TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

1338 ARLEGUI ST., QUIAPO, MANILA

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

CE 319 – CE31S4

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
MANUSCRIPT

COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS INTO SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES ACROSS

DIFFERENT SOILS: A DIRECT SHEAR TEST INVESTIGATION

SUBMITTED BY:
Ocop, Amelito Jr.
Opilac, Miguel Anjelo
Parola, Helaman B.
Puenleona, Desiree B.
Reyes, Einyl Jan V.

SUBMITTED TO:

ENGR. GABRIEL GALVEZ

DECEMBER 15, 2023

 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................ 3
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Background of the study ................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Scope and Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Overall Methodology Framework ..................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Materials/Equipment Used ................................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Experiment Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Statistical Treatments ........................................................................................................................ 7
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 8
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 14
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 15
A. Documentation ............................................................................................................................... 15
B. Raw Data ........................................................................................................................................ 17
 ABSTRACT

Geotechnical engineering relies significantly on the direct shear test as a crucial experiment for
assessing soil properties when subjected to shear stress. Despite numerous theories and diverse
experimental approaches to understanding soil shear strength, there remains a gap in comprehending its
broader implications in real-world scenarios. This study addresses this gap by striving to contribute a more
comprehensive analysis of shear strength in each soil sample, aiming to elucidate the behavioral context
underlying soil reactions under different loads. The study incorporates evidence from the direct shear test
results of three distinct soil samples, revealing a noteworthy observation. Granular soils characterized by
low moisture content tend to exhibit higher frictional resistance compared to cohesive soils with elevated
moisture content. This observation aligns with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, asserting that soil
shear strength is directly proportional to the normal stress acting on the shear plane. The correlation
between normal stress and shear strength emphasizes the influence of interparticle forces, indicating that
higher normal stress results in greater resistance to shearing. The analysis of the presented data
underscores the critical role of shear strength properties in shaping soil behavior. By providing a
quantitative framework, the results contribute to a deeper understanding and prediction of soil behavior,
offering valuable insights into the nuanced responses of different soils under varying loading conditions.
This study thus serves as a significant step forward in bridging the gap between theoretical understanding
and practical implications of soil shear strength in geotechnical engineering.

Keywords: direct shear test, moisture content, shear strength, mohr-columb failure criterion, geotechnical
engineering

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Analyzing the shear strength properties of soils is a part of ensuring the stability and lasting
nature of a building's foundation. Shear strength, which is a characteristic of soil, plays a role in assessing
how well the foundation can resist side to side forces. Given the diversity of soil types it's necessary to
conduct an examination that takes into account factors like cohesion, friction and drainage. Understanding
the ability of soil to withstand deformation when subjected to forces is important for evaluating the
stability and safety of a building's foundation. The measurement of shear strength plays a role in
determining the foundation's capacity to support the structure. It is important to analyze shear strength as
different soil types demonstrate characteristics and behaviors.
 The main objective of this study is to analyze the shear strength characteristics of types of
soil. The specific focus is on understanding how these characteristics affect the design of foundations
using both laboratory tests and field investigations. The aim is to measure the variations in strength
properties, such as cohesion and internal friction angle across soils, within the chosen area.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The focus of the study is to predict and determine the soil behavior through
experimentation, employing the direct shear test under varying loads. Despite the evident concept behind
the shear strength of the soil, there is a critical lack of understanding and interpretation to real and actual
scenarios, thus, the aim of this study is to contribute a more comprehensive study about the shear strength
analysis of a given soil sample and define the behavioral context behind the soil reaction under loads. The
selection of the study area for the experimentation to provide data was considered based on the criteria
and availability of the equipment. Therefore, the study will be conducted in controlled environment using
direct shear test equipment from Technological Institute of the Philippines-Manila, Arlegui Campus,
Room 205 – Soil Mechanics Laboratory. This is motivated by the necessity to explore and comprehend
the complexity of soil responses to varying loads. The controlled conditions allow for systematic
experimentation, providing valuable insights into the soil’s behavior under different stress scenarios.

