Q: Slope Stability for Small/Limited Slopes – Typical Shape of the Slip Surface For slopes of limited extent in common soils, what is the most frequently assumed or observed shape of the surface of slippage (failure surface) used in analysis and design?

Introduction / Context: In practical slope stability problems—road cuts, small embankments, and excavations—the assumed geometry of the slip surface strongly influences the calculated factor of safety. For many everyday slopes, engineers idealize the failure surface as circular to enable limit equilibrium methods and straightforward construction of trial slip circles. Given Data / Assumptions: Homogeneous soil or layered soils approximated locally as homogeneous. Slope is of limited height and extent (typical highway and earthwork cases). Drainage conditions considered within total or effective stress analyses. Concept / Approach: The circular slip surface assumption underpins several classic methods (Swedish circle/Fellenius, Bishop simplified). It is consistent with observed rotational failures in cohesive and c–φ soils of limited height. While noncircular surfaces may occur (planar in rock or highly stratified soils, composite in large earth dams), the circular arc remains the most common and tractable idealization for small to moderate slopes. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify slope type: limited extent, typical soils → rotational failure likely.Adopt circular arc model used by Bishop/Fellenius methods.Use slices method to compute factor of safety against sliding along a circular path. Verification / Alternative check: Field back-analyses of numerous small slope failures show near-circular head-to-toe scars, validating this assumption for many cases. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Parabolic/elliptical assumptions are not standard for routine designs; planar (straight) failures are more typical in rock masses or along weak bedding planes, not the general case for small soil slopes. Common Pitfalls: Applying circular arcs to very tall or strongly layered slopes where noncircular or composite surfaces govern; ignoring pore-pressure effects that shift the critical circle. Final Answer: Circular arc

Q: Slope stability terminology: For a base failure mode of a slope (failure surface passing well below the toe), what is the appropriate qualitative value of the depth factor Df?

Introduction / Context: In slope stability (particularly circular slip analysis for earth embankments), different failure modes are identified: face (or slope) failure, toe failure, and base failure. The “depth factor” Df is a qualitative indicator describing the relative position of the critical slip circle center or the depth of the failure surface with respect to the slope dimensions. This question checks the conceptual association of Df with the base failure mechanism. Given Data / Assumptions: Homogeneous slope, classical circular slip concept. Failure mode: base failure (deep-seated slip passing well below the toe). Depth factor Df indicates comparatively shallow, equal, or deeper positions of the failure with respect to slope height. Concept / Approach: Base failure is characterized by a deep slip surface. Unlike toe failure (shallower) or face failure (shallowest), the failure surface in base failure extends under the slope and emerges well beyond the toe. Therefore, the depth factor corresponding to base failure is taken greater than unity to reflect this deeper mechanism. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the mode: base failure → deep-seated slip surface.Interpretation of depth factor: deep slip → Df larger than 1.Hence, choose Df > 1 as the appropriate qualitative statement. Verification / Alternative check: Standard illustrative charts and example problems in slope stability categorize deeper, base-type slips with parameters indicating greater embedment below the toe, consistent with Df > 1 as a qualitative descriptor. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Df = 1 and (b) Df 1

Question 1

Undrained Shear in Plastic Clays – Dominant Source of Shear Strength For a plastic, fully saturated clay tested in undrained conditions (short-term loading), the mobilized shear strength arises primarily from which component?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Short-term stability of clayey foundations, embankments, and excavations often depends on undrained shear strength. In undrained loading, pore pressures change but water does not have time to drain, so the effective stress pathway differs from long-term drained conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: Clay is plastic and fully saturated. Loading is rapid (undrained), so drainage is negligible. Analysis follows total stress (undrained) framework. Concept / Approach: In undrained conditions, the shear strength of clays is represented by su (often treated as a cohesive intercept in total stress Mohr–Coulomb), and the friction angle in total stress is frequently taken as zero for short-term analysis (φ_u ≈ 0). Thus, the apparent strength comes primarily from cohesion. Over longer times with drainage (effective stress analysis), frictional resistance governed by φ′ becomes relevant. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize undrained loading → total stress approach.Adopt φ_u ≈ 0 for plastic clays → strength = su.Conclude that the dominant component is cohesive/undrained strength. Verification / Alternative check: Field vane, unconfined compression, and CU triaxial tests (with pore pressure measurement) all provide measures of su consistent with this concept for short-term conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (b) describe frictional mechanisms important in drained, effective stress terms; they are not dominant in undrained plastic clay short-term behavior. Common Pitfalls: Using drained strength parameters for rapid loading; ignoring rate effects and structure sensitivity (thixotropy). Final Answer: Cohesion (undrained shear strength, su)

Question 2

State of Stress Near a Retaining Wall – Passive Condition in Non-Cohesive Soil In a cohesionless (non-cohesive) soil mass at the passive limit state against a rigid wall, which statement correctly identifies the directions of the principal stresses?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Rankine and Coulomb earth pressure theories describe limiting stress states in backfills. When the wall moves toward the soil (compressing it), the soil reaches the passive condition and mobilizes its maximum lateral resistance, changing the orientation of principal stresses relative to the active case. Given Data / Assumptions: Soil is cohesionless and level ground is assumed for simplicity. Rigid wall induces limiting equilibrium (passive). Plane strain conditions are approximated. Concept / Approach: In the passive state, lateral stress exceeds vertical stress. Therefore the major principal stress σ1 acts horizontally (toward the wall), and the minor principal stress σ3 acts vertically. This is the reverse of the active case, where σ1 is vertical and σ3 is horizontal due to soil dilation under extension as the wall moves away. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify limit state: passive (wall pushes into soil).Recognize σ1 > σ3 and lateral stress > vertical stress.Hence σ1 is horizontal (major), σ3 vertical (minor). Verification / Alternative check: Mohr’s circle constructions for passive Rankine state confirm the right-shifted circle where horizontal stress is the maximum principal stress. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) states a true corollary but the question asks for the correct identification in single choice; (c) is the active condition; (d) is incorrect for principal stresses which are mutually orthogonal and not inclined together arbitrarily. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up active and passive orientations; forgetting that principal planes carry no shear. Final Answer: Major principal stress is horizontal

Question 3

Pipette/Hydrometer Analysis – Standard Dispersing Solution per IS 2720 As per IS: 2720 (Methods of Test for Soils), the recommended composition of the dispersing solution used in pipette analysis is which of the following?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Accurate sedimentation analysis requires deflocculating the particles so that Stokes’ law assumptions are approached. A standard dispersing agent prevents clays and silts from aggregating, ensuring that measured settling velocities correspond to individual or small-clustered particles. Given Data / Assumptions: Testing follows IS: 2720 guidance for particle-size analysis by sedimentation. The solution must promote dispersion without altering specific gravity significantly. Solution volume standardized to 1 litre for reproducibility. Concept / Approach: Sodium hexametaphosphate acts as a peptizing/dispersing agent, while a small amount of sodium carbonate helps adjust alkalinity and enhance dispersion. The commonly cited IS composition is 33 g of sodium hexametaphosphate plus 7 g sodium carbonate in distilled water to make 1 litre. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the standard recipe from IS practice.Match the exact masses and final volume to the listed options.Select the option with 33 g hexametaphosphate and 7 g carbonate per litre. Verification / Alternative check: Equivalent guidance appears in many soil mechanics laboratory manuals aligned with IS methods. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The other mass combinations invert or alter the recommended proportions and would not match the IS reference composition. Common Pitfalls: Using tap water (ionic content affects dispersion), inaccurate weighing, and not allowing sufficient mixing time reduce test reliability. Final Answer: Sodium hexametaphosphate 33 g, sodium carbonate 7 g, distilled water to 1 litre

Question 4

Mohr–Coulomb Framework – Factors Influencing Shear Strength of Soils Which statements about soil shear strength are generally correct under the Mohr–Coulomb concept and basic observations?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Soil shear strength governs stability in slopes, retaining structures, and foundations. The Mohr–Coulomb model provides a convenient linear envelope relating shear stress at failure to normal stress through cohesion and friction parameters that capture bonding and interparticle resistance mechanisms. Given Data / Assumptions: Shear strength criterion: τ_f = c + σ′ * tan(φ). Effective stress framework for drained conditions; analogous total stress form for undrained clays. Parameters c and φ determined by appropriate shear tests. Concept / Approach: According to τ_f = c + σ′ * tan(φ), increasing normal effective stress raises shear strength (statement a). At σ′ = 0, shear strength equals c, hence proportionality to cohesion (statement b). In practice, “soil strength” often implies shear strength because most failures are shear governed (statement c). The frictional contribution grows with tan(φ), confirming statement d. Therefore, all statements collectively describe how shear strength varies with stress and soil parameters. Step-by-Step Solution: Write τ_f = c + σ′ * tan(φ).Note effect of increasing σ′ → τ_f increases.At zero σ′, τ_f = c → proportional to cohesion.Frictional term depends on tan(φ). Verification / Alternative check: Direct shear and triaxial test results across confining stresses display linear or near-linear envelopes supporting the Mohr–Coulomb relation in many soils. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Since (a)–(d) are all valid general statements, any single choice would be incomplete; only “All of the above” is comprehensive. Common Pitfalls: Confusing total and effective stress parameters; assuming c is a true “cohesion” for sands—it is usually taken as zero in drained analyses. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 5

