
compacted in layers to the required density in shear box.

Figure 5.3: Preparation of sand specimen using square cutter

Figure 5.4: Sand specimen prepared before being loaded into shear box

Figure 5.5: Placing the square specimen into shear box


5.5. The shear box assembly was mounted on the loading frame.
5.6. The dial of the proving ring was set to zero.
5.7. The loading yoke was placed on the loading pad and hanger was lifted carefully
onto the top of the loading yoke.
5.8. The correct loading was then applied to the hanger pad.

5.9. The screws clamping the upper half to the lower half were carefully removed.
5.10.
The test was conducted by applying horizontal shear load to failure. Rate of
strain were set as 1.6 mm/min.
5.11.
Readings of horizontal and force dial gauges were recorded at regular
intervals.
5.12.
Finally the test was conducted on the three identical soil samples under
different vertical compressive stress, 1.75kg, 2.5kg and 3.25kg.

6.0 RESULTS
From the experiment, the dimensions of the test samples were measured as follows
(dimensions are same for all three samples as the method of preparing them is fixed):
Length, L:
60.00 mm
Width, W:
60.00 mm
Thickness, B: 24.20 mm
a) To find L (mm):
Example:

Dial Gauge x 0.002 mm


50 x 0.002 = 0.1 mm

b) To find Load, P (kN):


Example:

Dial Gauge x 0.00204 kN


8 x 0.00204 = 0.0163 kN
2

c) To find Shear Stress:

Area (m
= Load, P (kN)

Example:

0.0163 kN
0.06 m x 0.06 m

= 4.5278 kNm-2
d) To find Strain:

L (mm)
= Total Length (mm)
0.1 mm
= 60 mm

Example:
Specimen No

:1

Loading

: 1.75 kg

= 0.0017

Displacement
Dial Gauge
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600

L (mm)

Proving Ring
Dial Gauge

Load, P (kN)

Shear Stress,
(kN/m2)

0.1
0
0.0000
0.0000
0.2
8
0.0163
4.5278
0.3
14
0.0286
7.9444
0.4
18
0.0367
10.1944
0.5
23
0.0469
13.0278
0.6
27
0.0551
15.3056
0.7
32
0.0653
18.1389
0.8
36
0.0734
20.3889
0.9
40
0.0816
22.6667
1.0
44
0.0898
24.9444
1.1
47
0.0959
26.6389
1.2
49
0.1000
27.7778
1.3
51
0.1040
28.8889
1.4
54
0.1102
30.6111
1.5
55
0.1122
31.1667
1.6
57
0.1163
32.3056
1.7
59
0.1204
33.4444
1.8
60
0.1224
34.0000
1.9
61
0.1224
34.5556
2.0
62
0.1265
35.1389
2.1
63
0.1285
35.6944
2.2
64
0.1306
36.2778
2.3
65
0.1326
36.8333
2.4
66
0.1346
37.3889
2.5
66
0.1346
37.3889
2.6
66
0.1346
37.3889
2.7
67
0.1367
37.9722
2.8
67
0.1367
37.9722
2.9
68
0.1387
38.5278
3.0
68
0.1387
38.5278
3.1
68
0.1387
38.5278
3.2
68
0.1387
38.5278
Table 6.1: Data tabulation for Specimen 1

Strain,
0.0017
0.0033
0.0050
0.0067
0.0083
0.0100
0.0117
0.0133
0.0150
0.0167
0.0183
0.0200
0.0217
0.0233
0.0250
0.0267
0.0283
0.0300
0.0317
0.0333
0.0350
0.0367
0.0383
0.0400
0.0417
0.0433
0.0450
0.0467
0.0483
0.0500
0.0517
0.0533

Specimen No

:2

Loading

: 2.50 kg

Displacement
Dial Gauge
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550

L (mm)

Proving Ring
Dial Gauge

Load, P (kN)

Shear Stress,
(kN/m2)

0.1
13
0.0265
7.3611
0.2
25
0.0510
14.1667
0.3
40
0.0816
22.6667
0.4
50
0.1020
28.3333
0.5
58
0.1183
32.8611
0.6
66
0.1346
37.3889
0.7
72
0.1469
40.8056
0.8
77
0.1571
43.6389
0.9
82
0.1673
46.4722
1.0
85
0.1734
48.1667
1.1
87
0.1775
49.3056
1.2
89
0.1816
50.4444
1.3
91
0.1856
51.5556
1.4
92
0.1877
52.1389
1.5
93
0.1897
52.6944
1.6
95
0.1938
53.8333
1.7
95
0.1938
53.8333
1.8
96
0.1958
54.3889
1.9
97
0.1979
54.9722
2.0
97
0.1979
54.9722
2.1
97
0.1979
54.9722
2.2
97
0.1979
54.9722
2.3
98
0.1999
55.5278
2.4
98
0.1999
55.5278
2.5
99
0.2020
56.1111
2.6
99
0.2020
56.1111
2.7
100
0.2040
56.1111
2.8
101
0.2060
57.2222
2.9
101
0.2060
57.2222
3.0
101
0.2060
57.2222
3.1
101
0.2060
57.2222
Table 6.2: Data tabulation for Specimen 2

Strain,
0.0017
0.0033
0.0050
0.0067
0.0083
0.0100
0.0117
0.0133
0.0150
0.0167
0.0183
0.0200
0.0217
0.0233
0.0250
0.0267
0.0283
0.0300
0.0317
0.0333
0.0350
0.0367
0.0383
0.0400
0.0417
0.0433
0.0450
0.0467
0.0483
0.0500
0.0517

Specimen No

:3

Loading

: 3.25 kg

Displacement
Dial Gauge
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250

L (mm)

Proving Ring
Dial Gauge

Shear Stress,

Load, P (kN)

0.1
0
0.0000
0.2
40
0.0816
0.3
55
0.1122
0.4
64
0.1306
0.5
71
0.1448
0.6
80
0.1632
0.7
87
0.1775
0.8
92
0.1877
0.9
97
0.1979
1.0
101
0.2060
1.1
105
0.2142
1.2
107
0.2183
1.3
110
0.2244
1.4
112
0.2285
1.5
113
0.2305
1.6
114
0.2326
1.7
115
0.2346
1.8
116
0.2366
1.9
117
0.2387
2.0
118
0.2407
2.1
119
0.2428
2.2
118
0.2407
2.3
118
0.2407
2.4
118
0.2407
2.5
118
0.2407
Table 6.3: Data tabulation for Specimen 3

(kN/m2)
0.0000
22.6667
31.1667
36.2778
40.2222
45.3333
49.3056
52.1389
54.9722
57.2222
59.5000
60.6389
62.3333
63.4722
64.0278
64.6111
65.1667
65.7222
66.3056
66.8611
67.4444
66.8611
66.8611
66.8611
66.8611

Strain,
0.0017
0.0033
0.0050
0.0067
0.0083
0.0100
0.0117
0.0133
0.0150
0.0167
0.0183
0.0200
0.0217
0.0233
0.0250
0.0267
0.0283
0.0300
0.0317
0.0333
0.0350
0.0367
0.0383
0.0400
0.0417

7.0 DATA ANALYSIS


7.1. Graph of Shear Stress, (kN/m2) versus Strain,

Shear Stress, vs Strain,


80
70
60
50

Shear Stress, (kN/m2)

Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3

40
30
20
10
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Strain,

Figure 7.1: Graph of Shear stress, against Strain, for all specimens
7.2. Graph of Shear Stress, (kN/m2) versus Normal Stress, (kN/m2)
Normal stress, is the element of pressure created when a force acts directly
perpendicular to a surface area. Therefore, its equation can be described as
=

Force, F
Area, A , where in this experiment, the force acting perpendicular equals to

the applied loading on the hanger.


1.75 kg x 9.81 ms -2
For specimen 1, = 0.06 m x 0.06 m
= 4.769 kNm-2
2.50 kg x 9.81 ms -2
For specimen 2, = 0.06 m x 0.06 m
= 6.813 kNm-2
3.25 kg x 9.81 ms -2
For specimen 3, = 0.06 m x 0.06 m
= 8.856 kNm-2

When plotting shear stress, against normal stress, the result will be a straight
vertical line for all specimens since the loading does not gradually increase with the
same specimen. Therefore, we use the shear stress value achieved by each specimen
when the displacement dial gauge reads 150, to be plotted with the specimens
normal stress calculated with their respective weights.

