UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING

FCE 311: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY

DETERMINATION OF THE DRY DENSITY

OF SOIL IN SITU
SAND REPLACEMENT METHOD
OBJECTIVE:

To determine the dry density of a sample of soil in-situ by sand replacement method.

INTRODUCTION

This method covers the in situ determination of the dry density of natural or compacted soil. The
method is applicable to soils containing not less than 90% passing the 1in (25mm) sieve. Sieve and
compacted layers not exceeding 20cm (8in.) thickness.

PRINCIPLE OF METHOD:

a) The method is based on excavating a round hole in soil stratum weighing the amount of soil
excavated and measuring the volume of the hole by filling it with calibrated dry sand.

b) The dry density of the soil is found as the dry weight of the excavated soil divided by the
volume of the hole that was occupied by that soil.

APPARATUS:

a) A pouring cylinder incorporating a shutter and a cone.

b) A calibrating can of size corresponding to (a), i.e. for the medium size 15cm diameter and
20cm deep.

c) Suitable tools for excavating holes in the soil e.g. bent spoon, dibber, chisel or other hand
tools.

d) A balance readable and accurate to 1g.

e) A glass plate about 50cm square and 9mm thick or any plane smooth surface of this size or
larger.

f) A metal tray 30cm square and 4cm deep, with 15cm diameter hole in the middle for the
medium size equipment.

g) Metal containers with lids to take excavated soil. The same container may or may not be
 used for drying the soil.

h) A drying oven capable of maintaining a temperature of 105-110˚C.

In-situ density sand replacement (small cone), dia.100mm

SOURCE: http://soilpro.com.my/sts.html.

MATERIAL:

Clean uniform natural sand, i.e. material passing B.S. sieve no. 25 and retained on B.S. sieve no.
52. The material is then oven dried and stored to allow its moisture content to reach equilibrium
with atmospheric humidity.

METHODOLOGY

CALIBRATION OF APPARATUS:

a) The pouring cylinder was filled with the prepared sand and weighed (weight W1). This
total weight was maintained throughout the experiment for which the calibration was
used.
b) The pouring cylinder was then placed on a glass plate and the shutter opened to allow
sand to run out. Care was taken to ensure that the pouring cylinder was not tapped or
vibrated. When no further movement of sand takes place in the cylinder, the shutter
was closed and the cylinder removed carefully.
 c) The amount of sand filling the cone was weighed. This procedure was repeated three
times and the mean mass (W2) recorded.

BULK DENSITY OF SAND:

a) The volume (V) of the calibration can was first determined by weighing the amount of
water required to fill it exactly to the rim.
b) The pouring cylinder was then filled to the predetermined mass (W1) and placed
concentrically on top of the calibrating can. The shutter was opened and sand allowed
to run out, care was taken not to tap or vibrate the pouring cylinder. When no further
movement of sand takes place, the shutter was closed, the cylinder removed and
weighed. This procedure was repeated three times and the mean mass recorded (W3).

MEASUREMENT OF SOIL DENSITY:

a) A flat area of the soil (about 45cm) to be tested was exposed and trimmed down to a level
surface.
b) The metal tray was then placed on the prepared surface and using the hole in the tray as a
pattern, a hole in the soil (about 15 cm diameters and up to a maximum of 20cm deep)
excavated. (The dimensions depended on the size of the apparatus.). No loose material was
left in the hole. All excavated soil in the container was carefully collected and kept closed
between fillings. The tray was removed and any spilling of soil collected.
c) The pouring cylinder filled to the predetermined mass (W1) was then placed to cover the
hole concentrically. The shutter was then opened to allow sand to run out, but care was
taken to avoid tapping or vibrating the cylinder. When no further movement of sand took
place, the shutter was closed and the cylinder removed.
d) The pouring cylinder was weighed (W4)
e) The excavated soil sample was weighed (We) and its moisture content (m) determined by
oven-drying a representative part of it, using a container of known mass (Wc).
f) The measurement was repeated at a number of different points of the site to obtain a
representative average density.

RESULTS:
The data was tabulated in the test form attached.

