CE 240 Soil Mechanics & Foundations Lecture 3.2. Engineering Classification of Soil (AASHTO and USCS) (Das, Ch. 4)

Similar documents
Solution:Example 1. Example 2. Solution: Example 2. clay. Textural Soil Classification System (USDA) CE353 Soil Mechanics Dr.

Clay Robinson, PhD, CPSS, PG copyright 2009


Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils. C L o r O L C H o r O H

4. Soil Consistency (Plasticity) (Das, chapter 4)

Chapter 1 - Soil Mechanics Review Part A

December 5, Junction Gateway, LLC 7551 W. Sunset Boulevard #203 Los Angeles, CA Mr. James Frost P: Dear Mr.

Geotechnical Properties of Soil

Correlation of unified and AASHTO soil classification systems for soils classification

SOIL FORMATION SOIL CLASSIFICATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS. Soil Properties and Classification

Geology 229 Engineering Geology. Lecture 8. Elementary Soil Mechanics (West, Ch. 7)


Tikrit University College of Engineering Civil engineering Department

Introduction to Soil Mechanics Geotechnical Engineering-II

Chapter I Basic Characteristics of Soils

Field Exploration. March 31, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. 115 Northstar Avenue Twin Falls, Idaho Attn: Mr. Tracy Ahrens, P. E. E:


Dr. Ravi Kant mittal. CE C361 Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engg. 1

CIVE.5370 EXPERIMENTAL SOIL MECHANICS Soil Sampling, Testing, & Classification Review

Geotechnical Engineering I CE 341

APPENDIX A. Borehole Logs Explanation of Terms and Symbols

Module 1 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL AND OF REINFORCED SOIL (Lectures 1 to 4)

P.E. Civil Exam Review: GEOMECHANICS. Jerry Vandevelde, P.E.

Depth (ft) USCS Soil Description TOPSOIL & FOREST DUFF

APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

CE 240 Soil Mechanics & Foundations Lecture 5.2. Permeability III (Das, Ch. 6) Summary Soil Index Properties (Das, Ch. 2-6)

Principles of Foundation Engineering 8th Edition Das SOLUTIONS MANUAL

B-1 BORE LOCATION PLAN. EXHIBIT Drawn By: 115G BROOKS VETERINARY CLINIC CITY BASE LANDING AND GOLIAD ROAD SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

CITY OF VALDEZ Project Title: East Pioneer Reconstruction Project No.: Contract No.: TO: All Recipients Date: April 14, 2014

Geotechnical Data Report

The Casagrande plasticity chart does it help or hinder the NZGS soil classification process?

Attachment B. Grain Size Distribution Curves

December 13, Washington County Public Works Department Myeron Road North Stillwater, MN Attn: Mr. Andrew Giesen

OCTOBER 2016 DR. Z s CORNER

Chapter 2. 53% v. 2.2 a. From Eqs. (2.11) and (2.12), it can be seen that, 2.67

Chapter 6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND LOGGING

The more common classification systems are enlisted below:

Sci.Int (Lahore), 25(4), , 2013 ISSN ; CODEN: SINTE 8 531

Assessment of accuracy in determining Atterberg limits for four Iraqi local soil laboratories

Geotechnical Engineering Report

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Parks Highway Connections Museum Drive. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska.

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

ADDENDUM 1 FISHER SLOUGH RESTORATION PROJECT SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Dry Muliwai Sample Location Map


SAND. By A S M Fahad Hossain Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering, AUST

SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Aggregate Resource Evaluation Proposed Bernand Quarry San Diego County, California

Effects Of The Soil Properties On The Maximum Dry Density Obtained Fro

SOIL TYPE INVESTIGATION OF THE DOĞANHİSAR CLAYS, CENTRAL ANATOLIA, TURKEY. İ.İnce* and A. Özdemir

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-FN-01

Unbound Pavement Applications of Excess Foundry System Sands: Subbase/Base Material

EFFECTS OF SATURATION AND DRY DENSITY ON SOIL THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY. Bryan R. Becker, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor. and

APPENDIX C HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION

ADVANCES in NATURAL and APPLIED SCIENCES

Variability in Some Geotechnical Properties of Three Lateritic Sub-Base Soils Along Ibadan Oyo Road

Soil Mechanics Brief Review. Presented by: Gary L. Seider, P.E.

