University of Wollongong

Faculty of Engineering
School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering

CIVL361 – Geomechanics 1

Laboratory Report - Soil Testing

Experiment Performed 1st April 2016

Group 4.4

Ross Prandalos (4761145)

Jake Pulo (4734634)
Stefan Topic (4484009)
Cameron Parsons (4763865)
Contents

1. Particle Size Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Test Procedure....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Results and Discussion........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Conclusions and Practical Applications ................................................................................................. 2
2. Determination of Atterberg Limits .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Test Procedure....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.4 Conclusions and Practical Implications ................................................................................................. 4
3. Determining the Coefficient of Permeability of a Soil Sample .................................................................... 5
3.1 Test Procedure....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Results and Discussion........................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Conclusions and Practical Implications ................................................................................................. 6
4. Determining Optimum Water Content with Compaction Test ................................................................... 7
4.1 Test Procedure....................................................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 9
4.4 Conclusions and Practical Implications ................................................................................................. 9
5. References ................................................................................................................................................. 10
1. Particle Size Analysis
The Particle Size Distribution test determines the size distribution of particles within a soil sample. The
results are used to classify the soil and determine the type of grading to ensure that the soil will carry out
its structural function in the field.

1.1 Test Procedure

The procedures followed are outlined in AS 1289.3.6.1-2009 Soil classification tests—Determination of the
particle size distribution of a soil—Standard method of analysis by sieving.

1.2 Results and Discussion

Soil type: Unknown

Sieve Diameter Weight %

% Retained
Number (mm) Retained (g) Passing
1 19.00 0.00 0 100 Constants
2 13.20 112.20 18.98 81.02 Wt. of dry sample + container (g): 834.1
3 9.50 50.80 8.59 72.43 Wt. of container (g): 242.4
4 4.75 87.30 14.77 57.66 Wt. of dry sample , Wg (g): 591.7
5 2.36 115.20 19.49 38.18
6 1.18 75.20 12.72 25.46
7 0.60 43.50 7.36 18.10
8 0.30 28.60 4.84 13.26
9 0.15 30.60 5.18 8.09
10 0.075 35.2 5.95 2.13
11 PAN 12.6 2.13 0.00
Total: 591.20 Lost Mass (%): 0.085
(Acceptable as < 1%)

Table 1: All data in particle size analysis test

In identifying the soil specimen tested, the PSD Curve in Figure 1 was used to plot the percentage of
different grain sizes measured according to sieve dimensions. Using the graph, the values of D10, D30 and
D60, were determined, giving the largest particle size in the respective percentages, 10%, 30% and 60%.
Using these, the coefficient of uniformity (Cu) and coefficient of gradation (Cg) was calculating using:

𝐷60
𝐶𝑢 =
𝐷10

(𝐷30 )2
𝐶𝑔 =
𝐷60 × 𝐷10

Page | 1
 D60

D30

D10

Figure 1: Particle size distribution curve with British Standard range of particle sizes (Whitlow 2001)

Classification of Soil:

Fine sand: 10% D10 = 0.2

Medium sand: 10% D30 = 1.5
Coarse sand: 17% D60 = 5
Fine gravel: 18% Cu = 25 Cg = 2.25
Medium gravel: 45% Cu > 6, 1 ≤ Cg ≤ 3, the soil is well graded

The soil is classified as a well-graded fine to medium grained sandy gravel.

1.3 Conclusions and Practical Applications

Approximately 60% of the soil sample is medium grained gravel and 40% of it being sand, mostly coarse. It
was also found that the soil is well graded having coefficients of uniformity and gradation of 25 and 2.25
respectively. A loss of soil was documented in results, although is be negligible as it was below 1% of the
total mass. The size of sieves used was adequate as it allowed the entire sample to be filtered in their
appropriate grain size ranges.

This soil gradation of sandy gravel can be used as a ground drainage system, such as an embankment.
Large grain-sized soils constitute for large air voids. This property will allow water to pass through the soil
specimen. The soil could potentially be very effective as a foundation as it’s well graded, however other
tests are required to have a better understanding of the soils behaviour under stress.

