×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

specific gravity from consolidation test

specific gravity from consolidation test

specific gravity from consolidation test

(OP)
is it possible to get the specific gravity of the soil from the consolidation test? and if so what is the procedure?

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

As a very quick first thought - why do you want the specific gravity?  Is it to obtain an "e" (void ratio) value?  If so, plot your test results as logp' vs strain and the resulting straight lines become Cc/(1+eo) and Cr/(1+eo) - the initial void ratio is already "built in."

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

Nineteen times out of twenty, you can assume the specific gravity is 2.66 to 2.7.  The twentieth time, when you have unusual mineralogy, that assumption will mess you up. blush

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

(OP)
thanks for the replies...
yes BigH i was thinking of how to get the initial void ratio.  now correct me if im wrong but dont you need the eo to draw the curve? to get the Cc and Cr...

since i can draw the strain versus p curve then 0 strain is the "top" of the curve?

 

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

danyul, see Bowles 5th edition, section 2-10.3, fig 2-16a and fig 2-16b. This will explain it to you.

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

There is no "need" for initial or final void ratio to properly interpret a consolidation curve (or use the data from one for a settlement calculation).  The sample is 1-in thick so dial readings (in inches) reflect strain rate.  If you plot strain v. log pressure you then get a relationship that is directly parallel to the plot of void ratio v. log pressure.  As already pointed out the slope on a strain curve and the slope on the void ratio curve are related by 1/(1+e).

If you have the slope of the strain curve (what I call the consolidation ratio v. the consolidation index) you can then do a settlement calculation using the ratio value (without any consideration of void ratio).

Hope this helps (or adds to the other's contributions).

f-d

¡papá gordo ain't no madre flaca!

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

(OP)
ok i understand how to use the strain vs logp to calculate settlement... i was more curious about the specific gravity... the program i use asks for the specific gravity which then calculates the eo.

so previously i had been using the data with some assumptions to calc the Gs:

from the saturated sample... wet density - dry density = water

water/62.4= weight

((take the last reading after the rebound + 0.5") - weight)*dry density = density of solids

density of solid/62.4= Gs  
after the consol is it safe to assume 100% saturation?
i usually get "high" Gs values of 2.8-3.2... this is why im asking... thanks

 

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

From an assumed specific gravity and a known dry or saturated density you can calculate void ratio.  While the odometer sample is maintained under water, I'm not certain full saturation is a safe bet.  There are lots of clay samples below the phreatic surface that are unsaturated.  Hence the need for backpressure saturation in triaxial testing.

f-d   

¡papá gordo ain't no madre flaca!

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

Quirks of relying "solely" on computer programs.

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

I had a nice little Excel spread sheet set up to calculate Gs based on the consol sample data.  You do have to assume total saturation at the end of the test cycle.  So I would essentially work backwards to determine Gs and e before calculating the consolidation test results.      

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

I have used many consol test data to 'estimate' specific gravity.  I will put stress on 'estimate'.
My first assumption, backed up with several flex wall perm tests, is the final saturation of my normal soils will be between 87% to 96%. In a few cases, 100% saturation has been assumed, usually when the specific gravity seemed too low.

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

(OP)
so i guess thats a no. not without assuming 100% saturation which isnt the case...

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

As an aside,  10-12 years ago, my brother put together  and Autocadd drawing for plotting Proctor Curves. For each Zero Air Voids Curve at a particular Specific Gravity, he had a layer graphing an Air Voids Curve at 86% & 96%. When the proctor curves were plotted, the 'saturated' down sides of the curves usually plotted within this 86% & 96% zone, actually, usually below 94% saturation.  

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

anything you can test rather than guess is better.  why not just do the specific gravity test?  it doesn't vary by much unless you got pure feldspar sand.  ralph peck once said "beware of the oddball" which you can never find by guessing.  once you have the s.g. you can calculate your saturation from the test and begin to evaluate if it is reasonable compared to your in-situ test data.

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

mudman - not necessarily true - i.e., doesn't vary by much.  Our saprolite clay here has Gs values of 2.8 to 3.1 - a lot depends on the make-up minerals.  Again, I question if you really need the Gs anyway.  You plot e-logp to get Cc - then in your settlement computation you have to divide Cc by 1+eo.  Or, you plot strain-log p and you get CR which is [ Cc / (1+eo) ] directly.  So what need Gs??

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

(OP)
ok maybe im missing something simple here... i understand how to use the strain vs logp curve to get my Cc' and Cr' values.  also i understand that these are equal to Cc/(1+eo) and Cr/(1+eo).  

now BigH and fattdad say to use the Cc and Cr from the e vs logp curve then i can find the eo. ok simple...

now am i mistaken or dont you need the eo to plot the e vs logp curve in the first place?  

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

danyul - what fattdad and I are saying - you don't need to plot the e-logp'. Just use the strain-logp'.
  I see your dilemma - in that you have a computer program that requires the eo rather than letting you plug in CR and RR values. If you assume eo say, of 2.65, use it to plot the e-logp' curve. Obtain Cc.  To see the senstivity of Cc on eo, assume 2.75 and plot - get Cc(2.75) and assume 2.7.  Expect Cc will not be "much different" given the accuracy of plots, etc.  Then you can get eo by eo = (Cc/CR)-1 .  To make your computer bigsmile.

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

(OP)
BigH-thanks for the gentle reply... ok i see your theory but somethings not working

example:
an actual consol test, from the strain vs logp i got a Cc'=4.49 and Cr'=0.735=CR

now my program asks for Gs actually then calcs the eo.  so i plugged in different Gs and the program reports eo,Cc and Cr for the e vs logp
Gs    eo      Cr    Cc
2.6   1.895   2     13
2.7   2.006   2     13
2.8   2.117   2     14
2.9   2.229   2     14
3.0   2.340   2     15

now i assume these number are rounded... so this is what you expected but how do you know which Gs is the right one? if you use the Cr=2 then you get a low Gs of 2.4ish which isnt right.

now if you use the eo with the strain Cc' and Cr' you can calc the exact Cc and Cr.  curiously the Cc/Cr for each Gs are the same.

thanks for your time...
 

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

CR is the compression ratio derived from the strain-logp' curve. (not Csubr).

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

(OP)
bigH im not sure what you mean... i use Cr' and Cc' from the strain vs logp and Cr and Cc from the e vs logp

im assuming you use CR as my Cr' not Cr
  

RE: specific gravity from consolidation test

see my post of 9 dec for CR = Cc / (1+eo) where Cc is obtained from e-logp' curve.  CR also is also obtained from the strain-logp' curve directly.  so, if you have Cc from e-logp' and CR from strain-logp', the only outstanding variable is eo, eh?  You are calling Cc' as what I call CR (compression ratio).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources