Soil Mechanics Experiment: Disturbed Soil Sampling and Storage

SOIL MECHANICS
CE 401 – CE41FA2
2nd SEMESTER A.Y. 2019 - 2020
EXPERIMENT # 1
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLING, LABELING AND STORAGE
SUBMITTED BY:
ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D.
ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.
BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.
BAYLON, NICOLE R.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO
November 22, 2019

Experiment No. 1
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLING, LABELING AND STORAGE
1. Objective(s):
This activity aims to introduce the use of hand auger for obtaining disturbed soil samples and the
standard method of storage of soil for future laboratory use.
2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs):

The students shall be able to:
• understand the standard procedure in soil sampling and handling
• perform the soil profiling as observed from the results of the experiment
3. Discussion:
The simplest method of soil investigation and sampling is through the use of auger borings. This method is
applicable for retrieving disturbed soil samples that are to be tested in the laboratory to further determine
its engineering properties. However, it is important to be reminded that improper handling and storage of
the sample can compromise the integrity of the soil investigation conducted.
A standardized labeling of the sample is beneficial as the soil sample, in general, is handled by different
personnel in the field investigation and in the laboratory. It is important that all pertinent data observed on
the field are to be written down in the sample label in addition to the primary record book of the site
engineer. The data in the sample label will direct the laboratory personnel in finalizing the borehole log
which is to be counterchecked by the site engineers’ primary record book.
4. Resources:
1. Soil auger
2. Spade or shovel
3. Moisture tight sample containers
4. Pans
5. Procedure:
1. Clear the area of grass and vegetation where the sample is to be obtained. Create an alignment
of three (3) boreholes that are about 3.0 meters away from each other.
2. With the use of soil auger, the soil is bored until desired depth is reached. After a half (0.50) meter
advancement, withdraw the auger to the hole and remove the soil for examination and testing.
Record the depth and the observations on the soil sample retrieved.
3. Seal the soil sample in a moisture tight container and label appropriately.
4. Extract again the soil in the succeeding borehole advancement until a depth of 2.0 to 3.0 meters
is reached.
5. Repeat procedures 1 to 4 for Borehole no. 2. Draw the stratigraphy of the site to determine the
geometry of the soil layers.
Course: CE401 Experiment No.:1
Group No.: 1 Section: CE41FA2
Group Leader: Abad, Alain Jowel D. Date Performed: November 15, 2019
Group Members: Date Submitted: November 22, 2019
1. Alvaran, Earl Jerin Instructor:
2. Baylon, Beatriz Julia Engr. Jennifer L. Camino
3. Baylon, Nicole
4.
6. Data and Results:
Borehole No. 1
Depth Description
0.00 to 0.50 Contains humus and mix of topsoil
0.50 to 1.00 Contains topsoil and mix of eluviation layer
1.00 to 1.50 Contains eluviation layer and mix of subsoil
1.50 to 2.00 Contains subsoil and mix of rocks
Borehole No. 2
Depth Description
Borehole No. 3
Depth Description
Borehole Location Map:
Santa Rosa Concepcion Tarlac
Stratigraphy:
7. Conclusion:
We therefore conclude that the soil we obtain in Tarlac is loam soil. The borehole that is 3 meters away
from each other are mostly consist of topsoil and subsoil. Based on our data and results the 3 borehole
are similar to each other.
8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance):
BEGINNER ACCEPTABLE PROFICIENT

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3
I. Laboratory Skills
Members do not Members occasionally
Manipulative Members always
demonstrate needed demonstrate needed
Skills demonstrate needed skills.
skills. skills
Members are able to Members are able to set-up
Experimental Members are unable to
set-up the materials with the material with minimum
Set-up set-up the materials.
supervision. supervision.
Members do not Members occasionally Members always
Process Skills demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted
process skills. process skills. process skills.
Members follow safety
Safety Members do not follow Members follow safety
precautions most of the
Precautions safety precautions. precautions at all times.
time.
II. Work Habits
Time Members do not finish Members finish on time Members finish ahead of time
Management /
on time with incomplete with complete data and time
Conduct of with incomplete data.
data. to revise data.
Experiment
Members do not know Members have defined
Members are on tasks and
their tasks and have no responsibilities most of
have defined responsibilities
Cooperative and defined responsibilities.
the time. Group
at all times. Group conflicts
Teamwork Group conflicts have to conflicts are
are cooperatively managed at
be settled by the cooperatively managed
all times.
teacher. most of the time.
Clean and orderly
Messy workplace during workplace with Clean and orderly workplace
Neatness and
and after the occasional mess during at all times during and after
Orderliness
experiment. and after the the experiment.
experiment.
Members require Members require
Ability to do Members do not need to be
supervision by the occasional supervision
independent work supervised by the teacher.
teacher. by the teacher.
Other Comments/Observations: Total Score
(Total Score)
Rating= ×100
24
9. References
Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (1999). Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split
Barrel Sampling of Soils(D-1586). Pennsylvania: ASTM International
SOIL MECHANICS
CE 401 – CE41FA2
EXPERIMENT # 2
DRY PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES
SUBMITTED BY:
BAYLON, NICOLE R.
SUBMITTED TO:
November 22, 2019
Experiment No. 2
DRY PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES
1. Objective(s):
The activity aims to impart the standard preparation of disturbed soil samples.
• prepare disturbed soil samples for future laboratory experiments.
• distinquish unacceptable practices in preparation of soil samples
3. Discussion:
The method of dry preparation of soil samples is used to prepare soil samples in various laboratory
experiments such as moisture content determination, particle size analysis and in determination of
Atterberg limits. It is proper that the samples be prepared in an orderly manner to avoid compromising the
results of the laboratory experiments because of errors in the preparation. Proper preparation also will
allow sufficient amount of samples for each laboratory experiment.
4. Resources:
1. Triple Beam Balance

2. Oven with temperature control
3. Pans
4. Standard Sieves #4 and #10
5. Rubber Mallet or Rubber-covered Pestle
6. Mortar and Rubber Pestle
7. Trowel
8. Sample Splitter
5. Procedure:
1. Allow the soil sample recovered from the field to dry thoroughly on room temperature. Using a
mortar and pestle, break up the aggregations thoroughly. Select about 75 grams of the sample for
the conduct of moisture content determination.
2. Separate the test sample using Sieve No. 10. Break up again the soil fraction retained in Sieve #
10 to break the grains thoroughly. Separate again the grinded soil into two fractions using Sieve
#10.
3. Determine the weight of the fraction retained in Sieve #10. Wash the soil fraction of all fine
material, dry and weigh. Record the mass as the mass of the coarse material.
4. After being washed and dried, sieve the coarse the material using the Sieve No. 4 and record the
mass retained.
5. Thoroughly mix together the soil fraction passing Sieve No.10 on the previous sieving operations.
Using a sample splitter, select a portion of approximately 120 g for the Particle size analysis.
Select a portion passing Sieve # 40 of approximately 200 grams in determining the soil constants.
Course: CE 401 Experiment No.: 2

Group Leader: Abad, Alain Jowel D. Date Performed: November 15, 2019
1. Alvaran, Earl Jerin Instructor:
2. Baylon, Beatriz Julia Engr. Jennifer L. Camino
3. Baylon, Nicole
Sample # Weight (g) Purpose Description

206g Particle Size Contains small pieces of rocks
1
Analysis
194g Mostly consist of soil
2 Soil Constants
7. Conclusion:
We therefore conclude that disturbed soil samples are not the best soil sample for the future experiments.
Learning the process of sieving, resting/ drying, weighing and distinguishing the particles of the soil can
make a disturbed soil sample bring the best output for the future experiments.

