Exp 7 Field Density (Sand Replacement Method) PDF

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY GEOTECHNIC LABORATORY

(MAKMAL TEKNOLOGI KEJURUTERAAN GEOTEKNIK)
LABORATORY REPORT
COURSE CODE AND NAMA
BNP 20903 / SOIL MECHANIC AND FOUNDATION
KOD DAN NAMA KURSUS
EXPERIMENT NO.
EXP 7
NO. UJIKAJI
EXPERIMENT TITLE
FIELD DENSITY (SAND REPLACEMENT METHOD)
TAJUK UJIKAJI
DATE OF EXPERIMENT
17 FEBRUARY
TARIKH UJIKAJI
NAME MATRIX NO.
NAMA NO. MATRIK
1. MOHD FADZLI HAKIMI BIN MOHD
CN180085
FAIZUL
GROUP NO.
NO. KUMPULAN 2. FARID AZRI BIN ABDUL RANI CN180029
3. MOHAMAD SYAFUL AMIRUL BIN
1 MOHD SYAFULIZAN
4. TIN ENG SING
AN180137
AN180291
5. AMALIA FARZANA BINTI ZAMRI AN180242
6. PRESIDA ANAK JETI AN180139
LECTURER / INSTRUCTOR 1. DR. TUAN NOOR HASANAH BINTI TUAN ISMAIL

PENSYARAH / INSTRUKTOR 2. PROF. MADYA DR. CHAN CHEE MING
RECEIVED DATE AND STAMP
TOTAL MARK (FROM RUBRIC

ASSESSMENT)
JUMLAH MARKAH (DARI RUBRIK 1
PENILAIAN)
STUDENT CODE OF ETHICS
I hereby declare that I have prepared this report with my own efforts. I also admit to not accept or
provide any assistance in preparing this report and anything that is in it is true.
1. Group Leader (Signature)

Name : MOHD FADZLI HAKIMI BIN MOHD FAIZUL
Matrix No : CN180085
2. Group Member 1 ___________________________________ (Signature)