1.3 Objectives
The objective of this study is to predict and identify the behavior of the soil based on the
determined shear strength properties of three different soil samples.
1. Cohesion and Angle of Internal Friction: To determine the cohesion and angle of internal friction
for Soil A, B, and C under varying loads.
2. Moisture Content Relationship: To explore the relationship between moisture content and
cohesiveness of the soil samples.
3. Finds and Recommendations: To present the findings and offer recommendation based on the
comprehensive analysis of shear stress, shear strength, displacement, and normal stress for each
soil sample.

1.4 Significance of the Study

The importance of this study is based on its capacity to enhance our understanding of the
strength properties in various soil types. This will provide insights for engineering by conducting direct
shear test. The main objective of this study is to fill the existing knowledge gap by conducting a
comprehensive analysis that provides a practical understanding of soil behavior when subjected to
different loads. While controlled experiments, in a laboratory the aim is to gain insight that can be directly
applied to real world scenarios like construction sites and foundation designs.

The knowledge gained from this study is incredibly valuable, for construction sites and
foundation designs. Engineers who are dealing with the difficulties of varying soil conditions will find the
study's results beneficial. It will enable them to make informed decisions when planning and carrying out
construction projects. The study’s emphasis on use ensures that its findings can be easily incorporated into
industry practices potentially leading to improvements in construction techniques and the creation of
infrastructure.

1.5 Scope and Limitations

This study aims to predict and determine the soil behavior using direct shear test under
varying loads. The focus is on providing a comprehensive analysis of shear strength properties for three
distinct soil samples in a controlled environment. The study will focus on assessing changes in soil with
varying conditions under different loads. The study will include a comparison analysis based on the
gathered data and results, considering the required factors based on the standard procedures for direct
shear test. However, this study is not intended to delve into specific outcomes directly aiding the
challenges always present in construction, but the result will act as a guide to differentiate the conditions
and behavior of the soil under varying forces.
The scope of the study is constrained by the limited availability of detailed specifications
as the study parameters will neglect the information about vertical displacement based on the experiment.
The study is geographically limited to the specified laboratory at Technological Institute of the
Philippines-Manila, restricting the generalization of findings to broader soil contexts. The study duration
for each direct shear test trial is approximately 3 minutes, and the focus is on the immediate soil response
under varying loads. This time constraint may influence the interpretation of long-term soil behavior. The
study acknowledges the initial moisture content of each soil sample, however, the potential impact of
temporal moisture content changes during the experimentation period is not explored.
2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Overall Methodology Framework

In geotechnical engineering, a direct shear test is a fundamental experiment used to

determine the properties of soil when subjected to shear stress. This methodological framework outlines
a systematic yet simple approach for successfully conducting a direct shear test with an application to a
comparative analysis between three different soils. This aims to characterize their shear behavior under
various loading conditions and the objective is to obtain crucial data for different applications in the
engineering field.

2.2 Materials/Equipment Used

• Basin
• Spoon
• Tin cup
• Weighing Scale
• Oven
 • Direct Shear Test Equipment
• Weights
• Shear Box
• Brush

2.3 Experiment Procedures

1. Weigh the mold and tin cup.
2. Put sample inside the mold and weight it.
3. Assemble the shear box and put the test sample slightly above the crease of the shear box
inside of it.
4. Compact the test sample.
5. Put the shear box in the Direct Shear Test Machine.
6. Do not forget to remove the screw of the shear box.
7. Place the loading yoke on the loading pad and carefully lift the hanger onto the top of the
loading yoke
8. Put weights in the weight holder.
9. Remove the shear box and transfer the soil sample to the tin cup.
10. Repeat step 2 to 9 with progressively increasing load added in the weight holder.