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3

skills. skills


time.
II. Work Habits
Time
Members do not finish Members finish ahead of time
Management / Members finish on time
Experiment

Cooperative and defined responsibilities. the time. Group
all times.
Clean and orderly

Neatness and
Orderliness
experiment.

(Total Score)
Rating= ×100
24
9. References
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (1998). Dry Preparation of Samples for Particle Size Analysis
(D-421). Pennsylvania: ASTM International
10. DOCUMENTATION
The students weigh the soil samples

Group photo
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE
CE 401 SOIL MECHANICS
EXPERIMENT NO. ___3___

WET PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES
SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP __1__
BAYLON, NICOLE R.
BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D.
CABRAL, KENNETH G.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO
____NOVEMBER 29, 2019_____
Date
Experiment No. 3
WET PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES
1. Objective(s):
The activity aims to impart an alternative method for preparation of disturbed soil samples.

• prepare disturbed soil samples for future laboratory experiments.
• distinguish standard practices in preparation of soil samples
3. Discussion:
The method of wet preparation of soil samples is an alternative method used to prepare soil samples in
various laboratory experiments such as moisture content determination, particle size analysis and in
determination of Atterberg limits.
For cases wherein removal of fine-grained soil that are attached to coarse particles is difficult, wet
preparation is more appropriate than dry preparation. This is also applicable for coarse-grained particles
of the sample are soft and pulverize readily.
4. Resources:
1. Triple Beam Balance or Digital Weighing Scale.

2. Oven.
3. Pans with at least 300 mm f and 75 mm deep.
4. Standard Sieves #10 and #40.
5. Funnel.
6. Filter Paper
6. Procedure:
1. Allow the soil sample recovered from the field to dry thoroughly on room temperature. Using a
mortar and pestle, break up the aggregations thoroughly.
2. Select about 120 grams of the sample for the conduct of particle size analysis. For the
determination of Atterberg limits, set aside the soil fraction passing Sieve No. 4 and weigh about
150 grams of the sample. Select a portion of about 50 grams for the determination of moisture
content.
3. Separate the material set aside for the Particle size analysis into two portions using Sieve #10.
Set aside the portion passing Sieve #10 as washing is to be performed on the portion retained
4. The portion retained is to be soaked in a pan until particle aggregations become soft. Place the
Sieve #10 on a clean pan. Allow the soaked soil with water to flow to the sieve until the height of
the water is about 12.7 mm above the mesh of the sieve. Crumble any lumps observed on the
sieve using the thumb or the fingers. Transfer the washed material on a clean pan before placing
another increment of soaked material into the sieve.
9
5. Dry the materials retained on Sieve #10 and add the material on Procedure no. 3. Set aside the
material for use in the Particle size analysis.
6. Remove most of the water in the washings by allowing it to pass through a funnel fitted with a
filter paper. Remove the moist soil in the filter paper and allow to dry at a temperature not
exceeding 60 o C. Combine the soil with material obtained in Procedure No. 3.
Course: Soil Mechanics Experiment No.: 3
Group No.: 1 and 2 Section: CE41FB1
Group Leader: ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. Date Performed: November 22, 2019

1. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. Instructor:
2. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. Engr. Jennifer Camino
3. BAYLONE, NICOLE R.
4. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D.
5. CABRAL, KENNETH G.
Data and Results:
Sample # Weight (g) Purpose Description
DETERMINING THE PARTICLE

Particle Size ANALYSIS CONTAINS TINY BIT OF
1 120g
Analysis SMALL STONES THAT DETERMINING
NOT PASS THROUGH
50g THE SOIL IS WET DUE TO GETTING

2 Moisture content THE MOISTURE CONTENT BY
ALLOWING IT TO SOAK.
Conclusion:
In this experiment, we have discovered that the selection samples must be dry to be able to sieve into finer
grains, making it easy to test the sample as well. The information obtained from the seed moisture content
is a moisture variation. The soil's particle size helps us to describe much of our soil and its material.

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3

skills. skills
Experimental Members are unable Members are able to Members are able to set-up
to set-up the set-up the materials the material with minimum
Set-up materials. with supervision. supervision.

Members do not Members follow safety

Safety Members follow safety
follow safety precautions most of
Precautions precautions at all times.
precautions. the time.
II. Work Habits
Time
Members do not finish Members finish on Members finish ahead of
Management /
on time with time with incomplete time with complete data
Conduct of
incomplete data. data. and time to revise data.
Experiment
Members have
Members do not know
defined Members are on tasks and
their tasks and have
responsibilities most have defined
no defined
Cooperative and of the time. Group responsibilities at all times.
responsibilities.
Teamwork conflicts are Group conflicts are
Group conflicts have
cooperatively cooperatively managed at
to be settled by the
managed most of the all times.
teacher.
time.
Clean and orderly

Clean and orderly
Messy workplace workplace with
Neatness and workplace at all times
during and after the occasional mess
Orderliness during and after the
experiment. during and after the
experiment.
experiment.
Members require
Ability to do Members require
occasional Members do not need to be
independent supervision by the
supervision by the supervised by the teacher.
work teacher.
teacher.
(Total Score)
Rating= ×100
24
9. References
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (1999). Wet Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size
Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants (D-2217) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International
10. DOCUMENTATION
The students set aside a soil fraction passing Sieve No. 4 and weigh about
150 grams of the sample
The students selected a portion of about 50 grams for the determination of moisture content.
The students allowed the portion retained to be soaked in a pan until particle aggregations became soft.
The students set aside the material for use in the Particle size analysis and removed most of the water in the
washings by allowing it to pass through a funnel fitted with a filter paper.
Soil sample after oven heating
GROUP 1 and 2 PHOTO

EXPERIMENT NO. ___5___
DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS
SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP __1__
BAYLON, NICOLE R.
BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D.
CABRAL, KENNETH G.
SUBMITTED TO:
____NOVEMBER 29, 2019_____
Date
Experiment No. 5
DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS
1. Objective(s):
The activity aims to impart the manual and visual procedures for soil description and
identification prior to detailed site investigation.

• understand the soil parameters that are being understood through the conduct of the experiment
• conceptualize a procedure for conduct of initial investigation on a site proposed by the instructor
3. Discussion:
It is common in engineering practice that site investigation is under time constraint and engineering
decisions are need to be made even before the release of the results of laboratory experiments. To aid
the engineer in his judgment, visual and manual procedures are proposed which allows gathering of
reliable data in the shortest time possible.
4. Resources:
1. Erlen meyer flask with diluted Hydrochloric acid

