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 wellreceived 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 Specific gravity Grain size distribution Atterberg limits Moisture-unit weight relations Field unit weight measurement Permeability Direct 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 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 geomaterials. 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 laboratory exercise in a Goal 2 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 by faculty, staff and Goal 3 inspire students to proposed structure in consider a career in students in the learning concert with the projectgeotechnical 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 Specific gravity Grain size distribution Atterberg limits Moisture-unit weight relations

Field unit weight measurement Permeability Direct shear Unconfined compression One-dimensional consolidation

However, there are other techniques that should probably be a part of laboratory- or fieldrelated geotechnical knowledge. These include: Soil classification Standard penetration test Cone penetration testing Swell testing Triaxial 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 of Knowledge (leave blank if not important) Low Medium High Level of Competency the Students should Acquire (leave blank if other category blank) Recognition Understanding Ability

Test Method 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.ccore.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.