7/29/2019 2005 Lab

1/10

Undergraduate Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Testing:

A Review of Current Practice and Future Needs

Kevin Sutterer, Rose-Hulman Institute of TechnologyNick Hudyma, University of North Florida

Jonathan Wu, University of Colorado-Denver

ABSTRACT

The undergraduate geotechnical laboratory is an opportunity for civil engineeringstudents to investigate soil behavior in a controlled experimental setting, and to acquire

hands-on knowledge of practical geotechnical testing. Planning and facilitation of

undergraduate geotechnical laboratories is a challenging search for balance betweenteaching real test methods needed in practice, fostering productive learning about soil

mechanics and soil behavior, and optimizing both student and faculty time in the learning

process. The balancing act also includes consideration of:

Emphasis on learning by students who will not work in the geotechnical field versuslearning of concepts that will be the foundation of future geotechnical course work,

Use of sophisticated modern automated equipment versus the manual devices still

commonly used in many commercial laboratories, Benefits of test simulation software versus real testing, and

Integrating laboratory work into the course learning versus allowing graduate

students to direct the learning independently.This invited paper for the session on Geotechnical Engineering Education wrestles with

these issues and others, providing suggestions for how faculty may choose to set

priorities in making choices about the design and implementation of undergraduate

learning in the area of geotechnical testing.

INTRODUCTION

The first geotechnical course in most civil engineering curricula in the U.S. includes a

significant laboratory component along with traditional lecture-based learning. This has

been the model for decades, dating even to the formative years of geotechnical education.After an introductory geotechnical course, additional undergraduate geotechnical courses

are sometimes required and often offered, covering a wide range of learning, including

laboratory type activities. From one program to another, the typical scope, name, andquantity of courses described above vary widely, with some programs featuring a wide

variety of laboratory and field work for undergraduates, and others requiring none.

Most geotechnical engineering involves the use or modification of natural materials forthe support of civil engineering systems. Characterization and measurement of relevant

engineering properties of natural materials, either in the laboratory or in-situ, is a

fundamental aspect of geotechnical engineering. So although undergraduate levelgeotechnical courses come in a wide variety of titles, scopes, and degrees of difficulty,

one characteristic most have in common is the students need to be able to understand

sampling, measurement of properties, and data interpretation.

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

2/10

Design of undergraduate courses encapsulating laboratory and field learning should notbe done independent of design of the overall geotechnical learning in curricula. Some

useful works on the undergraduate geotechnical experience include a number of well-

received papers submitted at GeoEng 2000 (Seidel and Kodikara, 2000; Steenfelt, 2000),

GeoDenver (Dennis, 2000)

STATE OF THE PRACTICE

As might be expected, the state of the practice in undergraduate geotechnical laboratory

and field work varies widely from program to program and even from one faculty toanother within a program. In the most basic form, the laboratory experience affiliated

with a required introductory course in geotechnical engineering would consist of students

guided through a series of experiments using a published laboratory manual and under

the mentoring of graduate students, technical staff, or faculty. Such a program wouldlikely be administered to emphasize learning efficiency that minimizes time investment

of all parties involved while maximizing student learning. The suite of laboratoryexperiments performed by the students may include, but not be limited to:

Water content

Specific gravityGrain size distribution

Atterberg limits

Moisture-unit weight relations

Field unit weight measurement

PermeabilityDirect shear

Unconfined compression

One-dimensional consolidation

Of course, from one laboratory course to another, this collection will change, so this is

merely a sampling based on methods that are common to most currently available

geotechnical laboratory manuals. Required laboratory/field courses may also introducetriaxial testing, field sampling techniques, standard penetration test, cone penetration test,

geosynthetics testing, data acquisition systems, geophysical methods, geoenvironmental

testing or any number of other methods from a host of useful tools for characterizing geo-materials.

Beyond traditional geotechnical testing techniques, laboratory/field activities may include

the utilization of scale models or similar physical examples for illustrating geotechnicalbehavior. Elton (2001) has developed a publication guiding instructors in the use of

many such simple learning tools. At the more sophisticated level, some programs use a

small centrifuge to teach students about soil behavior. An NSF-sponsored workshopchaired by Phillips and Goodings (2002) provides a number of useful power point

summaries and two papers (Madabhushi and Take, 2002; and Newsome et al., 2002) on

the use of centrifuges in geotechnical engineering education.

Some faculty have chosen to incorporate project-based learning into their courses, and in

the required geotechnical course(s), the laboratory component is a useful and appropriateopportunity to help students make the connection between field and laboratory work (for

example Evans and Ressler, 2000; Sutterer, 2003). Projects completed by the students

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

3/10

may range from a contrived imaginary project to completing real geotechnical work for

real projects.