2. Pan
3. Sieve #40
4. Spatula
5. Procedure:
General
1. For every defined soil layer in the boring test, get a representative soil sample to be subjected
for visual examination.
2. Examine the soil if it is fine-grained or coarse-grained. A coarse-grained soil is abrasive in texture
and does not exhibit any interparticle attraction A fine-grained soil is smooth in texture and
exhibits interparticle attraction. . Observe if it exhibits the property of a peat soil. Peat soil is a
problematic soil which is composed primarily of vegetable tissue in various stages of
decomposition and usually in dark brown to black in color with organic odor.
For coarse-grained soil
1. Describe the angularity of the particles if it is angular, subangular, rounded or subrounded.
Angular particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces. If the
particles are similar to angular particles but have rounded edges, classify as subangular.
Rounded particles have smoothly curved sides and no evident edges. Subrounded particles have
have nearly plane sides but have well-rounded corners and edges.
2. Describe the color and the odor of the soil. Color and odor are important in identifying presence
of organic soil shown by presence of decaying vegetative material. Through the smell, presence
of petroleum and various chemicals can also be identified.
3. Describe the moisture content of the soil. If the soil is observed to be dry to the touch, note as
dry. If the soil is damp however, no visible water is found, classify as moist. Presence of visible
water especially if the soil is underneath the water table will classify the soil as wet.
4. Determine the presence of calcium carbonate as a cementing agent in the soil through the use
of dilute hydrochloric acid (HCl). Describe if the reaction is none, weak if limited bubbles are
present or strong if violent reaction is observed.
5. Describe the cementation of the soil. Soil that breaks easily with little finger pressure is classified
as weak. If considerable pressure is needed, classify the soil as moderate. Should the soil not
break under finger pressure, the cementation of the soil is strong.
6. Repeat until 4 samples are obtained.
For fine-grained soil

1. Select a representative sample and remove the particles that will not pass Sieve #40. The
specimen is to be tested for dry strength, dilatancy and toughness strength.
2. For the dry strength, select a material that will allow it to form into a ball of about 25 mm in
diameter. Add water if necessary. Then, divide it into three (3) portions and form it into a ball of
12 mm in diameter. Allow it to dry to the sun or air dry. Test the dry strength of the ball by
crushing it in between the fingers. Classify the dry strength as None, Low, Medium, High or Very
High.
3. For the dilatancy test, select a material that will form the soil into 12 mm ball. Add water if
necessary until it has a soft but not sticky consistency. Using a spatula, smoothen the ball in the
palm of one hand. Shake the soil by striking the side of the hand against the other hand several
times and note the reaction of water on the surface of the soil. Squeeze the soil and note if the
water disappears. Note the dilatancy as None, Slow or rapid.
4. For the toughness test, select a portion of the specimen wherein the soil is to be rolled into
threads 3 mm in diameter. Fold and reroll the sample until the soil is about to crumble at a
diameter of about 3 mm. Note the pressure required to roll the thread as Low, Medium or High.
Course: CE 401
Experiment No.: 3
Group No.: 2
Section: CE41FB1
Group Leader: ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D.
Date Performed: July 16, 2019
Group Members:
Date Submitted: July 24, 2019
1.ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.
Instructor: Engr. Jennifer L. Camino
2. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.
3. BAYLON, NICOLE R.
4. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D.
5.CABRAL, KENNETH G.
Coarse grained soil
Description
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Angularity
Sub-rounded
Sub-angular
Sub-angular
Sub-rounded
Color
Rich brown
Light brown
Brown, but a little bit red
Dark Brown
Odor
Organic
Odorless
Organic
Organic
Moisture content
Moist
Dry
Dry
Moist
Reaction with HCl
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cementation
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Fine grained soil
Description
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Dry Strength
Low
None
Very High
Very High
Dilatancy
Slow
None
None
Slow
Toughness
Low
Low
High
High
7. Conclusion:
We concluded that the definition and classification of coarse grained soils falls under these
characteristics; soil particle angularity, overall color, odor, and the sum of its moisture content. Due to
the absence of hydrochloric acid (HCl), calcium carbonate as a soil cementing agent could not be
determined. On the other hand, with its respective dry strength, dilatancy, and toughness, fine grained
soils can be identified.
CRITERIA
BEGINNER
1
ACCEPTABLE
2
PROFICIENT
3
SCORE
Manipulative
Skills
Members do not demonstrate needed skills.
Members
occasionally demonstrate needed
skills
Members always demonstrate needed skills.
Experimental Set-up
Members are unable

to set-up the materials.
Members are able to set-up the materials with supervision.
Members are able to setup the material with minimum supervision.
Process Skills
Members do not demonstrate targeted process skills.

Members
occasionally demonstrate targeted process skills.
Members always demonstrate targeted process skills.
Safety
Precautions
Members do not follow safety precautions.
Members follow safety precautions most of the time.
Members follow safety precautions at all times.
II. Work Habits
Time
Management /
Conduct of
Experiment
Members do not
finish on time with incomplete data.
Members finish on time with incomplete data.
Members finish ahead of time with complete data and time to revise data.
Cooperative and Teamwork
Members do not know their tasks and have no defined responsibilities.

Group conflicts have to be settled by the teacher.
Members have defined responsibilities most of the time. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed
most of the time.
Members are on tasks and have defined

responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times.
Neatness and Orderliness
Messy workplace during and after the experiment.
Clean and orderly workplace with occasional mess during and after the experiment.
Clean and orderly workplace at all times during and after the experiment.
Ability to do independent work
Members require supervision by the teacher.
Members require occasional supervision by the teacher.
Members do not need to be supervised by the teacher.
Other Comments/Observations:
Total Score
(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒)
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 =
24
× 100
9. References
Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Singapore: Alken
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Practice for Description and Identification
of Soils by Visual-Manual Procedure (D-2488). Pennsylvania: ASTM International
10. DOCUMENTATION
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
From left to right: Sieve #40, Pan, Erlenmeyer flask, Tin cup, Spatula
PROCEDURE
Get 4 types of soil — identify the soils if it is coarse-grained or fine-grained — Do procedures for both
soil
Forming the fine-grained soil into a ball having a 25mm diameter and adding water in it. Doing the
procedure for both coarse grained and fine grained soil.
Placing it in the oven and observed the changes occurred

Group 1 and 2 Photo
SOIL MECHANICS
CE 401 – CE41FA2
EXPERIMENT # 6
DETERMINATION OF WATER CONTENT, UNIT WEIGHT, VOID RATIO
AND DEGREE OF SATURATION OF SOIL

SUBMITTED BY:
BAYLON, NICOLE R.
SUBMITTED TO:
December 6, 2019
Experiment No. 6
DETERMINATION OF WATER CONTENT, UNIT WEIGHT, VOID RATIO
AND DEGREE OF SATURATION OF SOIL
1. Objective(s):
To introduce to the student the procedure in determining the weight-volume characteristics of the soil.
• connect the relationship of water content, unit weight, void ratio and degree of saturation.
• describe methods in determining water content, unit weight, void ratio and degree of saturation.
3. Discussion:
The determination of water content, unit weight and void ratio is an important requirement in laboratory
tests and is part of the test included in more elaborate tests. Water content is an important measure in the
compaction of soil. In order that correct water content is obtained from a soil sample, several samples at
different points must be taken. They are then mixed and the water content is then obtained from this soil
sample.
Various methodologies have been devised to determine the unit weight of the soil in the field such as
calibrated bucket method, nuclear method to name a few. For determination of the unit weight in a
laboratory setting, paraffin wax can be used in determining the unit weight. The paraffin coating applied on
the soil will allow determination of its volume as it is submerged in water.
The specific gravity of the solid grains of the soil is an engineering parameter which is dependent on the
mineralogy of the soil and the structure of its solid grains. Upon determination of the specific gravity, the
void ratio and degree of saturation of the soil can then be determined mathematically.
4. Resources:
1. Tin cup
2. Triple-beam Balance
3. Oven
4. Pycnometer
5. Bunsen burner
6. Paraffin wax
5. Procedure:
Note: For this experiment, coarse-grained soil sample is to be utilized to expedite the oven-drying of the
sample.
Water Content Determination