Boiling/Quicksand Safety – Factors that Increase Critical Exit Gradient (i_c) The critical exit gradient for seepage-induced boiling in soils (i_c) changes with soil properties. Which combination increases i_c (thereby improving safety against pipin…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Boiling or quick conditions arise where upward seepage causes effective stress to vanish. The critical gradient i_c indicates the threshold at which seepage force equals submerged unit weight. Designers aim for low exit gradients relative to i_c to prevent piping and heave at downstream toes or excavation bottoms. Given Data / Assumptions: Critical gradient formula: i_c ≈ (Gs − 1) / (1 + e). Homogeneous, saturated cohesionless soil near an exit boundary. Steady, upward seepage. Concept / Approach: From i_c = (Gs − 1) / (1 + e), increasing Gs raises the numerator and decreasing void ratio e lowers the denominator, both leading to a larger i_c and thus greater resistance to boiling. Conversely, lowering Gs or increasing e reduces i_c, making piping more likely for a given hydraulic gradient. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with i_c = (Gs − 1) / (1 + e).If Gs increases → i_c increases.If e decreases → 1 + e decreases → i_c increases.Therefore, the combination (a) and (c) increases i_c. Verification / Alternative check: Back-analyses of field failures show low Gs loose sands with high e are most vulnerable; densification (lower e) or using heavier mineral backfills (higher Gs) improves safety margins. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) lowers i_c; (e) contradicts the governing formula; (a) or (c) alone is incomplete but directionally correct—(d) captures both. Common Pitfalls: Confusing porosity n with void ratio e; forgetting to compare exit gradients against i_c rather than against unity. Final Answer: Both (a) and (c)

Question 6

Soil Index Definitions – Voids Ratio, Porosity, Bulk Unit Weight, and Dry Unit Weight Which of the following statements correctly define common index/weight relationships used in soil mechanics?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Clear definitions of geometric and weight-based soil indices are crucial for classification, compaction control, and seepage/stability calculations. Four basic quantities—voids ratio, porosity, bulk unit weight, and dry unit weight—appear across nearly all geotechnical computations. Given Data / Assumptions: Three-phase system: solids, water, and air. Volumes: V = V_s + V_v; masses/weights defined accordingly. Quasi-static conditions and standard temperature for unit weights. Concept / Approach: Definitions: e = V_v / V_s (voids ratio). n = V_v / V (porosity). Bulk unit weight γ = W / V (total weight per total volume). Dry unit weight γ_d = W_s / V (weight of solids per total volume). These are consistent and inter-related via n = e / (1 + e). Correct understanding prevents mistakes in compaction, saturation, and strength estimations. Step-by-Step Solution: Check each statement against standard definitions.(a) e = V_v / V_s → correct.(b) n = V_v / V → correct.(c) γ = W / V → unit weight of overall mass → correct.(d) γ_d = W_s / V → correct. Verification / Alternative check: Handbooks and codes present identical relationships and show conversions (e ↔ n) using n = e/(1 + e). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Because (a)–(d) are all correct, any single choice would be incomplete. Hence “All of the above” is the only complete selection. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up e with n; using mass density instead of unit weight (weight density) without unit consistency; forgetting that γ_d < γ unless soil is oven-dry. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 7

Slope Stability for Small/Limited Slopes – Typical Shape of the Slip Surface For slopes of limited extent in common soils, what is the most frequently assumed or observed shape of the surface of slippage (failure surface) used in analysis and design?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In practical slope stability problems—road cuts, small embankments, and excavations—the assumed geometry of the slip surface strongly influences the calculated factor of safety. For many everyday slopes, engineers idealize the failure surface as circular to enable limit equilibrium methods and straightforward construction of trial slip circles. Given Data / Assumptions: Homogeneous soil or layered soils approximated locally as homogeneous. Slope is of limited height and extent (typical highway and earthwork cases). Drainage conditions considered within total or effective stress analyses. Concept / Approach: The circular slip surface assumption underpins several classic methods (Swedish circle/Fellenius, Bishop simplified). It is consistent with observed rotational failures in cohesive and c–φ soils of limited height. While noncircular surfaces may occur (planar in rock or highly stratified soils, composite in large earth dams), the circular arc remains the most common and tractable idealization for small to moderate slopes. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify slope type: limited extent, typical soils → rotational failure likely.Adopt circular arc model used by Bishop/Fellenius methods.Use slices method to compute factor of safety against sliding along a circular path. Verification / Alternative check: Field back-analyses of numerous small slope failures show near-circular head-to-toe scars, validating this assumption for many cases. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Parabolic/elliptical assumptions are not standard for routine designs; planar (straight) failures are more typical in rock masses or along weak bedding planes, not the general case for small soil slopes. Common Pitfalls: Applying circular arcs to very tall or strongly layered slopes where noncircular or composite surfaces govern; ignoring pore-pressure effects that shift the critical circle. Final Answer: Circular arc

Question 8

Slope stability terminology: For a base failure mode of a slope (failure surface passing well below the toe), what is the appropriate qualitative value of the depth factor Df?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In slope stability (particularly circular slip analysis for earth embankments), different failure modes are identified: face (or slope) failure, toe failure, and base failure. The “depth factor” Df is a qualitative indicator describing the relative position of the critical slip circle center or the depth of the failure surface with respect to the slope dimensions. This question checks the conceptual association of Df with the base failure mechanism. Given Data / Assumptions: Homogeneous slope, classical circular slip concept. Failure mode: base failure (deep-seated slip passing well below the toe). Depth factor Df indicates comparatively shallow, equal, or deeper positions of the failure with respect to slope height. Concept / Approach: Base failure is characterized by a deep slip surface. Unlike toe failure (shallower) or face failure (shallowest), the failure surface in base failure extends under the slope and emerges well beyond the toe. Therefore, the depth factor corresponding to base failure is taken greater than unity to reflect this deeper mechanism. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the mode: base failure → deep-seated slip surface.Interpretation of depth factor: deep slip → Df larger than 1.Hence, choose Df > 1 as the appropriate qualitative statement. Verification / Alternative check: Standard illustrative charts and example problems in slope stability categorize deeper, base-type slips with parameters indicating greater embedment below the toe, consistent with Df > 1 as a qualitative descriptor. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Df = 1 and (b) Df < 1 match face or toe type shallower mechanisms; (d) and (e) are not representative of deep-seated base failure. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up toe failure (shallower) with base failure (deeper); treating Df as a precise numeric constant rather than a qualitative indicator. Final Answer: Df > 1

Question 9

Upward seepage and zero effective stress: When seepage pressure equals the submerged unit weight-induced pressure, effective stress drops to zero and particles tend to move upward along flow. This phenomenon is commonly known as:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Under upward seepage, seepage forces act opposite to the self-weight of soil grains. If the upward hydraulic gradient is large enough, the effective stress can reduce to zero. Understanding terminology used for this critical state is essential for evaluating construction dewatering, filter design, and retaining works. Given Data / Assumptions: Upward hydraulic gradient through a saturated sandy or silty deposit. Seepage force equals buoyant (submerged) weight at the critical gradient. Static conditions otherwise (no external reinforcing). Concept / Approach: Critical hydraulic gradient i_c is approximated by (G_s − 1)/(1 + e). At i ≈ i_c, effective stress approaches zero and grains are suspended by flow. The phenomenon is referred to as the “quick condition,” “boiling,” or “quicksand.” All three terms describe the same physical state: a loss of intergranular contact forces and the visible “boiling” appearance at the surface due to water and sand ejections. Step-by-Step Solution: At i = i_c → σ′ → 0.Particles lose interlock and tend to rise with flow.Terminologies used: quick condition = boiling = quicksand. Verification / Alternative check: Field observations near sheet piles or pump wells under high gradients demonstrate sand boils and quick behavior—consistent with the above definitions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each term (a), (b), and (c) is valid; therefore (d) “All the above” is correct. “Piping only” describes progressive removal but is not the standard term for zero-effective-stress state by itself. Common Pitfalls: Confusing quick condition with liquefaction under cyclic loading; ignoring filter/drain measures to prevent sand boils. Final Answer: All the above

Question 10

Flow net fundamentals in seepage analysis: Identify the correct statement regarding the geometry and properties of flow lines and equipotential lines in a flow net for homogeneous soil.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Flow nets provide a graphical solution to two-dimensional steady seepage governed by Laplace’s equation. Correct interpretation of their geometry underpins estimates of seepage quantity and uplift pressures below hydraulic structures such as weirs and cutoffs. Given Data / Assumptions: Homogeneous, isotropic soil. Steady-state two-dimensional flow. Properly constructed flow net with flow lines and equipotential lines. Concept / Approach: By definition, flow lines represent streamlines and equipotential lines represent loci of equal total head. Laplace’s equation requires these two families of orthogonal curves. The net is ideally composed of approximately curvilinear squares, not rectangles with prescribed 2:1 ratios. Smaller field dimensions do not reduce hydraulic gradient; rather, for a given potential drop per square, shorter path lengths imply larger local gradients. Step-by-Step Solution: Orthogonality property → flow and equipotential lines cross at 90°.Field shape → approximate squares (not necessarily 2:1 rectangles).Gradient intuition → smaller path length for same head loss → larger gradient and velocity. Verification / Alternative check: Classic texts show flow nets with nearly square curvilinear fields; orthogonality is a direct consequence of harmonic functions for head. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) Imposes an arbitrary 2:1 geometry; (c) reverses the gradient behavior; (d) lines are smooth, not “generally circular.” (e) is close to a correct description but does not directly answer the stated property as clearly as (a). Common Pitfalls: Ignoring isotropy; poor net drawing that violates orthogonality and square field requirement. Final Answer: Flow lines and equipotential lines intersect each other at right angles

Question 11

Paraffin displacement (clod method): A soil clod is oven-dry, then coated with paraffin and weighed. Total weight (soil + paraffin) = 460 g. When immersed, it displaces 299 cm^3 of water. Paraffin weighs 10 g and has specific gravity 0.9. If Gs (sol…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The paraffin (clod) method measures the bulk volume of an irregular soil clod by displacement after coating with a thin paraffin film. Knowing the dry mass and particle specific gravity allows determination of the volume of solids and thus the void ratio e = Vv / Vs. This problem exemplifies careful accounting for the paraffin shell volume. Given Data / Assumptions: Total mass (soil + paraffin) = 460 g; paraffin mass = 10 g. Displaced water volume (coated clod) = 299 cm^3. Specific gravity: paraffin = 0.9; soil solids Gs = 2.5; water density 1 g/cm^3. Soil clod is oven-dry (mass of soil solids = 460 − 10 = 450 g). Concept / Approach: External volume from displacement includes soil + paraffin. Subtract the paraffin volume to get the bulk soil volume. Then compute Vs from dry mass and Gs. The void volume is Vv = V − Vs, and e = Vv / Vs. Step-by-Step Solution: Paraffin volume V_p = mass / density = 10 / 0.9 = 11.111 cm^3.Bulk soil volume V = displaced − V_p = 299 − 11.111 = 287.889 cm^3.Volume of solids Vs = Ms / (Gs * ρ_w) = 450 / (2.5 * 1) = 180.000 cm^3.Void volume Vv = V − Vs = 287.889 − 180.000 = 107.889 cm^3.Void ratio e = Vv / Vs = 107.889 / 180.000 ≈ 0.599 ≈ 0.60. Verification / Alternative check: Dimensional consistency: volumes in cm^3 and masses in g with water at 1 g/cm^3 yield a dimensionless e. The value e ≈ 0.60 is typical for a medium-dense sandy silt/sand mixture, providing a reasonableness check. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.55, 0.65, 0.70 deviate from the precise computation; 0.48 is too low given the volumes. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting to subtract the paraffin volume; using wet mass instead of dry mass for Vs; mixing units; rounding too early. Final Answer: 0.60

Question 12

Triaxial testing capabilities: The standard triaxial apparatus can be configured to perform which of the following types of shear tests on soils?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Triaxial testing is the workhorse of laboratory shear strength measurement in soil mechanics. By controlling drainage and consolidation, it produces parameters for short-term undrained and long-term drained conditions, and intermediate behaviors with pore pressure measurement (CU). Given Data / Assumptions: Standard triaxial cell with confining pressure control. Drainage valves and back-pressure saturation available. Accurate measurement devices for load, deformation, and pore pressure (as applicable). Concept / Approach: The triaxial apparatus can run: UU (no consolidation, no drainage), CU (consolidation allowed, no drainage during shear, pore pressure measured), and CD (consolidation allowed, full drainage during shear). Thus the apparatus supports all three classic test types. Step-by-Step Solution: Match test goals to drainage/consolidation settings.UU → quick undrained; CU → staged with pore pressures; CD → slow drained.Conclusion: all listed tests are feasible with the triaxial apparatus. Verification / Alternative check: Laboratory standards and textbooks detail procedures for UU, CU, and CD in triaxial devices. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each single-option choice omits valid capabilities; “None” is incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Confusing CU with CD; neglecting rate control for CD to ensure drained conditions. Final Answer: All the above tests

Question 13

One-dimensional consolidation: If C_v is the coefficient of consolidation, t is the elapsed time, and d is the drainage path length, the dimensionless time factor T_v is given by:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation theory uses two dimensionless groups: the time factor T_v and the average degree of consolidation U. Correctly forming T_v is the key to relating lab or field drainage times to soil layer thickness and drainage conditions (single or double drainage). Given Data / Assumptions: C_v has units of length^2/time. t is time since loading. d is the maximum drainage path length (half thickness for double drainage, full thickness for single drainage). Concept / Approach: Dimensional analysis and the consolidation solution define T_v = C_v * t / d^2. This non-dimensional time collapses different layer thicknesses and drainage conditions into a common framework to read U–T_v relationships. Step-by-Step Solution: State definition: T_v = C_v * t / d^2.Check units: (L^2/T * T) / L^2 → dimensionless.Apply d correctly depending on single vs. double drainage. Verification / Alternative check: Standard charts (e.g., U vs. T_v) rely on this definition; laboratory oedometer test interpretations use the same form. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) is the reciprocal; (c) and (d) include an unjustified factor 4; (e) has incorrect dimensions. Common Pitfalls: Using layer thickness instead of drainage path; forgetting that for double drainage d = H/2. Final Answer: T_v = (C_v * t) / d^2

Question 14

Active earth pressure coefficient K_a: For a cohesionless backfill with friction angle φ (Rankine conditions), which expression correctly gives K_a?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Rankine’s earth pressure theory provides closed-form coefficients for active and passive states in cohesionless soils. Recognizing the correct form of the active coefficient K_a is fundamental to retaining wall design. Given Data / Assumptions: Backfill is cohesionless with internal friction angle φ. Wall yields sufficiently to mobilize the active state. Plane ground, no wall friction (Rankine assumptions). Concept / Approach: For Rankine conditions: K_a = tan^2(45° − φ/2). Equivalently, K_a = (1 − sin φ)/(1 + sin φ). Passive coefficient is K_p = tan^2(45° + φ/2) = (1 + sin φ)/(1 − sin φ). Selecting the correct sign and half-angle is crucial. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall Rankine relations: K_a and K_p in half-angle form.Match the active case to 45° − φ/2.Hence choose K_a = tan^2(45° − φ/2). Verification / Alternative check: Substituting φ = 0 gives K_a = 1 (horizontal at-rest for zero friction), confirming the correct trend for the active case under Rankine assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) is the passive expression; (c) is K_p; (d) is an equivalent correct form of K_a but the single best canonical form requested is (a); (e) is not a Rankine coefficient. Common Pitfalls: Mixing active and passive forms; forgetting the φ/2 half-angle. Final Answer: K_a = tan^2(45° − φ/2)

Question 15

Quaternary deposits: The term ‘‘drift’’ refers to unconsolidated material picked up, transported, and redeposited primarily by which agent?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In engineering geology, “drift” commonly denotes glacial deposits including till (directly from ice) and stratified drift (deposited by meltwater). Recognizing the origin helps anticipate variability, particle sizes, and compaction characteristics relevant to foundations and excavations. Given Data / Assumptions: Quaternary geomorphology terminology. Focus on the generic agent responsible for drift. Unconsolidated, mixed, often heterogeneous deposits. Concept / Approach: Drift encompasses deposits formed by the action of glaciers and their meltwaters. Wind-blown sediments are termed aeolian (loess, dune sands) and are not “drift,” while simple gravitational creep is a different mass wasting process. Hence, the correct agent is glacial ice and associated meltwater (glaciofluvial). Step-by-Step Solution: Define drift → glacial and glaciofluvial deposits.Eliminate unrelated agents (wind-only, gravity-only).Choose the option referencing glaciated water/ice. Verification / Alternative check: Geology references classify till and stratified drift as subtypes of glacial drift, confirming the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Aeolian is different; (b) creep alone does not generate drift; (d) “All the above” is incorrect because drift is not caused by wind or gravity-only processes; (e) is unrelated. Common Pitfalls: Using “drift” loosely for any transported deposit; equating loess with drift. Final Answer: Glaciated water and ice (glacial and glaciofluvial processes)

Question 16

Consistency index I_c (Atterberg limits): I_c is defined as which of the following ratios for a cohesive soil at natural water content w_n?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The consistency index I_c indicates the relative consistency of a cohesive soil in the plastic range. It complements the liquidity index I_L and helps engineers infer the likely undrained behavior (stiff, soft) at the in-situ water content. Given Data / Assumptions: Atterberg limits: LL (liquid limit), PL (plastic limit), PI = LL − PL. Natural water content w_n is known. Index applies to fine-grained soils. Concept / Approach: Definitions: liquidity index I_L = (w_n − PL)/PI and consistency index I_c = (LL − w_n)/PI. I_c close to 1 indicates a soil near the plastic limit (stiff), while I_c near 0 indicates a soil near the liquid limit (soft). Negative values imply w_n > LL (flowing). Step-by-Step Solution: Recall PI = LL − PL.Write I_c = (LL − w_n)/PI.Match with the provided options → choose (LL − w_n)/PI. Verification / Alternative check: Check that I_c + I_L = 1, which is a useful consistency relation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a), (d) use addition incorrectly; (c) is the liquidity index; (e) is not a standard index definition. Common Pitfalls: Interchanging I_L and I_c; forgetting that PI must be positive and defined only if LL > PL. Final Answer: I_c = (LL − w_n) / PI

Question 17

Coefficient of compressibility (a_c): Given initial void ratio e_0, final void ratio e, initial effective stress σ′_0, and final effective stress σ′, choose the correct expression for a_c over the stress increment.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The coefficient of compressibility a_c (often denoted a_v) quantifies the change in void ratio per unit increase in effective vertical stress in one-dimensional consolidation. It is a fundamental parameter for settlement predictions and for interpreting oedometer test results. Given Data / Assumptions: One-dimensional consolidation framework. Effective stresses σ′_0 → σ′, with corresponding void ratios e_0 → e. Small to moderate stress increment over which a_c is evaluated. Concept / Approach: By definition, a_c = Δe / Δσ′ with the understanding that e decreases as σ′ increases. Using e_0 at σ′_0 and e at σ′: Δe = e_0 − e and Δσ′ = σ′ − σ′_0. Thus a_c = (e_0 − e) / (σ′ − σ′_0). This form is consistent with positive a_c for compressive loading that reduces void ratio. Step-by-Step Solution: State definition: a_c = Δe / Δσ′.Compute Δe = e_0 − e; compute Δσ′ = σ′ − σ′_0.Form ratio to obtain a_c as listed in the correct option. Verification / Alternative check: Units: a_c is dimensionless per unit stress (e.g., per kPa). The sign convention yields positive values for consolidation (e decreases as σ′ increases). Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) reverses the numerator sign; (c) inverts the ratio; (d) and (e) are not the standard definition for a_c across a stress increment. Common Pitfalls: Mixing e vs. void ratio change with volumetric strain; forgetting to use effective stress rather than total stress in consolidation. Final Answer: a_c = (e_0 − e) / (σ′ − σ′_0)

