Question 1

Mineralogy quick fact: What is the typical specific gravity (Gs) of the mineral Calcite commonly encountered in carbonate rocks?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Specific gravity of minerals is useful for identifying constituents of aggregates and rock cores. Calcite (CaCO3) is the principal mineral in limestones and many cementitious fillers. Knowing its Gs helps in density and mix proportion calculations. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard laboratory values at room temperature and pressure. Natural variability may occur due to impurities. Concept / Approach: Calcite’s specific gravity typically lies close to 2.71–2.72. By contrast, quartz is about 2.65, dolomite about 2.85, and heavier minerals (e.g., magnetite) are much higher. Selecting the closest listed value differentiates calcite from quartz and dolomite in routine identification. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall reference values: quartz 2.65, calcite ≈ 2.72, dolomite ≈ 2.85.Compare options and choose 2.72 as the best match. Verification / Alternative check: Handbooks of mineralogy and concrete aggregates list calcite specific gravity near 2.71–2.72; petrographic tests corroborate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2.65 corresponds to quartz. 2.85 is closer to dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2). 2.90 and 3.10 exceed typical calcite values. Common Pitfalls: Confusing calcite with quartz due to similar appearance; ignoring the effect of impurities on measured Gs. Final Answer: 2.72

Question 2

Atterberg limits – definition focus: The water content at which a soil continues to lose weight upon drying but no longer decreases in volume is called what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Atterberg limits demarcate transitions in soil consistency with changing water content. The shrinkage limit is critical for understanding volumetric stability upon drying, relevant to cracking of clayey subgrades and shrink–swell behavior in foundations and earth structures. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard laboratory determination pursuant to soil testing standards. Soil remains intact; no loss of solids during drying. Concept / Approach: As a moist soil dries from liquid → plastic → semi-solid → solid states, both mass and volume reduce until the shrinkage limit is reached. Below this water content, further drying removes water (mass decreases), but the soil’s dry volume remains constant—no further shrinkage occurs. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize the key phrase “continues to lose weight without losing volume.”This is the hallmark of the shrinkage limit definition.Therefore, the correct choice is “Shrinkage limit.” Verification / Alternative check: Shrinkage limit tests plot water content vs volume; the curve flattens beyond the limit, confirming constant volume and decreasing mass. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Plastic limit marks plastic–semi-solid transition, not constant-volume drying. Liquid limit marks liquid–plastic transition. “Semi-solid limit” is a descriptive state, not the specific constant-volume threshold. Shrinkage ratio is a derived index, not the limit itself. Common Pitfalls: Confusing shrinkage limit with plastic limit; using percent vs decimal inconsistently. Final Answer: Shrinkage limit

Question 3

Shear strength parameter ranges: What is the usual range of the angle of internal friction (φ) for clays under typical conditions?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The friction angle φ reflects the frictional component of shear strength. In clays, undrained shear strength is governed primarily by cohesion (apparent) with very low friction angle, whereas effective-stress friction angles for OC clays can be higher under drained conditions. The “usual” small φ is commonly referenced for clays in simple discussions. Given Data / Assumptions: Typical natural clays in undrained short-term conditions. No cementation or unusual structure. Concept / Approach: For saturated clays tested undrained (UU), φ_u is near zero, leading to total-stress analyses that use undrained shear strength cu. Under long-term drained conditions, especially for overconsolidated clays, effective φ′ may range higher (20–30°), but “usually” for quick characterization of clays, φ close to zero is cited. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the context (typical clay behavior): φ close to zero in undrained state.Select the option 0°–5° as the usual range. Verification / Alternative check: UU triaxial tests on saturated clays often yield φ_u ≈ 0°. Effective-stress tests (CD/CU) yield larger φ′ but that is a different context. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Higher ranges correspond to sands or drained OC clays, not the usual undrained characterization of clays. Common Pitfalls: Failing to distinguish total vs effective stress parameters; applying sand φ values to clays. Final Answer: 0° to 5°