2.4 Statistical Treatments

This study used comparative analysis for the treatment of the data to differentiate the shear
strength properties of each soil sample and identify the critical resulting data that yields least sample
variations or experimental errors. The data were collected through conducting direct shear tests on three
soil samples A, B, and C, classified as gravely sands based on USDA standards. The soil was subjected
to varying load, aimed to elucidate the relation between shear stress and displacement for each soil sample.
Data preprocessing included calculation with the degree of varying based on the initial information
collected from each soil sample. Assumptions of linearity, independence, homoscedasticity, and
normality of errors were validated through diagnostic plots and statistical tests. The overall model fit was
assessed using three different R-squared values of 99.59%, 94.01%, 84.65% in soil A, B, and C
respectively. This shows the variability in identifying the cohesion and the angle of internal friction that
could be explained by the linear relationship between ultimate shear strength and normal stress. The result
provides a quantitative framework for understanding and predicting soil behavior, offering valuable
insights into nuanced responses of different soils under varying loading conditions.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section shows the data gathered and its interpretation for the soil samples A, B and C.
In the USDA soil classification, Soils A, B and C fall under the classification of gravelly sands. For this
experiment, soil samples were tested in in-situ state under varying loads of 0.03924 kN, 0.06867 kN and
0.10791 kN. The total duration of the direct shear test for each trial was recorded to be approximately 3
minutes, measuring the shear stress at a rate of 3.0000 mm/min.
For easier interpretation of the results, the plotted shear stress and displacement shown
were taken at increments of 10 seconds, representing the relationship of shear stress and displacement
of the entire sample in that trial. It is important to note that the vertical displacement of the soil will not
be discussed here as there was no recorded vertical displacement in all trials conducted.

Figure 1. Shear stress and Horizontal displacement graph of Soil A under increasing loads

Shear Stress and Displacement

30
Shear Sresss (kPa)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Horizontal Displacement (mm)

10.90 kPA (σ) 19.08 kPA (σ) 29.98 kPA (σ)

The graph above describes the shear stress and displacement of Soil A which has an initial
moisture content of 1.2011% for three consecutive trials. Each trend describes the relationship between
shear stress and displacement which has a well-defined peak corresponding to the soil's maximum
resistance to shear, indicating its ultimate strength under the given testing conditions.
The ultimate shear strength of the soil when subjected to a normal stress of 10.90 kPa,
19.08 kPa and 29.98 kPa were 13.46 kPa, 20.41 kPa and 27.81 kPa respectively. In trial 1, the soil
deformed in the horizontal plane up to 9.42 mm before reaching its peak shear strength and for the
succeeding trials 2 and 3, each deformed until 7.93 mm and 9.95 mm.
 Figure 2. Ultimate shear strength and normal stress of Soil A

Ultimate Shear Stress and Normal Stress

30

Ultimate Shear Stress (kPa)

25
20
15
10 y = 0.7481x + 5.607
5 R² = 0.9959
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Normal Stress (kPa)

Plotting the ultimate shear strength and normal stress of the soil tested, the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion was then used to determine the cohesion and angle of internal friction of the soil. In the
given equation of the line describing the linear relationship of normal stress and shear stress at the failure
plane for the given soil sample, the cohesion of Soil A (at x=0) is 5.607 kPa and the angle of internal
friction (at tan-1 0.7481) is 36.80°.
These values provide quantitative measures of the shear strength characteristics of Soil A.
The relatively high angle of internal friction (36.80°) indicates that the soil is predominantly frictional
in nature, likely due to the presence of sand or other granular materials. The non-zero cohesion (5.607
kPa) suggests some bonding between the soil particles, possibly due to clay minerals or other cohesive
forces.
Additionally, the obtained values of cohesion and angle of internal friction are within the
typical ranges reported for various soil types. According to Das (2018), sand typically has an angle of
internal friction ranging from 30° to 45° and cohesion values close to zero. Meanwhile, for clay, the
angle of internal friction is generally lower (20° to 35°) with higher cohesion values (20 to 100 kPa).