DISCUSSION:

The moisture content, m, of the tested soil sample was determined to be 24.26%, the bulk density
of the soil was also determined to be 1.78g/𝑐𝑚3 and the dry density was found to be 1.44 g/𝑐𝑚3 .
This value is closely related to the theoretical dry density of the soil sample which is between 1.0 -
1.6 g/cm3. From comparison of the two values, it can be noted that the calculated values lies within
the acceptable range

Therefore this procedure can be applied to soils containing not less than 90% passing the 25mm
sieve and having compacted layers not exceeding 20cm thickness. The bulk density of soil
depends on the mineral make up and the degree of compaction. Some errors might have being
incurred when doing the experiment due to sand bulking, sand compaction, soil pumping and void
under plate being large.

CONCLUSION;

The objective was achieved since we were able to determine the dry density of a sample of soil
in-situ by sand replacement method.

REFERENCES:

1. Geotechnical Engineering 3rd year lecture notes and Laboratory manual

2. British Standards Institution, BS1377 “Methods of test for soils for civil engineering
purposes, 1990, BSI, London BS EN 13286-46:2003 Unbound and hydraulically bound
mixtures. Test method for the determination of the moisture condition value

3. Parsons, A.W. The rapid measurement of moisture condition of earthwork mater Transport
and Road Research Laboratory report TRRL 750, 1996

DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY

OF SOIL.
OBJECTIVE:

To determine the specific gravity of a soil sample.

SCOPE:

This method covers the determination of specific gravity of soil of medium and course after
sieving through sieve No. 7. The density of a substance is the mass per unit volume of that
substance. The relative density is the density of a substance with reference to density water.

APPARATUS:

a. Density bottles of approximately 50ml capacity

b. Drying oven

c. A vacuum desiccator or water bath

d. A wash bottle, Water or Paraffin

e. Vacuum pump (if vacuum desiccator is used)

f. A balance readable and accurate to 0.001g

g. A glass rod
Density bottle.

PROCEDURE:

a) The dry density bottles were first weighed to the nearest 0.001g (W1).
b) Then About 15g of oven dried sample sieved through No. 7 BS sieve was put in the
density bottle and weighed (W2)to the nearest 0.001 gms
c) Air-free distilled water was added just to cover the sample, and then placed in the vacuum
desiccator or water bath to dispel the air. The bottle remained there until no further air was
released from the sample.
d) The bottle was later removed from the desiccator or water bath, and the air-free liquid
added until the bottle was full. The stopper was then inserted and the bottle with its
contents weighed (W3).
e) Thereafter, the bottle was completely cleaned and filled with the air-free liquid. The
stopper was inserted, the bottle wiped dry and finally weighed (W4).

RESULTS:

See the attached sheet of paper

CALCULATIONS:

The specific gravity of the sample (Gs) was calculated from the formula
𝑤2−𝑤1
Gs=
(𝑤4−𝑤1)−(𝑤3−𝑤2)
72.95−57.95
For the case of bottle E, GS =
(159.85−57.95)−(169.25−72.95)
= 2.679

80.40−62.40
For the case of bottle F, GS =
(171.10−62.40)−(182.57−80.40)
= 2.8

2.679+2.8
Average Gs =
2

= 2.739gms.

DISCUSSION:
The specific gravity of the sample specimen used in this experiment was found was to be 2.739.
The theoretical Specific gravity of most common minerals found in soils fall within a range of
2.6-2.9. The specific gravity of sandy soil is estimated to be 2.65 whereas for clayey and silty soils,
it varies from 2.6 to 2.9. Soils containing organic matter and porous particles may have a specific
gravity value below 2.0, while soils having heavy substances may have values above 3.0.
The major source of error in the experiment is complete removal of air from the sample. Also loss
of water of hydration of the oven dried sample may lead to errors. Presence of organic matter may
also reduce the specific gravity.

CONCLUSION:

The objectives of the experiment were achieved since we were able to determine the specific
gravity for the soil sample after sieving through sieve no. 7.It was found from the experiment to be
2.739.

