3

CHAPTER (2)
CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL

2.1 Introduction
For engineering purposes, soil is defined as the uncemented aggregate of
mineral grains and decayed organic matter (solid particles) with liquid and gas in the
empty spaces between the solid particles. Soil is used as a construction material in
various civil engineering projects, and it supports structural foundations. Thus, civil
engineers must study the properties of soil, such as its origin, grain-size distribution,
ability to drain water, compressibility, shear strength, and load-bearing capacity.
The civil engineering structures like building, bridge, highway, tunnel, dam,
tower, etc. are founded below or on the surface of the earth. For their stability,
suitable foundation soil is required. To check the suitability of soil to be used as
foundation or as construction materials, its properties are required to be assessed.
Information about the surface and sub-surface features is essential for the design of
structures and for planning construction techniques. When buildings impose very
heavy loads and the zone of influence is very deep, it would be desirable to invest
some amount on sub-surface exploration than to overdesign the building and make it
costlier. For complex projects involving heavy structures, such as bridges, dams,
multi-storey buildings, it is essential to have detail exploration. The purpose of
detailed explorations is to determine the engineering properties of the soils for
different strata. When the foundations of any structure are constructed on
compressible soil, it leads to settlement.
The properties of the soil such as plasticity, compressibility or strength of the
soil always affect the design in the construction. Lack of understanding of the
properties of the soil can lead to the construction errors. The suitability of soil for a
particular use should be determined based on its engineering characteristics and not
on visual inspection or apparent similarity to other soils. The loading capability of soil
depends upon the type of soil. Generally, fine grained soils have a relative smaller
capacity in bearing of load than the coarser grained soils. Plasticity index and liquid
limit are the important factors that help an engineer to understand the consistency or
 4

plasticity of clay. Though shearing strength constants at liquid limits but varies for
plastic limits for all clays. In this study of soil test, soil sample is taken from Ksetra
Myothit, Pyay.

2.2 Soil Particle Size

Soils are made up of mineral particles, and the size and arrangement of these
particles has a major influence on the properties of the soil. Particles in a single soil
sample can range in size from very coarse (>100mm), down to very fine (<2micron).
Soils with large size particles are stronger due to the higher inter-particle friction,
while finer soils are more sensitive to water content. When a soil comprises a range of
particle sizes, the smaller particles partially fill the voids between the larger particles.
This can be compacted into a dense material with close particle-to-particle contact and
high interparticle friction, creating a soil with high strength and good engineering
properties. Well graded soil material is one that has a wide particle distribution with
no significant size gaps.
Soil particles vary greatly in size, and soil scientists classify soil particles into
sand, silt, and clay. Starting with the finest, clay particles are smaller than 0.002 mm
in diameter. Some clay particles are so small that ordinary microscopes do not show
them. Silt particles are from 0.002 to 0.05 mm in diameter. Sand ranges from 0.05 to
2.0 mm. Particles larger than 2.0 mm are called gravel or stones. Most soils contain a
mixture of sand, silt and clay in different proportions. Sands and gravels are grouped
together as coarse-grained soils. Clays and silts are fine-grained soils. Coarse-grained
soils feel gritty and hard.
Gravels are pieces of rocks with occasional particles of quartz, feldspar, and
other minerals. Sand particles are made of mostly quartz and feldspar. Other mineral
grains also may be present at times. Silts are the microscopic soil fractions that consist
of very fine quartz grains and some flake-shaped particles that are fragments of
micaceous minerals. Clays are mostly flake-shaped microscopic and submicroscopic
particles of mica, clay minerals, and other minerals. Non-clay soils can contain
particles of quartz, feldspar, or mica that are small enough to be within the clay
classification.
 5

2.3 Mechanical Analysis of Soil

Mechanical analysis is the determination of the size range of particles present
in a soil, expressed as a percentage of the total dry weight. It is one of the most
important laboratory determinations made in soil studies.

Two methods generally are used to find the particle-size distribution of soil:

(1) Sieve analysis; for particle sizes larger than 0.075 mm in diameter
(2) Hydrometer analysis; for particle sizes smaller than 0.075 mm in diameter

2.3.1 Sieve Analysis

Sieve analysis is a method that is used to determine the grain size distribution
of soils that are greater than 0.075 mm in diameter. It is usually performed for sand
and gravel. This test method is used primarily to grade aggregates. Information
obtained from the particle size analysis (uniformity coefficient Cu, coefficient of
curvature, Cc, and effective size, D10, etc.) is used to classify the soil. The calculation
is presented in a graph of percent passing versus the sieve size. Particle size is one of
the criteria used to determine whether the soil is suitable for buildings, roads,
embankments, dams, etc.
To conduct a sieve analysis, one must be first oven dry the soil and then
breaks all lumps into small particles. The soil then is shake through a stack of sieves
with openings of decreasing size from top to bottom (a pan is placed below the stack).
The used number of sieves are No 4, 8, 20, 40, 60, 100, 120 and 200. Portions
retained on each sieve are collected and oven-dried before the mass retained on each
sieve is measured.
(1) Determine the mass of soil retained on each sieve (i.e., M 1, M2, . . . , Mn) and
in the pan (i.e.,, Mp).
(2) Determine the total mass of the soil: M 1 + M2 + . . . + M i + . . . + M n + Mp =
∑ M.
(3) Determine the cumulative mass of soil retained above each sieve. For the ith
sieve, it is M1 + M2 + . . . + Mi.
 6

(4) The mass of soil passing the ith sieve is ∑ M −(M 1 + M 2+ .. .+ M i) .

(5) The percent of soil passing the ith sieve (or percent finer) is

∑M - (M 1 + M 2 +…+ Mi)
F = ×100
∑M
(2.1)

Once the percent finer for each sieve is calculated (step 5), the calculations are
plotted on semilogarithmic graph paper with percent finer as the ordinate (arithmetic
scale) and sieve opening size as the abscissa (logarithmic scale). This plot is referred
to as the particle-size distribution curve.

