1

1.0 SOIL COMPACTION TEST

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Soil compaction is a process of mechanically pressing together soil particles to increase
the density by expelling air from the void spaces of the soil.

Figure 1.1
Compaction of a soil is carried out to improve the properties and is a technique specified.
Compaction is carried out by rolling or tamping and causes compression of the soil by
expelling air from the voids. It is not possible to remove water from the voids by
compaction, but the addition of water to a slightly moist soil facilitates compaction by
reducing surface tension. However there is an optimum moisture content above which the
addition of water causes an increase in voids.

This soil compaction test cover the determination of the dry density of soil passing a
20mm test sieve when it is compacted in the specified manner described below over a
range of moisture contents. This test is in accordance to BS 1377 (Part 4).

1.2 OBJECTIVE
To determine optimum water content and maximum dry density of soil samples.
 2

1.3 APPARATUS
1. Cylindrical metal mould, internal dimensions 115.5mm high and 105mm diameter.
(Volume = 1000cm)
2. Metal rammer with 50 mm diameter face, weighing 2.5kg
3. Measuring cylinder (200ml or 500ml)
4. Large metal tray (600 x 500 x 80mm deep)
5. Balance (10kg, capacity reading to 1g)
6. Small tool, palette knife with steel straight-edge (300mm long)
7. Drying oven (105oC – 110oC) and other equipment for moisture content determination

1.4 THE 2.5KG RAMMER METHOD

1.4.1 PROCEDURE
1. At least 5kg of air-dried soil sample that passes through
20mm sieve was prepared.
2. The sample was mixed thoroughly with enough water to
obtain a low value of water content.
3. The mould with base plate was weighed attached to nearest
1g (m1), measure the internal dimensions to within 0.1mm.
The 2.5 kg rammer
4. The extension mould was attached to the mould assembly on a
solid base.
5. A quality of the soil mixture was placed into the mould such that when compacted it
occupies a little over one third of the height of the mould body.
6. 27 blows were applied from the rammer dropped from a height of 300mm above the
soil as controlled by the guide tube. The blow was distribute uniformly over the
surface and ensure that the rammer always falls freely and is not obstructed by soil in
the guide tube.
7. Procedure 5 and 6 was repeated until the amount of soil used is sufficient to fill the
mould body, with the surface not more than 6mm above of the upper edge of the
mould body.
8. The extension was removed.
 3

9. The excess soil was strike off and the surface of the compacted soil was level off used
the straightedge. Any coarse particles were replaced, removed in the levelling process
by finer material from the sample, well pressed in.
10. The soil and mould with base was weighed to the nearest 1g (m2).
11. The compacted soil was removed from the mould and placed it on the metal tray.
Representative sample of the soil was taken for determination of its water content.
12. The experiment was repeated with four varying water content.
13. The remainder of each compacted sample was discarded.
14. The values of water content corresponding to each volume of compacted soil were
determined and it becomes possible to plot dry density to moisture content.

1.4.2 THE EXAMPLE OF THE GRAPH

Dry density versus water content

Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3

 4

1.5 THE VIBRATING HAMMER METHOD

This test is suitable for certain soils that containing no more than
30% by mass of material retained on the 20mm test sieve, which
may include some particles retained on the 37.5mm test sieve.
A suitable hammer (according to BS 1377) have :
 frequency (25 - 45 Hz)
 power consumption (600 to 750 W)
The vibrating hammer method should only be used for fine-grained
granular soils and for the fraction of medium and coarse grained
granular soils passing the 37.5mm sieve. For highly permeable soils,
such as clean gravels and uniformly graded coarse sands, compaction
The vibrating hammer
by the vibrating hammer usually gives more dependable results than
Figure 1.4
compaction by either the 2.5kg rammer or the 4.5kg rammer.