Question 4

Swelling (recompression) line using Terzaghi’s e–log σ′ relation: If Cs denotes the swelling/expansion (recompression) index, which empirical form correctly relates void ratio e to the change in effective vertical stress σ′ from a reference state (e…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Natural clays exhibit a near-linear relationship between void ratio e and the logarithm of effective stress σ′ over certain ranges. On unloading–reloading (swelling/recompression), the slope is the swelling (recompression) index Cs (often denoted Cr), smaller than the compression index Cc on the virgin line. Correct sign and form are essential for settlement back-analysis and preloading design. Given Data / Assumptions: Reference state: e = e0 at σ′ = σ0′. Small-strain unloading/reloading region where the e–log σ′ relation is approximately linear. Base-10 logarithm is used (consistent with many soil mechanics texts). Concept / Approach: On the swelling/recompression line, as σ′ increases above σ0′, e decreases; as σ′ decreases below σ0′, e increases. A negative sign in front of Cs * log10(σ′/σ0′) captures this behavior: if σ′ > σ0′, the log ratio is positive and e reduces; if σ′ < σ0′, the log ratio is negative and e increases (swells). Using Cs rather than Cc reflects the smaller slope during recompression. Step-by-Step Solution: Start from linear form: e = e_ref − S * log10(σ′/σ_ref).For swelling/recompression, S = Cs (typically Cs < Cc).Adopt reference (e0, σ0′): e = e0 − Cs * log10(σ′/σ0′).Check signs: for unloading (σ′ < σ0′), log term negative → e increases, matching swelling. Verification / Alternative check: Oedometer data plotted on e–log σ′ commonly shows a steep virgin slope Cc and a flatter recompression slope Cs; extrapolations with the above form fit measured points. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B sign is wrong: it predicts e increasing with increased σ′. Option C is a rearrangement but does not present the functional form; the standard expression is Option A. Option D uses an undefined symbol e° and wrong sign. Option E uses a linear σ′ term instead of log; not Terzaghi’s empirical form. Common Pitfalls: Mixing natural vs base-10 logs; confusing Cs with Cc; applying the relation outside its valid stress range. Final Answer: e = e0 − Cs * log10(σ′/σ0′)

Question 5

Soil acidity and alkalinity (pH concept check): Which statement correctly identifies soil reaction based on pH value, and also reflects typical geotechnical terminology used in site investigations?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Soil pH is a measure of acidity or alkalinity and is widely reported in geotechnical, environmental, and agricultural investigations. Understanding pH helps anticipate corrosion potential for buried steel, sulfate attack risk on concrete, and the behavior of clay minerals. The pH scale is logarithmic and centered at 7 under standard conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: pH < 7 indicates acidic reaction; pH = 7 is neutral; pH > 7 indicates alkaline (basic) reaction. Terminology follows standard aqueous chemistry conventions applied to soils. No special buffering or temperature effects are assumed. Concept / Approach: The pH value is defined as negative log of hydrogen ion activity. In soils, pore-fluid chemistry and mineralogy control pH. Acidic soils (pH < 7) may increase corrosion of metallic elements and alter the durability of cementitious materials. Alkaline soils (pH > 7), often influenced by carbonates or sodium, may indicate potential for swelling in certain clay mineral assemblages and can affect concrete chemistry differently than acidic soils. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize the neutral point: pH = 7 → neutral water reference.Compare soil pH with 7. If pH > 7, the soil is alkaline (basic); if pH < 7, the soil is acidic.Match each option to the basic definition and select the correct statement. Verification / Alternative check: Field kits and laboratory tests (e.g., slurry pH) confirm soil reaction. Geotechnical reports typically list pH alongside sulfate and chloride contents for durability assessments. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A: Incorrect; pH > 7 is alkaline, not acidic. Option B: Correct description of acidity but not the only correct statement asked; the best single identification for pH > 7 is option C. Option D: Irrelevant; presence of cement-manufacturing chemicals is not a selection criterion. Option E: Incorrect; pH = 7 is neutral, not alkaline. Common Pitfalls: Confusing neutral (7) with alkaline; overlooking that pH is logarithmic, so one unit change represents a tenfold change in hydrogen ion activity. Final Answer: A soil having pH greater than 7 is an alkaline (basic) soil