Figure 2.1 Mechanical Sieve Shaker

2.3.2 Hydrometer Analysis

Hydrometer analysis is based on the principle of sedimentation of soil grains
in water. When a soil specimen is dispersed in water, the particles settle at different
velocities, depending on their shape, size, weight, and the viscosity of the water. For
simplicity, it is assumed that all the soil particles are spheres and that the velocity of
soil particles can be expressed by Stokes’ law.

For Hydrometer Analysis,

Rc = Ra + CT – Zero correction (2.2)

 7

Where,
Ra = Actual hydrometer reading
Rc = Corrected hydrometer reading
CT = Temperature correction factor

R = R a + Cm (2.3)

Where,
R = Corrected hydrometer reading for meniscus
Cm= Meniscus correction ()

R c(
Percentage finer, N(%) = × 100
Ws
(2.4)

Where,
Ws = Weight of original soil sample placed in suspension
= Correction factor for unit weight of solids

D=K
√ L (cm)
t (min)
(2.5)

Where,
D = Diameter of soil particles
L = The distance particle fall in some time interval t, effective depth
T = Time (min)
K = A factor dependent upon temperature and specific gravity of the soil
particles

2.3.3 Particle-Size Distribution Curve

A particle-size distribution curve can be used to determine the following four
parameters for a given soil (Figure 2.2).
 8

(1) Effective size (D10): This parameter is the diameter in the particle-size
distribution curve corresponding to 10% finer. The effective size of a granular
soil is a good measure to estimate the hydraulic conductivity and drainage
through soil.

Figure 2.2 Particle-size Distribution Curve

(2) Uniformity coefficient (Cu): This parameter is defined as

D60
C u= (2.6)
D10
Where, D60= diameter corresponding to 60% finer.

(3) Coefficient of gradation (Cc): This parameter is defined as

2
D30
C c=
D 60 × D10
(2.7)

(4) Sorting Coefficient ( Sυ ): This parameter is another measure of uniformity and

is generally encountered in geologic works and expressed as

Sυ =
√ D 75
D 25
(2.8)
 9

The sorting coefficient is not frequency used as a parameter by geotechnical

engineers.
The percentages of gravel, sand, silt, and clay size particles present in a soil
can be obtained from the particle-size distribution curve. As an example, we will use
the particle-size distribution curve shown in figure to determine the gravel, sand, silt,
and clay size particles as follows (according to the United Soil Classification System
—see Table):
The particle-size distribution curve shows not only the range of particle sizes
present in a soil, but also the type of distribution of various-size particles. Such types
of distributions are demonstrated in Figure. Curve I presents a type of soil in which
most of the soil grains are the same size. This is called poorly graded. A well-graded
soil has a uniformity coefficient greater than about 4 for gravels and 6 for sands, and a
coefficient of gradation between 1 and 3 (for gravels and sands). A soil might have a
combination of two or more uniformly graded fractions. Curve III represents such a
soil. This type of soil termed gap graded.
 10

Figure 2.3 Different types of particle-size distribution curves

2.4 Consistency of Soil

When clay minerals are present in fine-grained soil, the soil can be remolded
in the presence of some moisture without crumbling. This cohesive nature is caused
by the absorbed water surrounding the clay particles. In the early 1900s, a Swedish
scientist named Atterberg developed a method to describe the consistency of fine-
grained soil with varying moisture contents. At a very low moisture content, soil
behaves more like a solid. When the moisture content is very high, the soil and water
may flow like a liquid. Hence, on an arbitrary basis, depending on the moisture
content, the behavior of soil can be divided into four basic states-solid, semisolid,
plastic, and liquid.
The moisture content, in percent, at which the transition from solid to
semisolid state takes place, is defined as the shrinkage limit. The moisture content at
the point of transition from semisolid to plastic state is the plastic limit, and from
plastic to liquid state is the liquid limit. These parameters are also known as Atterberg
limits.
 11

2.4.1 Liquid Limit

The liquid limit is determined by spreading a pat of soil in a brass cup, plastic
state of a silt or clay. The liquid limit is determined by spreading a pat of soil in a
brass cup, plastic state of a silt or clay. Firstly, the soil sample in the cup must be
divided with the use of a grooving tool, and then allow it to flow together from the
shock caused by repeatedly dropping the cup in a standard liquid limit device. In
terms of specifics, the liquid limit is defined as the water content at which the pat of
the soil cut by the grooving tool will flow together for a distance of 0.5 in (12.7mm)
under the impact of 25 blows in a standard liquid limit device.

Figure 2.4 Liquid limit devices

It is difficult to adjust the moisture content in the soil to meet the required 0.5
in (12.7mm) closure of the groove in the soil pat at 25 blows. Hence, at least three
tests for the same soil are conducted at varying moisture content, with the number of
blows, N, required to achieve closure varying between 15 and 35. The moisture
content of the soil, in percent, and the corresponding number of blows are plotted on
semi-logarithmic graph paper. The relationship between moisture content and log N is
approximated as a straight line. This line is referred to as the flow curve. The moisture
content corresponding to N=25, determined from the flow curve, gives the liquid limit
of the soil. Figure (2.4) shows the flow curve for the liquid limit determination of soil.
 12

Figure 2.5 Flow Curve for Liquid Limit Determination of Soil

2.4.2 Plastic Limit

The plastic limit is defined as the moisture content in percent, at which the soil
1
crumbles, when rolled into threads of 3.2 mm ( in.) in diameter. The plastic limit is
8
the lower limit of the plastic stage of soil. The plastic limit test is simple and is
performed by repeated rollings of an ellipsoidal-sized soil mass by hand on a ground
glass plate (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.6 Rolling of soil mass on ground glass plate to determine plastic limit

2.4.3 Plasticity Index

Plasticity index is the difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit.

PI = LL - PL
(2.9)
 13

Where,
PI = Plasticity index (PI)
LL = Liquid limit (LL)
PL = Plastic limit (PL)

The plasticity index is important in classifying fine grained soils. It is

fundamental to the Casagrande plasticity chart, which is currently the basis for the
Unified Soil Classification System.

2.5 Soil Classification by Engineering Behavior

Although the textural classification of soil is relatively simple, it is based

entirely on the particle-size distribution. The amount and type of clay minerals present
in fine grained soils dictate to a great extent their physical properties. Hence, the soils
engineer must consider plasticity, which results from the presence of clay minerals, to
interpret soil characteristics properly. Because textural classification systems do not
take plasticity into account and are not totally indicative of many important soil
properties, they are inadequate for most engineering purposes. Currently, two more
elaborate classification systems are commonly used by soils engineers. Both systems
take into consideration the particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits. They are;

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) classification system and
2. Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
The AASHTO classification system is used mostly by state and county
highway departments. Geotechnical engineers generally prefer Unified Soil
Classification System.

2.5.1 AASHTO Classification System

The AASHTO system of soil classification was developed in 1929 as the
Public Road Administration Classification System. The AASHTO classification
system in present use is given in Table (A-8). According to this system, soil is
classified into seven major groups: A-1 through A-7. Soils classified under groups A-
1, A-2 and A-3 are granular materials of which 35% or less of the particle pass
 14

through the No.200 sieve. Soils of which more than 35% pass through the No.200
sieve are classified under group A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7. These soils are mostly silt
and clay-type materials. The classification system is based on the following criteria:
(1) Grain size
(a) Gravel: fraction passing the 75-mm (3in) sieve and retained on the
No.10 (AASHTO) classification system and
(b) Sand: fraction passing the No.10 (2mm) sieve and retained on the
No.200 (0.075mm) U.S sieve
(c) Silt and clay: friction passing the No.200 U.S sieve
(2) Plasticity: The term silty is applied when the fine friction of the soil has a
plasticity index of 10 or less. The term clayey is applied when the fine
frictions have a plasticity index of 11 or more.
(3) If cobbles and boulders (size larger than 75mm) are encountered, they are
excluded from the portion of the soil sample from which classification is
made. However, the percentage of such material is recorded. Figure 2.8 shows
a plot of the range of the liquid and the plasticity index for soils that fall into
groups A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7.
 15

Figure 2.7 Range of Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index for Soils in Group A-2, A-4, A-
5, A-6 and A-7
To evaluate the quality of a soil as a highway subgrade material, one must also
incorporate a number called the group index (GI) with the groups and subgroups of
the soil. This index is written in parentheses after the group or subgroup designation.
The group index is given by the equation,

GI = (F200 - 35) [0.2 - 0.005(LL – 40)] + 0.01(F200 – 15) (PI – 10)

(2.10)

Where; F200 = percentage passing through the No.200 sieve

LL = liquid limit
PI = plastic index

2.5.2 Unified Soil Classification System

This system classifies soils into two broad categories:
1. Coarse grained soils that are gravelly and sandy in nature with less than 50%
passing through the No. 200 sieve. The group symbols start with a prefix of G
or S.G stands for gravel or gravelly soil, and S for sand or sandy soil.
2. Fine grained soils are with 50% or more passing through the No.200 sieve. The
group symbols start with prefixes of M, which stands for inorganic silts and
clays. The symbols used for the classification are:

3. W - well graded
4. P - poorly graded
5. L - low plasticity (liquid limit less than 50)
6. H - high plasticity (liquid limit more than 50)

For proper classification according to this system, some or all of the following
information must be known:
(1) Percent of gravel – that is, the fraction passing the 76.2-mm sieve and retained
on the No. 4 sieve (4.75-mm opening)
(2) Percent of sand – that is, the fraction passing the No. 4 sieve (4.75-mm
opening) and retained on the No.200 sieve (0.075-mm opening)
 16

(3) Percent of silt and clay – that is, the fraction finer than the No.200 sieve
(0.075-mm opening)
(4) Uniformity coefficient Cu and the coefficient of gradation Cc
(5) Liquid limit and plasticity index of the portion of soil passing the No. 40 sieve

The group symbols for coarse-grained gravelly soils are GW, GP, GM, GC,
GC-GM, GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, and GP-GC. Similarly, the group symbols for
fine-grained soils are CL, ML, OL, CH, MH, OH, CL-ML, and Pt. More recently,
ASTM designation D-2487 created an elaborate system to assign group names to
soils.
(1) Fine fraction = Percent passing No.200 sieve
(2) Coarse fraction = Percent retained on No.200 sieve
(3) Gravel fraction = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
(4) Sand fraction = (Percent retained on (Percent retained
No.200 sieve) on No.4 sieve)

2.6 Specific Gravity (GS)

Specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the unit weight of a given material to
the unit weight of water. The specific gravity of light-colored sand, which is mostly
made of quartz, may be estimated to be about 2.65; for clayey and silty soils, it may
vary from 2.6 to 2.9.

W 2−W 1
Gs =
( W 2−W 1 )−(W 3−W 4)
(2.11)
Where,
W₁ = Weight of empty pycnometer
W2 = Weight of pycnometer + dry sample
W3 = Weight of pycnometer + dry sample + water
W4 = Weight of pycnometer + water

Table 2.1 Results for Specific Gravity Test

 17

Soil Sample 2ft 4ft 6ft 8ft

Weight of empty
W1 0.2 0.2 0.256 0.256
pyconometer
Weight of
pyconometer +dry W2 0.4 0.4 0.456 0.456
sample
Weight of
pcynometer + dry W3 1.326 1.327 1.371 1.372
sample+ water
Weight of
W4 1.2 1.202 1.245 1.247
pcynometer+ water

Specific gravity Gs 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.65

2.7 Determination of Grain Size Distribution

In the determination of grain size distribution, sieve analysis is carried out for
particles greater than 0.075mm and hydrometer analysis is used for particles smaller
than 0.075mm.