1.5.1 PROCEDURE
1. The mould with base plate and extension was weighted attached to 5g.
2. The extension was attached to the mould.
3. The mould was placed on a solid base, e.g. a concrete floor or plinth.
4. A quantity of moist soil in the mould was placed such that when compacted it
occupies a little one one-third of the height of the mould body.
5. A circular tamper on the soil was placed and compacted with the vibrating hammer
for 60 ± 2 sec's. Repeat these steps 2 more times
6. Any loose material lying was removed on the surface of the sample around the sides
of the mould.
7. A straightedge was lay across the top of the extension collar and measure down to the
surface of the sample to an accuracy of 0.5mm. Take readings at four points spaced
evenly over the surface of the sample, all at least 15mm from the side of the mould.
The mean height,h (in mm) of the sample was calculate.
 5

Note: If the sample is less than 127mm or more than 133mm in height, reject it and
repeat the test again until a sample of the required height is obtained.
8. The soil and mould with base plate and extension was weighted to 5g.
9. The compact soil was removed from the mould and placed it on the metal tray. Take a
representative sample of the soil for determination of its moisture content as
described in BS 1377 part 2.
10. The remainder of the soil was break up, rubbed it through the 20mm or the 37.5mm
test sieve and mixed with the remainder of the prepared test sample.
11. Suitable increment of water was added and mixed thoroughly into the soil (to give
some 2% increase in water content).
12. These steps were repeated to give at least five determinations. The moisture contents
shall be such that the optimum moisture content, at which the maximum dry density
occurs, lies near the middle of the range.

1.6 DETERMINATION OF THE DRY DENSITY-MOISTURE CONTENT

RELATIONSHIP

The bulk density Percentage of air void content

ρb (Mgm-3) = Mass of the soil ω = moisture content (in decimal)
Volume of the soil
The relationship between ρb and Va
ρb (Mgm-3) = (M2 – M1) is given by expression:
V
Where; ρb (Mgm-3) = ρw (1-Va)
1+ω
M1 = Mass of the mould (g)
Gs
M2 = Mass of the mould + soil (g)
Where;
The dry density ρw = 1 Mgm-3
ρd (Mgm-3) = ρb Va = Percentage of air void content
(1+ω) (in decimal)
Where; Gs = Specific gravity
2.0 SIEVE ANALYSIS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Sieve analysis, which is among the oldest of soil test, is widely used in engineering
classifications of soils. The standard sieves analysis test determined the relative
propositions of different grains sizes as they are distributed among certain size ranges.

A sieve is similar to a cook’s flour sifter. It is an apparatus having opening of equal

size and shape through which grains smaller than the size of the opening will pass, while
larger grains are retained. Obviously, a sieve can be used to separate soil grains in a
sample into two groups; one containing grains smaller than the size of the sieve opening
and the other containing larger grains. By passing the sample downward through the
series of sieve, each of decreasing size opening, the grain can be separated into several
groups, each of which contains grains in a particular size range. The various sieve sizes
are usually specified and are standard.

Soils with small grain sizes cannot generally be analyzed using sieve, because of the
very small size of sieve opening that would be required and the difficulty of getting such
small particles to pass through. Sieve analysis for these soils is done, therefore, by
another method-hydrometer analysis. The hydrometer method is based on Stokes’ Law
which say that the larger the grain size, the grater it’s settling velocity in the fluid.

If a soils sample contains both large and small particles, which is often the case, its
can be performed using a combination of the two method described.
2.2 APPARATUS AND SUPPLIES

Test sieve with the following aperture sizes or that equivalent to BS 1377; Part 2 maybe
used: 10mm, 6.3mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 0.6mm, 0.3mm, 0.15mm, 0.063mm, the appropriate
receiver tray and lid, mechanical shiver shaker, brass wire brush and bristle brush.
A full set of sieves includes the following sizes (No.10 sieve [1])
3 in. (75mm) No.16 (1.18mm)
1½ in. (38.1mm) No.30 (0.600mm)
¾ in. (19.0mm) No. 50 (0.300mm)
⅜ in. (9.5mm) No.100 (0.150mm)
No.4 (4.75mm) No.200 (0.075mm)
No.8 (2.36mm)

