Coursework and Project Cover Sheet

MSc in Soil Mechanics Cluster

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Name____KONSTANTINOS SYMEONIDIS____________________________

Module _____Spring Term Lab________________________________________

Assignment_________Lab Report 2____________________________________

Supervisor _______Dr. Way Way Sim__________________________________

Submission Date _______8th June 2012________________________________

DECLARATION
I certify that I have read the definition of plagiarism given overleaf, and that the work submitted
for this coursework assignment is my own work, except where specifically indicated otherwise.
In signing this document I agree that this work may be submitted to an electronic plagiarism test
at any time and I will provide a further version of this work in an appropriate format when
requested:

Signature:_____________________________________ Date:______________________________

Note: Until an assignment carries this completed front page it will not be accepted for marking.
If the front page is absent, the delay in getting it added may result in a penalty for late
submission.

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE MARKER

Grade awarded: ___________________________________________

Late penalty applied: _____________________________________

 Contents
1. Compaction Test..............................................................................................................1
1.1. Tests results.....................................................................................................................1
1.2. Discussion........................................................................................................................2
2. Stress Path Triaxial Tests..................................................................................................2
2.1. Tests performed on Reconstituted Clay...........................................................................3
2.1. Tests performed on Intact Clay........................................................................................3
2.2. Comparison of tests on Intact and Reconstituted Clay....................................................3
2.3. Tests performed on Sand.................................................................................................4
2.4. Discussion........................................................................................................................4
A. References.......................................................................................................................6
B. Figures.............................................................................................................................6
C. Graphs.............................................................................................................................8

Figures
Figure 1- Representation of soil particles compaction (Head, 1992).......................................6
Figure 2 – compaction curves for different compaction efforts. Increasing the compactive
effort results into increase of the maximum dry density and decrease of the optimum
moisture content (Head, 1992)................................................................................................7
Figure 3 – compaction curves for typical soils (Head, 1992)...................................................7

Graphs
Graph 1 Compaction curves of moisture content vs. dry density for the various soil types
tested........................................................................................................................................8
Graph 2 Brick Earth curves for heavy and light compaction efforts..........................................8
Graph 3 KSS curves for heavy and light compaction efforts......................................................9
Graph 4 Compaction Fill curves for heavy and light compaction efforts...................................9
Graph 5 plot of the deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress p’- the three applied stages
(Saturation-Consolidation-Undrained Shearing) for the Reconstituted Clay...........................10
Graph 6 plot of specific volume vs. lnp’ with the calculated λ and v1 values (Reconstituted
Clay)........................................................................................................................................10
Graph 7 Deviator stress vs. axial strain plots for compression (upper plot) and extension
(lower plot) tests (Reconstituted Clay)....................................................................................11
Graph 8 plot of stiffness vs. internal axial strain (upper plot) and the external (lower plot) for
the Reconstituted Clay............................................................................................................12
Graph 9 Pore water pressure vs. axial strain until CS is reached (Reconstituted Clay)............13
Graph 10 deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress p’ for intact clay.................................13
Graph 11 Intact clay horizontally and vertically cut samples behavior on the stiffness vs. axial
strain plot (upper plot) deviatoric stress vs. strain plot (middle plot) and void ratio e vs. lnp’
for the consolidation stage (lower plot...................................................................................14
Graph 12 plot of area correction on the calculated stress path at shearing stage (intact clay)
................................................................................................................................................15
Graph 13 peak strength value from the s’ vs. t’ plot...............................................................15
Graph 14 Mohr circles and peak strength envelopes..............................................................16
Graph 15 Post ruptures strength of intact clay for Vertical Compression (upper plot),
Horizontal Compression (middle plot) and Vertical Extension (lower plot)............................16
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 16 plot of q/p’e vs. p/p’e comparison of intact and reconstituted normalised stress
paths.......................................................................................................................................17
Graph 17 deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress for intact and reconstituted samples
compared................................................................................................................................17
Graph 18 deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress for compression (upper plot) and
extension (lower plot) tests on sand.......................................................................................18
Graph 19 shearing stages for both compression (left plot) and extension (right plot) test with
the C.S. lines shown................................................................................................................18
Graph 20 Plot of deviatoric stress vs. axial stain for compression (upper plot) and extension
(lower plot) tests.....................................................................................................................19
Graph 21 plot of void ratio vs. lnp’ (sand)...............................................................................19
Graph 22 Calculated N and λ values from specific volume vs. lnp’ plot (sand).......................20
Graph 23 Tangent and secant Young Moduli for compression test from internal strain
measurements (sand).............................................................................................................20
Graph 24 Tangent (left plot) and secant (right plot) Young Moduli for extension test from
internal strain measurements (sand)......................................................................................21
Graph 25 Tangent and secant Young Moduli for extension test from external strain
measurements (sand).............................................................................................................21
Graph 26 plot of deviatoric stress q vs. axial strain for both left and right strain sensor........22
Graph 27 Effective stress paths of triaxial tests on sand.........................................................22
1. Compaction Test
1.1. Tests results
Lab groups performed compaction tests on different soil types (Group 1: Brick Earth,
Group 2: KSS and Group 3: Construction Fill), using compaction machines of light
and heavy compaction effort. In theory, during the compaction process soil particles
are packed more closely together increasing the dry density, through the reduction of
the air voids in the soil with little or no reduction in the water content. At low
moisture content (w) the air phase of a soil is continuous and soil particles are
surrounded by a thin film of water which tends to keep soil particles apart when
compacted (Figure 1a). The addition of water, up to a certain point, displaces air and
soil particles are more easily compacted since the increased film of water allows their
mobility while air voids are reduced and become discontinuous (Figure 1b). This
point corresponds to the maximum dry density that can be attained by a specific
compaction effort (Figure 1c) and it is called the Optimum Moisture Content (wopt). If
the amount of water is increased beyond the w opt the excess water begins to push the
particles apart and dry density is reduced while only slightly smaller air voids exist
(Figure 1d). The effect of the compaction effort is shown in Figure 2. In general it can
be seen in Figure 3 that graded granular soils are more easily compacted compered to
uniform cohesive soils.
Based on the test results compaction curves are presented in Graph 1. In this graph at
the top curves correspond to more granular soils (Brick Earth) and at the bottom to
more cohesive soils (KSS). Note that the shape of the compaction curves at this graph
may not be representative because these curves were plotted using the Excel plotting
capabilities. A manual plotting approach may have resulted into better drawn and
more representative and balanced curves. Furthermore errors could have been in the
type of the scale used for weight measurements during the tests and also the
possibility that some moisture contents measurements were conducted with the tin.
All these factors might have been the source for these unusual compaction curve
shapes. Graph 2 presents the compaction tests results for both heavy and light
compaction efforts on the Brick Earth soil type samples. Air void lines for 0%, 5%
and 10% air voids are also presented at the graph. Initially, from this graph it can be
seen that for the heavy compaction curve four data points lay outside the 0% air void
line envelope. This is not correct and thus no results can be concluded and this can be
attributed to testing errors when the test was conducted. Possible sources of these
errors can be: calculation and plotting errors, errors due to poor contact between the
hammer and the sample resulting to poor control on the energy imparted on the test
sample, errors due to improper clamping of the mould to the base and errors due to
plasticity of the soil sample and suction effects happened. On the other hand the light
compaction curve lies within the 0% air void line envelope. Thus the w opt was
calculated to be 10% and the max dry density is 2 Mg/m 3. These results appear to be
closely matched with literature values. Graph 3 presents the compaction tests results
for both heavy and light compaction efforts on the KSS soil type samples. In these
tests both compaction curves lay within the 0% air void line envelope and a single
peak can be determined as the wopt point from each curve. The light test wopt is 15%
and the maximum dry density is 1.85 Mg/m3 while for the heavy test the wopt is 23%
and 1.65 Mg/m3 respectively. These values not only deviate from literature values but
are also problematic because it expected that, the heavy test should have a lower
optimum moisture content and higher max dry density. If presentation or sample mix-
up errors are excluded then errors may be the result due to not properly mixing soil