Figure 3. Shear stress and Horizontal displacement graph of Soil B under increasing loads
 Shear Stress and Displacement
30

Shear Sresss (kPa)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Horizontal Displacement (mm)

10.90 kPA (σ) 19.08 kPA (σ) 29.98 kPA (σ)

For soil sample B, the initial moisture content of the soil in in-situ state was determined to
be 14.40%. In this moisture content, the soil exhibited an ultimate shear strength at 16.39 kPa, 23 kPa
and 26.65 kPa for normal stresses of 10.90 kPa, 19.08 kPa and 29.98 kPa, respectively. In the graph
above, even though the normal stress applied in Trial 2 is less than that of Trial 3, it yielded a higher
shear stress at the beginning compared to the recorded shear stress of Trial 3. It also experienced its
ultimate shear strength at an early stage in the experiment, recording to a horizontal displacement of 5.6
mm only. For trials 1 and 3, their recorded horizontal displacement at the peak of their shar strength is
at 7.66 mm and 9.86 mm respectively.

Figure 4. Ultimate shear strength and normal stress of Soil B

Ultimate Shear Stress and Normal Stress

30
Ultimate Shear Stress (kPa)

25 y = 0.5268x + 11.484
20 R² = 0.9401
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Normal Stress (kPa)

The graph above shows the linearity of ultimate shear strength and normal stress of Soil B.
At x=0, the cohesion of Soil B was found to be 11.484 kPa with an angle of internal friction to be (at tan-
1
0.5268) 29.37°. These acquired values still fall under the typical range of sand which Soil B was
classified into. The relatively high angle of internal friction (29.37°) indicates that the soil is
predominantly frictional in nature and for the non-zero cohesion which is greater than that of Soil A
suggests the increase in moisture content may have affected the cohesiveness of the soil ultimately
resulting to a higher shear stress at the first half of the experiment.

Figure 5. Shear stress and Horizontal displacement graph of Soil C under increasing loads

Shear Stress and Displacement

30
Shear Sresss (kPa)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Horizontal Displacement (mm)

10.90 kPA (σ) 19.08 kPA (σ) 29.98 kPA (σ)

Lastly, soil sample C which had an initial moisture content of 33.61% was subjected to normal
loads of 10.90 kPa, 19.08 kPa and 29.98 kPa and the resulting ultimate shear strength was 14.24 kPa,
24.09 kPa, and 26.75 kPa respectively. In the graph above, Soil C exhibited its ultimate shear strength in
all normal loads with a small margin of horizontal displacement from each other. The horizontal
displacement as the normal stress increases were 7.87 mm, 7.84 mmm and 8.14 mm respectively. The
relatively close horizontal displacement shows the soil behaved similarly when subjected to a proportional
amount of normal and shearing stress.

Figure 6. Ultimate shear strength and normal stress of Soil C

 Ultimate Shear Stress and Normal Stress
30

Ultimate Shear Stress (kPa)

25 y = 0.6335x + 9.0325
20 R² = 0.8465
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Normal Stress (kPa)

The graph above shows the linearity of ultimate shear strength and normal stress of Soil C.
At x=0, the cohesion of Soil C was found to be 9.0352 kPa with an angle of internal friction to be (at tan-
1
0.6335) 32.35°. Similar to the other soils tested, Soil C also falls under the typical range of sand
classification. The relatively high angle of internal friction (32.35°) also indicates that the soil is
predominantly frictional in nature and for the non-zero cohesion which is in between Soil A and Soil B
suggests that high moisture content may have affected the cohesiveness of the soil and may not have been
the optimal moisture content since it didn’t project to a higher overall shea strength at different normal
stresses.

Figure 7. Comparison of ultimate shear strength and normal stress of Soil A, B, and C

Ultimate Shear Stress and Normal Stress

30 27.81
26.75
Ultimate Shear Stress (kPa)

25 24.09 26.65
23
20 16.39
14.24 20.41
15
13.46
10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Normal Stress (kPa)

Linear (Soil A) Linear (Soil B) Linear (Soil C)

