CENG 467: GEOTECHNICAL Central University,

ENGINEERING Accra, Ghana

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION (PSD)

Department of Civil Engineering

School of Science and Technology
College of Engineering
1
 COURSE INFORMATION

Course CENG 467: Geotechnical Engineering

Credit 3
Hours
Lectures Wednesdays, 12pm – 3pm @ F – 103 A

Email: [email protected];
Contact
Phone: 0570199324
Office G 307
2
Notes!!!
Registration, Attendance, Punctuality etc.

Grading {Exam (60%) + CA (40%) = 100%}

Cumulative Assessment (CA) (Mid – Semester Exam,

Tests, Class participation and practical)

Mid Semester Exam on December 11, 2024

3
 COURSE LITERATURE
1. Lecture Notes and Slides
2. Braja M. Das and Nagaratnam Sivakugan (2017), Fundamentals of Geotechnical
Engineering (5th Edition), Cengage Learning
3. Braja M. Das (2011), Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, J. Ross Publishing, USA
4. Murthy V.N.S. (2002), Geotechnical Engineering: principles and Practices of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York
5. Bowles, J. E. (2001), Foundation Analysis and Design. (5th ed) McGraw Hill Inc, New
York.
6. Poulos, H.G. and Davies, R.H (1980), Pile Foundation – analysis and design. John Wily
4
and Sons, New York.
5
 Soil type based on Particle Size
Designation Category Particle Size (mm)
> 200
Boulders
60 - 200
Cobbles
Coarse 20 – 60
Gravel Medium 6 – 20
. Fine 2- 6
Coarse 0.6 – 2
Sand Medium 0.2 – 0.6
Fine 0.06 – 0.2
Coarse 0.02 – 0.06
Silt Medium 0.006- 0.02
Fine 0.002-0.006
Fine < 0.002
Clay 6
 Soil type based on Particle Size

. Cobbles > 60 -200mm

Boulders > 200mm

Gravels > 2 -60mm 7

 Determination of PSD

? Sieve Analysis

8
 Commonly Used Sieves
BS Sieve Designation ASTM Designation Aperture
1 in 26.5 mm
¾ in 19.0 mm
½ in 0.53 in 13.2 mm
3/8 in 3/8 in 9.5 mm
¼ in 0.265 in 6.7 mm
. 3/16 in No. 4 4.75 mm
No. 7 No. 8 2.36 mm
No. 14 No. 16 1.18 mm
No. 25 No. 30 600 μm
No. 36 No. 40 425 μm
No. 52 No. 50 300 μm
No. 72 No. 70 212 μm
No. 100 No. 100 150 μm
No. 200 No. 200 75 μm 9
 Sieve Analysis (Stack of Sieves)

10
 Example 1
An air dry soil sample US Sieve
Analysis
Size Opening
(mm)
Weight
Retained (g)

weighing 2000g is brought ¾ in 19.0 0

3/8 in 9.5 158
to the soils lab for No. 4 4.75 308
mechanical grain size No. 10 2.0 608
N0. 40 0.425 652
analysis. The lab data No. 100 0.150 224
No. 200 0.075 42
are give in the table. Pan - 8
11
 Example 2
An air dry soil sample US Sieve
Analysis
Size Opening
(mm)
Weight
Retained (g)

weighing 500g is brought ¾ in 19.0 0

3/8 in 9.5 95
to the soils lab for No. 4 4.75 125
mechanical grain size No. 10 2.0 119
N0. 40 0.425 75
analysis. The lab data No. 100 0.150 56
No. 200 0.075 20
are give in the table. Pan - 10
12
Sieve Analysis

13
 Determination of PSD

Hydrometer
Analysis Sieve Analysis

14
 Hydrometer Analysis

Hydrometer

Set - up
15
 Hydrometer Analysis

Hydrometer

16
 Grading Curve

silt sand gravel

clay
F M C F M C F M C
100

90

80

70

60
% Passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Particle size, mm

17
 Features of PSD Curve

18
 Features of PSD Curve
Median Size (D50) – diameter at which 50% of the soil by weight
is finer

Effective Size (D10) - diameter at which 10% of the soil by

weight is finer

𝐷60
Coefficient of Uniformity , Cu; Cu =
𝐷10
𝐷230
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc; 𝐶𝑐 =
𝐷60 ×𝐷10
19
 Nature of PSD Curves