2.7.1 Grain Size Analysis Results for Soil Sample I (2 ft)

 18

The results of sieve analysis for sample I (2 ft) that greater than 0.075mm is
shown in Table 2.2. Hydrometer analysis of sample I(2 ft) is shown in Table 2.3 and
that of the grain size distribution curve is shown in Figure (2.8).

Table -2.2 Results of Sieve Analysis for Soil Sample I (2 ft)

Weight of dry soil = 500 g
Sieve Sieve Wt.Sieve Wt.Sieve+ Wt.Sieve Percent Cumula- Percent
No Opening (gm) Soil retained Retained tive Finer
(mm) (gm) (gm) Percent %
Retained
4 4.75 590 590 0 0 0 100

8 2.36 558 560 2 0.4 0.4 99.6

20 0.85 494 520 26 5.2 5.6 94.4

40 0.425 468 550 82 16.4 22 78

60 0.25 436 498 62 12.4 34.4 65.6

100 0.15 444 510 66 13.2 47.6 52.4

120 0.125 432 480 48 9.6 57.2 42.8

200 0.075 434 564 130 26 83.2 16.8

Pan 378 462 84 16.8 100 0

Table -2.3 Result of Hydrometer Analysis for Sample I (2 ft) Soil
Sample: I (2 ft) Hydrometer type: ASTM 152H
Weight of dry soil, W = 50g Specific gravity = 2.7
Meniscus correction = +1 Correction factor, a = 1
Elapsed Temp© Temp: Zero Actual Rc=Ra+Ct- Hydrometer Effective Factor,K D=K√(L/t) N=(Rc*alpha/W) Percent
Time(T) Correction Correction Hydrometer Zero Correction Depth,L Finer
*100
(min) factor Reading(Ra) Correction only for
Ct Meniscus,R

0.25 30 3.8 1 42 44.8 40 9.40 0.012 0.07481 89.6 15.05

0.5 28 2.5 1 39 39.5 37 9.90 0.012 0.05473 79 13.27
1 29 3.05 1 36 38.05 34 10.40 0.012 0.03902 76.1 12.78

19
2 28 2.5 1 35 36.5 33 10.60 0.012 0.02832 73 12.26
4 28 2.5 1 33 34.5 31 10.90 0.012 0.0203 69 11.59
8 28 2.5 1 31 32.5 29 11.20 0.012 0.01455 65 10.92
16 29 3.05 1 30 32.05 28 11.40 0.012 0.01021 64.1 10.77
30 29 3.05 1 28 30.05 26 11.70 0.012 0.00756 60.1 10.1
60 29 3.05 1 25 27.05 23 12.20 0.012 0.00546 54.1 9.089
120 30 3.8 1 24 26.8 22 12.40 0.012 0.00386 53.6 9.005
240 30 3.8 1 21 23.8 19 12.90 0.012 0.00278 47.6 7.997
1440 28 2.5 1 18 19.5 16 13.30 0.012 0.00118 39 6.552
 Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Analysis

110

100

Percent
90 finer (%)

80

70

60

50

20
40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)

USCS Silt and Clay = 16.8 Sand = 83.2 Gravel = 0

Figure 2.8 Grain size distribution curve for soil sample I (2 ft)
 21

2.7.2 Grain Size Analysis Results for Soil Sample II (4 ft)

The results of sieve analysis for sample II (4 ft) that greater than 0.075mm is
shown in Table 2.4. Hydrometer analysis of sample II (4 ft) is shown in Table 2.5 and
that of the grain size distribution curve is shown in Figure (2.9).

Table -2.4 Results of Sieve Analysis for Soil Sample II (4 ft)

Weight of dry soil = 500 g
Sieve Sieve Wt.Sieve Wt.Sieve+ Wt.Sieve Percent Cumula- Percent
No Opening (gm) Soil retained Retained tive Finer %
(mm) (gm) (gm) Percent
Retained
4 4.75 590 590 0 0 0 100

8 2.36 558 568 10 2 2 98

20 0.85 494 562 68 13.6 15.6 84.4

40 0.425 468 558 90 18 33.6 66.4

60 0.25 436 560 124 24.8 58.4 41.6

100 0.15 444 498 54 10.8 69.2 30.8

120 0.125 432 455 23 4.6 73.8 26.2

200 0.075 434 480 46 9.2 83 17

Pan - 378 463 85 17 100 0

Table -2.5 Result of Hydrometer Analysis for Sample II (4 ft) Soil
Sample: II (4 ft) Hydrometer type: ASTM 152H
Weight of dry soil, W = 50g Specific gravity = 2.7
Meniscus correction = +1 Correction factor, a = 1
Elapsed Temp© Temp: Zero Actual Rc=Ra+Ct- Hydrometer Effective Factor,K D=K√(L/t) N=(Rc*alpha/W) Percent
Correction Correction Hydrometer Zero Correction Depth,L *100 Finer
Time(t) factor Reading(Ra) Correction only for
(min) Ct Meniscus,R
0.25 30 3.8 1 43 45.8 41 9.2 0.0123 0.075 90.684 15.42
0.5 28 2.5 1 39 40.5 37 9.9 0.0123 0.055 80.19 13.63

22
1 28 2.5 1 36 37.5 34 10.4 0.0123 0.040 74.25 12.62
2 28 2.5 1 33 34.5 31 10.9 0.0123 0.029 68.31 11.61
4 28 2.5 1 31 32.5 29 11.2 0.0123 0.021 64.35 10.94
8 28 2.5 1 29 30.5 27 11.5 0.0123 0.015 60.39 10.27
16 28 2.5 1 26 27.5 24 12 0.0123 0.011 54.45 9.26
30 28 2.5 1 25 26.5 23 12.2 0.0123 0.008 52.47 8.92
60 28 2.5 1 22 23.5 20 12.7 0.0123 0.006 46.53 7.91
120 29 3.05 1 21 23.05 19 12.9 0.0121 0.004 45.639 7.76
240 29 3.05 1 19 21.05 17 13.2 0.0121 0.003 41.679 7.09
1440 28 2.5 1 17 18.5 15 13.5 0.0123 0.001 36.63 6.23
 Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Analysis

110

100

90
Percent finer (%)
80

70

60

50

23
40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Particle Size (mm)

USCS Silt and Clay = 17 Sand = 83 Gravel = 0

Figure 2.9 Grain size distribution curve for soil sample II (4 ft)
 24

2.7.3 Grain Size Analysis Results for Soil Sample III (6 ft)
The results of sieve analysis for sample III (6 ft) that greater than 0.075mm is
shown in Table 2.6. Hydrometer analysis of sample III (6 ft) is shown in Table 2.7
and that of the grain size distribution curve is shown in Figure (2.10).

