Stephen Abbott UB: 10007973 Laboratory Report Before design can begin on a projects foundation local subsoil samples

must be collected and their properties assessed. By finding out the properties of the local subsoil the engineer can confirm the suitability of the design. Soil samples can be classified in different ways such as physical properties, chemical composition and particle size. In this lab tests we focused on the particle size classification, which can also be referred to as Particle size distribution which breaks the soil samples into 4 different groups depending on their particle size. In the laboratory we tested the particle size of sand and gravel samples to get their size distribution by using the sieving method, this involved setting up a series of sieves each with different diameters on the filters (largest being at the top) a sample was set up at the top layer and then the entire tower was shaken until we were satisfied that the particles had travelled as far as they could. Taking each sieve in turn we weighed it up and calculated the % of the sample that had been retained , this allows us to see how much of the sample would be classified as gravel or as sand since gravel is classified as having a particle size of greater than 2mm whereas sand is anything from 2mm to 0.06mm in size. Therefore any particles caught on the 2mm or less sieves we can assume is gravel unless there is an error with sand particles being loosely bonded and therefore not passing through the sieves. Tables of the results of the test can be found below. These show off the amount each sieve size retained both in weight and in percentage of the final total weight. gravel Sieve Avg % Size(mm) Test 1 Test 2 Average retained % Passing 20 0 0 0 0.00 100.00 14 0 0 0 0.00 100.00 10 63.45 57.81 60.63 6.11 93.89 9.5 52.58 44.8 48.69 11.01 88.99 8 280.84 290.04 285.44 39.77 60.23 6.7 326.57 285.06 305.815 70.59 29.41 5 205.9 222.28 214.09 92.16 7.84 3.35 37.25 34.88 36.065 95.79 4.21 2.36 4.16 4.96 4.56 96.25 3.75 Pan 26.02 48.44 37.23 100.00 0.00 total 996.77 988.27 992.52

% of Gravel Passing
140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 % Passing Linear (% Passing)

Sand Sieve Size(mm) 2 1.18 0.6 0.425 0.3 0.212 0.15 0.063 pan total

Test 1 0 3.57 196.17 0.09 0.03 0.01 0 0 0 199.87

Test 2 0 2.86 196.78 0.15 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 199.95

Average 0 3.215 196.475 0.12 0.065 0.015 0.01 0.01 0 199.91

Avg % retained 0.00 1.61 99.89 99.95 99.98 99.99 99.99 100.00 100.00

% passing 100.00 98.39 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

% of Sand Passing
120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0 -20.00 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 % passing Linear (% passing)

Cohesive soils or more commonly known as clay and silt, do not work very well with sieve testing due to their sticky nature making it very tricky to get particles to fall through the sieves without sticking to the sieve itself. That and due to the particle size of cohesive soils very fine mesh would be required for the testing which becomes more expensive and increasingly frail. Particle sizes for cohesive soils range from 0.06mm to 0.002mm (silt) and less than 0.002mm (clay). Therefore instead of classicisation via particle size we determine Atterberg limits so we can determine between clay and slit but this will also result in a plasticity index of the samples. We can find the liquid limit of a sample by using the falling cone test; this is a more scientific method when compared to the Casagrande device since it has a reduced change for human error. The falling cone method finds the liquid limit when the cone can drop to a depth of 20mm through the sample (British standards). We look for the liquid limit because it gives us the point where the particles start acting as a liquid rather than a plastic mass, this is due to thin film of water covering the particles, when enough water has been added (liquid limit) the particles slide past each other with reduced friction therefore requiring a reduced shear force to deform. From the table of results below we can see that the initial tests were the closest to the liquid limit, since they were closest in result to a penetration of 20mm liquid limit test a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2 d1 d2 initial dial reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mean final dial penetration penetration 20.46 20.46 20.325 20.19 20.19 22.79 22.79 22.52 22.25 22.25 16.48 16.48 16.62 16.76 16.76 18.49 18.49 18.24 17.99 17.99

Moisture content data mass of mass of mass of mass of moisture test tin no tin tin+wsoil tin+dry water soil mass content a1 b48 18.12 26.59 24.32 2.27 6.2 36.6129 a2 b68 16.51 25.72 23.28 2.44 6.77 36.04136 b1 b41 18.06 24.31 22.6 1.71 4.54 37.6652 b2 b58 17.35 24.18 22.34 1.84 4.99 36.87375 c1 b34 17.57 26.27 23.78 2.49 6.21 40.09662 c2 b18 17.88 27.73 24.79 2.94 6.91 42.54703 d1 b8 17.12 24.51 22.28 2.23 5.16 43.21705 d2 b59 17.35 24.71 22.45 2.26 5.1 44.31373 By using the same formula for working out moisture content we can figure out the liquid limit. mean Wc 36.32713 37.26947 41.32183 43.76539

This gives us a result for the liquid limit as 41.780%. The other atterberg limit required is the plastic limit; this is the point where the soil sample moves from the plastic to semi solid state. This test is done by getting a sample and rolling it out to a diameter of 3mm, if the sample can be rolled out to less than this then the water content is too high and the sample needs kneading to reduce the water content. When the samples are ready they are left in an oven overnight to have their water content removed, this means when we weigh the result we can calculate what the water content was which will give us the plastic limit, provided all the water content results are within 0.5% of each other. Plastic limit Test a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2 d1 d2 tin no b27 b20 b95 c40 b10 b26 b69 c6 mass of mass of mass moisture tin tin+wclay tin+dry water mass soil content mean w 17.87 20.27 19.82 0.45 1.95 23.07692 22.75797 18.24 20.75 20.29 0.46 2.05 22.43902 17.44 19.08 18.76 0.32 1.32 24.24242 24.22167 26.58 29.3 28.77 0.53 2.19 24.20091 17.28 19.3 18.98 0.32 1.7 18.82353 23.01176 17.61 19.2 18.86 0.34 1.25 27.2 17.45 19.99 19.53 0.46 2.08 22.11538 21.94479 15.67 17.18 16.91 0.27 1.24 21.77419

By getting the mean value of the moisture content from all the tests we can get the plastic limit, in this case the result for the Plastic limit was 22.983%. With both the liquid limit and plastic limit available to us we can now calculate the plasticity index, this is a simple formula. Plasticity Index = Liquid limit plastic limit. By using this formula we can get a result of is 21.797% for the plasticity limit. Whilst in the laboratory we also performed the Proctor compaction test, this test aims to find the maximum dry density of the sample and also finds the optimum moisture content for the soil sample. This test requires we get a dry sample and add a water so it has a small water content (about 5%) we then fill the container about a 3rd of the way up before compacting it with 27 blows from the 2.5kg ram being dropped 300mm each time. We repeat this process of filling the container up about a 3rd each time until the sample is fully compacted, this process of filling the container up in parts allows the entire sample to become fully compacted and free of any trapped air which would affect the density results. A table for which can be found below.

Trial 1 Total Mass of Soil & Mould (g) Total Mass of Soil in Mould (g) Mass of Container (g) Mass of Container & Wet Soil (g) Mass of Container & Dry Soil (g) Soil Mass (g) Water Mass (g) 3923

Trial 2 4051

Trial 3 4220

Trial 4 4220

Trial 5 4179

Trial 6 4096

1923

2051

2220

2220

2179

2096

10.95

10.51

9.85

11.36

14.51

10.87

25.51

30.45

28.45

40.65

45.85

38.65

24.31

28.6

26.38

37.19

41.81

34.82

13.36 1.2

18.09 1.85

16.53 2.07

25.83 3.46

27.3 4.04

23.95 3.83

References Liquid limits and fall cones (http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp/rppdf/t96-104.pdf) Soil Compaction - http://www.concrete-catalog.com/soil_compaction.html