20
 Atterberg Limits

21
 Atterberg Limits
Shrinkage Limit (SL): Water content below which no further volumetric change takes place as soil
is dried

Liquid Limit (LL): Water content beyond which soil flows under a specified small force

Plastic Limit (PL): Water content beyond which plastic deformation can be initiated. Minimum
water content at which soil can be rolled into a thread 3mm thick

Plasticity Index: Range of water content over which soil remains in plastic condition. PI = LL –
PL

Liquidity Index (LI): Indicate nearness of a natural soil to the liquid limit

Activity of Clay: Index for identifying the swelling potential of clay soils. Higher activity implies
higher swelling potential.
22
 Atterberg Limits
Typical Values of LL and PL for some
common clay minerals.

Clay Mineral Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Activity

Kaolinite 35-100 20-40 0.3 – 0.5

Illite 55-120 35-60 0.5 – 1.2
Montmorillonite 100-800 50-100 1.5 – 7.0

23
 Atterberg Limits

24
 Soil Classification System
A universal language where soils of similar behavior are grouped
together, and systematic and rational ways are proposed to classify and
describe them.

Classification based on PSD and Atterberg limits can;

a) provide geotechnical engineers a general guidance about engineering

properties of the soils through the accumulated experience

b) be used to solve many types of simple foundation problems without

need for in depth investigations

c) be used to guide a test program in case of in depth investigations 25

 Soil Classification System
Common classification systems for engineering
purposes
1. Cassagrande Extended Soil Classification System
2. The Unified Soil Classification System
3. The American Association of State Highway and
Transport Officials (AASHTO) Soil Classification
System 26
 Cassagrande’s Extended Soil Classification
System
 Use PSD and Atterberg Limits
 Two main soil groups: Coarse grained and fine grained
 Soils classified using two letters (Prefix and Suffix)

• Prefix –based on • Suffix – related to the engineering properties

predominant particle • W: Well-graded
• P: Poorly-graded
size
• H: High plasticity (LL>50%)
• G: Gravel
• L: Low plasticity (LL<35%)
• S: Sand
• M: Silt
• C: Clay e.g. : GW, SP, CH
• O: Organic GW = Well graded gravels 27
 Cassagrande’s Extended Soil Classification
System
For Coarse Grained Soils (< 50% fines)

• Suffix
• Prefix
• W: Well-graded
• G: Gravel (predominant • U: Uniform material
size > 2mm)
• P: Poorly-graded
• S: Sand (predominant size
• C: Well graded with some clay
< 2mm)
• F: Well graded with excess of fines
e.g. : GW, GP, SP, SF 28
 Cassagrande’s Extended Soil Classification
System
For Fine Grained Soils (> 50% fines)
• Prefix
• C: Inorganic Clay (Plasticity above A line)
• M: Silt (Plasticity below A line)
• O: Organic Clays(Plasticity below A line)
• Suffix
• H: High Plasticity(LL>50%)
• I : Intermediate Plasticity (35%<LL<50%)
• L: Low Plasticity(LL<35%) e.g. : CH, ML, CL 29
 Unified Soil Classification System
 Similar to the Cassagrande’s Classification System

 Uses grain size distribution and Atterberg limits for classification

 Commonly used for engineering projects

 Soils are grouped into

1. Coarse grained
2. Fine grained
3. Highly Organic Soils
30
 Unified Soil Classification System
50 %

Coarse-grained soils: Fine-grained soils:

