BELLVILLE CAMPUS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3 (GEO302S)

TRIAXIAL TEST

CLASS: S4A (FULL TIME)

SURNAME: DAVIDS

NAME: TASHREEQ

STUDENT NUMBER: 215 053 907

LECTURER: MR. NEAL

TECHNICIAN: MR MINNIES

DUE DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2018

 OFFICIAL RECORD OF IN-SERVICE LABORATORY TRAINING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING GET302S

DECLARATION OF INTENT BY REGISTERED STUDENT

I am submitting this report with the clear intention of having the report
marked for evaluation as a practical component for the subject
Geotechnical Engineering GET301S. I have read the terms and conditions
as set out hereunder and my signature below registers my full cognisance
and agreement.

1. The contents, as contained in this submission, are entirely of my own

work, being generated out of original research and study.
2. No part of this submission has been copied from fellow group
members, photo-stated with our permission or plagiarised from the
other authors without their consent.
3. The contents of this submission have also not been generated from
reports previously handed in by past students.
4. I have read the laboratory introductory guidelines in the manual
handed to me in the beginning of the semester.

SIGNED STUDENT NUMBER 215053907

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4

2. OBJECTIVE OF TEST ...................................................................................................... 4

3. LOCATION OF SITE ........................................................................................................ 4

4. EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4

5. METHOD ........................................................................................................................... 5

6. RESULTS AND GRAPHS ................................................................................................ 6

7. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 11

8. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 11

9. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 14

10. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 14

1. INTRODUCTION

2. OBJECTIVE OF TEST

3. LOCATION OF SITE
Cape Peninsula University of Technology (Bellville Campus

Department of Civil Engineering

Soils Lab (0.09)

4. EQUIPMENT
 Motorised triaxial load frame with detachable load ring
 Triaxial cell, capable of sustaining an internal water pressure up to 1000kN/m²
 Constant pressure system for maintaining cell pressures up to 1000Kn/m² at a constant
level
 Latex rubber membrane, Perspex end caps, rubber O-rings, stopwatch and a suction
membrane stretcher.
5. METHOD
 We first measured and weighed the sample before fitting it with the latex cover and end caps.
The latex membrane must be fitted. Thereafter we placed the sample on the triaxial cell base.
Withdraw cell piston to maximum extent and lower the cell body into position.

 Fit the tie rods into their slots and tie them down lightly with the clamping nuts. Push
down the cell piston until it makes contact with the ball bearing on the top cap. As
shown in Figure 1.

 Move the prepared cell to the load frame and connect the water supply to the base of the cell.
Make sure that all necessary valves are closed and connected. Open the air bleed
valve. Once the cell was filled with water we increased the pressured in the cell to the
required value and selected the machine speed and gear settings

 Wind up the base pedestal by until the piston, load ring and top
cap make contact. Secure the strain dial gauge. Zero all
gauges as shown in Figure

 Switch on motor and record the readings at every 0.4 intervals

on the strain dial gauge. The test is continued till failure has
occurred, which is when the maximum value of the
compressive stress has been passed or a strain of 20%.

 The test is continued until three or four consecutive

readings have been read showing a decrease in stress.

 Stop the motor when the sample has failed. Wind the machine
platen down by hand. Reduce pressure in the cell to zero.
Remove the sample from the cell.