Soil Properties - I. Amit Prashant. Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar. Short Course on. Geotechnical Aspects of Earthquake Engineering

Soil Profiles (West, Ch. 8)

12 th ICSGE Dec Cairo - Egypt

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES

Geotechnical Recommendations for Proposed Additions to the Three Mile Creek Severe Weather Attenuation Tank Project

IN SITU SPECIFIC GRAVITY VS GRAIN SIZE: A BETTER METHOD TO ESTIMATE NEW WORK DREDGING PRODUCTION

APPENDIX A TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering 1.1 Geotechnical Engineering 1.2 The Unique Nature of Soil and Rock Materials

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. CSO-012 Sewer Separation Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. February, 2011

Ardaman & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Consultants

APPENDIX C. Borehole Data

Geotechnical characterization of a highway route alignment with light weight penetrometer (LRS 10), in southeastern Nigeria

SOIL CLASSIFICATION OF JABALPUR CITY USING BORE LOGS

Journal of Asian Scientific Research

DATA REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GALVESTON CRUISE TERMINAL 2 GALVESTON, TEXAS

Appendix G GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

LIQUEFACTION OF SILT-CLAY MIXTURES

New WW Hastings Hospital Geotechnical Investigation RFP Addendum #1

GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis

CONQUEST ENGINEERING LTD.

SOIL AND AGGREGATE FUNDAMENTALS STUDENT GUIDE AMRC April, 2006 AREA MANAGER ROADS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

SUITABILITY OF USING CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST TO PREDICT RESILIENT MODULUS

A. V T = 1 B. Ms = 1 C. Vs = 1 D. Vv = 1

Geology and Soil Mechanics /1A ( ) Mark the best answer on the multiple choice answer sheet.

CITY OF CAPE CORAL NORTH 2 UTILITIES EXTENSION PROJECT CONTRACT 3

6.2 Geotechnical Investigation and Construction Material Survey

Geotechnical Engineering Report

SOIL MECHANICS-01 LAB COPY INSTRUCTER: ENGR HALLEMA ATAULLAH PREPARED BY: KAMRAN KHAN PRACTICLE NO. 01 TITLE: TO DETERMINE THE MOISRURE CONTENT OF A

Soil Mechanics I 1 Basic characteristics for soils. Introduction Description State Classification

SOIL CHARACTERIZATION OF JABALPUR CITY USING BORE LOGS

An Investigation of Geotechnical Properties of Bama Ridge Soil as a Suitable Sub Grade Material in Road Construction Abstract Key words:

DATE: 5/17/2012. LOGGED BY: Geoff Richards. COMPANY: Tetra Tech EM, Inc. DRILL FOREMAN: Walter

Soil Mechanics. Chapter # 1. Prepared By Mr. Ashok Kumar Lecturer in Civil Engineering Gpes Meham Rohtak INTRODUCTION TO SOIL MECHANICS AND ITS TYPES

Geotechnical Engineering Report


Integrated Ground Behavior

GY 402: Sedimentary Petrology

Foundations for Concrete Structures

Permeability Characteristic of Some Sub-Grade Soils Along Part of the Sagamu-Ore Highway, Southwestern, Nigeria

Soil Mechanics I CE317

Engineering Properties of Soil-Fly Ash Subgrade Mixtures

Page 4.1 Overview 4-3

Parsons APPENDIX A BORING LOGS AND DEVELOPMENT LOG

Transcription:

CE 240 Soil Mechanics & Foundations Lecture 3.2 Engineering Classification of Soil (AASHTO and USCS) (Das, Ch. 4)

Outline of this Lecture 1. Particle distribution and Atterberg Limits 2. Soil classification systems based on particle distribution and Atterberg Limits 3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials System (AASHTO) 4. The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Objective Classifying soils into groups with similar behavior, in terms of simple indices, can provide geotechnical engineers a general guidance about engineering properties of the soils through the accumulated experience. Communicate between engineers Simple indices GSD, LL, PI Classification system (Language) Use the accumulated experience Estimate engineering properties Achieve engineering purposes

Classification Systems Two commonly used systems for soil engineers based on particle distribution and Atterberg limits: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) System (for state/county highway dept.) Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (preferred by geotechnical engineers).