Gravel Sand Silt Clay

NO. 4 NO.200
4.75 mm 0.075 mm

•Grain size distribution •PL, LL

•Cu •Plasticity chart
•Cc
31
 Unified Soil Classification System
•Soil symbols: •Liquid limit symbols:
 G: Gravel  H: High Plasticity (LL>50)
 S: Sand  L: Low Plasticity (LL<50)
 M: Silt
 C: Clay •Gradation symbols:
Well  graded soil
 O: Organic  W: Well-graded
1  Cc  3 and Cu  4
 Pt: Peat  P: Poorly-graded
( for gravels )
1  Cc  3 and Cu  6
e.g.: SW, Well-graded sand
( for sands )
SC, Clayey sand
32
SM, Silty sand
 Classification Procedure

Coarse-grained
material
Grain size
distribution

Fine-grained
material
LL, PI

Highly

33
(Santamarina et al., 2001)
 Example

Passing No. 200 sieve is 30 %

Passing No. 4 sieve is 70 %
LL = 33 %, PI = 12
PI = 0.73(LL -20), A – Line

SC
Highly
(15% gravel)
Clayey sand
with gravel 34
 Organic Soils
Highly organic soils- Peat (Group symbol Pt)
A sample composed primarily of vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition, a
dark-brown to black color, and an organic odor should be designated as a highly organic soil
and shall be classified as peat, Pt.

Organic clay (group symbol OL or OH):

 The soil’s liquid limit (LL) after oven drying is less than 75 % of its liquid limit before oven
drying.” If the above statement is true, then the first symbol is O.

 The second symbol is obtained by locating the values of PI and LL (not oven dried) in the
plasticity chart.
35
 Borderline Cases (Dual Symbols)
A dual symbol is used for the following conditions
Coarse-grained soils with 5% - 12% fines.
 About 7 % fines can change the hydraulic conductivity of the coarse-grained media by orders of
magnitude.
 The first symbol indicates whether the coarse fraction is well or poorly graded. The second symbol
describe the contained fines. For example: SP-SM, poorly graded sand with silt.
Fine-grained soils with limits within the shaded zone. (PI between 4 and 7 and LL between
about 12 and 25).
 It is hard to distinguish between the silty and more clay like materials.
 CL-ML: Silty clay, SC-SM: Silty, clayey sand.
Soil contain similar fines and coarse-grained fractions.
 possible dual symbols GM-ML 36
37
Source: (Holtz and
38
Kovacs, 1981)
 The AASHTO Classification System
 The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials system
(AASHTO) classification system is widely used for highway (road) work.
 The required parameters are grading curve, liquid limit and plastic limit.
 Soils divided into 8 major groups: A1~ A7 (with several subgroups) and organic
soils A8.

A1 ~ A3 A4 ~ A7

Granular Materials Silt-clay Materials

 35% pass No. 200 sieve  36% pass No. 200 sieve
39
 The AASHTO Classification System
• The group index (GI), an empirical formula, is used to further evaluate soils within a group
(subgroups).
The first term is determined by the LL

GI  ( F200  35)0.2  0.005( LL  40)

 0.01( F200  15)( PI  10)
The second term is determined by the PI

• GI rounded off to the nearest whole number and appended in parenthesis

• If GI = 0 or negative; then GI = 0

• In general, the rating for a pavement subgrade is inversely proportional to the

GI (lower the GI, better the material). 40
Classification – Granular material

Das, 1998 41
 Classification- Silt clay material

Note : The first group from the left to fit the test data is the correct AASHTO Das, 1998
42
classification.
 GI  (F200  35)0.2  0.005(LL  40)
Example  0.01(F200  15)( PI  10)
 33.47  33 Round off
A-7-5(33)
% Passing No.
200 = 86

LL = 70

PI = 32

LL -30 = 40 >
PI = 32
43
 Soil Compaction
Introduction
 What do you do when the soil at a site is not appropriate in terms of its engineering
properties?
 Avoid the potential soil problem?
 Adapt the design to the site conditions or
 Improve the soil properties

 Soil improvement involves altering the soil properties to improve its engineering
performance. One of the most important soil improvement methods is densification and
it is achieved through; compaction, preloading, de-watering
44
 Laboratory tests carried out on samples include
 grading,

 index properties and

 compaction

Compaction
 It is a process of pressing soil particles tightly together by expelling air from its
void space. It involves the application of energy to bring about densification
arising from the expulsion of air from the soil-water-air-system.

 Compaction is done both in the field and at the laboratory to determine the dry
unit weight and the optimum water content. 45
 Lab compaction equipment include;
 Base plate
 Removable Collar
 Mould
 Rammer/Hammer

 The specification is dependent on

standardized test namely,
Standard Proctor Compaction Test
Modified Proctor Compaction Test
46
 Compaction is quantified in terms of soil’s dry unit weight (dry density) and
moisture content

 Dry unit weight is computed from the wet unit weight and moisture content
𝛾
𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 =
1+𝑤

 The test is repeated at different water contents. The compaction curve plotted
shows the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and the Optimum Moisture Content
(OMC).

 The curve is unique for a given soil type, compactive effort and the method of
compaction.
47
Compaction Curve
 Dry soils can be best compacted if for each
soil a certain amount of water is added.
Upper limit
of dry unit
 Water acts as a lubricant and allows soil weight

particles to be packed together better.

 When too much water is added, a lesser

density results.

 For a given compactive effort, there is a

particular moisture content at which dry unit
weight is greatest and compaction best.
48
 Laboratory Compaction
 Obtain soil sample from the field and allow to dry

 Prepare specimen for compaction by adding water and mixing it thoroughly

 Place the specimen in the mold and compact in layers by dropping the hammer a specified
number of uniformly distributed blows per layer

 The wet unit weight and moisture content of the compacted specimen is determined

 The process is repeated by increasing the moisture content

 The dry density at each moisture content can be determined from its measured wet unit weight
and moisture content

 A compaction curve is plotted to determine the MDD and OMC 49

 Laboratory Compaction
Mould Dimension No of Blows per layer Hammer Mass Hammer Drop Designation
(mm) layers (kg) (mm)

Standard
101.6ф x 114 3 25 2.5 305
AASHTO

Modified
152ф x 177.8 5 55 4.54 457
AASHTO

101.6ф x 127 3 25 2.5 305 PROCTOR

50
 Factors affecting Compaction
The water content

The amount of
compaction energy used

The type of soil involved

51
 Factors affecting Compaction
 The amount of energy used (Compaction Effort)
 Is quantified in terms of the compaction energy per unit volume.
 Depends on the
Number of blows per layer (NB)
Number of layers (NL)
Weight of the hammer (WH)
Height of drop of hammer (HD)
Volume of compaction mould (VM)

𝑁𝐵 × 𝑁𝐿 × 𝑊𝐻 × 𝐻𝐷
𝐸=
𝑉𝑀
 Greater the compaction energy per unit volume, the greater the compaction
52
Factors affecting Compaction

53
 Factors affecting Compaction
 The Type of Soil
For a given compaction effort, the MDD and OMC depends on
 The grain size distribution of soil

 The shape of solids

 Specific gravity of solids

 Type and amount of clay mineral present

 Higher dry unit weight is associated with well-graded granular materials.

 Uniformly graded sands, clays of high plasticity, organic silts and clays respond
poorly to compaction 54
Factors affecting Compaction

55
Factors affecting Compaction

56
 Properties of Compaction
Structure of compacted cohesive soil  Flocculated structure
 Reduced interparticle repulsion

 Random particle orientation

 Few but larger voids (higher

permeability)

 Dispersed structure
 Increased interparticle repulsion

 Greater degree of particle orientation

( more parallel orientation) 57
 Properties of Compaction
Strength and Compressibility  Dry side compaction yields a
structure that is
 brittle and of low compressibility
 higher strength

 Wet side compaction

 Flexible material of low strength
 Reduction in permeability of soil
 Appropriate for core of earth dam
58
 Properties of Compaction
Strength and Compressibility
Degree of Saturation (Sr)
𝐺𝑠 1−𝜒 𝛾𝑤
𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 =
1+𝑤𝐺𝑠 −𝜒

𝜒 = 1 − 𝑆𝑟

𝜒 = Air void content

When 𝜒 = 0
𝐺𝑠 𝛾𝑤
𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 =
1+𝑤𝐺𝑠 59
 Compaction Specification
Work Type Specification Performance Specification

 Tells contractor what to do and how to  Tells contractor what he must achieve
do it  The relative compaction (RC) for
 Engineer specifies cohesive soils and relative density for
 Type of compaction equipment cohesionless soils is specified
 Water content
 The acceptable range of moisture
 Maximum lift of loose material
content is also specified
 Number of passes of compaction
equipment  Contractor responsible for achieving
 Relieves contractor of liabilities required specification 60
 Compaction Specification
Relative Density – Cohesionless Soils
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒
𝐷𝑟 = × 100%
 Applicable to clean, free draining 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛
granular soils
e = void ratio of compacted soil
 Loosest possible condition (max
𝛾𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝛾𝑑 − 𝛾𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛
void ratio or min dry density) 𝐷𝑟 = × 100%
𝛾𝑑 𝛾𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝛾𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛

 Densest possible condition (min γd = dry density of compacted soil

void ratio or max dry density)
61
Field Compaction
 Field compaction equipment
include;
rollers, rammers, vibrators, etc

 The type of equipment selected

depends on
 The type of soil to be compacted

 The degree of compaction required

 The space available for compaction Source:www.google.com/search?q=field+compaction+

62
equipment. Assessed on 15/06/22
Field Control Tests
 Compaction control tests involve determination of in-situ dry density and water
content of the fill
 The sand replacement method
 Core cutter method
 Rubber balloon method
 Non destructive methods include
 Nuclear method.
 Emits gamma rays through the soil
 Some absorbed; others reflects and reach a detector
 Soil unit weight inversely proportional to radiation reaching detector
 Intelligent compaction systems
 Continuous compaction control
 Measures acceleration of the drum and calculates compaction meter value ( soil modulus or stiffness)
63
Relative Compaction
 After the compaction curve for a given soil is obtained from laboratory tests, the
specification of compaction in the field is made. Relative Compaction (R.C.) is
defined as
Where
is the specified dry unit weight, that shall be achieved in the field and
is the maximum dry unit weight obtained from the laboratory compaction test

 R.C increases with an increase in compaction energy levels in the field and decreases
with a low compaction efforts in the laboratory.
 R.C is usually between 90 – 95 % for most project specifications 64
Example
Water Content,
2.3 4.5 6.7 8.5 10.8 13.1 15
%
Total (moist)
unit weight, 15.80 17.27 19.13 20.14 21.41 21.73 21.48
kN/m3

A soil sample is tested by the standard proctor test, plot the compaction
curve and determine the range of field water content to achieve the
specifications as prescribed. The specification says that the in-situ soil
shall be compacted with 95% of the relative compaction and above the
maximum dry unit weight from the standard proctor test. 65
Example
Water Content,
7.5 11.3 14.4 17.3 19.5 21.0 23.7
%
Mass of wet soil,
17.39 19.19 20.81 20.33 19.86 19.48 18.18
g

A proctor compaction test was conducted on a soil sample, and the

above observations were made. If the volume of the mold used was
970cm3 and the specific gravity of soils was 2.65, (i) draw the
compaction curve and (ii) the 80% and 100% saturation lines
66
Field Verses Laboratory Compaction
 Laboratory compaction can be different from the actual field compaction
characteristics because
 Compactive effort used in lab may be different from that used in field
 Particle size distribution may be different e.g. for modified AASHTO, particles larger than
20mm are not used in lab
 Rigid mould used in lab imposes strict confinement whiles in the field there is a certain
degree of movement

 Despite these limitations, lab tests are very useful. Information from the lab are
used as a guide
 to select the appropriate equipment
 to determine the possible level of compaction attainable in the field
 to establish the most desirable water content 67