Laboratory 4
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Georgia Institute Of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3400
Subject
Civil Engineering
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by S-Dasu
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Hydraulic Conductivity Laboratory
MEMORANDUM
To: Emre Duman Date: February 29, 2023
From: Sachinshripadh Dasu, A3-1 Lab Partners: Stephen Grafius, Marty Robert James Jr.,
Ashley Eun Joo Jhun
Subject: CEE 3400
Sample(s) Description:
Name: Ottawa 50-70 sand
Source: In-Situ
Condition: Wet, saturated
Visual Classification and Unified Symbol: SM
Remarks: Ottawa 50-70 sand was used as a soil sample for this laboratory experiment.
Test Procedure:
Test Procedures:
ASTM D2434-22: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Coarse-
Grained Soils
ASTM D5084-16a: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
The ASTM standards used in the Hydraulic Conductivity laboratory are ASTM D2434 and
ASTM D5084. The purpose of the Hydraulic Conductivity laboratory is to determine the hydraulic
conductivity of a soil sample based on two tests: the Rigid Wall Constant Head Hydraulic
Conductivity Test and the Flexible Wall Constant Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test. The
experiment was performed as specified by the test procedures and was able to achieve the results as
well. The methods used in this laboratory are the best way to test this property of the soil sample. Test Results:
1.
The table below, Table 1. Rigid Wall Constant Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test Data,
includes the data collected in the experimental laboratory for each trail of each test as well
as the calculated hydraulic conductivity. Sample calculations are also shown below.
Trail
Head on
Specimen ‘h’
(cm)
Time between
Readings ‘t’
(s)
Volumetric
Flow Rates
‘Q’ (cm
3
/s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
‘k’ (cm/s)
Averaged
Hydraulic
Conductivity
‘k’ (cm/s)
1
h(top)=77cm
30
1.
2.833
1.
0.114
0.112
h(bottom)=0cm
h = h(top)-
h(bottom) =
77cm
2.
2.833
3.
2.733
4.
2.733
5.
2.767
2.
0.114
3.
0.110
4.
0.110
5.
0.111
2
h(top)=164cm
h(bottom)=70cm
h = h(top)-
h(bottom) =
94
cm
30
1.
3.567
2.
3.667
3.
3.600
4.
3.600
5.
3.700
1.
0.117
2.
0.121
3.
0.118
4.
0.118
5.
0.122
0.119
Table 1. Rigid Wall Constant Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test Data
Sample Calculations:
h = h(top) – h(bottom) = 77 – 0 = 77 cm
k
=
QL
A h
L = 15.3 cm
A
=
π
4
(
D
)
2
=
π
4
(
6.3
)
2
= 4.984
k
=
2.833
∗
15.3
4.984
∗
77
=
0.114
The table below, Table 2. Flexible Wall Falling Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test Data,
includes the data collected in the experimental laboratory for each trail of each test as well
as the calculated hydraulic conductivity. Sample calculations are also shown below.