Name : MOHAMAD SYAFUL AMIRUL BIN MOHD SYAFULIZAN
Matrix No. : AN180137

Name : AMALIA FARZANA BINTI ZAMRI

Name : PRESIDA ANAK JETI

Name : FARID AZRI BIN ABDUL RANI
Matrix No. : CN180029

Name : TIN ENG SING 2
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

LABORATORY RUBRIC ASSESSMENT
CLO 3 Organize geotechnical as well as geo-environmental laboratory and in-situ measurements with practical
considerations. (P4, PLO2)
Level of Achievement
Elements Very Week Weak Modest Good Excellent Level Weight Score
1 2 3 4 5
Introduction Background Background
Background
Content knowledge is Background information may information has the
Background information is
accurate, relevant and information is contain minor appropriate level of
information is accurate, but
provides appropriate overly narrow or omissions or specificity to
background for reader
missing or irrelevant or too
overly general inaccuracies that do provide concise and
P1 2 /10
contains major disjointed to
including defining (only partially not detract from the useful context to aid
inaccuracies. make relevance
critical terms. relevant). major point of the the reader’s
clear.
paper understanding.
Materials and Some materials All Materials are
No materials Most materials are
Methods Some materials are listed. listed.
are listed. listed.
Appropriate materials are listed. Procedure is Procedure is
and method are
Procedure
Poorly explained missing steps and
Procedure contains
complete and easy
P4 3 /15
section is most steps and is
present and explained / indecipherable difficult to to follow. All steps
missing. easy to follow.
follow. are present.
Measurement/ Data
Analysis
All data are Most data are Most data are All data are taken
Data are summarized All data are
missing or missing or correctly taken, but minor data are
in a logical format.
incorrect. incorrect. no missing data. incorrect.
correctly taken. P4 4 /20
Table or graph types Well-organized.
Unorganized. Unorganized. Unorganized. Organized
are appropriate. Data
are properly labelled
Discussion Discussion and
Alternative Discussion of analysis of
explanations are alternatives is alternatives is based
considered and clearly Alternative Discussion reasonably on data, complete
eliminated by data in a Alternative explanations are addresses some complete, uses data and persuasive with
persuasive discussion. explanations are mentioned but but not all of the where possible and a single clearly P4 4 /20
not provided not discussed or alternatives in a results in at least supported
eliminated. reasonable way. some alternatives explanation
being persuasively remaining by the
dismissed end of the
discussion.
Respond to Q&A Unable to Minimum ability Limited ability to
Able to respond and Able to respond and
Respond and answer respond and to answer and answer and
answer answer
to the question answer to the sometimes do not sometimes do not
constructively most constructively at all
P3 3 /15
accordingly. question match the match the
of the time. times.
accordingly. question. question.
Conclusion Conclusions have
Conclusion is clearly Conclusions are
some direct basis
and logically drawn Conclusions Conclusions have clearly and logically
in the data, but Conclusions are
from data provided have no basis in little basis in data drawn from and
data provided. provided.
may contain
bounded by the data
completely justified P2 2 /10
some gaps in by data
provided with no
logic or data or
gaps in logic.
are overly broad.
Report Quality The report is written The report is written
The report is not
Grammar, word usage, The report has in complete in complete
well written and
and organization Word usage is several grammar sentences and sentences (except
contains many
facilitate the reader’s frequently and spelling contains no materials section)
understanding of the confused or
errors in spelling,
mistakes, and personal pronouns. and contains no
P4 2 /10
grammar, and
paper. incorrect. many sentence Most of the personal pronouns.
sentence
fragments. grammar and Grammar and
structure.
spelling are correct. spelling are correct.
Total Marks /100 2
Table of Contents
1.0 OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 THEORY ............................................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 4
4.1 MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT .............................................................................................................. 4
4.2 PROCEDURES....................................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 DATA ANALISYS ....................................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 RESULT DATA ...................................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 10
6.0 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................... 11
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDANTION ............................................................................................... 12
8.0 QUESTION ............................................................................................................................................. 13
9.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 14
10.0 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................ 15
FACULTY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
LABORATORY GEOTECHNIC
EXPERIMENT DETERMINATION OF FIELD DENSITY OF SOILS
BY THE SAND REPLACEMENT METHOD
1.0 OBJECTIVE
The fundamental guideline of sand replacement method is to measure the in-situ volume
of hole from which the material was excavated from the weight of sand with realized density filling
in the hole. The in-situ density of material is given by the weight of the excavate over material
isolated by the in-situ volume.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
During construction the usual measurement that being taken to find the amount of the
compaction achieved is a dry density. To get the dry density value the first thing that need to do
is examine the moisture content in the soil and field density by using general method. Therefore,
field density test is importance as a field control test for the compaction of soil or any other
pavement layer. There is a few commonly method can be used to determine field density of soil;
o Sand replacement method
o Rubber balloon method
o Core cutter method
o Nuclear method
The sand replacement test method is used to determine the field density of compacted
soil in order to compare it with the designated compaction degree, hence it specifies how much
the compaction of the soil is close to the designated compaction degree. Common methods of
field density are based on excavating a hole at the site and measuring the volume of the hole and
the mass of the excavated soil. There is two way to measure the volume of the hole which is sand
replacement method or water replacement method. This test is of significant importance and it
has been widely used in various construction project sites.
3.0 THEORY
In sand replacement method, a hole of specified dimensions is excavated in the ground

