CIVE 311 Lab Reports

pdf

School

McGill University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

311

Subject

Civil Engineering

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by ChefAnteater4058

McGill University Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics Geotechnical Mechanics CIVE 311 Laboratory Report 1 Atterberg Limits of a Clay Soil Date Performed: September 26, 2022 Date Submitted: November 16, 2022 I, Olivier Pomerleau, vouch that the following laboratory report is authentic and completed individually. The data used is accurate and a data sheet is included in the appendix. This exercise was completed in person with a group of students. The names of all the group members and the TA’s signature are included i n the appendix. Student’s signature: Olivier Pomerleau (author) 260987328 Maggie Pope 260944792 Ryan Plumer 260948450 Johanna Pollet 260761581 Fritz Rehmus 260954215

Description of the Test: This lab was separated into two parts: the liquid limit test and the plastic limit test. In the liquid limit test, a moist sample of clay, comprised of 250g of dried clay mixed with a small amount of water, is placed into a brass cup, and separated in the center of the soil using a grooving tool. 20 g of this moist mixture is set aside for the plastic limit test. The cup is then subjected to repeated impacts using a cam device until the groove reaches 0.5in closure. The number of impacts needed to attain this closure are recorded. The sample used is then weighed and the rest is returned in the mixing dish. Water is then added into the mixing dish to get a moister sample. This whole process is repeated until four sample weights of samples are taken which took between 30 and 40, 25 and 30, 20 and 25, and 15 and 20 blows to close the groove. The four samples are then placed into an oven for 24 hours, and then weighed again afterwards. For the plastic limit test, the experiment is performed by repeated rolling of a soil sample on a ground glass plate. With the 20g set aside earlier during the liquid limit test, we shape 2 to 5g of the soil into a ball. We then roll the soil into a thread that is 3mm in diameter and fold the soil mass into a ball again if the thread can be maintained at 3mm without crumbling. We repeat this until the thread breaks into pieces when it has a diameter of 3mm. We then weigh the sample and place it into an oven for 24 hours, and weigh it again afterwards. Objectives of the Test: The primary objective of this test is to determine Atterberg limits of a clay soil sample. The two limits that are determined in this test are the Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit which help demonstrate the properties of soils at different moisture contents. The liquid limit is the upper bound of the water content of a specific soil at which it exhibits plastic behaviour while the plastic limit is the lower bound. Hence, this information is very useful to help predict its behavior in civil engineering construction activities. Results: Table 1 : Liquid Limit Test Results Can No. Mass of can, M1 (g) Mass of can + wet soil, M2 (g) Mass of can + dry soil, M3 (g) Moisture content, w(%) Number of blows (impacts) (N) 4 1.36 19.01 14.37 35.66 36 4B 1.01 19.97 14.97 35.82 28 2A 1.02 24.44 18.24 36.00 22 5 1.01 22.08 16.49 36.11 19

Table 2: Plastic Limit Test Results Table 3: Moisture content Graph 1: Line of Best Fit This graph shows the line of the best fit after plotting the moisture content vs. the number of blows. The moisture content at 25 blows, which corresponds to 35.93% moisture content, is the Liquid Limit of the sample. LL = f (25) = -0.0262x+36.586 = -.00262 (25) + 36.586 = 35.93% From the tables, the average Plastic Limit is, PL = (18.64 + 20.30 + 17.92) / 3 = 18.95% We can thus get the Plasticity Index: PI = LL – PL = 35.93 – 18.95 = 16.98% Can No. Mass of can, M1 (g) Mass of can + wet soil, M2 (g) Mass of can + dry soil, M3 (g) PL = 100(M2- M3)/(M3- M1) 3 1.03 3.13 2.8 18.64 7 1.19 3.62 3.21 20.30 14 0.98 3.02 2.71 17.92 Moisture content, w(%) 35.66

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Sample Calculations : w(%) = (M2 -M3)/(M3-M1) * 100% = (19.01-14.37)/(14.37-1.36)*100%= 35.66% Conclusions: The experimental values of the moisture content of the soil sample that were found during this lab may vary from the actual moisture content of the soil. This may be due to different causes of error. The first is way the dry clay was mixed with water. Indeed, since this was done by hand, the mixing may be uneven, which could lead to different ranges of moisture contents within the same soil. Additionally, during the plastic limit test, the longer the test took, the more moisture content is lost in the air. The results from the moisture content vs. number of blows however do correspond to what the theory predicts it should look like. Indeed, the line of best fit shows a negative slope which means that as the moisture content increases, the number of blows needed to close the line decrease. We were then able to determine that our soil sample had a liquid limit of 35.93%, a plastic limit of 18.95% and a plasticity index of 16.98%.

McGill University Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics Geotechnical Mechanics CIVE 311 Laboratory Report 2 Particle Size Distribution of Coarse-Grained Soils Date Performed: November 7, 2022 Date Submitted: November 16, 2022 I, Olivier Pomerleau, vouch that the following laboratory report is authentic and completed individually. The data used is accurate and a data sheet is included in the appendix. This exercise was completed in person with a group of students. The names of all the group members and the TA’s signature are included i n the appendix. Student’s signature: Olivier Pomerleau (author) 260987328 Maggie Pope 260944792 Ryan Plumer 260948450 Johanna Pollet 260761581 Fritz Rehmus 260954215

Description of the Test: Using the sieve analysis method, this lab experiment consisted of evaluating the particle size distribution of coarse-grained soil. A stack of sieves no. 4, 8, 18, 30, 50, 100 and 200 is used. We must first weigh all the sieves and the pan individually before placing 500g of the granular soil sample in the uppermost sieve of the stack. The stack is then placed in the sieve shaker and shook around for 15 minutes. Once done, we weigh each individual sieve and the pan again, with the soil retained on them. The difference between the final weight and the initial weight of the sieves corresponds to the mass retained at every level. Objectives of the Test: The objective of this lab is to determine the particle size distribution of a coarse-grained soil. With the results obtained from the sieve analysis, we can then plot the particle size distribution curve which can be used to determine the geometric properties of the soil sample. These properties include the effective diameter (D 10 ), the coefficient of uniformity (C u ) and the coefficient of curvature (C u ). The test also allows us to classify the soil according to any Soil Classification System with the values found. Results: Table 1: Sieve Analysis Results Sieve Number Sieve opening (mm) Mass of sieve (g) Mass of sieve + soil (g) Mass retained on each sieve (g) Percent of mass retained on each sieve (%) Cumulative percent retained (%) Percent finer (%) 4 4.75 472.2 489.6 17.4 3.49 3.49 96.51 8 2.36 487.2 488.2 1 0.20 3.69 96.31 18 1 461.4 695.2 233.8 46.83 50.52 49.48 30 0.59 488.6 674.4 185.8 37.22 87.74 12.26 50 0.3 555.6 588.2 32.6 6.53 94.27 5.73 100 0.15 345.8 357.8 12 2.40 96.67 3.33 200 0.075 505.4 518.6 13.2 2.64 99.32 0.68 pan - 369.8 373.2 3.4 0.68 100.00 0.00 Total - - - 499.2 - - -

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Graph 1: Percentage Passing vs. Particule Size From Graph: D 10 = 0.550mm D 30 = 0.775mm D 60 = 1.25mm Coefficient of Uniformity, C u : C u = D 60 /D 10 = 1.25/0.550 = 2.27 Coefficient of Curvature, C c : C c = (D 30 ) 2 /(D 60 * D 30 ) = 0.775 2 /(1.25*0.550) = 0.874 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 0.01 0.1 1 10 % Cumulative percent retained Particle Size, (mm) Percentage Passing vs. Particle Size

Conclusions: The coefficient of uniformity that was calculated with the results of the lab indicated that it is a poorly graded soil. The particle passing vs. particle size graph demonstrates that the soil sample was mostly made of sand. The coefficient of curvature also demonstrates that the soil is not well graded, since it would have to be between 1 and 3, thus we can conclude that the soil was truly poorly graded. We can conclude that the soil sample used was an SP sand using the Unified Soil Classification System in the course pack. A possible source of error for this experiment is in the testing sieves themselves. The meshing can indeed be deformed with time, have material on the sieve surface or the particle shape in contrast to the mesh shape can all influence the results obtained.