1. Weigh a tin cup including its cover; identify the cover and its lid. Determine the weight of the tin
cup.
2. Place a representative sample of wet soil in the cup. Determine the weight of wet soul and tin cup.
3. Place the sample in the oven for at least 3 hours.
4. When the sample has dried to constant weight, obtain the weight of cup and dry soil
5. Compute the water content. The difference between weight of wet soil plus cup and weight of dry
soil plus cup is the weight of water (W w). Also compute the weight of dry soil (W s).
6. To determine the water content ().
 = Ww/Ws x 100
7. Repeat until three (3) trials are achieved. Determine the average moisture content.
Unit Weight Determination

1. Trim a sample of soil to about 1 ½ inches diameter and 2 to 3 inches long. Surface should be
smooth and rounded. Weigh to up to the nearest 0.1 gram.
2. Cover with a thin coating of paraffin and weigh again. Compute the volume of paraffin from weight
of paraffin. The specific gravity of paraffin is about 0.9
3. Immerse the coated sample in water in the graduated cylinder and determine its displacement.
The volume of the sample is the volume of the water displaced minus the volume of the paraffin.
4. Compute the unit weight in grams/cu. cm.
Calculations:
• The volume of the paraffin is equal to the weight of paraffin used to coat sample divided by the
density of paraffin. Density of paraffin is 0.90
Wt. of paraffin = Wt. Soil coated with paraffin – wt. of soil uncoated with paraffin
• The volume of the paraffin—coated sample is equal to the weight in air minus the weight in water,
(express the weight in gm)
• Wet density of soil = wt of soil g/cc or kg/m
vol of soil
Specific Gravity Determination:
Calibration of Pycnometer
1. Transfer carefully the 25 gm sample to the calibrated bottle and add distilled water until about ½
full. Care must be exercised so as not to lose any of the soil in the transfer.
2. Expel the entrapped air by boiling gently for at least 10 minutes. Roll the bottle occasionally to
facilitate the removal of air.
3. Cool the sample to room temperature or to a temperature within the range of the calibration curve
of the bottle used.
Determination of Specific Gravity

1. Fill the bottle with distilled water to the calibration mark as discussed in step 2 from calibration of
bottle.
2. Dry the outside of the bottle, as in step 3, pycnometer calibration.
3. Weigh the bottle with water and soil, and record as W b.
4. Read and record the temperature of the contents to 0.1 °C, as in step 5, pycnometer calibration.
5. Repeat procedure for at least 3 trials.
Note: An alternative heating device that can be used is an electric plate stove with wire gauze.
Gt (Ws)
Gs = Ws + W a – W b
Where:
Gs – Specific gravity
Gt – Specific gravity of distilled water at the temperature when
Wb was obtained (refer to Table A)
Ws – Weight of oven-dried sample
Wa – weight of bottle + water (from calibration curve)
Wb – weight of bottle + soil and water
Determination of Void Ratio and Degree of Saturation:
The void ratio can be determined from the formula shown below:
e= -
wG
1s
(1+w)

The degree of saturation can be determined from the formula shown below:
S = Gs/e
Course: CE 401 Experiment No.:6
Group Leader: Baylon, Beatriz Julia Date Performed: November 29, 2019
Group Members: Date Submitted: December 06, 2019
1. Abad, Alain Jowel Instructor: Engr. Jenifer Camino
2. Alvaran, Earl Jerin
3. Baylon, Nicole
4.
Moisture Content Determination

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Wt of tin cup (Wc) 26 g 26 g 26 g
Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) 115 g 115 g 115 g
Wt. of tin cup and dry soil (Wc+dc) 101 g 100 g 98 g
Wt. of water (Ww) 14 g 15 g 17 g
Wt. of dry soil (Wds) 75 g 74 g 72 g
Water Content () 18.67 % 20.27 % 23.61 %
Average
Unit Weight Determination

Description Description
Wt. of soil (Ws) 139 g Wt. of paraffin (Wp) 2g
Wt. of soil and paraffin 141 g Volume of paraffin (Vp) 2.22 cc
(Ws+p)
Volume of soil+paraffin 90 g Volume of soil (Vs) 58.22 cc
(Vs+p)
Unit weight () 2.39 g/cc
Specific Gravity Determination

Description Description
SG of distilled water (Gt) Wt. of bottle + water (Wa)
Wt. of oven-dried Weight of bottle + soil +
sample (Ws) water (Wb)
Specific gravity of soil (Gs)
Determination of Void Ratio and Degree of Saturation

Void ratio
Degree of Saturation
7. Conclusion:
Undisturbed soil has its own properties, characteristics and material present on its own. Basically, it has
its natural moisture content. In conclusion to this experiment, the determination of soil water content is the
measurement of the soil water content is based on removal of water from the sample. Sample water is
removed by oven drying them. Once sample water is removed; the amount of water removed from the
sample is determined and used to calculate soil moisture content. The higher the water removed from the
soil sample, the higher of the water content present in the soil.

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3

skills. skills


Safety Members do not follow Members follow safety Members follow safety
Precautions safety precautions. precautions most of the precautions at all times.
time.
II. Work Habits
Time
Experiment

all times.
Clean and orderly

Neatness and
Orderliness
experiment.

(Total Score)
Rating= ×100
24
9. References
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Method for Determination of Water
Content of Soil by Direct Heating Method (D-4959) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International
American Society for Testing and Materials (2002). Standard Test Methods for Determination of Specific
Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer (D-854) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International
Documentation:
Water Content Determination

Weighing the tin cup with
Weighing the tindry
cup
the wet soil
Unit Weight
Determination
Molded the sample
Pouring water
Measuring soil
the on theuntil
soilit
diameter
is measured with the
which issample required
1 ½ inches
length and diameter
Measuring
Weighing the the molded
length ofsoil
the
molded soil which
Weighing the sample is 2 inches
molded soil sample
with the coated paraffin
After placing the soil sample

Setting a reference point on
with coated paraffin, the water
the graduated cylinder with
300 g of water displaced and it increased to
390 g
EXPERIMENT NO. 7
CONSISTENCY LIMITS OF THE SOIL

SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP 1
BAYLON, NICOLE R.
SUBMITTED TO:

DECEMBER 13, 2019
Experiment No. 7
CONSISTENCY LIMITS OF THE SOIL
1. Objective(s):
The activity aims to impart how the moisture content influences the behavior of fine-grained soils.
 understand the concept of Atterberg limits and how it influences the behavior of the soil.
 determine the liquid limit, plastic limit and shrinkage limit of the given soil sample.
 describe the relationship of liquid limit and plastic limit in soil identification.
3. Discussion:
The liquid limit and plastic limit are used internationally for soil identification, soil classification and for strength co-
relation. It is also helpful in determining consolidation and settlement of soil. The liquid limit is arbitrarily defined as
the moisture content at which a soil pat placed in a brass cup cut with a standard groove and dropped from a height
of 1cm will undergo a groove closure of 12.7mm after 25 drops.
Plastic limit is the moisture content at which soil threads start to crumble when rolled to 3mm diameter threads. The
difference of the plastic limit and liquid limit is the plasticity index. This is the range of water content wherein the soil
will act like a plastic.
The shrinkage limit is the moisture content wherein the volume of the soil will cease to reduce in relation to
reduction of moisture content. Shrinkage limit is important in earthworks for predicting the shrinkage and swelling
potential of soil.
4. Resources:
1. Liquid limit device with groove tool

2. Tin can
3. spatula
4. Triple beam balance
5. Soil oven, pan
6. Shrinkage dish
7. Paraffin wax with sewing thread
8. Spring balance
5. Procedure:
Liquid Limit Test
1. Prepare at least 250g of representative air dry soil sample passing the no. 40 sieve. Pulverize this
soil sample. Be sure to break all lumps to elemental particles.
2. Prepare at least 3 moisture tin cans. Mix the prepared sample with a small amount of water. Mix
the sample of soil thoroughly until it becomes uniform and consistent in appearance (no lumps). A
major source of error is poor mixing.
3. On the liquid limit device cup, place an amount of sol. Smooth the pat surface. Using the grooving
tool, cut a groove at the middle.
4. Fasten the brass cup to the hinge of the liquid limit device.
5. Using the 1cm. block at the end of the grooving tool, adjust the height of the fall to exactly 1
centimeter. Height of fall is very critical and as little as 0.1cm can affect the liquid limit by several
percent.
6. Prepare 3 different consistencies of soil based on the number of blows in the liquid limit device:
25-35, 20-30 and 15-25 blows. This is done carefully by adding water to the soil.
7. Mix the soil sample until the consistency would require 25-35 blows to close the groove for about
12.5 mm. Take moisture content near the groove using 30g of soil to determine the moisture
content by placing in the oven. Keep the temperature at 105 oC.
8. Add additional water to test the remaining consistencies of soil. Repeat procedure 7.
9. Draw the flow curve wherein the data is recorded with the water content in the domain and the log
N in the abscissa. The water content that would require 25 blows to close the groove is the liquid
limit of the sample.
Plastic Limit Test
1. Take a sample of about 100 grams..

2. Start rolling the soil between the finger and the glass plate with adequate pressure to form a soil
thread approximately 3mm with 80-90 strokes per minute. When the diameter of the threads of
soil becomes 3mm, break the threads in smaller pieces, reform into a ball and re-roll. Continue
this re-balling and re-rolling until threads crumble under pressure and soil can no longer be rolled
into threads.
3. When the threads crumbles at a diameter greater than 3mm this is satisfactory to define the
plastic limit.
4. Place the crumbled soil in a tin can until a weight of about 30grams is achieved. Do this until two
(2) samples are achieved. Place it in an oven to oven dry. Maintain the temperature at 105 oC.
5. After determining the moisture content, determine its average. The result is the plastic limit of the
soil.
Shinkage Limit Test
1. Weigh the shrinkage dish (Wsd). Fill the shrinkage dish with water and weigh again (W sd+water).
Determine the volume (V) by getting the difference of W sd+water and Wsd and divide it by the unit
weight of water.
V = (Wsd+water - Wsd) / w
2. Grease the inside surface of the shrinkage dish. Place a small portion of the soil pat and carefully
tap the dish to allow the soil pat to flow at the edges. Repeat again until the whole shrinkage dish
is filled. Strike of the excess soil using a straight edge. Record the mass of the soil and dish.
3. Allow the soil to dry into the air until its color turns from dark to light. Oven dry the sample to the
oven kept at 105 oC. Record the mass of the soil and shrinkage dish. Determine the weight of the
dry soil (mdry). Determine its moisture content.
4. Securely tie the soil pat in a sewing thread. Immerse the soil in molten wax. Allow the wax coating
to cool. Determine the mass of the soil with wax (m dry+wax). Determine the mass of the wax (mwax).
Determine its volume by dividing the mass with the unit weight of the wax (V wax).
Vwax = (mdry+wax - mdry) / wax
5. Using a spring balance, determine the mass of the soil and wax in air (m swa). Immerse the soil and
wax in water and determine its mass in water (m sww). Determine the volume of the wax and soil
using the formula:
Vsoil+wax = (mswa-msww)/w
6. Determine the dry volume of soil (Vd) by the difference of the Vsoil+wax and Vwax.
7. Calculate the shrinkage limit of the soil using the formula:
SL = w – (V-Vd)w/ms
Course: CE 401 Experiment No.: 7
Group Leader: Baylon, Nicole R. Date Performed: December 6, 2019
Group Members: Date Submitted: December 13, 2019
1.Abad, Alain Jowel D. Instructor: Engr. Jennifer Camino
2.Alvaran, Earl Jerin S.
3.Baylon, Beatriz Julia M.
Determination of the Liquid Limit

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Range 15 – 25 20 – 30 25 – 35
No. of Blows 25 27 29
Wt of tin cup (Wc) 28 26 26
Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil 129 125 120
(Wc+ws)
Wt. of tin cup and dry soil 106 102 101
(Wc+dc)
Wt. of water (Ww) 23 23 19
Wt. of dry soil (Wds) 78 76 72
Water Content () 29.49 % 30.26 % 26.38 %
Liquid Limit 29.49%
FLOW CURVE
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Soil Samples
Flow Curve
Determination of the Plastic Limit

Description Sample 1 Sample 2
Wt of tin cup (Wc) 28 26
Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) 62 65
Wt. of tin cup and dry soil (Wc+dc) 54 56
Wt. of water (Ww) 8 9
Wt. of dry soil (Wds) 26 30
Water Content () 30.77 % 30.00 %
Plastic Limit (Average) 30.39 %
Determination of the Shrinkage Limit

Description Data Description Data
 Volume of Volume of Wax
Shrinkage Dish
Weight of Shrinkage Dish 111 g Mass of dry soil and wax 83 g.
(Wsd) (mdry+wax)
Weight of Shrinkage Dish 136 g Volume of wax (Vwax) 0.005376 m 3
and Water (Wsd+water)
Volume of Shrinkage Dish 0.002548 m 3
(V)
Volume of Soil
 Water Content mass of the soil and wax in 78 g
air (mswa)
Wt of tin cup (mc) 28 g mass of soil and wax in 72 g
water (msww)
Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil 133 g volume of the wax and soil 0.006116 m 3
(mc+ws) (Vwax+soil)
Wt. of tin cup and dry soil 106 g Volume of Soil (Vd) 0.000740 m 3
(mc+dc)
Wt. of water (mw) 27 g
Wt. of dry soil (mdry) 78 g Shrinkage Limit (SL) 29.49%
Water Content () 34.62 %
7. Conclusion:
The main measurement of the nature of fine-grained soil is Atterberg limits test. Fine soil can be classified due to
its liquidity and plasticity limits. Depending on the water content, the soil can be solid, semi-solid, or liquid state. In
each state of those the soil could have different behavior so that many properties could change due to changing
soil's behavior. So that it is so important to know each limit of these states. The main source of error in this
experiment is careless of operator. All procedures should be performed carefully. Any error through weighing,
number of blows, or rolling the samples could lead to discrepancies of the data. All the results in this experiment
seems to be reasonable. Drying the soil before the test could have an impact on the results especially for the
organic samples. So that liquid limit and plastic limit could vary.
Atterberg limits are crucial for classifying fine-grained soils according to the United Soils Classification System. The
moisture contents allow an engineer to know various properties of the soil and how it will behave under the
pressure of a structure. Atterberg limits also help engineers to know what areas to avoid building in due to poor
numbers from sampled soils. Errors and differences in values between the lab groups are generally due to the
qualitative nature of the experiments and the human error that comes into play due to that nature. There could also
be small differences in water content due to the amount of time the samples were left in the oven.

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3
skills. skills
set-up the materials the material with minimum
with supervision. supervision.
time.
II. Work Habits
Time
Members do not finish Members finish ahead of
on time with incomplete time with complete data and
data. time to revise data.
Experiment
are cooperatively managed
at all times.
Clean and orderly
Messy workplace workplace with Clean and orderly workplace
Neatness and
during and after the occasional mess during at all times during and after
Orderliness
experiment.
Ability to do Members require Members require
Members do not need to be
independent supervision by the occasional supervision
supervised by the teacher.
work teacher. by the teacher.
(Total Score)
Rating= ×100
24
9. References
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit
and Plasticity Index of Soils (D-4318) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International
American Society for Testing and Materials (2002). Standard Test Methods for Shrinkage Factors of
Soils by the Wax Method (D-4943). Pennsylvania: ASTM International
DOCUMENTATION
LIQUID LIMIT TEST:
A 250 g soil passed through No. Weighing the tin cup for sample 1 Weighing the tin cup for sample 2
200 Sieve
Weighing
Rolling
Soil andamolding
sample 100 g soil
thread thesample
wet soil
weighing 30
sample
g with 3-mm diameter
PLASTIC LIMIT TEST:
SHRINKAG E LIMIT TEST:
Weighing the shrinkage dish Greasing the shrinkage dish Placing a wet soil sample inside
the shrinkage dish
After oven drying, we get the

mass of the soil sample in the
shrinkage dish
Weighing the tin the
Weighing cuptin
with
cupwet soil
sample

EXPERIMENT NO. 8
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: SIEVE TEST AND HYDROMETER TEST
SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP 1

BAYLON, NICOLE R.
BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL
CABRAL, KENNETH
SUBMITTED TO:
Experiment No. 8
1. Objective(s):
The activity aims to introduce to the student the method of conducting a mechanical grain size analysis of
a soil and presenting the resulting data.
 determine the grain size distribution of the soil.
 determine the soil classification of the sample based from USCS method.
3. Discussion:
A grain size analysis is performed in the laboratory for the purpose of determining the grain size
distribution of the soil. In reporting the results of this test, the common practice is to express the total
weight finer than a given size, as a percentage of the total weight of the soil. The most direct method for
separating the soil particles into various size fractions is by the use of sieve.
The results of a given grain size analysis are usually presented in the form of grain size distribution curve.
The percentage of material finer than a given size, P, is plotted as the ordinate in a natural scale and the
corresponding particle diameter, D in mm, as the abscissa in a logarithmic scale. The slope of the curve is
indicative of the grading. The more uniform the particle size; the steeper is the slope of the curve. A
vertical line represents a soil whose particles are all of the same size. Well-graded soils or those whose
particles distributed from coarse to fine have S-shaped curves that extend several cycles of the
logarithmic scale. The advantage of plotting a semi-log scale is that materials of equal uniformity are
represented by curves of identical shape whether the soil is fine-grained. The curve is also used to
interpolate values of p (percent finer) corresponding to sizes different from the sieve openings.
The Unified Soil Classification System is a soil classification scheme to determine the group name of the
soil to further determine its engineering properties. This is useful in correlating the behavior the behavior
of the soil based from its group description.
4. Resources:
Sieve Test.
1. Set of Standard Sieves.
2. Oven with temperature control.
3. Balance.
4. Pans.
5. Pair of tongs.
6. Manual or Mechanical Sieve Shaker.
7. Mortar and Pestle.
Hydrometer Test.
1. Balance, sensitive to at least 0.10 gram.
2. Mechanical Stirring Apparatus and Dispersion Cup.
3. Hydrometer, heavy and calibrated for soil.
4. 1-liter graduated cylinder.
5. Thermometer.
6. Set of Standard Sieves.
7. Water Bath of constant temperature.
8. Oven with temperature control.
9. Beaker, 400 ml capacity.
10. Timer or Stopwatch.
11. Sodium Silicate.
12. Distilled Water.
13. Drying Pans.
14. Dessicator
5. Procedure:
Sieve Analysis
1. Each group will obtain exactly 500g of oven-dry soil from the bag of stock material. Use sampling
or sampling splitter.
2. If the samples contain appreciable gravel, very few fines or if at the discretion of the instructor,
washing is to be omitted. Otherwise place the test sample on the no. 200 sieve and wash the
material through the sieve using the tap water until the water is clear.
3. Carefully pour the residue, using the back-washing, into a large weighed dish and let it sit for a
short period of time until the top of the suspension becomes clear. Then, place the dish and
remaining soil-water suspension in the oven for drying.
4. On the following day, weigh the oven-dry residue. (Omit this step if you do not wash). Then run
your sample through a stack of sieves from top down.
5. Place the stacks of sieves in a mechanical sieves shaker (if available) and sieve for 5 to 10
minutes until the top few sieves can be removed from the stack. If there is no mechanical shaker,
shake by hand for about 10 minutes. Do not shake in a defined pattern.
6. Remove the stack of sieves from the shaker and obtain the weight of material remaining on each
sieve. Sum these weights and compare with original. Loss of weights should not exceed 2%,
otherwise repeat the sieve test.
7. Compute the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight on each sieve to the original
sample weight Ws.
8. Compute the percent passing or percent finer by starting with 100 percent and subtracting the
percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
9. Prepare a logarithmic log of percent finer versus grain size.
Note:
• If less than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, compute Cc and Cu and
show in the logarithmic graph.
• If more than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, conduct a hydrometer
analysis.
Calculation:
Cum. % retained = Total mass retained from largest sieve to current sieve/ Total mass of sample
% finer = 100% - Cum. Mass retained
Preparation of Sample for Hydrometer Test
1. Weigh about 50.0 gram of the air-dried sample (100 grams for sandy soil). Place in a beaker, fill
with distilled water to about half-full and allow to soak for at least 18 hours.
Note to Instructor: In performing 5 this test, prepare the said sample a day before the
testing time.
2. After soaking, add 20 ml of sodium silicate as a deflocculating agent, then wash the contents into
the dispersion cup. ( A liter can be used as dispersion cup)
3. Determine the zero correction of the hydrometer. A positive correction (+) is achieved wherein the
reading is between zero and 60. A negative correction is a reading less than zero.
B. Hydrometer Test
1. Transfer the mixture to the graduated cylinder and add more distilled water to bring the water
level to the 100-ml mark.
2. Place the cylinder in the constant temperature bath. In the absence of the constant temperature
bath, you may use an electric plate stove set at the minimum heat (Luke warm) with wire gauze
underneath. Stir the suspension frequently to avoid settlement of the particles.
3. Remove the cylinder from the water bath or from the improvised bath as soon as the temperature
of the suspension and the water bath are the same. Shake thoroughly the mixture for 1 minute by
turning the cylinder upside-down and back, using the palm of the hand as the stopper. The soil
should not stick to the bottom of the cylinder when upside-down.
Note: Care should be exercised in this operation. The cylinder shall not reach
temperature intolerable for handling of the apparatus.
4. Replace the cylinder in the water bath, insert carefully the hydrometer in the suspension and start
the timer.
5. Take hydrometer readings after ½, 1 and 2 minutes without removing the hydrometer from the
suspension. Read the hydrometer at the top of the meniscus formed around its stem. Repeat the
shaking and reading procedure until a consistent set of readings are obtained.
6. Restart the test tube but this time take readings after 2, 5, 15, 30, 60, 250, and 1440 minutes.
Insert carefully the hydrometer about 15 to 20 seconds before each of these readings. Dry the
stem of the hydrometer before insertion. It should be removed carefully and placed in a cylinder of
distilled water after each reading.
7. Determine the equivalent values for Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 for all hydrometer readings conducted.
Note:
a.) Take the temperature of the suspension immediately each hydrometer reading and record.
b.) Between hydrometer readings, cover the top of the cylinder to minimize evaporation and prevent
collection of dust or dirt from the air.
8. After the final reading, wash the suspension on a no. 200 sieve. Dry the fractions retained and
perform the sieve analysis using no.40, 60, and 200 sieves.
Calculations:
Particle Size Diameter (D):

L
D=K
T
Where:
K = derived from Table 2
L = derived from Table 3
T = elapsed time in minutes
Corrected Hydrometer reading (Rc):
Rc = Ractual – C0 – CT
Where:
Ractual = actual hydrometer reading
C0 = zero correction
CT = correction factor due to temperature as shown on Table 4
%Finer (P):
P = Rc () / Ws
Where:
Rc = corrected hydrometer reading
 = correction factor from Table 1
ws = mass of soil sample (g)
Adjusted percent fines (Pa):
Pa =P x F200
Where:
F200 = %finer than sieve 200
Table 1: Values of  vs. Specific Gravity of the Soil (taken from ASTM D422)
Specific Gravity Correction Factor
2.95 0.94
2.90 0.95
2.85 0.96
2.80 0.97
2.75 0.98
2.70 0.99
2.65 1.00
2.60 1.01
2.55 1.02
2.50 1.03
2.45 1.05
Table 2: Values of K vs. Specific Gravity of the Soil (taken from ASTM D422)
Table 3: Values of Effective Depth L vs. Hydrometer Reading (taken from ASTM D422)
Actual Effective Actual Effective Actual Effective Actual Effective

Hydromet Depth, L Hydromet Depth, L Hydromet Depth, L Hydromet Depth, L
er er er er
Reading Reading Reading Reading
0 16.3 16 13.7 32 11.1 48 8.4
1 16.1 17 13.5 33 10.9 49 8.3
2 16.0 18 13.3 34 10.7 50 8.1
3 15.8 19 13.2 35 10.6 51 7.9
4 15.6 20 13.0 36 10.4 52 7.8
5 15.5 21 12.9 37 10.2 53 7.6
6 15.3 22 12.7 38 10.1 54 7.4
7 15.2 23 12.5 39 9.9 55 7.3
8 15.0 24 12.4 40 9.7 56 7.1
9 14.8 25 12.2 41 9.6 57 7.0
10 14.7 26 12.0 42 9.4 58 6.8
11 14.5 27 11.9 43 9.2 59 6.6
12 14.3 28 11.7 44 9.1 60 6.5
13 14.2 29 11.5 45 8.9
14 14.0 30 11.4 46 8.7
15 13.8 31 11.2 47 8.6
Table 4: Correction Factors due to Temperature
Temperature oC Correction Factor, CT Temperature oC Correction Factor, CT

15 -1.10 23 +0.70
16 -0.90 24 +1.00
C -0.70 25 +1.30
18 -0.50 26 +1.65
19 -0.30 27 +2.00
20 0.00 28 +2.50
21 +0.20 29 +3.05
22 +0.40 30 +3.80
Soil Classification using USCS Method
Determine the %gravel, % sand, %silt and clay of the sample. Determine the value of the
uniformity coefficient, Cu and coefficient of concavity, CC. For fine-grained soil using the formula:
Cu = D60 / D10
Cc = D302 / (D10 x D60)
Course: CE401 Experiment No.:8

Group No.: 1 and 2 Section: CE41FA2
Group Leader: BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL Date Performed: Dec. 13, 2019
Group Members: Date Submitted: Jan. 10, 2020
1. ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. Instructor: Engr. Jennifer Camino
2. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.
4. BAYLON, NICOLE R.
5. CABRAL, KENNETH
Sieve Analysis of Coarse-grained Soil

Sieve No. Mass retained Cumulative Mass Percent Finer
Retained
4 115g 115g 80.27%

8 130g 245g 57.98%
10 43g 288g 50.60%
12 24g 312g 46.48%
16 56g 368g 36.88%
30 71g 439g 24.70%
40 118g 557g 4.46%
50 8g 565g 3.09%
60 4g 569g 2.40%
80 5g 574g 1.54%
100 2g 576g 1.20%
200 7g 583g 0%
Pan - 583g 0%
Total 583
Hydrometer Test Method for Fine-grained Soil

Elapse Temp Actual L (from K (from D CT (from a (from Corrected % Finer Adjusted
d Time Hydro. Table 1) Table 2) (mm) Table 3) Table 4) Hydromete (P) % Finer
(min) Rdg. r
Rdg
½
1
2
5
15
30
60
250
1440
Hydrometer No: Specific gravity:

Weight of soil sample: Zero correction:
% Gravel: ___________ Cu: ___________

% Sand: ___________ Cc: ___________
% Silt: ___________
% Clay: ___________
Particle Size Distribution:
7. Conclusion:
We will had to sieve a quantity of coarse-grained soil down to its finest texture to check how good
the aggregates are if to be used in construction and structures. In the sieve analysis, we were able to
separate the aggregates according to particle size. By graphical representation, we would be able to
observe which had the least and most amount of particles. Furthermore, sieve analysis is necessary in
determining differences between the fine and coarse aggregates. It will show the relative proportions of
different sizes among different ranges. Using the data obtained in this method, we would be able to design
filters for earth dams and determine the suitability of soil for road construction.

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3
skills. skills
Experimental Members are unable to Members are able to Members are able to set-up
time.
II. Work Habits
Time
Experiment
the time. Group
all times.
Clean and orderly
Neatness and
Orderliness
experiment.
(Total Score)
Rating= ×100
24
9. References
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (1998). Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of
Soils (D-422). Pennsylvania: ASTM International
DOCUMENTATION
GROUP NO. 1 & 2

PROCEDURES:
PREPARING SET/ STACKS OF SIEVES TO BE

USED IN SIEVE ANALYSIS
OBTAINING MASS OF SOIL SAMPLE RETAINED ON EACH OF THE

SIEVE FOR DATA RECORDING AND COMPUTATIONS
SIEVE NO. 4
Mass Retained: 115g
SIEVE NO. 8
Mass Retained: 130g

SIEVE NO. 10
Mass Retained: 43g
SIEVE NO. 12
Mass Retained: 24g
SIEVE NO. 16
Mass Retained: 56g
SIEVE NO. 30
Mass Retained: 71g

SIEVE NO. 40
Mass Retained: 118g
SIEVE NO. 50
Mass Retained: 8g
SIEVE NO. 60
Mass Retained: 4g
SIEVE NO. 80
Mass Retained: 2g
SIEVE NO. 100
Mass Retained: 5g
SIEVE NO. 200
Mass Retained: 7g
Pan
Mass Retained: 0g

EXPERIMENT NO. 9
SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP 1

BAYLON, NICOLE R.
BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL
CABRAL, KENNETH
SUBMITTED TO:

Experiment No. 9
COMPACTION TEST
1. Objective(s):
The activity aims to introduce the concept of compaction and the relationship of moisture content
to the dry unit weight of the soil.
 Connect the significance of compaction test in other properties of soil.
 determine the relative density of soils by compaction test.
 describe the use of water in relation to the dry density of the soil.
3. Discussion:
Soil Compaction is generally the cheapest method of improving the engineering properties of the soil. In
compaction, the soil solids are forced to a tighter state in order to achieve a higher unit weight and reduce
the air voids.
The process of compaction is better understood by comprehension of the behavior of a soil mass under
compaction. In a dry condition, the frictional resistance of the soil would resist granular rearrangement;
therefore, the compacting force is not quite effective. Introduction of a lubricant such as a predetermined
amount of water is mixed, would then be absorbed by soil particles, forming minutely thin and coherent
water films around the particles. In this condition, the soil particles will readily move closer together under
the compacting pressure due to the lubricating effect of water and reduced frictional resistance. When a
certain amount of water, called the optimum, has been added, the compacting force completely
overcomes the frictional resistance and maximum density of the soil mass is attained.
4. Resources:
1. Compaction mold and hammer

2. Moisture sprayer
3. No. 4 sieve
4. Rubbed tipped pestle
5. Scoop
6. Spatula
7. Large mixing pan
8. Balance
9. Drying oven
5. Procedure:
1. Weigh the empty mold.

