Ce41fa2 Group 1

SOIL MECHANICS

CE 401 – CE41FA2 2nd SEMESTER A.Y. 2019 - 2020 EXPERIMENT # 1 DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLING, LABELING AND STORAGE SUBMITTED BY: ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R.

SUBMITTED TO: ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO

November 22, 2019

Experiment No. 1 DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLING, LABELING AND STORAGE 1. Objective(s): This activity aims to introduce the use of hand auger for obtaining disturbed soil samples and the standard method of storage of soil for future laboratory use. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to: • understand the standard procedure in soil sampling and handling • perform the soil profiling as observed from the results of the experiment 3. Discussion: The simplest method of soil investigation and sampling is through the use of auger borings. This method is applicable for retrieving disturbed soil samples that are to be tested in the laboratory to further determine its engineering properties. However, it is important to be reminded that improper handling and storage of the sample can compromise the integrity of the soil investigation conducted. A standardized labeling of the sample is beneficial as the soil sample, in general, is handled by different personnel in the field investigation and in the laboratory. It is important that all pertinent data observed on the field are to be written down in the sample label in addition to the primary record book of the site engineer. The data in the sample label will direct the laboratory personnel in finalizing the borehole log which is to be counterchecked by the site engineers’ primary record book. 4. Resources: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Soil auger Spade or shovel Moisture tight sample containers Pans

5. Procedure: 1. Clear the area of grass and vegetation where the sample is to be obtained. Create an alignment of three (3) boreholes that are about 3.0 meters away from each other. 2. With the use of soil auger, the soil is bored until desired depth is reached. After a half (0.50) meter advancement, withdraw the auger to the hole and remove the soil for examination and testing. Record the depth and the observations on the soil sample retrieved. 3. Seal the soil sample in a moisture tight container and label appropriately. 4. Extract again the soil in the succeeding borehole advancement until a depth of 2.0 to 3.0 meters is reached. 5. Repeat procedures 1 to 4 for Borehole no. 2. Draw the stratigraphy of the site to determine the geometry of the soil layers.

Course: CE401 Group No.: 1 Group Leader: Abad, Alain Jowel D. Group Members: 1. Alvaran, Earl Jerin 2. Baylon, Beatriz Julia 3. Baylon, Nicole 4.

Experiment No.:1 Section: CE41FA2 Date Performed: November 15, 2019 Date Submitted: November 22, 2019 Instructor: Engr. Jennifer L. Camino

6. Data and Results: Borehole No. 1 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

Depth to to to to

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Description Contains humus and mix of topsoil Contains topsoil and mix of eluviation layer Contains eluviation layer and mix of subsoil Contains subsoil and mix of rocks

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Description Contains humus and mix of topsoil Contains topsoil and mix of eluviation layer Contains eluviation layer and mix of subsoil Contains subsoil and mix of rocks

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Description Contains humus and mix of topsoil Contains topsoil and mix of eluviation layer Contains eluviation layer and mix of subsoil Contains subsoil and mix of rocks

Borehole No. 2 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Borehole No. 3 Depth 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

Depth to to to to

to to to to

Borehole Location Map:

Santa Rosa Concepcion Tarlac Stratigraphy:

7. Conclusion: We therefore conclude that the soil we obtain in Tarlac is loam soil. The borehole that is 3 meters away from each other are mostly consist of topsoil and subsoil. Based on our data and results the 3 borehole are similar to each other.

8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance): CRITERIA

BEGINNER 1

ACCEPTABLE 2

PROFICIENT 3

I. Laboratory Skills Members do not Manipulative demonstrate needed Skills skills. Experimental Set-up Process Skills Safety Precautions II. Work Habits Time

Members occasionally Members always demonstrate needed demonstrate needed skills. skills Members are able to Members are able to set-up Members are unable to set-up the materials with the material with minimum set-up the materials. supervision. supervision. Members do not Members occasionally Members always demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted process skills. process skills. process skills. Members follow safety Members do not follow Members follow safety precautions most of the safety precautions. precautions at all times. time. Members do not finish Members finish on time Members finish ahead of time

SCORE

Management / Conduct of Experiment

on time with incomplete with incomplete data. data.

Members do not know their tasks and have no Cooperative and defined responsibilities. Teamwork Group conflicts have to be settled by the teacher.

Members have defined responsibilities most of the time. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed most of the time. Clean and orderly Messy workplace during workplace with Neatness and and after the occasional mess during Orderliness experiment. and after the experiment. Members require Members require Ability to do supervision by the occasional supervision independent work teacher. by the teacher. Other Comments/Observations:

with complete data and time to revise data. Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times. Clean and orderly workplace at all times during and after the experiment. Members do not need to be supervised by the teacher.

Rating=

Total Score (Total Score) ×100 24

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken Company American Society for Testing and Materials (1999). Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils(D-1586). Pennsylvania: ASTM International

SOIL MECHANICS

CE 401 – CE41FA2 2nd SEMESTER A.Y. 2019 - 2020 EXPERIMENT # 2 DRY PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES SUBMITTED BY: ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R.

SUBMITTED TO: ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO

November 22, 2019

Experiment No. 2 DRY PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES 1. Objective(s):

The activity aims to impart the standard preparation of disturbed soil samples. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to: • prepare disturbed soil samples for future laboratory experiments. • distinquish unacceptable practices in preparation of soil samples 3. Discussion: The method of dry preparation of soil samples is used to prepare soil samples in various laboratory experiments such as moisture content determination, particle size analysis and in determination of Atterberg limits. It is proper that the samples be prepared in an orderly manner to avoid compromising the results of the laboratory experiments because of errors in the preparation. Proper preparation also will allow sufficient amount of samples for each laboratory experiment. 4. Resources: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Triple Beam Balance Oven with temperature control Pans Standard Sieves #4 and #10 Rubber Mallet or Rubber-covered Pestle Mortar and Rubber Pestle Trowel Sample Splitter

5. Procedure: 1. Allow the soil sample recovered from the field to dry thoroughly on room temperature. Using a mortar and pestle, break up the aggregations thoroughly. Select about 75 grams of the sample for the conduct of moisture content determination. 2. Separate the test sample using Sieve No. 10. Break up again the soil fraction retained in Sieve # 10 to break the grains thoroughly. Separate again the grinded soil into two fractions using Sieve #10. 3. Determine the weight of the fraction retained in Sieve #10. Wash the soil fraction of all fine material, dry and weigh. Record the mass as the mass of the coarse material. 4. After being washed and dried, sieve the coarse the material using the Sieve No. 4 and record the mass retained. 5. Thoroughly mix together the soil fraction passing Sieve No.10 on the previous sieving operations. Using a sample splitter, select a portion of approximately 120 g for the Particle size analysis. Select a portion passing Sieve # 40 of approximately 200 grams in determining the soil constants. Course: CE 401 Group No.: 1 Group Leader: Abad, Alain Jowel D. Group Members: 1. Alvaran, Earl Jerin

Experiment No.: 2 Section: CE41FA2 Date Performed: November 15, 2019 Date Submitted: November 22, 2019 Instructor:

Engr. Jennifer L. Camino

2. Baylon, Beatriz Julia 3. Baylon, Nicole

6. Data and Results: Sample # 1 2

Weight (g) 206g

Purpose Particle Size Analysis

Description Contains small pieces of rocks

194g

Soil Constants

Mostly consist of soil

7. Conclusion: We therefore conclude that disturbed soil samples are not the best soil sample for the future experiments. Learning the process of sieving, resting/ drying, weighing and distinguishing the particles of the soil can make a disturbed soil sample bring the best output for the future experiments.

BEGINNER 1

CRITERIA

ACCEPTABLE 2

PROFICIENT 3

I. Laboratory Skills Manipulative Skills

Members do not demonstrate needed skills.

Members occasionally Members always demonstrate needed demonstrate needed skills. skills

Experimental Set-up

Members are able to Members are able to set-up Members are unable to set-up the materials with the material with minimum set-up the materials. supervision. supervision.

Process Skills

Members do not demonstrate targeted process skills.

Members occasionally Members always demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted process skills. process skills.

SCORE

Safety Precautions

Members follow safety Members do not follow Members follow safety precautions most of the safety precautions. precautions at all times. time.

II. Work Habits Time Management / Conduct of Experiment

Members do not finish Members finish ahead of time Members finish on time on time with incomplete with complete data and time with incomplete data. data. to revise data.

Members do not know their tasks and have no Cooperative and defined responsibilities. Teamwork Group conflicts have to be settled by the teacher.

Neatness and Orderliness

Members have defined responsibilities most of the time. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed most of the time.

Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times.

Clean and orderly Messy workplace during workplace with Clean and orderly workplace and after the occasional mess during at all times during and after experiment. and after the the experiment. experiment.

Members require Ability to do supervision by the independent work teacher.

Members require Members do not need to be occasional supervision supervised by the teacher. by the teacher.

Other Comments/Observations:

Total Score Rating=

(Total Score) ×100 24

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken Company American Society for Testing and Materials (1998). Dry Preparation of Samples for Particle Size Analysis (D-421). Pennsylvania: ASTM International

10. DOCUMENTATION

The students weigh the soil samples

Group photo

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE

CE 401 SOIL MECHANICS

EXPERIMENT NO. ___3___ WET PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES SUBMITTED BY: GROUP __1__

ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D. CABRAL, KENNETH G.

SUBMITTED TO: ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO

____NOVEMBER 29, 2019_____ Date

Experiment No. 3 WET PREPARATION OF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES 1. Objective(s): The activity aims to impart an alternative method for preparation of disturbed soil samples. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to: • prepare disturbed soil samples for future laboratory experiments. • distinguish standard practices in preparation of soil samples

3. Discussion:

The method of wet preparation of soil samples is an alternative method used to prepare soil samples in various laboratory experiments such as moisture content determination, particle size analysis and in determination of Atterberg limits. For cases wherein removal of fine-grained soil that are attached to coarse particles is difficult, wet preparation is more appropriate than dry preparation. This is also applicable for coarse-grained particles of the sample are soft and pulverize readily.

4. Resources: 1. Triple Beam Balance or Digital Weighing Scale. 2. Oven.

3. Pans with at least 300 mm f and 75 mm deep. 4. Standard Sieves #10 and #40. 5. Funnel. 6. Filter Paper

6. Procedure: 1. Allow the soil sample recovered from the field to dry thoroughly on room temperature. Using a mortar and pestle, break up the aggregations thoroughly. 2. Select about 120 grams of the sample for the conduct of particle size analysis. For the determination of Atterberg limits, set aside the soil fraction passing Sieve No. 4 and weigh about 150 grams of the sample. Select a portion of about 50 grams for the determination of moisture content. 3. Separate the material set aside for the Particle size analysis into two portions using Sieve #10. Set aside the portion passing Sieve #10 as washing is to be performed on the portion retained 4. The portion retained is to be soaked in a pan until particle aggregations become soft. Place the Sieve #10 on a clean pan. Allow the soaked soil with water to flow to the sieve until the height of the water is about 12.7 mm above the mesh of the sieve. Crumble any lumps observed on the sieve using the thumb or the fingers. Transfer the washed material on a clean pan before placing another increment of soaked material into the sieve.

9 5. Dry the materials retained on Sieve #10 and add the material on Procedure no. 3. Set aside the material for use in the Particle size analysis. 6. Remove most of the water in the washings by allowing it to pass through a funnel fitted with a filter paper. Remove the moist soil in the filter paper and allow to dry at a temperature not

exceeding 60 o C. Combine the soil with material obtained in Procedure No. 3.

Course: Soil Mechanics

Experiment No.: 3

Group No.: 1 and 2

Section: CE41FB1

Group Leader: ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D.

Date Performed: November 22, 2019

Group Members:

Date Submitted: November 29, 2019

1. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.

Instructor:

2. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.

Engr. Jennifer Camino

3. BAYLONE, NICOLE R. 4. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D. 5. CABRAL, KENNETH G. Data and Results:

Sample #

1

2

Weight (g)

Purpose

120g

Particle Size Analysis

50g

Moisture content

Description DETERMINING THE PARTICLE ANALYSIS CONTAINS TINY BIT OF SMALL STONES THAT DETERMINING NOT PASS THROUGH THE SOIL IS WET DUE TO GETTING THE MOISTURE CONTENT BY ALLOWING IT TO SOAK.

Conclusion: In this experiment, we have discovered that the selection samples must be dry to be able to sieve into finer grains, making it easy to test the sample as well. The information obtained from the seed moisture content is a moisture variation. The soil's particle size helps us to describe much of our soil and its material.

CRITERIA

BEGINNER

ACCEPTABLE

PROFICIENT

1

2

3

I. Laboratory Skills Members do not demonstrate needed skills.

Members occasionally Members always demonstrate needed demonstrate needed skills. skills

Members are unable to set-up the materials.

Members are able to set-up the materials with supervision.

Process Skills

Members do not demonstrate targeted process skills.

Members occasionally Members always demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted process skills. process skills.

Safety Precautions

Members do not follow safety precautions.

Members follow safety Members follow safety precautions most of precautions at all times. the time.

Manipulative Skills Experimental Set-up

Members are able to set-up the material with minimum supervision.

II. Work Habits Time Management / Conduct of Experiment

Members do not finish Members finish on on time with time with incomplete incomplete data. data.

Members finish ahead of time with complete data and time to revise data.

SCORE

Members have defined responsibilities most of the time. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed most of the time.

Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times.

Neatness and Orderliness

Messy workplace during and after the experiment.

Clean and orderly workplace with occasional mess during and after the experiment.

Clean and orderly workplace at all times during and after the experiment.

Ability to do independent work

Members require supervision by the teacher.

Members require occasional supervision by the teacher.

Members do not need to be supervised by the teacher.

Members do not know their tasks and have no defined Cooperative and responsibilities. Teamwork Group conflicts have to be settled by the teacher.

Other Comments/Observations:

Total Score Rating=

(Total Score) ×100 24

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken Company

American Society for Testing and Materials (1999). Wet Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants (D-2217) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International

10. DOCUMENTATION

The students set aside a soil fraction passing Sieve No. 4 and weigh about 150 grams of the sample

The students selected a portion of about 50 grams for the determination of moisture content.

The students allowed the portion retained to be soaked in a pan until particle aggregations became soft.

The students set aside the material for use in the Particle size analysis and removed most of the water in the washings by allowing it to pass through a funnel fitted with a filter paper.

Soil sample after oven heating

GROUP 1 and 2 PHOTO

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE CE 401 SOIL MECHANICS EXPERIMENT NO. ___5___

DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS SUBMITTED BY:

GROUP __1__

ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D. CABRAL, KENNETH G.

SUBMITTED TO: ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO

____NOVEMBER 29, 2019_____ Date

Experiment No. 5 DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS

1. Objective(s): The activity aims to impart the manual and visual procedures for soil description and identification prior to detailed site investigation. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to:

•

understand the soil parameters that are being understood through the conduct of the experiment

•

conceptualize a procedure for conduct of initial investigation on a site proposed by the instructor

3. Discussion:

It is common in engineering practice that site investigation is under time constraint and engineering decisions are need to be made even before the release of the results of laboratory experiments. To aid the engineer in his judgment, visual and manual procedures are proposed which allows gathering of reliable data in the shortest time possible.

4. Resources:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Erlen meyer flask with diluted Hydrochloric acid Pan Sieve #40 Spatula

5. Procedure:

General

1. For every defined soil layer in the boring test, get a representative soil sample to be subjected for visual examination. 2. Examine the soil if it is fine-grained or coarse-grained. A coarse-grained soil is abrasive in texture and does not exhibit any interparticle attraction A fine-grained soil is smooth in texture and exhibits interparticle attraction. . Observe if it exhibits the property of a peat soil. Peat soil is a problematic soil which is composed primarily of vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition and usually in dark brown to black in color with organic odor.

For coarse-grained soil

1. Describe the angularity of the particles if it is angular, subangular, rounded or subrounded. Angular particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces. If the particles are similar to angular particles but have rounded edges, classify as subangular. Rounded particles have smoothly curved sides and no evident edges. Subrounded particles have have nearly plane sides but have well-rounded corners and edges. 2. Describe the color and the odor of the soil. Color and odor are important in identifying presence of organic soil shown by presence of decaying vegetative material. Through the smell, presence of petroleum and various chemicals can also be identified.

3. Describe the moisture content of the soil. If the soil is observed to be dry to the touch, note as dry. If the soil is damp however, no visible water is found, classify as moist. Presence of visible water especially if the soil is underneath the water table will classify the soil as wet. 4. Determine the presence of calcium carbonate as a cementing agent in the soil through the use of dilute hydrochloric acid (HCl). Describe if the reaction is none, weak if limited bubbles are present or strong if violent reaction is observed. 5. Describe the cementation of the soil. Soil that breaks easily with little finger pressure is classified as weak. If considerable pressure is needed, classify the soil as moderate. Should the soil not break under finger pressure, the cementation of the soil is strong. 6. Repeat until 4 samples are obtained. For fine-grained soil

1. Select a representative sample and remove the particles that will not pass Sieve #40. The specimen is to be tested for dry strength, dilatancy and toughness strength. 2. For the dry strength, select a material that will allow it to form into a ball of about 25 mm in diameter. Add water if necessary. Then, divide it into three (3) portions and form it into a ball of 12 mm in diameter. Allow it to dry to the sun or air dry. Test the dry strength of the ball by crushing it in between the fingers. Classify the dry strength as None, Low, Medium, High or Very High. 3. For the dilatancy test, select a material that will form the soil into 12 mm ball. Add water if necessary until it has a soft but not sticky consistency. Using a spatula, smoothen the ball in the palm of one hand. Shake the soil by striking the side of the hand against the other hand several times and note the reaction of water on the surface of the soil. Squeeze the soil and note if the water disappears. Note the dilatancy as None, Slow or rapid. 4. For the toughness test, select a portion of the specimen wherein the soil is to be rolled into threads 3 mm in diameter. Fold and reroll the sample until the soil is about to crumble at a diameter of about 3 mm. Note the pressure required to roll the thread as Low, Medium or High.

Course: CE 401 Experiment No.: 3

Group No.: 2 Section: CE41FB1

Group Leader: ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. Date Performed: July 16, 2019

Group Members: Date Submitted: July 24, 2019

1.ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. Instructor: Engr. Jennifer L. Camino

2. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.

3. BAYLON, NICOLE R.

4. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL D.

5.CABRAL, KENNETH G.

6. Data and Results:

Coarse grained soil

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Angularity Sub-rounded

Sub-angular Sub-angular Sub-rounded

Color Rich brown Light brown Brown, but a little bit red Dark Brown

Odor Organic Odorless Organic Organic

Moisture content Moist Dry Dry Moist

Reaction with HCl N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cementation Weak Weak Weak Moderate

Fine grained soil

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Dry Strength Low None Very High Very High

Dilatancy Slow None None Slow

Toughness Low Low High High

7. Conclusion:

We concluded that the definition and classification of coarse grained soils falls under these characteristics; soil particle angularity, overall color, odor, and the sum of its moisture content. Due to the absence of hydrochloric acid (HCl), calcium carbonate as a soil cementing agent could not be determined. On the other hand, with its respective dry strength, dilatancy, and toughness, fine grained soils can be identified.

8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance):

CRITERIA BEGINNER 1 ACCEPTABLE 2 PROFICIENT 3

SCORE

I. Laboratory Skills

Manipulative Skills Members do not demonstrate needed skills. Members occasionally demonstrate needed skills Members always demonstrate needed skills.

Experimental Set-up Members are unable to set-up the materials. Members are able to set-up the materials with supervision. Members are able to setup the material with minimum supervision.

Process Skills Members do not demonstrate targeted process skills.

Members occasionally demonstrate targeted process skills. Members always demonstrate targeted process skills.

Safety Precautions Members do not follow safety precautions. Members follow safety precautions most of the time. Members follow safety precautions at all times.

II. Work Habits

Time Management / Conduct of Experiment Members do not finish on time with incomplete data. Members finish on time with incomplete data. Members finish ahead of time with complete data and time to revise data.

Cooperative and Teamwork Members do not know their tasks and have no defined responsibilities. Group conflicts have to be settled by the teacher. Members have defined responsibilities most of the time. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed most of the time. Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times.

Neatness and Orderliness Messy workplace during and after the experiment. Clean and orderly workplace with occasional mess during and after the experiment. Clean and orderly workplace at all times during and after the experiment.

Ability to do independent work Members require supervision by the teacher. Members require occasional supervision by the teacher. Members do not need to be supervised by the teacher.

Other Comments/Observations:

Total Score

(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒) 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 24 × 100

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Singapore: Alken Company American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils by Visual-Manual Procedure (D-2488). Pennsylvania: ASTM International

10. DOCUMENTATION LABORATORY EQUIPMENT

From left to right: Sieve #40, Pan, Erlenmeyer flask, Tin cup, Spatula

PROCEDURE Get 4 types of soil — identify the soils if it is coarse-grained or fine-grained — Do procedures for both soil

Forming the fine-grained soil into a ball having a 25mm diameter and adding water in it. Doing the procedure for both coarse grained and fine grained soil.

Placing it in the oven and observed the changes occurred

Group 1 and 2 Photo

SOIL MECHANICS CE 401 – CE41FA2 2nd SEMESTER A.Y. 2019 - 2020 EXPERIMENT # 6 DETERMINATION OF WATER CONTENT, UNIT WEIGHT, VOID RATIO AND DEGREE OF SATURATION OF SOIL

SUBMITTED BY: ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R.

SUBMITTED TO: ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO

December 6, 2019 Experiment No. 6 DETERMINATION OF WATER CONTENT, UNIT WEIGHT, VOID RATIO AND DEGREE OF SATURATION OF SOIL 1. Objective(s): To introduce to the student the procedure in determining the weight-volume characteristics of the soil. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to: • connect the relationship of water content, unit weight, void ratio and degree of saturation. • describe methods in determining water content, unit weight, void ratio and degree of saturation. 3. Discussion: The determination of water content, unit weight and void ratio is an important requirement in laboratory tests and is part of the test included in more elaborate tests. Water content is an important measure in the compaction of soil. In order that correct water content is obtained from a soil sample, several samples at different points must be taken. They are then mixed and the water content is then obtained from this soil sample. Various methodologies have been devised to determine the unit weight of the soil in the field such as calibrated bucket method, nuclear method to name a few. For determination of the unit weight in a laboratory setting, paraffin wax can be used in determining the unit weight. The paraffin coating applied on the soil will allow determination of its volume as it is submerged in water.

The specific gravity of the solid grains of the soil is an engineering parameter which is dependent on the mineralogy of the soil and the structure of its solid grains. Upon determination of the specific gravity, the void ratio and degree of saturation of the soil can then be determined mathematically. 4. Resources: 1. Tin cup 2. Triple-beam Balance 3. Oven 4. Pycnometer 5. Bunsen burner 6. Paraffin wax 5. Procedure: Note: For this experiment, coarse-grained soil sample is to be utilized to expedite the oven-drying of the sample. Water Content Determination 1. Weigh a tin cup including its cover; identify the cover and its lid. Determine the weight of the tin cup. 2. Place a representative sample of wet soil in the cup. Determine the weight of wet soul and tin cup. 3. Place the sample in the oven for at least 3 hours. 4. When the sample has dried to constant weight, obtain the weight of cup and dry soil 5. Compute the water content. The difference between weight of wet soil plus cup and weight of dry soil plus cup is the weight of water (W w). Also compute the weight of dry soil (W s). 6. To determine the water content ().  = Ww/Ws x 100 7. Repeat until three (3) trials are achieved. Determine the average moisture content. Unit Weight Determination 1. Trim a sample of soil to about 1 ½ inches diameter and 2 to 3 inches long. Surface should be smooth and rounded. Weigh to up to the nearest 0.1 gram. 2. Cover with a thin coating of paraffin and weigh again. Compute the volume of paraffin from weight of paraffin. The specific gravity of paraffin is about 0.9 3. Immerse the coated sample in water in the graduated cylinder and determine its displacement. The volume of the sample is the volume of the water displaced minus the volume of the paraffin. 4. Compute the unit weight in grams/cu. cm. •

Calculations: The volume of the paraffin is equal to the weight of paraffin used to coat sample divided by the density of paraffin. Density of paraffin is 0.90

Wt. of paraffin = Wt. Soil coated with paraffin – wt. of soil uncoated with paraffin •

The volume of the paraffin—coated sample is equal to the weight in air minus the weight in water, (express the weight in gm) •

Wet density of soil = wt of soil vol of soil

g/cc or kg/m

Specific Gravity Determination:

Calibration of Pycnometer 1. Transfer carefully the 25 gm sample to the calibrated bottle and add distilled water until about ½ full. Care must be exercised so as not to lose any of the soil in the transfer. 2. Expel the entrapped air by boiling gently for at least 10 minutes. Roll the bottle occasionally to facilitate the removal of air. 3. Cool the sample to room temperature or to a temperature within the range of the calibration curve of the bottle used. Determination of Specific Gravity 1. Fill the bottle with distilled water to the calibration mark as discussed in step 2 from calibration of bottle. 2. Dry the outside of the bottle, as in step 3, pycnometer calibration. 3. Weigh the bottle with water and soil, and record as W b. 4. Read and record the temperature of the contents to 0.1 °C, as in step 5, pycnometer calibration. 5. Repeat procedure for at least 3 trials. Note:

An alternative heating device that can be used is an electric plate stove with wire gauze. Gt (Ws) Ws + W a – W b

Gs =

Where: Gs – Specific gravity Gt – Specific gravity of distilled water at the temperature when Wb was obtained (refer to Table A) Ws – Weight of oven-dried sample Wa – weight of bottle + water (from calibration curve) Wb – weight of bottle + soil and water Determination of Void Ratio and Degree of Saturation: The void ratio can be determined from the formula shown below: e=

-

wG (1+w) 1s

 The degree of saturation can be determined from the formula shown below: S = Gs/e

Course: CE 401 Group No.: 1 Group Leader: Baylon, Beatriz Julia Group Members: 1. Abad, Alain Jowel 2. Alvaran, Earl Jerin 3. Baylon, Nicole 4.

Experiment No.:6 Section: CE41FA2 Date Performed: November 29, 2019 Date Submitted: December 06, 2019 Instructor: Engr. Jenifer Camino

6. Data and Results: Description Wt of tin cup (Wc) Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) Wt. of tin cup and dry soil (Wc+dc) Wt. of water (Ww) Wt. of dry soil (Wds) Water Content () Average

Description Wt. of soil (Ws) Wt. of soil and paraffin (Ws+p) Volume of soil+paraffin (Vs+p)

Description SG of distilled water (Gt) Wt. of oven-dried sample (Ws)

Moisture Content Determination Sample 1 Sample 2 26 g 26 g 115 g 115 g 101 g 100 g 14 g 15 g 75 g 74 g 18.67 % 20.27 %

Unit Weight Determination Description Wt. of paraffin (Wp) 139 g Volume of paraffin (Vp) 141 g 90 g

Sample 3 26 g 115 g 98 g 17 g 72 g 23.61 %

2g 2.22 cc

Volume of soil (Vs)

58.22 cc

Unit weight ()

2.39 g/cc

Specific Gravity Determination Description Wt. of bottle + water (Wa) Weight of bottle + soil + water (Wb) Specific gravity of soil (Gs)

Determination of Void Ratio and Degree of Saturation Void ratio Degree of Saturation

7. Conclusion: Undisturbed soil has its own properties, characteristics and material present on its own. Basically, it has its natural moisture content. In conclusion to this experiment, the determination of soil water content is the measurement of the soil water content is based on removal of water from the sample. Sample water is removed by oven drying them. Once sample water is removed; the amount of water removed from the sample is determined and used to calculate soil moisture content. The higher the water removed from the soil sample, the higher of the water content present in the soil.

8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance): CRITERIA

BEGINNER 1

ACCEPTABLE 2

PROFICIENT 3

I. Laboratory Skills Manipulative Skills Experimental Set-up

Process Skills Safety Precautions

Members do not demonstrate needed skills.

Members occasionally demonstrate needed skills

Members always demonstrate needed skills.

Members are able to Members are able to set-up Members are unable to set-up the materials with the material with minimum set-up the materials. supervision. supervision. Members do not demonstrate targeted process skills.

Members occasionally demonstrate targeted process skills.

Members do not follow Members follow safety safety precautions. precautions most of the

Members always demonstrate targeted process skills. Members follow safety precautions at all times.

SCORE

time. II. Work Habits Time Members do not finish Members finish ahead of time Management / Members finish on time on time with incomplete with complete data and time Conduct of with incomplete data. data. to revise data. Experiment Members do not know Members have defined their tasks and have no responsibilities most of Cooperative and defined responsibilities. the time. Group Teamwork Group conflicts have to conflicts are be settled by the cooperatively managed teacher. most of the time.

Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times.

Clean and orderly Messy workplace during workplace with Clean and orderly workplace Neatness and and after the occasional mess during at all times during and after Orderliness experiment. and after the the experiment. experiment. Ability to do independent work

Members require supervision by the teacher.

Members require Members do not need to be occasional supervision supervised by the teacher. by the teacher.

Other Comments/Observations:

Total Score Rating=

(Total Score) ×100 24

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken Company American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Method for Determination of Water Content of Soil by Direct Heating Method (D-4959) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International American Society for Testing and Materials (2002). Standard Test Methods for Determination of Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer (D-854) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International

Documentation: Water Content Determination

Weighing the tin cup with Weighing the tindry cup the wet soil

Unit Weight Determination Molded the sample soil Pouring water theuntil soilit Measuring the on diameter is measured with the required which issample 1 ½ inches length and diameter

Measuring the molded length ofsoil the Weighing the molded soil which is 2 inches Weighing the sample molded soil sample with the coated paraffin

After placing the soil sample Setting a reference point on with coated paraffin, the water the graduated cylinder with displaced and it increased to 300 g of water 390 g

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE

CE 401 SOIL MECHANICS EXPERIMENT NO. 7

CONSISTENCY LIMITS OF THE SOIL SUBMITTED BY: GROUP 1 ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R. SUBMITTED TO:

ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO

DECEMBER 13, 2019

Experiment No. 7 CONSISTENCY LIMITS OF THE SOIL

1. Objective(s): The activity aims to impart how the moisture content influences the behavior of fine-grained soils. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to:

  

understand the concept of Atterberg limits and how it influences the behavior of the soil. determine the liquid limit, plastic limit and shrinkage limit of the given soil sample. describe the relationship of liquid limit and plastic limit in soil identification.

3. Discussion: The liquid limit and plastic limit are used internationally for soil identification, soil classification and for strength corelation. It is also helpful in determining consolidation and settlement of soil. The liquid limit is arbitrarily defined as the moisture content at which a soil pat placed in a brass cup cut with a standard groove and dropped from a height of 1cm will undergo a groove closure of 12.7mm after 25 drops.

Plastic limit is the moisture content at which soil threads start to crumble when rolled to 3mm diameter threads. The difference of the plastic limit and liquid limit is the plasticity index. This is the range of water content wherein the soil will act like a plastic.

The shrinkage limit is the moisture content wherein the volume of the soil will cease to reduce in relation to reduction of moisture content. Shrinkage limit is important in earthworks for predicting the shrinkage and swelling potential of soil.

4. Resources:

1. Liquid limit device with groove tool 2. Tin can

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

spatula Triple beam balance Soil oven, pan Shrinkage dish Paraffin wax with sewing thread Spring balance

5. Procedure:

Liquid Limit Test

1. Prepare at least 250g of representative air dry soil sample passing the no. 40 sieve. Pulverize this soil sample. Be sure to break all lumps to elemental particles. 2. Prepare at least 3 moisture tin cans. Mix the prepared sample with a small amount of water. Mix the sample of soil thoroughly until it becomes uniform and consistent in appearance (no lumps). A major source of error is poor mixing. 3. On the liquid limit device cup, place an amount of sol. Smooth the pat surface. Using the grooving tool, cut a groove at the middle. 4. Fasten the brass cup to the hinge of the liquid limit device. 5. Using the 1cm. block at the end of the grooving tool, adjust the height of the fall to exactly 1 centimeter. Height of fall is very critical and as little as 0.1cm can affect the liquid limit by several percent. 6. Prepare 3 different consistencies of soil based on the number of blows in the liquid limit device: 25-35, 20-30 and 15-25 blows. This is done carefully by adding water to the soil. 7. Mix the soil sample until the consistency would require 25-35 blows to close the groove for about 12.5 mm. Take moisture content near the groove using 30g of soil to determine the moisture content by placing in the oven. Keep the temperature at 105 oC. 8. Add additional water to test the remaining consistencies of soil. Repeat procedure 7. 9. Draw the flow curve wherein the data is recorded with the water content in the domain and the log N in the abscissa. The water content that would require 25 blows to close the groove is the liquid limit of the sample.

Plastic Limit Test

1. Take a sample of about 100 grams.. 2. Start rolling the soil between the finger and the glass plate with adequate pressure to form a soil thread approximately 3mm with 80-90 strokes per minute. When the diameter of the threads of soil becomes 3mm, break the threads in smaller pieces, reform into a ball and re-roll. Continue this re-balling and re-rolling until threads crumble under pressure and soil can no longer be rolled into threads. 3. When the threads crumbles at a diameter greater than 3mm this is satisfactory to define the plastic limit. 4. Place the crumbled soil in a tin can until a weight of about 30grams is achieved. Do this until two

(2) samples are achieved. Place it in an oven to oven dry. Maintain the temperature at 105 oC. 5. After determining the moisture content, determine its average. The result is the plastic limit of the soil. Shinkage Limit Test

1. Weigh the shrinkage dish (Wsd). Fill the shrinkage dish with water and weigh again (W sd+water). Determine the volume (V) by getting the difference of W sd+water and Wsd and divide it by the unit weight of water. V = (Wsd+water - Wsd) / w 2. Grease the inside surface of the shrinkage dish. Place a small portion of the soil pat and carefully tap the dish to allow the soil pat to flow at the edges. Repeat again until the whole shrinkage dish is filled. Strike of the excess soil using a straight edge. Record the mass of the soil and dish. 3. Allow the soil to dry into the air until its color turns from dark to light. Oven dry the sample to the oven kept at 105 oC. Record the mass of the soil and shrinkage dish. Determine the weight of the dry soil (mdry). Determine its moisture content. 4. Securely tie the soil pat in a sewing thread. Immerse the soil in molten wax. Allow the wax coating to cool. Determine the mass of the soil with wax (m dry+wax). Determine the mass of the wax (mwax). Determine its volume by dividing the mass with the unit weight of the wax (V wax).

Vwax = (mdry+wax - mdry) / wax 5. Using a spring balance, determine the mass of the soil and wax in air (m swa). Immerse the soil and wax in water and determine its mass in water (m sww). Determine the volume of the wax and soil using the formula: Vsoil+wax = (mswa-msww)/w 6. Determine the dry volume of soil (Vd) by the difference of the Vsoil+wax and Vwax. 7. Calculate the shrinkage limit of the soil using the formula: SL = w – (V-Vd)w/ms

Course: CE 401 Group No.: 1 Group Leader: Baylon, Nicole R. Group Members: 1.Abad, Alain Jowel D. 2.Alvaran, Earl Jerin S. 3.Baylon, Beatriz Julia M.

Experiment No.: 7 Section: CE41FA2 Date Performed: December 6, 2019 Date Submitted: December 13, 2019 Instructor: Engr. Jennifer Camino

6. Data and Results: Determination of the Liquid Limit Sample 1 Sample 2 15 – 25 20 – 30 25 27 28 26 129 125

Description

Range No. of Blows Wt of tin cup (Wc) Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) Wt. of tin cup and dry soil (Wc+dc) Wt. of water (Ww) Wt. of dry soil (Wds) Water Content () Liquid Limit

Sample 3 25 – 35 29 26 120

106

102

101

23 78 29.49 %

23 76 30.26 % 29.49%

19 72 26.38 %

FLOW CURVE 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 21

22

23

24

25

26 Soil Samples

27

28

29

30

Flow Curve Description Wt of tin cup (Wc) Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) Wt. of tin cup and dry soil (Wc+dc) Wt. of water (Ww) Wt. of dry soil (Wds) Water Content () Plastic Limit (Average)

Description

 Volume of Shrinkage Dish Weight of Shrinkage Dish (Wsd) Weight of Shrinkage Dish and Water (Wsd+water) Volume of Shrinkage Dish (V)

Determination of the Plastic Limit Sample 1 28 62 54 8 26 30.77 % 30.39 %

Sample 2 26 65 56 9 30 30.00 %

Determination of the Shrinkage Limit Data Description Volume of Wax

Data

111 g

83 g.

136 g

Mass of dry soil and wax (mdry+wax) Volume of wax (Vwax)

0.005376 m 3

0.002548 m 3

 Water Content Wt of tin cup (mc)

28 g

Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (mc+ws) Wt. of tin cup and dry soil (mc+dc) Wt. of water (mw) Wt. of dry soil (mdry) Water Content ()

133 g 106 g 27 g 78 g 34.62 %

Volume of Soil mass of the soil and wax in air (mswa) mass of soil and wax in water (msww) volume of the wax and soil (Vwax+soil) Volume of Soil (Vd) Shrinkage Limit (SL)

78 g 72 g 0.006116 m 3 0.000740 m 3 29.49%

7. Conclusion: The main measurement of the nature of fine-grained soil is Atterberg limits test. Fine soil can be classified due to

its liquidity and plasticity limits. Depending on the water content, the soil can be solid, semi-solid, or liquid state. In each state of those the soil could have different behavior so that many properties could change due to changing soil's behavior. So that it is so important to know each limit of these states. The main source of error in this experiment is careless of operator. All procedures should be performed carefully. Any error through weighing, number of blows, or rolling the samples could lead to discrepancies of the data. All the results in this experiment seems to be reasonable. Drying the soil before the test could have an impact on the results especially for the organic samples. So that liquid limit and plastic limit could vary. Atterberg limits are crucial for classifying fine-grained soils according to the United Soils Classification System. The moisture contents allow an engineer to know various properties of the soil and how it will behave under the pressure of a structure. Atterberg limits also help engineers to know what areas to avoid building in due to poor numbers from sampled soils. Errors and differences in values between the lab groups are generally due to the qualitative nature of the experiments and the human error that comes into play due to that nature. There could also be small differences in water content due to the amount of time the samples were left in the oven.

8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance):

CRITERIA

BEGINNER 1

ACCEPTABLE 2

I. Laboratory Skills Members do not Manipulative demonstrate needed Skills skills. Experimental Set-up Process Skills Safety Precautions II. Work Habits Time Management / Conduct of Experiment

Members occasionally demonstrate needed skills Members are able to Members are unable to set-up the materials set-up the materials. with supervision. Members do not Members occasionally demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted process skills. process skills. Members follow safety Members do not follow precautions most of the safety precautions. time.

PROFICIENT 3 Members always demonstrate needed skills. Members are able to set-up the material with minimum supervision. Members always demonstrate targeted process skills. Members follow safety precautions at all times.

Members do not finish Members finish ahead of Members finish on time on time with incomplete time with complete data and with incomplete data. data. time to revise data.

Members do not know Members have defined their tasks and have no responsibilities most of Cooperative and defined responsibilities. the time. Group Teamwork Group conflicts have to conflicts are be settled by the cooperatively managed teacher. most of the time.

Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times.

SCORE

Neatness and Orderliness

Messy workplace during and after the experiment.

Ability to do Members require independent supervision by the work teacher. Other Comments/Observations:

Clean and orderly workplace with Clean and orderly workplace occasional mess during at all times during and after and after the the experiment. experiment. Members require Members do not need to be occasional supervision supervised by the teacher. by the teacher. Total Score Rating=

(Total Score) ×100 24

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken Company American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (D-4318) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International American Society for Testing and Materials (2002). Standard Test Methods for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the Wax Method (D-4943). Pennsylvania: ASTM International

DOCUMENTATION

LIQUID LIMIT TEST:

A 250 g soil passed through No. 200 Sieve

Weighing the tin cup for sample 1

Weighing the tin cup for sample 2

Weighing 100 g soil Rolling andamolding thesample wet soil Soil sample thread weighing 30 sample g with 3-mm diameter

PLASTIC LIMIT TEST:

SHRINKAG E LIMIT TEST:

Weighing the shrinkage dish

Greasing the shrinkage dish

Placing a wet soil sample inside the shrinkage dish

After oven drying, we get the mass of the soil sample in the shrinkage dish Weighing the tin the cuptin with Weighing cupwet soil sample

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE

CE 401 SOIL MECHANICS EXPERIMENT NO. 8 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: SIEVE TEST AND HYDROMETER TEST SUBMITTED BY: GROUP 1 ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL CABRAL, KENNETH

SUBMITTED TO:

ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO

Experiment No. 8 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: SIEVE TEST AND HYDROMETER TEST

1. Objective(s): The activity aims to introduce to the student the method of conducting a mechanical grain size analysis of a soil and presenting the resulting data. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to:  determine the grain size distribution of the soil.  determine the soil classification of the sample based from USCS method. 3. Discussion: A grain size analysis is performed in the laboratory for the purpose of determining the grain size distribution of the soil. In reporting the results of this test, the common practice is to express the total weight finer than a given size, as a percentage of the total weight of the soil. The most direct method for separating the soil particles into various size fractions is by the use of sieve. The results of a given grain size analysis are usually presented in the form of grain size distribution curve. The percentage of material finer than a given size, P, is plotted as the ordinate in a natural scale and the corresponding particle diameter, D in mm, as the abscissa in a logarithmic scale. The slope of the curve is indicative of the grading. The more uniform the particle size; the steeper is the slope of the curve. A vertical line represents a soil whose particles are all of the same size. Well-graded soils or those whose particles distributed from coarse to fine have S-shaped curves that extend several cycles of the logarithmic scale. The advantage of plotting a semi-log scale is that materials of equal uniformity are represented by curves of identical shape whether the soil is fine-grained. The curve is also used to interpolate values of p (percent finer) corresponding to sizes different from the sieve openings. The Unified Soil Classification System is a soil classification scheme to determine the group name of the soil to further determine its engineering properties. This is useful in correlating the behavior the behavior of the soil based from its group description. 4. Resources:

Sieve Test. 1. Set of Standard Sieves. 2. Oven with temperature control. 3. Balance. 4. Pans. 5. Pair of tongs. 6. Manual or Mechanical Sieve Shaker. 7. Mortar and Pestle. Hydrometer Test. 1. Balance, sensitive to at least 0.10 gram. 2. Mechanical Stirring Apparatus and Dispersion Cup. 3. Hydrometer, heavy and calibrated for soil. 4. 1-liter graduated cylinder. 5. Thermometer.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Set of Standard Sieves. Water Bath of constant temperature. Oven with temperature control. Beaker, 400 ml capacity. Timer or Stopwatch. Sodium Silicate. Distilled Water. Drying Pans. Dessicator

5. Procedure:

Sieve Analysis 1. Each group will obtain exactly 500g of oven-dry soil from the bag of stock material. Use sampling or sampling splitter. 2. If the samples contain appreciable gravel, very few fines or if at the discretion of the instructor, washing is to be omitted. Otherwise place the test sample on the no. 200 sieve and wash the material through the sieve using the tap water until the water is clear. 3. Carefully pour the residue, using the back-washing, into a large weighed dish and let it sit for a short period of time until the top of the suspension becomes clear. Then, place the dish and remaining soil-water suspension in the oven for drying. 4. On the following day, weigh the oven-dry residue. (Omit this step if you do not wash). Then run your sample through a stack of sieves from top down. 5. Place the stacks of sieves in a mechanical sieves shaker (if available) and sieve for 5 to 10 minutes until the top few sieves can be removed from the stack. If there is no mechanical shaker, shake by hand for about 10 minutes. Do not shake in a defined pattern. 6. Remove the stack of sieves from the shaker and obtain the weight of material remaining on each sieve. Sum these weights and compare with original. Loss of weights should not exceed 2%, otherwise repeat the sieve test. 7. Compute the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight on each sieve to the original sample weight Ws. 8. Compute the percent passing or percent finer by starting with 100 percent and subtracting the percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure. 9. Prepare a logarithmic log of percent finer versus grain size. Note: • If less than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, compute Cc and Cu and show in the logarithmic graph. • If more than 12% of the soil sample passes the number 200 sieve, conduct a hydrometer analysis. Calculation: Cum. % retained = Total mass retained from largest sieve to current sieve/ Total mass of sample % finer = 100% - Cum. Mass retained Preparation of Sample for Hydrometer Test 1. Weigh about 50.0 gram of the air-dried sample (100 grams for sandy soil). Place in a beaker, fill with distilled water to about half-full and allow to soak for at least 18 hours.

Note to Instructor: In performing 5 this test, prepare the said sample a day before the testing time. 2. After soaking, add 20 ml of sodium silicate as a deflocculating agent, then wash the contents into the dispersion cup. ( A liter can be used as dispersion cup) 3. Determine the zero correction of the hydrometer. A positive correction (+) is achieved wherein the reading is between zero and 60. A negative correction is a reading less than zero. B. Hydrometer Test 1. Transfer the mixture to the graduated cylinder and add more distilled water to bring the water level to the 100-ml mark. 2. Place the cylinder in the constant temperature bath. In the absence of the constant temperature bath, you may use an electric plate stove set at the minimum heat (Luke warm) with wire gauze underneath. Stir the suspension frequently to avoid settlement of the particles. 3. Remove the cylinder from the water bath or from the improvised bath as soon as the temperature of the suspension and the water bath are the same. Shake thoroughly the mixture for 1 minute by turning the cylinder upside-down and back, using the palm of the hand as the stopper. The soil should not stick to the bottom of the cylinder when upside-down.

4. 5. 6.

7.

Note: Care should be exercised in this operation. The cylinder shall not reach temperature intolerable for handling of the apparatus. Replace the cylinder in the water bath, insert carefully the hydrometer in the suspension and start the timer. Take hydrometer readings after ½, 1 and 2 minutes without removing the hydrometer from the suspension. Read the hydrometer at the top of the meniscus formed around its stem. Repeat the shaking and reading procedure until a consistent set of readings are obtained. Restart the test tube but this time take readings after 2, 5, 15, 30, 60, 250, and 1440 minutes. Insert carefully the hydrometer about 15 to 20 seconds before each of these readings. Dry the stem of the hydrometer before insertion. It should be removed carefully and placed in a cylinder of distilled water after each reading. Determine the equivalent values for Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 for all hydrometer readings conducted.

Note: a.) Take the temperature of the suspension immediately each hydrometer reading and record. b.) Between hydrometer readings, cover the top of the cylinder to minimize evaporation and prevent collection of dust or dirt from the air. 8. After the final reading, wash the suspension on a no. 200 sieve. Dry the fractions retained and perform the sieve analysis using no.40, 60, and 200 sieves. Calculations: Particle Size Diameter (D): D=K

L T

Where: K = derived from Table 2 L = derived from Table 3 T = elapsed time in minutes Corrected Hydrometer reading (Rc): Rc = Ractual – C0 – CT Where: Ractual = actual hydrometer reading C0 = zero correction CT = correction factor due to temperature as shown on Table 4 %Finer (P): P = Rc () / Ws Where: Rc = corrected hydrometer reading  = correction factor from Table 1 ws = mass of soil sample (g) Adjusted percent fines (Pa): Pa =P x F200 Where:

F200 = %finer than sieve 200

Table 1: Values of  vs. Specific Gravity of the Soil (taken from ASTM D422) Specific Gravity Correction Factor 2.95 0.94 2.90 0.95

2.85 2.80 2.75 2.70 2.65 2.60 2.55 2.50 2.45

0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.05

Table 2: Values of K vs. Specific Gravity of the Soil (taken from ASTM D422)

Table 3: Values of Effective Depth L vs. Hydrometer Reading (taken from ASTM D422) Actual Hydromet er

Effective Depth, L

Actual Hydromet er

Effective Depth, L

Actual Hydromet er

Effective Depth, L

Actual Hydromet er

Effective Depth, L

Reading 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16.3 16.1 16.0 15.8 15.6 15.5 15.3 15.2 15.0 14.8 14.7 14.5 14.3 14.2 14.0 13.8

Reading 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

13.7 13.5 13.3 13.2 13.0 12.9 12.7 12.5 12.4 12.2 12.0 11.9 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.2

Reading 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

11.1 10.9 10.7 10.6 10.4 10.2 10.1 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.7 8.6

Reading 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

8.4 8.3 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.5

Table 4: Correction Factors due to Temperature Temperature oC 15 16 C 18 19 20 21 22

Temperature oC 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Correction Factor, CT -1.10 -0.90 -0.70 -0.50 -0.30 0.00 +0.20 +0.40

Correction Factor, CT +0.70 +1.00 +1.30 +1.65 +2.00 +2.50 +3.05 +3.80

Soil Classification using USCS Method Determine the %gravel, % sand, %silt and clay of the sample. Determine the value of the uniformity coefficient, Cu and coefficient of concavity, CC. For fine-grained soil using the formula: Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = D302 / (D10 x D60) Course: CE401 Group No.: 1 and 2 Group Leader: BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL Group Members: 1. ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. 2. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S.

Experiment No.:8 Section: CE41FA2 Date Performed: Dec. 13, 2019 Date Submitted: Jan. 10, 2020 Instructor: Engr. Jennifer Camino

3. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. 4. BAYLON, NICOLE R. 5. CABRAL, KENNETH 6. Data and Results: Sieve Analysis of Coarse-grained Soil Mass retained Cumulative Mass Retained

Sieve No. 4 8 10 12 16 30 40 50 60 80 100 200 Pan Total Elapse d Time (min)

Temp

115g 130g 43g 24g 56g 71g 118g 8g 4g 5g 2g 7g 583

115g 245g 288g 312g 368g 439g 557g 565g 569g 574g 576g 583g 583g

Percent Finer 80.27% 57.98% 50.60% 46.48% 36.88% 24.70% 4.46% 3.09% 2.40% 1.54% 1.20% 0% 0%

Hydrometer Test Method for Fine-grained Soil Actual L (from K (from D CT (from a (from Corrected % Finer Adjusted Hydro. Table 1) Table 2) (mm) Table 3) Table 4) Hydromete (P) % Finer Rdg. r Rdg

½ 1 2 5 15 30 60 250 1440 Hydrometer No: Weight of soil sample: % Gravel: ___________ % Sand: ___________

Specific gravity: Zero correction: Cu: Cc:

___________ ___________

% Silt: % Clay:

___________ ___________

Particle Size Distribution:

7. Conclusion: We will had to sieve a quantity of coarse-grained soil down to its finest texture to check how good the aggregates are if to be used in construction and structures. In the sieve analysis, we were able to separate the aggregates according to particle size. By graphical representation, we would be able to observe which had the least and most amount of particles. Furthermore, sieve analysis is necessary in determining differences between the fine and coarse aggregates. It will show the relative proportions of different sizes among different ranges. Using the data obtained in this method, we would be able to design filters for earth dams and determine the suitability of soil for road construction. 8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance): CRITERIA

BEGINNER 1

I. Laboratory Skills Members do not Manipulative demonstrate needed Skills skills. Experimental Members are unable to

ACCEPTABLE 2

PROFICIENT 3

Members occasionally Members always demonstrate needed demonstrate needed skills. skills Members are able to Members are able to set-up

SCORE

Set-up Process Skills Safety Precautions II. Work Habits Time Management / Conduct of Experiment

set-up the materials with the material with minimum supervision. supervision. Members do not Members occasionally Members always demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted process skills. process skills. process skills. Members follow safety Members do not follow Members follow safety precautions most of the safety precautions. precautions at all times. time. set-up the materials.

Members do not finish Members finish ahead of time Members finish on time on time with incomplete with complete data and time with incomplete data. data. to revise data.

Members do not know their tasks and have no Cooperative and defined responsibilities. Teamwork Group conflicts have to be settled by the teacher.

Members have defined responsibilities most of the time. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed most of the time. Clean and orderly Messy workplace during workplace with Neatness and and after the occasional mess during Orderliness experiment. and after the experiment. Members require Members require Ability to do supervision by the occasional supervision independent work teacher. by the teacher. Other Comments/Observations:

Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times. Clean and orderly workplace at all times during and after the experiment. Members do not need to be supervised by the teacher.

Rating=

Total Score (Total Score) ×100 24

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken Company American Society for Testing and Materials (1998). Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils (D-422). Pennsylvania: ASTM International

DOCUMENTATION GROUP NO. 1 & 2

PROCEDURES:

PREPARING SET/ STACKS OF SIEVES TO BE USED IN SIEVE ANALYSIS

OBTAINING MASS OF SOIL SAMPLE RETAINED ON EACH OF THE SIEVE FOR DATA RECORDING AND COMPUTATIONS

SIEVE NO. 4 Mass Retained: 115g

SIEVE NO. 8 Mass Retained: 130g

SIEVE NO. 10 Mass Retained: 43g

SIEVE NO. 12 Mass Retained: 24g

SIEVE NO. 16 Mass Retained: 56g

SIEVE NO. 30 Mass Retained: 71g

SIEVE NO. 40 Mass Retained: 118g

SIEVE NO. 50 Mass Retained: 8g

SIEVE NO. 60 Mass Retained: 4g

SIEVE NO. 80 Mass Retained: 2g

SIEVE NO. 100 Mass Retained: 5g

SIEVE NO. 200 Mass Retained: 7g

Pan Mass Retained: 0g

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

OF THE PHILIPPINES

Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE

CE 401 SOIL MECHANICS EXPERIMENT NO. 9 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: SIEVE TEST AND HYDROMETER TEST SUBMITTED BY: GROUP 1 ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M. BAYLON, NICOLE R. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL CABRAL, KENNETH

SUBMITTED TO:

ENGR. JENNIFER L. CAMINO

Experiment No. 9 COMPACTION TEST 1. Objective(s): The activity aims to introduce the concept of compaction and the relationship of moisture content to the dry unit weight of the soil. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): The students shall be able to:  Connect the significance of compaction test in other properties of soil.  determine the relative density of soils by compaction test.  describe the use of water in relation to the dry density of the soil. 3. Discussion: Soil Compaction is generally the cheapest method of improving the engineering properties of the soil. In compaction, the soil solids are forced to a tighter state in order to achieve a higher unit weight and reduce the air voids. The process of compaction is better understood by comprehension of the behavior of a soil mass under compaction. In a dry condition, the frictional resistance of the soil would resist granular rearrangement; therefore, the compacting force is not quite effective. Introduction of a lubricant such as a predetermined amount of water is mixed, would then be absorbed by soil particles, forming minutely thin and coherent water films around the particles. In this condition, the soil particles will readily move closer together under the compacting pressure due to the lubricating effect of water and reduced frictional resistance. When a certain amount of water, called the optimum, has been added, the compacting force completely overcomes the frictional resistance and maximum density of the soil mass is attained. 4. Resources: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Compaction mold and hammer Moisture sprayer No. 4 sieve Rubbed tipped pestle Scoop Spatula Large mixing pan Balance Drying oven

5. Procedure: 1. Weigh the empty mold. 2. Obtain a 6 lb. representative specimen of the soil sample to be tested. Break sample with the use of rubber pestle and pass through No. 4 sieve.

3. Form a 2 to 3 inch layer using the soil passing though No. 4 sieve. 4. Press soil until it is smooth and compact it with a specific number of evenly distributed blows of the hammer, using a one foot drop. Rotate the hammer to ensure a uniform distribution of blows. 5. Repeat the same procedure for the second and third layers seeing to it that a uniform distribution of blows. 6. After compaction of the third layer the soil should be slightly above the top rim of the mold. 7. Remove the collar and trim off the soil from the top of the mold. Tart trimming along the center and work towards end of the mold. 8. After the soil has been made even with the top of the mold and all base soil cleaned from the outside, weigh the cylinder sample to 10 lb. 9. Remove the soil from cylinder and obtain a representative sample of 50gm for a water content determination. The water content sample should be made up with specimens from the top, middle and bottom of the compacted soil. 10. Break up by hand then removed from the cylinder and remix with the original sample and raise its water content by 3% by adding water to the sample with sprayer. Mix the soil thoroughly. By weighing the sprayer before and after the spraying, the amount of water added is known. 11. Keep repeating the procedures for 5 to six times until soil is sticky. Use 3% approximate water content. 12. Compute dry density of each sample and plot the compaction curve. Determine the Optimum Moisture Content of the sample.

Course: CE 401 – SOIL MECHANICS Group No.: 1 and 2 Group Leader: BAYLON, NICOLE R. Group Members: 1. ABAD, ALAIN JOWEL D. 2. ALVARAN, EARL JERIN S. 3. BAYLON, BEATRIZ JULIA M.

Experiment No.: 9 Section:CE41FA2 Date Performed: JANUARY 17, 2020 Date Submitted: JANUARY 24, 2020

Instructor: ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO

4. BUSUEGO, LALANE ACEL 5. CABRAL, KENNETH

6. Data and Results: Description Weight of mold (Wm) Weight of mold + compacted soil (Wm+s) Weight of compacted soil (Ws) Volume of Mold Wet Unit Weight (wet) Wt of tin cup (Wc) Wt. of tin cup + Wet Soil (Wc+ws) Wt. of tin cup and dry soil (Wc+dc) Wt. of water (Ww) Wt. of dry soil (Wds) Water Content () Dry unit weight (dry) Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)

Determination of Optimum Moisture Content Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Sample 5

4150g

4150g

4150g

4150g

4150g

6123g

6123g

6123g

6123g

6123g

1973g

1973g

1973g

1973g

3.75 x 10−3 m 3

3.75 x 10−3 m 3

3.75 x 10−3 m3

3.75 x 10−3 m 3

3.75 x 10−3 m 3

11. 40 kN / m3

11 . 40 kN / m3

11 . 40 kN / m3

11 . 40 kN / m3

11 . 40 kN / m3

26g

27g

26g

27g

26g

77g

77g

77g

77g

77g

73g

74g

73g

74g

73g

4g

3g

4g

3g

4g

47g

47g

47g

47g

47g

8.7%

6.38%

8.7%

6.38%

8.7%

16.3 kN /m 3

16.3 kN /m 3

16.3 kN /m 3

16.3 kN /m 3

16.3 kN /m 3

1973g

16.3 kN /m3

Compaction Curve:

7. Conclusion: The compaction depends on the void ratio of the sample soil. It is a factor of practical importance in the increase of soil strength and stability. This experiment helped us understand how important factor a correct water content is in having successful compaction. Compacting soil at a water content higher than the optimum water content results in a relatively disperse state. The main factors affecting the compaction are the type of the soil, compactive energy, thickness of the layer, number of roller passes, moisture content, contact pressure and the speed of rolling.

8. Assessment (Rubric for Laboratory Performance): CRITERIA

BEGINNER 1

ACCEPTABLE 2

PROFICIENT 3

SCORE

I. Laboratory Skills Members do not Manipulative demonstrate needed Skills skills. Experimental Set-up Process Skills Safety Precautions II. Work Habits Time Management / Conduct of Experiment

Members occasionally Members always demonstrate needed demonstrate needed skills. skills Members are able to Members are able to set-up Members are unable to set-up the materials with the material with minimum set-up the materials. supervision. supervision. Members do not Members occasionally Members always demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted demonstrate targeted process skills. process skills. process skills. Members follow safety Members do not follow Members follow safety precautions most of the safety precautions. precautions at all times. time. Members do not finish Members finish ahead of time Members finish on time on time with incomplete with complete data and time with incomplete data. data. to revise data.

Members do not know their tasks and have no Cooperative and defined responsibilities. Teamwork Group conflicts have to be settled by the teacher.

Members have defined responsibilities most of the time. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed most of the time. Clean and orderly Messy workplace during workplace with Neatness and and after the occasional mess during Orderliness experiment. and after the experiment. Members require Members require Ability to do supervision by the occasional supervision independent work teacher. by the teacher. Other Comments/Observations:

Members are on tasks and have defined responsibilities at all times. Group conflicts are cooperatively managed at all times. Clean and orderly workplace at all times during and after the experiment. Members do not need to be supervised by the teacher.

Rating=

Total Score (Total Score) ×100 24

9. References Murthy, V.N.S. (2011). Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering . Singapore: Alken Company

American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics using Modified Effort (D-1557) . Pennsylvania: ASTM International

DOCUMENTATION GROUP NO. 1 and 2

PROCEDURES:

OBTAINING THE WEIGHT OF EMPTY MOLD

PREPARING THE SAMPLE SOIL PASSING THROUGH NO. 4 SIEVE TO FORM 2-3 INCH LAYER

PRESSING SOIL AND COMPACTING IT WITH EVENLY DISTRIBUTED BLOWS OF HAMMER

OBTAINING THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF MOLD AND COMPACTED SOIL

REMOVING COMPACTED SOIL FROM THE MOLD