See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274387253

Use of Demonstration Models in Undergraduate Geotechnical Engineering

Education

Technical Report · November 2009

CITATIONS READS

2 882

1 author:

Mark B. Jaksa
University of Adelaide
208 PUBLICATIONS   4,417 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Physical Modeling of Rolling Dynamic Compaction View project

Unprecedented riverbank collapse along the lower Murray River during the Millennium Drought View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark B. Jaksa on 03 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

School of Civil, Environmental and
Mining Engineering

Use of Demonstration Models in Undergraduate Geotechnical

Engineering Education

by

M B Jaksa

Research Report No. R 177

November, 2009
 Use of Demonstration Models in Undergraduate
Geotechnical Engineering Education

by

M. B. Jaksa

School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering

University of Adelaide

Research Report No. R 177

November, 2009
 ABSTRACT

Physical demonstration models have been used for decades in geotechnical

engineering education to reinforce fundamental aspects of soil mechanics. This
report provides details of three important demonstration models, namely the
liquefaction sand column and vacuum-sealed coffee brick for improving the
understanding of the concept of effective stress, and the consolidation model for
improving the understanding of the process of consolidation. Detailed
specifications are given to enable the manufacture of the liquefaction sand
column and the consolidation model. A brief overview is also given of other
demonstration models presented in the literature. Finally, evidence obtained by
the author has demonstrated that these models not only facilitate deeper learning
but also engage students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Yien Lik Kuo for some
of the photos and drawings in this report, as well as the technical assistance of
Messrs. Laurie Collins, Colin Haese, Greg Atkins, Jeff Hiorns and the late
Robert Marcussen and Tadeusz Sawosko for the manufacture and development
of the University of Adelaide liquefaction sand column and to the late Mr.
Robert Marcussen for the design and construction of the University of Adelaide
consolidation model. Finally, the author wishes to acknowledge his colleague,
Dr. William Kaggwa, for developing the earth dam model shown in Figure 4.1.
Whilst, it is difficult to envisage this as being a model suitable for use in
lectures, it is nevertheless a valuable learning tool.

i
 CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................. i

CONTENTS .................................................................................................. ii

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 3
2. EFFECTIVE STRESS MODELS.............................................................. 3
2.1 Liquefaction Sand Column ................................................................... 4
2.2 Liquefaction Sand Column Demonstration .......................................... 5
2.3 Effective Stress Demonstrations Based on Application of Vacuum .. 15
2.3.1 Vacuum-Sealed Coffee Brick .................................................................. 15
2.3.2 Vacuum Mattress ..................................................................................... 17

3. CONSOLIDATION MODEL .................................................................. 18

3.1 Demonstration of Consolidation Model ............................................. 18
4. OTHER DEMONSTRATION MODELS DESCRIBED IN THE
LITERATURE .......................................................................................... 26
5. REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX A: SPECIFICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
ADELAIDE LIQUEFACTION SAND COLUMN ......... 30

APPENDIX B: SPECIFICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

ADELAIDE CONSOLIDATION MODEL ..................... 33

ii
1. INTRODUCTION

Physical models have been used to demonstrate various phenomena in

geotechnical engineering for decades, and their use in civil and mechanical
engineering can be traced as far back as the late 1300s (Bucher 2000). Such
demonstration models, in the context of undergraduate education, have been
shown to be very instructive and to assist greatly with the understanding of
fundamental geotechnical engineering principles (Burland 1987, Steenfelt
2000). Despite this, Poulos (1994) stated that there is little published
information in relation to such demonstration experiments and models.

The author has utilised a number of demonstration models in his teaching and
has found, both anecdotally and from formal student feedback, that the
demonstrations are valuable tools that aid learning and they also interest and
engage students.

The aim of this report is threefold. Firstly, to present a brief overview of the
demonstration models that have been described in the literature, largely since
Poulos’s lecture in 1994. Secondly, to describe, in some detail, three of the
more useful and perhaps under-utilised and less well-known of the models, as
well as a rescue device that makes use of the concept of effective stress. Here,
specifications of the equipment and a summary of the demonstrations are given.
Finally, in doing so, this report seeks to facilitate the more widespread use of
demonstration models as a valuable and important tool to enhance
undergraduate learning in geotechnical engineering.

2. EFFECTIVE STRESS MODELS

Perhaps the most important geotechnical engineering concept that an

undergraduate student should understand intimately is that of effective stress
(Terzaghi 1925). Put simply, effective stress, ', can be regarded as an inter-
granular stress. It is reduced by positive pore water pressure, u, as expressed by
Equation (1), where  is the total stress. It is the effective stress that governs the
friction between soil particles and, hence, the strength and compressibility of a
soil mass.