2.3 PROCEDURE FOR SIEVE ANALYSIS

1. After air drying (if necessary), a representative sample must be weighed. The
amount of air-dried soil sample selected for this test should be sufficient.
2. The sample remaining on the No.10 sieve after washing should be oven dried and
weighed. With the weight retained on the No.10 sieve known, as well as the
weight of the original sample, both the percentage retained on, and the percentage
passing through, the No.10 sieve can be calculated.
3. Accurately weight a dry sample to 0.1% of its total mass of about 200g.
4. Place the set of sieves, with the largest opening on top, into a pan and pour the
aggregate onto the top sieve.
5. When mechanical sieving, establish a shaking time that will assure proper sieving
of the material without degradation.
6. Particles maybe hand placed to see if they will fall through but they shall not be
pushed through the sieve aperture.
7. Brush any particles clinging to each sieve into the next lower sieve with a bristle
brush, taking care to lose none of the material.
8. Record the weight of material passing the smallest size sieve used.
 9. At the completion of this analysis all material, with the exception of that portion
passing the smallest opening sieve, will be on the balance pan.

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS

Example
The following table shows the typical calculation of data obtained from sieve test and the
corresponding particles size distribution curve.

Total mass of dry soil = 200 g

Cumulative
BS test sieve size Mass retained Mass passing
percentage of mass
(mm) (g) (g)
passing (%)
4.75 10.179 189.821 94.91
2.36 22.639 167.182 83.59
1.18 39.872 127.310 63.66
0.600 44.333 82.977 41.49
0.300 36.830 46.147 23.07
0.212 16.383 29.764 14.88
0.150 13.985 15.779 7.89
0.075 10.698 5.081 2.54
Passing 0.075 3.559 1.522 0.76
Table 1

Total mass after sieving = 198.478 g

Losses = 1.522 g

2.5 CALCULATIONS

Example of calculations for data from 4.75 mm sieve size.

Mass retained = 10.179 g
Mass passing = 189.821 g
Total mass of dry soil = 200.000 g
Total percentage of mass passing = 94.91 %

2.6 RESULTS

Plot a graph for the cumulative percentage of mass passing versus the sieve size.

2.7 CONCLUSION

Based on the graph the data below is required:

D60 = 0.90
D30 = 0.40
D10 = 0.17
Uniformity coefficient - Cu = D60 = 5.2941
D10
Coefficient of gradation – Cc = (D30)2 = 1.0458
D60 x D10

Cc between 0.5 and 2.0

Therefore the classification of the soil sample is a well-graded soil.

3.0 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST

3.1 INTRODUCTION
A fine-gained soil can exist in any of several states; which state depends on the amount of
water in the soil system. When water is added to a dry soil, each particle is covered with a
film of adsorbed water. If the addition of water is continued, the thickness of the water
film on a particle increases. Increasing the thickness of the water films permits the
particles to slide past one another easily. The behaviour of the soil, therefore, is related to
the amount of water in the system. Approximately sixty years ago, A. Atterberg defined
the boundaries of two states in terms of "limits" as follows:

Liquid limit: The boundary between the liquid and plastic states;
Plastic limit: The boundary between the plastic and semi-slid states;

These limits have since been more definitely defined by A.Casagrande as the water
contents which exist under the following conditions:
Liquid limit: The water content at which the soil has such a small shear strength that it
flows to close a groove of standard width when jarred in a specified manner.
Plastic limit: The water content at which the soil begins to crumble when rolled into
threads of specified size.