1
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

with water during the execution of the test. Graph 4 shows the results for the heavy
and light compaction efforts for the Construction fill soil type samples. Again, light
compaction effort test curve lay outside the 0% air void line envelope. This is not
correct and thus no results can be concluded and it can be attributed to testing errors
when the test was conducted or calculation errors. Also, in these tests the higher
energy of the heavy compaction effort test curve lay below and the right of the lower
energy of the light test curve. Note that this soil type is a mixture of particles of
different size. According to the BS the particles larger than 20mm should have been
removed by sieving but instead both test groups removed them manually and this
could be also a source of error.
1.2. Discussion
In overall, tests results were problematic with errors. These errors could have been
controlled by using samples that are representative of each soil type, while each
sample should follow the same grading curve with the same proportion of different
particle sizes. Possible sources of errors are: (i) uncontrolled initial water content,
whereas BS suggests an 4-6% initial water content, (ii) inadequate soil-water mixing,
(iii) poor control on the energy imparted on the samples by the hammer, (iv) improper
clamping of the mould to the base and (v) the type of support of the machine, either
by concrete or plinth, could also affect the results, while in our case the machine was
supported by plinth. Further sources of error are calculation and plotting errors that
can result to deviations from the typical ranges of expected values. The tests were
repeatable while concerning their reliability we could point out that the optimum
moisture content and the maximum dry density attained in the lab are both lower than
those in the field. As for the effect of the compacting effort, it is expected that the
more heavily the hammer used or larger the number of blows the upper the curves
moves and the max dry density increases, as shown in Figure 2. Note that for KSS and
Compaction Fill soil types this was not the case and due to errors mentioned above
the heavier hammer compaction curves were below the lighter hammer curves.
The nature of soils including grading, particle type and mineralogy also affect the
results. Brick Earth is periglacial wind-blown loess deposit characterized mainly by
silty clay. KSS is 50% Clay, 25% Silt and 25% Sand, and the Construction Fill is
mixture of particles of different sizes. Finally, mineralogy can affect soil properties
and behaviour and predominantly its permeability, compressibility, plasticity and
swelling potential. In conclusion, the compaction test has advantages as follows: (i) it
is used to enhance soil properties including shear strength and to reduce
compressibility, permeability, contraction and swelling potential, (ii) provides the
basis of controlling the field procedures and (iii) maximum dry densities obtained in
the lab usually the range of density normally generated by field compaction
equipment. Nonetheless the test has its shortcomings including: (i) lab results are not
directly applicable to field compaction, (ii) tests are carried out with materials smaller
than 20mm or 37.5mm and (iii) if conditions are not maintained the same in all tests
this may lead to errors.
2. Stress Path Triaxial Tests
Triaxial tests were performed on Brick Earth clay and N34 sand samples. Samples
were intact and reconstituted for Brick Earth while only reconstituted samples were
tested for the N34 Sand. The stages applied at each test were saturation, consolidation
and undrained shearing.

