ECIV 330 - CIVIL ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL HONORS PROJECT

Fall 2022

Honors Project Lab Report

To: Dr. Inthuorn Sasanakul

From: Macy Mekiliesky, Emma Broucqsault, Luke Groth, Aidan Wisler, Stephen Wilcken
Date: 18 November 2022
Subject: How loose or dense is it?

Team Members: Macy Mekiliesky, Emma Broucqsault, Luke Groth, Aidan Wisler, Stephen
Wilcken

Introduction

The purpose of this lab is to present the results of minimum and maximum void ratio tests for 5
different soil compositions. The group tested soils with 20, 35, 50, 65, and 80 percent sand to
identify the maximum and minimum void ratios and determine an optimum sand-to-gravel ratio
to then analyze the loosest and densest soil. Factors such as particle shape and particle size, as
well as the particle size range, impact the density of granular soils (Ishibashi, 65-81). The
purpose of this lab and its results is to further explore the field of Geotechnical engineering and
the concept of compaction. As you compact a soil, it increases its density by minimizing the void
space; compaction is important because it reduces the chance of settlement after a soil is loaded.

1
Objective

To perform and analyze data from a series of 5 tests to determine the maximum and minimum
void ratios of the soils whose mixtures vary in percent sand and gravel.

Material Description

The soils tested were all classified as GP, poorly graded gravel, and were composed of a
combination of gravel and sand with no fine content. Soils that are poorly graded gravel have
little to no frost potential, no compressibility or expansion ability, and have excellent drainage
characteristics (Ishibashi, 58). These mixtures were designed to be composed of 20, 35, 50, 65,
and 80 percent sand with the remainder of the mixture being gravel. Table 1 analyzes the grain
size distributions for each soil, shown in Figures 3 through 7 of the appendix, to classify the soil
according to USCS standards.

Table 1: Analysis of the Grain Size Distribution Plots for 5 Samples

Sample 20G-80S 35G-65S 50G-50S 65G-35S 80G-20S
Designed % 20 35 50 65 80
Gravel
Designed % 80 65 50 35 20
Sand
D10 (mm) 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.39
D30 (mm) 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.60 5.00
D50 (mm) 0.40 0.74 2.10 5.60 7.80
D60 (mm) 0.90 2.00 4.50 7.10 9.00
F200 (%) 0 0 0 0 0
R200 (%) 100 100 100 100 100
F4 (%) 86 74 60 45 28
% Sand
R4 (%) 14 26 40 55 72
% Gravel
Cu 6.43 13.33 28.13 35.50 23.08
Cg 0.62 0.32 0.16 0.25 7.12
Classification GP GP GP GP GP

2
 Figure 1: Plot of the Grain Size Distributions for 5 Samples

Experimental Procedures

In preparing the samples for testing, the group first used sieves to separate the sediments by grain
size according to ASTM D422. The soil was divided into gravel, coarse sand, and fine sand. For
the purpose of this experiment, the sands were then combined into one container. Specified
weights of gravel and sand, based on the ratio of sand-to-gravel tested, were then combined into
one container, and thoroughly mixed for testing. After preparing the 5 samples, the standard
testing procedures ASTM D4253 and ASTM D4254 were followed with no modifications. For
further details on the lab procedures, refer to the references section.

Results

The final results of this lab are shown in Table 2, Figure 2, and Figure 3 below. Table 2 displays
the maximum and minimum dry densities and void ratios of the five samples. Figure 2 shows a
plot of the maximum and minimum dry density versus the percentage of sand in the soil. Figure
3 shows a plot of the maximum and minimum void ratio versus the percentage of sand in the
soil. The raw data for this lab and the calculations for the final results are located in the appendix
in Table 3 through 9.

Table 2: Values for Minimum and Maximum Dry Unit Weight and Minimum and Maximum
Void Ratio for Each Sample
Sample 20G-80S 35G-65S 50G-50S 65G-35S 80G-20S
𝛾!"#$ (kN/m )3 16.832 15.934 15.560 15.962 15.320
𝛾!"%& (kN/m )
3 20.297 19.288 19.384 19.449 18.148
emin 0.305 0.373 0.366 0.362 0.459
emax 0.574 0.662 0.702 0.659 0.729

3
 Figure 2: Plot of % Sand vs. Dry Unit Weight

Figure 3: Plot of % Sand vs. Void Ratio

Analysis and Interpretation

The purpose of plotting the maximum and minimum void ratio versus the percentage of sand in
the soil is to determine the optimal mixture of sand and gravel to give the soil the lowest
minimum void ratio possible and thus the highest dry density. The data appears to show a
negative correlation between void ratio and percent sand in each mixture. However, this trend
does not agree with the literature. For example, a study done at Villanova university, focused on
soil dynamics as they relate to earthquake engineering, compared the properties of five Pea
Gravel/Ottawa C109 sand mixtures. Among these properties was minimum and maximum void
ratios. The result was a parabolic relationship between the void ratio and percent sand where
minimum void ratio corresponds to between 30 and 50 percent sand (Hubler, 293).

4
There are several reasons that could explain why the group did not find accurate results. It seems
that the data is almost parabolic. If it were not for the 20G-80S and 35G-65S void ratio values,
the graph would be parabolic. For this reason, it is believed that experimental errors that caused
the results to deviate from that expected in the literature. One of these errors could be how the
samples were mixed; if not mixed properly, the intended percent sand to gravel ratio would not
equal the actual sand and gravel amounts in the soil. In the lab, the sample was 1000 g, even
though less than half of this used to fill the mold. The large amount of soil made it harder to
ensure that the sample was fully mixed. In future experiments, a smaller sample could be used to
ensure the sample is thoroughly mixed. In addition, when transferring the sample from the pan to
the mold, a scooper was used. The portion of the mixture included in the mold may have been a
misrepresentation of the percent sand and gravel in the entire sample if it was not properly
mixed. Another source of error is that only one sieve analysis was conducted. Thus, the grain
size distributions needed to be interpolated from the singular test. This was calculated by using
our initial grain size distribution for the entire sample and multiplying the weight retained in
each sieve by the corresponding percentage of sand or gravel. These sources of error could have
caused these unexpected results.