Question 6

Specific yield (drainable porosity) of a soil aquifer system depends primarily on which microstructural features?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Specific yield, also called drainable porosity, is the volume of water that a saturated soil or rock releases by gravity drainage per unit bulk volume. In geotechnical and groundwater problems, specific yield governs storage change, dewatering performance, and aquifer yield estimates. Given Data / Assumptions: Soil is treated as a granular, porous medium. Gravity drainage is the mechanism; capillarity and residual saturation reduce drainable water. Macro fabric (compaction) and microstructure (pore network) are important. Concept / Approach: Specific yield depends on the volume of pores that actually drain, which is lower than total porosity because some water is retained by capillary forces. Factors that reduce pore throat size or connectivity lower specific yield. Compaction reduces void ratio and porosity; particle shape and grading influence packing, and pore-size distribution controls capillary retention and drainage pathways. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate compaction → lower void ratio → lower drainable volume.Relate pore distribution/connectivity → controls which pores can drain under gravity.Relate particle shape/size → affects packing fabric and pore-throat geometry. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical correlations show higher specific yield in well-graded sands and gravels, and lower values in silts and clays where capillarity traps water. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each single factor (A–C) matters, but the most complete answer is the combined effect in option D. Common Pitfalls: Equating specific yield with total porosity; ignoring capillary water that does not drain under gravity. Final Answer: All the above

Question 7

Pile foundations — where are they generally preferred in civil engineering practice?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pile foundations transfer loads to deeper, stronger strata or mobilize skin friction where near-surface soils are weak, compressible, or scour-prone. Choosing piles is a function of load, settlement tolerance, groundwater, scour risk, and construction constraints. Given Data / Assumptions: Bridges require foundations through water or deep alluvium with scour risk. Skyscrapers impose very high loads and settlement limits. Low-rise residences and runways may often be supported on shallow foundations where subgrades are competent. Concept / Approach: Piles are preferred when shallow foundations cannot safely carry loads or meet settlement criteria. They also provide uplift, lateral resistance, and scour resilience. For bridges, piles are common for piers and abutments founded in rivers or soft deposits. For very tall buildings, deep piles or barrettes distribute large axial and lateral loads to bearing layers or mobilize shaft resistance in deep deposits. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess near-surface soils: if soft/compressible → consider deep foundations.Identify structural demand: bridges and skyscrapers impose significant load and durability requirements.Match pile advantages (capacity, settlement control, scour resistance) to these cases. Verification / Alternative check: Design codes and case histories show widespread use of piles for river bridges and high-rises, while many residential structures succeed with footings or rafts on competent soils. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Low-rise residences (option C) often use shallow foundations when soils allow. Runways (option D) rely on ground improvement and thick granular bases rather than discrete deep piles in most cases. Common Pitfalls: Assuming piles are always superior; economy and constructability often favor shallow solutions when soils permit. Final Answer: Both bridge foundations and very tall buildings

Question 8

Compaction theory — the theoretical maximum dry density at a given water content is referred to as:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In laboratory compaction (Proctor) tests, the dry density–water content curve approaches an upper theoretical limit called the zero air-voids (ZAV) line. This line represents the maximum possible dry density at a given water content if all air were removed from the voids, which is not practically achievable during normal compaction. Given Data / Assumptions: ZAV condition implies percentage air voids na = 0. Specific gravity G and water content w govern the ZAV line. No collapse or particle crushing is considered. Concept / Approach: The ZAV dry density is given by the relation: gamma_d(ZAV) = gamma_w / (w + 1/G) where gamma_w is unit weight of water, w is decimal water content, and G is the specific gravity of solids. Actual compaction curves lie below this line due to trapped air and energy limitations. The ZAV concept provides a benchmark for evaluating compaction results and moisture control strategies in the field. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that the theoretical maximum at fixed w occurs when air is absent.Relate mass–volume phases to derive the ZAV expression.Use the ZAV line to judge whether measured dry densities are realistic and to infer likely air contents. Verification / Alternative check: Plotting the ZAV line with Proctor data shows the experimental curve approaching but never crossing the ZAV limit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A: Generic term; not necessarily the theoretical maximum. Option C: The phrase “saturation dry density” is ambiguous; at full saturation, dry density is not defined as “maximum” without the ZAV context. Option D/E: Overbroad or imprecise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing ZAV with optimum water content (OMC) where peak measured dry density occurs; the ZAV is a theoretical upper bound, not necessarily achieved at OMC. Final Answer: Zero air-voids dry density (airless condition)