Shear Stress, vs Normal Stress,


35
30
25
20

Shear Stress, (kN/m2) 15


10
5
0
4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

Normal Stress, (kN/m2)

Figure 7.2: Graph of Shear stress, against Normal stress, for all specimens
From Figure 7.2, it is found that the angle of the gradient of the graph is 36 whereas
the gradient line touches the y-axis at a value of 0 kN/m 2. Therefore experimentally,
cohesion, c = 0 kN/m2 and the angle of friction, = 36. In theory, the cohesion, c
value should be approximately zero because the sample used in this test is none other
than loose and coarse sand grains, not soil. As such, cohesion factor rarely exists
when sand particles are involved unless under special conditions. There are random
factors which will affect the results such as humans limitations, not uniformly
compacted sand and nature of the sand itself and so on. Thus, the results obtained
may not be as ideal as one imagined. Nevertheless, it is still proven through this
experiment that sand has little or no cohesion at all (c = 0 kN/m2).
To calculate the shear strength of the soil/sand, use Coulombs Law:

f c tan
Specimen 1:
Shear strength, f1 = 0 + 4.769 tan 36
= 3.465 kN/m2
Specimen 2:
Shear strength, f2 = 0 + 6.813 tan 36
= 4.950 kN/m2
Specimen 3:
Shear strength, f3 = 0 + 8.856 tan 36
= 6.434 kN/m2

8.0 DISCUSSION
8.1. In loose sand, the resisting shear stress increases with shear displacement until a
failure shear stress value is reached. After that, the shear resistance remains
approximately constant with any further increase in the shear displacement. This is
clearly visible in Figure 7.1 where all three specimens reached a maximum value
of shear stress 38.5278 kN/m2, 57.2222 kN/m2 and 66.8611 kN/m2 respectively.
8.2. In Figure 7.2, the line of best fit in the graph intersects the y-axis at a value of 0
kN/m2. The angle of this line measured to the horizontal is 36, simply by using a
protractor. We may say the cohesion property of sand is 0 kN/m 2 in this experiment
because in truth, cohesion rarely exists in a coarse-grained soil such as sand.
Hence, we can conclude that the sand has less or none cohesion properties.
8.3. From the trends of these 3 specimens, it can be deducted that a higher applied load
will enable the sand to reach its maximum shear stress faster. Moreover, a higher
load also inevitably means a higher maximum shear stress. Thus, the larger the load
applied on the sand under a constant strain environment, the greater the maximum
shear stress achieved.
8.4. Results may vary for each sample depending on the accuracy and precision of the
data observed. Since obtaining data in this experiment requires manual
observation, some inaccuracies may be contributed by humans incapability to
immediately read the gauge when required to.

8.5. Some precautions that can be taken to minimise the errors that might be created are
as follows:
8.5.1.
Before starting the test, the upper half of the box should be brought in
proper contact with the proving ring.
8.5.2.
The arrangement of the plates should be such that porous plates grids
are perpendicular to perforated grid plates.
8.5.3.
Another important factor is to ensure the horizontal position of the
hanger at the bottom of the shear box. This is done by using a leveller where
levelling bubbles are provided to enable the object to achieve truly horizontal
position. Once this is done, the leveller should be removed so that it would not
disrupt the test.
8.5.4.
Before subjecting the specimen to shear, the fixing screws should be
taken out. In other words, the fixing screws have to be released before turning
on the shear box at the same time.
8.5.5.
Similarly, ensure the dial gauges are adjusted to zero value before
beginning the test.
8.5.6.
When conducting the test, no external force or vibrations should be
transmitted onto the shear box.
8.6. The benefit of conducting this type of test includes the ease of sample preparation
and its swift and inexpensive procedures. The shear strength parameters of both
fine and coarse grained soils can be obtained either in undisturbed or remolded
state.
8.7. However, to every pro there exists con. For instance, drainage cannot be controlled
and pore water pressure cannot be measured. Moreover, the failure plane is always
forced horizontal which is not the weakest plane in the case of in situ conditions.