2
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

2.1. Tests performed on Reconstituted Clay

Only one available sample tested, In Graph 5 the three applied stages are shown,
saturation, consolidation from 50kPa to 200kPa and undrained shearing, reaching
Critical State. In Graph 6 the consolidation stage is shown in a specific volume vs.
lnp’ plot and the calculated λ and v1 values are also presented (λ= 0.003 and v1=2.18).
Critical state line cannot be plotted since there was only one sample available for
testing. In Graph 7 plots of deviatoric stress vs. axial strain from both internal and
external measurements are presented for compression and extension tests. They are in
good agreement with some differences in the small strain region on their slope. In
Graph 8 the plot of stiffness vs. axial strain, for the internal strain measurements. It
can be seen that there is stiffness degradation with axial strain as expected. In Graph
9 the pore water pressure (p.w.p.) development vs. the internal axial strain, for the
reconstituted clay material. When Δu becomes constant the CS is reached. From
Critical State Line (as shown on Graph 5) the M parameter (CSL slope) is calculated
and also φ΄CS value is calculated to 32°. Note that M is the inclination of the CSL in q-
p’ space while φ’=3M/(6+M).
1.1. Tests performed on Intact Clay
One extension test and two compression tests were performed, one for horizontally
cut and one vertically cut samples, to account for anisotropy. In Graph 10 the stress
paths for the intact samples are shown. It’s worth mentioning that for that the
horizontal cut there was stress relief as the p’ decreased from 200 kPa and shearing
started from a value of about 185 kPa. This reduce may be attributed to creep. This
was something unexpected that happened only to that sample. In Graph 11 it can be
seen the comparison between horizontally and vertically cut samples. In more detail,
for the horizontal sample the stiffness is constant during the test while for the vertical
sample it decreases during the test (Graph 11, upper plot). Also, it can be seen that the
vertical has more brittle behavior than the horizontal (Graph 11, middle plot) and
finally the vertically cut sample is less compressible. Note that the vertical cut had
Δe=0.02 while the horizontal cut had Δe=0.21 (10 Δev= Δeh). (Graph 11, lower plot).
In Graph 12 area correction is applied for the p’ and q values and it can be seen that
the shape of the plot is in general the same and the correction is not very significant.
Yet the corrected stress path reveals a less brittle and a more ductile behavior. In
Graph 13 it can be seen that the peak strength value is 62.4 kPa for the undrained
shear strength which is within the literature range of values and in Graph 14 Mohr
circles are drawn and the value of φ peak is also calculated to 32° which is again
within the range of the literature values of 19-34°. Again the value is within the
literature range of values. Examining the post rupture strength in Graph 15 it can be
seen that extension is more brittle than compression and the difference between peak
and post-rupture strength not significant as Brick Earth is a structureless wind blown
deposit.
1.2. Comparison of tests on Intact and Reconstituted Clay
In Graph 16 a comparison of the normalized stress paths for intact and reconstituted
samples is shown. It can be noted that both intact and reconstituted samples follow the
Roscoe-Rendulic Surface to the C.S.L. Note that the stress path for the reconstituted
sample concludes to a larger strength and Critical State strength compared to the
intact sample. Comparing the shearing behavior of intact and reconstituted samples in
Graph 17, it can be seen that the failure envelope of compression is higher than that
of extension that is the compression shear strength is higher that the extension shear
strength. Also note that the extension stress path has more brittle behavior compared
3
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