Question 9

Relating dry density to bulk density and water content: If a soil's bulk density is denoted by rho (ρ) and its gravimetric water content by w (decimal), what is the correct formula for the dry density ρ_d?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Converting between bulk (wet) density and dry density is routine in compaction control, field density testing, and laboratory reporting. Using a consistent definition of the gravimetric water content w is essential to avoid large interpretation errors. Given Data / Assumptions: Bulk density rho (ρ) = mass of moist soil / total volume. Dry density rho_d (ρ_d) = mass of dry solids / total volume. Water content w = mass of water / mass of dry solids (decimal form). Concept / Approach: The mass of moist soil equals the mass of dry solids plus the mass of water. Because w = Mw/Ms, the moist mass is Ms + Mw = Ms * (1 + w). Dividing by the same total volume, we obtain the density relation: ρ = ρ_d * (1 + w). Rearranging gives ρ_d = ρ / (1 + w). This identity underpins many field conversions, such as nuclear gauge or sand-cone results. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with definition: rho = (Ms + Mw)/V = (Ms * (1 + w))/V.Recognize rho_d = Ms/V.Therefore, rho = rho_d * (1 + w) → rho_d = rho / (1 + w). Verification / Alternative check: Dimensional check confirms that dividing by (1 + w) (dimensionless) yields density units for ρ_d. Example: ρ = 1.9 g/cc, w = 0.10 → ρ_d = 1.9 / 1.10 ≈ 1.727 g/cc. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Multiplication by (1 + w) gives bulk density from dry density, not the reverse. C and E: Linear subtraction or direct product with w is not dimensionally or conceptually correct. D: Division by (1 − w) does not follow from the definitions of w and densities. Common Pitfalls: Treating w as a percentage without converting to decimal; using volumetric water content instead of gravimetric water content. Final Answer: rho_d = rho / (1 + w)

Question 10

Exit gradient in seepage and piping checks: The seepage exit gradient i_exit at a downstream toe or exit point is defined as which ratio?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The exit gradient is critical for evaluating piping and heave at the downstream toe of hydraulic structures such as sheet-pile cutoffs, weirs, and earth dams. An excessive gradient can initiate particle movement and undermine stability. Given Data / Assumptions: Steady seepage through a permeable medium. Hydraulic gradient i = dh/dl, where dh is head loss and dl is distance along the flow path. Exit gradient refers specifically to conditions near the downstream emergence point. Concept / Approach: The hydraulic gradient quantifies the driving force for flow per unit length of path. At exits, the gradient is highest and must be compared with critical gradients that cause boiling or piping. Filters and drainage blankets are used to reduce gradients and prevent particle migration. Step-by-Step Solution: Define i = dh/dl from Darcy’s law formulation.At the exit, evaluate dh as the head drop near the toe and dl as the characteristic path length in that zone.Therefore, i_exit = head loss / seepage path length. Verification / Alternative check: Flow-net construction shows steep equipotential spacing at exits, confirming larger i values there. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Uses total head rather than head loss. B: Not a hydraulic definition; geometric only. C: Ratio of heads is dimensionless and not the gradient definition. E: Incorrect since a correct definition exists (option D). Common Pitfalls: Confusing geometric slope with hydraulic gradient; neglecting local path length near the exit when estimating i_exit. Final Answer: Head loss divided by the length of the seepage path