and the mass of the excavated soil is determined. Sand whose density is known is filled into the
excavated hole. The volume of the hole is determined by filling it with clean, uniform sand whose
dry density (𝜌𝑑 ) is determined. Knowing the weight of soil excavated from the hole and the volume
of hole, the dry density of the excavated soil is calculated. Therefore, in this experiment there are
two stages:
1. Calibration of sand density
2. Determination of bulk density of sand
. The dry density of the excavated soil is determined as:
𝝆
𝝆𝒅=
𝟏+𝒘
Where, ρ = Density of the excavated soil
2
W = Water content
𝑊1 − 𝑊3 −𝑊2
• Bulk density of sand, ρsand = 𝑉𝑎
• Weight of sand filling excavated hole alone, Wb = 𝑊1 − 𝑊4 − 𝑊2
𝑊 − 𝑊 −𝑊
• Volume of excavated soil, V = 1 𝜌 4 2
𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑊5
• In-situ bulk density of the wet excavated soil, ρs = 𝑉
100(𝑊− 𝑊𝑑 )
• Moisture content of soil, w% =
𝑊𝑑
𝑊𝑑 100
• In-situ dry bulk density of the wet excavated soil, ρd = ρs × 𝑉
= ρs (100+𝑤%)
Notations:
Ρs = Bulk density of the soil sample

ρd = Dry density of the soil sample
ρsand = Bulk density of sand
W2 = Weight of sand required to fill cone
V = Volume of excavated soil
Va = Volume of the container
w% = Water content of the soil sample
W1 = Weight of cylinder and sand filled up to 10mm from top edge
W3 = Weight of cylinder and sand after pouring into calibration container and cone
W4 = Weight of cylinder and sand after pouring into excavated hole and cone
W5 = Weight of soil from excavated hole
Wd = Oven dry weight of the soil sample
W = Weight of the wet soil sample
3
4.0 METHOD
4.1 MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT
(i) Sand pouring cylinder of 16.5 liter capacity, mounted above a pouring cone and separated by
a shutter cover plate and a shutter,(ii) Cylindrical calibrating container with an internal diameter
of 100mm and an internal depth of 150 mm fitted with a flange 50 mm wide and about 5 mm
thick,(iii)large metal tray, (iv) metal tray with a central circular hole of diameter equal to the
diameter of the pouring cone, (v) tool for excavating hole such as iron chisel, hammer, shovel,
glove, and ruler to measure depth of hole, (vi) container to collect excavated soil, (vii) clean and
dry sand (passing through 600μm sieve), (viii) Weighing Scales, (ix) Oven - 105°C.
Figure 1: Material and equipment use to conduct sand replacement method
4
4.2 PROCEDURES
a. Calibration of the cylinder: (i) The volume of the calibrating container was determined
from the measured dimensions of the calibration container by using a vernier calliper and ruler
(figure 2), (ii) The mass of empty sand pouring cylinder (M0) has been determine by using
weighing scale, (iii) The sand pouring cylinder was filled with sand within 10mm of its top (figure
3), (iv) The mass of the cylinder have been determined (𝑀1 ), (v) The sand pouring cylinder was
placed vertically on the calibrating container, (vi) The shutter opened to allow the sand run out
from the cylinder and then the shutter closed when there is no further movement of the sand in
the cylinder (figure 4), (vii) The sand pouring cylinder was lifted from the calibrating container and
have been weighed (𝑀2 ) (figure 5), (viii) The sand pouring cylinder was placed on a big tray. The
shutter opened. The sand filled the cone of the cylinder. The shutter closed when no further
movement of sand takes place, (ix). The mass of sand on the tray was determine (M3), (x) The
mean mass was taken by repeating process from step 3-10 for two time (Mi).
Figure 2: Measure dimension of calibration Figure 3: Sand was pouring into pouring
container cylinder within 10mm of its top
Figure 4: The sand run out from sand pouring Figure 5: The sand pouring cylinder being
cylinder into calibration cylinder weighed
5
b. Determination of bulk density of sand: (i) The sand pouring cylinder was put above the
calibration cylinder with shutter closed (figure 6), (ii) The shutter of cylinder opened and the sand
filled the calibration cylinder. The shutter closed when no further movement of sand take place.
The mass of sand left in the cylinder was taken (M5), (iii) The mass of sand in calibration container
was determine (Mc) (figure 7), (iv) The mean mass was taken by repeating process from step 2-
3 for two time (Mii).
Figure 6: The sand pouring cylinder put Figure 7: The calibration cylinder fill with
above the calibration cylinder sand being weighed
c. Measurement of field density: (i) The ground surface was levelled off and the base plate
was positioned horizontally at the location where the density was to be determined (figure 8), (ii)
The soil though the central hole of the tray was excavated by using chisel and hammer. The depth
of the excavated hole should be about 150mm (figure 9), (iii) All the excavated soil in a metal tray
was collected and the mass of the soil (𝑀𝐴 ) was determined, (iv) The sand pouring cylinder was
filled within 10mm of its top and the mass of the cylinder (𝑀6 ) was determined, (v) The sand
pouring cylinder was placed over the excavated hole (figure 10). The sand allowed to run out the
cylinder by opening the shutter. The shutter closed when the hole is completely filled and no
further movement of sand is observed, (vi) The sand pouring cylinder was removed from the filled
hole. The mass of the cylinder (𝑀7 ) was determined (figure 11), (vii) A representative sample of
the excavated soil was took. Water content and dry density were determined,
Figure 8: The base plate positioned at the Figure 9: Process of excavating the soil using
site chisel and hammer
6
Figure 10: sand pouring cylinder placed on Figure 11: Sand pouring cylinder being
top of the hole weighed
d. Measurement of Moisture Content: (i) The excavated soil sample was split into three
petri dish with every plate has 10g of excavated soil sample (figure 12), (ii) The excavated soil
was placed into the oven for 24 hours with temperature 1050C (figure 14),(iii) The measurement
for the moisture content was taken after 24 hour.
Figure 12: Excavated soil being weighed for Figure 13: Six excavated soil from 2 different
10g point.
Figure 14: Excavated soil is put into oven with