Soil particles The description of the grain size distribution of soil particles according to their texture (particle size, shape, and gradation). Major textural classes include, very roughly: gravel (>2 mm); sand (0.1 2 mm); silt (0.01 0.1 mm); clay (< 0.01 mm). Furthermore, gravel and sand can be roughly classified as coarse textured soils, wile silt and clay can be classified as fine textures soils.

Grain Size Distribution Curves Cobbles or Boulders GRAVEL SAND FINES

Atterberg limits Atterberg limits are the limits of water content used to define soil behavior. The consistency of soils according to Atterberg limits gives the following diagram.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials system (AASHTO) Origin of AASHTO: (For road construction) This system was originally developed by Hogentogler and Terzaghi in 1929 as the Public Roads Classification System. Afterwards, there are several revisions. The present AASHTO (1978) system is primarily based on the version in 1945. (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

Definition of Grain Size No specific grain size-use Atterberg limits Boulders Gravel Sand Silt-Clay Coarse Fine 75 mm No.4 No.200 4.75 mm No.40 0.075 mm 0.425 mm

Classification (Proceeding from left to right against the columns) Das, Table 4.1, 2006

Classification (Cont.) Note: The first group from the left to fit the test data is the correct AASHTO classification. Das, Table 4.1, 2006

Group Index GI 200 200 [ ] GI = ( F 35) 0.2 + 0.005( LL 40) + 0.01( F 15)( PI 10) (4.1) For Group A-2-6 and A-2-7 200 The first term is determined by the LL The second term is determined by the PI GI = 0.01( F 15)( PI 10) (4.2) use the second term only F200: percentage passing through the No.200 sieve In general, the rating for a pavement subgrade is inversely proportional to the group index, GI.

Some Explanations of Group Index GI 1, if Eq. 4.1 gives a negative value then GI=0; 2, round up the value calculated by Eq. 4.1 to an integer; 3, there is no upper limit for GI; 4, the GIs for soil groups A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, and A-3 are always zero (0).

(PI) (LL) Das, Figure 4.1

General Guidance 8 major groups: A1~ A7 (with several subgroups) and organic soils A8 The required tests are sieve analysis and Atterberg limits. The group index, an empirical formula, is used to further evaluate soils within a group (subgroups). A1 ~ A3 A4 ~ A7 Granular Materials 35% pass No. 200 sieve Using LL and PI separates silty materials from clayey materials (only for A2 group) Silt-clay Materials 36% pass No. 200 sieve Using LL and PI separates silty materials from clayey materials The original purpose of this classification system is used for road construction (subgrade rating).

Example 4.1, Soil B Passing No.200 86% LL=70, PI=32 LL-30=40 > PI=32 GI = (F 200 + 0.01(F 35) 200 = 33.47 33 [ 0.2 + 0.005(LL 40) ] 15)(PI 10) Round off A-7-5(33)

This is the example of Das, Example 4.1 for the AASHTO system classification

USCS Classification System Originally developed for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) The method is standardized in ASTM D 2487 as Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) USCS is the most common soil classification system among geotechnical engineers

Unified Soil Classification System Origin of USCS: (USCS) This system was first developed by Professor A. Casagrande (1948) for the purpose of airfield construction during World War II. Afterwards, it was modified by Professor Casagrande, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to enable the system to be applicable to dams, foundations, and other construction. Four major divisions: (1) Coarse-grained (2) Fine-grained (3) Organic soils (4) Peat

Definition of Grain Size No specific grain sizeuse Atterberg limits Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt and Clay 300 mm 75 mm No.4 4.75 mm 19 mm No.10 No.40 2.0 mm 0.425 mm No.200 0.075 mm

(Das, Table 4.2)

The Symbols Soil symbols: G: Gravel S: Sand M: Silt C: Clay O: Organic Pt: Peat Example: SW, Well-graded sand SC, Clayey sand SM, Silty sand, MH, Elastic silt Liquid limit symbols: H: High LL (LL>50) L: Low LL (LL<50) Gradation symbols: W: Well-graded P: Poorly-graded Well graded 1< 1< C C c < 3 (for gravels) c < 3 and and (for sands) soil C C u u 4 6