3.2 LIQUID LIMIT

The liquid limits developed by A. Atterberg, a Swedish scientist. The liquid limit is one
of the most commonly performed of the Atterberg Limits along with the plastic limit.
These 2 tests are used internationally to classify soil.
The liquid limit is defined as the moisture content at which soil begins to behave as a
liquid material and begins to "flow". The liquid limit is determined in the lab as the
moisture content at which the two sides of groove formed in soil come together and touch
for a distance of 1/2 inch after 25 blows. Since it is very difficult to get this to occur
exactly, we will run the test repeatedly until the groove closes 1/2 inch with over 25
blows and under 25 blows. We can plot these results as blow count versus moisture
content and interpolate the moisture content at 25 blows from this graph.

3.2.1 APPARATUS
1. Liquid limit device and grooving tool
2. Mixing bowl
3. Drying cans
4. Spatula
5. Large glass plate
6. Drying oven
7. Distilled water
8. Evaporating dishes
9. Balance (0.01 g sensitivity)
  (Figure 3.1)Equipment use for the test

3.2.2 PROCEDURE

1. Pulverize a sufficient quantity of air dried soil to obtain approximately 250 g of

material
passing the No.40 sieve. The residue remaining on the sieve should be discarded since it
is no longer representative of the sample. Be sure to break up the lumps before sieving,
since many of the fines are in these lumps. Do not oven the dry soil, since this will reduce
the liquid and plastic limit of the soil.

2. Check the height of fall of their liquid-limit device. The devices must be adjusted for a
fall of exactly 1 cm (not over 0.1mm). Use the 1 cm calibration block on the end of the
grooving tool for making the adjustment. Make the adjustment with respect to the worn
spot on the base of the cup, not the shortest fall. If the height of the fall is not calibrated
within these limits, a water content error of several percent may be introduced.

 (Figure 3.2)Use of calibration block. Block can be

3. Place the 250 moved back to ensure a 1cm drop. g of soil
in a mixing dish, add a
small amount of water and carefully mix the soil to a uniform colour. Another major
source of error is poor mixing of the soil-water mixture. When the colour is uniform
throughout and the mixture has a creamy appearance, proper mixing has generally been
achieved. Continue to add small amounts of water and mix the mass to a uniform colour
each time. When you have the soil to the point of consistency (stickiness) where you
estimate (or by making a trial test) it will take about 50 blows to close the standard
groove 1/2 inch, remove about 20 g of the thoroughly mixed soil from the dish. Set this
sample aside for the plastic limit test. Now add more water and mix to a uniform colour
until you have the soil to a consistency which will yield a blow count of from 30 to 40
blows to close the standard groove 1/2 inch.

4. Remove the brass cup from the liquid-limit machine and place a small amount of soil
to the correct depth of the grooving tool, and well centred in the cup with respect to the
hinge. Smooth the surface of the soil pat carefully, and using the grooving tool, cut a
clean, straight groove that completely separates the soil pat into two parts. The tool
should be held perpendicular to the instantaneous tangent to the cup surface so that the
soil pat is not trimmed too shallow in depth. The soil depth should be just barely trimmed
with the shoulders of the tool at the deepest part. After making the groove, quickly attach
the cup to the device and make the blow count. The rate of rotation of the crank on the
Casagrande device should be about 2 revolutions per second. Stop the test after the
groove has closed a length of 13 cm. Unnecessary delays will affect the blow counts; if
the laboratory humidity is low, dry the soil surface. Take effect will show when plotting
the data by giving an erratic locus of points. Other test errors will also do this however.

 (Figure3.3) Left, groove separating two halves of pat, right, stop blow
counts after this length of groove closes a length of 13cm.

5. Repeat step 3 until 4 consistent blow counts are achieved for the water content. Take a
moisture sample in the pre-weighed moisture cups (as large as possible and of about 40 g
being sure to take the water content sample from the closed part of the groove. Weigh
this sample immediately and record the blow count and wet weight on the data sheet.
Remove the remainder of the soil from the brass cup and return it to the mixing dish.
Wash and dry the cup.

6. Add a small amount of water to the mixing dish of soil, and carefully mix to a uniform
colour and consistency to yield a blow count of between 25 and 30 blows. Repeats steps
4 and 5.