temperature 105°C
7
5.0 DATA ANALISYS
5.1 RESULT DATA
1) Determination of Mass of sand in the cone
1. Volume of calibrating container (Vc) (ml) 3352.9 3352.9

2. Mass of cylinder, Mo (g) 7000 7000
3. Mass of cylinder + sand before pouring, M1 (g) 19600 7000
4. Mass of cylinder + sand after pouring, M2 (g) 13800 13600
5. Mass of sand in cone, M3 (g) 1400 1400
2) Determination of bulk density of sand
1. Mass of sand in cylinder before pouring, M4 = M1 – Mo (g) 12600 12400

2. Mass of sand left in cylinder after pouring, M5 = M2 – M0 (g) 6800 6800
3. Mass of sand to filling calibrating containers, Mc = M4 – M5 – M3 4400 4200
(g)
4. Bulk density of sand, ps = Mc / VC (g/cm3) 1.312 1.253
3) Bulk density and unit weight of soil
1. Mass of excavated soil, MA(g) 5400 5600

2. Mass of sand in cylinder before pouring, M6 (g.) 19600 19600
2. Mass of sand in cylinder after pouring in the hole, M7 (g) 15400 14600
3. Mass of sand in the hole, MS = (M6 – M0) – (M7 – M0) (g) 4200 5000
M 1.687 1.403
4. Bulk density of soil, s (g/cm3)
Ms
0.174 0.086
5. Dry density of soil (g/cm3)
d
1 w
8
Moisture content:
No. Description Determination No.

Point 1 Point 2
1 Container 1 2 3 1 2 3
2 Weight of empty container 27.39 27.32 27.75 9.62 9.40 10.20
(𝑊1 ) in g
3 Weight of container + wet 36.16 36.00 37.70 18.13 18.19 18.33
soil (𝑊2 ) in g
4 Weight of container + dry soil 37.39 37.32 37.75 19.62 19.40 20.20
(𝑊3 ) in g
No. Description Determination No.

Point 1 Point 2
1 Container 1 2 3 1 2 3
2 Weight of water = 𝑊3 − 𝑊2 1.23 1.32 0.05 1.49 1.21 1.87
in g
3 Weight of solid = 𝑊3 − 𝑊1 in 10 10 10 10 10 10
g
Calculation:
Point 1 Point 2
Container 1 2 3 1 2 3
Weight of 1.23 1.32 0.05 1.49 1.21 1.87
water =
𝑊3 −
𝑊2 in g
Weight of 10 10 10 10 10 10
solid =
𝑊3 − 𝑊1 in
g
Water 1.23 1.32 0.05 1.49 1.21 1.87
content % 10 10 10 10 10 10
× 100% × 100% × 100% × 100% × 100%
× 100%
= 13.2% = 0.5% = 14.9% = 12.1% = 18.7%
= 12.3%
Average 12.3 + 13.2 + 0.5 14.9 + 12.2 + 18.7
= 8.67% = 15.27%
3 3
9
5.2 ANALYSIS
Two different points were tested in the laboratory. In this experiment, the sand
replacement method is employed to determine the unit weight. Therefore, in this experiment,
there are two stages which are the calibration of sand density and measurement of soil
density. The volume of calibrating container (𝑉𝑐 ) for both points that have been measured is
3352.9 ml. The mass of cylinder for both points(𝑀0 ). that has dividing is 7000 g. The mass of
the sand-pouring cylinder filled with sand is recorded as (𝑀1 ) for Point 1 and Point 2 is 19600
g and 19400 g respectively. The mass of the sand remaining in the pouring cylinder that was
measured for Point 1 is 13800 g and for Point 2 is 13600 that noted as (𝑀2 ). Then, the mass
of sand that flows into the cone as (𝑀3 ) for both points are 1400 g. Based on the results, the
mass of sand the cylinder before pouring (𝑀4 ) has been determined for Point 1 and Point 2
which is 12600 g and 12400 g respectively. Mass of sand left in the cylinder after pouring (𝑀5 )
in Point 1 and Point 2 were the same by 6800 g. The bulk density of sand, (𝑝𝑠 ) for Point 1 and
Point 2 indicates 1.312 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 and 1.253 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 respectively. In the second step of the sand
replacement method, the field density of the soil was measured. The mass of excavated soil
collected noted as (𝑀𝐴 ) for Point 1 is 5400 g and Point 2 is 5600 g. These points had the
same mass of sand in the cylinder (𝑀6 ) which is 19600 g but a different mass of sand after
pouring in the hole that noted as (𝑀7 ) that is 15400 g for Point 1 and 14600 g for Point 2. By
these data, the mass of sand in the hole, (𝑀𝑠 ) determined for Point 1 is 2800 g while Point 2
is 2000 g. The bulk unit weight of soil has been determined by dividing the weight of sand
required to fill the pit by volume of the pit is 2.530 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 and 3.508 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 for Point 1 and
Point 2 as follows. The moisture content of the excavated soil calculated for Point 1 was 8.67%
while Point 2 was 15.27%. The dry density of soil then has measured in Point 1 and Point 2 is
0.262 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 and 0.245 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 respectively
10
6.0 DISCUSSION
From the sand replacement method that has been conducted which was 2 different
point tested that have the same value of calibrating container (𝑣𝑐 ) that was 3352.9 ml. The
determination of bulk density of sand 𝑝𝑠 for both points are different which was point 1
(1.312g/𝑐𝑚3 ) while point 2 (1.253g/𝑐𝑚3 ). The result for both point for bulk density of sand, 𝑝𝑠
because have the different between the mass of sand in cylinder before pouring and the value
of the mass sand to filling calibrating containers. The value of the mass is different because
of the position of putting the cylinder in different spot on the weighed.
For the sand replacement for soil, there are several differences of value at the two
point. For example, the value mass of excavated soil point 1 (5400g) and point 2 (5600g). This
is because the technique for excavated is different and this will cause the uneven surface was
excavated. The uneven surface was excavated also makes the different value of mass of sand
cylinder after pouring in the hole that was point 1 (15400g) and point 2 (14600g) and this will
give effect to the mass of sand in the hole. A machine for excavation should be used to
enhance the even surface. The bulk density of soil, ρ for point 1 was 1.687 g/𝑐𝑚3 and point 2
was 1.403 g/𝑐𝑚3 and have the differences between dry density of soil, ρ 𝑑 for point 1 was
0.174 g/𝑐𝑚3 and point 2 was 0.086 g/𝑐𝑚3 . Bulk density used to calculate soil properties per
unit area.
From the experiment we can conclude that the bulk density for sand are bigger than
the bulk density of soil. Soils with a bulk density higher than 1.6 g/𝑐𝑚3 tend to restrict root
growth. Bulk density is an indicator of soil compaction. It is calculated as the dry weight
of soil divided by its volume. This volume includes the volume of soil particles and the volume
of pores among soil particles. Bulk density is typically expressed in g/cm3. We can conclude
that soil are tend to restrict root growth because the value are higher than 1.6 g/𝑐𝑚3 that was
point 1(1.687 g/𝑐𝑚3 ) and point 2 (1.403 g/𝑐𝑚3 ) and this is because the compaction which
decrease the aeration when soil is wet. This is because moisture content that been obtained
for both points is different. From the result, we can see that point 1 with 8.67% of water content
and point 2 was 15.27% of water content. This shows that point 2 had the soft soil texture
while point 1 had the hard soil texture than point 2. This moisture content can be identifying
by the weight of water in the soil and by the weight of soil.
11
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDANTION
The experiment we conducted to determine the in-situ density of natural or compacted

soils by using sand pouring cylinders was done successfully. The sand replacement method
is most suitable method to determine the field density of soil compare to other method such
as core cutter method because this method can be used in any type of soil and the results is
more appropriate. The reason of sand is being used in this method besides other materials
because sand easy to determine its density and its characteristic of low water holding capacity
flowing free when compressed it could not change its density.
Based on the data experiment, we can conclude that the bulk density of soil in point 1 is
bigger than bulk density of soil in point 2. Besides, the data experiment shows that the bulk
density for sand are bigger than the bulk density of soil for both point 1 and point 2. bulk
density is an indicator of soil compaction. It is calculated as the dry weight of soil divided by
its volume. This volume includes the volume of soil particles and the volume of pores
among soil particles. Bulk density is typically expressed in g/cm3.
The relationship that can be established between the dry density with known moisture
content is as follows:

d = where  d = Dry density
1+ w
 = Bulk density
w = Water content
In the course of this experiment, the possibility of experimental error there is in

progress. Of them is in terms of a hole dug with a slightly different depth and soil contain
impurities which may cause different densities. The only way to increase the accuracy is
repeat the experiment for several times in order to get a mean value since the human hand-
working does not meet the same result for every experiment. Another suggestion to improve
accuracy is prevent the parallax error when measure the length of the cylinder tray and
measuring the depth of hole of 6 inches. Besides, we must make sure that the sand is clean
and do not consists of other substances as the bulk density of sand to be more accurate. Next,
don’t forget to wear gloves while digging the 6 inches hole because hazard may occur when
the hammer accidentally hits the hand.
12
8.0 QUESTION
A. What is the significance of in-situ density of soil?

