International Journal of CivilJOURNAL OF CIVIL (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 AND INTERNATIONAL Engineering and Technology ENGINEERING 6308 (Print),

, ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME

TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), pp. 392-403 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.1861 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
IAEME

COMPOSITIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ROLE ON COMPRESSION INDEX

Ch. Sudha Rani1, K Mallikarjuna Rao 2 1 (Associate Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India-517502. E-mail: sudhajawahar@gmail.com) 2 (Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India-517502, E-mail: kmr_svuce@yahoo.com)

ABSTRACT Empirical correlations developed by several investigators for prediction of Compression Index either in terms of Liquid Limit/Plasticity Index, represent composition and Dry Density/initial Moisture Content/ initial Void Ratio reflect the state/environment of the soil. In this investigation an attempt has been made to find the influence of each of the compositional and environmental factors on Compression Index through experimental investigations. Fifteen regression models were developed after carrying out linear regression analyses for prediction of Compression Index (Cc) in terms of the environmental factors alone, compositional factors alone and combined environmental and compositional factors. The degree of influence of each of the variables on the dependant variable was found by estimating partial correlation coefficient. Plasticity Index (IP), Initial Dry Density (d), Initial Moisture Content (mc) and Liquid limit (wL) were found to have influence on Compression Index (Cc) in that order. Comparison of predicted and observed Compression Index of seventy soils collected from literature indicate that the models developed using all the four influencing parameters or atleast one compositional factor but both the environmental factors have more general applicability than other models. KEY WORDS: Consolidation, Compression Index, Regression coefficient, Compositional factors, Environmental factors, Partial correlation coefficient. 1. INTRODUCTION Compression Index is widely used in Geotechnical Engineering practice for evaluation of settlement of structures resting on clayey soils. Compressibility of soils is represented by Compression Index (Cc), the slope of virgin part of the compression curve
392

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME obtained from One-Dimensional Consolidation test on undisturbed samples. However, collection of undisturbed samples and conduct of consolidation test involves considerable time and money apart from the services of the domain experts and trained technicians. Hence several attempts have been made in the past to develop simple correlations for prediction of Compression Index using properties which can be easily determined. Ever since Casagrande found that the Atterberg limits provide more reliable indication of engineering properties, several investigators developed correlations for prediction of Compression Index in terms of Liquid Limit (Skempton 1944, Terzaghi&Peck 1967, and Bowles 1979), Plasticity Index (Jian-Hua Yin 1999, AmithNath and DeDalal 2004) or Shrinkage Index (Sridharan and Nagraj 2001) based on tests conducted on a limited number of soils pertaining to certain region. Another group of investigators expressed Compression Index in terms of in-situ Void Ratio (Nishida 1956, Hough 1957, and Bowles 1979) or in-situ Moisture Content (Bowles 1979, and Koppula 1981) or in-situ Dry Density (Oswald 1980) presuming that the compressibility is mainly a function of state of soil. However, the engineering properties of soils are now said to be dependent on the composite effect of compositional and environmental factors (Mitchel, 1993). None of the currently used correlations or models account for both compositional and environmental factors in their development. Conventionally, Atterberg limits or indices derived from it are used as indicators of soil composition as direct determination of mineralogical composition is both difficult and not routinely carried out in any soil investigation. Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index are known to reflect compositional factors while in-situ Dry Density and natural Moisture Content are the important environmental factors that influence the engineering properties significantly. The objective of this investigation is to assess the degree of association between Compression Index and each of the influencing parameters namely Liquid limit (wL),Plasticity Index (IP), Initial Dry Density (d) and Initial Moisture Content (mc) and to develop a model accounting for all the influencing parameters. Such a model is expected to have a more general applicability. 2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION Undisturbed and Representative but disturbed clayey soil samples from different parts of India are collected from open trial pits at depths ranging from 2.0m to 2.5m depths after thorough saturation. Undisturbed samples are obtained using 100mm diameter thin walled sampling tubes essentially satisfying the specifications laid in IS: 2132, 1986. One Dimensional Consolidation tests and identification and classification tests are conducted on all these 15 samples as per the specifications given in special publication (SP 36 Part I, 1987) published by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The loading sequence followed in consolidation test is 5, 10,20,40,80,160, and 320 kPa, the load increment ratio being one and nominal surcharge being 5 kPa. Each load is sustained for at least 24 hours before applying next load increment. The index properties of soils used, placement conditions and compression Index of all soils tested are presented in Table 1. From Table 1 it can be observed that for the soil samples tested, the Liquid Limit is ranging from 30% to 140%, Dry Density is varying from 14kN/m3 to 21kN/m3, Moisture Content is ranging from 10% to 32% and Plasticity Index is ranging from 15% to 105%. The range of each of the parameters considered is so wide that it covers practically most of the soils that are likely to be encountered in general practice. The fifteen soils used in the series of tests were designated as CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CS6, CS7, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11, CS12, CS13, CS14 and CS15 for convenience.
393