to the compression stress path. In general, the stiffness of the reconstituted normally
consolidated clay is affected by the following factors: (i) the process of the
reconstitution, (ii) the moisture content, (ii) the mode of load application (speed,
time), (iv) its composition, PSD and the Atterberg limits. In addition, the strain rates
are somewhat higher in the case of the reconstituted compared to the intact samples.
The sample is widening as well as reducing in height, the sample dilates. The effect of
the change in the strain rates is the increase in strength. Void ratios for the
reconstituted and intact clays were measured before and after the test using the
expression e=Gsw/Sr. Preferably e should be calculated with respect to the final
volume rather than from the trimmings. Furthermore, it can be noted that the
reconstituted has a similar pattern to the intact stress path due to the fact Brick Earth
is a structureless deposit with no significant structural difference from the
reconstituted sample.
2.2. Tests performed on Sand
In Graph 18 the stress paths for compression and extension tests are presented with
calculated values of p’ and q with area correction performed. The consolidation stage,
common for both tests, can be seen as well as the shearing stage. Note that q increased
to 46 kPa to reach Ko consolidation line (Ko=0.43) then followed this line and finally
compression and extension shearing took place respectively. Also note that the
compared to the clays this sample had Ko consolidation while clays had isotropic
consolidation. In Graph 19 the shearing stage for both tests with the C.S.L. is shown.
In Graph 20 the change of deviatoric stress vs. axial strain is presented for
compression and extension test. It can be seen that for compression deviatoric stress
because the sand is dense it decreases a little. For extension it reaches the peak and
drops a little. Negative values because the length of the samples is increased. Also at
extension the sample is more brittle. In Graph 21 the plot of void ratio e vs. lnp’ for
the Ko reconsolidation stage is presented. The calculated values of N and λ are
presented on the plot in Graph 22 (λ=-0.00023 and N=1,62118). Also, the calculated
Γ value was found to be 1.25 which is low comparative to typical sand values
probably due to the small volume change of the sample. Tangent Etan and secant Esec
Young Moduli were calculated for compression test using the internal strain
measurements and presented in Graph 23. Stiffness is decreasing in general but for
Etan there were many irregularities in the measurements. The same moduli for
extension test and again internal strain measurements are presented in Graph 24. In
Graph 25 the tangent and secant Young Moduli from the external axial strains are
presented. No clear trend from the external measurements and the internal
measurements are better. In Graph 26 the internal strain measurements are presented
from left and right sensors. There is difference as it can be deduced that the left sensor
is on the shear plane. In Graph 27 from the effective stress paths of triaxial tests it
can be seen that there is significant difference between the peak and the CS shearing
resistance.
2.3. Discussion
Triaxial test is axisymmetric which means equal cyclic load is applied on the sample,
i.e. equal horizontal stress is applied in all directions. Typical engineering scenarios
for these conditions are bored piles, shafts, single pipelines in deep sea etc. Since
horizontal stresses are equal the test can be characterized as bi-axial test. These
conditions cannot be considered as accurate in irregular ground profile situations.
Local axial strain readings were measured by LVDT inductive transducers. Maximum
deviation between left-right strains was 7% for compression and 10% extension. This

4
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

small difference can be attributed to: (i) the LVDT transducers may not be 100%
vertical and (ii) the quality of the connection of the transducers with the sample.
Further complicating factors such as the ambient conditions, the temperature control
and the calibration of all the components of the system should also be considered. In
general, test errors may arise due to leakage problems, resistance of membrane, filter
paper and end resistant.
To sum up, the intact clay: (i) does not behave very brittle, (ii) the difference between
peak and post rupture strength is not significant and (iii) the stiffness is non-linear in
the small strain region (up to 0.1%). As for the reconstituted clay: (i) it exhibits a
hardening behavior as expected as it is a contractant material, (ii) also the stiffness is
non-linear in the small strain region, (ii) the Critical State was reached but the CS
Line could not be drawn as there was only one sample. In conclusion, the sand: (i)
exhibit a behavior similar to that of the intact samples, (ii) the CS was reached when
the volume remains constant and (iii) the internal strains were similar.

5
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

A. References

Head, K.h (1992) Volume of soil laboratory testing, Volume 1: Soil classification and
compaction tests, London Pentech 2nd Edition
Mondol, N. H., Bjørlykke, K., Jahren, J. & Høeg, K. (2007) Experimental mechanical
compaction of clay mineral aggregates—Changes in physical properties of mudstones
during burial. Marine and Petroleum Geology. 24 (5), 289-311.
Laboratory Classes Notes on Stress Path Test, Imperial College London, 2012
Laboratory Classes Notes on Compaction Test, Imperial College London, 2012
Standing, J.R. 2011. Lecture Notes – Embankments, MSc Soil Mechanics &
Environmental Geotechnics, Imperial College London
BS 1377-6 (1991). Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, British
Standards Institution, London.
Fredlund, D. G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993) Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. New
York; Chichester. Wiley.
Sim, W. W. (2005) Investigating the Dissipation Properties of a Compacted Partially
Saturated Residual Soil - Metasedimentary Phyllite, MEng Dissertation, Imperial
College London

