INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI

Department of Civil Engineering

CVP321 Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Grading Rubric Sheet

Group #: Group 4 Entry Number:2022CE11047

Student Name: Sujas Kumar Lab Instructor: Nirban De

Cover Memo (8):

Follow the proper outline of the report
Describe the procedure and exceptions
Describe the results of the obtained data
Refer to and describe all attachments
Detailed discussions on the results obtained and conclusions
Describe major problems/sources of error with the data or laboratory
Describe a summary of the report
Ensure neatness, grammar, and spelling

Graphs & Tables (4):

Graphs, tables, and diagrams and their captions properly formatted
Ensuring the readability of the presented data Axes
labeled with units
Completeness of data

Sample Calculations (2):

Basic equations used presented with appropriate units

Data (4):
Quality of data
Accuracy of data processing
Care in documenting all the data

Participation (2):
Contributing to lab group work
Carefully log the data in your notebook
Processing preliminary data during the lab
Clean up

Comments:

Grade ____ / 20
 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI
Department of Civil Engineering

CVP321 Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

MEMORANDUM

To: Nirban De Date: 27/10/24

Fr: Sujas Kumar

Subject: : Consolidated Drained (CD) Triaxial Compression Test

Purpose: In this lab activity, a triaxial test is performed on an isotopically consolidated cylindrical
sample that has been sheared in compression with drainage at a constant rate of axial deformation in
order to determine the drained shear strength parameter (cʹ, ϕʹ).

Materials:
A 38 mm diameter split mold, matching non-porous end caps (20 mm thick), a seamless rubber
membrane, filter papers, a membrane stretcher, and rubber O-rings for sealing are all part of the triaxial
test equipment. Moisture checks are conducted using containers and an electric oven. The test cell features
drainage ports, can apply axial loads, and can tolerate high pressures. A 300 kg proving ring records force,
and a burette monitors changes in volume. A spatula, oil or grease, Vernier calipers, a stopwatch, a 0.1 g
precision balance, tin cans, and an oven set between 105 and 110°C are extra tools. Yamuna sand is the
type of soil sample.

Procedure:
1. Fill the sand completely, remove any air from the cell pedestal, and prepare the base by adding end
caps, filter papers, and porous stones.
2. Secure a rubber membrane with O-rings around the sample setup. Next, place a tamper inside and cover
with a split mold.
3. Using the wet pluviation process, add sand in three tamped layers, cover with filter paper, and then add
a porous stone and end cap on top.
4. Use a burette to apply suction, remove the mold, measure the sample to determine its volume, and
submerge the membrane to remove any leftover air.
5. As soon as the consolidation stage stabilizes, place and fasten the triaxial cell on the loading frame,
apply confining pressure, and keep an eye on the data.
6. Move the platen to initiate the shearing stage.

Results:
According to the findings of the CD test, the deviatoric stress at failure increased significantly
from 426.28 kPa to 783.49 kPa when the confining stress was increased from 100 kPa to 200
kPa, and the major primary stress increased in tandem. The friction angle (39.54 degrees) and
cohesiveness (20 kPa) of both specimens remained constant, suggesting that the inherent material
qualities did not change. Furthermore, the axial strain at failure increased marginally from
6.351% to 6.787%, indicating that higher confinement results in better ductility. All things
considered, our findings show enhanced shear strength and failure resistance under higher
confining pressure.
Discussion:
In order to quantify undrained shear strength and evaluate short-term stability under rapid loading, the
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) test is a rapid technique that prevents drainage or consolidation of the soil
sample. The Consolidated Drained (CD) test, on the other hand, includes a gentle shearing step with
continuous drainage after allowing the soil sample to fully consolidate at a specified confining pressure.
Effective stress characteristics including cohesion (c′) and friction angle (ϕ′), which are crucial for evaluating
long-term stability under drained settings, are provided by this test.

Soil samples undergo an elastic response during the CD test, followed by plastic deformation until failure,
which is frequently indicated by shear banding. Increased confining pressures make dense soils more ductile,
increase soil strength, delay failure, and decrease dilatancy (expansion). Higher confinement for loose soils
results in a more stable stress-strain curve by reducing contractive behavior. Because of their reliance on
confining stress, soils that are subjected to greater confinement tend to exhibit greater strength and a slower
rate of failure.

A stable internal structure with comparable particle interlocking under a range of confining pressures was
shown by the CD test's effective shear strength values, which showed constant cohesiveness (20 kPa) and
friction angle (39.54 degrees) across both samples. While the cohesiveness shows the soil's ability to connect,
the friction angle demonstrates substantial shear resistance typical of coarse-grained soils. The consistency of
these values across confining pressures ranging from 100 kPa to 200 kPa confirms their dependability in
forecasting soil behavior under a variety of loading scenarios, making them essential for assessing soil stability
in construction applications.

Error Analysis
In the Consolidated Drained (CD) test, error analysis frequently entails assessing errors resulting from
human error, inconsistent sample preparation, and equipment constraints. Inconsistencies in test results
may arise from variations in sample density or moisture content. Furthermore, pore pressure
accumulation brought on by inadequate drainage during the consolidation or shearing phases may
compromise the accuracy of stress measurements. The precision of cohesion and friction angle data can
be impacted by additional inaccuracies introduced by equipment frictional losses and slight variations
in confining pressure.

Summary:
Regardless of the confining pressures (100 kPa and 200 kPa), the CD test results show consistent shear
strength characteristics, with cohesiveness at 20 kPa and a friction angle of 39.54 degrees across both
samples. Increased deviatoric and main primary stresses were the outcome of higher confining stress,
indicating improved shear resistance under increased confinement. These results imply that the soil has
stable shear strength characteristics, which makes it useful for forecasting performance in engineering
applications under various loading situations.

Attachment/Appendices:
• Table 1. Summary of sample dimensions, their dry densities, and measured shear strength.
• Table 2. Stress-strain response during the CD Test at different confining stresses.
• Figure 1. Plot between Deviatoric stress (q) vs Axial strain (ε) for 100kpa.
• Figure 2. Plot between Deviatoric stress (q) vs Axial strain(ε) for 200kpa.
• Figure 3. Plot between Volumetric strain vs Axial strain (ε) for 100kpa.
• Figure 4. Plot between Volumetric strain vs Axial strain (ε) for 200kpa.
• Figure 5. Mohr-circle at failure state and calculate c′ and ϕ′ for soil samples used in the tests.
• Figure 6. Photo of original readings.
(a) Triaxial cell

(b) Our sample

 Observations Tables:
Table 1. Summary of sample dimensions, their dry densities, and measured shear strength.
SPECIMEN SPECIFICATION Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Soil Yamuna sand Yamuna sand
Sample preparation method CD CD
Measurement of mould I II Avg I II Avg I II Avg
Diameter or C/S dimensions (mm) 38.2 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.0 38.1
Cross-section width (mm) - - - - - -
Thickness of sample, ho (mm) 72.4 72.6 72.5 74 74.2 74.1

11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3

2
Cross section area, Ao (cm ) 9 9 9 9 9 9
Volume of sample, Vo (cm³) 82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6
Mass of the mould (gm) 3223.4 3223.4
Mass of mould + specimen (gm) 3416.3 3424.6
Mass of specimen (gm) 192.9 200.6
Bulk density (kg/m3) 2335.3 2428.5

Dry Density Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Container No.
Wt. of Container (gm) 63.7 352.3
Wt. of Cont. + Wet Soil (gm) 220.6 508.8
Wt. of Cont. + Dry Soil (gm) 185.4 472.0
Wt. of Water (gm) 35.2 36.8
Wt. of Dry Soil (gm) 121.7 119.7
Water Content (%) 28.9 30.7
Bulk Density (gm/cc) 2.335 2.428
Dry Density (gm/cc) 1.82 1.86

SHEAR STRENGTH Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Confining Stress, σ3 (kPa) 100 200
Deviatoric Stress, q (kPa) 426.28 783.49
Major Principal Stress, σ1 (kPa) 526.28 983.49
Axial Strain at Failure, ε (%) 6.351 6.787
Cohesion, c (kPa) 20 20
Friction Angle, ϕ (degrees) 39.54 39.54

Table 2. Stress-strain response during the CD test for Specimen No 1.