McGill University Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics Geotechnical Mechanics CIVE 311 Laboratory Report 3 Physical Properties of Soils Date Performed: October 17, 2022 Date Submitted: November 16, 2022 I, Olivier Pomerleau, vouch that the following laboratory report is authentic and completed individually. The data used is accurate and a data sheet is included in the appendix. This exercise was completed in person with a group of students. The names of all the group members and the TA’s signature are included i n the appendix. Student’s signature: Olivier Pomerleau (author) 260987328 Maggie Pope 260944792 Ryan Plumer 260948450 Johanna Pollet 260761581 Fritz Rehmus 260954215

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Description of the Test: This experiment is separated into two parts. The first aims to determine the specific gravity of the soil sample given by measuring the volume of water displaced in a pycnometer for a given mass and the second part aims to determine the dry unit weight of the soil sample. The first experiment goes like this: First, we must weigh an empty pycnometer, fill it to its calibration mark, and weigh it again and record the temperature of the water. We then add 100 to 120g of air-dried soil into an empty pycnometer and fill the rest up to the calibration mark with water and record the temperature of the water. We then weigh the soil-filled pycnometer and repeat the same steps to have two sets of values. To determine the dry unit weight, we pour roughly 300mL of soil into a pre-weighed beaker and weigh it to determine the soil ’ s weight by subtracting the initial weight of the beaker. We then repeat the same steps again twice in order to have 3 sets of values. Objectives of the Test: The objective of this laboratory experiment is to determine the physical properties of the materials composing a given soil sample as well as the physical properties of the particle aggregate, in a given configuration of the soil fabric. To do this we must determine the specific gravity (G s ) and the bulk unit weight ( γ ) of the soil using the volumetric method, which are very useful in typical civil engineering applications. Indeed, they can be used to establish soil mechanic testing programs. Results: Calibration M f (g) 210.61 M fw (g) 707.63 T water (°C) 21.90 M w (g) 497.02 Density w at 21.9C (g/cm 3 ) 0.9977922 V f (cm 3 ) 498.11975 Table 1: Calibration Test 1 Test 2 Average M s (g) 105.82 104.47 - M fs (g) 772.66 771.9 - T water (°C) 22.1 23.2 - M fw (g) 707.63 707.63 - G s 2.594263 2.598756 2.59651 Table 2: Pycnometer test results

Table 3: Dry Unit Weight Test Sample Calculations: Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average M 1 (g) 46.47 46.48 46.47 - M 1 (kg) 0.04647 0.04648 0.04647 - V (m 3 ) 0.000300 0.000300 0.000300 - M 2 (g) 505.54 490.87 504.98 - M 2 (kg) 0.50554 0.49087 0.50498 - g (m/s 2 ) 9.81 - N to kN 0.001 0.001 0.001 - g d (kN/m 3 ) 15.01159 14.53155 14.99328 14.84547

Calculations: Conclusions: The results that were found during this lab helped us calculate a specific gravity of 2.597, which would indicate that is an organic clay. With these results were then able to determine that the given soil had a bulk unit weight of 22.48 kN/m 3 . The second part of the experiment helped us determine that the soil sample had a dry unit weight of 14.85 kN/m 3 , which is in accord with the bulk unit weight found, which should be heavier as it is filled with moisture. A possible source of error for this lab experiment is the measurement of the soil volume, which was done in a large beaker where it was very difficult to maintain an even level at the surface of the soil to properly measure the volume. A possible way to solve this problem would be to measure the soil in a long-graduated cylinder with a much smaller diameter in order to make the leveling easier and more precise.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