The in-situ density is characterized as the mass density of soil estimated at its real depth. By
directing this test, it is conceivable to decide the field density of the soil. The moisture content
is probably going to differ from time and consequently the field thickness moreover.
B. Field engineers are often found talking of optimum moisture content (OMC) conditions
while constructing of road sub-grade. Define and explain this term, bringing out clearly the
importance its possess and the methods by which it is controlled.
DEFINE
• OMC or optimum moisture content can be defined as maximum dry unit weight can be
achieved after given compaction. Optimum moisture content is a condition that need to be
observe before starting construction.
IMPORTANCE
• Moisture content will in general influence various subgrade properties including load
bearing limit, shrinkage and expanding. Moisture substance can be impacted by various
things, for example, waste, groundwater table height, infiltration, or pavement porosity (which
can be helped by breaks in the pavement). First in shrinkage, some soil shrinks or swell
depending on their moisture content. Furthermore, soils with excessive fines substance might
be powerless to ice hurl in colder weather. Shrinkage, expanding and ice hurl will in general
distort and break any pavement type constructed over them. Next is poor subgrade, Poor
subgrade should be avoided if possible, but when it is necessary to build over weak soils there
are several methods available to improve subgrade performance such as removal and
replacement. Poor subgrade soil can simply be removed and replaced with high quality fill.
Although this is simple in concept, it can be expensive
METHOD
• This can be measured by mainly two methods standard Proctor Compaction
Test and Modified Proctor Compaction Test. Both the test helps to determine the optimum
moisture content that is required for a soil to attain maximum compaction maximum dry density
for performing construction.
C. Discuss the method of compaction of cohesion less soil and cohesive soils.
• cohesion less soil
Cohesion-less soil is any free-running kind of soil, for example, sand or rock, whose
strength relies upon erosion between particles Also might be referred to as frictional soil.
•cohesive soils
Cohesive soil is characterized as clingy soil, and can be named as mud or silty earth.
The surface strain of fine water applies the slender powers, which reduce the dirt quality.
Example for durable soil is mud, and it contains fine particles which can hold water to expand
volume of soil molecule
13
9.0 REFERENCES
1. Atkinson John. 2007. The Mechanics of Soils and Foundations. 2nd Edition. Taylor &Francil
2. Whitlow Roy. 2001. Basic Soil Mechanics. 4th Edition. Pearson Education
3. Holtz R D. Kovacs W D. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice Hall, Inc
4. Verruijit Arnold. 2006. Soil Mechanics. Delf University of Technology
5. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/search?q=discussion+of+soil+bulk+density&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8
9cj_09vnAhV39nMBHa3FAnEQ1QIoA3oECAoQBA&biw=1600&bih=762
6.(n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/search?q=restrict+the+growth+of+roots&oq=restrict+the+growth+of
+roots&aqs=chrome.69i57j33l3.14493j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
7. Determining Water Content In Soil – Oven Drying Method. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.engineeringcivil.com/determining-water-content-in-soil-oven-drying-method.html
8. McKenzie, N., Coughlan, K., & Cresswell, H. (2008). Soil physical measurement and
interpretation for land evaluation. New Delhi: SBS Publishers.
9. Patel, A. (2019). Geotechnical investigations and improvement of ground conditions. Duxford:
Woodhead Publishing.
10. B. C. Punmia, Ashok Kumar Jain,& Arun kumar Jain.(2005). Soil Mechanics and Foundations.
New Delhi. Laxmi Publications (P) LTD
11. A. Aysen.(2002). Soil Mechanics: Basic Concepts and Engineering Applications.Netherland.
A.A Balkema Publishers
14
10.0 APPENDIX
15
16
17

Exp 7 Field Density (Sand Replacement Method) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exp 7 Field Density (Sand Replacement Method) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY GEOTECHNIC LABORATORY

5. AMALIA FARZANA BINTI ZAMRI AN180242

6. PRESIDA ANAK JETI AN180139

LECTURER / INSTRUCTOR 1. DR. TUAN NOOR HASANAH BINTI TUAN ISMAIL

RECEIVED DATE AND STAMP

TOTAL MARK (FROM RUBRIC

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

1. Group Leader (Signature)

2. Group Member 1 ___________________________________ (Signature)

3. Group Member 2 ___________________________________ (Signature)

4. Group Member 3 ___________________________________ (Signature)

5. Group Member 4 ___________________________________ (Signature)

6. Group Member 5 ___________________________________ (Signature)

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

In sand replacement method, a hole of specified dimensions is excavated in the ground

Ρs = Bulk density of the soil sample

4.1 MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT

Figure 1: Material and equipment use to conduct sand replacement method

Figure 14: Excavated soil is put into oven with

5.0 DATA ANALISYS

5.1 RESULT DATA

1) Determination of Mass of sand in the cone

1. Volume of calibrating container (Vc) (ml) 3352.9 3352.9

2) Determination of bulk density of sand

1. Mass of sand in cylinder before pouring, M4 = M1 – Mo (g) 12600 12400

3) Bulk density and unit weight of soil

1. Mass of excavated soil, MA(g) 5400 5600

No. Description Determination No.

No. Description Determination No.

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDANTION

The experiment we conducted to determine the in-situ density of natural or compacted

In the course of this experiment, the possibility of experimental error there is in

A. What is the significance of in-situ density of soil?

You might also like