Specimen No. 1 Confining Stress : 100Kpa
Proven Ring Constant (N/div) : 1.3782
Least count of the deformation dial gauge, LC (mm/div) : 0.01
Proving Ring Reading: (a) hanging free : 16 (b) after complete consolidation : 12.6
# Elaps Burette Vol. Deformation, Strain Corrected Load Compres
ed Reading strain ΔL Area, Ac sive
Time
3
(cm ) (%) Div mm (cm²) Div N Stress, q
ε (%) (N/cm²)

1 0 15.4 0.000 0 0 0.000 11.34 0 0 0

2 30 15.4 0.000 25 0.25 0.316 11.376 19 61.79 54.316
3 60 15.4 0.000 50 0.5 0.631 11.412 55 178.86 156.732
4 90 15.4 0.000 75 0.75 0.947 11.448 77 250.41 218.728
5 120 15.4 0.000 100 1 1.263 11.485 94 305.69 266.168
6 150 15.4 0.000 125 1.25 1.578 11.522 107 347.97 302.01
7 180 15.4 0.000 150 1.5 1.894 11.559 115 373.99 323.549
8 210 15.4 0.000 175 1.75 2.210 11.596 122 396.75 342.139
9 240 15.5 0.001 200 2 2.526 11.614 127 413.01 355.606
10 270 15.6 0.003 225 2.25 2.843 11.633 132 429.27 369.026
11 300 15.7 0.004 250 2.5 3.161 11.651 135 439.03 376.816
12 330 15.7 0.004 275 2.75 3.477 11.689 143 465.05 397.843
13 360 15.9 0.006 300 3 3.796 11.688 147 478.05 409
14 390 15.9 0.006 325 3.25 4.112 11.727 148 481.31 410.428
15 420 16 0.008 350 3.5 4.430 11.746 149 484.56 412.528
16 450 16.2 0.010 375 3.75 4.751 11.746 150 487.81 415.31
17 480 16.3 0.011 400 4 5.070 11.765 153 497.57 422.916
18 510 16.5 0.014 425 4.25 5.391 11.765 153 497.57 422.921
19 540 16.6 0.015 450 4.5 5.711 11.785 154 500.82 424.971
 20 570 16.7 0.016 475 4.75 6.030 11.805 154 500.82 424.253
21 600 16.8 0.018 500 5 6.351 11.825 155 504.07 426.281
22 630 16.8 0.018 525 5.25 6.668 11.865 155 504.07 424.835
23 660 17 0.020 550 5.5 6.992 11.866 155 504.07 424.814
24 690 17.1 0.021 575 5.75 7.312 11.886 155 504.07 424.074
25 720 17.2 0.023 600 6 7.634 11.907 154 500.82 420.599
26 750 17.2 0.023 625 6.25 7.952 11.948 152 494.31 413.707
27 780 17.3 0.024 650 6.5 8.273 11.97 149 484.56 404.82
28 810 17.4 0.025 675 6.75 8.595 11.991 146 474.8 395.957
29 840 17.4 0.025 700 7 8.913 12.033 144 468.3 389.173
30 870 17.5 0.027 725 7.25 9.236 12.055 141 458.54 380.371

Table 3. Stress-strain response during the CD test for Specimen No 2.

Specimen No. 2 Confining Stress :200Kpa
Proven Ring Constant (N/div) :1.3782
Least count of the deformation dial gauge, LC (mm/div) :0.01
Proving Ring Reading: (a) hanging free : 21.5 (b) after complete consolidation :2.8
# Elapsed Burette Vol. Deformation, Strain Corrected Load Compres
Time Reading strain ΔL Area, Ac sive
3
(cm ) (%) Div mm (cm²) Div N Stress, q
ε (%) (N/cm²)

