Physical properties of soils (basics)
-
Upload
red-orange -
Category
Documents
-
view
19 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Physical properties of soils (basics)
II.Physical Properties
1
Outline
1. Soil Texture1. Soil Texture2. Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution3 Particle Shape3. Particle Shape4. Atterberg Limits5 Some Thoughts about the Sieve Analysis5. Some Thoughts about the Sieve Analysis6. Some Thoughts about the Hydrometer Analysis7 S t d H k7. Suggested Homework
2
1 Soil Texture1. Soil Texture
3
1.1 Soil Texture
The texture of a soil is its appearance or “feel” and itThe texture of a soil is its appearance or feel and itdepends on the relative sizes and shapes of theparticles as well as the range or distribution of thosesizes.
Coarse-grained soils: Fine-grained soils:
Gravel Sand Silt Clay0.075 mm (USCS)
0.06 mm (BS) (Hong Kong)
Sie e anal sis H d t l i
4
Sieve analysis Hydrometer analysis
1.2 Characteristics(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
5
2. Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution
6
2.1 Grain Size
4.75USCS 0.075
BS 2.0 0.06 0.002
USCS: Unified Soil Classification
BS: British Standard
7
Unit: mm (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Note:
Cl i i lClay-size particlesFor example:
A small quartz particle may have the similar size of clay minerals.
Clay minerals
For example:
Kaolinite Illite etc
8
Kaolinite, Illite, etc.
2.2 Grain Size Distribution•Sieve size
9(Das, 1998) (Head, 1992)
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)( )
Coarse grained soils: Fine grained soils:•Experiment
Coarse-grained soils:
Gravel Sand
Fine-grained soils:
Silt Clay0 075 (USCS)0.075 mm (USCS)
0.06 mm (BS) (Hong Kong)
(Head, 1992)
10
Sieve analysis Hydrometer analysis
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)( )
Log scaleEffective size D10: 0.02 mm
11
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
ec ve s e 10: 0.0
D30: D60:
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)( )
• Describe the shapeExample: well graded
•CriteriaExample: well graded
mm6.0D)sizeeffective(mm02.0D
30
10
4Cand3C1soilgradedWell
uc
uniformityoftCoefficien
mm9D60
6Cand3C1)gravelsfor(
uc
curvatureoftCoefficien
45002.09
DDC
10
60u
)sandsfor(
•QuestionWhat is the Cu for a soil with
l i i ?2
)9)(02.0()6.0(
)D)(D()D(C
curvatureoftCoefficien2
6010
230
c
12
only one grain size?))(())(( 6010
Answer
•QuestionQuestionWhat is the Cu for a soil with only one grain size?
ner
DuniformityoftCoefficien
Fin
1DDC
10
60u
D
13
Grain size distribution
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)( )• Engineering applications
It will help us “feel” the soil texture (what the soil is) and it willalso be used for the soil classification (next topic).
It can be used to define the grading specification of a drainagefilter (clogging).
It can be a criterion for selecting fill materials of embankmentsand earth dams, road sub-base materials, and concrete aggregates., , gg g
It can be used to estimate the results of grouting and chemicalinjection, and dynamic compaction.Effective Size D can be correlated with the hydraulic Effective Size, D10, can be correlated with the hydraulicconductivity (describing the permeability of soils). (Hazen’sEquation).(Note: controlled by small particles)
14
The grain size distribution is more important to coarse-grained soils.
3. Particle Shapep
Rounded SubroundedCoarse- Rounded Sgrained soils
Subangular Angular
Important for granular soils Angular soil particle higher friction
R d il i l l f i i
Subangular Angular
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
15
Round soil particle lower friction Note that clay particles are sheet-like.
4. Atterberg Limits andand
Consistency Indices
16
4.1 Atterberg Limitsg• The presence of water in fine-grained soils can significantly affect
associated engineering behavior so we need a reference index to clarifyassociated engineering behavior, so we need a reference index to clarifythe effects. (The reason will be discussed later in the topic of clay minerals)
In percentage
17(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
4.1 Atterberg Limits (Cont.)g ( )
Li id Li it LL
Liquid StateFluid soil-water mixture
Liquid Limit, LL
l i i i
Plastic State
r con
tent
Plastic Limit, PL
h i k i i
Semisolid State
asin
g w
ater
Shrinkage Limit, SL
Solid StateD S il
Incr
ea
18
Dry Soil
4.2 Liquid Limit-LLq
Cone Penetrometer MethodCasagrande Method Cone Penetrometer Method
(BS 1377: Part 2: 1990:4.3)•This method is developed by the
Casagrande Method
(ASTM D4318-95a)•Professor Casagrande standardized •This method is developed by the
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, UK.
•Professor Casagrande standardized the test and developed the liquid limit device.
•Multipoint test
•One-point test
•Multipoint test
•One-point test
19
4.2 Liquid Limit-LL (Cont.)q ( )
Dynamic shear test Particle sizes and watery• Shear strength is about 1.7 ~2.0
kPa.•Passing No.40 Sieve (0.425 mm).
•Using deionized water.• Pore water suction is about 6.0
kPa. (review by Head, 1992; Mitchell, 1993).
The type and amount of cationscan significantly affect themeasured results.measured results.
20
4.2.1 Casagrande Methodg•Device
N=25 blows
Closing distance = 12 7mm (0 5 in)12.7mm (0.5 in)
21
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)The water content, in percentage, required to close a distance of 0.5 in (12.7mm) along the bottom of the groove after 25 blows is defined as the liquid limit
4.2.1 Casagrande Method (Cont.)g ( )•Multipoint Method
w
)(/l
, 21 valuepositiveachooseNN
wwIindexFlow F
NDas, 1998
22
.log
/log 12
contNIwNN
F
4.2.1 Casagrande Method (Cont.)g ( )•One-point Method
l htan
N• Assume a constant slope of the flow curve.
• The slope is a statistical result of 25
blowsofnumberN
NwLL n
p767 liquid limit tests.
121.0tan contentmoistureingcorrespondw
blowsofnumberN
n
Limitations:• The is an empirical coefficient,
i i l 0 121so it is not always 0.121.
• Good results can be obtained onlyfor the blow number around 20 to
23
30.
4.2.2 Cone Penetrometer Method•Device
This method is developed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
24
(Head, 1992)
4.2.2 Cone Penetrometer Method (Cont.)( )
•Multipoint Methodf c
one
20
ratio
n of
(mm
) 20 mm
Pene
tr
LL
25
Water content w%
4.2.2 Cone Penetrometer Method (Cont.)( )
•One-point Method (an empirical relation)
%4015d thP t ti(Review by Head, 1992)
2644094.140LL,094.1Factor
%,40w,mm15depthnPenetratioExample:
4.2.3 Comparisonp
A good correlationbetween the twomethods can beobserved as the
i l hLL is less than100.
27Littleton and Farmilo, 1977 (from Head, 1992)
Question:Which method will render more consistent results?
28
4.3 Plastic Limit-PL
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
The plastic limit PL is defined as the water content at whichThe plastic limit PL is defined as the water content at which a soil thread with 3.2 mm diameter just crumbles.
ASTM D4318-95a BS1377: Part 2:1990:5 3ASTM D4318 95a, BS1377: Part 2:1990:5.3
29
4.4 Shrinkage Limit-SLg
Definition of shrinkagelimit:
Th t t t tThe water content atwhich the soil volumeceases to change isdefined as the shrinkagedefined as the shrinkagelimit.SL
30
(Das, 1998)
4.4 Shrinkage Limit-SL (Cont.)g ( )
Soil volume: Vi
Soil mass: M1
Soil volume: Vf
Soil mass: M
(Das, 1998)
Soil mass: M2
)100)((VV)100(MM
(%)w(%)wSL
fi21
i
31
)100)((M
)100(M w
22
4.4 Shrinkage Limit-SL (Cont.)g ( )
• “Although the shrinkage limit was a popular classification test duringthe 1920s, it is subject to considerable uncertainty and thus is nolonger commonly conducted.”
• “One of the biggest problems with the shrinkage limit test is that theamount of shrinkage depends not only on the grain size but also onthe initial fabric of the soil. The standard procedure is to start withthe water content near the liquid limit. However, especially withsandy and silty clays, this often results in a shrinkage limit greaterthan the plastic limit, which is meaningless. Casagrande suggests thath i i i l b li h l h h PL if iblthe initial water content be slightly greater than the PL, if possible,
but admittedly it is difficult to avoid entrapping air bubbles.” (fromHoltz and Kovacs, 1981)
32
4.5 Typical Values of Atterberg Limits yp g
33
(Mitchell, 1993)
4.6 Indices•Plasticity index PIF d ibi h f
•Liquidity index LIF li th t l tFor describing the range of
water content over which a soil was plastic
For scaling the natural water content of a soil sample to the Limits.p
PI = LL – PLPLLLPLw
PIPLwLI
Liquid State C contentwatertheisw
LI <0 (A) b ittl f t if h d
Liquid Limit, LL
Liquid State
Pl ti Li it PL
Plastic StatePI B
C
LI <0 (A), brittle fracture if sheared0<LI<1 (B), plastic solid if sheared LI >1 (C), viscous liquid if sheared
Plastic Limit, PL
Shrinkage Limit, SL
Semisolid State
l d
A
34
Solid State
4.6 Indices (Cont.)( )
•Sensitivity St (for clays)Clay
particle> LLy t ( y )
)di t b d(St th)dundisturbe(StrengthSt
Water
w > LL
strengthshearUnconfined)disturbed(Strength
35(Holtz and Kavocs, 1981)
4.6 Indices (Cont.)( )•Activity A(Sk 1953)
Normal clays: 0.75<A<1.25Inactive clays: A<0.75(Skempton, 1953)
)weight(fractionclay%PIA
Inactive clays: A 0.75Active clays: A> 1.25High activity:l l h h tt d
mm002.0:fractionclay)weight(fractionclay%
•large volume change when wetted•Large shrinkage when dried•Very reactive (chemically) Mitchell, 1993
•PurposeBoth the type and amount of clayBoth the type and amount of clayin soils will affect the Atterberglimits. This index is aimed toseparate them.
36
separate them.
4.7 Engineering Applications• Soil classification
(the next topic)
g g pp
(the next topic)The Atterberg limit enable
clay soils to be classified.
• The Atterberg limits are usually correlated with some engineeringproperties such as the permeability, compressibility, shear strength,and others. In general, clays with high plasticity have lower permeability, and they are
difficult to be compacted
37
difficult to be compacted. The values of SL can be used as a criterion to assess and prevent the
excessive cracking of clay liners in the reservoir embankment or canal.
5. Some Thoughts about the Sieve Analysisg y
• The representative particle size of residual soilsp pThe particles of residual soils are susceptible to severe breakdown
during sieve analysis, so the measured grain size distribution is sensitive to the test procedures (Irfan, 1996).p ( , )
• Wet analysisFor “clean” sands and gravels dry sieve analysis can be used. If soils contain silts and clays, the wet sieving is usually used to
preserve the fine content.p
38
6. Some Thoughts about the Hydrometer Analysis
Stokes’ law Assumption RealityStokes law
D)(v2
ws
Sphere particle Platy particle (clay particle) as D 0.005mm
18v
Single particle(No interference between particles)
Many particles in the suspension
Known specific gravity of
Average results of all theminerals in the particles,including the adsorbed waterg y
particles films.Note: the adsorbed water filmsalso can increase the resistanceduring particle settling.
39
Terminal velocity Brownian motion as D 0.0002 mm(Compiled from Lambe, 1991)
7. Suggested Homeworkgg
1. Please derive the equation for calculating the1. Please derive the equation for calculating thepercentage finer than D (hint: please see thenote).
)%mR(
1GDG100DthanfinerPercentage d
s
2s
2. Please understand the calibration of hydrometer. hr R90.34.200H Please understand how to get this
ti
3. Please go over examples 1-1 to 1-3 in your noteshr equation.
40
8. ReferencesMain References:Das, B.M. (1998). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 4th edition, PWS Publishing , ( ) p f g g, , g
Company. (Chapter 2)Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,
Prentice Hall. (Chapter 1 and 2)Others:Others:Head, K. H. (1992). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, Volume 1: Soil Classification and
Compaction Test, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons.Ifran, T. Y. (1996). Mineralogy, Fabric Properties and Classification of Weathered Granites
in Hong Kong, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, vol. 29, pp. 5-35. Lambe, T.W. (1991). Soil Testing for Engineers, BiTech Publishers Ltd.Mitchell, J.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons.
41