 Sketch the mode of failure

 6. RESULTS AND GRAPHS
The following results were obtained in our practices:

Test no: 1

Proving ring factor: 1 Div = 0.00382KN/Div Length = 76mm

Cell pressure = 100KNm2 Diameter = 38mm

Area = 1134 mm2

Strain Load Load Area ó1-ó3 Strain %

Gauge Gauge

mm div. N mm2

0.4 0 0 1140.12 0.004 0.53

0.8 6 1146.18 0.008 1.053

1.2 8 11.842 1152.31 0.010 1.579

1.6 11 12.224 1158.50 0.011 2.105

2.0 12 13.370 1164.77 0.011 2.632

2.4 13 14.516 1171.10 0.012 3.158

2.8 15 14.898 1177.50 0.014 3.684

3.2 16 16.044 1183.97 0.014 4.211

3.6 17 16.808 1190.51 0.014 4.737

4.0 18 17.572 1197.12 0.015 5.263

4.4 18 17.954 1203.81 0.015 5.789

4.8 19 18.718 1210.57 0.015 6.316

5.2 19 19.482 1217.41 0.016 7.368

5.6 20 19.864 1224.33 0.016 7.895

6.0 21 20.246 1231.32 0.016 8.421

6.4 21 21.392 1238.40 0.017 8.421

6.8 22 21.392 1245.56 0.017 8.947

7.2 21 22.156 1252.80 0.018 9.474

7.6 22 22.156 1260.13 0.018 10.000

8.0 20

8.4 21

8.8 19

Moisture Content (for all 3 samples):

(44-41)/(41-16) = 0.12 = 12% moisture

Test No2

Proving ring factor: 1 Div = 0.00382KN/m Length = 76mm

Cell pressure = 100KNm2 Diameter = 38mm

Load = 280 KN/m2 Area = 1134 mm2

Strain Load Load Area ó1-ó3 Strain %

Gauge Gauge

mm div. N mm2

0.4 32 12.224 1140.12 0.011 0.53

0.8 36 13.752 1146.18 0.012 1.053

1.2 40 15.280 1152.31 0.013 1.579

1.6 44 16.808 1153.50 0.015 2.105

2.0 45 17.190 1164.77 0.015 2.632

2.4 47 17.954 1171.10 0.015 3.158

2.8 50 19.100 1177.50 0.016 3.684

3.2 51 19.482 1183.97 0.016 4.211

3.6 53 20.246 1190.51 0.017 4.737

4.0 55 21.010 1197.12 0.018 5.263

4.4 57 21.774 1208.81 0.018 5.789

4.8 59 22.538 1210.57 0.019 6.316

5.2 60 22.920 1217.41 0.019 7.368

5.6 62 23.684 1224.33 0.019 7.895

6.0 63 24.066 1231.32 0.020 8.421

6.4 64 24.448 1238.40 0.020 8.421

6.8 67 25.594 1245.56 0.021 8.947

7.2 69 26.358 1252.80 0.021 9.474

7.6 71 27.122 1260.13 0.022 10.000

Test No 3

Proving ring factor: 1 Div = 0.00382KN/m Length = 76mm

Cell pressure = 100KNm2 Diameter = 38mm

Load = 560 KN/m2 Area = 1134 mm2

Strain Load Load Area ó1-ó3 Strain %

Gauge Gauge

mm div. N mm2

0.4 25 9.550 1140.12 0.008 0.53

0.8 33 12.606 1146.18 0.011 1.053

1.2 40 15.280 1152.31 0.013 1.579

1.6 42 16.044 1158.52 0.014 2.105

2.0 47 17.954 1164.77 0.015 2.632

2.4 50 19.100 1171.10 0.016 3.158

2.8 53 20.246 1177.50 0.017 3.684

3.2 56 21.392 1183.97 0.018 4.211

3.6 58 22.156 1190.51 0.019 4.737

4.0 61 23.302 1197.12 0.019 5.263

4.4 65 24.83 1203.82 0.021 5.789

4.8 67 25.594 1210.57 0.021 6.316

5.2 69 26.358 1224.31 0.022 6.842

5.6 72 27.504 1231.32 0.022 7.368

6.0 75 28.650 1231.32 0.023 7.895

6.4 76 29.032 1238.40 0.023 8.421

6.8 78 29.796 1245.56 0.024 8.421

7.2 81 30.942 1252.80 0.025 8.947

7.6 82 31.324 1260.13 0.025 9.474

Table 1
Info Test sample 1 Test sample 2 Test sample 3
Length(mm) 76 76 76
Diameter(mm) 38 38 38
Area(mm2) 361π 361π 361π
Mass of tin(g) 23 23 23
Mass of tin & wet 48 48 48
soil(g)
Mass of tin & dry 45 45 45
soil(g)
Cell pressure(kPa) 140 280 420
7. ANALYSIS

The experiment was successfully performed and the desired objectives reached.

8. DISCUSSION

7.1. What is main purpose (objectives) of the tri-axial test?

 The test is used to measure the permeability of sands and gravels containing little or
no silt.

7.2. Where in the engineering field would you apply certain aspects of the tri-axial test?
Explain how the application of the test is useful in your choice. (For example, the
angle of friction can be used in designing an anchor block for a pipe bend that
undergoes high velocity)

 Estimate ground water flow

 To calculate seepage through dams
 To find out the rate of consolidation and settlement of structures.
 To calculate the uplift pressure and piping.
 To design the grouting.

7.3. What are the advantages and b. disadvantaged of this test (based on your experience
doing the test)?

Advantages Disadvantages
Pressures are applied from three sides The apparatus is expensive

Shear plane can be determined Material must be of a reasonably low

permeability

The triaxial test is simple to use

Advantages of the test

  High variability exists particularly in the cases of large, well graded granular
materials.
 The use on materials with a maximum aggregate size of larger than 2 inches is
questionable.
 Some existing strength relationships are only applicable to certain material types and
conditions, and not to all cases.
 Factors affecting DCP results:
Side friction effects: the DCP device is not completely vertical while penetrating through
the soil therefore the penetration resistance would be higher due to side friction.

Disadvantages of the test

 High variability exists particularly in the cases of large, well graded granular
materials.
 The use on materials with a maximum aggregate size of larger than 2 inches is
questionable.
 Some existing strength relationships are only applicable to certain material types and
conditions, and not to all cases.
 Factors affecting DCP results
Side friction effects: the DCP device is not completely vertical while penetrating through the
soil therefore the penetration resistance would be higher due to side friction.

7.4. State typical shear strength values that you would encounter in different clay types.
Tabulate a typical chart with values and include where exactly your test sample will
fit in.

COHESION

USCS Description Average Value (Kpa)

GC Clayey gravels, clayey sandy 0 ± 0
gravels
SC Clayey sands 0±0
ML Inorganic silts, silty or clayey 0 ± 0
fine sands, with slight
plasticity
CL Inorganic clays, silty clays, 20 ± 10
sandy clays of low plasticity
OL Organic silts and organic silty 10 ± 5
clays of low plasticity
CH Inorganic clays of high 25 ± 10
plasicity
OH Organic clays of high 10 ± 5
plasticity

ANGLE OF FRICTION

USCS Description Average Value (Degree)

GC Clayey gravels, clayey sandy 34 ± 4
gravels
SC Clayey sands 32 ± 4
ML Inorganic silts, silty or clayey 33 ± 4
fine sands, with slight
plasticity
CL Inorganic clays, silty clays, 27 ± 4
sandy clays of low plasticity
OL Organic silts and organic silty 25 ± 4
clays of low plasticity
CH Inorganic clays of high 22 ± 4
plasicity

7.5. Name and sketch the three main forms of specimen failure that may occur:
Types of failure

Brittles Shear failure Partial Shear failure Plastic Yielding Failure

9. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10. CONCLUSION
During the application of the vertical load on the specimen the specimen shortens under the
load and its diameter is increased resulting in a barrelling effect. In some cases the specimen
shears along the well defined plane. When drainage is allowed the volume of the specimen is
reduced.

The diameter of the specimen increase, producing a barreling effect. The specimen
sheared cleanly along a well-defined plane. This proved the versatility of the triaxial
test as compared to the shear box test. The volume of the sample was reduced. The
dial gauge indicates the change in length of the sample. In our entire sample we
obtained plastic failure due that the moisture content of the entire sample were
almost the same. From the result obtained, the angle of internal friction was
determined as per calculations.

In conclusion, the soil strength parameters obtained, and it was very soft clay
material, this is mostly supported by the fact that the material yield plastic failure in
all samples. This very cohesive material of the clay and recommend that a very light
structure can be constructed in this material due to its cohesive nature