7. Repeat the sequence for two additional tests for blow counts of between 20 and 25 and
between 15 to 20, for a total of at least for test determinations. Be sure to clean and dry
the brass cup between tests, and try to maintain a consistent time lapse for each test. Do
not allow the soil to sit in the brass cup for a long period of time before the test. This
would allow adhesion to build up, which would result in higher blow counts. The blow
count sequence is done in descending order to make sure the sample is well mixed. It is
much easier to add water and mix to a uniform consistency (resulting in lower blow
counts) than it is to add soil and mix to a uniform consistency. If too much water is added
so that the sample is driven to the wet side of 25 blow counts before a sufficient spread of
data points is collected on the dry side of 25 blow counts, the sample should be air dried
rather than adding dry soil. Mixing or working the sample will help to quicken the drying
time.

8. Place the cups of soil in the oven (105 to 110OC) and dry 24 hours. When dry, weigh
and record the dry weight of the samples. Determine the water content of the samples and
prepare a plot of water content versus blow count for your tests.

3.3 PLASTIC LIMIT

The plastic limit is also developed by A. Atterberg, a Swedish scientist. The plastic limit
is one of the most commonly performed of the Atterberg Limits along with the Liquid
Limit. These 2 tests are used internationally to classify soil. The plastic limit is defined as
the moisture content at which soil begins to behave as a plastic material. A plastic
material can be moulded into a shape and the material will retain that shape. If the
moisture content is below the plastic limit , it is considered to behave as a solid, or a non
plastic material. As the moisture content increases past the plastic limit, the liquid limit
will be approached.

3.3.1 PROCEDURE
1. Take 2 to 5 g of the material remaining from the liquid limit test. The material should
be taken at any stage of the drying process at which the mass becomes plastic enough to
be shaped into a ball easily without sticking to the fingers when squeezed.

2. Shape the specimen into a ellipsoidal mass and roll it either under the root of the
fingers, under the palm of the fingers, under the palm of the hand or under the heel of the
thumb and against the glass plate. Use just enough pressure to roll the soil mass into a
thread that is 1/8 inch in diameter. When the diameter of the thread becomes 1/8 inch
without crumbling, fold and knead the thread into a ball again and repeat the rolling
process. Continue kneading and rolling the specimen until the soil has dried to the point
where the rolled thread will break into numerous pieces with a diameter of 1/8 inch and
about 1/8 to 3/8 inch in length.

 (Figure3.4)Rolling a thread and rolled threads

3. Place the pieces of the crumbled thread into a specimen container and determine the
water content. Repeat steps 1 and 2 with three to four times with different portions of the
prepared material in order to check the plastic limit. Both tests should agree within 1/20
of the plastic limit; otherwise the plastic limit test should be repeated.

3.3.2 DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURE

A simplified procedure for determining the liquid limit has been investigated. The
method is based on the assumption that the slope of the plot of blows on log scale against
water content on log scale is a straight line with a constant slope. If this assumption were
correct, the liquid limit could be obtained from any point on the curve. Based on liquid
limit tests, the discovery was made that for the soils investigated the liquid limit, w1 ,
could be found from:
w1=wN(N/25)

in which wN=the water content of the soil which closes in N blows in the standard liquid
limit device.
Natural soils used for liquid and plastic limit determinations should not be dried prior to
testing because drying may alter the soil by causing the particles to subdivided or
agglomerate, by driving off adsorbed water which is not completely regained on
rewetting, or by effecting a chemical change in any organic matter in the soil. This effect
can significantly change the limits, especially the liquid limit. The liquid limit of oven
dried organic soils tends to be lower than that of the undried. On the other hand, the
effect of drying on some clays (particularly those composed of minerals of the
montmorillonite group) cannot be predicted. For example, the liquid limit of an air-dried
sample of a soil was 20% greater than that determined on the soil not previously dried,
whereas the liquid limit of an oven-dried sample of the same soil was 24% less than that
determined on the undried soil.

