CE 341: Soils

Triaxial Test Lab

Dr. Gerber

David Gelder
12/11/2010
1

Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Test Procedure .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Discussion of Results ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction
The purpose of this lab is to determine the cohesion intercept, the friction angle, total stress,
and effective stress of a soil using an isotropically consolidated, undrained triaxial test with
pore water pressure.

Test Procedure
The Unconfined Compression Lab was performed by the entire lab section: David Gelder,
Michael Murray, Ashley Frost, Jen Tovar, Seishi Yamagata, Reed Crosby, Keelan Jensen and Ben
Ford in CB 265the Soils Labon Dec. 8, 2010. Tests were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 2850 Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression
Test on Cohesive Soils, ASTM D 4767 Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained
Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils, ASTM WK3821 New Test Method for
Consolidated Drained Triaxial Compression Test for Soils (This standard is still in development),
and modified for student laboratory experience.

Discussion of Results
Drainage conditions during shearing will affect the strength parameters of soil significantly. If the sample
is drained and slow shearing takes place, pore pressures will not develop and the test is called a
drained test. However, if the sample is not allowed to drain and/or shearing occurs quickly, pore
pressure is developed in the specimen and the test is called an undrained test (see p. 95 of the Lab
Manual). In soil mechanics, effective stress decreases as pore pressure increases. In the CU-bar triaxial
test discussed in this report, draining did not occur during shearing, and therefore pore pressures
increased and the effective stress decreased relative to the total stress. In other words, the strength
parameter of the samples decreased. The fact that the drainage valve was closed during loading makes
this an undrained soil experiment as opposed to drained.
If A-bar had been negative, it would have been because the sample was heavily over-consolidated. The
result as far as Mohrs circle is concern is that the angle of the failure envelope would have been zero
because no strength gain would have occurred.
Total Stress takes into account the stress based on the load which is being applied to the specimen.
Effective stress takes into account total stress minus the pore pressure. The pore pressure in all three
samples is increasing as the load increases, but at a slower rate. Therefore the deviator stress value for
the effective stress circles is less than that for the total stress circles. Both are important in engineering
analysis because it gives us a clear picture of what is taking place. With just the effective strength circles,
we would not be able to assess the values or relationships between effective stress, total stress, and
pore pressure.

Deviator Stress, d (psf)

7000
(19.8, 5791)

6000
5000
4000

(20.0, 3356)

3000

(20.0, 2239)

2000

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3

1000
0
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Vertical Strain, v
Figure 1: Deviator Stress vs. Strain

4000
Pore Water Pressure, u (psf)

3500
(19.8, 2848)

3000
2500

Sample 1

2000

(20.0, 1489)

Sample 2

1500

Sample 3

1000

(20.0, 572)

500
0
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Vertical Strain, v
Figure 2: Pore Pressure vs. Strain

4000

Shear Stress, (psf)

' = 30.3, c' = 140 psf

cu = 18.9, cu = 230 psf

3000

2000

1000

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Normal Stress, (psf)

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

Figure 3: Mohrs Circle for Total and Effective Stress

In Figure 3 the failure envelopes are observed. The failure envelopes were defined as the best fit line between the total stress and effective stress
circles, respectively. I decided that the samples had failed when they reached the failure envelope. Another way that I determined that the sample had
failed was by observing that the shearing stress began to decrease as the vertical strain increased. That means that structurally the sample was no
longer able to sustain an increasing load. It is observed that the more consolidated samples were also stronger (the diameters of the circles increased).
That means that with less void space the sample sustained a higher shearing stress before it failed. There is an error in this figure. The smallest circle
representing the effective stress is shifted too much to the right. I looked at the data and calculations for a while and couldnt decide why it was
wrong, but ideally it should also be tangent to the failure envelope.

There are some important implications. The first is that the Triaxial Test is a very accurate test. It can be
used for CD, CU, and UU tests. The Unconfined Shear test is not a very good test and should only be
used if the project involves a relatively low load and if the budget is limited. Another implication is that
strength increases as the initial confining strength increases. That means that lower in the ground the
soil will be stronger because it is more confined laterally and vertically by surrounding soil. That most
likely explains why soil under a footing would shear in an upside-down semi-circular shapebecause the
failure plane is a function of soil depth.
There are some sources of error. The readings of the initial confining pressure are read by eyesight and
therefore are only accurate to within 1 psi. The temperature in the room is different from the
temperature of the in situ soil. It is important to note that error was constrained by taking three points
instead of two. That made the drawing of the best-fit-lines on Figure 3 easier. Still, this was a human
process and the variation of c will be about 50 psf based on the limited accuracy of the graph.

Conclusion
The friction angle and the cohesion intercept were determined and are located on Figure 3. This was a
Consolidated-Undrained (CU) Triaxial Test. It is a somewhat expensive test (~$150/sample), but it is also
a very reliable test. Both total and effective stress strength parameters were determined from the test.
The total and effective strength grew as the initial confining pressure increased. The failure envelope
was defined as the best-fit-line tangent to all three samples (Figure 3).