Table -2.6 Results of Sieve Analysis for Soil Sample III (6 ft)
Weight of dry soil = 500 g
Sieve Sieve Wt.Sieve Wt.Sieve Wt.Sieve Percent Cumula- Percent
No Opening (gm) +Soil retained Retained tive Finer %
(mm) (gm) (gm) Percent
Retained
4 4.75 590 590 0 0 0 100

8 2.36 558 558 0 0 0 100

20 0.85 494 564 70 14 14 86

40 0.425 468 567 99 19.8 33.8 66.2

60 0.25 436 492 56 11.2 45 55

100 0.15 444 495 51 10.2 55.2 44.8

120 0.125 432 472 40 8 63.2 36.8

200 0.075 434 538 104 20.8 84 16

Pan - 378 458 80 16 100 0

Table -2.7 Result of Hydrometer Analysis for Sample III (6 ft) Soil
Sample: III (6 ft) Hydrometer type: ASTM 152H
Weight of dry soil, W = 50g Specific gravity = 2.7
Meniscus correction = +1 Correction factor, a = 1
Elapsed Temp© Temp: Zero Actual Rc=Ra+Ct Hydrometer Effective Factor,K D=K√(L/t) N=(Rc*alpha/W) Percent
Correction Correction Hydrometer -Zero Correction Depth,L *100 Finer
Time(t) factor Reading(Ra) Correction only for
(min) Ct Meniscus,R
0.25 29 3.05 1 45 47.05 43 8.9 0.0123 0.073 93.159 14.91
0.5 28 2.5 1 42 43.5 40 9.4 0.0123 0.053 86.13 13.78

25
1 28 2.5 1 39 40.5 37 9.9 0.0123 0.039 80.19 12.83
2 28 2.5 1 37 38.5 35 10.2 0.0123 0.028 76.23 12.20
4 28 2.5 1 35 36.5 33 10.6 0.0123 0.020 72.27 11.56
8 28 2.5 1 32 33.5 30 11.1 0.0123 0.014 66.33 10.61
16 28 2.5 1 30 31.5 28 11.4 0.0123 0.010 62.37 9.98
30 28 2.5 1 28 29.5 26 11.7 0.0123 0.008 58.41 9.35
60 28 2.5 1 26 27.5 24 12 0.0123 0.006 54.45 8.71
120 30 3.8 1 24 26.8 22 12.4 0.012 0.004 53.064 8.49
240 30 3.8 1 23 25.8 21 12.5 0.012 0.003 51.084 8.17
1440 29 3.05 1 20 22.05 18 13 0.0121 0.001 43.659 6.99
 Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Analysis

110

100

90
Percent finer (%)
80

70

60

50

40

26
30 30

20

10

0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
USCS Silt and Clay = 16 Sand = 84 Gravel = 0

Figure 2.10 Grain size distribution curve for soil sample III (6 ft)
 27

2.7.4 Grain Size Analysis Results for Soil Sample IV (8 ft)

The results of sieve analysis for sample IV (8 ft) that greater than 0.075mm is
shown in Table 2.8. Hydrometer analysis of sample IV (8 ft) is shown in Table 2.9
and that of the grain size distribution curve is shown in Figure (2.11).

Table -2.8 Results of Sieve Analysis for Soil Sample IV (8 ft)

Weight of dry soil = 500 g
Sieve Sieve Wt.Sieve Wt.Sieve Wt.Sieve Percent Cumula- Percent
No Opening (gm) +Soil retained Retained tive Finer %
(mm) (gm) (gm) Percent
Retained
4 4.75 590 590 0 0 0 100

8 2.36 558 558 0 0 0 100

20 0.85 494 562 68 13.6 13.6 86.4

40 0.425 468 554 86 17.2 30.8 69.2

60 0.25 436 496 60 12 42.8 57.2

100 0.15 444 495 51 10.2 53 47

120 0.125 432 484 52 10.4 63.4 36.6

200 0.075 434 530 96 19.2 82.6 17.4

Pan - 378 462 84 16.8 99.4 0

Table -2.9 Result of Hydrometer Analysis for Sample IV (8 ft) Soil
Sample: IV (8 ft) Hydrometer type: ASTM 152H
Weight of dry soil, W = 50g Specific gravity = 2.65
Meniscus correction = +1 Correction factor, a = 1
Elapsed Temp© Temp: Zero Actual Rc=Ra+Ct- Hydrometer Effective Factor,K D=K√(L/t) N=(Rc*alpha/W) Percent
Correction Correction Hydrometer Zero Correction Depth,L *100 Finer
Time(t) factor Reading(Ra) Correction only for
(min) Ct Meniscus,R
0.25 30 3.8 1 40 42.8 38 9.7 0.0123 0.0766 85.6 14.894
0.5 29 2.5 1 37 38.5 35 10.2 0.0123 0.0556 77 13.398