B. Figures

Figure 1- Representation of soil particles compaction (Head, 1992)

6
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Figure 2 – compaction curves for different compaction efforts. Increasing the

compactive effort results into increase of the maximum dry density and decrease of
the optimum moisture content (Head, 1992)

Figure 3 – compaction curves for typical soils (Head, 1992)

7
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

C. Graphs

Graph 1 Compaction curves of moisture content vs. dry density for the various soil
types tested

2.9

2.7

2.5
Dry Density (Mg/m3)

2.3

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Moisture
Heavy Compaction (1A) Content (%)Compaction (1B)
Light
0% Air Voids Line 5% Air Voids Line

Graph 2 Brick Earth curves for heavy and light compaction efforts

8
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 3 KSS curves for heavy and light compaction efforts

2.5

2
Dry Density (Mg/m^3)

1.5

1 CF 'Light'
Compaction
CF 'Heavy'
0.5 Compaction
Sr=100%
Sr=90%
Sr=80%
0
0.00 5.00 10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00
Moisture Content (%)

Graph 4 Compaction Fill curves for heavy and light compaction efforts

9
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

10
 Critical StateConsolidation
Undrained shearing
Line
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 5 plot of the deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress p’- the three applied
stages (Saturation-Consolidation-Undrained Shearing) for the Reconstituted Clay

λ = 0,063
ν1 = 2,18

Graph 6 plot of specific volume vs. lnp’ with the calculated λ and v1 values
(Reconstituted Clay)

11
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 7 Deviator stress vs. axial strain plots for compression (upper plot) and
extension (lower plot) tests (Reconstituted Clay)

12
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 8 plot of stiffness vs. internal axial strain (upper plot) and the external
(lower plot) for the Reconstituted Clay

13
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 9 Pore water pressure vs. axial strain until CS is reached (Reconstituted
Clay)

Graph 10 deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress p’ for intact clay

14
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 11 Intact clay horizontally and vertically cut samples behavior on the
stiffness vs. axial strain plot (upper plot) deviatoric stress vs. strain plot (middle
plot) and void ratio e vs. lnp’ for the consolidation stage (lower plot.

15
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 12 plot of area correction on the calculated stress path at shearing stage
(intact clay)

Graph 13 peak strength value from the s’ vs. t’ plot

16
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 14 Mohr circles and peak strength envelopes

Graph 15 Post ruptures strength of intact clay for Vertical Compression (upper
plot), Horizontal Compression (middle plot) and Vertical Extension (lower plot)

17
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Roscoe-Rendulic
Surface

Graph 16 plot of q/p’e vs. p/p’e comparison of intact and reconstituted normalised
stress paths

Graph 17 deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress for intact and reconstituted
samples compared

18
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 18 deviatoric stress q vs. mean effective stress for compression (upper plot)
and extension (lower plot) tests on sand

Graph 19 shearing stages for both compression (left plot) and extension (right plot)
test with the C.S. lines shown

19
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 20 Plot of deviatoric stress vs. axial stain for compression (upper plot) and
extension (lower plot) tests

Graph 21 plot of void ratio vs. lnp’ (sand)

20
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 22 Calculated N and λ values from specific volume vs. lnp’ plot (sand)

Graph 23 Tangent and secant Young Moduli for compression test from internal
strain measurements (sand)

21
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 24 Tangent (left plot) and secant (right plot) Young Moduli for extension test
from internal strain measurements (sand)

Graph 25 Tangent and secant Young Moduli for extension test from external strain
measurements (sand)

22
MSc Lab Report 2 Konstantinos Symeonidis

Graph 26 plot of deviatoric stress q vs. axial strain for both left and right strain
sensor

Graph 27 Effective stress paths of triaxial tests on sand

23