9.0 CONCLUSION
The aim of this direct shear test is to get the ultimate shear resistance, peak shear
resistance cohesion, angle of shearing resistance and stress-strain characteristics of the
soils. Shear parameters are used in the design of earthen dams and embankments. These
are usually used in calculating the bearing capacity of soil-foundation systems and also
help in estimating the earth pressures behind the retaining walls. The values of these
parameters are used in checking the stability to natural slopes, cuts and fills.
As acquired, the shear strength of soil, cohesion and the friction angle of sand have all
been computed from the results of this experiment. The maximum shear strength of sand
acquired is 6.434 kN/m2, being the highest among all three samples. The other two values

of shear strength consist of 3.465 kN/m 2 and 4.950 kN/m2 for specimen 1 and 2
respectively. Cohesion of sand on the other hand is 0 kN/m 2 by referring to Figure 7.2 and
its angle of friction amounts to 36.
The direct shear test is rather simple to perform but it has some inherent
shortcomings. The reliability of the results may be questioned. This is due to the fact that
in this test the soil is not allowed fail along the weakest plane but is forced to fail along
the plane of split of the shear box. Furthermore, the shear stress distribution over the
shear surface of the specimen is not uniform. In spite of these weaknesses, the direct
shear test is the easiest and most cost-saving for a dry or saturated sandy soil.

10.0 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS


10.1.
Why perforated plates in this test with teeth?
The perforated plates have teeth because they are required to produce a firm
gripping force between the plate and the sand sample and they are also helpful in
distributing the shear stress evenly among the surface of the specimen.
10.2.
What maximum value of displacement before stop the test?
The maximum value of displacement is when the proving ring readings become
constant for three or more times. Besides that, the maximum value can also be
identified when the value suddenly drops or in other words, the proving ring dial
gauge turns the opposite way/reduces.
10.3.

What is the purpose of a direct shear test? Which soil properties does it

measure?
The purpose of a direct shear test is to obtain the shear strength parameters of both
fine and coarse grained soils either in undisturbed or remolded state. Often it is
used for most of the geotechnical designs concerning foundations, earthworks and
slope stability issues. In general, this test measures the angle of friction (),
cohesion (c), and shear strength () parameters of the material.
10.4.

Why do we use fixing screw in this test? What happen if you do not removed

them during test?


Fixing screw is used so that shear does not occur before the experiment is
conducted. If there is no fixing screw to counter the applied loading, there will be a
hard time controlling the experiment and eventually, things might go wrongly. The
fixing screw is needed so that when the test starts, there will be shear on the sample

and the results obtain will be accurate given that no other malevolent factors take
place.

11.0 REFERENCES
Braja M. Das. (2005). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering (2nd ed.). United
States of America, US: Thomson Canada Limited.
Braja M. Das. (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (7th ed.). United States
of America, US: Cengage Laerning.
http://virtual-labs.ac.in/labs/CEVL/CEVL02-SM/Data
%20files/09%20Direct_Shear_Test.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39758363/Direct-Shear-Test
http://www.uta.edu/ce/geotech/lab/Main/Soil%20Lab/Direct%20Shear%20test/DS.pdf

TEST 2: UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST


1.0 OBJECTIVE
To determine the shear strength of the cohesive soil sample. We will measure this with the
unconfined compression test, which is an unconsolidated undrained (UU or Q-type) test
where the lateral confining pressure is equal to zero (atmospheric pressure).

2.0 LEARNING OUTCOME


At the end of this experiment, students are able to:
Describe the deflection of the jet generates forces on the vane.
Identify the relationship between force and rate of momentum flow in the jet
Measure the force generated by a jet of water striking a plate.

3.0 INTRODUCTION
The unconfined compression test is by far the most popular method of soil shear testing
because it is one of the fastest and cheapest methods of measuring shear strength. The
method is used primarily for saturated, cohesive soils recovered from thin-walled
sampling tubes. The unconfined compression test is inappropriate for dry sands or
crumbly clays because the materials would fall apart without some land of lateral
confinement.
To perform an unconfined compression test, the sample is extruded from the sampling
tube. A cylindrical sample of soil is trimmed such that the ends are reasonably smooth and
the length-to-diameter ratio is on the order of two. The soil sample is placed in a loading
frame on a metal plate; by turning a crank, the operator raises the level of the bottom
plate. The top of the soil sample is restrained by the top plate, which is attached to a
calibrated proving ring. As the bottom plate is raised, an axial load is applied to the
sample. The operator turns the crank at a specified rate so that there is constant strain rate.
The load is gradually increased to shear the sample, and readings are taken periodically of
the force applied to the sample and the resulting deformation. The loading is continued
until the soil develops an obvious shearing plane or the deformations become excessive.
The measured data are used to determine the strength of the soil specimen and the stress
strain characteristics. Finally, the sample is oven dried to determine its water content. The
maximum load per unit area is defined as the unconfined compressive strength, qu.
In the unconfined compression test, we assume that no pore water is lost from the
sample during set-up or during the shearing process. A saturated sample will thus remain

saturated during the test with no change in the sample volume, water content, or void
ratio. More significantly, the sample is held together by an effective confining stress that
results from negative pore water pressures (generated by menisci forming between
particles on the sample surface). Pore pressures are not measured in an unconfined
compression test; consequently, the effective stress is unknown. Hence, the undrained
shear strength measured in an unconfined test is expressed in terms of the total stress.

4.0 THEORY
The unconfined compressive strength, qu is defined as the maximum unit axial
compressive stress at failure or at 20% strain, whichever occurs first.
The unconfined compression test is very popular and used worldwide. It is simple test
where atmospheric pressure surrounds the soil sample. The test is also called an
unconsolidated-undrained (U or UU) test.
The unconfined compression test is a form of triaxial test in which the major principal
stress (1) is equal to the applied axial stress and the minor principal stresses (3) is equal
to zero.
At failure, the relationship between the two principal stresses is given by:

Where,

As 3 = 0 for an unconfined compression test,

For clayed soil, = 0, 1 = 2c

The vertical stress s1 at failure is known as the unconfined compressive strength (qu)
Hence, qu = 2c
qu is obtained by dividing the normal load at failure by the corrected area as given by:

Where,

The axial load may be applied to the specimen either by the controlled strain procedure,
in which the stress is applied to produce a pre-determined rate of strain, or by the
controlled stress procedure, in which the stress is applied in pre-determined increments of
load. IS: 2720 (Part 10) -1973 recommend use of controlled strain test.

5.0 EQUIPMENTS & MATERIALS


5.1. Compression device of any suitable type (loading frame of capacity 2t, with
constant rate of movement)

5.2. Sample extractor

5.3. Split mould 3.5 cm diameter and 7 cm long

5.4. Frictionless end plates of 7.5 cm diameter (Perspex plate with silicon grease
coating)
5.5. Oven
5.6. Balance Sensitive to weigh 0.01 g

5.7. Containers for moisture content determination


5.8. Proving ring of 0.01 kg sensitivity for soft soils and 0.05 kg for stiff soils.
5.9. Dial gauge (sensitivity 0.01 mm)
5.10.
Vernier calipers
5.11.
Soil sample = Wet clayed soil

5.12.

Wooden hammer and wooden compactor

6.0 PREPARATION OF SAMPLE


6.1. The split mould is oiled lightly from inside.

6.2. Remoulded soil sample is prepared by compacting the soil at desired water content
and dry density in the split mould.

6.3. Split mould is opened carefully and sample is taken out.


6.4. Place this soil sample in an air-tight container for 24 hrs.
6.5. Minimum three soil samples should be prepared for test.

7.0 PROCEDURES
7.1. The initial length and diameter of the soil specimen were measured.
7.2. The specimen on the base plate of the load frame was placed (sandwiched between
the end plates).
7.3. Hardened steel ball was placed on the bearing plate. The centreline of specimen was
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.

adjusted such that the proving ring and the steel ball are in the same line.
Dial gauge was fixed to measure vertical compression of the specimen.
Gear position on the load frame was adjusted to give suitable vertical displacement.
The reading of proving ring and dial gauge were set to zero.
The load was start being applied and the readings of the proving ring dial and strain
dial were recorded for every 5 mm compression.