The specific gravity is applicable in finding out the degree of saturation. Specific gravity of soils is
useful in finding out the degree of saturation voids ratio and unit weight of moist soils. The unit
weight is required in calculation of pressure settlement and stability problems in soil engineering.
Specific gravity is also in computing particle rise of soil in sedimentation analysis.

REFERENCES:

1. Geotechnical Engineering 3rd year notes.

2. Laboratory Manual.
3. L. S. Blake, “Civil Engineer’s Reference Book, “Reed Educational and Professional
Publishing Ltd, 1989, 4th Edition, page 4/6.

DYNAMIC COMPACTION USING A 2.5 KG

RAMMER
OBJECTIVE:

To determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a soil sample.

SCOPE:
This method covers the determination of the dry density of soil when compacted over a range of
moisture contents. It is applicable to soils containing not less than about 90% passing the ¾ in. (19)
mm BS test sieve.

PRINCIPLE OF METHOD

The method is based on series of tests, each of which includes compacting the soil at different
moisture content into a specified mould by means of a rammer. The dry density of the soil is
plotted as a function of the moisture content and a maximum dry density is determined as well as
optimum moisture content.

APPARATUS:

a) A metal mould with a detachable base plate and a removable collar.

b) Measuring cylinder and water.
c) A ¾ in. 19mm BS tests sieve and metal trays.
d) A metal rammer weighing 2.5kg with sleeve to control the specified drop of 30.5cm.
e) A balance, hand tools and straight-edge.
f) A sample extruder, oven and moisture content dishes.
PROCEDURE:

1. Air dry sample of about 20kg, passing 19mm B.S sieve was prepared. 6 sub-samples were
taken from the sample weighing about 3kg each.
2. The samples were then mixed with different amounts of water to give suitable range of
moisture contents. An increment of water from one sub-sample to the next was 1-2% or
2-4%.
3. The mould was weighed with the base plate, (W1) and the collar attached.
4. Each sub-sample was then compacted into the mould in 3 layers of equal weight with each
layer given 25 blows from the rammer dropped above the soil.
5. The collar was removed and the excess soil trimmed off. The mould, base plate and soil
specimen contained, were weighed (W2).
6. The specimen was then extruded from the mould and a representative part of the specimen
taken for moisture content determination (m). The same procedure was repeated for each
sub-sample.
RESULTS:

The results obtained was tabulated in the table attached

The maximum dry density (MDD) =1.31g/cm3

Optimum moisture content (OMC) =31.5%

DISCUSSION:

The relationship between dry density and percentage moisture content is shown in the graph
above: compaction curve. The dry density at the peak of the curve is called the Maximum dry
density/dry density at 100% compaction, and the corresponding water content is known as the
Optimum moisture content. In this case, the Maximum dry density is 1.31 g/cm3 and the optimum
moisture content is 31.5 %.

Mechanical compaction is one of the most common and cost effective means of stabilizing soils.
An extremely important task of geotechnical engineers is the performance and analysis of field
control tests to assure that compacted fills are meeting the prescribed design specifications. Design
specifications usually state the required density, and the water content. In general, most
engineering properties, such as the strength, stiffness, resistance to shrinkage, and imperviousness
of the soil, will improve by increasing the soil density. The optimum water content is the water
content that results in the greatest density for a specified compactive effort. Compacting at water
contents higher than (wet of ) the optimum water content results in a relatively dispersed soil
structure (parallel particle orientations) that is weaker, more ductile, less pervious, softer, more
susceptible to shrinking, and less susceptible to swelling than soil compacted dry of optimum to
the same density. The soil compacted lower than (dry of) the optimum water content typically
results in a flocculated soil structure (random particle orientations) that has the opposite
characteristics of the soil compacted wet of the optimum water content to the same density .Errors
which might have incurred when doing the experiment include

a) The soil might not have been thoroughly mixed to achieve uniform moisture.
b) The wrong mold being used for the test.
c) The mold used being out of calibration tolerances.
d) The compaction block being not of sufficient mass.
e) The compaction block being unstable.
 f) The wrong rammer being used for the test.
g) The drop of the rammer being incorrect.
h) The manual rammer is not lifted to the full stroke.
i) The manual rammer is not held vertically when the blows are delivered.
j) The rammer being not properly cleaned between uses.
k) The mechanical rammer being out of calibration.
l) The wrong number of blows being delivered with the rammer..
m) The sample is might not have been properly dried.