'    u (1)

A number of models have been developed to assist with the understanding of the
concept of effective stress, and these are described below.

3
2.1 Liquefaction Sand Column

Lambe and Whitman (1969) introduced a conceptual model of a column of

saturated sand, as shown in Figure 2.1, to demonstrate the influence of pore
water, excess pore water pressure and liquefaction, or quick sand. This concept,
when in the form of a physical model, is a particularly useful teaching aid to
facilitate a deeper understanding of pore water pressure, effective stress, the
influence of flow direction on these, and liquefaction. Such a physical model,
known as the liquefaction sand column, was developed at the University of
Adelaide some time ago by the author’s predecessors, as a laboratory-based
apparatus. Recently, as shown in Figure 2.2, the author has adapted the
liquefaction sand column to make it portable, so that it can be readily used as a
demonstration model in lectures. The author’s experience with the portable
model in lectures, as well as student feedback, has shown that it greatly
enhances the understanding of the concepts of effective stress. Furthermore, it
generates a great deal of interest and excitement, both with the student body, as
well as the general public, when it is used as a demonstration tool at expos and
the like.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2.1 Illustrative saturated sand model demonstrating the physical

interaction between the solid and fluid phases of a soil.
(a) No flow; (b) Small upward flow; (c) Liquefaction.
(Source: Lambe and Whitman 1969.)

4
 Figure 2.2 The University of Adelaide liquefaction sand column.

Specifications and construction details of the University of Adelaide liquefac-

tion sand column are given in Appendix A.

2.2 Liquefaction Sand Column Demonstration

The author’s demonstration proceeds as follows:

1. Firstly, the various aspects of the equipment are highlighted, as shown in
Figure 2.3.

5
 1

7
8

Figure 2.3 The University of Adelaide liquefaction sand column – overview.

Table 2.1 Major components of the liquefaction sand column.

No. Component
1 Manometers
2 Upper outlet (facilitates downward flow)
3 Overflow chamber
4 Upper drainage valve
5 Sand layer
6 Gravel layer used to disperse upward water flow
7 Lower drainage valve (facilitates downward flow)
8 Lower outlet valve (facilitates upward flow)
6
 The three manometers (#1) display the total head at each point and hence the
flow gradient. The pipe and outlet (#2) facilitate downward flow through
the sand layer (#5), when used in conjunction with the lower drainage valve
(#7). When the lower outlet (#8) is opened (and #7 is closed), water flows in
an upward direction. The overflow chamber (#3) and associated pipe,
ensures that the water is contained within the system and does not flow onto
the floor. The gravel layer (#6) assists in dispersing the upward flow
throughout the sand layer. As shown in Figure 2.4, the underside of the
liquefaction sand column contains a water bottle and a small, electrical
pump, as well as space to store the accessories. (The upper drainage valve
[#4] is discussed later.)

Figure 2.4 The University of Adelaide liquefaction sand column – overview.

2. By activating the pump and opening the lower outlet valve (#8), quick sand
(liquefaction) is created. For a short while, the students are encouraged to
observe the process of liquefaction, which is sometimes referred to as
‘boiling sand’, as shown in Figure 2.5.

7
 Figure 2.5 Quick sand or ‘boiling sand.’

3. The common Hollywood portrayal of damsels in distress being rescued from

quick sand, as well as cowboys and villains falling foul of it, is mentioned.
An edited clip from the 1945, black and white, Tarzan movie Tarzan and the
Amazons (Wikipedia 2009b) is shown, where two villains fall into
‘quicksand’ whilst trying to escape Tarzan. (This is discussed further in the
next section.)
4. The students’ attention is then drawn to the hapless human model, shown in
Figure 2.6. The students are asked whether they know who he is. Some
usually do. He is in fact ‘The Hood’, the arch-nemesis of the Thunderbirds
– the popular, UK science fiction television program, which was produced
primarily for young people in the 1960s (Wikipedia, 2009c). It is pointed
out that, if anyone deserves to be placed into quick sand, it is he, as his
prime purpose in life is to destroy International Rescue and plunge the world
in chaos.

8
 Figure 2.6 ‘The Hood.’

The scale of the model is then highlighted. It is emphasised that the model
is a faithful scale model of an average human being, i.e. he has the same
density as a human being. It is also pointed out that the average specific
gravity of human bodies is approximately equal to 1 – it is actually between
approximately 0.86 and 1.10, depending on the amount of body fat present
and the amount of air in the lungs (Jackson & Pollock 1978, Bell 1998).
This is as expected, as most people just float in fresh water, but some
struggle.
5. The class is then asked to consider in their own minds whether they think
that The Hood will sink or whether he will float.
6. As shown in Figure 2.7, The Hood is then lowered into the quick sand and,
low and behold, he floats! “Why does he float? Surely, Hollywood can’t be
wrong when cowboys and people sink into quick sand? What’s going on?”
He floats because, as mentioned above, humans generally float in water.
The density of the sand-water mixture is greater than water, so there should
be a greater tendency for humans to float in quick sand. In addition, since
quick sand only occurs when there is an upward flow of water, this also
increases The Hood’s tendency to float. Confidence in the movies is
partially restored by explaining that if one’s density is greater than the quick
sand – as would occur if a cowboy was wearing jodhpurs, boots, a holster
and ammunition – then he/she would definitely sink.