Page | 2
2. Determination of Atterberg Limits
The following experiment demonstrates how the Atterberg limits were found for a sandy clay sample and
the significance of determining these limits in engineering. The Atterberg limits are a measure of the
critical water contents of fine grained soils. The two main Atterberg limits used in engineering practice are
the liquid limit and plastic limit. Fine grained soils have multiple physical states, which are solid, semi-
plastic solid, plastic or liquid and the Atterberg limits classify which state the soil is in. The liquid limit (LL)
is the water content at which soil transitions from liquid state to plastic state. The plastic limit (PL) is the
water content at which a soil transitions from plastic state to semi-plastic solid state. These limits are
necessary to find as the engineering properties differ depending on the type of soil and the state that soil
is in.

2.1 Test Procedure

The procedures followed are outlined in AS 1289.3.9.2—2006 Soil classification tests—Determination of
the cone liquid limit of soil—One-point method and also AS 1289.3.2.1—2009 Soil classification tests—
Determination of the plastic limit of a soil—Standard method.

2.2 Results
Table 2 shows the data obtained using a cone penetrometer as well as calculated values in order to
determine the liquid limit of the soil. It also contains the data from the standard method to determine the
plastic limit of the soil.
Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL)
Can no. A8 SL16 SL1 12.00 SL10
Mass of wet soil + can (g) 55.47 63.72 69.96 58.79 28.18
Mass of dry soil + can (g) 49.12 55.55 60.68 51.20 27.69
Mass of can (g) 23.85 24.15 25.62 23.27 23.58
Mass of dry soil (g) 25.27 31.40 35.06 27.93 4.11
Mass of moisture (g) 6.35 8.17 9.28 7.59 0.49
Water content, w % 25.1 26.0 26.5 27.2 11.9
Penetration, D (mm) 19.70 21.30 22.00 22.60
Table 2 – Experimental data for liquid limit and plastic limit tests

Mass of dry soil, moisture and water content are the calculated values. All other values were obtained
through measurement following AS 1289.3.9.2—2006. In order to find liquid limit, a plot of water content
vs cone penetration is required. The water content is found using the relationship
𝑤 = (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 /𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 ) × 100 = (6.35/25.27) × 100 = 25.1%
As the penetration has been measured using the cone penetrometer, the desired plot can be generated
with a line of best fit. The liquid limit is equal to the water content corresponding to a 20mm cone
penetration represented in Figure 2 by the red dashed line. The liquid limit is therefore 25% (reported to
nearest whole number, AS 1289.3.9.2—2006).

27.5
Water Content vs Penetration
Water Content, w %

27.0
26.5 Water Content vs
26.0 Penetration
25.5
25.0
24.5
19.50 20.00 20.50 21.00 21.50 22.00 22.50 23.00
Penetration, D (mm)
Figure 2 – Plot of water content vs cone penetration to find liquid limit

Page | 3
The plastic limit is found by averaging the moisture contents obtained in the plastic limit test. Only one
test was conducted, shown in Table 2, therefore the plastic limit is 12% (reported to nearest whole
number, AS 1289.3.2.1—2009).

The plasticity index (Ip) can now be determined. The plasticity index is equal to 13%.
𝐼𝑝 = 𝐿𝐿 − 𝑃𝐼 = 25% − 12% = 13%

2.3 Discussion
From measuring the penetration and determining the water content of the soil, the liquid limit was able to
be determined from Figure 2. As the liquid limit corresponds to the water content at 20mm penetration, a
liquid limit of 25% was obtained. This result reveals that when the water content in the soil rises above
25%, the soil will begin to behave like a liquid where it is able to deform under its own weight. The liquid
limit value reveals that the soil is of low plasticity. The liquid limit is necessary to find as it gives an
indication into the engineering behaviour of the soil as a higher water content correlates to a higher
plasticity and lower strength. When using the cone penetrometer, four evenly spaced penetration values
from 15 to 25mm is ideal when plotting a line of best fit. Penetration values obtained ranged from 19.7 to
22.6mm. This was not detrimental to results, although it would have been more ideal to obtain a wider
range of penetration values in order to obtain a truer liquid limit value.

By using the standard method for determining the plastic limit, the plastic limit for the soil sample equals
12%. The plasticity index is needed in order to classify the type of soil using Casagrande’s plasticity chart.
Plasticity index is a function of the plastic limit so in order to classify the soil, the plastic limit is needed.
Due to time constraints in the laboratory and difficulty in obtaining a substantial sample of soil rolled to
3mm diameter, only one sample was taken for the lab. A more accurate value of plastic limit could’ve
been obtained if more samples were used and then averaging the water contents of the multiple samples.