7.8. The loading was continued till failure occurs or 20% vertical deformation is reached.
7.9. The failure pattern was sketched; measure the angle between the cracks and the
horizontal if possible.

8.0 EXPERIMENTAL DATA

9.0 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS


Sample 1
Elapsed
Time
t
(minutes)

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850

Strain
dial
reading
(L)
(mm)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7

Axial
Strain
()
L/
L0
0
0.0014
0.0028
0.0042
0.0056
0.0070
0.0085
0.0099
0.0113
0.0127
0.0141
0.0155
0.0169
0.0183
0.0198
0.0212
0.0226
0.0240
0.0254
0.0268
0.0282
0.0296
0.0310
0.0325
0.0339
0.0353
0.0367
0.0381
0.0395
0.0409
0.0423
0.0437
0.0452
0.0466
0.0480
0.0494
0.0508
0.0522

1-

Corrected
area
Ac
=(
A0

1
0.9986
0.9972
0.9958
0.9944
0.9930
0.9915
0.9901
0.9887
0.9873
0.9859
0.9845
0.9831
0.9817
0.9802
0.9788
0.9774
0.9760
0.9746
0.9732
0.9718
0.9704
0.9690
0.9675
0.9661
0.9647
0.9633
0.9619
0.9605
0.9591
0.9577
0.9563
0.9548
0.9534
0.9520
0.9506
0.9492
0.9478

Proving
ring
readings
(div.)

Axial
load
P
(kg)

Compressive
stress
A
= P/ c

0
0
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
11
15
22
26
28
30
32
44
46
48
49
50
52
54
56
58
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
68
69
70
71
72
72

0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.014
0.016
0.022
0.030
0.044
0.052
0.056
0.060
0.064
0.088
0.092
0.096
0.098
0.100
0.104
0.108
0.112
0.116
0.118
0.120
0.122
0.124
0.128
0.130
0.132
0.136
0.138
0.140
0.142
0.144
0.144

0
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0014
0.0016
0.0023
0.0031
0.0045
0.0053
0.0057
0.0061
0.0065
0.0089
0.0093
0.0097
0.0099
0.0101
0.0105
0.0109
0.0112
0.0116
0.0118
0.0120
0.0122
0.0124
0.0127
0.0129
0.0131
0.0135
0.0137
0.0138
0.0140
0.0142
0.0142

/1-

) (cm)
9.6376
9.6511
9.6647
9.6782
9.6919
9.7055
9.7202
9.7340
9.7477
9.7616
9.7754
9.7893
9.8033
9.8173
9.8323
9.8463
9.8604
9.8746
9.8888
9.9030
9.9173
9.9316
9.9459
9.9613
9.9758
9.9903
10.0048
10.0193
10.0339
10.0486
10.0633
10.0780
10.0938
10.1087
10.1235
10.1384
10.1534
10.1684

(kg/cm2)

1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150

3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3

0.0536
0.0550
0.0564
0.0579
0.0593
0.0607

Strain
dial
reading
(L)
(mm)

Axial
Strain
() L/
L0

0.9464
0.9450
0.9436
0.9421
0.9407
0.9393

10.1834
10.1985
10.2136
10.2299
10.2451
10.2604

73
74
74
75
75
75

0.146
0.148
0.148
0.150
0.150
0.150

0.0143
0.0145
0.0145
0.0147
0.0146
0.0146

1-

Corrected
area
Ac
=(

Proving
ring
reading
s
(div.)

Axial
load P
(kg)

Compressive
stress
A
= P/ c

0
2
6
9
13
15
29
32
34
40
44
46
50
51
54
56
59
61
63
65
67
69
72
73
74
74
75
75
75

0
0.004
0.012
0.018
0.026
0.030
0.058
0.064
0.068
0.080
0.088
0.092
0.100
0.102
0.108
0.112
0.118
0.122
0.126
0.130
0.134
0.138
0.144
0.146
0.148
0.148
0.150
0.150
0.150

Sample 2
Elapsed
Time
t
(minutes)