McGill University Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics Geotechnical Mechanics CIVE 311 Laboratory Report 4 Hydraulic Conductivity Measurement Date Performed: October 31, 2022 Date Submitted: November 16, 2022 I, Olivier Pomerleau, vouch that the following laboratory report is authentic and completed individually. The data used is accurate and a data sheet is included in the appendix. This exercise was completed in person with a group of students. The names of all the group members and the TA’s signature are included i n the appendix. Student’s signature: Olivier Pomerleau (author) 260987328 Maggie Pope 260944792 Ryan Plumer 260948450 Johanna Pollet 260761581 Fritz Rehmus 260954215

Description of the Test: This experiment aims to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of a coarse and fine sand. To do so, we first measure about 300g of fine sand and 600g of coarse sand and record the room temperature. We then pour about 20cm of water into a permeameter, add in the fine sand until the sample reaches approximately 5cm and record the new height of the water. We then open the valve and let the water flow for any given time and then close it. We record the time and the new height of the water. This is done two more times to obtain 3 data sets. In order to obtain the equivalent hydraulic conductivity, we pour new water into the column and add 10cm of course sand. We then repeat the same thing as was done in the first oart of the experiment to obtain 3 more data sets. Objectives of the Test: The objective of this lab is to estimate the hydraulic conductivity for both fine and coarse sands using the falling head test. Using Darcy ’ s law and the continuity equation, we can estimate the hydraulic conductivity by taking observations on the changes in water level with time. Once the hydraulic conductivity is determined, we can calculate the equivalent hydraulic conductivity using the same technique and adding a second layer of coarse sand on top. We can finally estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the coarse sand and the corresponding values at the standard temperature of 20 ° C. Results: Sample Type h 0 (cm) Δh 1 (cm) Length l i (cm) Void ratio, e (%) Hyd. Cond. Test No. h 1 (cm) h 2 (cm) Test Duration, t (sec) Temp. of water T (°C) k f,e T°C (cm/s) One Layer (fine sand) 20.1 2.7 5.1 0.47 1 22.7 18.6 8.40 23.1 0.121 2 18.6 15.7 6.72 23.1 0.129 3 15.7 11.7 12.66 23.1 0.118 Two layers 14.8 5.2 10 0.48 1 25.2 22.6 6.00 23.3 0.274 2 22.6 18.7 9.69 23.3 0.295 3 18.7 16.7 6.16 23.3 0.277 Table 1 : Data collected from falling head permeability test

Sample Type Hyd. Cond. Test No. k f,e T°C (cm/s) k f,e 20°C (cm/s) Average k c (cm/s) One Layer (fine sand) 1 0.121 0.112 0.114 1.151 2 0.129 0.120 3 0.118 0.110 Two layers 1 0.274 0.253 0.261 2 0.295 0.273 3 0.277 0.256 Table 2: Hydraulic conductivities Sample calculations:

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Conclusions: The results gathered during this lab helped us calculate a hydraulic conductivity of 0.114 cm/s for the fine sand, of 1.151cm/s for the coarse sand and an effective hydraulic conductivity of 0.261cm/s. This is in agreeance with the theory as the hydraulic conductivity of the fine sand is much lower than that of the coarse sand, and the effective hydraulic conductivity is between the two, which makes sense as it is a combination of the two and is closer to the fine sand hydraulic conductivity because the fine grain sand contributes to the water flow of the system as a whole to a higher degree than the coarse grained sand. The results obtained must be attributed to the different void ratios between the two types of sand. Indeed, the coarse-grained sand doesn ’ t consolidate like find grained sand does due to the effects of the downward flow of the water once the valve is open because of its bigger grains, and thus keeps a higher void ratio. On the other hand, the fine grain consolidates and illuminates the voids within it which makes it much harder for water to flow through. A possible source of error for this lab is human error with the timekeeping of the tests. Indeed, it is very likely that the time values taken were not very precise as it is hard to time the opening and closing of the valve exactly with the start and the end of the chronometer.

Appendix

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

CIVE 311 Lab Reports

Related Documents