Question 18

Rankine earth pressure relationship If the active earth pressure coefficient Ka is given as 1/3 for a cohesionless backfill, what is the corresponding passive earth pressure coefficient Kp for the same internal friction angle (Rankine theory)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In retaining wall and earth pressure problems for cohesionless soils, Rankine theory provides closed-form expressions for the active and passive earth pressure coefficients, Ka and Kp. These coefficients depend only on the soil's internal friction angle and are reciprocals under Rankine assumptions, which is frequently tested in exams and design interviews. Given Data / Assumptions: Cohesionless (c = 0) backfill satisfying Rankine assumptions. Active pressure coefficient Ka = 1/3. Same soil and friction angle for passive condition. Level ground, no wall friction in Rankine idealization. Concept / Approach: For Rankine theory: Ka = (1 − sin φ) / (1 + sin φ) and Kp = (1 + sin φ) / (1 − sin φ). Hence Ka * Kp = 1. This reciprocal relationship immediately maps one coefficient to the other when φ is unchanged. Step-by-Step Solution: Given Ka = 1/3.Use the Rankine identity: Ka * Kp = 1.Therefore, Kp = 1 / Ka = 1 / (1/3) = 3. Verification / Alternative check: If Ka = (1 − sin φ)/(1 + sin φ) = 1/3, then (1 + sin φ)/(1 − sin φ) = 3, which is exactly Kp by Rankine. Consistent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1/3, 2/3, and 1 contradict the reciprocal rule; 3/2 is not the inverse of 1/3. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up Coulomb and Rankine assumptions; forgetting the Ka*Kp = 1 identity under Rankine; using wall friction or sloping backfill without updating formulas. Final Answer: 3

Question 19

Total active thrust for dry level backfill (no surcharge) For a retaining wall with dry, horizontal backfill and no surcharge, the resultant active earth pressure acts at H/3 above the base. The magnitude of the total active thrust Pa is directly pr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Estimating the total active earth thrust on a retaining wall is fundamental in geotechnical design. For a dry, horizontal backfill with no surcharge, the lateral earth pressure increases linearly with depth, producing a triangular pressure diagram. Converting this pressure distribution to a resultant force clarifies how thrust scales with wall height. Given Data / Assumptions: Dry, cohesionless backfill; no surcharge. Rankine or Coulomb (no cohesion) with level backfill. Lateral pressure at depth z: σ_h = Ka * γ * z. Resultant acts at H/3 above the base. Concept / Approach: The pressure varies linearly from zero at the top to KaγH at the base, forming a triangle. The total thrust is the area of the triangle. Because the base ordinate is proportional to H, the area—and thus the thrust—is proportional to H^2. Step-by-Step Solution: Base pressure at z = H: σ_h,base = Ka * γ * H.Total thrust Pa = (1/2) * base * height = (1/2) * (Ka * γ * H) * H.Therefore Pa = (1/2) * Ka * γ * H^2 → directly proportional to H^2. Verification / Alternative check: Dimensional consistency: γ has units of force/volume, multiplied by H^2 gives force per unit out-of-plane width, as expected. Why Other Options Are Wrong: H or √H underestimates growth; H^3 overestimates; log H is not physically relevant for triangular pressure without special conditions. Common Pitfalls: Confusing pressure (∝ H) with thrust (∝ H^2); forgetting the 1/3 location of the resultant is about line of action, not magnitude scaling. Final Answer: H^2

Question 20

Slope stability analysis by method of slices The “method of slices” (e.g., ordinary/Fellenius, Bishop, Morgenstern–Price) is applicable to which types of slopes and soil conditions in practical geotechnical engineering?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The method of slices is a family of limit-equilibrium techniques used to evaluate the factor of safety against slope failure. By dividing the potential sliding mass into vertical slices, interslice forces and moments can be equilibrated using different assumptions, making the approach broadly applicable in practice. Given Data / Assumptions: Unknown slip surface geometry (circular or noncircular) permitted. Shear strength modeled via c–φ with effective or total stress. Groundwater and pore pressures can be included. Concept / Approach: Ordinary (Swedish), Bishop simplified, Janbu simplified/rigorous, and Morgenstern–Price methods all fall within the slices framework. These methods can analyze homogeneous and heterogenous (stratified) slopes, saturated or partially saturated conditions, and non-uniform geometries, depending on chosen assumptions about interslice shear and normal forces and the accuracy desired. Step-by-Step Solution: Discretize potential sliding mass into slices.Apply force and/or moment equilibrium to each slice and globally.Adopt method-specific interslice force functions; iterate to compute factor of safety. Verification / Alternative check: Comparison among methods: Bishop simplified is accurate for circular slips; Morgenstern–Price is rigorous for both force and moment equilibrium and noncircular surfaces, confirming broad applicability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Limiting the method to only homogeneous, only stratified, only saturated, or only non-uniform slopes contradicts its established scope. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring pore pressure; using inappropriate strength parameters; assuming one method universally conservative without validation. Final Answer: All of the above (wide application across soil profiles and slope geometries)

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Questions