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME Table 1. Results of the Tested Soils
Atterberg Limits S.No Soil Designation ) Placement Conditions InwL(% (%) wP (%) m
3

IP

situ d kN/

In -situ mc (%)

Compressi on Index (Cc )

1.

CS1

63.00

22.0 0

41.0 0

20.80

10.5 0

0.290

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1

C C C C C C C C C CS11 C C C CS15

8 6 5 7 3 3 1 9 1 5 6 4 5 5

3 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 3

4 4 1 3 1 1 9 7 1 2 3 3 2 2

1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Typical e-log p plots obtained from One-Dimensional Consolidation tests are shown in Fig 1. The initial portion of these plots is observed to be fairly flat upto a stress of about 50 kPa. This is owing to the fact that the soil samples are collected at depths ranging from 2.0m to 2.5m, the insitu overburden pressure being about 50 kPa. Compression Index values denoted by Cc are obtained by taking the slope of the virgin portion of e-log p plots (slope of the average straight line beyond 50 kPa) of all the soils tested and are summarized in Table 1. The Compression Index of the soils is ranging from as low as 0.10 to as high as 0.50. The Compression Index of the soils may be expressed as given below in terms of compositional factors (liquid limit, plasticity index) and environmental factors (dry density and moisture content): Cc = f ((wL, mc, d, IP)) (1)

The Compression Index may also bear relationship with any one or combination of the above said four parameters provided there is some interaction amongst the parameters themselves. However, such interactions may or may not be unique for all soils. Consequently
394

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME
all the correlations may or may not be valid for all the soils in general. Hence, linear regression analyses were carried out to develop correlations for prediction of Compression Index (Cc) in terms of each of the compositional factors namely, wL and IP and the environmental factors namely, mc and d. Further, multiple linear regression analyses were carried out to correlate Cc with all possible combinations of environmental factors alone, compositional factors alone and combined environmental and compositional factors. The details of multiple linear regression analysis correlating dependent variable with more than one independent variable may be found in Applied Statistics for Engineers by Montgomery and Runger (1999) or in any standard text book on Applied Statistics. . Statistical software like SPSS or Data Analysis tool Pack of Microsoft excel supports a function or subroutine for carrying out multiple linear regression analysis. Data Analysis tool pack of Microsoft excel is used In this investigation .The regression models so developed along with correlation coefficients are presented in Table 2. These correlations are designated as E1 to E15 for convenience. Regression models E1, E2, and E3 consider only compositional factors whereas the models E4, E5, and E6 accounts for only environmental factors in the development of models. Rest of the models from E7 to E15 considers all the possible combinations of both compositional and environmental factors. The correlation coefficient (R2) values of models E1, E2, and E3 indicate that Cc has very good correlation with any of the compositional factors wL or IP and also with the combination of wL and IP. The three models namely E4, E5, and E6 which are developed considering the environmental factors alone are found to yield very low correlation coefficient. Regression model E4 relates Cc with environmental factor mc and the correlation coefficient R2 is 0.11 and model E5 relates Cc with environmental factor d and the R2 = 0 .125 whereas model E6 relates Cc with combination of these two environmental factors namely mc and d and the R2 value is 0.136. Hence, it may be concluded that the correlations involving environmental factors alone (models E4, E5, and E6) are not satisfactory. All the models E7 to E15 which relate Cc with all possible combination of environmental and compositional factors are observed to yield good correlation coefficients. In other words, when the environmental factors are combined with any one of the compositional factors namely wL and IP there is a considerable improvement in the correlation coefficient. In fact the standard deviation of residuals is lowest for two models E11 and E15 which involve both the environmental factors apart from compositional factors. Further, correlations involving compositional factors alone (models E1, E2, and E3) are also good. This clearly brings out that even though the compositional factors play dominant role in determining the compressibility of clayey soils, inclusion of environmental factors improve the model efficiency and possibly the general applicability too which needs to be ascertained by comparing with others data.
1.5

CS12 CS11 CS9

Void Ratio

1.25

0.75 1 10 100 1000 Pressure(kPa)

Fig. 1 Typical e-log p plots

395

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME 4. DEGREE OF INFLUENCE OF COMPOSITIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON COMPRESSION INDEX From Table 2, it can be observed that the correlation coefficient is good for all models except for the models relating Cc with environmental factors (mc or d or mc & d) alone (i.e. models E4,E5, & E6). The fact that compression index bears good correlation with any of the compositional factors (models E1, E2, and E3) and any combination of compositional and environmental factors (models E7 to E15) indicate that there is some interaction among the factors themselves. However, such interactions may or may not be unique for all soils. The model which accounts for all the influencing parameters is expected to have a more general applicability. Hence there is a need to identify the degree of association between compression index and each of the compositional and environmental factors in order to arrive at the best amongst the remaining 13 models from the view point of general applicability. Regression model E15 correlates dependent variable Cc with all the independent variables namely, wL, mc, d and IP. Multiple correlation coefficient (R2) of this regression model is 0.991 which is highest among all the fifteen models developed. The regression coefficients of wL, mc, d and IP are 0.0027, 0.007, 0.031, and 0.002 respectively. The regression coefficient is highest for d followed by mc, wL, and IP in that order. The degree of influence of each of the independent variables (wL, mc, d, and IP) on dependant variable Cc cannot be estimated based on either regression coefficients or multiple correlation coefficients alone (Yevjevich 1972). In other words, neither the multiple correlation coefficients nor the regression coefficients are a measure of association between dependant and independent variables. However, the degree of influence of each of the variables on the dependant variable can be found statistically by estimating partial correlation coefficient ( r1i ). The partial correlation coefficients measure the association of each independent variable with the dependent one, after the influence of certain related variables has been accounted for (Chandra Sekhar et.al. 2005, Yevjevich 1972). The influence of the parameters considered are found out by keeping aside only one of these parameters at a time and finding the multiple correlation coefficient, thereby partial correlation coefficient. Estimation of partial correlation coefficient ( r1i ) involves the determination of: (a) The multiple correlation coefficient R12 between dependant variable Cc and all the independent variables wL, mc, d and IP. Multiple correlation coefficients R 12 i between dependant variable Cc and all the independent variables except the chosen independent variable xi (choosing one among wL, mc, d and IP at a time for xi) whose association with the dependant variable is to be assessed. The variable xi is referred as influencing parameter. The partial correlation coefficient r1-i is determined by
r1i = (1 ((1 R12 ) / (1 R12i )))

(2)

The partial correlation coefficients estimated using the above equation choosing wL, mc, d and IP as influencing parameters in that order are given in Table 3. The partial correlation coefficients are 0.809, 0.554, 0.725 and 0.632, respectively. Since all the partial correlation coefficients are significant, it may be concluded that all the four parameters have significant influence on compression index. It is also supported by the fact that the standard deviation of residuals is low for all the models. However, the partial correlation coefficient is highest and
396

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME standard deviation of residuals is lowest when IP is chosen as the influencing parameter. In other words, the IP may be expected to have highest influence on Compression Index. The observation made by Sridharan and Nagraj (2001) indicates that soils having same wL but different IP have different Cc values, serves as an evidence for this. Further, it may be observed that environmental factors mc, and d have more association with Cc than wL indicated by the partial correlation coefficients. Hence the models E11, E12 and E15 are expected to have more general applicability than other models as they account for either all or most of the influencing parameters in the development of these models. Table 2. Regression Models Developed for Prediction of Compression Index
Model S.No. No. Parameters Used Multiple Correlation Coefficient (R2) 0.934 0.959 0.968 Standard Deviation of Residuals 0.54 1.14 0.54 Regression Model

Compositional Factors alone 1. 2. 3. E1 E2 E3 wL IP wL, IP (0.046+ (0.003* wL)) (0.130+(0.0347* IP)) (0.090 + (0.001* wL) + (0.002* IP))

Environmental Factors alone 4. 5. 6. E4 E5 E6 mc d mc, d 0.11 0.125 0.136 0.42 0.66 1.14 (0.168+(.0048* mc)) (0.556- (0.016* d) (1.250 - (0.009* mc) - (0.045* d))

Combined Compositional and Environmental Factors 5. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 wL, mc wL, d mc, IP d, IP wL, mc, d mc, d, IP 0.945 0.951 0.971 0.973 0.968 0.974 0.63 0.55 0.65 0.74 0.17 0.42 (0.070 + (0.003* wL) (0.002* mc)) (-0.087 + (0.003* wL) + (0.007* d))) (0.160 - (0.002* mc) + (0.004* IP)) (0.014+ (0.006* d)+ (0.0001* IP)) (-1.020 + (0.003* wL) + (0.012* mc) + (0.040* d)) (-0.200 + (0.003* mc) + (0.010* d) + (0.003* IP)) (1.270 - (0.001* wL) (0.002* IP)) (0.002* mc) +

13.

E13

wL, mc, IP

0.981

0.79

14.

E14

wL, d, IP

0.985

0.79

(-0.038 + (0.001* wL) + (0.007* d) (0.002* IP))

15.

E15

wL, mc, d, IP

0.991

0.19

(-0.629 + (0.0027* wL) + (0.007* mc) + (0.031* d ) + (0.002* IP))

397

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME Table 3. Partial Correlation Coefficients for Different Influencing Parameters Influenci ng Paramete r IP wL d mc

Model No.

Multiple Correlation coefficient

Partial correlation coefficient

Std Deviation of Residuals

E15 E11 E12 E13 E14

0.991 0.968 0.974 0.981 0.985

0.809 0.554 0.725 0.632

0.190 0.174 0.417 0.791 0.790

5. VERFICATION WITH THE REPORTED DATA The statistical analysis of the test results presented in this investigation reveal that the Compression Index is significantly influenced by the parameters IP, d, mc, and wL in that order. Hence regression models E15, E11 and E12 are expected to have more general applicability than the other models. In order to verify the same the test data reported by Oswald (1980) is used. Oswald (1980) reported about 100 soils consolidation test data, obtained from United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) records covering the offices throughout the Continental United States. Amongst them only seventy one soils test data were used for verification purpose, as either liquid limit or in-situ void ratio was not reported for remaining soils. The details of these seventy one soils test data are summarized in Table 4. The compression index of all the seventy one soils test data is predicted using the regression models E1 to E3 and E7 to E15. The observed Cc values are plotted against Cc values for all twelve models and the typical plots are shown in Figs 2 to 5. The solid line in the plots is the line of equality. Careful observation of these plots indicate that the predictability of 3 models namely E11, E12 and M15 appear to be fair to good since most of the points are falling close to the line of equality. All other models are found to either under predicting or over predicting the Compression Index. This indicates that environmental factors mc, and d have more association with Cc and the models E11, E12, and E15 which involve both the environmental factors apart from compositional factors have more general applicability.