28
1 29 2.5 1 34 35.5 32 10.7 0.0123 0.0402 71 12.354
2 29 2.5 1 33 34.5 31 10.9 0.0123 0.0287 69 12.006
4 29 2.5 1 32 33.5 30 11.1 0.0123 0.0205 67 11.658
8 29 2.5 1 29 30.5 27 11.5 0.0123 0.0147 61 10.614
16 29 2.5 1 27 28.5 25 11.9 0.0123 0.0106 57 9.918
30 29 2.5 1 25 26.5 23 12.2 0.0123 0.0078 53 9.222
60 29 2.5 1 24 25.5 22 12.4 0.0123 0.0056 51 8.874
120 30 3.8 1 23 25.8 21 12.5 0.0122 0.0039 51.6 8.9784
240 30 3.8 1 22 24.8 20 12.7 0.0122 0.0028 49.6 8.6304
1440 29 2.5 1 20 21.5 18 13 0.0123 0.0012 43 7.482
 Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Analysis

110

100

90
Percent
80 finer (%)
70

60

50

40

30

20

29
10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)

USCS Silt and Clay = 17.4 Sand = 82.6 Gravel = 0

Figure 2.11 Grain size distribution curve for soil sample IV (8 ft)
 30

2.8 Atterberg Limit Test

It is necessary to determine the Atterberg limits of the studied soils. Atterberg

limit includes liquid limit, plastic limit, and shrinkage limit. The liquid limit and
plastic limit have been widely used all over the world, primarily for soil identification
and classification.

2.8.1 Atterberg Limit Test Result for Soil Sample I (2 ft)

Plastic limit determination of sample I (2 ft) is shown in Table-2.10. Liquid

limit determination is shown in Table-2.11. Figure.2.12 describes the flow curve for
liquid limit determination of soil sample I (2 ft).

Table-2.10 Plastic Limit Determination of Sample I (2 ft)

Determination No 1 2 3

Container No 1 2 3

Wt of Container,W0 19 19 19

Wt of Container+Wet Soil,W1 28 27 27

Wt of Container +Dry Soil W2 26 25 25

Wt of Water 2 2 2

Wt of Dry Soil 7 6 6

Water Content 28.57 33.33 33.33

Average Water Content 31.746

 31

Table- 2.11 Liquid limit determination of soil sample I (2 ft)

No of Blow 37 32 27 16

Determination Number 1 2 3 4

Container Number 1 2 3 4

Wt of Container,W0 (g) 34 32 30 34

Wt of Container+Wet 52 48 40 52
Soil,W1 (g)

Wt of Container+Dry Soil , 49 44 37 45
W2 (g)

Wt of Water (g) 3 4 3 7

Wt of Oven Dry Soil (g) 15 12 7 11

Water Content, w (%) 20.00 33.33 42.86 63.64

Flow Curve for Liquid Limit Determination

70
60
water content ,w %

50
40
30
20
10
0
10 100

Number of Blows, N

Figure 2.12 Flow curve for liquid limit determination of soil sample I (2 ft)
 32

2.8.2 Atterberg Limit Test Result for Soil Sample II (4 ft)

Plastic limit determination of sample II (4 ft) is shown in Table-2.12. Liquid

limit determination is shown in Table-2.13. Figure.2.13 describes the flow curve for
liquid limit determination of soil sample II (4 ft).

Table-2.12 Plastic Limit Determination of Sample II (4 ft)

Soil Sample 4ft

Determination No 1 2 3

Container No 1 2 3

Wt of Container,W0 20 38 26

Wt of Container+Wet Soil,W1 24 45 30

Wt of Container +Dry Soil W2 23 43 29

Wt of Water 1 2 1

Wt of Dry Soil 3 5 3

Water Content 33 40 33.33

Average Water Content 35.443

 33

Table- 2.13 Liquid limit determination of soil sample II (4 ft)

No of Blow 37 34 29 19

Determination Number 1 2 3 4

Container Number 1 2 3 4

Wt of Container,W0 27 27 32 27

Wt of Container+Wet Soil,W1 38 35 39 38

Wt of Container+Dry Soil , W2 36 33 37 34

Wt of Water 2 2 2 4

Wt of Oven Dry Soil 9 6 5 7

Water Content 22.22 33.33 40.00 57.14

Flow Curve for Liquid Limit Determination

60
Water Content, w(%)

50

40

30

20
10 100
Number of Blows(N)

Figure 2.13 Flow curve for liquid limit determination of soil sample II (4 ft)
 34

2.8.3 Atterberg Limit Test Result for Soil Sample III (6 ft)

Plastic limit determination of sample III (6 ft) is shown in Table-2.14. Liquid

limit determination is shown in Table-2.15. Figure.2.14 describes the flow curve for
liquid limit determination of soil sample III (6 ft).

Table-2.14 Plastic Limit Determination of Sample III (6 ft)

Soil Sample 6ft

Determination No 1 2 3

Container No 1 2 3

Wt of Container,W0 44 48 48

Wt of Container+Wet Soil,W1 54 58 60

Wt of Container +Dry Soil W2 52 56 56

Wt of Water 2 2 4

Wt of Dry Soil 8 8 8

Water Content 25 25 50

Average Water Content 33.33

 35

Table- 2.15 Liquid limit determination of soil sample III (6 ft)

No of Blow 35 30 27 16

Determination Number 1 2 3 4

Container Number 1 2 3 4

Wt of Container,W0 50 48 50 48

Wt of Container+Wet Soil,W1 72 64 64 58

Wt of Container+Dry Soil , W2 68 60 60 54

Wt of Water 4 4 4 4

Wt of Oven Dry Soil 18 12 10 6

Water Content 22.22 33.33 40.00 66.67

Flow Curve for Liquid Limit Determination

70
Water Content (%)

60

50

40

30

20
10 100
Number of Blows,N

Figure 2.14 Flow curve for liquid limit determination of soil sample III (6 ft)
 36

2.8.4 Atterberg Limit Test Result for Soil Sample IV (8 ft)

Plastic limit determination of sample IV (8 ft) is shown in Table-2.16. Liquid

limit determination is shown in Table-2.17. Figure.2.15 describes the flow curve for
liquid limit determination of soil sample IV (8 ft).