9
 Figure 2.7 The Hood floating in quick sand.

7. The clip from Tarzan and the Amazons is shown again. When looking
carefully at the scene, it is obvious that the soil is not sand but soft clay.
Furthermore, on of the villain’s legs can be clearly seen as he ‘sinks’ into the
quick sand. In fact, he is lying down in a mud pool.
8. The influence of water flow on effective stress is then demonstrated, firstly,
by water flowing downwards through the sand. The upper outlet flow valve
(#2) and the lower drainage valve (#7) are opened; and the lower outlet
valve (#8) is closed. In this way water is allowed to flow downwards
through the sand column.
9. In order to create an embankment, a v-notch is carved into the soil, as shown
in Figure 2.7, using the plastic spatula (seen between the brass building
model and rubber mallet in Figure 2.2). The stable slope angle (i.e. the
angle of repose) in this case is reasonably steep, i.e. approximately 50°.
10. The lower drainage valve is then closed, fairly quickly, preventing water
from flowing down through the sand. Immediately, the slope collapses to a
lower angle of repose, i.e. approximately 30°. “Why did this happen?”
(Wait from a response from the class.) It is because the buoyancy (i.e.
porewater pressure) increased, thereby decreasing the soil’s effective stress
and, therefore, its strength.”
11. In order to decrease the buoyancy or porewater pressure further, an upward
water flow is created by opening the lower outlet valve (#8). Again,
relatively instantaneously, the slope collapses to a horizontal ground surface
(Fig. 2.9). This is because the effective stress, and hence the soil strength, is
reduced to zero, i.e. liquefaction.
10
 Figure 2.7 Angle of repose with downward water flow.

Figure 2.8 Angle of repose with no water flow.

12. The relationship between liquefaction, earthquakes and building stability is

then demonstrated by simulating the ground conditions present at a site in
the Japanese city of Niigata in 1964 (Kawasumi 1968). The water level is
lowered to just below the upper surface of the sand by opening the upper
drainage valve (#4), which drains the water relatively quickly, and finely
adjusting the water level by use of the lower drainage valve (#7). A model
of a multi-storey building is then placed on the sand surface (Figure 2.10).
The building settles somewhat due to its weight (approximately 5 kg) and

11
 the relatively loose nature of the sand. Nevertheless, the building stands
upright and all is well.
13. Then “along comes Earthquake Jaksa.” The side of the Perspex column, is
gently tapped in the vicinity of the building using the small rubber mallet
[Fig. 2.10(b)]. The building immediately falls over and collapses into the
sand. “Why did that happen?” The tap caused a brief wave to propagate
through the sand. The grains of sand momentarily separated, their effective
stress reduced to zero, i.e. liquefaction occurred, and for an instant, the
building was founded on water. Water has no shear strength and, hence, the
building collapsed.
14. Images of the 1964 Niigata earthquake are then shown, as in Figures 2.11 to
2.13.
15. Finally, the students are asked to imagine that they are professional
geotechnical engineers and they have been commissioned to design an
apartment complex on a site with ground characteristics similar to those in
Niigata and the demonstration. “Could we design a successful solution, or
would we need to advise the client that the site is susceptible to liquefaction
and therefore no development can be constructed on this site?” “Engineers
are about developing solutions and the latter is certainly not the case.”
Valid solutions include piling, compaction and dewatering, although
dewatering relies on electrical power.

Figure 2.9 Angle of repose with upward water flow.

12
 (a) (b)

Figure 2.10 Niigata demonstration – the relationship between liquefaction

and earthquakes: (a) before, (b) after simulated earthquake.

Figure 2.11 Tilting of apartment buildings at Kawagishi-Cho, Niigata.

(Source: Penzien 1964.)

13
 Figure 2.12 Overturned building, Niigata. (Source: Penzien 1964.)

(a) (b)
Figure 2.13 Niigata earthquake: (a) overturned building, (b) sand blows.
(Source: Penzien 1964.)
14
16. Finally, compaction is demonstrated by gently tapping several times against
the side of the Perspex apparatus with the rubber mallet, thereby densifying
the sand. The earthquake demonstration is then repeated and it is clearly
demonstrated that a gentle tap no longer results in foundation collapse.
Rather, many more taps, generally of greater severity, are required, i.e. a
much more intense earthquake is needed.