 Based on the graph presented above, soils A, B and C followed a consistent trendline of
increasing ultimate shear strength as the normal stress increases. This is consistent with the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion, which states that the shear strength of a soil is directly proportional to the
normal stress acting on the shear plane. The higher the normal stress, the stronger the interparticle forces
and the greater resistance to shearing.
In comparing the cohesiveness, moisture content and angle of internal fiction of all soil
samples, soil A, despite having the lowest moisture content and consequently, potentially lower cohesive
forces, exhibited a remarkable increase in shear strength with increasing normal stress. This behavior
suggests that the interparticle friction within Soil A, as evidenced by its high angle of internal friction
(36.8°), plays a dominant role in its shear resistance (Lambe & Whitman, 1969). This finding is consistent
with observations by Seed and Chan (1966), who noted that granular soils with low moisture content tend
to exhibit higher frictional resistance compared to cohesive soils with higher moisture content.
In contrast, Soil B, characterized by a higher moisture content and cohesiveness (11.484
kPa), showed a decline in ultimate shear strength at higher normal stresses. This behavior could be
attributed to the detrimental effect of increased pore water pressure on the soil's shear resistance. As
normal stress increases, so does pore water pressure, leading to a reduction in effective stress and a
consequent decrease in shear strength (Lambe & Whitman, 1969). This phenomenon aligns with research
findings by Holtz and Kovacs (1981), who observed that saturated soils with high moisture content are
more susceptible to reductions in shear strength due to increased pore water pressure.
Out of all the soil samples tested under direct shear test, soil B exhibited the most consistent
and reliable data throughout the experiment. This suggests that the soil's behavior fell within the expected
parameters for identifying shear strength properties, indicating minimal sample variations or experimental
errors.
Overall, the analysis of the presented data highlights the complex interplay between
moisture content, cohesiveness, angle of internal friction, and normal stress in influencing the shear
strength of soils. The observed differences between Soil A, B, and C emphasize the importance of
considering these factors for accurate evaluation and prediction of soil behavior under various loading
conditions.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

To summarize the case study that involves direct shear test to compare and contrast the
shear strength properties of the three soil samples, the researchers were able to prove that shear strength
and direct shear test is a supplemental aspect in geotechnical engineering. Shear strength in geotechnical
engineering influences the design, stability, and safety of various structures and projects. For this case
study-experiment, the study only focuses on the comparative analysis and interpretation of shear stress,
shear strength, displacement, and normal stress; this limits to what the paper can provide. Through
meticulous experimentation and analysis, the researchers understood the characteristics and behavior of
three soil samples that are acquired in different locations.

The findings represented are greatly influenced by their true nature and characterization
using USDA soil classification. As the load applied to the soil by the direct shear test machine,
displacement changes and the ultimate shear strength is recorded. As per the recorded data, the researchers
found out that Soil A is frictional in nature that proves that it is in the scope of sand where the angle of
internal friction is ranging from 30 degrees to 45 degrees. Similarly, Soil A, Soil B, and Soil C also showed
evident characteristics that make them classified as sand by means of USDA soil classification and
conducting direct shear test. As the researchers reflect and interpret the data gathered by the
experimentation, they noticed different remarkable contrasts between the three soil samples they have
experimented with. The researchers were successful in determining the soil who is capable and is best for
shear resistance, which in the soil has a weaker shear strength due to the reduction in effective stress, and
they identified which soil among the three samples has the most consistent and reliable data that will fall
under the expected parameters. The researchers were also successful in considering different soil
characteristics to determine complex and significant data output for future research and projects that will
involve the locations where the three samples originated.

As this case study comprehensively conducted an analysis of the three soil samples, the
researchers recommend that future researchers must use site-specific design parameters and identify each
soil sample with precision and accuracy. They must include and incorporate geotechnical codes and
standards to make experimentation and preparation more precise. They must dive deeper into the
educational significance of shear strength properties and direct shear testing. By incorporating these
recommendations by the researchers, future researchers and the engineering community can have an
advanced understanding and experimentation of soil mechanics and characterization.
REFERENCES

1. Holtz, R. D., & Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Prentice-Hall.

2. Terzaghi, K., & Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley & Sons.
3. Lambe, T. W., & Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons.
4. Seed, H. B., & Chan, C. K. (1966). Clay strength under earthquake loading conditions. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 92(2), 53-78.
5. Gan, J. K. M., Fredlund, D. G., & Rahardjo, H. (1988). Determination of the shear strength parameters
of an unsaturated soil using the direct shear test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(3), 500–510.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t88-055

