You are on page 1of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Geology Laboratory Report


Student Surname : Orme Roll number Roll number Roll number Roll number : @00311711 Forename : Gemma Forename : Ryan Forename : James : : : Student Surname : Small Student Surname : Downs Student Surname : Newton Date of laboratory session : 16th January 2012 Date of report submission : Submitted to Mr Haynes % mark distribution Objective and References Health & Safety Risk assessment Theory Apparatus Procedure Results Discussion Conclusion Summary of observed experiments Critical review Total Good points about this report : % 5 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 100 Actual Mark Forename : Matthew

Points for improvement in this report :

Page 1 of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Health, Safety & Welfare Risk Assessment


Location : Geology Lab G71
Raw Risk Persons at Risk Probability of Occurrence

Date : 16/01/2012
Residual Risk

Probability of Occurrence

Severity of Occurrence

Risk

Slips, Trips & Falls *Falling over equipment *Water on floor from bucket Electrocution *Electricity coming into contact from Agitator with water Manual Handling *Lifting wet container *Dropping of sieves

Everyone

*Towels placed around bucket to catch water *Equipment kept away from central areas

Everyone

*Insulate all wiring *Equipment checked regularly *Water kept away from electrical equipment

Students

*Rubber gloves given out to handle glass tubes. *Plastic tubes used instead of glass; more grip *Reduce number of sieves carried

Machinery *Hands getting caught in Agitator

Students

*Cage erected around the machine *Agitator secured down with better strapping while in use

Infection *Inhaling dust *Rubbing eyes with dirty hands

Students

*Misters to reduce the amount of dust *Dont use hands until they have been washed using the disinfectant spays.

Page 2 of 9

Risk

Hazard

Comments or Control Measures Specified by the Assessor

Severity of Occurrence

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Objective
The aim of this laboratory experiment is to calculate the in situ water content and the particle density of a given soil sample which has been agitated through an Agitator Machine. The second aim is to carry out experimental work to determine the range of particle sizes contained within the given soil sample, from which, a soil classification is to be recorded.

Theory
The laboratory work is to be carried out in accordance with the guidelines provided in Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design Part 2: Ground Investigation and BS1377 (1990) Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes. Soils are naturally occurring materials. Each soil sample has to be classified based on the particle sizes located within the sample. These particles sizes define the type it is from Clay all the way to Gravel. The table for soil classification is shown below. Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse
< 0.002 (<2 m) 0.002-0006 (2-6m) 0.006-0.02 (6-20m) 0.02-0.06 (2060m) 0.06-0.2 (60-200m) 0.2-0.6 0.6-2 2-6 6-20 20-60

Size Range (mm)

Equations to be used (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Page 3 of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Apparatus

Fig.1-Range of sieves

Fig.2-Agitator Machine
Page 4 of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Procedure
Take your wet soil sample and weigh it on the scales to determine its wet mass, M. Place your soil sample in the drying oven for a period of 24 hours at a constant temperature. Take the soil sample and measure it using the scales provided to determine the dry content mass, Ms Take the values for wet mass and dry mass and using Equation 1 calculate the situ water content, W. Using your eye, determine the largest particle within the soil sample. Take this rock and use it to gauge which sieve size should be the starting point for the sieve tower. Select a range of sieve sizes that are evenly distributed, ranging from <2m to 60mm. Making sure they cover all the categories ranging from Clay through to Gravel. Take your selected sieves and place them in size order one on top of each other. Place a lid on top of the stack and a base container underneath. Place the sieve stack in the Agitator Machine for a period of 20 seconds. Take out the sieve stack and weigh each individual sieve with the soil present. Then weigh the sieve on its own to deduce the weight of the soil in each level, recording each weight in the table provided.

The next procedure is to calculate the particle density of the soil sample. This process will be referring to Fig.3 below. This is done by taking a smaller sample of the soil and placing it in a tall glass tube. Firstly take the empty glass tube with its lid and weigh it to find M1. Then place your smaller soil sample in the glass tube and reweigh the tube to find M2. With the soil sample still inside, fill the tube to its absolute limit. Replace the lid, making sure no air bubble is present above the water line. Weigh the tube to get M3. Decant the contents of the tube into the bucket provided and fill the tube up again but this time with just water. Weigh the tube one final time to get M4. Now use the four weights; M1, M2, M3 and M4 in Equation 6 to calculate the particle density of the soil sample.

Fig.3-Particle density of sample

Page 5 of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Results
Wet mass was equal to 1636.2g and the dry mass was equal to 1534.7g. Using Eq.1 the mass of water was found to be 101.5g. Using Eq.2 the in situ water content was calculated as 6.61%. After completing the second procedure outlined in Fig.3, the particle density of the soil sample was found, using Eq.6 to be 2.63Mg/m3. Below you will find the tabulated results of the mass retained in each sieve used in the stack.

BS test Sieve 37.5mm 28mm 20mm 14mm 10mm 6.3mm 3.35mm 2mm 850 m 600 m 300 m 212 m 63 m Passing 63 m

Mass retained, M. (g) 0 200.9 95.7 165.7 189.4 188.8 168.6 108.8 105.4 35.2 123.7 35.9 83.3 21.8

Percentage Retained (m/m1)100 0 13.1% 6.2% 10.8% 12.3% 12.3% 10.9% 7.1% 6.9% 2.3% 8.1% 2.3% 5.4% 1.4%

Cumulative percentage passing 0 13.1% 19.3% 30.1% 42.4% 54.7% 65.6% 72.7% 79.6% 81.9% 90% 92.3% 97.2% 99.1%

Page 6 of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Fig.4 Graph showing the comparison of mass retained in each sieve.

Page 7 of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Discussion
The aim of this experiment was to determine the soil classification for the given soil sample. This was done by running the soil sample through a selection of sieves to determine the mass retained by each sieve within the stack. Sieving the sample for 20 seconds produced the table of results, which in turn was converted into a easy to view bar chart. As you can see the sieve which retained the most amount of mass was the 28mm sieve. The mass retained in the remaining sieves in retained size order was then the; 10mm, 6.3mm, 14mm and 3.35mm. All these sieves retained mass above the 150g limit. This shows that the soil sample was mainly populated with large particles, as the nano sieves (600m, 212 and passing 63m) all had mass retained below the 50g limit. This larger quantity of particles means than the soil sample will have a greater amount of empty space to fill in the gaps around these particles and would fall into the soil classification of medium to coarse gravel. This empty space will usually be filled with water molecules when in the ground, this will mean that any structure that will be built on top of this soil, will need to be spread evenly over the ground to stop the supports from sinking into these empty spaces. If the opposite would have been, and the greatest mass retained would have been found in the nano-metre sieves, then the sample could have been classified as a silt or clay. This would have meant the soil would be more compact but without the large particles present, supports could still sink through the soil. With this knowledge, the best circumstance would be to have a soil sample which was classified in the mid region of sand/gravel. This classification will give enough support in the larger particles but still have the small particles to stop water from entering the empty space.

Page 8 of 9

School of Computing, Science & Engineering

Geology Laboratory Design Group 9

Conclusion
The brief of this experiment was to, calculate the in situ water content and the particle density of a given soil sample which has been agitated through an Agitator Machine. This experiment was conducted using a range of sieves totalling 13 with the greatest being 28mm to the smallest being passing 63m. The mass retained was tabulated in an ongoing manner and then pulled together into a chart. From this chart it was deduced that the soil sample was of a medium to coarse gravel based on the largest mass retained being found in the 28, 10 and 6.3mm sieves. All of which fall within the gravel classification. It was also calculated that the in situ water content was 6.61% and the particle density was 2.63 Mg/m3. It is believed that with the presented results, discussion and findings, that the brief was successfully met and that the experiment was a success.

Page 9 of 9