USCS System (cont.) A typical USCS classification would be: SM - Silty sand with gravel Group Symbol Group Name

Classification of Soils From sieve analysis and the grain-size distribution curve determine the percent passing as the following: > 3 inch Cobble or Boulders 3 inch - # 4 (76.2 4.75 mm) : Gravel # 4 - # 200 (4.75-0.075 mm) : Sand < # 200: Fines First, Find % passing # 200 If 5% or more of the soil passes the # 200 sieve, then conduct Atterberg Limits (LL & PL)

Classification of Soils If the soil is fine-grained ( 50% passes #200) follow the guidelines for fine-grained soils If the soil is coarse-grained (<50% passes #200) follow the guidelines for coarsegrained soils Find % Gravel & Sand Calculate Cu & Cc Calculate LL, PL and PI

General Guidance 50 % Coarse-grained soils: Fine-grained soils: 50% Gravel Sand NO. 4 4.75 mm NO.200 0.075 mm Silt Clay Grain size distribution C u PL, LL Plasticity chart LL>50 LL <50 C c Required tests: Sieve analysis Atterberg limit

Coarse-grained Soils

Fine-grained Soils

Example Soil A gravel sand fines Gravel 98-62 = 36% Sand 62-8 = 54% Fines = 8% Soil A: D 60 = 4.2 mm, D 30 = 0.6 mm, D 10 = 0.09 mm Cu = 46.67 Cc = 0.95

Grave = 36% Sand = 54% Fines = 8% Cu = 46.7 Cc = 0.95 Example Soil A (Cont.) LL = 42 PL = 31 PI = 42-31 = 11 GO TO Plasticity Chart

Example Soil A (Cont.) Soil A is then classified as SP-SM Poorly-grades sand with silt and gravel

Example Soil A (Cont.) LL = 42 PL = 31 PI = 42-31 = 11 ML

The Plasticity Chart PI L H The A-line generally separates the more claylike materials from silty materials, and the organics from the inorganics. The U-line indicates the upper bound for general soils. LL Note: If the measured limits of soils are on the left of U-line, they should be rechecked. (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

Procedures for Classification Coarse-grained material Grain size distribution Fine-grained material LL, PI Highly (Santamarina et al., 2001)

Example Passing No.200 sieve 30 % Passing No.4 sieve 70 % LL= 33 PI= 12 Passing No.200 sieve 30 % Passing No.4 sieve 70 % LL= 33 PI= 12 PI= 0.73(LL-20), A-line PI=0.73(33-20)=9.49 SC ( 15% gravel) Clayey sand with gravel Highly (Santamarina et al., 2001)

Organic Soils Highly organic soils- Peat (Group symbol PT) A sample composed primarily of vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition and has a fibrous to amorphous texture, a dark-brown to black color, and an organic odor should be designated as a highly organic soil and shall be classified as peat, PT. Organic clay or silt( group symbol OL or OH): The soil s liquid limit (LL) after oven drying is less than 75 % of its liquid limit before oven drying. If the above statement is true, then the first symbol is O. The second symbol is obtained by locating the values of PI and LL (not oven dried) in the plasticity chart.

This is the Figure 4.7 of Das textbook, the scanning electron micrographs (SEM) for 4 peat samples.

Borderline Cases (Dual Symbols) For the following three conditions, a dual symbol should be used. Coarse-grained soils with 5% - 12% fines. About 7 % fines can change the hydraulic conductivity of the coarse-grained media by orders of magnitude. The first symbol indicates whether the coarse fraction is well or poorly graded. The second symbol describe the contained fines. For example: SP-SM, poorly graded sand with silt.

Borderline Cases (Dual Symbols, cont.) Fine-grained soils with limits within the shaded zone. (PI between 4 and 7 and LL between about 12 and 25). It is hard to distinguish between the silty and more claylike materials. CL-ML: Silty clay, SC-SM: Silty, clayed sand. Soil contain similar fines and coarse-grained fractions. possible dual symbols GM-ML

Borderline Cases (Summary) (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

Reading Assignment: Das, Ch. 4 Homework: Problem 4.3