Triaxial testing practice in geotechnical engineering: What is the usual length-to-diameter (L/D) ratio adopted for cylindrical soil specimens used in the triaxial compression test?

Difficulty: Easy

Correct Answer: 2

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
The triaxial compression test is a cornerstone of soil mechanics for determining shear strength parameters under controlled drainage and stress paths. A key aspect of good practice is specimen geometry, typically expressed as the ratio of specimen length to diameter (L/D). The chosen L/D aims to minimize boundary effects, ensure uniform stress distribution, and allow reliable interpretation of failure modes and stress–strain behavior.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • Cylindrical soil specimens are used in triaxial tests.
  • End platens and membranes introduce boundary influences that should be kept small.
  • Standard laboratory practice seeks repeatability and comparability across tests.


Concept / Approach:
A specimen that is too short (low L/D) suffers high end-restraint effects from the platens and may exhibit nonuniform deformation. If it is excessively slender (very high L/D), buckling or bending can occur—especially for soft clays—leading to spurious results. Empirical and standards-based guidance converges on an L/D of about 2 as an optimal compromise between these competing effects.


Step-by-Step Solution:

Identify the need: minimize end restraint while avoiding instability.Select a geometry used widely in standards and literature.The common choice is L/D ≈ 2 for cohesive and granular soils.Thus, the adopted ratio is 2.


Verification / Alternative check:
Testing standards and widely used lab manuals typically recommend diameter 38–39 mm (1.5 in) with length about 76–80 mm, or diameter 50 mm with length 100 mm, both giving L/D ≈ 2. Research comparing different L/D ratios consistently shows improved uniformity and reduced platen effects near this value.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

  • 1 or 1.5: Too short; strong end-restraint causes nonuniform stresses.
  • 2.5 or 3: Too slender; higher risk of bending or barreling artifacts.


Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring trimming irregularities or membrane thickness that alter effective L/D; not correcting for area change when calculating deviator stress, especially at large strains.


Final Answer:
2

More Questions from Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion