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!