In summary, the state of the practice is that most programs expect a minimum level of

education of laboratory and possibly field methods to occur, but that the education is

administered in many different ways. The scope of the education can vary significantlyfrom one program to another, depending on the type of learning that is prioritized.

CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS

There are a number of obvious needs with respect to undergraduate laboratory/fieldlearning. These include guidance on identifying a minimally acceptable scope for

laboratory/field learning, insights for planning an appropriate scope, merits and

challenges in the use of virtual laboratories, comparison of automated equipment with

traditional manual devices, and assistance with organizing and planning laboratory/fieldlearning for the highest possible efficiency. The following pages deal with some of these

issues to hopefully assist faculty planning undergraduate geotechnical learning in alaboratory/field setting. The following section on setting goals includes identification offactors that will impact the learning that is facilitated.

Setting Goals

A good start to planning a learning experience is to begin with the end in mind. In

particular, faculty should first set goals for what they wish to achieve. In setting goals,

faculty should consider at least the following, bearing in mind that no more than three tofour broad goals is appropriate for planning this type of learning.

Student Learning. The primary consideration in course design should bestudent learning. However, setting priorities in identifying what the scope oflearning should be is important. Following are some ways that student

learning should be considered in laboratory planning.

o Laboratory learning can assist students in comprehension of soil behavioras taught in the course. This occurs through hands-on learning,

observation that soil mechanics theory really is consistent with actual

behavior, and through the use of demonstration laboratory activities.

o The normal population distribution among subdisciplines of civil

engineering indicates the majority of students taking the required

undergraduate geotechnical courses will not become geotechnicalengineers. However, these students are likely to become civil engineers

who will need to understand basic geotechnical tests for project QA/QC,

for interpreting the accuracy of information contained in geotechnical

reports, for recognizing field conditions that are inconsistent withgeotechnical reports, and for interpreting geotechnical recommendations

needed for their own designs.

o In their laboratory work, students may acquire skills that could besignificant in their acquisition of a summer internship or co-op position. If

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

4/10

a summer internship or co-op is a highly valued or required component of

student learning, this should be considered in design of laboratorylearning.

o Although the majority of students taking required geotechnical courses

will not become geotechnical engineers, a larger portion of undergraduates

taking elective geotechnical courses will become geotechnical engineers,and even in the required geotechnical course(s), preparation for

geotechnical graduate study is under way for some of the students.

Program Needs. Program needs include subdiscipline, departmental, andinstitutional needs. In addition to addressing student learning, planning of the

laboratory must account for departmental needs without sacrificing basiclearning. Following are three potential needs that may need to be addressed in

planning.

o The Civil Engineering Program Criteria provided by the AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Technology (ABET) requires that Civil

Engineering curricula include the ability to conduct laboratoryexperiments and to critically analyze and interpret data in more than one

of the recognized major civil engineering areas (ABET, 2003). Facultymust check to see if their department is relying on their laboratory course

to help meet this need before making major changes.

o Some geotechnical groups consider a required undergraduate geotechnicalcourse a first and perhaps only opportunity to interest students at their

school in graduate geotechnical work. Administration of the required

laboratory component could be an important consideration for attractingstudents.

o Some institutes have other colleges, departments, or programs that may

depend on the soil mechanics laboratory and/or course for their owncurricula.

Limitations. Despite the desired student learning and inherent program needs,there are limitations to what can actually be achieved in the undergraduategeotechnical laboratory. A few common limitations are summarized below.

o Students, faculty, graduate assistants, and technician staff have only a

limited amount of time that can be committed to this one part of the

learning process. Time limitations must include setup/planning, thescheduled in-laboratory time, activity cleanup/storage, and grading. Those

who are planning the learning must consider all fourtypes of participants

and all foursteps in the learning process.o Facilities are limited by space, equipment availability, and cost. All three

define boundary limitations to the laboratory.

o Distance education course work is becoming more common. A significantlimitation is the need to conduct a laboratory/field methods experience in a

distance education format.

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

5/10

Example Goals

To illustrate the several examples of the state of the practice in laboratory programs, and

to provide a basis for comparison of different techniques and tools, a simple set of goals

for three different laboratory programs are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Goals for three different laboratory programs in an introductory

geotechnical engineering course

Program A Program B Program C

Goal 1

Provide basic

geotechnical laboratory

knowledge to helpstudents understand

materials covered in the

course.

Provide basic

geotechnical laboratory

knowledge to helpstudents understand

materials covered in the

course.

Provide basic

geotechnical laboratory

knowledge to helpstudents understand

materials covered in the

course.

Goal 2To foster learning inpreparation for graduate

study in geotechnical

engineering.

Satisfaction of basic

ABET guidelines for alaboratory exercise in amajor recognized civil

engineering area.

To prepare students for

civil engineeringpractice using essential

geotechnical knowledge

as non-geotechnicalengineers.

Goal 3

To introduce advancedgeotechnical laboratory

and field methods and

inspire students toconsider a career in

geotechnical

engineering.

Efficient learning,

optimizing time spent

by faculty, staff andstudents in the learning

process.

To facilitate a real

geotechnicalinvestigation for a

proposed structure in

concert with the project-based course learning.

These goals were not obtained from any specific program, nor are they typical of anyspecific type of school, but are merely presented to illustrate the range of goals that may

be identified and to assist in further discussion of where different learning tools and

laboratory learning scopes may fit. Note that all three programs have the same first goal.This is a fundamental goal that should be present in any civil engineering curricula that

features a required geotechnical course.

After identifying broad goals for laboratory/field methods learning, faculty should chooseto specify a number of outcomes for each goal. The details of setting up outcomes,

learning criteria, and assessment is beyond the scope of this paper, but faculty areencouraged to follow a methodical process to assure quality learning while meetingprogram needs within the learning environment limitations.

Minimum Body of Knowledge

The minimum body of geotechnical lab knowledge for undergraduate civil engineering

students is probably best reflected by the previously listed laboratory methods:

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

6/10

Water contentSpecific gravity

Grain size distribution

Atterberg limits

Moisture-unit weight relations

Field unit weight measurementPermeability

Direct shear

Unconfined compression

One-dimensional consolidation

However, there are other techniques that should probably be a part of laboratory- or field-related geotechnical knowledge. These include:

Soil classificationStandard penetration test

Cone penetration testing

Swell testingTriaxial testing

All of these may already be covered in a course in the lecture portion, but are stillworth noting as a consideration for hands-on learning in the laboratory and field work

lessons. The ASCE Body of Knowledge (ASCE, 2004) defines the levels ofcompetence as Level 1 Recognition, Level 2 Understanding, and Level 3 Ability. When designing the laboratory learning activities, lower level learning may

be judged sufficient in some of the above topic areas.

It should be noted that the actual scope and depth of knowledge in the different test

methods may be a function of local practice, though local practice should not be the

ultimate indicator of work scope. Local practice may not reflect regional or national

practice, and since many students will obtain positions in other parts of the country orworld, it would be inappropriate to focus locally only. However, faculty could

identify and then survey the geotechnical practitioners where their graduates are

commonly employed using a survey like Figure 1, but the faculty should alsoconsider the call to continually elevate the standard of practice, as urged by Osterberg

(2004) and others.

Figure 1. Potential form for survey of practitioner opinions on geotechnical BOK

Baccalaureate graduates from civil engineering programs should probably exhibit some basic Body of

Knowledge of geotechnical test methods. Depending on the test method, their depth of knowledge

may vary from a low level (Recognition), to a medium level (Understanding) to a high level (Ability).

For each test below, X in the appropriate boxes to rate the importance of the method in the

undergraduate body of knowledge for civil engineers and also the level to which students should

acquire that knowledge.

Importance to being in the CE Bodyof Knowledge (leave blank if not

important)

Level of Competency the Students shouldAcquire (leave blank if other category blank)

Test Method Low Medium High Recognition Understanding Ability

Test 1

Test 2

Etc.

Program A planners would certainly pursue student use of the more sophisticated

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

7/10

tests, Program B planners would likely not do so, though they may conduct some

laboratory demonstrations to familiarize students with the equipment. Program Cfacilitators would probably focus on tests needed to complete the students project

and rely on non-laboratory activities to provide at least recognition level competence

with the more sophisticated tests.

Understanding of Concepts or Developing Lab Skills?

When planning an undergraduate field or laboratory experience, faculty will wrestle

with whether the goal should be to train students in the details of proper test

completion, or to simply use the time to help the students learn concepts andunderstand theory. Some faculty would suggest that proper management of staff who

will be conducting tests requires that the engineer themselves be an expert in the

testing. They would also argue that providing practical laboratory skills to the

students helps them to acquire summer internships. The faculty would thus focus ondeveloping laboratory skills, hopefully creating expert and insightful technicians in

the different laboratory methods.