CONCLUSION:

The objectives were achieved since we were able to determine the maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content of the soil sample which were obtained as 1.31g/cm3 and 31.5%
respectively.

REFERENCES:

1. Geotechnical Engineering 3rd year notes

2. Laboratory Manual.
3. British Standards Institution, BS1377 “Methods of test for soils for civil engineering
purposes, 1990.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SCOPE

This method covers the quantitative determination of the particle size distribution in a soil from the
coarse sand size down. The test is not applicable if less than 10% of the material passes the 63 pm
BS test sieve.

APPARATUS
a) A hydrometer of BS 718
b) Two 1000 ml graduated glass measuring cylinders with parallel sides or two parallel sided
glass cylinders with ground glass stoppers about 70mm diameter and 330mm high marked at
1000ml volume
c) A thermometer to cover the temperature range 0°C – 50°C, readable and accurate to 0.5°C
d) A mechanical shaker capable of keeping 75g of soil and 150ml water in continuous
suspension
e) A 100ml measuring cylinder
f) A plastic wash bottle containing distilled water
g) A balance readable and accurate to 0.01g.
h) A thermostatically controlled drying oven, capable of maintaining a temperature of 105℃ to
110℃
i) A stop clock or stop watch.
j) A desiccator of size 200mm to 250mm in diameter containing anhydrous silica gel
k) A millimetre scale
l) Four porcelain evaporating dishes of size 150mm in diameter.
m) A wide mouthed conical flask or conical beaker of 1000ml capacity.
n) A centrifuge capable of holding 250ml capacity bottles.
o) 250ml capacity polypropylene centrifuge bottles...
p) A length of glass rod 150mm to 200mm long and 5mm in diameter.
q) A constant temperature bath or cabinet large enough to take the apparatus used in the test.
 REAGENTS
a) Hydrogen peroxide. A volume solution.
b) Sodium hexametaphosphate solution.

METHODOLOGY
. 33 g of sodium hexametaphosphate and 7 g of sodium carbonate was dissolved in distilled water
to make 1 litre of solution.

MENISCUS CORRECTION
1. The hydrometer was inserted in a 1000 ml measuring cylinder containing about 700 ml of
water.
2. By placing the eye slightly below the plane of the surface of the liquid and then raising it
slowly until the surface seen as an ellipse became a straight line, the point where the plane
intersects the hydrometer scale was determined.
3. By placing the eye slightly above the plane of the surface of the liquid, the point where the
upper limit the meniscus intersects the hydrometer scale was determined.
4. The difference between the two readings taken in 2 and 3 above were recorded as the
meniscus correction,𝐶𝑚 .

PRE-TREATMENT OF SOIL
 1. A sample of air dried soil weighing 75g was obtained by riffling from the air dried bulk
sample obtained. The soil was placed in the wide mouthed conical flask. 150ml of
hydrogen peroxide was then added and the mixture stirred gently with glass rod for a few
minutes, after which it was covered with a cover glass and left to stand overnight. The
mixture in the conical flask was heated gently, care was taken to avoid frothing over and
the contents of the dish were stirred periodically. As soon as vigorous frothing had
subsided the volume was reduced to about 50 ml by boiling.
2. The centrifuge bottle with its stopper was weighed accurately to the nearest 0.001 g and the
contents of the beaker were then transferred to the centrifuge bottle taking care not to lose
any soil in the transfer. The volume of water in the bottle was adjusted to about 200 ml, the
bottle was stoppered and centrifuged for about 15 min about 2000rev/min. the clear
supernatant liquid was decanted and the bottle and it contents placed in the oven and
allowed to dry overnight. The bottle was stoppered and allowed to cool in a desiccator.
After cooling the bottle was reweighed and the mass of the oven dry pre-treated soil was
calculated (m).