APPENDIX

Table 1: Sample 1 Data

Sample 1
v

Ac

Ac

(%)

0
0.000495
0.001007
0.001502
0.001997
0.002509
0.003003
0.003498
0.003993
0.004505
0.005
0.005495
0.006007
0.006502
0.006997
0.007509
0.008003
0.008498
0.008993
0.009505

(in )
6.069871
6.072877
6.075989
6.079
6.082014
6.085136
6.088156
6.09118
6.094206
6.09734
6.100373
6.103409
6.106552
6.109594
6.112639
6.115792
6.118843
6.121897
6.124954
6.12812

(ft )
0.042152
0.042173
0.042194
0.042215
0.042236
0.042258
0.042279
0.0423
0.042321
0.042343
0.042364
0.042385
0.042407
0.042428
0.042449
0.042471
0.042492
0.042513
0.042534
0.042556

(psf)

(psf)
0
54.72
106.56
178.56
241.92
295.2
345.6
387.36
426.24
459.36
491.04
519.84
545.76
568.8
590.4
610.56
629.28
646.56
662.4
678.24

0
151.5196
271.3632
416.2
515.908
595.3918
658.2485
707.0945
758.2546
795.6518
832.7884
867.0565
897.9732
925.8095
953.6176
975.0234
1001.601
1021.095
1042.45
1060.71

A-bar
-0.361141
0.392684
0.429024
0.468921
0.495808
0.52503
0.547819
0.562133
0.577338
0.589634
0.599546
0.607769
0.614381
0.619116
0.6262
0.628274
0.633202
0.635426
0.639421

' 1

'3

p'

(psf)
1440
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458

(psf)
1440
1591.52
1712.363
1858.2
1958.908
2039.392
2103.249
2153.095
2205.255
2243.652
2281.788
2317.056
2348.973
2377.809
2406.618
2429.023
2456.601
2477.095
2499.45
2518.71

(psf)
1440
1536.8
1605.803
1679.64
1716.988
1744.192
1757.649
1765.735
1779.015
1784.292
1790.748
1797.216
1803.213
1809.009
1816.218
1818.463
1827.321
1830.535
1837.05
1840.47

(psf)
1440
1385.28
1334.44
1263.44
1201.08
1148.8
1099.4
1058.64
1020.76
988.64
957.96
930.16
905.24
883.2
862.6
843.44
825.72
809.44
794.6
779.76

(psf)
1440
1515.76
1576.682
1650.1
1700.954
1741.696
1774.124
1799.547
1826.127
1845.826
1865.394
1883.528
1899.987
1914.905
1929.809
1941.512
1955.801
1966.548
1978.225
1988.355

(psf)
1440
1461.04
1470.122
1471.54
1459.034
1446.496
1428.524
1412.187
1399.887
1386.466
1374.354
1363.688
1354.227
1346.105
1339.409
1330.952
1326.521
1319.988
1315.825
1310.115

(psf)
0
75.75981
135.6816
208.1
257.954
297.6959
329.1243
353.5473
379.1273
397.8259
416.3942
433.5282
448.9866
462.9047
476.8088
487.5117
500.8006
510.5476
521.2251
530.3552

Table 2: Sample 2 Data

Sample 2
v

Ac

(%)

(in )
6.157522
6.160591
6.163664
6.16674
6.169819
6.173007
6.176092
6.179181
6.182272
6.185366

0
0.000498
0.000997
0.001495
0.001993
0.002509
0.003007
0.003505
0.004003
0.004502

Ac
2

(ft )
0.042761
0.042782
0.042803
0.042825
0.042846
0.042868
0.04289
0.042911
0.042932
0.042954

(psf)

(psf)

0
268.5716
547.1551
733.6907
874.7615
1002.144
1106.097
1188.507
1268.505
1335.617

0
105.12
228.96
336.96
437.76
531.36
614.88
689.76
761.76
826.56

A-bar
-0.391404
0.418455
0.459267
0.500434
0.530223
0.5559
0.580358
0.600518
0.61886

' 1

'3

p'

(psf)
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880
2880

(psf)
2880
3148.572
3427.155
3613.691
3754.762
3882.144
3986.097
4068.507
4148.505
4215.617

(psf)
2880
3043.452
3198.195
3276.731
3317.002
3350.784
3371.217
3378.747
3386.745
3389.057

(psf)
2880
2774.88
2651.04
2543.04
2442.24
2348.64
2265.12
2190.24
2118.24
2053.44

(psf)
2880
3014.286
3153.578
3246.845
3317.381
3381.072
3433.049
3474.254
3514.252
3547.808

(psf)
2880
2909.166
2924.618
2909.885
2879.621
2849.712
2818.169
2784.494
2752.492
2721.248