Issues with Tools

Some of the issues associated with the tools used to facilitate learning are addressedbelow. When choosing tools to use in the learning process, faculty are encouraged to

at first choose tools they are most familiar with, if possible, and then continue to learn

new processes and methodologies as the program evolves.

Some faculty would argue that geotechnical engineering laboratory classes should be

used to teach concepts of soil behavior, noting however, that concepts and test

method skills are intricately linked. The students must learn which test to perform todetermine the desired soil property. For example, they would understand you cannot

perform a consolidation test to determine the optimum moisture content and

maximum dry density of a soil. However, as part of learning the concepts, studentswould be expected to retain some knowledge of test method skills. Those faculty

would claim that if students are trained and tested for test method skills only, we are

just producing technicians, and technicians, while being a valuable asset to the

geotechnical engineering community, are not educated in a university system.

In Table 1, Program A faculty would likely focus on a blend of skills and concepts.

Program B faculty would probably choose the path most suited to the laboratorymanual they have selected, and would make this a consideration in their manual

selection. Program C faculty would have to focus on correct testing skills since the

students would be collecting data for use in a real project. Program C faculty wouldhave to find time or other means for dealing with concepts and demonstration

laboratories.

Choosing a Lab Manual. There are a number of good quality geotechnical laboratory

testing manuals available for student and faculty use. The manuals are usually a

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

8/10

simplification of the ASTM or other standard. For undergraduate laboratory classes,

many faculty believe this type of laboratory manual is the best option. A goodmanual is straightforward with easy to follow steps, nice diagrams, photographs, and

example calculations that help the student understand the purpose of the laboratory

exercise and how to calculate the results. One possible disadvantage is if the

equipment being used is dramatically different from that available. To address thislimitation, some faculty prefer to create their own manual or at least methods for the

experiments that do not match the published manual.

Some faculty prefer that students use the actual ASTM, AASHTO, or other laboratory

methods. This prepares students for internships with companies that expect them tobring that skill, and the students are learning not only how to use the test equipment

but also how to use a test standard. Conversely, students usually consider

ASTM/AASHTO standards difficult to follow and understand. The standards do not

include as many photos, examples, and easy to understand guidance. Thus, studentscan easily become frustrated when using these standards.

The choice of manual depends on the goals of the program. Referring to Table 1,Program A might choose to use a laboratory manual designed for intermediate to high

level laboratory testing and supplement the higher level information with use of

ASTM standards and their own manual to cover the basics. Program B wouldprobably select an existing laboratory manual that is highly organized, guides

students efficiently through the testing process, and uses equipment similar to that

available in the existing laboratory. Program C could choose to work specifically with

ASTM or AASHTO standards.

Automated versus Manual Testing. As laboratories are updated, the opportunity to

upgrade to automated testing equipment is common. Students generally likegadgetry, if it is working properly, and automated testing systems can speed

laboratory completion, simplify acquisition of data, and go a long way in easing

presentation of results. Some faculty argue that the purpose of the laboratory exerciseis to interpret data, not collect data. When students perform long laboratory tests

(direct shear, consolidation, triaxial) without data acquisition equipment, so much

effort goes into collecting the data that they have no energy or desire to perform

calculations and interpret results. Student may be missing little if they do not recorddata by hand, while they may in fact gain experience using data acquisition

equipment with automated testing systems. Since data acquisition is a routine part of

many commercial laboratories and field-testing systems, the knowledge gainedshould be beneficial.

On the other hand, traditionalists argue that manually testing and making decisionsabout how to carry a test to completion without benefit of automation is a useful

learning experience. Proponents of the simpler testing equipment argue that

automation is a wonderful addition to commercial and research laboratories but is lessuseful in undergraduate learning about simple tests. Even in the case of sophisticated

testing, students may not appreciate the testing process nor gain skills they need in the

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

9/10

commercial laboratory if they do not first do their testing manually.

Referring again to Table 1, facilitators of Program A might favor automated testing

after assuring students have command of the basics. Program B facilitators may

choose some automated equipment but only if it will save time without significantly

sacrificing learning. Program C facilitators would emphasize the testing processnormally used in geotechnical engineering practice, so there would likely be a

balance between manual and automated equipment.

Virtual labs. Software has been and continues to be developed to permit students to

simulate the testing process in a virtual environment. Some faculty believe virtualtests can be a valuable learning tool. In particular, virtual tests can provide students

with some experience before performing an actual test. In addition, the use of virtual

tests can be a substitute when laboratory equipment, expertise, or time to perform an

actual test is unavailable. Some examples include Budhu (2002) and Sharma andHardcastle (2000).