After calculating the liquid limit and plastic limit, the plasticity index was found to be 13%. Using
Casagrande’s plasticity chart and the liquid limit value of 25%, the soil can be classified. According to the
chart, the soil sample is a clay containing sandy and has low plasticity. This confirms the fact that the soil is
sandy clay and has a low plasticity.

2.4 Conclusions and Practical Implications

The determination of the Atterberg limits is significant in engineering as the limits are used to classify soils
which then reveal properties specific to the soil such as strength, permeability and compactibility. Before
the laboratory commenced, the soil sample was known to be sandy clay. After determining the Atterberg
limits, Casagrande’s plasticity chart was utilised and the soil sample was confirmed to be sandy clay with
low plasticity. Its low plasticity was evident from the relatively low liquid limit value of 25%.
Soil’s mechanical properties depend primarily on the nature of the soil grains and water content. When
engineers construct foundations, roads, dams etc., they need to know the type of soil the structure will be
built on. If the soil present is for example, not strong enough or permeable enough, it may need to be
excavated and a replaced with a more suitable soil. This is where the Atterberg limits prove to be useful as
they can determine the fine grained soils present at the proposed site of construction.

As fine grained soils tend to hold more water, in changing climates, soil properties can change drastically
day to day. These fine grained soils tend to become considerably stronger and less compressible (less easy
to mould) as they dry out. The liquid limit and plastic limit tells engineers at which water contents the
behaviour of the soil will change. This can be factored into the design to ensure foundations for buildings
and other structures will be stable.

Page | 4
3. Determining the Coefficient of Permeability of a Soil Sample
The permeability test is conducted to determine the behaviour and inclination of water travelling through
a soil sample, where the coefficient of permeability is calculated. To determine the coefficient, the
methods of Constant Head and Falling Head are used throughout the experiment. The necessity of the
coefficient of permeability will be present in an engineering field where it can assist in determining how
effective a particular soil will be at either preventing or promoting water flow.

3.1 Test Procedure

The procedures followed are outlined in AS 1289.6.7.1-2001 Soil strength and consolidation tests—
Determination of permeability of a soil—Constant head method for a remoulded specimen and AS
1289.6.7.2-2001 Soil strength and consolidation tests—Determination of permeability of a soil—Falling
head method for a remoulded specimen.

3.2 Results and Discussion

The following results were obtained during the experiments. For the Constant Head method:

Test No. h (cm) t (s) Q (cm3) T (°C)

1 34 31.6 250 20
2 32.9 32.2 250 20
3 34.8 31.3 250 20
4 33.8 31.6 250 20
5 38 33.6 250 20
Average: 34.7 32.05 250 20
Table 3: Results for Constant Head method

From the average results, the following two equations were used to determine the coefficient of
permeability for the Constant Head method (where, kt is the coefficient of permeability and α is the
correction factor):

kT = QL / Aht α=ηT / η20

= (250 x 10) / (49.27 x 34.7 x 32.05) α = 1.0 (at 20°C)
= 0.0456

Upon calculating the coefficient of permeability and the correction factor at 20°C, k20, the following
formula can be used to calculate the coefficient of permeability of a soil sample at 20°C:

K20 = αkT
= 1 x 0.0456
= 0.0456

For the Falling Head method:

Test No. h1 (cm) h2 (cm) t (s) T (°C)

1 78.5 70.4 12180 20
2 81 77.9 8880 20
3 81 72.4 26820 20
4 75.6 73.2 7500 20
Average: 79.025 73.475 13845 20
Table 4: Results for Falling Head method

Page | 5
For the Falling Head method, the correction factor, α, and coefficient of permeability at 20°C, k20, are
calculated with the same formulas as used previously in the Constant Head method; whereas the
coefficient of permeability, kt, is calculated using the formula:

𝛼𝐿 ℎ1
𝑘𝑇 = 𝑙𝑛
𝐴𝑡 ℎ2
= (0.709 x 6.0335) / (72.78 x 26820) x ln (81.0/72.4)
= 2.46 x 10-7

