Executive Summary

Hydrometer
The hydrometer test is used to classify fine grained soils (like a sieve analysis). The experiment consisted of taking measurements with the hydrometer in several time increments. Once this was done a series of calculations were carried out in order to find the corresponding particle diameter size and suspension in soil (percent passing). Using this set of values, a grainsize distribution curve was created. The coefficient of curvature was determined to be 1.219 and coefficient of uniformity was determined to be 5.833. The ASTM number for this procedure was D422-63.

Compaction
A standard proctor compaction test consists of compacting soil with a particular moisture content into a cylindrical mold. The soil is compacted into a certain amount of layers using a certain amount of blows per layer. Height and weight of the hammer must be consistent. This is repeated several times for different moisture contents. The graph produced by dry density and moisture content is the compaction curve. The optimal moisture content for this particular soil sample was determined to be 21% with a density of 95.5 procedure was D698-12. . The ASTM number for this

Consolidation
The Consolidation test was performed to determine the deformation-time graph and the stress-void ratio graph for a particular soil sample. Evaluating the data from these graphs, the Compression Index line was plotted and stress was determined as shown in Figure 9. The ASTM number for this procedure was D2435/D2435M/11.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..1

Table of Contents..2

Introduction...3

Procedure...5

Analysis.6

Conclusion.17

References..18

Introduction

Hydrometer
A Hydrometer test, like the Sieve Analysis, is used to determine the particle size distribution measurement of a soil. This method further separates fine soil particles so that a complete grain size distribution curve can be produced. From this curve, many important aspects of the soil can be determined and a general classification of the soil can be made. P=( V= D=k Cu = Cc = (R - G1) (Eq. 1) (Eq. 2) (Eq. 3) (Eq. 4) (Eq. 5)

Compaction
A standard proctor compaction test consists of compacting soil at a given moisture content into a cylindrical mold. The soil is compacted into a certain amount of layers using a certain amount of blows per layer. Height and weight of the hammer must be consistent. This is repeated several times for different moisture contents. The graph produced by dry density and moisture content is the compaction curve. Optimal moisture content is the peak of this curve. Soil Weight = (Weight of Proctor + Soil) (Weight of Proctor) Moisture Content = (Eq. 6)
(Eq. 7)

Consolidation
Consolidation test are performed to determine the magnitude and rate of volume decrease that a soil sample experiences when a certain vertical load is placed on it. Using the pressure and void ratio, the consolidation curve can be plotted and used to determine the compression index, recompression index, and preconsolidation pressure. The data can also be evaluated for the coefficient of consolidation and the coefficient of secondary consolidation. H = ho + h h = R100 R0 Cv = e = (Eq. 8) (Eq. 9) (Eq. 10) (Eq. 11)

Permeability
The purpose of this test is to determine the permeability of a soil sample using the constant head method. There are two general types of permeability test methods that are routinely performed in the laboratory. The constant head method is used for permeable soils (k>10-4 cm/s) and the falling head test is typically used for all other soils. K= (Eq. 12)

Procedure

Hydrometer
The list of materials/equipment used for the Hydrometer Lab were a soil sample, water, a scale, a dish, a stopwatch, a thermometer, and a hydrometer. Ten grams of soil was passed through a No. 200 sieve and mixed with a 125 mL solution. The solution was then mixed thoroughly and temperature was recorded ever 2, 5, 15, 30, 60, and 90 minutes. Using the equations given in the introduction, the charts and data in the analysis section were obtained.

Compaction
The list of materials/equipment used for the Compaction Lab were 2,500g of soil, a large pan, a hammer, a No. 4 sieve, a standard proctor mod, 750 mL of water, three cans, a scale, and an oven. All soil for the experiment had to pass through the No. 4 sieve. Then 500 mL of water was added to the soil and mixed in thoroughly and then scooped into the standard proctor mod until it was about halfway full. The hammer was used to perform 25 blows to the soil, and this was repeated three times, forming three layers. The weight of the standard proctor mod was taken both before and after the soil was added and compacted. This whole process was the repeated three times (adding another 125 mL of water to the soil each time). Moisture content was determined for all three attempts.

Consolidation
The list of materials/equipment for the Consolidation Lab were a can, a soil sample, a stopwatch, the consolidation machine, and several weights. The soil sample with a known value of e was placed on the machine and closely watched every day. The deformation values were recorded every 15 seconds, minute, hour, etc. for each day and after new pressures were applied to the soil sample. These values were collected and analyzed in a chart, which was then used to develop the time-deformation graph for each day. Those graphs were all used to develop the stress-void ration graph for the entire experiment.

Permeability

Given a certain set of values in class, and using Eq. 12, the k value was able to be easily determined for the Permeability Lab. After retrieving the k value, Table 19-1 was used to classify this particular soil sample.

Analysis

Hydrometer

Table #1 (Hydrometer) Time (minutes) 2 5 15 30 60 90 Reading 1.005 1.0035 1.0025 1.002 1.002 1.0015 Composite Correction 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Corrected Temperature Reading (C) 1.004 22 1.0025 22 1.0015 22 1.001 22 1.001 22 1.0005 22 L (mm) 15.2 15.65 15.9 16 16 16.15 k 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 D (mm) 0.0364 0.0233 0.0136 0.0093 0.0066 0.005592 %P 63.81 39.88 23.93 15.95 15.95 7.98

Figure #1 (Percent Passing)

% Passing
70 60 50 % Passing 40 30 20 10 0 0.1 0.01 Diameter (mm) 0.001

D10 = 0.006mm D30 = 0.016mm D60 = 0.035mm Cu = 5.833 Cc = 1.219

Compaction
Soil = 2,500 g Pan = 0.976 kg Soil Dry W% = 2.17% Standard Proctor Mod = 8.73 lbs.

Table #2 Compaction

Trial container number Container + wet soil (g) Container + dry soil (g) Container (g)

1 157 45.82 44 16.4

2 193 37.56 35.35 16.26

3 15 31.35 28.88 13.79

4 95 28.28 25.73 13.76

5 155 38.34 33.91 16.86

6 165 41.83 35.83 16.65

7

Water Ww (g) Dry soil Ws (g) Moisture content (%) Mass mold + Compacted Soil (lb) Mass Mold (lb) Mass compacted soil (lb) Dry Density (lb/ft^3) Wet Density (lb/ft^3)

1.82 27.6 6.6 12.53 9.402 3.128 88.03 93.84

2.21 19.09 11.6

3.07 14.49 21.1

2.55 11.97 21.3 12.48 8.73 3.75 92.75 112.5

4.43 17.05 26 12.45 8.73 3.72 88.57 111.6

6 19.18 31.2 12.51 8.73 3.78 86.43 113.4

12.778 13.044 9.402 9.402 3.376 3.642 90.76 95.43 101.29 109.26

Figure #2 (Optimum Moisture Content)

Optimum W%
96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (lb/ft^3)

Optimum Moisture Content = 21% = 95. 5

Consolidation
Table #3 (July 16th [Load = 2/3]) Approximate Time (min) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 120 240 480 720 1080 1440 Dial (revs) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Dial (div) 92 91.5 90.9 90.8 90.6 90.4 90.1 90 89.7 89.5 89.2 89.1 89 89 89 Actual Time Deformation (in.) 0.792 0.7915 0.7909 0.7908 0.7906 0.7904 0.7901 0.79 0.7897 0.7895 0.7892 0.7891 0.789 0.789 0.789

Figure #3

July 16th (Load = 2/3)

0.792 0.7915 Deformation (in.) 0.791 0.7905 0.79 0.7895 0.789 0.7885 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time (log-scale)

Table #4 (July 17th [Load = 4/3]) Approximate Time (min) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 120 240 480 720 1080 1440 Dial (revs) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Dial (div) 82 81 80 79 78 76 74 72 71 70 69 68.5 68.5 68 Actual Time Deformation (in.) 0.782 0.781 0.78 0.779 0.778 0.776 0.774 0.772 0.771 0.77 0.769 0.7685 0.7685 0.768 0

Figure #4

July 17th (Load = 4/3)

0.784 0.782 0.78 Deformation (in.) 0.778 0.776 0.774 0.772 0.77 0.768 0.766 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time (log-scale)

10

Table #5 (July 18th [Load = 8/3]) Approximate Time (min) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 120 240 480 720 1080 1440 Dial (revs) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Dial (div) 59 58 57 55 53 50 48 46.5 45.5 44.9 43.9 43 42.5 42 41 Figure #5 Actual Time Deformation (in.) 0.759 0.758 0.757 0.755 0.753 0.75 0.748 0.7465 0.7455 0.7449 0.7439 0.743 0.7425 0.742 0.741

July 18th (Load = 8/3)

0.76 0.758 0.756 Deformation (in.) 0.754 0.752 0.75 0.748 0.746 0.744 0.742 0.74 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time (log-scale)

11

Table #6 (July 19th [Load = 16/3]) Approximate Time (min) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 120 240 480 720 1080 1440 Dial (revs) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Dial (div) 41 32 31 30 28 24 21 19 18 17 16 15 15 14 14 13 Figure #6 Actual Time Deformation (in.) 0.041 0.032 0.031 0.03 0.028 0.024 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.013

July 19th (Load = 16/3)

0.035 0.03 Deformation (in.) 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time (log-scale)

12

Table #7 (July 20th [Load = 8/3]) Approximate Time (min) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 120 240 480 720 1080 1440 Dial (revs) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Dial (div) 13 15.5 16 16.5 17 17 17.5 17.5 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Actual Time Deformation (in.) 0.713 0.7155 0.716 0.7165 0.717 0.717 0.7175 0.7175 0.718 0.718 0.718 0.718 0.718 0.718 0.718 0

Figure #7

July 20th (Load = 8/3)

0.1 0.715 0.7155 Deformation (in.) 0.716 0.7165 0.717 0.7175 0.718 0.7185 1 Time (log-scale) 10 100 1000 10000

13

Table #8 (July 21st [Load = 2/3]) Approximate Time (min) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 120 240 480 720 1080 1440 Dial (revs) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Dial (div) 18 21 23 24 26 28 29 31 31.5 32 32.5 32.5 33 33 33 Actual Time Deformation (in.) 0.718 0.721 0.723 0.724 0.726 0.728 0.729 0.731 0.7315 0.732 0.7325 0.7325 0.733 0.733 0.733 0

Figure #8

July 21st (Load = 2/3)

0.1 0.72 0.722 Deformation (in.) 0.724 0.726 0.728 0.73 0.732 0.734 1 Time (log-scale) 10 100 1000 10000

14

Table #9 (Consolidation) Load (tsf) Ro (in) R100 (in) R50 (in) t50 (min) DH (in) H (in) cv (in2/min .)
0.0028471 0.0028868 0.0055495 0.0052937 0.0088663 0.0038778

De

e
1.077

P (psf)
666.667 1333.33 2666.66 5333.33 10666.7 5333.33 1333.33

2/3 4/3 8/3 16/3 8/3 2/3

0.7912 0.782 0.757 0.0325 0.7162 0.7255

0.78905 0.7685 0.742 0.015 0.718 0.733

0.7901 0.7753 0.7495 0.0238 0.7171 0.7293

10.5 10 5 5 3 7

-0.0021 -0.0135 -0.015 -0.0175 0.0018 0.0075

0.7791 0.7656 0.7506 0.7331 0.7349 0.7424

-0.0057 -0.0359 -0.0399 -0.0465 0.0048 0.0199

1.0713 1.0354 0.9955 0.9489 0.9537 0.9737

Figure #9 (Consolidation)

Consolidation Reduction Curve

1.1 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 100 1000 Load Stress (psf) 10000 100000

Void Ratio [e]

15

Permeability
Q = 14,100 cm3 L = 11.43 cm t = 3600 s h1 = 10.9 cm h2 = 5.4 cm H = (h1 h1) = 5.5 cm D = 10.16 cm A = (D*L) = 116.1288 cm2 k= = 7.009 x 10-2

Soil Type = Clean sands, clean sand and gravel mixtures

16

Conclusions Hydrometer
The soil sample was extremely fine grained based on the recorded data. It would be classified as a silty sand soil with an extremely high percentage passing the No. 200 sieve.

Compaction
Using the Moisture Content-Dry Density graph, the optimum moisture content was estimated to be somewhere around 21%. This value represents the maximum density that can be achieved by the given soil sample, which in this case was 95.5 .

Consolidation
The lab is not yet complete but from the information gathered so far, the graph produced a clear Coefficient of Consolidation and the reduction curve acted in normal fashion. More information on this experiment will be presented in the final lab report.

Permeability
A calculated Coefficient of permeability (k) value of 7.009 x 10-2 , means that this soil

was some type of clean sand or clean sand and gravel mixture. This means that the soil would have good drainage and could easily be directly tested for using the constant-head or falling-head permeameter.

17

References
1. Donald P. Coduto, Man-chu Ronald Yeung, William A. Kitch (2011). Geotechnical
Engineering Principles and Practices, 2nd Edition, Pearson Higher Education, Inc.

2. ASTM Hach Procedures, online database, www.hach.com 3. Table 19-1, After Casagrande and Fadum (1940).

18