Summary and Conclusion

To conclude, the purpose of this experiment was to explore the effects of grain size ratios on the
density of soil samples after compaction. The group collected and recorded data on the weights
of each grain size within the sample to produce a cumulative grain size distribution. Weight and
volume data was then collected for five soil samples comprised of various sand to gravel ratios,
both before and after compaction. This data, along with the cumulative grain size distribution,
was used to calculate the maximum and minimum dry densities, the maximum and minimum dry
unit weights, minimum and maximum void ratios, and the local grain size distributions for each
mixture.

Although other compaction techniques such as impact, static, vibrating, rolling, and kneading
compaction exist, only gyrating compaction was explored in this experiment. Even so, the results
obtained could have important applications in the industry. Compaction is necessary for most
construction projects. Furthermore, lots of construction projects, such as earth dams, require
engineers to choose the types of soil most suitable for the job. The sand to gravel mixture ratio
yielding the minimum void ratios after compaction is often the ideal soil for these types of jobs.

5
References

ASTM Standards. (2006). Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory
Table, D4253, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM Standards. (2006). Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of
Relative Density, D4254, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM Standards. (2002). Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, D422,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Taylor & Francis Group. (2015). Soil Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications Second
Edition, Isa Ishibashi and Hemanta Hazarika, Boca Raton, FL.

Elsevier. (2018). Monotonic and Cyclic Shear Response of Gravel-Sand Mixtures, Jonathan F.
Hubler, Adda Athanasopolous-Zekkos, and Dimitrios Zekkos, Ann Arbor, MI.

6
 Appendix

Table 3: Starting Lab Data Used for All Samples

General Information 1 2 3
height (in) 6.119 6.138 6.113
diameter (in) 5.976 5.988 5.981
disk thickness (in) 0.506 0.512 0.498
weight of mold (g) 3473.7
weight of lid (g) 1779

Table 4: Lab Data for the 20G-80S Sample

20G-80S 1 2 3
space initial (in) 0.251 0.244 0.305
space final (in) 1.269 1.147 1.125
weight of mold + sample (g) 9480.9
weight of sample (g) 4228.2

Table 5: Lab Data for the 35G-65S Sample

35G-65S 1 2 3
space initial (in) 0.284 0.318 0.308
space final (in) 1.234 1.256 1.192
weight of mold + sample (g) 9228.1
weight of sample (g) 3975.4

Table 6: Lab Data for the 50G-50S Sample

50G-50S 1 2 3
space initial (in) 0.123 0.225 0.178
space final (in) 1.172 1.282 1.293
weight of mold + sample (g) 9228.1
weight of sample (g) 3975.4

Table 7: Lab Data for the 65G-35S Sample

65G-35S 1 2 3
space initial (in) 0.271 0.409 0.257
space final (in) 1.241 1.310 1.240
weight of mold + sample (g) 9228.1
weight of sample (g) 3975.4

7
Table 8: Lab Data for the 80G-20S Sample
80G-20S 1 2 3
space initial (in) 0.14 0.084 0.046
space final (in) 1.024 0.919 0.912
weight of mold + sample (g) 9228.1
weight of sample (g) 3975.4

Table 9: Calculated Values for Average Space Initial and Final, Initial and Final Volume,
Maximum and Minimum Dry Density, and Maximum and Minimum Dry Unit Weight for Each
Sample
Sample 20G-80S 35G-65S 50G-50S 65G-35S 80G-20S
Avg. Space Initial (m) 0.0068 0.0077 0.0045 0.0079 0.0023
Avg. Space Final (m) 0.0300 0.0312 0.0317 0.0321 0.0242
Initial Volume (m3) 0.0025 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0025
3
Final Volume (m ) 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021
𝜌!"#$ (kg/ m )3 1715.77 1624.31 1586.11 1627.07 1561.63
𝜌!"%& (kg/ m3) 2069.02 1966.14 1975.89 1982.55 1849.99
𝛾!"#$ (N/m )3 16831.66 15934.50 15559.75 15961.53 15319.56
𝛾!"%& (N/m )3 20297.12 19287.85 19383.51 19448.80 18148.41

Table 10: Equations Used to Calculate Void Ratio, Dry Density, Dry Unit Weight, Cu, and Cg
Value Calculated Equation
emin , emax '! (" ' (
(#$%&
−1, ! " −1(#$'(
"%)) "%))
𝜌!"#$ , 𝜌!"%& ,
*) *'
𝛾! 𝜌! 𝑥 9.81
Cu 𝐷,-
𝐷.-
Cg 𝐷/- 0
𝐷,- 𝐷.-

8
Figure 4: Grain Size Distribution for 20G-80S Sample

Figure 5: Grain Size Distribution for 35G-65S Sample

9
Figure 6: Grain Size Distribution for 50G-50S Sample

Figure 7: Grain Size Distribution for 65G-35S Sample

10
 Figure 8: Grain Size Distribution for 80G-20S Sample

Figure 9: In Lab Measurement of the Initial Space for the 65G-35S Sample

11
Figure 10: In Lab Measurement of the Final Space for the 65G-35S Sample

Figure 11: Image from Sieve Analysis

12
Figure 12: Image from Sieve Analysis

Figure 13: Image from Sieve Analysis

13