APPENDICES

A. Documentation

Putting sample in the mold and weighing it

Assemble the shear box and put the test sample slightly above the crease and compact the sample

Setting the Direct Shear Test Equipment

 Start running the test and record data

B. Raw Data

Table 1: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil A (Trial 1)

Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.001 0 0 0
0.175 0.25 2.21 0.007956
0.338 0.89 3.2 0.01152
0.504 1.55 2.69 0.009684
0.673 2.22 2.42 0.008712
0.841 2.87 3.75 0.0135
1.005 3.47 6.17 0.022212
1.173 4.08 8.76 0.031536
1.341 4.67 10.36 0.037296
1.505 5.28 10.87 0.039132
1.673 5.88 11.69 0.042084
1.841 6.46 11.86 0.042696
2.005 7.05 12.13 0.043668
2.172 7.67 12.81 0.046116
2.34 8.25 13.29 0.047844
 2.507 8.84 13.36 0.048096
2.671 9.42 13.46 0.048456
2.838 10.01 13.26 0.047736
3.006 10.55 13.29 0.047844
3.169 10.63 12.1 0.04356
3.19 10.5 12.06 0.043416
3.238 10.22 12 0.0432

Table 2: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil A (Trial 2)

Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.001 0 0 0
0.174 0.25 0.85 0.00306
0.342 0.65 4.05 0.01458
0.505 1.27 4.94 0.017784
0.673 1.87 4.57 0.016452
0.841 2.53 5.86 0.021096
1.005 3.11 9.37 0.033732
1.173 3.72 13.56 0.048816
1.341 4.33 16.49 0.059364
1.505 4.93 17.79 0.064044
1.673 5.54 18.91 0.068076
1.841 6.14 19.49 0.070164
2.005 6.73 20.14 0.072504
2.173 7.34 20.21 0.072756
2.341 7.93 20.41 0.073476
2.505 8.52 20.27 0.072972
2.668 9.08 20 0.072
2.841 9.69 19.7 0.07092
3.005 10.26 19.18 0.069048
3.064 10.45 19.01 0.068436
 3.069 10.47 19.08 0.068688
3.078 10.49 19.08 0.068688
3.083 10.5 18.88 0.067968
3.127 10.51 18.03 0.064908

Table 3: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil A (Trial 3)

Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.001 0 0 0
0.16 0.01 1.09 0.003924
0.337 0.35 5.08 0.018288
0.506 1 7.05 0.02538
0.674 1.6 5.79 0.020844
0.838 2.19 5.55 0.01998
1.006 2.83 7.63 0.027468
1.175 3.43 9.88 0.035568
1.339 4.05 13.22 0.047592
1.508 4.64 16.73 0.060228
1.672 5.21 20.55 0.07398
1.84 5.85 22.83 0.082188
2.003 6.4 24.81 0.089316
2.172 6.98 26.24 0.094464
2.338 7.57 26.03 0.093708
2.507 8.19 26.75 0.0963
2.673 8.77 27.19 0.097884
2.838 9.32 27.67 0.099612
3.007 9.92 27.77 0.099972
3.012 9.95 27.81 0.100116
3.039 10.03 27.74 0.099864
3.076 10.16 27.57 0.099252
3.108 10.17 26.37 0.094932
Table 4: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil B (Trial 1)
Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.005 0 0 0
0.174 0.02 1.53 0.005508
0.337 0.37 3.13 0.011268
0.506 0.97 5.08 0.018288
0.674 1.54 4.57 0.016452
0.838 2.17 4.33 0.015588
1.006 2.77 7.74 0.027864
1.174 3.39 10.73 0.038628
1.338 4 13.22 0.047592
1.507 4.6 14.72 0.052992
1.671 5.18 15.37 0.055332
1.839 5.83 15.88 0.057168
2.007 6.43 16.29 0.058644
2.171 7.02 16.32 0.058752
2.339 7.63 16.39 0.059004
2.343 7.66 16.39 0.059004
2.507 8.24 16.32 0.058752
2.671 8.79 15.95 0.05742
2.839 9.38 15.57 0.056052
3.008 9.93 15.23 0.054828
3.017 9.95 15.23 0.054828
3.021 9.98 15.2 0.05472
3.026 10 15.16 0.054576
3.359 10.01 13.97 0.050292
Table 5: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil B (Trial 2)
Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.005 0 0 0
0.174 0 1.26 0.004536
0.337 0.24 2.93 0.010548
0.506 0.78 9.37 0.033732
0.674 1.4 9 0.0324
0.838 1.97 8.72 0.031392
1.006 2.59 12.44 0.044784
1.175 3.22 17.24 0.062064
1.339 3.79 20.21 0.072756
1.508 4.42 21.71 0.078156
1.672 5.01 22.49 0.080964
1.84 5.6 23 0.0828
2.009 6.19 22.8 0.08208
2.172 6.81 22.83 0.082188
2.341 7.4 22.8 0.08208
2.346 7.43 22.8 0.08208
2.51 8.02 22.56 0.081216
2.674 8.6 22.29 0.080244
2.846 9.2 21.5 0.0774
3.016 9.8 20.38 0.073368
3.034 9.86 20.31 0.073116
3.048 9.9 20.17 0.072612
3.062 9.94 20.14 0.072504
3.066 9.96 20.1 0.07236
3.076 9.98 20.14 0.072504
3.08 10 20.14 0.072504
3.141 10.03 19.05 0.06858
Table 6: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil B (Trial 3)
Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.001 0 0 0
0.17 0 0.72 0.002592
0.334 0.29 2.69 0.009684
0.502 0.82 7.16 0.025776
0.67 1.42 6.82 0.024552
0.834 1.99 8.31 0.029916
1.003 2.6 12.13 0.043668
1.171 3.26 15.44 0.055584
1.335 3.85 17.65 0.06354
1.504 4.47 19.59 0.070524
1.668 5.01 21.4 0.07704
1.836 5.62 23.03 0.082908
2.005 6.21 24.02 0.086472
2.168 6.75 24.74 0.089064
2.337 7.34 25.25 0.0909
2.341 7.36 25.25 0.0909
2.505 7.96 25.49 0.091764
2.674 8.55 25.97 0.093492
2.844 9.13 26.37 0.094932
3.014 9.72 26.51 0.095436
3.018 9.72 26.51 0.095436
3.032 9.78 26.58 0.095688
3.055 9.83 26.61 0.095796
3.059 9.86 26.65 0.09594
3.078 9.91 26.61 0.095796
3.164 9.93 24.91 0.089676
Table 7: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil C (Trial 1)
Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.001 0 0 0
0.174 0 1.67 0.006012
0.338 0.5 3.13 0.011268
0.506 1.19 4.02 0.014472
0.674 1.83 3.95 0.01422
0.838 2.43 4.02 0.014472
1.006 3.07 5.9 0.02124
1.175 3.69 6.82 0.024552
1.339 4.28 8.18 0.029448
1.508 4.87 10.6 0.03816
1.672 5.44 12.23 0.044028
1.84 6.06 13.36 0.048096
2.008 6.67 13.6 0.04896
2.172 7.28 13.97 0.050292
2.34 7.87 14.24 0.051264
2.504 8.44 14.18 0.051048
2.672 9.03 14.04 0.050544
2.841 9.61 13.83 0.049788
3.004 10.16 13.77 0.049572
3.023 10.21 13.8 0.04968
3.045 10.28 13.7 0.04932
3.104 10.34 12.81 0.046116

Table 8: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil C (Trial 2)

Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.001 0 0 0
 0.174 0 1.26 0.004536
0.338 0.51 4.26 0.015336
0.506 1.16 4.02 0.014472
0.674 1.77 3.85 0.01386
0.838 2.41 3.92 0.014112
1.007 3.08 7.6 0.02736
1.175 3.67 10.8 0.03888
1.339 4.28 14.38 0.051768
1.508 4.92 17.75 0.0639
1.672 5.5 19.66 0.070776
1.84 6.07 21.37 0.076932
2.008 6.69 22.63 0.081468
2.172 7.28 23.55 0.08478
2.34 7.84 24.09 0.086724
2.505 8.42 23.78 0.085608
2.673 9.01 23.44 0.084384
2.841 9.61 22.73 0.081828
3.005 10.17 22.46 0.080856
3.046 10.33 22.29 0.080244
3.074 10.4 22.22 0.079992
3.127 10.42 20.89 0.075204

Table 9: Shear Stress and Horizontal Displacement of Soil C (Trial 3)

Horizontal Shear Shear
Time
Displacement Stress Force
(min)
(mm) (kPa) (kN)
0.001 0 0 0
0.174 0 0.78 0.002808
0.338 0.37 5.79 0.020844
0.506 0.99 6.51 0.023436
0.674 1.56 6 0.0216
0.838 2.19 5.62 0.020232
1.005 2.83 8.42 0.030312
1.166 3.42 11.99 0.043164
1.33 4.03 15.91 0.057276
1.499 4.64 19.83 0.071388
1.662 5.22 22.25 0.0801
1.83 5.81 23.82 0.085752
1.998 6.37 24.84 0.089424
2.162 6.97 25.76 0.092736
2.331 7.56 26.37 0.094932
2.494 8.14 26.75 0.0963
2.663 8.75 26.03 0.093708
2.831 9.32 25.66 0.092376
2.995 9.92 25.62 0.092232
3.041 10.03 25.52 0.091872
3.082 10.15 25.39 0.091404
 RUBRICS FOR CONDUCT OF EXPERIMENTS

SO (6): Develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.

Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score
Develop The students The students The students are The students are The students are The students are
Appropriate are unable to are able to able to develop able to develop a able to develop able to develop a
Experimentation develop a partially component of a basic component of components of lab
basic develop laboratory a laboratory laboratory experiment/activity
component of components of experiment but experiment experiment appropriate to the
a laboratory laboratory has no appropriate to the appropriate to the chosen topic and
experiment experiment presentations of chosen topic chosen topic and aligned to the
analysis of data aligned to engineering
yet has engineering principles learned
presented principles learned in the previous
conclusion or in the previous experiments.
recommendation Experiments
Conduct The students The students The students The students The students are The students are
Appropriate are unable to inappropriately conduct some conduct laboratory able to conduct able to conduct a
Experimentation conduct a conduct the laboratory experiment/activity appropriate precise laboratory
laboratory laboratory experiments / with correct laboratory experiment/
experiment / experiment / activities but did methods/procedures experiment/activity activity with
activity activity not arrive at the but insufficient with sufficient excellent results
correct results results to draw results and able and conclusions.
conclusion draw valid
conclusion

Ability to The students The students The students The students use The students use The students use
Analyze and are unable to provide provide limited appropriate data adequate data multiple data
Interpret Data provide irrelevant and analysis of data analysis techniques. analysis techniques analysis techniques
analysis and inaccurate with no Data analysis appropriate for appropriate for
interpretation analysis and interpretation is reported with data collected, data collected,
of data interpretation insufficient informative with informative with
of interpretation respect to the respect to the
data experimentation/ experimentation /
activity being activity being
conducted. conducted. Data
analysis is reported
with
 comprehensive
interpretation

Use Engineering The student The student The student was The student was The student was The student was
Judgment to failed to use was able to use able to use able to able to use able to use
Draw engineering engineering Engineering use engineering Engineering engineering
Conclusions judgement to judgement but judgement judgement judgement more judgement more
draw inappropriate but insufficient sufficient to than sufficient to than sufficient to
conclusions for the topic to draw correct draw correct draw correct draw correct
and failed to conclusions conclusions conclusions conclusions and
draw correct was able to provide
conclusions new insights
Comments/Observations: Total Score: