Names: Camila Peñuela, Yulieth Fernández.

Danniel Salcedo, Juan Gil, Angelo

Fernando Del Vecchio.

Lab Practice # 1

Conclusions
1. According to the soil characterization, it’s possible to identify that the
predominant color is homogeneous: dark brown. It has orange veins on the
surface but not internally. No organic matter was visualized. Gloss of lamellar
grains could be observed. With this, it is concluded that external oxidation is
due to the aluminum that surrounds the sample and internally there is low
oxidation; The brightness and color gives indications that the soil sample is from
a soil with predominant clay grains and the brightness can be from a mineral
such as micas.

2. The smell that could be identified from the sample is wet. There is no smell or
taste of organic matter, or oxidation. It is concluded that the soil is moist and
that it is a sample of deep soil and the peat is dead.

3. The stain produced by the release is due to the fact that the hand has less
humidity than the sample, therefore the soil is medium to high humidity.
Regarding the effort applied with the fingers, its consistency is medium. Finally,
because the friction of the hand with respect to the sample is almost nil and
with the teeth it feels the smallest fine grains could be identified; concluding
with all the senses the type of soil was defined as clay.

4. The soil sample analyzed has an average water content of 104.19%. The
previous result according to (ASTM D-2216) generates the possibility of saying
that the soil is a clay and the main properties of this soil are high compressibility
and also high deformation.

5. In the practice was obtained a specific gravity of 2.75, according to this

classification, the sample was an inorganic clay and the minerals presents are
montmorillonite and clorite. (De R. E. Olson y G. Mesri,1970).

6. The sample has a void ratio of 0.74, which means that the volume of voids
present in the soil is greater than the volume of solids, which gives indications
that soil compaction is low.

7. After data collection from the laboratory practice to know the water content on
the soil sample, it was determined that the soil sample was taken from a soil
layer that is below the water table, it means the the soil sample was completely
saturated. The previous idea is based on two reasons, the first one, is that the
water table on the soils of Bogota is located at 4 to 6 meters below the land
 surface, and the sample presumably is taken from deeper. On the other hand,
the data collection resulted 104.19% in water content of the sample, being
greater than 100% means the the sample was completely saturated.

8. Saturation value was 100% that means the void ratio is the same to the water
volume, the sample is overload of water then was a saturate soil. (Holtz, R. and
W. Kovacs, 1981)

9. The result of porosity was 43% this number is equal to a medium dense or firm
soil (Budhu, M. 2010) , this value are between 40 - 60% according to the table
is a clay. (Sanders, 1998)

10. In the practice the density obtained of the archimedes method result was is
1.412 g/cm^3, this means in the soul texturas tablet ‘’Typical Values for
Different Densities of Some Common Soil Materials’’ the type of soil is define
as a Silts and clay, because the range for a clay is with 1.40 to 2,1 g/cm^3.
(Holtz, R. and W. Kovacs, 1981)

11. Finally, for a soil with the characteristics described above, it would be advisable
to use deep foundations in our constructions (piles, layers, drawers or cylinders)
to find a more stable soil and, on the contrary, it is decided to use surface
foundations, such as footings; most likely, larger settlements are generated,
which in the future if left untreated can dramatically affect our structure. (Lambe
& Whiteman, 1969).

References

1. Das, B, (2012). Soil mechanics laboratory manual 6th ed.

2. Das, B., & Sivakugan, N. (1956). GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING (Ed. rev.). USA,
USA: J Ross publishing.

3. Budhu, M. (2006). Soil mechanics and foundations (2nd ed.). USA: John Wiley.

4. (De R. E. Olson y G. Mesri (1970) . ‘’Mechanisms Controlling the Compressibility of

Clay. ‘’ ASCE J. Soil Mech., 96 No. SM6.

5. Sanders, L. (1998).- A manual of field Hydrogeology. Prentice-Hall, 381 pp.

6. Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. 5a Edición. McGraw Hill.

7. Holtz, R. and W. Kovacs (1981). An introduction to geotechnical engineering (1st ed.).

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
8. T. William Lambe & Robert V. Whitman (1969) Soil Mechanics; New York by John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

9. Bardet, J. P. (1997). Experimental soil mechanics (1st ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

10. De E.S. Larsen y H. Berman, The microscopie Determination of the Non-Opaque

Mineral, segunda edición, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bull. 848, Washington,
1934.

11. Construdata (N/A). Construdata.com

12. HMEC (N/A). SOIL TESTS.