2. Obtain a 6 lb. representative specimen of the soil sample to be tested. Break sample with the use
of rubber pestle and pass through No. 4 sieve.
3. Form a 2 to 3 inch layer using the soil passing though No. 4 sieve.
4. Press soil until it is smooth and compact it with a specific number of evenly distributed blows of
the hammer, using a one foot drop. Rotate the hammer to ensure a uniform distribution of blows.
5. Repeat the same procedure for the second and third layers seeing to it that a uniform distribution
of blows.
6. After compaction of the third layer the soil should be slightly above the top rim of the mold.
7. Remove the collar and trim off the soil from the top of the mold. Tart trimming along the center
and work towards end of the mold.
8. After the soil has been made even with the top of the mold and all base soil cleaned from the
outside, weigh the cylinder sample to 10 lb.
9. Remove the soil from cylinder and obtain a representative sample of 50gm for a water content
determination. The water content sample should be made up with specimens from the top, middle
and bottom of the compacted soil.
10. Break up by hand then removed from the cylinder and remix with the original sample and raise its
water content by 3% by adding water to the sample with sprayer. Mix the soil thoroughly. By
weighing the sprayer before and after the spraying, the amount of water added is known.
11. Keep repeating the procedures for 5 to six times until soil is sticky. Use 3% approximate water
content.
12. Compute dry density of each sample and plot the compaction curve. Determine the Optimum
Moisture Content of the sample.
Course: CE 401 – SOIL MECHANICS Experiment No.: 9
Group No.: 1 and 2 Section:CE41FA2
Group Leader: BAYLON, NICOLE R. Date Performed: JANUARY 17, 2020
Group Members: Date Submitted: JANUARY 24, 2020
1. ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. Instructor: ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO
2. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.
4. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL
5. CABRAL, KENNETH
Determination of Optimum Moisture Content

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
Weight of mold
4150g 4150g 4150g 4150g 4150g
(Wm)
Weight of mold
+ compacted 6123g 6123g 6123g 6123g 6123g
soil (Wm+s)
Weight of 1973g 1973g 1973g 1973g
1973g
compacted soil
(Ws)
Volume of
3.75 x 10−3 m 3 3.75 x 10−3 m 3 3.75 x 10−3 m3 3.75 x 10−3 m 3 3.75 x 10−3 m 3
Mold
Wet Unit
11. 40 kN / m3 11 . 40 kN / m3 11 . 40 kN / m3 11 . 40 kN / m3 11 . 40 kN / m3
Weight (wet)
Wt of tin cup
26g 27g 26g 27g 26g
(Wc)
Wt. of tin cup +
Wet Soil 77g 77g 77g 77g 77g
(Wc+ws)
Wt. of tin cup
and dry soil 73g 74g 73g 74g 73g
(Wc+dc)
Wt. of water
4g 3g 4g 3g 4g
(Ww)
Wt. of dry soil
47g 47g 47g 47g 47g
(Wds)
Water Content
8.7% 6.38% 8.7% 6.38% 8.7%
()
Dry unit weight
16.3 kN /m 3 16.3 kN /m 3 16.3 kN /m 3 16.3 kN /m 3 16.3 kN /m 3
(dry)
Optimum
Moisture 16.3 kN /m3
Content (OMC)
Compaction Curve:
7. Conclusion:
The compaction depends on the void ratio of the sample soil. It is a factor of practical importance in
the increase of soil strength and stability. This experiment helped us understand how important factor a
correct water content is in having successful compaction. Compacting soil at a water content higher than
the optimum water content results in a relatively disperse state. The main factors affecting the compaction
are the type of the soil, compactive energy, thickness of the layer, number of roller passes, moisture
content, contact pressure and the speed of rolling.

CRITERIA SCORE
1 2 3
skills. skills
time.
II. Work Habits
Time
Experiment
the time. Group
all times.
Clean and orderly
Neatness and
Orderliness
experiment.
(Total Score)
Rating= ×100
24
9. References
Company
American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics using Modified Effort (D-1557) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International
DOCUMENTATION
GROUP NO. 1 and 2

PROCEDURES:
OBTAINING THE WEIGHT OF EMPTY MOLD
PREPARING THE SAMPLE SOIL PASSING

THROUGH NO. 4 SIEVE TO FORM 2-3 INCH
LAYER
PRESSING SOIL AND COMPACTING IT

WITH EVENLY DISTRIBUTED BLOWS OF
HAMMER
OBTAINING THE COMBINED
WEIGHT OF MOLD AND
COMPACTED SOIL
REMOVING COMPACTED
SOIL FROM THE MOLD

Soil Mechanics Experiment: Disturbed Soil Sampling and Storage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Mechanics Experiment: Disturbed Soil Sampling and Storage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOIL MECHANICS

2nd SEMESTER A.Y. 2019 - 2020

DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLING, LABELING AND STORAGE

ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D.

ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.

BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.

ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO

November 22, 2019

2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs):

6. Data and Results:

Santa Rosa Concepcion Tarlac

8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance):

BEGINNER ACCEPTABLE PROFICIENT

2nd SEMESTER A.Y. 2019 - 2020

DRY PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES

ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D.

ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.

BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.

ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO

November 22, 2019

1. Triple Beam Balance

Course: CE 401 Experiment No.: 2

6. Data and Results:

Sample # Weight (g) Purpose Description

BEGINNER ACCEPTABLE PROFICIENT

Members do not Members occasionally

Members are able to Members are able to set-up

Members do not Members occasionally Members always

II. Work Habits

Members do not know Members have defined

Clean and orderly

Members require Members require

Other Comments/Observations: Total Score

The students weigh the soil samples

Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE

CE 401 SOIL MECHANICS

EXPERIMENT NO. ___3___

ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D.

ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.

BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.

BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D.

ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO

____NOVEMBER 29, 2019_____

WET PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES

2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs):

The students shall be able to:

1. Triple Beam Balance or Digital Weighing Scale.

Course: Soil Mechanics Experiment No.: 3

Group No.: 1 and 2 Section: CE41FB1

Group Members: Date Submitted: November 29, 2019

4. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D.

Data and Results:

Sample # Weight (g) Purpose Description

DETERMINING THE PARTICLE

50g THE SOIL IS WET DUE TO GETTING

BEGINNER ACCEPTABLE PROFICIENT

Members do not Members occasionally

Members do not Members occasionally Members always

Members do not Members follow safety

II. Work Habits

Clean and orderly

EXPERIMENT NO. _3_

NOVEMBER 29, 2019_

EXPERIMENT NO. _5_

NOVEMBER 29, 2019_