398

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME Table 4. Data Base Used for Verifying the Compression Index Models Developed S.No . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WP % 31.00 26.00 23.00 28.00 30.00 27.00 28.00 24.00 27.00 31.00 22.00 25.00 24.00 37.00 25.00 22.00 23.00 22.00 28.00 27.00 24.00 27.00 22.00 24.00 17.00 15.00 25.00 20.00 20.00 18.00 17.00 19.00 19.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 WL % 87.00 51.00 92.00 55.00 65.00 60.00 81.00 55.00 83.00 84.00 67.00 64.00 57.00 92.00 80.00 54.00 85.00 53.00 52.00 91.00 77.00 60.00 58.00 69.00 38.00 40.00 45.00 47.00 45.00 35.00 38.00 45.00 45.00 47.00 42.00 39.00 mc % 32.70 26.80 45.60 30.30 28.70 41.70 44.00 37.30 48.30 45.60 35.20 34.70 40.00 30.90 26.90 21.60 38.70 26.10 51.80 39.70 39.30 44.30 28.50 45.60 21.00 23.20 17.60 31.00 40.50 26.10 22.70 34.40 34.40 26.40 22.20 25.50 d kN/m3 13.86 14.80 11.93 14.32 14.27 12.54 12.34 13.33 11.82 11.91 13.94 13.85 12.76 13.96 14.57 16.63 13.12 15.45 11.00 12.27 12.91 11.89 14.79 11.32 16.77 16.09 17.40 14.27 12.86 15.96 16.61 14.03 13.72 15.58 16.70 15.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IP 56.0 25.0 69.0 27.0 35.0 33.0 53.0 31.0 56.0 53.0 45.0 39.0 33.0 55.0 55.0 32.0 62.0 31.0 24.0 64.0 53.0 33.0 36.0 45.0 21.0 25.0 20.0 27.0 25.0 17.0 21.0 26.0 26.0 29.0 24.0 21.0 Cc 0.13 0.31 0.39 0.14 0.09 0.34 0.37 0.21 0.38 0.45 0.26 0.34 0.29 0.27 0.22 0.09 0.18 0.20 0.46 0.44 0.30 0.22 0.17 0.36 0.14 0.18 0.08 0.27 0.26 0.07 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.11 0.10

399

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME

S.No. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

WP % 17.00 16.00 22.00 18.00 16.00 22.00 23.00 23.00 20.00 22.00 20.00 22.00 21.00 21.00 14.00 16.00 14.00 18.00 18.00 12.00 18.00 20.00 18.00 45.00 43.00 45.00 45.00 38.00 46.00 70.00 44.00 43.00 69.00 42.00 16.00

WL % 38.00 48.00 45.00 46.00 40.00 37.00 36.00 36.00 37.00 41.00 39.00 43.00 39.00 35.00 33.00 33.00 27.00 34.00 34.00 24.00 32.00 30.00 27.00 112.00 120.00 122.00 130.00 96.00 104.00 164.00 124.00 109.00 166.00 121.00 29.00

mc % 22.70 24.60 20.30 32.00 25.20 13.50 12.40 14.60 17.50 19.30 21.80 22.20 19.20 16.80 19.20 16.90 20.70 20.80 21.20 20.70 26.50 20.00 13.60 88.10 101.0 108.5 111.5 65.80 93.60 132.7 101.4 103.9 129.3 109.4 13.40

d kN/m3

IP 21.0 32.0 23.0 28.0 24.0 15.0 13.0 13.0 17.0 19.0 19.0 21.0 18.0 14.0 19.0 17.0 13.0 16.0 16.0 12.0 14.0 10.0 9.00 67.0 77.0 77.0 85.0 58.0 58.0 94.0 80.0 66.0 97.0 79.0 13.0

Cc 0.12 0.22 0.12 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.18 0.17 0.25 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.08 0.11 0.87 1.07 0.90 1.00 0.50 0.99 1.43 1.02 0.82 1.42 1.13 0.14

16.63 15.77 16.71 14.32 16.06 19.17 18.57 18.73 18.28 17.79 16.60 16.94 17.13 17.91 15.40 16.57 16.09 15.61 15.61 16.14 14.90 15.21 17.10 7.34 6.69 6.85 6.40 9.35 7.29 5.49 7.09 6.90 5.70 6.51 17.46

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

400

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME
2.00

2.00

(Cc)predicted

1.50

1.00

(Cc)Predicted
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.50

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

(C bserved c)O
Fig 2 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model E11)

(C bserved c)O
Fig 3 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model E12)

2.00

2.00
1.50

(C c )P r ed ic te d

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 (Cc)Observed 2.00

(Cc)Predicted

1.00

0.50

0.00 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

(C bserved c)O

Fig 4 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model E13)

Fig 5 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model E15)

401

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on One-Dimensional Consolidation tests on fifteen different soils, fifteen regression models were developed relating Compression Index with each of the compositional factors (Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index) and environmental factors (Dry Density and Initial Moisture Content) alone as well as with all the possible combinations of these parameters. Compression Index is found to bear good correlation with any of the compositional factors and any combination of compositional and environmental factors. The degree of association between compression index and each of the compositional and environmental factors is assessed statistically by evaluating the partial correlation coefficients. Statistical evaluation revealed that all the four parameters namely Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index among the compositional factors and Dry Density and Initial Moisture Content among the environmental factors are found to have significant influence on prediction of Compression Index. Hence the model developed using all the four influencing parameters is expected to have more general applicability than any other model which is confirmed by verification with the others data . The models developed using atleast one compositional factor and both the environmental factors were also found to be fair to good. 7. REFERENCES Journal Papers 1. AMITHNATH and DEDALAL, S.S. (2004). The role of plasticity index in predicting Compression Index behaviour of clays. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, http://www. ejge.com/2004/Per0466/Ppr0466.htm 2. CHANDRASEKHAR, M., MALLIKARJUNA, P. and PRADIPKUMAR, G.N. (2005). Empirical modeling and correlation analysis of evapotranspiration: A case study. ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 1-17. 3. JIAN- HUA YIN (1999). Properties and Behaviour of Hong Kong Marine Deposits with Different Clay Contents. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 36, pp. 1085 1095. 4. KOPPULA, S. D. (1981). Statistical Estimation of Compression Index. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 4, No.2, pp 68 -73. 5. NISHIDA, Y. (1956). A Brief Note on the Compression Index of Soil. Journal of Soil Mechanics and. Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 82, No.3, pp1-14. 6. OSWALD, R. H. (1980). Universal Compression Index Equation. Journal of Geotechnical. Engineering Division: American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 106, pp.1179-1200. 7. SKEMPTON, A. W. (1944). Notes on the Compressibility of Clays. Quarterly Journal of Geotechnical Society. London, Vol 100, pp.119-135. 8. SRIDHARAN, A. and NAGARAJ, H.B. (2001). Compressibility behaviour of remoulded fine-grained soils and correlation with index properties. Canadian Geotechnical Engineering Journal, No. 38, pp. 1139-1154. 9. N.Ganesan, Bharati Raj, A.P.Shashikala and Nandini S.Nair, Effect Of Steel Fibres On The Strength And Behaviour Of Self Compacting Rubberised Concrete International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume3, Issue2, 2012, pp. 94 - 107, Published by IAEME
402

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December (2012), IAEME 10. S.R.Debbarma and S.Saha, An Experimental Study On Growth Of Time-Dependent Strain In Shape Memory Alloy Reinforced Concrete Beams And Slabs International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume3, Issue2, 2012, pp. 108 - 122, Published by IAEME 11. Sadam Hade Hussein, Kamal Nasharuddin Bin Mustapha, Zakaria Che Muda, Salmia Budde, Modeling Of Ultimate Load For Lightweight Palm Oil Clinker Reinforced Concrete Beams With Web Openings Using Response Surface Methodology International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume3, Issue1, 2012, pp. 33-44, Published by IAEME 12. Sadam H. Hussein, Kamal Nasharuddin Bin Mustapha, and Zakaria Che Muda, Modeling Of First Crack For Lightweight Palm Oil Clinker Reinforced Concrete Beams With Web Openings By Response Surface Methodology International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume2, Issue2, 2011, pp. 13 - 24, Published by IAEME 13. A.S Jeyabharathy, Dr.S.Robert Ravi, and Dr.G.Prince Arulraj Finite Element Modeling Of Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joints Retrofitted With Gfrp Wrapping International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume2, Issue1, 2011, pp. 35-39, Published by IAEME Books: 14. BOWLES, J. W. (1979). Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soils. New York: McGraw Hill. 15. HOUGH, B. K. (1957). Basic Soil Engineering. New York: Ronald. 16. IS: 2132 (1986) (Reaffirmed 1997). Code of Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. 17. SP: 36(Part I) (1987)). Compendium of Indian Standards on Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. 18. MITCHELL, J.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 19. MONTGOMERY, D.C. and RUNGER, G.C. (1999). Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers. 2nd Edition, pp 483-560, New York: John Wiley and Sons. 20. TERZAGHI, K. and PECK. R. B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 21. YEVJEVICH, V. (1972). Probability and Statistics in Hydrology. Colarado: Water Resources Publications.

403