3.3.3 CALCULATIONS

The limits, expressed as water content, are obtained as follows:

 Liquid Limit: w1, is read from the flow curve as the water content at 25 blows.
 Plastic Limit: wp, is the water content of the soil which crumbled when 1/8 inch
threads were rolled (the average of the consistent determinations made).

Atterberg indices can be calculated from the limits as follows:

 Plasticity Index: IP= w1-wp

 Flow Index: If=slope of the water content versus blows curve
 Toughness Index: It=IP/If

Errors in computing the liquid or plastic limits sometimes can be detected by plotting the
values of liquid limit versus plasticity index with reference to the upper limit line on the
plasticity chart. Be aware that other name conventions are in use and they may be
encountered in the literature. The following name conventions are commonly used:

 w1 and LL for the liquid limit

 wp and PL for the plastic limit
 Ip and PI for the plasticity index

3.4 POSSIBLE ERRORS

General
 The specimen is not representative of the soil. The liquid and plastic limits must
be determined using the same mixture of soil that used for determination of
natural water content or for other tests.
 Specimen is improperly prepared. The specimens must be thoroughly mixed and
be permitted to cure for a sufficient period before testing. Erroneous results may
be caused by the loss of colloidal material when removing particles coarser than
the No. 40 sieve or by testing air-dried or oven-dried soils.
 Inaccurate determination of the water contents would greatly affect the computed
liquid and plastic limits because of the small quantities of material available for
the water content determinations.
 Computational mistakes.

Liquid Limit Test

 Improperly constructed or adjusted liquid limit device.
 Worn parts of liquid limit device especially at point of contact between the cup
and the base, or worn tip of grooving tool.
 Soil at the point of contact between the cup and the base. Removing the cup for
shaping and grooving the sample will insure that the bottom of the cup and the top
of the base are clean. Any soil that has dropped onto the base can be removed
with one stroke of the back of the hand before replacing the cup.
 Loss of moisture during the test. Erratic and erroneous results may be caused by
drying of some soil mixtures unless the test is performed in a humid room.

Plastic Limit Test

 Rolling thread under fingers will break the thread prematurely.
 Incorrect final thread diameter. A length of 1/8 inch diameter metal rod close at
hand will help in estimating this diameter accurately.
 Stopping the rolling process too soon. If there is any doubt as to whether the
thread has crumbled sufficiently, it is better to roll the thread once more than to
stop the process too soon.

4.0 SOIL PERMEABILITY

4.1 DEFINITION
Permeability is a soil property indicating the ease with which water will flow
through the soil. Permeability depends on the following factors:
i. the size of soil grains
ii. the properties of pore fluids
iii. the void ratio of the soil
iv. the shape and arrangement of pores
v. the degree of saturation

4.2 SCOPE
There are four laboratory methods typically used for measuring the permeability
coefficient.
1) The variable – head (falling head) test
2) The constant head test
3) The capillary method
4) Back calculation from the calculation test.

But now, the laboratory methods we used is just only two, Constant-Head test and
Falling-Head test.

Generally, soil which contain 10% or more particles passing the no. 200 sieve are tested
using the falling head method. The constant head method is limited to disturbed granular
soils containing not more than 10% passing the no. 200 sieve.

The coefficient of permeability for the constant head test can be computed from
 k = QL
thA
in which,
Q= the total quantity of water that flowed through the soil in elapsed time, t
h= the total head lost

The coefficient of permeability for variable head test can be computed from

k = 2.3 aL log10 ho
A(t1-to) h1

in which,
a = the cross sectional area of standpipe
L = the length of soil sample in the permeameter
A = the cross-sectional area of the permeameter
to = the time when the water level in the standpipe is at ho
t1= the time when the water level in the standpipe is at h1
ho,h1= the heads between which the permeability is determined

4.3 CONSTANT HEAD TEST

This test usually carried out for soils with high permeability such as sands. Water is made
to flow through a column of soil under the application of a pressure difference which
remains constant. The amount of water passing through the soil in a know time is
measured.