Beyond simulating a laboratory test in a virtual setting, some faculty argue thatstudents can gain even more from use of a commercial finite element (FE) software to

set up and model the laboratory behavior of soils. This concept has both advantages

and disadvantages. One disadvantage is that students must spend their time to learnhow to use a complicated computer program that may only be used in one or two

courses. Another is that students may be using the FE software and computer as a

black box, and thus may not understand how the program works, its capabilities, and

its limitations. Advantages include that students will be exposed to a computerprogram that is actually used in industry, students will be able to vary many different

soil properties and document their effect on soil behavior, and the computer program

can be used for other assignments and future geotechnical engineering courses.

Faculty in all three program types of Table 1 would be interested in virtual

laboratories, with Program C faculty the least interested and Program B facilitatorsmost intrigued by the opportunity to make learning more efficient.

SUMMARY

In summary, there should be a minimum body of knowledge of geotechnical

laboratory and field-testing for undergraduate civil engineers. To acquire that body

of knowledge, faculty should consider a variety of issues in developing and thenmeeting their goals. It is not an easy matter to identify the goals of the program, as a

number of competing factors play a role. Once goals have been identified, faculty

have a variety of tools available to help them achieve those goals. Which tools areand are not used in working towards the goals will likely depend on faculty

preference and program limitations.

7/29/2019 2005 Lab

10/10

REFERENCES

ABET (2003) Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, ABET Accreditation

Commission, Baltimore, Maryland, 23 pp.

ASCE (2004)Body of Knowledge for the 21st

Century, American Society of Civil

Engineers, 120 pp.Budhu, M. (2002) Computer Applications in Web-Based Geotechnical Engineering

Education, Proc. 2nd

Canadian Special Conference on Computer Applications in

Geotechnique, Winnipeg, 6 pp.

Dennis, N.D., ed. (2000)Educational Issues in Geotechnical Engineering,

Geotechnical Special Publication No. 109, ASCE, 112 pp.Elton, D.J. (2001) Soils Magic, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 114, ASCE, 60

pp.

Evans, M. and Ressler, S. (2000) Integrated Geotechnical Design Process, Proc.

Educational Issues in Geotechnical Engineering, Geo-Denver 2000, NormanDennis, editor, pp. 11-24.

Madabhushi, S.P.G. and Take, W.A. (2002) Use of a mini-drum centrifuge forteaching geotechnical engineering, 1st

International Conference on Physical

Modelling in Geotechnics, St. Johns Newfoundland, Canada, 8 pp.

Newsome, T.A.; Bransby, M.F.; and Kainourgiaki, G. (2002) The use of small

centrifuges for geotechnical education, 1st

International Conference on Physical

Modelling in Geotechnics, St. Johns Newfoundland, Canada, 6 pp.

Osterberg, J. (2004) Geotechnical engineers, wake up - The soil exploration process

needs drastic change, Proc. GeoSupport 2004 Drilled Shafts, Micropiling,

Deep Mixing, Remedial Methods, and Specialty Foundation Systems,

Geotechnical Special Publication n 124, Orlando, FL, pp. 450-459.

Penumadu, D., Zhao, R., and Frost, J.D., (2000), "Virtual Geotechnical Experiments

Using a Laboratory Simulator," International Journal of Numerical and AnalyticalMethods in Geomechanics, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 439-451.

Phillips, R. and Goodings, D. (2002) Workshop on Role of Geotechnical Physical

Modelling in Education, 1st

International Conference on Physical Modelling in

Geotechnics, St. Johns Newfoundland, Canada http://www.c-

core.ca/icpmg/educwkshp.htm (accessed June 28, 2004)

Seidel, J.P. and Kodikara, J.K. (2000) Current Issues in Academia and

Geoengineering Education, Proc. GeoEng 2000, Technomic PublishingCompany, Inc., 10 pp.

Sharma, S., and Hardcastle, J. (2000) Geotechnical Laboratory: A Multimedia

Experience,Educational Issues in Geotechnical Engineering, GeotechnicalSpecial Publication No. 109, ASCE, pp. 48-59.

Steenfelt, J.S. (2000) Teaching for the Millenium-Or for the Students? Proc.

GeoEng 2000, Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., 15 pp.Sutterer, K.G. Service Learning and Forensic Engineering in Soil Mechanics,ASCE

3rd

Forensic Congress, San Diego, October 2003, 10 pp.

http://www.c-core.ca/icpmg/educwkshp.htmhttp://www.c-core.ca/icpmg/educwkshp.htmhttp://www.c-core.ca/icpmg/educwkshp.htmhttp://www.c-core.ca/icpmg/educwkshp.htm