Thus implementing the aforementioned formulas along with calculations during the experiment such as
the flow rate, Q, and area, A, will yields the following results:

Data Value Data Value

D (cm) 10 D (cm) 9.6265
A (cm2) 49.27 L (cm) 6.0335
Ht. (cm) 22.9 A (cm2) 72.78
kt (cm/s) 4.56 x10-2 Standpipe D (cm) 0.95
α 1 Standpipe A (cm2) 0.709
k20 (cm/s) 4.56 x10-2 kt (cm/s) 2.46 x10-7
Table 5: Permeability α 1
Coefficient for Constant k20 (cm/s) 2.46 x10-7
Head Table 6: Permeability Coefficient
for Falling Head

From the experiment findings, we can see that the correction factor is equal to 1 for both Constant and
Falling Head methods at 20°C, which proves that the coefficient of permeability at 20°C is equal to the
coefficient of permeability in general for that given soil sample. However, this will not always be the case
for soils of a higher temperature; the correction factor will increase, thus increasing the coefficient of
permeability at 20°C; for the given methods.

3.3 Conclusions and Practical Implications

We can see that the coefficient of permeability for the Constant Head method is much larger than the
Falling Head method. This may be due to inconsistencies in the soil composition, such as voids, which
increases the soil’s permeability by allowing more flow.

The determination of the coefficient of permeability of soil is a vital piece of measured data in various
engineering projects. Dam designs require low permeability to reduce seepage and capillary pressure
reducing the likelihood of failure. Landfill structures also need to have a low permeability soil to prevent
the harmful waste from infiltrating into the water table, having negative effects on the environment.

Page | 6
4. Determining Optimum Water Content with Compaction Test
Compaction of soil packs the particles closer together, increasing density and reducing the volume of air
voids. The dry unit weight of the soil is a measure of the degree of compaction, having a relationship with
water content. This yields the optimal water content (OMC) for maximum compaction of the soil and is an
important property for engineers. These properties are determined through a compaction test for a single
soil type over a range of water contents. This shows the soil has the necessary function onsite as a
building material and approximates compaction efficiency, cost and time in the field.

4.1 Test Procedure

The procedures followed are outlined in AS1289.5.1.1 – 2003 Soil compaction and density tests—
Determination of the dry density/moisture content relation of a soil using standard compactive effort.

4.2 Results
For the compaction test of the road base soil, the raw and calculated data is below in Table 7, with a
sample calculation given for the assumed water content of 6%. It is apparent that the assumed water
content differs from the actual water content by an average of 14.9%. This is used as an initial
approximation to ensure a suitable water content range is tested, giving a distinct relationship between
dry unit weight and water content.

The water content is the independent variable being changed. The mass of the dry and wet sample before
and after compaction is the dependent variable, used to find the wet and dry unit weight. The mould and
tin were weighed after each test to ensure consistency. The controlled variables are the mould volume,
the number of layers, mass of rammer and blows per layer. Assuming the water volume remains
unchanged in the soil sample.

Soil Tested: Road Base

Assumed Water Content: 6% 8% 10% 12%
Can No. SL43 SL44 SLA56 MIC4
Mass of wet sample + mould (g) 7528.7 7419.9 7416.9 7380.1
Mass of sample (g) 2160.6 2321.5 2319.1 2282.1
Mass of mould (g) 5098.1 5098.4 5097.8 5098
Mass of tin (g) 42.7 41.6 43.9 39
Mass of tin + sample (g) 313.5 218.1 350.7 339.7
Mass of tin + dry sample (g) 293.9 202.5 319.2 305.5
Mass of pore water (g) 19.6 15.6 31.5 34.2
Mould Volume (mL) 1002.93 1002.93 1002.93 1002.93
Wet Unit Weight (kN/m3) 21.13 22.71 22.68 22.32
Water content (w%) 7.8 9.7 11.44 12.83
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) 19.6 20.7 20.35 19.78

Blows/Layer 25
No. of Layers 3
Mass of Rammer 2.7 kg
Height of Mould 115.56 mm
Diameter of Mould 105.12 mm

Table 7: Data and Results for Compaction Test of Road Base

Page | 7
The following sample calculations are for assumed water content of 6%.

