Undergraduate Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Testing:

A Review of Current Practice and Future Needs

Kevin Sutterer, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Nick Hudyma, University of North Florida
Jonathan Wu, University of Colorado-Denver

ABSTRACT

The undergraduate geotechnical laboratory is an opportunity for civil engineering

students 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 between
teaching 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 versus
learning 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, and
quantity 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 for
the 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 level
geotechnical 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.
Design of undergraduate courses encapsulating laboratory and field learning should not
be 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 to
another 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 would
likely be administered to emphasize learning efficiency that minimizes time investment
of all parties involved while maximizing student learning. The suite of laboratory
experiments performed by the students may include, but not be limited to:

Water content Field unit weight measurement

Specific gravity Permeability
Grain size distribution Direct shear
Atterberg limits Unconfined compression
Moisture-unit weight relations 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 introduce
triaxial 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 geotechnical
behavior. 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 workshop
chaired 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 appropriate
opportunity to help students make the connection between field and laboratory work (for
example Evans and Ressler, 2000; Sutterer, 2003). Projects completed by the students
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 significantly
from 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/field

learning. 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/field
learning for the highest possible efficiency. The following pages deal with some of these
issues to hopefully assist faculty planning undergraduate geotechnical learning in a
laboratory/field setting. The following section on setting goals includes identification of
factors 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 to
four broad goals is appropriate for planning this type of learning.

Student Learning. The primary consideration in course design should be

student learning. However, setting priorities in identifying what the scope of
learning 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 behavior
as 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 geotechnical
engineers. 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 with
geotechnical reports, and for interpreting geotechnical recommendations
needed for their own designs.
o In their laboratory work, students may acquire skills that could be
significant in their acquisition of a summer internship or co-op position. If
 a summer internship or co-op is a highly valued or required component of
student learning, this should be considered in design of laboratory
learning.
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, and

institutional needs. In addition to addressing student learning, planning of the
laboratory must account for departmental needs without sacrificing basic
learning. Following are three potential needs that may need to be addressed in
planning.
o The Civil Engineering Program Criteria provided by the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) requires that Civil
Engineering curricula include the ability to conduct laboratory
experiments and to critically analyze and interpret data in more than one
of the recognized major civil engineering areas (ABET, 2003). Faculty
must 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 geotechnical
course 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 attracting
students.
o Some institutes have other colleges, departments, or programs that may
depend on the soil mechanics laboratory and/or course for their own
curricula.

Limitations. Despite the desired student learning and inherent program needs,
there are limitations to what can actually be achieved in the undergraduate
geotechnical 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, the
scheduled in-laboratory time, activity cleanup/storage, and grading. Those
who are planning the learning must consider all four types of participants
and all four steps 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 significant
limitation is the need to conduct a laboratory/field methods experience in a
distance education format.
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
Provide basic Provide basic Provide basic
geotechnical laboratory geotechnical laboratory geotechnical laboratory
knowledge to help knowledge to help knowledge to help
Goal 1
students understand students understand students understand
materials covered in the materials covered in the materials covered in the
course. course. course.
To prepare students for
Satisfaction of basic
To foster learning in civil engineering
ABET guidelines for a
preparation for graduate practice using essential
Goal 2 laboratory exercise in a
study in geotechnical geotechnical knowledge
major recognized civil
engineering. as non-geotechnical
engineering area.
engineers.
To introduce advanced
To facilitate a real
geotechnical laboratory Efficient learning,
geotechnical
and field methods and optimizing time spent
investigation for a
Goal 3 inspire students to by faculty, staff and
proposed structure in
consider a career in students in the learning
concert with the project-
geotechnical process.
based course learning.
engineering.

These goals were not obtained from any specific program, nor are they typical of any
specific 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 choose
to 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 are
encouraged to follow a methodical process to assure quality learning while meeting
program 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:
 Water content Field unit weight measurement
Specific gravity Permeability
Grain size distribution Direct shear
Atterberg limits Unconfined compression
Moisture-unit weight relations One-dimensional consolidation

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

Soil classification Swell testing

Standard penetration test Triaxial testing
Cone penetration testing

All of these may already be covered in a course in the lecture portion, but are still
worth 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 of
competence 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 or
world, 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 also
consider 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 Body Level of Competency the Students should

of Knowledge (leave blank if not Acquire (leave blank if other category blank)
important)
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
tests, Program B planners would likely not do so, though they may conduct some
laboratory demonstrations to familiarize students with the equipment. Program C
facilitators 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 and
understand 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 on
developing 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 addressed
below. 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 to
determine 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, students
would 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 laboratory
manual 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 would
have 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
simplification of the ASTM or other standard. For undergraduate laboratory classes,
many faculty believe this type of laboratory manual is the best option. A good
manual 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 this
limitation, 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 to
bring 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, students
can 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 would
probably 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 like
gadgetry, 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 exercise
is 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 record
data 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 gained
should be beneficial.

On the other hand, traditionalists argue that manually testing and making decisions
about 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 less
useful 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
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 process
normally 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 virtual
tests 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 and
Hardcastle (2000).

Beyond simulating a laboratory test in a virtual setting, some faculty argue that
students 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 learn
how 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 computer
program 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 facilitators
most 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 then
meeting 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 are
and are not used in working towards the goals will likely depend on faculty
preference and program limitations.
 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, Norman
Dennis, editor, pp. 11-24.
Madabhushi, S.P.G. and Take, W.A. (2002) Use of a mini-drum centrifuge for
teaching 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 Analytical
Methods 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 Publishing
Company, Inc., 10 pp.
Sharma, S., and Hardcastle, J. (2000) Geotechnical Laboratory: A Multimedia
Experience, Educational Issues in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical
Special 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.