DISPERSION OF SOIL
1. 100 ml of the sodium hexametaphosphate solution was added from a pipette to the soil in
the centrifuge bottle and the mixture was the shaken thoroughly until all soil was in
suspension, the centrifuge tube was shaken in the mechanical shaking device for at least 4.
When convenient the soil was left shaking overnight.
2. The suspension was transferred from the centrifuge bottle to the 63𝜇𝑚 BS test sieve placed
on the receiver, and the soil was washed in the sieve using a jet of distilled water from the
wash bottle. The amount of water used during this operation was not exceeding 500 ml. the
suspension that had passed through the sieve was transferred to the 1000 ml measuring
cylinder and made up of exactly 1000 ml with distilled water. The suspension was then
used for the sedimentation analysis.
3. The material retained on the 63𝜇m BS test sieve was transferred to an evaporating dish and
dried in the oven maintained at 105℃ 𝑡𝑜 110℃. After drying; this material was resieved
on 2 mm, 600𝜇𝑚.212𝜇𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 63𝜇𝑚 BS test sieves. The material retained on these sieves
 after the second sieving was weighed and the masses recorded as the mass of gravel,
coarse, medium and fine sand respectively in the sample (𝑚𝑔 , 𝑚𝑐𝑠 , 𝑚𝑚𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑓𝑠 ).

SEDIMENTATION OF SOIL
1. A rubber bung was inserted in the mouth of the measuring cylinder. The measuring
cylinder was then shaken vigorously until a uniform suspension was formed and finally
inverted end-over-end. Immediately the shaking was ceased, the measuring cylinder was
then allowed to stand and the stop watch started. The hydrometer was then immersed to a
depth slightly below its floating position and then allowed to float freely. Hydrometer
readings were then taken after periods of ½ min, 1 min, 2 min, and 4 min. The hydrometer
was then removed slowly, rinsed in distilled water and kept in a cylinder of distilled water
at the same temperature as the soil suspension.
2. The hydrometer was then re-inserted in the suspension and readings taken after periods of
8 min, 15 min, and 30 min, 1 hr, 2 hr, and 4 hr. the hydrometer as then removed, rinsed and
placed in the distillate water after each reading. After 4 hr, sedimentation reading was
taken once daily, the exact period of sedimentation being noted. In taking all readings,
insertion and withdrawal of the hydrometer before and after taking a reading was done
carefully to avoid disturbing the suspension unnecessarily. Ten seconds was allowed for
each operation. Vibration of the sample was avoided.
3. The temperature of the suspension was observed and recorded once during the first 15 min
and then after every subsequent reading. The temperature was read with an accuracy of at
least ±0.5℃
4. The correction, x, was applied for the dispersion agent was ascertained by placing exactly
50ml of the dispersion agent solution in a weighed glass weighing bottle. After evaporating
the water by drying at 105oC to 110oC in the oven, the mass of the dispersing agent, md,
was calculated.
The dispersion agent correction, x, was then calculated from the equation
X=2md

RESULTS
The results obtained were tabulated in the table attached and a semi-logarithmic graph drawn
of k% against Dmm
ANALYSIS

The velocity of a spherical particle sinking in a fluid was given by Stoke’s law as

V = [g x (Gs – γw) x D2] / (18h)

Where,
Gs – Specific gravity
γw – density of water in g/cm3
D – Diameter of particle in cm
g – Gravitational acceleration in cm/s2
h – Viscosity of water at T° in poise

If t in sec is the time taken for a particle of diameter D to fall through a distance HR cm, then

V = HR/t

And

(1800ℎ 𝑥 𝐻𝑅)
D (in mm) = √[𝑔 𝑥 (𝐺𝑠 – 𝛾𝑤) 𝑥 𝑡]

The percentage by mass, K, of particles smaller than the corresponding equivalent particle
diameters was calculated from the equation

K = (100Gs x Rh) / [m x (Gs – 1)]

Where
m –total dry mass of soil after pre-treatment
Gs – Relative density of the soil particles
The K values were calculated for all the D values obtained, and expressed as percentages of
particles finer than the corresponding values of D. These percentages were then expressed as
cumulative percentages of the pre-treated sample.

