Upload
jon-dobbe
View
219
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LOGO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SOIL LIQUID LIMIT APPARATUS APPLIED WITH
FLUID DYNAMICS PRINCIPLES AND SHEAR STRENGTH MODEL
LOGOLiquid Limit (LL)
- moisture/water content at the transition point of soil behavior
from plastic to liquid
Two Standard Methods of LL Determination
Fall Cone Test
Atterberg Limits
LOGOFall Cone Test
Governing Principle
Drawback
-based on the measurement of penetration into the soil of a standardized cone of specific mass
- Expensive
LOGOAtterberg Limits
Governing Principle
Drawbacks
-mixing a pat of clay in a round-bottomed porcelain bowl of 10-12cm diameter and having a groove through the pat of clay with a spatula, and the bowl was then struck many times against the palm of one hand.
- inaccurate results due to procedural errors
- user dependent
LOGOStatement of the Objectives
Main Objective
To test the applicability of the concept of fluid dynamics in determining the liquid limit of the soil.
LOGO
Objective No. 1
Statement of the Objectives
To design and construct a Liquid-Limit Test Apparatus consist of motor drive, plastic shear, and glass funnel.
Objective No. 2
To construct a Liquid-Limit Test Apparatus which can determine the water content at which the soil sample behaves practically like a liquid with a small shear strength.
LOGO
Objective No. 3
Statement of the Objectives
To establish a quantitative relation using the concept of calculus specifically derivatives between the liquid limit and shear strength through the use of the principle of fluid dynamics.
Objective No. 4
To compare the accuracy results of the constructed apparatus and Atterberg Limits Test with Fall-Cone Test based on the percent weight of moisture/water the soil hold (liquid limit).
LOGO
• Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR)
• Soil Analysts and Geologists
• Mass Information
• Affordability and Practicality
• Additional Knowledge
Significance
LOGO
• Shear strength
application
• Plastic Limit
• Plasticity Index
• Quality of materials
LIMITATION
• Fluid Dynamics
Bernoulli’s Equation
Volumetric Flow Rate
Poiseuille's Law
Continuity Principle
Definition of pressure/
shear strength
• Liquid limit of the soil
SCOPE
Scope and Limitation
LOGOExperimental Design
R X1 O1R X2 O2R X3 O3
Figure 1. Post-test Control Group Design
LOGOResearch Paradigm
Methods of Determining Liquid Limit of the Soil:
• Atterberg limits• Fall cone penetration
• Constructed apparatus
Accuracy of the Result
Quality of Materials used for construction
Environmental Stresses
Methodology Execution and Computation
Independent Variables Dependent Variable
Linking Variable
Extraneous Variables
LOGOSchematic Diagram
Designing the Machine
Construction of the Machine
Computation of quantitative relation between LL and shear strength through Fluid Dynamics Principles
Pre-testing and Development
Identifying Errors
Actual Testing
Data Gathering
Statistical Process
LOGODesigning of the Apparatus
Motor Drive
Shear to spin inside the glass
funnel-like structure
DC motor with120 volts to 100
volts output
Water System
50-ml burette as water
reservoir
Main Operating System
Figure 1. Draft of the Machine Design
LOGODesigning of the Apparatus
Liquid-Limit Test Apparatus
glass funnel on a carriage to contain the soil and show
the baseline
consists of base, motor drive, plastic shear, containers,
glass funnel, storage container, motor drive carriage,
burette and glass funnel carriage for the liquid limit
determination
*baseline will be the basis for Liquid Limit determination in the soil
LOGOConstruction of the Apparatus
Figure 2. Measuring and construction of the Base Framework
LOGOConstruction of the Apparatus
Figure 3. Base and Motor/ Stirrer Attachment and Testing
LOGOConstruction of the Apparatus
Figure 4. Wiring and Funnel Attachment
LOGOConstruction of the Apparatus
Figure 5. Polishing and finishing touches
LOGOComputation of quantitative relationship between liquid limit and the shear strength
LOGOActual Testing
Figure 6. Weighing of replicates in each samples (17.45 g)
LOGOActual Testing
Figure 7. Four Soil Samples A,B,C, and D together with the four replicates
LOGOActual Testing
Figure 8. Soil being put into the funnel for testing
Figure 9. Soil Testing
Figure 10. Washing of the funnel after testing
LOGOResults
Sample Fall-Cone Atterberg ApparatusA 47.3925 33.57 42.59186607
B 48.5375 37.47 45.73646187
C 29.3175 *NP 29.72022235
D 37.905 NP 30.25624882
Table 1. Moisture Content (%) of Soil Samples Evaluated Using the Various Apparatus
LOGOHighlights of the Results
Table 1. Moisture Content (%) of Soil Samples Evaluated Using the Various Apparatus
Sample Fall-Cone Atterberg Apparatus Differences in the Results
Fall Cone- LL App
Fall Cone- Atterberg
A 47.3925 33.57 42.59186607 4.800633926 13.8225
B 48.5375 37.47 45.73646187 2.801038134 11.0675
C 29.3175 *NP 29.72022235 -0.402722355 29.3175
D 37.905 NP 30.25624882 7.648751177 37.905
- closerNote:
LOGOResults
Method N X S2 SD SE
Fall cone 4 40.788 81.186 9.010 4.505
Atterberg 4 17.76 432.092 20.569 10.285
LL Apparatus
4 37.076 68.682 8.287 4.144
Notes: N- # of sample; X- mean; S- variance; SD- Standard Deviation; SE- Standard Error SD Comparison SE Comparison
Table 2. Group Information for Liquid Limit
LOGOHighlight of the Results
Method N X S2 SD SE
Fall cone 4 40.788 81.186 9.010 4.505
Atterberg 4 17.76 432.092 20.569 10.285
LL Apparatus
4 37.076 68.682 8.287 4.144
Notes: N- # of sample; X- mean; S- variance; SD- Standard Deviation; SE- Standard Error SD Comparison SE Comparison
Table 2. Group Information for Liquid Limit
Much
close
rD
iffere
nce
: -0
.36
1
Diff
ere
nce
: +6
. 22
0
Much
clo
ser
Diff
ere
nce
: -0
.723
Diff
ere
nce
: +
11
.55
9
LOGOConclusion
- the method developed for LL determination is
acceptable
LOGORecommendations
Digital water system
Funnel having a 45o-angle slanted terminal with a well-suited stopper
Enhanced stirrer design
Another material for the stopper
LOGO
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!