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
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
hand written solution in white page neat clean all units and formula concept mentioned
arrow_forward
Calculate the porosity
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 liquid limit of this clay? (Use Interpolation)
Group of answer choices
39.85%
39.99%
36.74%
38.63%
Please answer this asap for upvote. Thanks
arrow_forward
soil هفصشبكطودذؤ
arrow_forward
I need the answer as soon as possible
arrow_forward
Below are tests used to determine permeability, which are :-
Constant Head test
Falling Head test
Bore hole permeability test
Pumping test
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
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
SITUATION 3:
The following are data's taken from
sieve analysis of three soil samples.
Classify the soils by AASHTO
classification system.
Sol Sample
Dia.
(mm)
4.76
Percent
100
100
100
finer than
No.
4
sieve
Percent
92
77
98
finer than
No. 10
sieve
Percent
0.42
53
51
84
finer than
No.
40
sieve
Percent
0.074
17
33
finer than
No. 200
sieve
Liquid
36
46
47
limit
Plastic
imit
20
28
24
14. What is the classification of soil A?
b. A-2-6(0)
d. A-2-7(2)
a. A-2-6(5)
c. A-1-a(0)
15. What is the classification of soil B?
a. A-2-7(1)
c. A-2-6(4)
b. A-2-5(1)
d. A-2-4(3)
16. What is the classification of soil C?
b. A-5(8)
d. A-7-6(12)
a. A-4(6)
A-7-5(10)
2.
arrow_forward
Outline reasons why the coefficient of permeability determined by a laboratory test procedure might be preferred over that from a field test procedure.
arrow_forward
Question number (13) Highway Engineering civil engineering
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
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
I need the answer soon as possible, please
arrow_forward
I need the answer as soon as possible
arrow_forward
Class No= 5202
A 500 g sample of sand in the SSD condition was placed in a jar, which was then filled with water. The combined weight was (your class Number + 1600) g. The weight of jar filled with water only was 1400g. Estimate the bulk specific gravity (SSD) of the sand.
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
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
I need help with this question
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
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
"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
Testing Procedure for the Sand Equivalent Test.
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
ASAP PLS complete solution
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
Can u help me with the question below
arrow_forward
Please use formula
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
- 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 = 134arrow_forwardhand written solution in white page neat clean all units and formula concept mentionedarrow_forwardCalculate the porosityarrow_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 liquid limit of this clay? (Use Interpolation) Group of answer choices 39.85% 39.99% 36.74% 38.63% Please answer this asap for upvote. Thanksarrow_forwardsoil هفصشبكطودذؤarrow_forwardI need the answer as soon as possiblearrow_forward
- Below are tests used to determine permeability, which are :- Constant Head test Falling Head test Bore hole permeability test Pumping testarrow_forwardA 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. Thanksarrow_forwardTable 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
- SITUATION 3: The following are data's taken from sieve analysis of three soil samples. Classify the soils by AASHTO classification system. Sol Sample Dia. (mm) 4.76 Percent 100 100 100 finer than No. 4 sieve Percent 92 77 98 finer than No. 10 sieve Percent 0.42 53 51 84 finer than No. 40 sieve Percent 0.074 17 33 finer than No. 200 sieve Liquid 36 46 47 limit Plastic imit 20 28 24 14. What is the classification of soil A? b. A-2-6(0) d. A-2-7(2) a. A-2-6(5) c. A-1-a(0) 15. What is the classification of soil B? a. A-2-7(1) c. A-2-6(4) b. A-2-5(1) d. A-2-4(3) 16. What is the classification of soil C? b. A-5(8) d. A-7-6(12) a. A-4(6) A-7-5(10) 2.arrow_forwardOutline reasons why the coefficient of permeability determined by a laboratory test procedure might be preferred over that from a field test procedure.arrow_forwardQuestion number (13) Highway Engineering civil engineeringarrow_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