These K (%) and D (in mm) values were then plotted on a semi-logarithmic graph of particle size
distribution.

This method is used to determine the particle distribution of a fine soil, or the fine fraction of a
coarse soil. It is based on Stokes’ law which governs the velocity at which spherical particles in a
suspension settle, where the larger particles settle much faster than the smaller ones. However, this
law does not apply to particles smaller than 0.0002 mm, whose settlement is influenced by
Brownian movement. And here, the size of a particle is given as the diameter of a sphere which
would settle at the same velocity as the particle.
DISCUSSION:

The size of the particles in a certain soil can be represented graphically in a grain size diagram.
Such a graph indicates the percentage of the particles smaller than a certain diameter, measured as
a percentage of the mass (or weight). A steep slope of the curve in the diagram indicates a uniform
soil; a shallow slope of the diagram indicates that the soil contains particles of strongly different
grain sizes.. The slope obtained in the hydrometer analysis grain size diagram is steep hence
suggesting that the soil sample is poorly graded and contains soil of a single grain size.

Soils are graded as follows:

 Well graded: soils with a wide and well distributed range of grain sizes.

 Poorly graded: soils dominated by a single grain.

Poorly graded soils can be further classified into:

 Uniform: soils in which the size of most particles lies between narrow limits.

 Gap-graded: soils from which some intermediate size of particle is largely absent.
The grain size may be useful as a first distinguishing property of soils. For instance, granular soils
such as sand and gravel; cannot transfer tensile stresses. The particles can only transfer
compressive forces, no tensile forces. Only when the particles are very small and the soil contains
some water, can a tensile stress be transmitted, by capillary forces in the contact points.

However grain size is not very useful for the mechanical properties. The quantitative data that an
engineer needs depend upon the mechanical properties such as stiffness and strength, and these
must be determined from mechanical tests. Soils of the same grain size may have different
mechanical properties. Sand consisting of round particles, for instance, can have a strength that is
much smaller than sand consisting of particles with sharp points. Also, a soil sample consisting of
a mixture of various grain sizes can have a very small permeability if the small particles just fit in
the pores between the larger particles.

CONCLUSION:

The objectives were achieved since we were able to determine the particle size distribution in a
soil from the coarse sand size down. The above tests denote various classifications of soils in
terms of grain sizes. The classification is as illustrated below.

clay = <0.002 mm

silt = 0.002–0.02 mm

fine sand = 0.02–0.20 mm

coarse sand = 0.20–2.0 mm

gravel = >2.0 mm

Fine soils contain around 15% or more of clay and or silt. Coarse soils contain less than 15% of
clay and/or silt. The 15% proportion of fines is about the quantity required to choke the pore space
between larger particles; this reduces significantly the permeability of the soil so that, even if the
major particle size component is in the range of coarse soils, the permeability will be that of the
fine particles.

REFERENCES
1. Geotechnical Engineering 3rd year notes

2. Laboratory Manual.

3. Bouyoucos, G.J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of
soils. Agron. J. 54:464-465.

4. Laker, MC & Dupreez, CC 1982, An investigation into the accuracy of hydrometers for soil
particle size determination. Agroplantae, 14:17–22.
DETERMINATION OF LIQUID AND PLASTIC
LIMIT
LIQUID LIMIT

SCOPE

This method covers the determination of the liquid limit of air dried soil, that is, moisture content
at which a soil passes from a plastic to the liquid state.

INTRODUCTION

The liquid limit of a soil is the moisture content, expressed as a percentage of the mass of the
oven-dried soil, at the boundary between the liquid and plastic states. The Moisture content at this
boundary is arbitrarily defined as the liquid limit and is the Moisture content at a consistency as
determined by means of the standard liquid limit

APPARATUS

a) A flat glass plate,

b) Liquid limit device,
c) Two palette and a palette knifes
d) Grooving tool and gauge
e) A wash bottle and a damp cloth
f) Moisture content dishes
 Liquid limit device.

METHODOLOGY

1) The liquid limit device was inspected to determine that the device was clean, dry and in
good order, that the cup could fall freely when raised to its maximum height where the 1cm
gauge could pass between it and the base
2) A sample weighing 200g was taken from the material passing the No. 36 BS sieve. The
sample was placed on the flat glass plate and mixed with water until the mass became a
thick homogeneous paste.
3) A portion of the mixture was placed on the cup almost 3/4 full and leveled off parallel to
the base. The grooving tool was then used to cut a groove along the diameter through the
centre of the hinge facing the direction of movement.
4) The crank was turned at the rate of two revolutions per second. When the soil came into
contact the number of blows at which this occurred was recorded and a sample taken to
measure the moisture content.
5) The procedure (IV) was repeated with addition of water before doing each test in order to
get more moisture content values from more no of blows. (No of blows ranged from 10 to
50.)
 RESULTS

TEST NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TYPE OF TEST LL LL LL PL PL
NO. OF BLOWS (LIQUID LIMIT 10 27 40 - -
TEST)
CONTAINER NO. 7 13 0 32 27
MASS OF WET SOIL + CONTAINER 55 56 53 39 37
(g)
MASS OF DRY SOIL + CONTAINER 44.9 46.3 44 36.6 34.8
(g)
MASS OF CONTAINER 28.9 29.8 27.8 29.4 28.1
(g)
MASS OF MOISTURE 10.1 9.7 9 2.4 2.2
(g)
MASS OF DRY SOIL 16 16.5 16.2 7.2 6.7
(g)
MOISTURE CONTENT 63.13 58.79 55.56 33.33 32.84
(%)

ANALYSIS

A GRAPH OF MOISTURE CONTENT (%) AGAINST NUMBER OF

BLOWS
68

66

64
Moisture content (%)

62

60

58

56

54
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of blows
The moisture content corresponding to the intersection of the flow curve with 25 blows was taken
as the liquid limit (LL) of the soil.
Therefore LL= 59.2%

PLASTIC LIMIT

SCOPE

This method covers the determination of the lowest moisture content at which the soil is plastic.

APPARATUS

a) A glass plate

b) A length of metal rod 3mm in diameter

c) Two palettes knifes

d) Grooving tool and gauge

e) A wash bottle and a damp cloth

f) Moisture content dishes

g) A length of metal rod 1⁄8in (3mm) diameter.

PROCEDURE:

1. About 20gms of the soil was taken from the material passing no 36 B.S. Sieves and
thoroughly mixed on the glass plate to make it homogeneous and plastic enough to be
shaped into a plate.
 2. The ball of the soil was rolled between the glass plate until a thread of 3mm was formed
and it crumbled
3. The portions of the crumbled soil threads were put in a container in order for the moisture
content to be determined

CALCULATIONS

33.33+32.84
Plastic limit =.
2

=33.085

The plasticity index (PI) =Liquid limit - Plastic limit

Therefore PI = 59.2- 33.085

= 26.115

=26.1

DISCUSSION

A flow curve representing the relationship between moisture content and corresponding number of
taps blows was plotted on a semi-logarithmic chart the moisture content Qs ordinates on the linear
scale and the number of blows as abscissa on the logarithmic scale. The best straight line fitting the
plotted points was drawn through them.

The moisture content corresponding to the intersection of the flow curve with 25 blows was taken
as the liquid limit (LL) of the soil which was read off from the curve as 59.2%

The plastic limit was found by getting the average of the moisture contents. It was found to be
33.09.Plasticity index was calculated as 26.1

The Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil. Depending on the
water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each
state, the consistency and behavior of a soil is different and consequently so are its engineering
properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be defined based on a change in the soil's
behavior. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can
distinguish between different types of silts and clays.

The Atterberg limits are based on the moisture content of the soil. The plastic limit is the moisture
content that defines where the soil changes from a semi-solid to a plastic (flexible) state. The liquid
limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil changes from a plastic to a viscous fluid
state.

The plasticity index which was found to be 26.1% implied that it was of high plasticity since it was
within the range 20-40 , soils with plasticity index of between 5- 10 are referred to have low
plasticity and the ones with 0 PI are non-plastic, while the ones within 10- 20are referred to have
medium plasticity. Above 40 are referred to have very high plasticity
The results obtained were not satisfactory as a result of some possible errors in the experiment
which could be have been brought up by;
a. Wrong reading of the masses as a result of error in the weighing balance.

CONCLUSION

The objectives of the experiments were achieved since we were able to determine liquid limit of air
dried soil which was 59.2%and the lowest moisture content at which the soil was plastic, i.e.
33.09% and also the plasticity index which was evaluated to be 26.1%

REFERENCES

1. Geotechnical Engineering 3rd year notes

2. Laboratory Manual.
3. Seed, H.B. (1967). "Fundamental Aspects of the Atterberg Limits". Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Div., 92(SM4), Retrieved from
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=38900
4. Das, B.M. (2006). Principle of geotechnical engineering. Stamford, CT: Thomson
Learning College.
DETERMINATION OF THE PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
DRY SIEVING METHOD
OBJECTIVE
To analyze particle sizes by determining the percentage by mass of particles within different size
ranges.

SCOPE
This method covers the quantitative determination of particles size distribution in a soil down
to the fine sand size.

APPARATUS
a) A set of standard test sieves
b) A balance
c) Trays
d) Oven
METHODOLOGY
This method is used to analyse coarse soil. Here, the soil sample is passed through a series of
standard test sieves having successively smaller mesh sizes. The mass of soil retained in each sieve
is determined and the cumulative percentage by mass passing each sieve is calculated. If fine
particles are present in the soil, the sample should be treated with a deflocculating agent and
washed through the sieves.

PROCEDURE
1. About 500 gms of oven dried soil was taken.
2. The set of sieves were arranged in such a way that every upper sieve had a larger opening
than the sieve below it.
3. The soil on top of the sieve was transferred and the set of sieves agitated for about 10
minutes.
4. The test sieves were agitated so that the soil sample rolled in a regular motion over the test
sieves.
5. After the soil had been agitated well, the soil retained on each sieve was transferred on the
balance to weigh the amount of soil retained on each sieve.

RESULTS
The results table was completed and a gradation curve plotted on the semi-log graph provided and
hence attached.
ANALYSIS
A graph was drawn of percentage cumulative passing against sieve size. A very steep gradient of
the curve meant uniformly graded particles whereas a shallow gradient meant the particles are well
graded.
CONCLUSION
The soil sample used in the test above can be described as well graded .since it contains traces of
silt, little gravel .and sand.
Well graded soils have no excess of particles in any size range and no intermediate sizes lacking.
Further, with reference to the particle distribution graph, a well graded soil is represented by a
smooth, concave distribution curve.
Particle size distribution is often important in the determination of the way materials perform in
service. The sieve analysis method can be performed on any type of inorganic or organic granular
materials including sands, crushed rock, clay, granite, feldspars, coal and soil. In the experiment,
the agitation was done manually but modern sieve shakers work with an electro-magnetic drive
which moves a spring-mass system and transfers the resulting oscillation to the sieve stack.
Amplitude and sieving time are set digitally and continually observed by an integrated control unit.
This ensures the sieving results are reproducible and precise, which is and important aspect of any
analysis. The major limitation of dry sieve analysis is that it cannot be used for the analysis of
material passing the No. 200 sieve size. This method is also fairly inaccurate for materials passing
the No. 100 sieve size.

Errors which may have been incurred when carrying out the experiment include;

 Lack of lids hence fines must have escaped into the atmosphere giving a wrong value of
either percentage passing or that retained.
 The reduction factors for the sieves might have not been accounted in the calculations
 Overloading of sieves may affect the accuracy of the result
 The balance might be faulty giving wrong results

CONCLUSION

The objectives of the experiments were achieved since we were able to analyze the particle size
distribution in the soil down to the fine sand size.

REFERENCES:

1. Geotechnical Engineering 3rd year notes

2. Laboratory Manual.

3. K. Terzaghi and R. B. Peck, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,” John Wiley and
sons, Inc.: USA, Volume 2.

4. L. S. Blake, “Civil Engineer’s Reference Book, “Reed Educational and Professional

Publishing Ltd, 1989, 4th Edition, page 4/6.