Question 11

Soil classification systems used for general engineering purposes: Which classification is most widely adopted across geotechnical engineering projects for general (non-highway-specific) use?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Soil classification provides a common language for communicating properties and probable behavior. For general civil works, the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is the de facto standard integrated into many codes, specifications, and boring logs. Given Data / Assumptions: General civil engineering applications (foundations, excavations, earthworks). Both coarse- and fine-grained soils appear in projects. Laboratory tests include Atterberg limits and grain-size distribution. Concept / Approach: USCS classifies soils based on percent fines, plasticity (LL, PL), and gradation, producing groups like GW, GP, SW, SP, ML, CL, etc. It uses plasticity charts and coefficients of uniformity/curvature to distinguish well-graded vs poorly graded soils and plastic vs non-plastic fines. HRB/AASHTO is prevalent for pavements; textural and particle-size systems are descriptive but less predictive of engineering behavior. Step-by-Step Solution: Obtain particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits.Apply USCS decision rules to assign a group symbol and name.Use the classification to infer likely permeability, compressibility, and compaction response. Verification / Alternative check: Most borehole logs and lab reports worldwide use USCS group symbols; agency specifications often require USCS alongside AASHTO when relevant. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A/B: Useful descriptively but not standardized for design decisions across all soil types. C: HRB/AASHTO is highway-focused. E: RMR is for rock masses, not soils. Common Pitfalls: Confusing USCS with AASHTO; forgetting dual symbols (e.g., GW-GM) when borderline fines are present. Final Answer: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Question 12

Active earth pressure and failure wedge formation: A failure wedge develops in the backfill behind a retaining wall when the wall primarily moves in which manner?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Retaining-wall pressures depend on wall movement relative to the soil mass. Active movement reduces lateral stress until a limiting state is reached, mobilizing a distinct failure wedge in the backfill governed by soil strength parameters and wall friction assumptions (Rankine or Coulomb theories). Given Data / Assumptions: Backfill is cohesionless or has known c–φ parameters. Wall is free to move sufficiently to mobilize active or passive states. Plane-strain conditions apply along the wall alignment. Concept / Approach: When the wall moves away from the backfill, lateral confinement decreases and shear failure initiates along a plane or wedge surface, forming the active failure wedge. Conversely, moving toward the backfill mobilizes passive resistance with a different wedge orientation and much higher force level. At-rest conditions involve minimal movement and no failure wedge formation. Step-by-Step Solution: Consider wall movement directions and corresponding earth-pressure states.Active: wall moves away → lateral stress drops to Ka * σv′ → failure wedge forms.Passive: wall pushes into soil → lateral stress rises to Kp * σv′ → different wedge develops in front of the wall. Verification / Alternative check: Classical Rankine/Coulomb solutions and model tests show distinct wedge geometry activated by wall movement direction and magnitude. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Describes passive condition; wedge forms on the front side and not the stated backfill wedge. C/D/E: Do not describe the active mechanism producing a backfill failure wedge. Common Pitfalls: Assuming at-rest pressure produces a wedge; insufficient wall movement will not mobilize the limiting active state. Final Answer: Moves away from the backfill (active condition)

Question 13

Quick (liquefied) condition in cohesionless soils: When a clean sand or other cohesionless soil reaches the quick (boiling) condition during upward seepage, it effectively loses which engineering attributes?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The quick or boiling condition in cohesionless soils occurs when upward seepage reduces the effective stress to near zero. This is a critical stability issue beneath structures, cofferdams, and cutoffs where upward gradients can induce piping or heave. Recognizing the implications is vital for safe construction dewatering and filter design. Given Data / Assumptions: Soil is cohesionless (c ≈ 0), such as clean sand or silt. Upward seepage increases pore-water pressure. Critical gradient ic ≈ (Gs − 1) / (1 + e) for typical cases. Concept / Approach: Effective stress principle states: sigma′ = sigma − u. As upward seepage increases u, effective stress falls. At the quick condition, sigma′ → 0, so shear strength τ = sigma′ tan φ → 0. Bearing capacity in sands depends on effective stress and friction angle; when sigma′ vanishes, capacity collapses and soil behaves like a fluidized suspension, unable to support loads. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate upward gradient to pore-pressure increase: higher i → higher u.When u ≈ sigma (total), sigma′ → 0.With sigma′ → 0 → τ ≈ 0 and bearing capacity → negligible. Verification / Alternative check: Field evidence shows heave and sand boils when gradients approach ic. Countermeasures include relief wells, filters, and increasing overburden to restore sigma′. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A/B: Each alone understates the full loss; both properties are compromised. D: Contradicts effective stress mechanics. E: Unit weight does not alone capture the strength loss mechanism. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the quick condition with liquefaction under cyclic loading; both reduce sigma′ but mechanisms differ (steady seepage vs cyclic pore-pressure buildup). Final Answer: Both shear strength and bearing capacity

Question 14

Soil Index Quantities – Determining the Void Ratio of a Soil Sample The void ratio e of a soil is defined as the ratio of the volume of voids to the volume of solids. Based on standard geotechnical definitions (independent of any external reference …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The void ratio e is a core soil index property defined as V_v / V_s, where V_v is the volume of voids and V_s is the volume of solids. It is widely used in compaction control, compressibility, and permeability correlations. This question checks conceptual awareness of realistic magnitudes for e in typical field soils when no special conditions are imposed. Given Data / Assumptions: No prior problem context is required; we use standard ranges. Granular soils (sands) often have e roughly 0.4 to 0.8 depending on density. Fine-grained soils can show larger e, but common design values still lie near unity or below. Concept / Approach: Void ratio e connects directly to porosity n via n = e/(1 + e). For a medium-dense sand, n may be about 0.375–0.45. Back-computing gives e around 0.6–0.82. In many textbooks and laboratory experiences, e ≈ 0.60 is frequently encountered for medium-dense granular soils and compacted fills. The answer reflects a realistic, representative magnitude rather than an extreme loose or very dense case. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that e = V_v / V_s; typical medium-dense sands: n ≈ 0.375–0.45.Compute e from n using e = n/(1 − n); for n = 0.375, e ≈ 0.60.Choose the option that best represents a common medium value among the choices. Verification / Alternative check: Compaction specifications and index property tables often present e values in the 0.4–0.8 band for sands; e = 0.60 lies at a realistic midpoint, aligning with many field compaction outcomes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.40 typically indicates very dense packing for many sands; 0.75 suggests looser states; 0.50 is possible but less representative of a midpoint than 0.60 in generic discussions; 'None of these' is unnecessary because one plausible central value is provided. Common Pitfalls: Confusing porosity n with void ratio e; assuming a single 'correct' e for all soils without acknowledging density state variations. Final Answer: 0.60

Question 15

Effect of Moisture Content on Soil Behavior Changing the moisture (water) content of a soil mass alters several engineering properties. Which of the following are affected as moisture content changes?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Moisture content strongly influences the engineering response of soils. From earthworks to slope stability and granular stockpiles, the water content governs lubrication between particles, capillary suction, and the ease with which a soil can be compacted. Recognizing the direction and magnitude of these effects is fundamental in field control and design. Given Data / Assumptions: General soils (cohesive and cohesionless) under typical geotechnical conditions. No special chemical additives; changes due only to water content. Ambient temperature conditions. Concept / Approach: Angle of repose: For dry to slightly moist sands, small amounts of moisture can increase apparent cohesion via capillary tension, often increasing the stable angle. With excess water, lubrication dominates and the angle may reduce. Compaction: Proctor relationships show an optimum moisture content where maximum dry density is achieved; water content determines required compactive effort and achievable density. Cohesion: In clays, water content around the plastic range controls undrained shear strength; increasing water content generally reduces undrained strength. In sands, capillarity at low moisture can induce apparent cohesion that disappears when saturated. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate water content to capillarity and particle lubrication.Use compaction theory: existence of optimum moisture content.Connect moisture content shifts to undrained strength in clays and apparent cohesion in sands. Verification / Alternative check: Laboratory Proctor tests, vane shear in clays at varying water contents, and angle-of-repose demonstrations with dry vs. damp sand corroborate these trends. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual effect is real; selecting only one would ignore the coupled nature of moisture effects. Thus 'All of the above' is the comprehensive choice. Common Pitfalls: Assuming monotonic trends for angle of repose with water; ignoring that optimal compaction depends on soil type and gradation. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 16

Sedimentation Analysis – How W_d per mL of Suspension is Obtained In fine-grained soil particle-size analysis, identify how the weight of dry solids per millilitre of suspension (W_d per mL) is determined in common laboratory methods.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Hydrometer and pipette analyses are classical methods for determining the distribution of fine particles in soils using sedimentation. A common point of confusion is how the weight of solids per unit volume of suspension is actually determined in each approach. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard laboratory procedures for hydrometer and pipette analyses. Well-dispersed suspension, steady temperature control. Use of Stokes-based timing to sample at appropriate depths. Concept / Approach: In hydrometer analysis, readings reflect suspension density change, which is related indirectly to solids concentration through calibration. Thus W_d per mL is derived indirectly from hydrometer readings and correction charts. In pipette analysis, a known volume of suspension is withdrawn from a known depth at a specific time; this sample is oven-dried to obtain the dry mass of solids directly. Dividing by the sampled volume yields W_d per mL directly without relying on hydrometer calibration curves. Step-by-Step Solution: Hydrometer: read specific gravity of suspension → convert to concentration using charts → indirect W_d per mL.Pipette: withdraw fixed volume at the timed depth → dry and weigh solids → direct W_d per mL.Identify which method yields W_d per mL directly → pipette analysis. Verification / Alternative check: Laboratory manuals consistently describe pipette dried-residue measurements as direct quantification of solids per sampled volume. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) is false; hydrometer is indirect. (b) misstates pipette as indirect. (e) incorrectly claims both are direct. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring temperature and meniscus corrections in hydrometer method; not accounting for exact sampled volume in pipette analysis. Final Answer: Pipette analysis: W_d per mL is obtained directly

Question 17

Basic Soil Classification – Identifying Cohesionless Soil In the context of soil mechanics, which of the following is generally classified as cohesionless (i.e., negligible true cohesion under drained conditions)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Soils are broadly classified by the presence or absence of true cohesion. Cohesionless soils develop shear strength primarily through friction and interlocking, whereas cohesive soils show significant apparent cohesion due to electrochemical and water-related bonding mechanisms, especially under undrained conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard drained condition understanding. Clean, well-graded sand is the reference cohesionless material. Silt can exhibit minor apparent cohesion when wet, but is often treated separately from clean sands in engineering practice. Concept / Approach: Sand and gravel are the classic cohesionless soils; their shear strength is governed by the friction angle φ, contact roughness, and density. Clay, by contrast, possesses significant cohesion and plasticity. Silt is intermediate; many codes still handle it differently from sands because of capillary and plasticity effects at certain moisture contents. Therefore, among the options provided, 'Sand' most clearly represents a cohesionless soil in the strict geotechnical sense. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify cohesionless group → sands and gravels.Exclude clay → cohesive and plastic.Exclude silt as the unambiguous representative due to its variable behavior. Verification / Alternative check: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designations for clean sands (SP, SW) are cohesionless; typical direct shear tests show negligible intercept c′. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Silt (b) may show small apparent cohesion; clay (c) and (d) are cohesive; peat (e) is highly organic with very different behavior. Common Pitfalls: Assuming silt behaves like sand under all conditions; silt can exhibit capillarity and sensitivity that complicate classification. Final Answer: Sand

Question 18

Bearing Capacity Terminology – Maximum Pressure Before Shear Failure The maximum pressure that a soil can sustain under a foundation without undergoing shear failure is termed:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Shallow foundation design relies on clear definitions that distinguish ultimate shear resistance from serviceability-based limits. Students must separate ultimate bearing capacity (a failure limit) from various net and safe capacities used for design after applying reductions and accounting for overburden and settlements. Given Data / Assumptions: Homogeneous soil under a shallow foundation. Classical bearing capacity framework (e.g., Terzaghi type). Failure defined by a shear mechanism in soil beneath the footing. Concept / Approach: Ultimate bearing capacity (q_u): the maximum pressure the soil can carry before shear failure. Net ultimate (q_net,u): q_u minus overburden pressure at foundation level. Safe bearing capacity: ultimate divided by a factor of safety. Allowable bearing pressure: may be governed by settlements or by shear with safety factors applied. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the phrase 'maximum pressure without shear failure' → definition of ultimate bearing capacity.Exclude modifiers like net (subtracting overburden) or safe (after safety factor). Verification / Alternative check: Standard texts define q_u as the load intensity at failure; design values are obtained after applying safety factors and settlement checks. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (b) include safety factors or netting; (c) is a net variant; (e) is a serviceability term not tied strictly to shear failure limit. Common Pitfalls: Confusing 'ultimate' with 'safe' or mixing net and gross definitions; forgetting to subtract overburden for net quantities. Final Answer: Ultimate bearing capacity

Question 19

Consolidation Concepts – Identify the Incorrect Statement (Single Best Answer) Consider the following statements about one-dimensional consolidation parameters and curves. Identify the statement that is NOT correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Consolidation theory explains time-dependent compression of saturated clays under load. A precise understanding of definitions is essential for interpreting oedometer results and settlement predictions for embankments and foundations. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard one-dimensional consolidation in an oedometer. Effective stress increases cause void ratio reduction. Loading–unloading cycles define characteristic segments of the e–log σ′ curve. Concept / Approach: (a) The coefficient of compressibility a_v is defined by a_v = −Δe/Δσ′ (decrease in void ratio per unit increase of effective stress) → correct. (b) Degree of consolidation U is the fraction of ultimate settlement realized at time t, often expressed as a percentage → correct. (c) The time factor T_v = c_v * t / H_d^2 is dimensionless → correct. (d) The 'virgin' compression curve is the initial loading segment before preconsolidation is exceeded; segments during unloading and reloading are known as the recompression (or swelling/rebound) curve, not the virgin curve → therefore (d) is incorrect. Step-by-Step Solution: List each definition and compare to standard terminology.Confirm that (a), (b), (c) align with accepted definitions.Recognize that (d) mislabels the unloading/reloading path as 'virgin'; the correct term is 'recompression' or 'swelling' curve. Verification / Alternative check: Classical e–log σ′ plots display a steeper virgin compression line beyond preconsolidation stress and a gentler recompression line during unloading/reloading cycles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a), (b), and (c) are correct; hence selecting 'None of these' would be incorrect because one statement is indeed wrong. Common Pitfalls: Confusing virgin and recompression segments; mixing total and effective stress terminology in consolidation parameters. Final Answer: The initial curve on either side of the point of unloading and reloading is called the 'virgin' curve

Question 20

Earth Pressure Definitions – Active, Passive, and At-Rest Select the correct definition(s) for lateral earth pressure states acting on a retaining structure due to backfill soil.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Retaining wall design hinges on understanding the limiting states of lateral earth pressure. Depending on wall movement relative to the backfill, the soil reaches distinct equilibrium states: active, passive, or at-rest. Correct identification ensures the right pressure coefficients and resultant forces are used in stability checks. Given Data / Assumptions: Homogeneous backfill, level or inclined as context requires. Rigid wall exhibiting specific movement modes. Drained behavior is assumed for frictional backfills unless stated otherwise. Concept / Approach: Active state arises when the wall moves away from the backfill, reducing lateral stress to a minimum consistent with equilibrium. Passive state occurs when the wall pushes into the backfill, raising lateral stress to a maximum. At-rest is the condition with no wall movement, so lateral stress remains at the in-situ value. These distinctions map to well-known coefficients K_a, K_p, and K_0 respectively. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate wall movement direction to the lateral stress change.Associate each movement case with its pressure state and coefficient.Recognize that (a), (b), and (c) together provide a complete description. Verification / Alternative check: Rankine/Coulomb theories quantify K_a and K_p; empirical correlations (e.g., Jaky’s formula) approximate K_0 for at-rest conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'None of these' is incorrect because each provided definition matches standard usage; hence 'All of the above' is correct. Common Pitfalls: Using K_a where wall cannot move; ignoring wall friction or surcharge effects when computing pressures. Final Answer: All of the above

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Questions