4.3.1 APPARATUS
1. Permeameter cell, fitted with loading piston, perforated plates, flow tube
connections, piezometer nipples and connections, air bleed valve, sealing rings.
2. Glass piezometer tubes mounted on a stand with a graduated scale.
3. Rubber tubing for water flow and manometer connections, fitted with pinch clips
or valves.
4. Uniform fine gravel, or glass ball for end filter layers.
5. Two disc of wire gauze of the same diameter as the internal cell diameter.
6. Two porous stone of the same diameter.
7. Measuring cylinder: 500ml and 100ml.
8. Constant head reservoir. Outlet fitted with a flow regulation valve.
9. Outlet reservoir with overflow regulator valve.
10. Small tool: funnel, tamping rod, scoop.
11. Thermometer and stop-clock.

4.3.2 PROCEDURE
1. Remove the chamber cap of the permeameter and put one porous stone in the base
of the chamber. Take mold measurements to compute the area of the mold and
void ratio, e.
2. Use a scoop or funnel to pour the sand specimen into the chamber. Use a
technique to ensure that the soil is placed in a uniform manner. To determine
sample weight, a pan with sand is weighed.  The desired sample is removed and
the pan and sand is weighed again. The difference in weights is the sample
weight.
3. Place the upper porous stone on the specimen and the compression spring on the
porous stone. Then put the chamber cap and sealing gasket in place and secure it
firmly with the cap nuts. Measure and record the length of the specimen.
4. Assemble the constant-head reservoir and adjust it to the desired height above the
outlet of the permeameter to create the desired head. Close the inlet valve to the
permeameter. Fill the constant-head reservoir with deaired water. Deair the lines
connected to the inlet valve by vacuuming for approximately 15 minutes.
5. Open the outlet valve of the permeameter and close the valves to the piezometers
(if your permeameter device has the setup). Connect a vacuum pump to the outlet
and apply a full vacuum for 15 minutes to remove the entrapped air in the soil.
Shut off the outlet valve, remove the vacuum pump, and open the inlet valve to
saturate the specimen. Slowly open the valve to prevent liquefying the soil
sample. Measure the height between the outlet tube and the water in the constant
head reservoir.
6. Open the inlet and outlet valves. When an equilibrium flow condition is
established, place a graduated cylinder to receive the outflow and start a timer.
When a sufficient quantity of water is obtained in the graduated cylinder, remove
it and stop the timer. Record the quantity of water obtained and the time required
to obtain it. Also record the temperature of the water.
7. During the time that the water is being collected in the previous step, the
piezometers should be observed and a set of average readings (one for each
piezometer) should be recorded (if the device is equipped with this setup).
 8. Change the height of the constant-head reservoir by at least 0.1 meters and repeat
steps 6) and 7).

4.4 FALLING-HEAD TEST

For measuring the permeability, of soils of intermediate and low permeability (i.e silts
and clay). In this test, a relatively short sample is connected to a standpipe which
provides both the head of water and means of measuring the quantity of water flowing
through the sample. The procedure described below follow generally accepted.

4.4.1 APPARATUS

1. Permeameter cell, comprising :-

- cell body with cutting edge, 100mm diameter and 130 mm long
- perforated base plate with straining rods and wing nuts.
- top clamping plate.
- connecting tube and fittings

2. Standpipe panel fitted with glass standpipe tubes of different diameters.

3. Steel wool.
4. Small tools: funnel, trimming knife, spatula.
5. Stop clock or stopwatch.
6. Immersion tank with overflow.

4.4.2 PROCEDURE

1. Assemble apparatus.
 2. Calibrate manometer tubes.
3. Prepare cell.
4. Assemble cell.
5. Connect cell.
6. Saturate cell.
7. Fill manometer cell.
8. Run test.
9. Calculate permeability.

Figure 4.0

5.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST

5.1 GENERAL
In a direct shear test a square prism of soil is laterally restrained and sheared along a
predetermined horizontal plane. The shearing resistance offered by the soil, as one
portion is made to slide on the other, is measured at regular intervals of displacement.
Failure occurs when the shearing resistance reaches the maximum value which the soil
can sustain. By carrying out set of tests on a set of (usually three times) same soil sample
under different normal pressures, the relationship between measured shear test at failure
and normal applied stress can be obtained.

5.2 OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the test is to determined the parameters of shear strength of soil like
cohesion, c and angle of shearing resistance, Φ

5.3 APPARATUS
1) Specimen cutter
2) Shear box apparatus
3) Hanger weights
4) Weighing balance

5.4 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

1) The specimen cutter was weighed nearest to 0.1 g and the initial mass (Mo) of the
specimen was calculated.
2) The specimen from soil was obtained and trimmed using cutter and trimmer
3) The cutter on the top surface of the assembled shear box was rested with its inside
faces in exact alignment with the inside faces of the shear box.
4) The specimen was pushed out of the cutter and into the shear box, keeping its
upper face horizontal, until it was bedded on to the lower porous plate.
5) The upper porous plate was placed firmly on the specimen. It was ensured that
there was an equal clearance all around the edges of the plates.
 6) The carriage was positioned on its bearing on the machine bed, and the drive unit
was adjusted to the correct starting point of the shear test. The horizontal
displacement gauge was secured in position.
7) The loading system was assembled, so that the loading yoke is supported by ball
seating on top of the load cap.
8) The specimen was sheared to failure using the rate of shear displacement of
40mm/hr
9) The test was started and at the same instant the timer was started. Readings of the
force measuring device, the horizontal displacement gauge, the vertical
deformation gauge and elapsed time was recorded, at regular intervals of
horizontal displacement (every 1 minute) such that at least 20 readings are taken
up to the maximum load (‘peak’ shear strength).
10) The additional readings were taken as the maximum horizontal force was
approached, so that if the ‘peak’ occurs it can be clearly defined
11) The shearing was continued and the readings were taken beyond the maximum
force, or until the full travel of the apparatus has been reached if there is no
defined peak, the test was stopped
12) The direction of travel of the carriage was reversed and the two halves of the
shear box was returned to their original alignment
13) The vertical force and loading yoke was removed from the specimen
14) The specimen from the shear box was transferred into a small tray, taking care
the specimen from the shear box not to lose any soil, Any free water was removed
with tissue.
15) The specimen on tray was weighed nearest to 0.1g.
16) The soil was dried in an oven at 105˚ C to 110˚ C for a period of 12 hours and its
dry mass (Ms) to 0.1 g to 0.1 g, and its final moisture content was determined.
17) The process from (1) to (16) was repeated for two more soil specimen using
hanger weights of 1.23 kg, 2.5 kg, and 3.75 kg respectively.

5.5 NOTES
The shear strength of soil can be described by Mohr-Coulomb equation:
τ= c + σn tanθ

where

τ= shear strength

c= cohesion

σn = normal stress

θ= angle of shear resistance

Shear Stress,τ

τ= c + σn tanθ θ

Normal stress, σn
Figure5.1: Graph Shear Stress vs Normal stress

5.6 CALCULATION
 1) For General data, the initial water content, w(in %),can be calculated from the
equation:
w= M – Ms
Ms

Where,
M=mass of the specimen (in g )
Ms=mass of the final dry mass of the specimen (in g)

2) The shear stress on the surface of shear, τ (in kPa), for each set of readings can be
calculated from equation
τ= P x 100
A
Where,
A is the initial plan area of the specimen (in mm2)

3) The normal stress, σn (in kPa), can be applied to the specimen was given by the
equation

σn= 9810M
A
Where,

M is the mass of the hanger and weights (or equivalent mass if a lever-arm loading
system is used) applied to the loading cap (in kg)

5.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST APPARATUS

Figure 5.2