An electronic video has been prepared by the author for readers who do not have
the resources to manufacture the liquefaction sand column. The video is freely
available from http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/civeng/staff/mjaksa01.html or
by emailing the author (mark.jaksa@adelaide.edu.au).

The 2004, 19th episode of MythBusters [MythBusters (2009)] demonstrated a

full-scale version of the liquefaction sand column where the presenters
debunked the myth that humans sink in quick sand. The enthusiastic teacher is
encouraged also to show edited excerpts from this episode to reinforce the point
and to engage the students further.

2.3 Effective Stress Demonstrations Based on Application of

Vacuum

Whilst the majority of geotechnical engineering applications involve positive

pore water pressures and, hence effective stresses that are lower than the total
stress, the concept of effective stress can also be demonstrated by the use of
negative pore water pressures, or suction. A number of demonstration models
and aids are available that explain the concept of effective stress by means of
suction.

2.3.1 Vacuum-Sealed Coffee Brick

The author has found, as have others (e.g. Atkinson 1993), that a readily
available and extremely useful physical example of the concept of effective
stress is a vacuum-sealed brick of ground coffee – a typical example of which is
shown in Figure 2.14.

At the beginning of the author’s lecture on effective stress, two bricks of

vacuum-sealed ground coffee are handed around. It is pointed out that one has
been punctured beforehand, thus compromising the vacuum seal, while the other
has not been tampered with. The punctured brick is relatively soft and the
coffee grains can be easily moved around inside the packet, as shown in Figure
2.15. In contrast, the other intact vacuum-sealed brick is very hard and almost
impossible to indent with a finger or distort. The author asks the class to feel
both bricks, postulate, in their own minds, the reason for the difference between
15
them, and then pass them on to the next student. Whilst the students are doing
this, the lecture on effective stress proceeds.

At the end of the lecture the author asks “Can anyone suggest to the class the
reason for the difference between the two bricks?” The answer, of course, is
that the vacuum seal has increased the inter-granular stress, i.e. the effective
stress, and, hence, the friction between the coffee grains, and therefore the

Figure 2.14 Typical vacuum-sealed brick of ground coffee supporting 2 kg.

Figure 2.15. Punctured brick of ground coffee supporting 2 kg.

16
strength of the particulate mass. In this example, the pore fluid is air rather than
water, and the pore air pressure, u, is negative, due to the vacuum. The effective
stress, ', is therefore greater due to the negative pore pressure, as given by
Equation (1).

A similar example to the vacuum-sealed coffee brick is that mentioned by

Poulos (1994). It consists of a rubber glove filled with dry sand. When air is
removed from the glove, by means of a vacuum, it increases in strength and is
able to grasp a hammer.

2.3.2 Vacuum Mattress

A further example of the increase in strength of a particulate mass is that of a

vacuum mattress. Such mattresses are used by emergency rescue personnel as a
stretcher over short distances and to immobilise patients, especially in case of
vertebra, pelvis or limb trauma. As shown in Figure 2.16, the mattress is a
sealed polymer bag (larger than an adult human body) that encloses small
polystyrene balls, with a valve, straps and handles (Wikipedia 2009d). It is
washable and invisible to X-rays. In its inoperable state, when the mattress
valve is open and exposed to atmospheric pressure, the balls are relatively free
to move and the mattress can be moulded beneath and around the patient [Figure
2.17(a) & (b)]. Air is then withdrawn from the mattress through the valve by
means of a hand-operated pump and the valve is closed [Figure 2.17(c)]. The
suction causes the balls to press together and the mattress becomes hard and
rigid.

Figure 2.16 Vacuum mattress with hand pump. (Source: Wikipedia 2009d.)
17
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 2.17 Vacuum mattress operation. (a) Mattress is placed beneath

patient. (b) Patient is secured. (c) Air is withdrawn from mattress via hand
pump. (Source: Ferno UK Ltd. 2006.)

3. CONSOLIDATION MODEL

A model that very effectively demonstrates the process of consolidation, as well

as effective stress, is that given in Figure 3.1, as suggested by Terzaghi. When
converted to a physical model and used in lectures, students are readily able to
understand the consolidation process, excess pore water pressure and
consolidation settlement. Specifications and dimensions of the University of
Adelaide consolidation model are included in Appendix B.

3.1 Demonstration of Consolidation Model

The author’s demonstration proceeds as follows:

1. Firstly, the different aspects of the consolidation model are identified and
briefly explained, as shown in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1.
2. The equilibrium, or initial, pore water pressure is noted (0.42 kPa, in Fig.
3.3). Note that the valve (#5 in Fig. 3.2) remains closed.
3. A 1 kg (10 N) weight is placed onto the loading platen, as shown in Figure
3.4. The students’ attention is drawn to the pressure gauge, which now
reads 1.22 kPa. (The actual value is not significant here – only that the
pressure has risen above its initial pressure – hence, excess pore water
pressure.) The pore water pressure has risen because no water is permitted
to escape, due to the valve being closed, as is the short-term condition of
fine-grained soils, where their very low permeability inhibits water flow.
As a result, the pore water carries the load, rather than the soil skeleton, as
is evident by the non-displacement of the spring.

18
 (a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

(f)

Figure 3.1 Consolidation analogy. (a) Physical example; (b) Hydro-

mechanical analog – initial condition; (c) Load applied with valve closed;
(d) Piston moves as water escapes; (e) Equilibrium with no further flow;
(f) Gradual transfer of load. (Source: Lambe and Whitman 1969.)

4. A second 1 kg weight (20 N) is placed onto the loading platen, as shown in

Figure 3.5. The pressure has again increased as pressure gauge now reads
2.2 kPa.
5. A third 1 kg weight (30 N) is placed onto the loading platen, as shown in
Figure 3.6. Again, the pressure has risen, this time to 3.05 kPa.
6. Finally, a fourth weight (40 N) is added to the loading platen, which now
supports a total of 4 kg, as shown in Figure 3.7. As before, the pressure has
increased, this time to approximately 3.9 kPa.

19
 5
4 1

2
3

Figure 3.2 Consolidation model overview.

Table 3.1 Consolidation model components.

No. Component and representation

1 Chamber with spring and water = soil
2 Spring = soil skeleton
3 Water = pore water
4 Pressure gauge measures pore water pressure
5 Valve represents the permeability of the soil

7. Next the drainage valve is opened, as shown in Figure 3.8. As soon as the
valve is opened, which simulates water flowing out of and away from the
loaded soil, the water sheds its load to the spring (i.e. soil skeleton), which
begins to compress, and the pore water pressure decreases, or dissipates.
The students’ attention is drawn to the water draining out of the chamber
and into the overflow cup, the compressing spring and, as this occurs, the
reduction in the pressure indicated by the gauge.
8. As time proceeds, as shown in Figures 3.9 and 3.10, the water continues to
flow out of the chamber and into the overflow cup, the spring continues to
compress, and the pressures continues to decrease.

20
Figure 3.3 Consolidation model: initial conditions – no applied load.

Figure 3.4 Consolidation model: 1 kg (10 N)applied load.

21
Figure 3.5 Consolidation model: 2 kg (20 N)applied load.

Figure 3.6 Consolidation model: 3 kg (30 N)applied load.

22
 Figure 3.7 Consolidation model: 4 kg (40 N)applied load.

9. Eventually, approximately 23 seconds after having opened the permeability

valve, as shown in Figure 3.11, equilibrium is reached – the spring ceases
to compress, water no longer flows out of the chamber, and the pore water
pressure reaches a stable value. This value (0.85 kPa in Fig. 3.11) should
be the same as the initial value (0.42 kPa, in Fig. 3.3). The difference is
due to the friction developed between the loading platen O-ring and the
chamber wall. The students’ attention is drawn to the final settlement of
the spring and the pore water pressure having approximately returned to its
initial value.
10. The model has demonstrated the process of consolidation by means of
excess pore water pressure, drainage of pore fluid, transfer of load from the
pore water to the soil skeleton, dissipation of excess pore water pressure,
and soil settlement.

An electronic video has been prepared by the author for readers who do not have
the resources to manufacture the consolidation model. The video is freely
available from http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/civeng/staff/mjaksa01.html or
by emailing the author (mark.jaksa@adelaide.edu.au).

23
Figure 3.8 Consolidation model: 40 N applied load – drain open,
about 5 s after opening the valve.

Figure 3.9 Consolidation model: 40 N applied load – drain open,

about 8 s after opening the valve.

24
Figure 3.10 Consolidation model: 40 N applied load – drain open,
about 12 s after opening the valve.

Figure 3.11 Consolidation model: 40 N applied load – drain open,

about 23 s after opening the valve.

25
4. OTHER DEMONSTRATION MODELS DESCRIBED IN THE
LITERATURE

Several other demonstration models are mentioned in the literature. Burland

(1987, 2000, 2008) describes the use of an innovative demonstration tool that he
refers to as the ‘base friction model’. It incorporates copper rings of varying
diameters that are placed on a transparent acetate strip located directly above an
overhead projector, so that it can be projected on to a screen. The acetate strip,
in the form of a scroll, is drawn across the overhead projector by means of a
variable, battery-powered motor. In his demonstration, Burland places the
copper rings on the acetate strip in a random fashion and then turns on the
motor. The acetate strip draws the rings along until they are impeded by a
Perspex strip that is placed at the leading edge of the acetate strip. Perspex
strips are also placed on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the strip, thus
creating a u-shaped container for the rings. The motion of the strip very
effectively simulates soil deposition. Burland also uses this device to
demonstrate bearing capacity failure, and active and passive conditions. The
interested reader is referred to Burland’s paper for further details. In his paper,
Burland also discusses a Perspex model for demonstrating pure shear, another
for demonstrating general two-dimensional strain, and another for illustrating
sliding block mechanisms.

Poulos (1994) mentions a paper by Barton and Grabe (1991) that proposes an
effective stress model with four demonstrations illustrating the shear strength
behaviour of soils. Poulos also describes a steady state flow model, as shown in
Figure 4.1. While this is a very useful demonstration model, it is generally too
large for use in lectures.

Figure 4.1 University of Adelaide earth dam model.

26
Bucher (2000) describes a number of demonstration models used at the ETH
Zurich. These include sedimentation; capillary rise and siphoning; liquefaction
(as described in §2.1); steady state seepage, as above, but including slope failure
and a downstream drainage blanket; filter performance; earth pressure; and
bearing capacity failure. Wesley (2000) describes a conceptual effective stress
model involving an empty tin can and a sponge, as shown in Figure 4.2.

The classic sand balloon model is used by Kodikara (2000) to illustrate volume
change with respect to shear in a loose versus dense sand. He also adopts this
model to demonstrate consolidation and undrained versus drained behaviour. In
addition, Kodikara (2000) also describes the use of a tea bag placed, for various
lengths of time in cold, warm and hot water to illustrate leaching, diffusion,
dispersion and dilution with respect to landfill waste. Andrei & Manea (2000)
describe several demonstration models to illustrate differences between sand and
silt, soil suction, permeability, effective stress, liquefaction (as described in
§2.1), expansive soils and earth pressures. The majority of these models are
described by others.

Figure 4.2 Intoduction to effective stress using tin can and sponge analogy.
(Source: Wesley 2000.)

27
In his booklet Soils Magic, Elton (2001) catalogues a wide array of
demonstrations to engage and educate students. The CD included with the
booklet contains small video files showing each demonstration in a somewhat
light-hearted fashion, where Elton assumes the role of ‘Soil Magician.’ Elton et
al. (2006) states that the Soils Magic program has been effective at
demonstrating the principles of soil mechanics to undergraduate engineering
students, but has also been used effectively for elementary, middle and high
school students as a means of outreach.

Burland (2008) also proposed the use of a plastic cup (or beaker) to reinforce
effective stress and demonstrate its influence on slope stability. The
demonstration involves placing a plastic cup, which has been pre-filled with
water to a certain level, on a damp slope made from a smooth timber or plastic
board. The cup is stable and does not move. Next, a second cup is placed
adjacent to the first and then filled with water to the same level as the first,
whereupon it slides quickly down the slope. It is then explained to the class that
the only difference between the cups is that the second has a small pin-hole in its
base. Burland (2008) then asks the class for an explanation for the behaviour of
the two cups. Later, he sets the class an exercise with a parallel-sided cup
incorporating a small pin-hole, where he asks them to evaluate the limiting
inclination of the slope.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In late 2008 the author conducted a student experience survey in order to

measure the effectiveness of the demonstrations described in this report, namely
the liquefaction sand column, the vacuum-sealed coffee brick and the
consolidation model. The survey involved 66 third-year geotechnical
engineering students, and revealed that 91% of the students found the
demonstrations to improve their learning and understanding of the topics, 89%
found them to be engaging and relevant, and 92% believed that they understood
the concepts presented in the course.

In conclusion, the author reiterates the effectiveness of demonstration models as

a tool to improve learning and engage students, as well the general public. The
demonstrations outlined in this report are particularly relevant, effective and,
with the current trend of increasing student numbers in higher education coupled
with diminishing funding (Jaksa et al. 2009), efficient.

