From the results of sieve analysis for a certain soil, it was found that the percent passing from sieve No.20 (0.85mm) and No.50 (0.3mm) are 52% and 16%, respectively. Assuming that the particle size distribution curve for that soil within this range is linear, calculate the percent passing from sieve No.30 (0.6mm).

From the results of sieve analysis for a certain soil, it was found that the percent passing from sieve No.20 (0.85mm) and No.50 (0.3mm) are 52% and 16%, respectively. Assuming that the particle size distribution curve for that soil within this range is linear, calculate the percent passing from sieve No.30 (0.6mm).

Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (MindTap Course List)

9th Edition

ISBN:9781305970939

Author:Braja M. Das, Khaled Sobhan

Publisher:Braja M. Das, Khaled Sobhan

Chapter2: Origin Of Soil And Grain Size

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 2.10P: Repeat Problem 2.8 using the following data. 2.8 The following are the results of a sieve and...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

The given data shows the sieve analysis of three soil samples. Compute for the group index of Soil A, B, and C.
A soil sample was taken from a site of a proposed borrow pits and sent to the laboratory for a Standard Proctor test. Results of the test are as recorded in Table Q4. Plot moisture content versus dry unit weight curve and determine the soil's maximum dry unit weight and also optimum moisture content.
A compaction test was performed on a soil sample from a proposed cut area. The maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content were determined to be 104.8 lb/ft3 and 20.7% respectively. What is the possible type or classification of soil for this sample?
Laboratory tests performed on a saturated alluvial subgrade soil gave the following information: In situ water content = 11.9%, Specific gravity = 2.65, Soil size distribution: D100 = 51 mm, D75 = 30 mm, D60 = 20 mm, D45 = 15 mm, D30 = 8 mm, D10 = 4.76 mm, D8 = 2 mm, D4 = 0.08 mm, < 2 m = 4% a. Is this soil well graded? Classify it by the AASHTO and Unified systems b. Using the sieve analysis soil data and the classification systems, estimate for a total of 100% the approximate percentages of coarse aggregate (gravel), fine aggregate (sand), silts, and clays?
The following laboratory test results for Atterberg limits and particle-size distribution (sieve analysis) were obtained for the soil. Classify the soil according to the AASHTO Classification System.
As a result of sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis on a soil sample, gravel 40% and sand 18%. Liquid limit value of the soil 58% and plasticity index was determined as 32%. D60, D30 and D10 values according to grain distribution curve 2.4mm, 0.9mm and 0.2mm respectively. According to the findings obtained, the soil sample Make USCS classification.
12. Situation 12 - The given data shows the sieve analysis of three soil samples. a. Compute for the group index of Soil B. b Compute for the group index of Soil A. c. Compute for the group index of Soil C
Laboratory compaction test results and fielddetermined in-place density (unit weight) results are reported in terms of dry density or unit weight and not wet density or unit weight. Outline the reasons for this procedure of reporting. (Hint: Consider the soil properties directly related to density or unit weight.)
Refer to the soil in Problem 4.5. Using the Casagrande plasticity chart, graphically estimate the shrinkage limit of the soil as shown in Figure 4.22. 4.5 The following data were obtained by conducting liquid limit and plastic limit tests on a soil collected from the site. Liquid limit tests: Plastic limit test: PL = 19.3% a. Draw the flow curve and determine the liquid limit. b. Using the Casagrande plasticity chart (Figure 4.21), determine the soil type.
Refer to Problem 2.C.1. Results of the sieve analysis for Soils A, B, and C are given below. To obtain a more representative sample for further geotechnical testing, a ternary blend is created by uniformly mixing 8000 kg of each soil. Answer the following questions. a. If a sieve analysis is conducted on the mixture using the same set of sieves as shown above, compute the mass retained (as a percentage) and cumulative percent passing in each sieve. b. What would be the uniformity coefficient (Cu) and the coefficient of gradation (Cc) of the mixture?
Repeat Problem 2.8 using the following data. 2.8 The following are the results of a sieve and hydrometer analysis. a. Draw the grain-size distribution curve. b. Determine the percentages of gravel, sand, silt and clay according to the MIT system. c. Repeat Part b according to the USDA system. d. Repeat Part b according to the AASHTO system.
Since laboratory or field experiments are generally expensive and time consuming, geotechnical engineers often have to rely on empirical relationships to predict design parameters. Section 6.6 presents such relationships for predicting optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight. Let us use some of these equations and compare our results with known experimental data. The following table presents the results from laboratory compaction tests conducted on a wide range of fine-grained soils using various compactive efforts (E). Based on the soil data given in the table, determine the optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight using the empirical relationships presented in Section 6.6. a. Use the Osman et al. (2008) method [Eqs. (6.15) through (6.18)]. b. Use the Gurtug and Sridharan (2004) method [Eqs. (6.13) and (6.14)]. c. Use the Matteo et al. (2009) method [Eqs. (6.19) and (6.20)]. d. Plot the calculated wopt against the experimental wopt, and the calculated d(max) with the experimental d(max). Draw a 45 line of equality on each plot. e. Comment on the predictive capabilities of various methods. What can you say about the inherent nature of empirical models?