Mass of Sample = [Mass of Wet Sample + Mould] – [Mass of Mould]

= 7528.70 – 5098.10 = 2160.60 g
Mass of Pore Water = [Mass of Tin + Sample] – [Mass of Tin + Dry Sample]
= 313.50 – 293.90 = 19.60 g
Mass of Dry Sample = [Mass of Tin + Dry Sample] – [Mass of Tin]
= 293.90 – 42.70 = 251.20 g
𝜋
Mould Volume = 4 × 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 2 × 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
= π x 0.25 x (105.12 mm)2 x 115.56 mm x 0.001 mL = 1002.93 mL
Wet Unit Weight (kN/m3) = [Mass of Sample / (Mould Volume)] x (9.81)
= [2160.60 / (1002.93)] x (9.81) = 21.13 kN/m3
Water content (%) = [Mass of Pore Water / (Mass of Dry Sample)] x 100%
= [19.60 / 251.20] x 100% = 7.80 %
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) = Wet Unit Weight / (1 + [Water Content / 100])
= 21.13 / (1 + 0.0780) = 19.6 kN/m3

Plotting the calculated water contents for each test against the dry unit weight yields the Compaction
Curve given below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Compaction Curve for Road Base

Page | 8
From the Compaction Curve in Figure 3 a curve of best fit produces a cubic function with a Coefficient of
Determination (R2) = 1, showing a perfect fit between the data and trend-line. The cubic function was
differentiated and solved for y’ = 0 in Wolfram Alpha: y'(x) = 0.0867x2 – 2.1018x + 12.297 = 0

4.3 Discussion
This gives the Max Dry Unit Weight of the soil as 2.107 Mg/m3 = 20.671 kN/m3 at a water content of
9.866% ≈ 9.9%, corresponding to the OMC. Repetition and taking more values for other water content
values increases the reliability and accuracy of the results. Air void line are given in Figure E assuming a
specific gravity of 2.70 which shows the relation between the dry unit weight and various air void
percentages of 0%, 5% and 9.9%. A measured value of specific gravity would give a more accurate air void
line.

At the OMC, the soils physical properties are well balanced, with the water lubricating the soil, lowering
the void ratio and increasing the workability. At a water content below the OMC in the lower working
limit, the soil is brittle, stiffer and harder to compact with a higher void ratio. As the water content moves
past the OMC, the soil is in the upper working limit where the water plays a major role in increasing pore
water pressure (pwp) that separates the soil particles, increasing ductility.

The properties of the road base when compacted make it suitable for stiff loading bearing structures such
as under concrete slabs, roads, pavements and driveways. Hence it is an appropriate structural soil due to
its ability for good compaction and high permeability, being used all across Australia by companies such as
Boral (also known as crushed rock).

4.4 Conclusions and Practical Implications

The compaction test is an extremely useful in practice as an engineer. It enables quick analysis of a soil
sample; however the performance of the soil does vary in the field. Soil is a dynamic building material,
hence high volumes of rain causes seepage and extended periods in a dry climate evaporates water which
ultimately changes its properties. Using the compaction test engineers can explore how soil needs to be
compacted onsite and how its properties may vary. The working range of the soil can then be determined
and minimum allowable compaction to allow contractors to prepare the soil appropriately for its intended
design.

The degree of compaction plays a crucial role in effectively increasing strength and reducing the
settlement of the fill and the overlying structure. Compaction energy plays a major role in the field as it
takes time, money and large machinery such as vibratory rollers for compaction. As an engineer, an
appropriate water content must be selected that will balance these factors. Working in the upper limit of
the OMC is practical as the increase in workability helps decrease the compaction energy required for
contractors, reducing overall costs and time of compaction.

Road base (also known as crushed rock) is used for fill across Australia, being supplied by companies such
as Boral for residential and industrial applications. These include under concrete slabs, roads, pavements
and driveways, as well as similar stiff load-bearing structures that rest on the ground. It is an appropriate
structural soil due to its ability for good compaction and high permeability.

Page | 9
5. References
Smith, I (2014). Smith's Elements of Soil Mechanics. 9th ed. UK: John Wiley and Sons. p9-10.

Jamal, H. Atterberg’s limits tests. Available: http://www.aboutcivil.org/atterberg-limits.html. Last

accessed 10th May 2016.

Page | 10