1 0 20.8 0 0 0 0 11.34 0 0 0
2 30 20.8 0 25 0.25 0.306 11.375 3 9.76 8.58
3 60 21 0.002 50 0.5 0.613 11.373 10 32.52 28.6
4 90 21.1 0.004 75 0.75 0.92 11.389 55 178.86 157.05
5 120 21.2 0.005 100 1 1.227 11.406 88 286.18 250.91
6 150 21.3 0.006 125 1.25 1.535 11.423 118 383.74 335.94
7 180 21.3 0.006 150 1.5 1.842 11.459 138 448.79 391.66
8 210 21.3 0.006 175 1.75 2.149 11.495 157 510.57 444.19
9 240 21.4 0.007 200 2 2.457 11.512 176 572.36 497.19
10 270 21.4 0.007 225 2.25 2.764 11.548 192 624.4 540.69
11 300 21.5 0.009 250 2.5 3.073 11.566 207 673.18 582.04
12 330 21.6 0.01 275 2.75 3.381 11.584 218 708.95 612.02
 13 360 21.6 0.01 300 3 3.689 11.621 228 741.47 638.06
14 390 21.6 0.011 325 3.25 3.996 11.658 238 773.99 663.92
15 420 21.7 0.01 350 3.5 4.305 11.676 247 803.26 687.94
16 450 21.7 0.011 375 3.75 4.613 11.714 256 832.53 710.71
17 480 21.8 0.012 400 4 4.922 11.733 263 855.29 728.98
18 510 21.8 0.012 425 4.25 5.23 11.771 271 881.31 748.72
19 540 21.9 0.013 450 4.5 5.54 11.79 275 894.32 758.54
20 570 22 0.015 475 4.75 5.85 11.809 279 907.33 768.32
21 600 22.2 0.017 500 5 6.163 11.809 282 917.08 776.57
22 630 22.4 0.02 525 5.25 6.476 11.81 284 923.59 782.05
23 660 22.5 0.021 550 5.5 6.787 11.83 285 926.84 783.49
24 690 22.6 0.022 575 5.75 7.099 11.849 285 926.84 782.18
25 720 22.8 0.025 600 6 7.414 11.85 285 926.84 782.13
26 750 23 0.027 625 6.25 7.729 11.851 284 923.59 779.33
27 780 23.1 0.028 650 6.5 8.041 11.871 281 913.83 769.77
28 810 23.3 0.031 675 6.75 8.357 11.873 277 900.82 758.74
29 840 23.5 0.033 700 7 8.674 11.874 270 878.06 739.49
30 870 23.5 0.033 725 7.25 8.984 11.914 255 829.28 696.04

Formula and Calculation:

𝑃 𝐴0(1 − 𝜀𝑣)
𝑞= ; Ac =
𝐴𝑐 1 − 𝜀𝐿
𝜀𝐿= 𝐿𝛥𝐿𝑂

Where, q = Deviatoric Stress

P = Deviatoric Load
Ao = Initial Area
Ac = Corrected Area at Failure
𝜀𝐿 = axial strain
𝜀𝑣 = Volumetric strain
ΔL = change in length
Lo = Initial length of sample
Confining stress ,=100kpa
Deviatoric stress,= 426.8Kpa
Major principal stress = Sigma1+q = 526.28Kpa
𝜀 𝐿= 𝐿 𝛥𝐿𝑂 = 4.7/72.5 =6.48%

Ac = 11.34(1-0.00)/(1-0.0)
= 11.34

q = 61.79/ 11.37
= 54.316
Bulk density = Mass of soil specimen/volume of
specimen = 2335.3 kg/m3

Water Content (w %) = Mass of Water*100/ Mass of Dry Soil

= 35.2* 100 / 121.7
= 28.9%
Dry density = bulk density /(1+w)
= 2.335/ (1 +0.289)
= 1.82 (gm/cc)
 Deviatoric stress vs axial strain for 100kpa
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Deviatoric stress ,q

Figure1. Plot between Deviatoric stress (q) vs Axial strain (ε) for 100kpa

Deviatoric stress vs axial strain for 200kpa

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Deviatoric stress, q

Figure2. Plot between Deviatoric stress (q) vs Axial strain (ε) for 200kpa
 Vol. strain vs axial strain for 100kpa
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Vol. strain(%)

Figure3. Plot between Volumetric strain vs Axial strain (ε) for 100kpa

Vol. strain vs axial strain for 200kpa

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Vol. strain(%)

Figure4. Plot between Volumetric strain vs Axial strain (ε) for 200kpa
Figure5. Mohr circles
Photo of original reading