You are on page 1of 8

Structural Engineering 1 | Lab 6

Team 51B

Gabe Halladay, Zifeng Lin

11/14/17
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical background
1. Soil Compaction
2. Water Content in Soil
3. Slope Stability
3. Testing equipment & Procedure
4. Data & Results
5. Discussion of Results
6. Conclusion
7. Appendix
1. Introduction
Understanding what lies beneath a structure and how the soil will respond to different loads it is
subjected to is essential to making a building safe. This lab looked at two different soil types (sand
and silty sand) and tested how different soil compositions play a role in strength of soil. Different
water content ratios were tested as well to learn what amount of water would strengthen soil the
most. Finally, this lab also tested the difference between placing loads above a slope or a vertical
wall.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Soil Compaction
When soil is compacted, loads can transfer through the soil better. Soil with varying particle sizes
compact better than soil with similar particle sizes because varying particle sizes can arrange
themselves in a way to create a denser formation through grain interlock. Soil that cannot fit
together densely have many air voids in them which weakens the soil and causes it to settle when
used as foundation for a structure.
2.2 Water Content in Soil
Filling soil-weakening air voids with water can help to strengthen the soil. The buoyant force of
the water can also rearrange the soil particles into a denser formation. However, placing an
excessive amount of water in the soil can weaken the soil and turn it into a muddy consistency.
Water content in soil is calculated using equation 1.
𝑀
𝑊(%) = 100 × 𝑀𝑤 Eq. 1
𝑠
Where W is water content ratio (%)
𝑀𝑤 is mass of water
And 𝑀𝑠 is mass of soil
Generally, all types of soil contain a certain amount of water because they absorb the water
molecules that are naturally in air. To obtain dry soil, water vapors in the soil would have to
evaporate.
2.3 Slope Stability
Whether or not soil is on a slope largely affects the loading capacity of that soil. A slope is stable
because its shear strength can withstand loads placed on top of it. However, when a slope becomes
unstable due to excessive shearing stresses, a sliding failure can occur, which is when soil slides
down the slope across a failure plane. A common cause of this type of failure is when a thin clay
layer in the soil absorbs too much water and loses shear strength, causing the soil on top of the
clay layer to slide down.
3. Testing Equipment & Procedure
Each team first observed the sand and silty-sand in its original state. Each team was assigned to
use approximately 2000 grams of either sand or silty-sand along with a water content ratio of 3%,
6%, 9%, 12%, or 15% of their soil’s weight. A scale was used to weight the soil and a graduated
cylinder was used to measure the appropriate amount of water. After mixing the assigned soil with
the assigned amount of water, the mixture was then compacted into a mold with a sloped and non-
sloped side. After the mold was removed, weight was added to the non-sloped side in small
increments until the soil collapsed. The failure load was then weighed using the scale. The same
process of compacting the soil and adding weight in small increments was repeated for the sloped
side.
4. Data & Results
When observing the two soils, the main difference between dry sand and dry silty-sand was the
size of their grain particles. Dry sand had small soil particles that were of similar size while dry
silty-sand soil varied in particle size, some being as small as the sand particles while others were
larger. The dry soil was very loose, but once water was added to the dry soil, it became more
adhesive and clumpier. The soil was able to hold a shape once water was added. When adding
weight to the non-sloped side, a singular crack formed straight down the center of the molded soil
and the non-sloped side separated from the rest of the soil, collapsing to the side into smaller
chunks. The sloped side was able to hold 700 grams or more than the non-sloped side. When the
sloped side failed, two main cracks formed. One formed down the center of the soil structure, like
the one formed when weight was added to the non-sloped side, and the other on the face of the
slope. Once the failure settled, the entire sloped side as well as a portion of the non-sloped side
crumpled. Figure 1 shows the amount of weight each soil type with different water content ratios
was able to hold on both a sloped and non-sloped side.

Water content ratio vs Failure Load


3500

3000

2500
Failure Load (grams)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
Water content ratio (%)

Sand (No Slope) Sand (Slope) Silty-Sand (No Slope) Silty-Sand (Slope)

Figure 1: Failure load of sand with no slope, sand with 2:1 slope, silty-sand with no slope, and
silty-sand with 2:1 slope in different water contents
5. Discussion of Results
Silty-sand held more weight than sand in almost all cases. Silty-sand performed better because its
grain particles interlocked better due to the varying sizes of its soil particles. On the other hand,
the sand particles were of similar size, so they were not able to interlock as well as the silty-sand
did. Because silty-sand was more densely packed, it was able to hold more weight than sand overall
but there were a couple of outliers. Sand with 3% water held 230.5 grams more than its silty-sand
counterpart and sand with 15% water held 137.3 grams more than its counterpart. Besides those
two data points, silty-sand was able to hold 150-400 grams more than sand on the vertical side and
200-1600 grams more on the sloped side, depending on the water content ratio of the soil.

Generally, soil with 6% or 9% water content ratio was able to hold more weight than soil that had
3% or 15% water content ratios. Each data set had a general bell-curve pattern but there were a
couple outliers showing that soil with 15% water held more weight than the same soil with 12%
water. However, soil with 6% and 9% water generally held the most weight because it was not too
much water that would loosen the soil but enough to rearrange the soil to be denser and fill the air
voids in the soil. Since soil with 6% and 9% water content was able to uphold the most weight,
soil with between 6% and 9% water would be ideal for a foundation.

The way in which the soil was shaped also had a significant impact on the amount of weight the
soil was able to hold. Apparent from the graph, the sloped side was able to hold more weight than
the non-sloped side with both types of soil. The degree to which the slope improved in performance
depended on the type of soil, however. The sloped sand was able to hold 700-1800 grams more
than its non-sloped side while the sloped silty-sand was able to hold 1500-2500 grams more. The
sloped-side was able to hold more weight because there was more soil bracing that side, preventing
that side from separating from the rest of the molded soil and toppling over like the vertical side
did. The sloped-side also had more area underneath to distribute loads so that side was able to hold
more weight than the non-sloped side.

Lastly, soil was compacted in this lab for several reasons. The soil was compacted in a way that
mimicked the method a job site would use to compact soil. It was also important that everyone
compacted their soil in the same way so that all data could be adequately compared. If the soil
were all compacted differently, another variable of compaction would have to be accounted for,
causing the data to be incomparable.
6. Conclusion
There are many factors that affect the strength of soil and its reaction to structural loads. An
important factor in predicting strength of soil is the composition of the soil. Soil that consists of a
variety of grain sizes will perform better than soil that consists of similar grain sizes. As seen in
the lab, silty-sand, consisting of a variety of grain sizes, performed better than sand because a
variety of grain sizes can interlock better and will hold more weight because it is more densely
compacted. In addition, grain size, water content in soil affects its strength as well. In the lab, soil
that was mixed with 6% or 9% water outperformed soil with 3%, 12%, and 15% water composition.
This was because adding too little water did not have as much of a significant effect and adding
too much water caused the soil to become too loose. Adding the right amount of water fills air
voids in soil and rearranges the soil particles into a tighter configuration, making the soil stronger.
Furthermore, the way which soil is shaped affects the amount of load the soil can uphold. In the
lab, the sloped side held more weight than the non-sloped side. Factors that affect soil strength
were able to be controlled in this lab but in a real-life situation, that may not always be the case. A
geotechnical engineer cannot control the amount of water in soil or the amount of water the soil
will be exposed to due to weather conditions. Geotechnical engineers also cannot control the
natural composition of soil so choosing the right site to build on is important. In addition, soil may
not always be uniformed throughout a site so calculations for one spot would not be the same for
another. Though a geotechnical engineer cannot control these factors, understanding the way these
factors affect soil is important.
Appendix
[1] Lab 6 Discovery Worksheet including table of failure loads for all soil cases

You might also like