(psf)
0
134.2858
273.5775
366.8454
437.3808
501.0718
553.0487
594.2536
634.2523
667.8085

v
(%)
0.005498
0.005997
0.006495
0.006993
0.007509
0.008007
0.008505
0.009003
0.009502

Ac
2
(in )
6.191565
6.194668
6.197775
6.200885
6.204106
6.207222
6.210342
6.213464
6.21659

Ac
2
(ft )
0.042997
0.043019
0.04304
0.043062
0.043084
0.043106
0.043127
0.043149
0.043171

d
(psf)
1463.359
1516.323
1565.517
1612.338
1655.368
1695.367
1731.383
1767.362
1796.355

u
(psf)
947.52
997.92
1044
1088.64
1130.4
1169.28
1205.28
1236.96
1270.08

Sample 2 (contd)
3
1
A-bar
(psf)
(psf)
0.647497 2880 4343.359
0.658118 2880 4396.323
0.666873 2880 4445.517
0.675194 2880 4492.338
0.682869 2880 4535.368
0.689691 2880 4575.367
0.696137 2880 4611.383
0.699891 2880 4647.362
0.707032 2880 4676.355

' 1
(psf)
3395.839
3398.403
3401.517
3403.698
3404.968
3406.087
3406.103
3410.402
3406.275

'3
(psf)
1932.48
1882.08
1836
1791.36
1749.6
1710.72
1674.72
1643.04
1609.92

p
(psf)
3611.679
3638.162
3662.758
3686.169
3707.684
3727.684
3745.692
3763.681
3778.177

p'
(psf)
2664.159
2640.242
2618.758
2597.529
2577.284
2558.404
2540.412
2526.721
2508.097

q
(psf)
731.6794
758.1617
782.7583
806.1688
827.6842
847.6835
865.6915
883.681
898.1773

Table 3: Sample 3 Data

Sample 3
v

Ac

(%)

(in )
6.201582
6.204685
6.20779
6.210899
6.21401
6.217125
6.220243
6.223364
6.226488
6.229616
6.232746
6.23588
6.239017
6.242156
6.2453
6.248446
6.251595
6.254748
6.257904
6.261063

0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
0.0055
0.006
0.0065
0.007
0.0075
0.008
0.0085
0.009
0.0095

Ac
2

(ft )
0.043067
0.043088
0.04311
0.043131
0.043153
0.043174
0.043196
0.043218
0.04324
0.043261
0.043283
0.043305
0.043327
0.043348
0.04337
0.043392
0.043414
0.043436
0.043458
0.04348

(psf)

(psf)

0
523.1144
996.9925
1354.934
1632.105
1864.991
2056.897
2225.009
2362.886
2496
2609.11
2717.948
2814.905
2911.071
2990.998
3066.926
3142.084
3207.957
3265.017
3327.077

0
138.24
313.92
491.04
662.4
829.44
984.96
1133.28
1258.56
1383.84
1497.6
1608.48
1709.28
1804.32
1893.6
1977.12
2054.88
2125.44
2194.56
2257.92

A-bar
-0.264263
0.314867
0.362409
0.405856
0.444742
0.478857
0.509337
0.532637
0.554423
0.573989
0.591799
0.607225
0.619813
0.6331
0.644659
0.653986
0.662553
0.672144
0.67865

' 1

'3

p'

(psf)
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92
5425.92

(psf)
5425.92
5949.034
6422.912
6780.854
7058.025
7290.911
7482.817
7650.929
7788.806
7921.92
8035.03
8143.868
8240.825
8336.991
8416.918
8492.846
8568.004
8633.877
8690.937
8752.997

(psf)
5425.92
5810.794
6108.992
6289.814
6395.625
6461.471
6497.857
6517.649
6530.246
6538.08
6537.43
6535.388
6531.545
6532.671
6523.318
6515.726
6513.124
6508.437
6496.377
6495.077

(psf)
5425.92
5287.68
5112
4934.88
4763.52
4596.48
4440.96
4292.64
4167.36
4042.08
3928.32
3817.44
3716.64
3621.6
3532.32
3448.8
3371.04
3300.48
3231.36
3168

(psf)
5425.92
5687.477
5924.416
6103.387
6241.973
6358.415
6454.369
6538.424
6607.363
6673.92
6730.475
6784.894
6833.373
6881.455
6921.419
6959.383
6996.962
7029.898
7058.428
7089.459

(psf)
5425.92
5549.237
5610.496
5612.347
5579.573
5528.975
5469.409
5405.144
5348.803
5290.08
5232.875
5176.414
5124.093
5077.135
5027.819
4982.263
4942.082
4904.458
4863.868
4831.539

(psf)
0
261.5572
498.4962
677.4672
816.0527
932.4953
1028.449
1112.504
1181.443
1248
1304.555
1358.974
1407.453
1455.535
1495.499
1533.463
1571.042
1603.978
1632.508
1663.539

Stress Path, q (psf)

3500
3000
2500
2000

1500
1000
500
0
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Stress Path, p' (psf)

Figure 4: Stress Paths

10