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

0
0.0014
0.0028
0.0042
0.0056
0.0070
0.0085
0.0099
0.0113
0.0127
0.0141
0.0155
0.0169
0.0183
0.0197
0.0211
0.0226
0.0240
0.0254
0.0268
0.0282
0.0296
0.0310
0.0324
0.0338
0.0352
0.0367
0.0381
0.0395

A0
1
0.9986
0.9972
0.9958
0.9944
0.9930
0.9915
0.9901
0.9887
0.9873
0.9859
0.9845
0.9831
0.9817
0.9803
0.9789
0.9774
0.9760
0.9746
0.9732
0.9718
0.9704
0.9690
0.9676
0.9662
0.9648
0.9633
0.9619
0.9605

/1-)

(cm)
9.6652
9.6788
9.6923
9.7060
9.7196
9.7333
9.7481
9.7618
9.7757
9.7895
9.8034
9.8174
9.8313
9.8454
9.8594
9.8735
9.8887
9.9029
9.9171
9.9314
9.9457
9.9600
9.9744
9.9888
10.0033
10.0178
10.0334
10.0480
10.0627

(kg/cm2)
0
0.0004
0.0012
0.0019
0.0027
0.0031
0.0059
0.0066
0.0070
0.0082
0.0090
0.0094
0.0102
0.0104
0.0110
0.0113
0.0119
0.0123
0.0127
0.0131
0.0135
0.0139
0.0144
0.0146
0.0148
0.0148
0.0150
0.0150
0.0149

Sample 3
Elapsed
Time
t
(minutes)

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850

Strain
dial
reading
(L)
(mm)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7

Axial
Strain
()
L/
L0
0
0.0014
0.0028
0.0042
0.0057
0.0071
0.0085
0.0099
0.0113
0.0127
0.0142
0.0156
0.0170
0.0184
0.0198
0.0212
0.0226
0.0241
0.0255
0.0269
0.0283
0.0297
0.0311
0.0326
0.0340
0.0354
0.0368
0.0382
0.0396
0.0410
0.0425
0.0439
0.0453
0.0467
0.0481
0.0495
0.0510
0.0524

1-

Corrected
area
Ac
=(
A0

1
0.9986
0.9972
0.9958
0.9943
0.9929
0.9915
0.9901
0.9887
0.9873
0.9858
0.9844
0.9830
0.9816
0.9802
0.9788
0.9774
0.9759
0.9745
0.9731
0.9717
0.9703
0.9689
0.9674
0.9660
0.9646
0.9632
0.9618
0.9604
0.9590
0.9575
0.9561
0.9547
0.9533
0.9519
0.9505
0.9490
0.9476

/1-)

(cm)
9.6486
9.6621
9.6757
9.6893
9.7039
9.7176
9.7313
9.7451
9.7589
9.7727
9.7876
9.8015
9.8155
9.8295
9.8435
9.8576
9.8717
9.8869
9.9011
9.9153
9.9296
9.9439
9.9583
9.9737
9.9882
10.0027
10.0172
10.0318
10.0464
10.0611
10.0769
10.0916
10.1064
10.1213
10.1361
10.1511
10.1671
10.1821

Proving
ring
reading
s
(div.)

Axial
load P
(kg)

0
0
2
3
4
5
9
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
39
46
50
52
53
56
58
59
60
61
62
64
66
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
75
75

0
0
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.018
0.032
0.036
0.040
0.044
0.048
0.052
0.056
0.060
0.078
0.092
0.100
0.104
0.106
0.112
0.116
0.118
0.120
0.122
0.124
0.128
0.132
0.136
0.138
0.140
0.142
0.144
0.146
0.148
0.150
0.150
0.150

Compressive
stress
A
= P/ c
(kg/cm2)
0
0
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0018
0.0033
0.0037
0.0041
0.0045
0.0049
0.0053
0.0057
0.0061
0.0079
0.0093
0.0101
0.0105
0.0107
0.0113
0.0117
0.0118
0.0120
0.0122
0.0124
0.0128
0.0132
0.0135
0.0137
0.0139
0.0141
0.0142
0.0144
0.0146
0.0148
0.0148
0.0147

9.1 EXPERIMENTAL DATA


Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

35.03

35.08

35.05

70.86

70.94

70.65

963.76

966.52

964.86

Initial diameter of
specimen (mm)
Initial length of
specimen (mm)
Initial c/s area of
specimen (mm)