Table-2.16 Plastic Limit Determination of Sample IV (8 ft)

Soil Sample 8ft

Determination No 1 2 3

Container No 1 2 3

Wt of Container,W0 48 52 50

Wt of Container+Wet Soil,W1 56 60 58

Wt of Container +Dry Soil W2 54 58 56

Wt of Water 2 2 2

Wt of Dry Soil 6 6 6

Water Content 33 33.33 33.33

Average Water Content 34.33

 37

Table- 2.17 Liquid limit determination of soil sample IV (8 ft)

No of Blow 36 30 20 15

Determination Number 1 2 3 4

Container Number 1 2 3 4

Wt of Container,W0 48 53 50 50

Wt of Container+Wet Soil,W1 58 68 66 70

Wt of Container+Dry Soil , W2 56 64 60 62

Wt of Water 2 4 6 8

Wt of Oven Dry Soil 8 11 10 12

Water Content 25.00 36.36 60.00 66.67

Flow Curve for Liquid Limit Determination

80
70
60
Water Content (%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
5 50
Number of Blows(N)

Figure 2.15 Flow curve for liquid limit determination of soil sample IV (8 ft)
 38

2.9 Soil Classification Result According to Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS)

Classification of soil samples is shown in Table 2.18.

Table 2.18 Classification of Soil Samples According to USCS System

Soil Sample 2ft 4ft 6ft 8ft

Percent passing through 16.8 17 16 17.4

sieve No-200

Plastic Limit 31.75 35.443 33.33 33.33

Liquid Limit 46.64 46.86 44.48 48.18

Plasticity Index 14.89 11.42 11.15 14.85

According to Unified soil classification System PI > 7,

it can be classified group symbol as SC

Percent of gravel 0 0 0 0

Percent of Sand 83.2 83 84 82.6

Hence Percent Sand > Percent Gravel and also percent gravel is less than 15%
and therefore the group name is Clayey Sand.

2.10 Compaction Test (Standard Proctor Test) (ASTM D 698)

Compaction test is a laboratory method of experimentally determining the

optimal moisture content at which a given soil type will become most dense and
achieve its maximum dry density. The Proctor Test is one of the basic tests dealing
with soil in geotechnical engineering and gives a reliable result for understanding the
behavior of soil. The test provides valuable information for engineering projects and
involving soil compaction, such as road construction, foundation and embankment.
 39

2.10.1 Compaction Test Result for Soil Sample I (2 ft)

Water content determination of soil sample I (2 ft) is shown in Table 2.19.
Unit weight determination is shown in Table 2.20. Figure 2.16 describes compaction
curve and results for soil sample I (2 ft).

Table 2.19 Water content determination of soil sample I (2 ft)

Determination 1 2 3 4 5
No
Container No T B T B T B T B T B

Wt of 48 42 42 43 42 43 41 40 36 46
Container+Wet
Soil
Wt of Container+ 46 39 40 40 40 39 38 37 35 40
Dry Soil
Wt of Water 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 1 6

Wt of Container 20 20 20 20 17 17 17 17 18 18

Wt of 26 19 20 20 23 22 21 20 17 22
Dry Soil
Water Content 7.6 15.8 10.0 15. 8.70 18. 14.3 15.0 5.8 27.3
9 0 2 8
(%)
Mean Water 11.74 12.50 13.44 14.64 16.58
Content(%)
 40

Table 2.20 Unit weight determination of soil sample I (2 ft)

Determination no 1 2 3 4 5

Wt of mould + compacted soil 5063 5160 5312 5389 5318

(g)
Wt of mould (g) 3385 3385 3385 3385 3385

Wt of compacted soil (g) 1678 1775 1927 2004 1933

Wet density (kg/m3) 1777.54 1880.3 2041.31 2122.8 2047.67

0 8
Wet unit weight (kN/m3) 17.44 18.45 20.03 20.83 20.09

Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 15.61 16.40 17.65 18.17 17.23

Porosity (n) 0.40 0.37 0.32 0.30 0.34

Void ratio 0.67 0.59 0.47 0.43 0.51

Dry Density Moisture Content

Relationship
Dry unit
25 Weight

20

3
Maximum dry unit weight = 18.17 kN/m
Optimum moisture content = 14.64 %
15
10 12 14 16 18 20

Moisture Content , w(%)

Figure 2.16 Compaction curve and results for soil sample I (2 ft)
 41

2.10.2 Compaction Test Result for Soil Sample II (4 ft)

Water content determination of soil sample II (4 ft) is shown in Table 2.21.
Unit weight determination is shown in Table 2.22. Figure 2.17 describes compaction
curve and results for soil sample II (4 ft).

Table 2.21 Water content determination of soil sample II (4 ft)

Determination 1 2 3 4 5
No
Container No T B T B T B T B T B

Wt of 38 43 38 43 40 43 56 52 24 14
Container+
Wet Soil
Wt of Container 36 42 36 42 39 42 52 50 22 12
+Dry Soil
Wt of Water 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 2

Wt of Container 18 32 20 34 34 31 34 35 7 4

Wt of 18 10 16 8 5 11 18 15 15 8
Dry Soil
Water Content 11.1 10.0 12.5 12.5 20.0 9.10 22.2 13.3 13.3 25.0
(%)
Mean Water 10.56 12.50 14.55 17.78 19.17
Content(%)
 42

Table 2.22 Unit weight determination of soil sample II (4 ft)

Determination no 1 2 3 4 5

Wt of mould + compacted 5113 5310 5399 5350 5325

soil (g)
Wt of mould (g) 3394 3394 3394 3394 3394

Wt of compacted soil (kg) 1719 1916 2005 1956 1931

Wet density (kg/m3) 1820.97 2029.66 2123.94 2072.03 2045.55

Wet unit weight (kN/m3) 17.86 19.91 20.84 20.33 20.07

Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 16.16 17.70 18.18 17.26 16.84

Porosity (n) 0.38 0.32 0.30 0.34 0.35

Void ratio 0.61 0.47 0.43 0.51 0.54

Dry Density Moisture Content

Relationship
25 Weight
Dry unit

20

3
Maximum dry unit weight = 18.18 kN/m
Optimum moisture content = 14.55 %
15
10 12 14 16 18 20

Moisture Content , w(%)

Figure 2.17 Compaction curve and results for soil sample II(4 ft)
 43

2.10.3 Compaction Test Result for Soil Sample III (6 ft)

Water content determination of soil sample III (6 ft) is shown in Table 2.23.
Unit weight determination is shown in Table 2.24. Figure 2.18 describes compaction
curve and results for soil sample III (6 ft).