Tria
l
Additional
Inflow
Pressure
(psi)
Inflow
Pipet
(cm)
Outflow
Pipet
(cm)
Initia
l
Head
‘h1’
(cm)
Final
head
‘h2’
(cm)
Time
‘t’
(s)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
‘k’ @ 20 C
⁰
(cm/s)
q(in)
(cm
3
/s)
q(out)
(cm
3
/s)
1
0
Initial
1.8
21.6
19.8
19.2
45
0.000866
2.398
2.326
Final
3.1
22.3
2
1
Initial
3.2
19.8
16.6
10.5
30
0.01933
3.016
1.908
Final
6.4
16.9
3
2
Initial
6.4
21.2
14.8
10.2
15
0.03142
5.378
3.706
Final
8.8
19
Sample Calculations: h1 = Outflow Pipet (Initial) – Inflow Pipet (Initial) = 21.6 – 1.8 = 19.8 cm
h2 = Outflow Pipet (Final) – Inflow Pipet (Final) = 22.3 – 3.1 = 19.2 cm
k = aL
2
At
ln
(
h
1
h
2
)
a = 1 cm
2
L = 13.8 cm
A
=
π
4
(
D
)
2
=
π
4
(
6.94
)
2
= 5.451 cm
2
k = 1
∗
13.8
2
∗
5.451
∗
45
ln
(
19.8
19.2
)
=
0.000866
cm/s
q(in) = V
t
=
5.451
∗
19.8
45
=
2.398
cm
3
/s
q(out) = V
t
=
5.451
∗
19.2
45
=
2.326
cm
3
/s
Analysis and Discussion:
The purpose of the Hydraulic Conductivity laboratory is to determine the hydraulic
conductivity of a soil sample based on two tests: the Rigid Wall Constant Head Hydraulic
Conductivity Test and the Flexible Wall Constant Head Hydraulic Conductivity Test. The
experiment was performed as specified by the test procedures and was able to achieve the results as
well. The methods used in this laboratory are the best way to test this property of the soil sample. Possible sources of error with the laboratory experiment are human error with measuring the
elevation heads of the Rigid Wall test, human error with measuring the discharge water in the Rigid
Wall test, and issues with reading the measurements of the tubes on the Flexible Wall test. These
sources of error could greatly influence the data collected in the laboratory, and also the calculated
hydraulic conductivity of the test sample.
There are also several engineering applications to using the Rigid Wall and Flexible Wall
test. The biggest implication is building construction as it is important to determine the water content
of the soil that a building is being built on. The hydraulic conductivity can help determine the water
content of a soil sample. 1.
The three values obtained for the hydraulic conductivity in the flexible wall falling head test
are 0.000866 cm/s, 0.01933 cm/s, and 0.03142 cm/s. The most accurate result is most likely
the third trial. This is because of the additional pressure applied to the test sample. The
additional pressure would allow for the soil to better compact better and allow for the water
to seep through more evenly. This is also shown in the results as the last two trials are more
closely related than the first trial, where the first trial is significantly lower than the
subsequent trials.
2.
The two values obtained for the hydraulic conductivity in the rigid wall constant head test
are 0.112 cm/s, and 0.119 cm/s. The most accurate trial would most likely be the second
trial. This is because the test is conducted with a higher top elevation, causing the flow of
water out of the experimental apparatus to be lower than the first trial, where the top
elevation is lower. This lower flowrate would cause less human error when shutting off the
valve when conducting the test in 30 second intervals. This lower flowrate would yield
more accurate results when conducting multiple trials, as done in this experimental
laboratory.
3.
After comparing the values obtained in the rigid wall test and the flexible wall test, the
flexible wall test seems to be the better test. This is because the flexible wall test is more
oriented towards a fine-grained sand, such as Ottawa 50-70, which is the laboratory sample
tested in this experiment (Ankeny et. Al. 1991). Rigid wall tests are more oriented towards
course-grained soil samples, so it is reasonable to assume that the flexible wall test is the
more accurate test in this experiment.
4.
Both of the calculated hydraulic conductivities (rigid wall and flexible wall tests) can be
compared to typical values. The typical range for the hydraulic conductivity of fine-grained
sand is about 1*10(E-13) to 1*10(E-7) cm/s. The hydraulic conductivity calculated in both
experiments in this laboratory are higher than the expected range of values that are typically
found for fine-grained sands. The values would differ due to human and trial error
conducted in the laboratory.
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
Related Questions
Show calculation on how to determine the average coefficient of permeability of the sand sample at 20°C.
Also show calculations on how to determine the discharge the K1 and Average K1
arrow_forward
3- A sand sample is subjected to drainage
cutting test with a hollow cylinder device.
Rupture occurs with increasing internal pressure
while external pressure is constant. At the
moment of rupture, the external stress is 200
kPa and the internal stress is 300| Kilopascals -
be. Internal and external radii of the sample are
40 and 60 mm. A) Obtain the angle of soil
friction. B) At the moment of rupture, what is the
axial stress applied to the sample?
arrow_forward
A series of identical samples have been tested with drained triaxial test
and some of the values are given in the tabulated table 3(Below). Calculate
the remaining values as in the blank box.
PARAMETER
|cell pressure, o3 (kPa)
total axial stress, 01 (kPa)
pore pressure at failure, u¡ (kPa)
|change in volume, Av
effective cell pressure, o3' (kPa)
effective total axial stress, o,' (kPa)
|difference in stress, q (kPa)
CD test
150
284
i
1.8
ii
i
iv
O i = 134; ii = 16; iii = 150; iv = 0
O i = 134; ii = 284; iii = 150; iv = 0
O i = 0; ii = 16; iii = 150; iv = 134
O i = 0; ii = 150; iii = 284; iv = 134
arrow_forward
Table Q3(c) presentssamples information for point load test. Based on the data:
(i)
Calculate the Unconfined Compression Strength for sample A and B.
(ii) Classify the strength of sample A and B based on Bieniawaski 1975
classification as given in Table Q3c(ii).
(iii) As an engineer, define the reason of strength classification of sample A and B.
arrow_forward
The following results were obtained from a liquid limit test on a clay using the Casagrande
cup device.
Number of blows
12
20
28
32
Water content (%)
52.5
47.1
43.2
38.6
37.0
Two determinations for the plastic limit gave water contents of 22.8% and 23.2%.
Determine (a) the liquid limit and plastic limit, (b) the plasticity index, (c) the liquidity
index if the natural water content is 38% and (d) the void ratio at the liquid limit if G, =
2.7. (e) What is the soil state in the field? (f) Do you expect a brittle type of failure for
this soil?
arrow_forward
My courses
SOIL MECHANICS
Summative Assessment
MIDTERM EXAM-QUIZ 2 FOR CE 17 CEIT-02-601P
Time left 1:24:01
Water flows at the rate of 0.09 ml/s in an upward direction through a sand
sample with a coefficient of permeability of 2.7 x 10^-2 mm/s. The thickness
of the sample is 120mm and the area of cross-section is 5400 mm2. Taking
the saturated unit weight of the sand as 18.9 kN/m3, determine the effective
pressure in Pa at the middle of the sample.
O a 182
O b. 910
O C. 364
O d. 728
SHOT ON POCO F3
arrow_forward
A sand cone test has been performed in a compacted fill performed on a soil sample. The test results were as follows:
Initial mass of sand cone apparatus w/ sand -------------- 5.912 kg
Final mass of sand cone apparatus w/ sand --------------- 2.378 kg
Mass of soil recovered from hole ----------------------------- 2.883 kg
Moisture content of soil from hole --------------------------- 7%
Density of sand ---------------------------------------------------- 1300 kg/cu.m
Volume of cone below valve------------------------------------ 1.114 x10 -3 cu.m
Max. dry unit weight ---------------------------------------------- 19KN/cu.m
Compute:
The moist unit weight
The dry unit weight
The relative compaction
arrow_forward
Outline the practical reasons why field permeability tests to obtain a value for coefficient of permeability might be preferred over the laboratory testing method.
arrow_forward
Testing Procedure for the Sand Equivalent Test.
arrow_forward
"ll zain IQ
قسم الهندسة المدنية - ميكانيك التربة -
...
docs.google.com
The sieve analysis has been
0/4
conducted on a soil sample and it
was found that the percentage of
passing from sieve number 200 is
100%. Also, the results of the
liquid limit and plastic limits tests
are shown in the image below.
Using these information then the
classification of this soil in
accordance with the AASHTO
system is
Number
of Mass of the Mass of the can + Mass of the can +
blows
can (g)
wet soil (g)
dry soil (g)
20
22.23
25.73
24.90
25
23.31
29.3
28.10
30
21.87
28.56
27.40
Number
of Mass of the Mass of the can + Mass of the can +
trials
can (g)
wet soil (g)
dry soil (g)
1
23.00
28.00
27.50
2
23.00
28.20
27.70
3
23.00
27.50
27.00
arrow_forward
In a falling head permeability test the following data was recorded for a soil sample having a diameter of 150mm and a length of 200mm.
Standpipe diameter is 9mm.
Initial standpipe level (h1) ----- 1200mm ------ 900mm
Final standpipe level (h2) ------ 900mm ------- 750mm
Time interval (t2 – t1) ---------- 65 sec --------- 41 sec
Compute the average value of the coefficient of permeability.
Thank you!
arrow_forward
Afalling head permeability test was performed on a sample of clean uniform sand. The initial hydraulics head was 900 mm, the final head was 400 mm, 60 sec were required for the water level in the standpipe to fall. The cross-sectional area of the standpipe was 100 mm2. The sample was 40 mm in diameter and had a length of 180 mm. Determine the coefficient of permeability in Darcy's Law.
arrow_forward
****PROVIDE STEP BY STEP SOLUTION SOLVING H1 AND H2 VALUES in part B*****
A constant head permeability test is performed on soil that is 2 cm x 2 cm square, and 2.5cm long. The head difference applied during the test is 20 cm and 7 cm3 is collected over a time of 100 sec. Provide step by step solution.
a) Compute the permeability based on these test conditions and results.
b) A falling head test is conducted on the same soil specimen at the same time (t1 – t2 = 100 sec), and the standpipe diameter is 0.8 cm. If the average head during the test should be 18 cm, what are h1 and h2 values, provide step by step solution solving h1 and h2 values.
arrow_forward
A 627-g sample of sand was found to have the following amounts of material retained on
each sieve/pan:
3/8 in. = 22 g, No. 4 = 45 g, No. 8 = 96 g, No. 16 = 122 g, No. 30 = 163 g.
No. 50 86 g, No. 100 = 51 g, No. 200 = 30 g, pan = 11 g
a. Calculate the fineness modulus of the sand.
b. Is this sieve analysis valid for acceptance purposes? Explain why.
c. Does the sand meet the particle size criteria of ASTM C 33. Fully justify your answer
(list and check all relevant criteria from ASTM C33)
arrow_forward
The permeability of moulding sand was determined using a standard AFS sample by passing 2000 cc of air at a gauge pressure of 10 g/cm² If the time taken for the air to escape was 1 min.
Find out the permeability number.
arrow_forward
Task 1. Compaction test
Table 1 Results of compaction test
Run No
Mass of sample and cylinder (g)
Mass of cylinder (g)
1
2
3
4
6022
6052
6102
6074
6015
4200
4200
4200
4200
4200
Can No
12
08
F3
F4
F5
Tare mass (g)
Wet mass gross (g)
Dry mass gross (g)
31.12
31.04
31.31
30.83
31.53
80.17
97.9
93.68
84.28
108.81
79.07
95.71
89.93
79.91
101.29
Table 1 shows the results of compaction test on soil sample.
(1) Describe the test procedure of compaction test.
(2) Calculate water content and dry density in each run.
(3) Plot the dry density-water content curve and zero air void line.
(4) Determine the maximum dry density and optimum water content.
arrow_forward
mpt=541762&cmid%3D103601
Marks 25
Question 1
A sample of AL Batina soil tested in the laboratory. The gradation analysis results are as shown in table Q1.
The Atterberg limit tests indicate that the liquid limit is LL = 30% and the plastic limit is PL=27%.
Table Q1
Sieve No.#
Sieve size (mm) Finer (%)
4
4.75
90
8.
2.36
84
16
1.3
60
30
0.6
30
50
0.2
10
200
0.075
8
i. Determine the uniformity coefficient
Marks]
ii. Determine curvature coefficient
[5
[5
Marks]
iii. Classify AL Batina soil according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
[10 Marks]
iv. Determine the group symbol and group name
Marks)
[5
arrow_forward
SOIL MECHANICS – HOMEWORK PART-3
Q1
Data obtained from a laboratory consolidation test are tabulated as follows:
Test points
3
4
5
o' (kPa)
Total AH (mm)
20
50
100
200
400
800
0.23
0.87
1.90
3.62
5.55
7.25
G=2.70, Họ= (initial thickness at zero pressure) = 22.5 mm,
w = (moisture content at the beginning of the test) = 0.78.
Plot the e-logo curve and calculate Ce.
Ae
C. =
log a¡ – logo, log(oʻ /o,)
Ho
AH
Hint:
and
Q2
An open layer of clay 4 m thick is subjected to loading that incereases the average effective
vertical stress from 185 kPa to 310 kPa. Determine:
(a) the total settlement,
my = 0.00025 m“/kN, cy = 0.75 m²
AH / Ho
m, =
Ae/(l + €g)
or m, =
(6.4)
From this definition we can find the consolidation settlement for a layer of thickness H:
Hint:
S̟ = AH = m,H(o¡ -6)
(6.5)
Q4
A surface load of 60 kPa is applied on the ground surface over a large area. The soil
profile consists of a sand layer 2 m thick, the top of which is the ground surface, overlying
a 4 m thick layer of clay. An…
arrow_forward
The following results were obtained from a liquid limit test on a clay using the Casagrande cup
device.
Number of blows
Moisture content (%)
6
12
20
28
32
52.5 47.1 43.2 38.6 37.0
a)
Determine the liquid limit
b)
If the natural water content is 38% and the plastic limit is 23%, calculate the liquidity index.
c) Would you expect a brittle failure? WHY?
arrow_forward
Show calculation on how to determine the average coefficient of permeability of the sand samplea at20°C.
arrow_forward
A flexible steel platform has a footprint of 75 feet by 75 feet and supports equipment having a total
weight of 2,250 kips. The platform is located at the ground surface. The soil profile below the platform
consists of 30 feet of stiff clay over bedrock. The groundwater table is located 5 feet below the ground
surface. The clay has a unit weight of 120 pcf above the water table and 125 pcf below the water table.
Laboratory consolidation test results for a sample of the clay at a depth of 15 feet below the ground
surface reveal a preconsolidation stress of 2,400 psf, compression index of 0.5, recompression index of
0.1 and initial void ratio of 0.66. Assume the bedrock is incompressible.
Part A
Plot effective vertical stress versus depth (to scale) before and after installation of steel platform and
equipment.
Part B
Calculate the primary consolidation settlement at the center of the platform and at the corner of the
platform AND report the differential settlement between these two…
arrow_forward
Q1
Data obtained from a laboratory consolidation test are tabulated as follows:
Test points
I 2 3
4
5
o' (kPa)
Total AH (mm)
20
50
100
0.23 0.87 L.90 3.62 5.55 7.25
200
400
800
G,=2.70, Ho= (initial thickness at zero pressure) = 22.5 mm,
w = (moisture content at the beginning of the test) = 0.78.
Plot the e-logo' curve and calculate Ce
Ae I+eo
Ho
log a - logo, log(o /06)
ΔΗ
Hint:
and
arrow_forward
4. Select the correct answer:
1-Porosity is directly proportional with:
a) Sample bulk density, Solid volume, and Void ratio of a sample
b) Voids volume, Water content
c) Solid volume, Void ratio, Total Volume, and Sample solid density
d) None
arrow_forward
According to AS 1726, specify the symbols and generic names used for coarse,medium and fine grain sands
arrow_forward
4 7 l.
12:33
التدرج الحبيب. . . HW1
HOMEWORK 1
We made sieve analysis for a soil sample, we had these results, complete the table.
Sieve opening
Wt. retained on
Accumulative wt.
% of
Sieve no
% of passing wt.
(mm)
4.76
each sieve (gm)
(gm)
accumulative wt
#4
2.38
#20
0,84
88.5
#40
0.42
77.9
#100
0.149
161.6
4200
0.074
29
pan
67.6
arrow_forward
The figure and the table below, shows the results of consolidation test for a soil
sample, Find the cc value.
TI
Applied pressure,
kPa
25
50
100
200
400
800
Voids ratio
0.634
0.619
0.583
0.523
0456
0383
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
of
0.35
10
100
1000
PRESSURE
0.15
0.21
0.12
no one
0.30
VOIDS RATIO
arrow_forward
A liquid limit test on a clay was performed with the following results. The natural water content of the clay is 38% and plastic limit is 21%.
Number of Blows
6
12
20
28
32
Water content (%)
52.5
47.1
42.3
38.6
37.5
What is the liquidity index of this clay? (Use Interpolation)
Group of answer choices
0.895
0.96
1.08
0.90
Please answer this asap. For upvote. Thanks
arrow_forward
On close investigation of a sample it was found to
be in three layers 20mm, 60mm, and 40mm. The
permeability of these layers are 3x10-³mm/sec,
5x10-4mm/sec, and 17x10-4mm/sec respectively.
Find kH
kyi H, +kµz ·H, +kµ3 H; +…+ k, · H,
H
arrow_forward
A 1000g of sand has been soaked for at least 24hours prior to lab. After drying the sample to saturated surface dry condition, the samples were split into two and put in tare cans. Can1+sample weigh 800g and can2+sample weigh 300g. Can1+sample was used for determining the specific gravity, where volume of water displaced in flask is 320cc. Can2+sample was used for determining the oven-dry weight which resulted to 280g. If the weight of can 1 and 2 is 5g and 6g respectively, determine the Absorption capacity and specific gravity of sand.
arrow_forward
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Structural Analysis (10th Edition)
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9780134610672
Author:Russell C. Hibbeler
Publisher:PEARSON
Principles of Foundation Engineering (MindTap Cou...
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781337705028
Author:Braja M. Das, Nagaratnam Sivakugan
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Fundamentals of Structural Analysis
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9780073398006
Author:Kenneth M. Leet Emeritus, Chia-Ming Uang, Joel Lanning
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Traffic and Highway Engineering
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781305156241
Author:Garber, Nicholas J.
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Related Questions
- Show calculation on how to determine the average coefficient of permeability of the sand sample at 20°C. Also show calculations on how to determine the discharge the K1 and Average K1arrow_forward3- A sand sample is subjected to drainage cutting test with a hollow cylinder device. Rupture occurs with increasing internal pressure while external pressure is constant. At the moment of rupture, the external stress is 200 kPa and the internal stress is 300| Kilopascals - be. Internal and external radii of the sample are 40 and 60 mm. A) Obtain the angle of soil friction. B) At the moment of rupture, what is the axial stress applied to the sample?arrow_forwardA series of identical samples have been tested with drained triaxial test and some of the values are given in the tabulated table 3(Below). Calculate the remaining values as in the blank box. PARAMETER |cell pressure, o3 (kPa) total axial stress, 01 (kPa) pore pressure at failure, u¡ (kPa) |change in volume, Av effective cell pressure, o3' (kPa) effective total axial stress, o,' (kPa) |difference in stress, q (kPa) CD test 150 284 i 1.8 ii i iv O i = 134; ii = 16; iii = 150; iv = 0 O i = 134; ii = 284; iii = 150; iv = 0 O i = 0; ii = 16; iii = 150; iv = 134 O i = 0; ii = 150; iii = 284; iv = 134arrow_forward
- Table Q3(c) presentssamples information for point load test. Based on the data: (i) Calculate the Unconfined Compression Strength for sample A and B. (ii) Classify the strength of sample A and B based on Bieniawaski 1975 classification as given in Table Q3c(ii). (iii) As an engineer, define the reason of strength classification of sample A and B.arrow_forwardThe following results were obtained from a liquid limit test on a clay using the Casagrande cup device. Number of blows 12 20 28 32 Water content (%) 52.5 47.1 43.2 38.6 37.0 Two determinations for the plastic limit gave water contents of 22.8% and 23.2%. Determine (a) the liquid limit and plastic limit, (b) the plasticity index, (c) the liquidity index if the natural water content is 38% and (d) the void ratio at the liquid limit if G, = 2.7. (e) What is the soil state in the field? (f) Do you expect a brittle type of failure for this soil?arrow_forwardMy courses SOIL MECHANICS Summative Assessment MIDTERM EXAM-QUIZ 2 FOR CE 17 CEIT-02-601P Time left 1:24:01 Water flows at the rate of 0.09 ml/s in an upward direction through a sand sample with a coefficient of permeability of 2.7 x 10^-2 mm/s. The thickness of the sample is 120mm and the area of cross-section is 5400 mm2. Taking the saturated unit weight of the sand as 18.9 kN/m3, determine the effective pressure in Pa at the middle of the sample. O a 182 O b. 910 O C. 364 O d. 728 SHOT ON POCO F3arrow_forward
- A sand cone test has been performed in a compacted fill performed on a soil sample. The test results were as follows: Initial mass of sand cone apparatus w/ sand -------------- 5.912 kg Final mass of sand cone apparatus w/ sand --------------- 2.378 kg Mass of soil recovered from hole ----------------------------- 2.883 kg Moisture content of soil from hole --------------------------- 7% Density of sand ---------------------------------------------------- 1300 kg/cu.m Volume of cone below valve------------------------------------ 1.114 x10 -3 cu.m Max. dry unit weight ---------------------------------------------- 19KN/cu.m Compute: The moist unit weight The dry unit weight The relative compactionarrow_forwardOutline the practical reasons why field permeability tests to obtain a value for coefficient of permeability might be preferred over the laboratory testing method.arrow_forwardTesting Procedure for the Sand Equivalent Test.arrow_forward
- "ll zain IQ قسم الهندسة المدنية - ميكانيك التربة - ... docs.google.com The sieve analysis has been 0/4 conducted on a soil sample and it was found that the percentage of passing from sieve number 200 is 100%. Also, the results of the liquid limit and plastic limits tests are shown in the image below. Using these information then the classification of this soil in accordance with the AASHTO system is Number of Mass of the Mass of the can + Mass of the can + blows can (g) wet soil (g) dry soil (g) 20 22.23 25.73 24.90 25 23.31 29.3 28.10 30 21.87 28.56 27.40 Number of Mass of the Mass of the can + Mass of the can + trials can (g) wet soil (g) dry soil (g) 1 23.00 28.00 27.50 2 23.00 28.20 27.70 3 23.00 27.50 27.00arrow_forwardIn a falling head permeability test the following data was recorded for a soil sample having a diameter of 150mm and a length of 200mm. Standpipe diameter is 9mm. Initial standpipe level (h1) ----- 1200mm ------ 900mm Final standpipe level (h2) ------ 900mm ------- 750mm Time interval (t2 – t1) ---------- 65 sec --------- 41 sec Compute the average value of the coefficient of permeability. Thank you!arrow_forwardAfalling head permeability test was performed on a sample of clean uniform sand. The initial hydraulics head was 900 mm, the final head was 400 mm, 60 sec were required for the water level in the standpipe to fall. The cross-sectional area of the standpipe was 100 mm2. The sample was 40 mm in diameter and had a length of 180 mm. Determine the coefficient of permeability in Darcy's Law.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Structural Analysis (10th Edition)Civil EngineeringISBN:9780134610672Author:Russell C. HibbelerPublisher:PEARSONPrinciples of Foundation Engineering (MindTap Cou...Civil EngineeringISBN:9781337705028Author:Braja M. Das, Nagaratnam SivakuganPublisher:Cengage Learning
- Fundamentals of Structural AnalysisCivil EngineeringISBN:9780073398006Author:Kenneth M. Leet Emeritus, Chia-Ming Uang, Joel LanningPublisher:McGraw-Hill EducationTraffic and Highway EngineeringCivil EngineeringISBN:9781305156241Author:Garber, Nicholas J.Publisher:Cengage Learning
Structural Analysis (10th Edition)
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9780134610672
Author:Russell C. Hibbeler
Publisher:PEARSON
Principles of Foundation Engineering (MindTap Cou...
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781337705028
Author:Braja M. Das, Nagaratnam Sivakugan
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Fundamentals of Structural Analysis
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9780073398006
Author:Kenneth M. Leet Emeritus, Chia-Ming Uang, Joel Lanning
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Traffic and Highway Engineering
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781305156241
Author:Garber, Nicholas J.
Publisher:Cengage Learning