28
6. REFERENCES

Andrei, S. & Manea, S. (2000). Utility of Physical Models for a Better

Understanding of Soil Behaviour. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Geotechnical
Engineering Education and Training, Sinaia, Romania, June 12–14, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 257–263.
Atkinson, J. H. (1993). An Introduction to the Mechanics of Soils and
Foundations, McGraw-Hill, London.
Barton, T. and Grabe, M. (1991). Bodenmechanisce Modelle. Inst. für
Geotechnik, ETH Zürich.
Bell, F. (1998). Principles of Mechanics and Biomechanics, Nelson Thornes.
Bucher, F. (2000). Demonstration Models for Undergraduate Teaching in
Geotechnics. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Engineering Education
and Training, Sinaia, Romania, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, June 12–14,
325–328.
Burland, J. B. (1987). The Teaching of Soil Mechanics – A Personal View.
Nash Lecture, Proc. 9th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Dublin, Ireland, August 31–September 3, Vol. 3, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1427–1444.
Burland, J. B. (2000). Keynote Lecture: The Soil Mechanics Triangle Revisited.
Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Engineering Education and Training,
Sinaia, Romania, June 12–14. Unpublished.
Burland, J. B. (2008). Personal Reflections on the Teaching of Soil Mechanics.
Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Education and Training in Geo-Engineering Sciences:
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Engineering Geology, Rock
Mechanics, Constantza, Romania, June 2–4, 35–48.
Elton, D. J. (2001). Soils Magic, American Society of Civil Engineer, Reston.
Elton, D. J., Hanson, J. L. & Shannon, D. M. (2006). Soils Magic: Bringing
Civil Engineering to the K-12 Classroom. Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, 132(2): 125–132.
Ferno UK Ltd. (2006). Full body splint: Model AS155. [Brochure].
Jackson, A. S. and Pollock, M. L. (1978). Generalized Equations for Predicting
Body Density of Men. British Journal of Nutrition, 40: 497–504.
Jaksa, M. B., Ho, K. and Woodward, M. A. (2009). State of the Art Lecture 5:
Management, Training and Education in Geotechnical Engineering. Proc.
XVII Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech. Engrg., Alexandria, Egypt,
October 5–9, Vol. 4, 3136–3170.
Kawasumi H. (ed.) (1968). General Report on the Niigata Earthquake of 1964,
Tokyo Electrical Engineering College Press, Tokyo.
Kodikara, J. K. (2000). The Use of Simple Models for Undergraduate Teaching
of Geomechanics. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Engineering

29
 Education and Training, Sinaia, Romania, June 12–14, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 343–348.
Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
MythBusters (2009). MythBusters Episode 19: Killer Quicksand. Retrieved
August 1, 2009, from http://mythbustersresults.com/episode19
Penzien, J. (1964). Karl V.Steinbrugge Slide and Photograph Collection: World
Earthquakes and Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/visual_resources/steinbrugge_collection.html
Poulos, H. G. (1994). Patterns and Practices in Future Geotechnical Engineer-
ing Education. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, New Delhi, India, January 5–10, Vol. 5, Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co., New Delhi, 245–253.
Steenfelt, J. S. (2000). Teaching for the Millenium – or for the Students? Proc.
GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia, November 19–24, Vol. 1, 826–840.
Terzaghi, K. (1925). Principles of Soil Mechanics: VII – Friction in Sand and in
Clay. ENR, 95(26), Dec., 1026–1029.
Wesley, L. D. (2000). Challenges in Geotechnical Engineering Education.
Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Engineering Education and Training,
Sinaia, Romania, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, June 12–14, 241–248.
Wikipedia (2009a). Soil liquefaction. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction
Wikipedia (2009b). Tarzan and the Amazons. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarzan_and_the_Amazons
Wikipedia (2009c). Thunderbirds (TV series). Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(TV_series)
Wikipedia (2009d). Vacuum mattress. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_mattress

30
APPENDIX A SPECIFICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
ADELAIDE LIQUEFACTION SAND COLUMN

18

15

18

18

18
12 8

15

11
14

16 3
21 2 1

18

5
4

Figure A1. University of Adelaide liquefaction sand column model – top,

front and side view.

31
 18

10
7

18 18

20
20
9
8 11

17
10

11
6

3 16

18
18

Figure A2. Liquefaction sand column model – side view.

32
 11
18
5
4

3 2 1

21

14

16
6 18
Figure A2. Liquefaction sand column model – top view.

Table A1. Description and specifications of parts.