Table 2.23 Water content determination of soil sample III (6 ft)

Determination 1 2 3 4 5
No
Container No T B T B T B T B T B

Wt of 34 34 42 43 36 46 30 25 42 34
Container+
Wet Soil
Wt of 33 32 40 40 34 40 28 23 40 31
Container+
Dry Soil
Wt of Water 1 2 2 3 2 6 2 2 2 3

Wt of 18 19 20 20 13 11 16 12 20 20
Container
Wt of Dry 15 13 20 20 21 29 12 11 20 11
Soil
Water 6.67 15.4 10.0 15.0 9.52 20.7 16.7 18.2 10.0 27.3
Content (%)
Mean Water 11.03 12.50 15.11 17.42 18.64
Content(%)
 44

Table 2.24 Unit weight determination of soil sample III (6 ft)

Determination no 1 2 3 4 5

Wt of mould + 5120 5240 5412 5294 5228

compacted soil (g)

Wt of mould (g) 3394 3394 3394 3394 3394

Wt of compacted soil 1726 1846 2018 1900 1834

(kg)

Wet density (kg/m3) 1828.39 1955.51 2137.71 2012.71 1942.80

Wet unit weight 17.94 19.18 20.97 19.74 19.06

(kN/m3)

Dry unit weight 16.15 17.05 18.22 16.99 16.06

(kN/m3)

Porosity (n) 0.38 0.34 0.30 0.35 0.38

Void ratio 0.61 0.52 0.43 0.53 0.62

Dry Density Moisture

Content Relationship
21.00
Dry unit Weight

20.00

19.00

18.00

17.00 3
Maximum dry unit weight = 18.22 kN/m
16.00
Optimum moisture content = 15.11 %
15.00
10 12 14 16 18 20

Moisture Content , w(%)

Figure 2.18 Compaction curve and results for soil sample III (6 ft)
 45

2.10.4 Compaction Test Result for Soil Sample IV (8 ft)

Water content determination of soil sample IV (8 ft) is shown in Table 2.25.
Unit weight determination is shown in Table 2.26. Figure 2.19 describes compaction
curve and results for soil sample IV (8 ft).

Table 2.25 Water content determination of soil sample IV (8 ft)

Determination 1 2 3 4 5
no
Container no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Wt of container 22 42 40 40 21 24 16 17 36 47
+ Wet soil (g)
Wt of container 20 40 38 36 19 22 14 15 32 45
+ Dry soil (g)
Wt of water (g) 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2

Wt of container 5 21 14 15 7 7 4 2 18 21
(g)
Wt of Dry soil 15 19 24 21 12 15 10 13 14 24
(g)
Water content 13.3 10.5 8.33 19.1 16.7 13.3 20.0 15.38 28.6 8.33
(%)
Mean Water 11.93 13.69 15.00 17.69 18.45
content (%)
 46

Table 2.26 Unit weight determination of soil sample IV (8 ft)

Determination no 1 2 3 4 5

Wt of mould + 5130 5318 5415 5285 5239

compacted soil (g)
Wt of mould (g) 3394 3394 3394 3394 3394

Wt of compacted soil 1736 1924 2021 1891 1845

(kg)
Wet density (kg/m3) 1838.98 2038.14 2140.89 2003.18 1954.45

Wet unit weight 18.04 19.99 21.00 19.65 19.17

(kN/m3)
Dry unit weight 16.12 17.59 18.26 16.70 16.19
(kN/m3)
Porosity (n) 0.38 0.32 0.30 0.36 0.38

Void ratio 0.61 0.48 0.42 0.56 0.61

Dry Density Moisture Content

Relationship
Dry unit Weight
22

20

18

3
16 Maximum dry unit weight = 18.26 kN/m
Optimum moisture content = 15.00 %
14
10 12 14 16 18 20

Moisture Content , w(%)

Figure 2.19 Compaction curve and results for soil sample IV(8 ft)
 47

2.11 Bearing Capacity

Bearing capacity of a soil is the capacity of soil to support the loads that are
applied to the ground above. It primarily depends on the type of soil, its shear stress
and its density.
Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity
qu = c'Nc +qNq+0.5 γ BNr
(2.12)
Where,q u=bearing capacity of soil
c’=cohesion of soil
∅ =friction angle of soil
Df =depth of foundation
q = uniform discharged
γ =unit weight of soil

2.11.1 Calculation of Soil Bearing Capacity

For soil sample III (6 ft)

Let Depth of foundation, Df =width of foundation, B = 1.83 m
∅ = 27°
ꝩd = ꝩ = 20.97 kN/m3
c’ = 60 kN/m2
Safety factor,FS = 3
Nc = 29.24
Nq = 16.9

Nr = 11.6

q = ꝩDf = 38.75 kN/m2

q 2
u = 2625.52 kN/m

q 2
all = 875.17 kN/m
 48

For soil sample IV (8 ft)

Let Depth of foundation, Df =width of foundation, B = 2.44 m
∅ = 27°
ꝩd = ꝩ = 21 kN/m3
c’ = 60 kN/m2
Safety factor,FS = 3
Nc = 29.24
Nq = 16.9

Nr = 11.6

q = ꝩDf = 51.24 kN/m2

2
qu = 2917.55 kN/m

q 2
all = 921.93 kN/m