CEEN 3160 - Geotechnical Engineering

Lab Report 1
Soil Gradation

prepared by

Danielle Del Conte

Tuesday, 9:30 - 10:45 am

Submitted on October 4th, 2019

Introduction
The purpose of this report is to classify a given soil sample based on the results of a sieve
analysis, hydrometer analysis, and Atterberg Limits analysis. The procedures followed were
specified by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and the data was collected
in the Marquette University Soil Laboratory.

Summary of Tests Conducted

Testing was completed on an oven-dried sample of soil. A sieve analysis (ASTM D422),
hydrometer analysis (ASTM D422), specific gravity of solids (ASTM D854), and Atterberg limits
test (ASTM D4318-17) were performed. Specific lab procedures (Appendix A) and original lab
data (Appendix B) are provided.

Summary of Test Results

The grain size distribution is provided in Table 1 and summarizes results from the mechanical
sieve and hydrometer analysis. The grain size distribution curve with a best-fit curve is shown in
Figure 1 based on the original graphs (Appendix C).

Table 1 - Grain Size Distribution of Soil

US Standard Sieve Grain Size (mm) % Passing Dry % Passing % Passing

# Sieve Hydrometer Combined

⅜” 9.50 100 100

No. 4 4.76 99.94 99.94

No. 10 2.00 98.32 98.32

No. 16 1.18 83.47 83.47

No. 40 0.425 59.91 59.91

No. 100 0.150 36.29 36.29

No. 200 0.0750 24.12 24.12

0.0350 56.55 56.55

0.0100 33.99 33.99

0.0050 27.32 27.32

D10= 0.002 mm, D30= 0.111 mm, D60= 0.428 mm, Cu= 214, Cc= 14.4

Specific Gravity of Sample: 2.62

Atterberg Limits: PL= 14.86, LL= 17.20, PI= 2.33

 Figure 1 - Grain Size Distribution Plot

The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) are used in engineering to evaluate the suitability of soils for
a variety of purposes. Both classifications systems rely on the grain size distribution and
Atterberg limits to define soil type. The approximate percentages of gravel, sand, silt, and clay
for the tested soil samples are summarized in Table 2 based on the trendline fit from the plot in
Figure 1.

Table 2 - Approximate Soil Size Fractions

System % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay

AASHTO 10.30 40.19 23.82 25.69

USCS 0.060 40.34 49.51*

*Silt and Clay Percentage not Differentiated by USCS

The AASHTO classification system is based on the grain size distribution of the sample and the
Atterberg limits. This soil sample would generally be classified as a silt-clay material because
more than 35% of the particulate matter passed sieve No. 200. Further classification of the
sample relies on the Atterberg limits. The sample is in group A-4 because the liquid limit is less
than 40 and the plasticity index is less than 10. This means the sample is considered a
moderately-plastic silty soil.

The USCS system also relies on grain size distribution and Atterberg limits to classify soils. This
sample would be considered a sand with fines because less than 50% of the sample passed
sieve No. 200 but more than 12% of the sample is considered fines. Further classification
between silty sand and clayey sand requires looking at Atterberg limits, as the USCS system
does not differentiate between silt and clay based solely on the sieve analysis. The soil is
classified in group ML (low-plasticity silt), as it does not have a high organic content and is
below the A and B lines on the USCS classification graph using the liquid limit and plasticity
index (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - USCS Classification Plot

Discussion
Lab testing was straightforward and completed without complication. The discontinuity in the
grain size distribution plot can be explained by errors that occurred during the dry sieve
analysis. During this test, small particulate matter stuck to larger particles, causing the particle
chunks to not pass sieve sizes that they otherwise would have. It can be assumed that this error
did not occur during the hydrometer analysis, and thus the hydrometer analysis data is more
accurate. Other errors could include some mass of soil being lost during container transfers
during testing or rounding errors.

Problem

The purpose of this lab is to determine whether the tested soil sample would be suitable for use
as a subgrade for a low-traffic volume street with asphalt concrete paving material. It can be
assumed that this road would be constructed in Wisconsin and must adhere to Wisconsin
Department of Transportation (WISDOT) standards.

Group Index: The Group Index (GI) of a soil is used in the AASHTO classification system to
numerically determine a soil’s suitability as a subgrade. The GI is rounded to the nearest whole
number and if the GI value is negative, it is assumed to be zero. For an A-4 soil the equation for
GI is:

𝐺𝐼 = (𝑃200 − 35)[0.2 + 0.005(𝐿𝐿 − 40)] + 0.01(𝑃200 − 15)(𝑃𝐼 − 10)

Plugging in the values of the soil sample yields:

𝐺𝐼 = (49.51 − 35)[0.2 + 0.005(17.2 − 40)] + 0.01(49.51 − 15)(2.33 − 10)

𝐺𝐼 = (−1.4)

Given that the GI calculation returned a negative value, the GI is equal to zero. Since GI and
performance of the material of material as a subgrade are inversely proportional, this means
that the material is suitable for use as a subgrade.

WISDOT Soil Parameters: The 2019 WISDOT Facilities Development Manual discusses the
suitability of soils as subgrades in Chapter 14-5. Soil A-4 is generally considered poorly sorted
and is not an ideal material for a subgrade for high volume roads (Figure 3). This is because this
soil type has a low soil support value and a low modulus of subgrade reaction (k). The soil
support value (SSV) is a value developed by AASHTO that reflects how well a soil can support
loading. It is on a scale of 3 to 10, with 10 being able to withstand heavy loading. The modulus
of subgrade reaction represents how well a subgrade is able to resist slab deflection. A high k
value means the subgrade deforms less under pressure and is less likely to cause pavement
cracking or failure.
 Figure 3 - WISDOT Soil Parameters for Pavement Design

Improvement of Soil: The soil tested in this lab is not well-suited for use as a subgrade and does
not comply with WISDOT standards. The soil contains too high a percentage of fines. The high
density of the soil means water is not able to drain effectively under the slab, and during the
freeze-thaw cycle, water trapped in the subgrade could lead to cracking of the slab.

Amending the soil is necessary before constructing a road. Soil compaction and adding a
subbase are the two most cost effective ways to amend the soil. Compaction would increase the
density of the soil although it would not help with the poor drainage conditions. Adding a layer of
subbase above the soil would improve the drainage conditions. The subbase should be of A-1
or A-2 so water can effectively drain through the soil. This would also increase the k value and
soil support value of the subbase so it would better support the slab.

Appendix C: Test Data

 Section 1: Sieve Analysis

Table 3 - Sieve Analysis Data

Figure 5 - Sieve Analysis Grain Size Distribution

Appendix C: Test Data

Section 1: Sieve Analysis

 Table 4 - Specific Gravity Data

Section 2: Hydrometer Analysis

Table 5 - Hydrometer Analysis Data

Appendix C: Test Data

Section 2: Hydrometer Analysis

 Figure 6 - K Value Interpolation

Figure 7 - Composite Correction Factor Interpolation

Appendix C: Test Data

Section 2: Hydrometer Analysis

 Figure 8 - Hydrometer Analysis Grain Size Distribution

Section 3: Atterberg Limits

Table 6 - Liquid Limit

*Trial 2 not included due to lab errors

Table 7 - Plastic Limit

Appendix C: Test Data

Section 3: Atterberg Limits

Figure 9 - Liquid Limit Interpolation
Appendix A: Lab Procedures