Part No. Description and Specifications Qty.
1 Elbow, bass/copper, threaded, female, 1/2" BSP 2
2 Connector, bass/copper, treaded, male, 1/2" BSP 2
3 Tap/gate valve, bass, 1/4" BSP 2
4 Grommet, rubber, screwed to base plate 4
5 Base plate, Perspex, 270  190  20 mm thick 1
6 Column, Perspex, 137  142  620 mm high, 4 mm thick wall,
1
connected/glued to base plate
7 Overflow chamber, Perspex, 31  130  100 mm high, 6 mm
1
thick wall
8 Flow/ball valve, 1/2" BSP or 3/8" BSP 2
9 Barbed fitting 1/2" BSP to Connector, male, 3/8" BSP 3
10 Elbow, barbed, male 1/2" BSP 3
11 Flexible hose, silicone, 16 mm external diameter  2,500 mm
1
long (in total, cut into different lengths)
12 Manometer 1
13 Flexible hose/water pressure gauge, silicone, 6 mm external
3
diameter  a) 470; b) 390; c) 310 mm long
14 Flexible hose, silicone, 9 mm external diameter  300 mm
1
long (in total, cut into 3 different lengths)
15 Square plate, bass/copper, 40  40  14 mm thick 3
16 Rectangular plate, Perspex, 134  129  20 mm thick 1
17 Tee, barbed, 1/2" BSP 1
18 Mounting screws, various types 28
19 Hose clamp 2
20 Connector/Joiner, threaded, 1/2" BSP 2
21 Barbed fitting, 1/2" BSP to connector, male, 1/2" BSP 1

33
APPENDIX B: SPECIFICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
ADELAIDE CONSOLIDATION MODEL

The following figures provide dimensions and specifications to facilitate the

construction of the University of Adelaide consolidation model.

Figure B1. University of Adelaide consolidation model – front view.

Figure B2. University of Adelaide consolidation model – rear view.

34
Figure B3. University of Adelaide consolidation model – left side view.

Figure B4. University of Adelaide consolidation model – right side view.

35
 Figure B5. University of Adelaide consolidation model – top view.

16*

11*

15*

Figure B6. University of Adelaide consolidation model – underside view.

(*: see Table B1)

36
 8

17 17
6 14 7
12 9
10 3

2
7 5
4
13
16
11* 15*
1

18 18

Figure B7. University of Adelaide consolidation model – assembly.

(*: underneath base.)

Table B1. Description and specifications of parts.

Part No. Description and Specifications Qty.
1 Base plate, Perspex, 272  160  20 mm thick (Fig. B8) 1
2 Chamber, Perspex, 118 mm OD, 100 mm ID  105 mm high 1
3 Loading platen, Perspex, 100 mm dia., 20 mm thick (Fig. B9) 1
Overflow cup, Perspex, 81 mm OD, 75 mm ID  105 mm
4 1
high with 6 mm thick base glued flush (Fig. B10)
5 Spring, stainless steel, 48 mm OD  74 mm long (Fig. B11) 1
6 Pressure gauge, 4 kPa range (Fig. B12) 1
7 Valve (Figs. B12 and B13) 2
8 Flexible hose, silicone, 9 mm dia.  200 mm long 1
9 Flexible overflow hose, silicone, 9 mm dia.  180 mm long 1
10 O-ring, rubber, for loading platen 1
11 O-ring, rubber, for base of chamber (Fig. B6) 1
12 Bracket, 1 mm thick galv. metal, with 2 screws (see Fig. B4) 1
13 Adapter, male to male, brass 1
14 Connector, brass (to connect hose #9 to loading platen #3) 1
15 Screws to connect chamber to base (Fig. B6) 8
16 Screw to seal end of pressure port (Fig. B6) 1
17 Hose connectors, brass/copper (one straight, one elbow) 2
18 Grommet, rubber 4

37
 3 mm dia. hole
in centre of base

118*

50*
cL 160 mm

83*
30

12 mm dia. hole
to centre of base

*: 6 mm deep

124 105
272 mm

Figure B8. University of Adelaide consolidation model:

base plate dimensions – top view.

14*, with 4.5 mm dia.

hole drilled through

(a) (b)

Figure B9. University of Adelaide consolidation model – loading platen.

(a) side view. (b) top view. (*: See Table B1.)
(Note: 2 O-rings were originally used, as shown in (a), but it was found that one was
sufficient, whereas 2 resulted in the friction along the chamber wall being too great.
In order to minimise friction, silicone grease is used to lubricate the O-ring.)

38
 Figure B10. University of Adelaide consolidation model: overflow cup.

48 mm

74 mm

(a) (b)

Figure B11. University of Adelaide consolidation model – spring.

(a) side view. (b) top view.

39
Figure B12. University of Adelaide consolidation model: pressure gauge
and isolation valve.
(Note that the valve is used to isolate and protect the pressure gauge from large
positive and negative pressures that may occur during maintenance and abnormal
operation, as the gauge is the most expensive part of the model.)

Figure B13. University of Adelaide consolidation model:

permeability valve.
40
 Figure B14. University of Adelaide consolidation model: 1 kg weights.
(4 of, 65 mm dia.  37 mm thick.)

Figure B15. University of Adelaide consolidation model:

load markings on chamber.
(Note: The markings are used to indicate applied load in Newtons and their spacing is
dependent on the spring constant of the spring used. They were marked on the
chamber simply by placing each weight successively on the loading platen.)

41

View publication stats