Figure 9.1: Failure of soil sample under test

10.0 DATA ANALYSIS


Curtailment, L = Strain dail (DIV) x 0.002
= 50 x 0.002
= 0.1 mm

L
L0

= 0.10
70.86
= 0.0014
1 = 1 0.0014
= 0.9986

where

L0 = length of specimen
L = curtailment

AC

A0

where

A0 = area of specimen

1
= 963.76
0.9986
= 965.1112 mm2
= 9.651112 cm2
Load, P = proving ring reading X 0.002
= 10 X 0.002
= 0.02 kg
= P
Ac
=

0.02
9.651112

= 2.07 x 10-3 kg/cm2


(all the calculations for sample 2 and 3 are same as above)

Graph of Compressive Stress vs Axial Strain


0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Compressive stress, (kg/cm2)

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

0.01
0.01
0
0
0
0

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08


Axial Strain,

Figure 10.1: Graph of compressive stress, against axial strain,

Sample 1:

Sample 2:

Sample 3:

c = 0.0146

c = 0.0149

c = 0.0147

qu = 0.0292

qu = 0.0298

qu = 0.0294

The graph may not look smooth because we use the compression device manually. By
doing it in manual mode, our data will contain some reading error and recording error
because we cannot achieve constant speed when rotating the wheel. However, the line
of the graph is still within its range of value, so it is acceptable.

11.0 DISCUSSION
In the unconfined test, no radial stress is applied to the sample (3 = 0). The plunger
load, P is increased rapidly until the soil sample fail, that is cannot support any
additional load. The loading is applied quickly so that the pore water cannot drain from
the soil. The effect stress path is unknown since pore water pressure changes are not
normally measured.
This test is considered as undrained shear test assuming that there is no moisture loss
from the specimen during the test. The specimen must not certain any fissures, silt
seams, varves, or other defects, this mean that the specimen must be intact, homogenous
clay. Rarely are over-consolidated clays intact, and often even normally consolidated
clays have some fissures.
11.1.

What are the differences between unconfined compression test and confined

compression test?
The differences between unconfined compression test and confined compression
test are sample used for unconfined compression test is not covered by any mould
or casing but sample used for confined compression test is enclosed between rigid
end-caps inside a thin rubber membrane to seal it from cell water, rubber O-ring are
fitted over the membrane at the cap to provide a seal.
11.2.
What are the advantages of doing unconfined compression test?
The advantage of doing unconfined compression test is without any calculation the
confining pressure 3 is equal to 0. From the test result we get the maximum
unconfined compression strength (qu) is determined, using qu = 1and 3 is equal to
0 plot in graph where normal stress versus shear stress to determine the undrained
strength Cu where Cu = qu/2 of the unconfined compression strength we obtained.

11.3.
What are the limitations of unconfined compression test?
The limitations of the unconfined compression test is applicable to the fully
saturated non-fissured clays, and only the undrained strength Cu can be measured.
11.4.
Give 4 common laboratory errors for unconfined compression test?
The common laboratory errors for unconfined compression test are:
Getting wrong reading from dial gauge during the test was running.
The soil sample prepared is too wet.
Insensitivity of measurements at low strains due to high early soil stiffness.
The application of the load to the soil sample was not equal, either too fast or too slow.

12.0 CONCLUSION
The unconfined compressive strength is considered to be equal to the load at which the
failure of the soil occurs. The consistency of soil samples will have different
compressive strength due to different porosity, moisture content and existing of
microorganism in the soil.

13.0 REFERENCES
http://civilengineeringlaboratory.blogspot.com/2012/02/unconfined-compressiontest.html
http://spin.mohawkcollege.ca/courses/smeatonk/CV504%20PDFs/Lab
%20Manual/Unconfined%20Compression%20Procedure.pdf
http://www.cyut.edu.tw/~jrlai/CE7334/Unconfined.pdf
http://www.uic.edu/classes/cemm/cemmlab/Experiment%2013-Unconfined
%20Compression.pdf
http://www.uta.edu/ce/geotech/lab/Main/Soil%20Lab/09_UCS/UCS.pdf