Professional Documents
Culture Documents
c LAT OF SOIL
p
Michaef Crter
and
Stephen P Bentley
PENTECH PRESS
Publishers: London
Preface
Stephen P Bentley
Cardiff, Wales
Michael Crter
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contents
1.1 GRADING 1
1.1.1 The influence of grading on soil properties 1
1.1.2 Standard grading divisions and sieve sizes 3
1.2 PLASTICITY 3
1.2.1 Consistency Limits 6
1.2.2 Development of the liquid and plstic limit tests 7
1.2.3 The shrinkage limit test 8
1.2.4 Consistency limits as indicators of soil behaviour 10
1.2.5 Limitations on the use of consistency limits 12
CHAPTER 3 DENSITY 39
CHAPTER 4 PERMEABILITY 50
References 122
Index 128
Chapter 1
GRADING AND PLASTICITY
The concepta of grading and plasticity, and the use of these properties
to identify, classify and assess soils, are the oldest and most
fundamental in soil mechanics. Their use, in fact, pre-dates the
concept of soil mechanics itself: the basic ideas were borrowed from
pedologists and soil scientists by the frst soil engineers as a basis for
their new science.
1.1 GRADING
1.2 PLASTICITY
AST1KD422, D653)
sand Ato- bouiders
fines (silt, clay ) gravei
f | m |c les
O.075 0.425 2 4.75 75 300
AASHTO(T88)
sand
colloids clay silt gravei bouiders
f c
O.CO1 O.OO5 O.075 0.425 75
Figure 1.1 Some common dejlnitions ofsoils, classijled by particle size (modified after
Al-Hussaini, 1977)
catin and the clay mineral, pro vides a network of bonds throughout
the clay mass, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. Also, because water
molecules themselves are polarised, water molecules immediately
adjacent to the clay minerals become attracted and bonded (adsor-
bed) to the surface to form an 'adsorption complex'. Since these
electrochemical bonds act through the water surrounding the clay
particles, the attraction is maintained even when large deformations
take place between clay particles, to produce the phe orne ion of
plasticity.
Plstic soils - clays - are often described as 'cohesive' to distmguish
them from non-plastic soils - sands and gravis - which are described
as 'granular' or 'non-cohesive'. Thus, the terms 'plstic' and 'cohe-
sive' are often used synonymously. Since all plstic soils are cohesive
and all cohesive soils are plstic this seems quite reasonable, yet, not
GRADING AND PLASTICITY
* These sieve sizes are either unavailable or are not normally used.
'_2^M0 * ^ww?^* '"v^L1
^^^^"
(a) (b)
Figure 1.2 Electrochemical bonding between clay-mineral par fieles; (a) dispersed
structure; (b) flocculated sructure
6 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
only are the two properties subtly diferent in nature, their underlying
cause is quite different. Whereas plasticity is the property that allows
deformation without cracking, cohesin is the possession of shear
strength which allows the soil to maintain its shape under load, even
when it is not confned. And whereas plasticity is produced by the
electrochemical nature of the clay particles, cohesin occurs as a
result of their very small size, which results in extremely low
permeabilities and allows pore water pressure changes during
deformation that gives clays the shear strength properties we describe
as cohesive. The precise mechanism involved is described more
thoroughly in Chapter 6, but three simple examples help illustrate
these diferences. Firstly, although sands cannot be moulded without
cracking, they can possess a weak cohesin, allowing children to
make sandpies and sandcastles. This is actually the result of meniscus
forces in partially-saturated sands, and disappears in saturated
conditions, Secondly, if clays are loaded sufficiently sowly, heir
strength characteristics are similar to those of granular soils; that is,
they behave like frictional materials. Again, this is discussed more
fully in Chapter 6. Thirdly, non-plastic silts, which are composed of
very small particles of unaltered rock, do possess a transient cohesin,
even though they are non-plastic. Thus, it can be seen that plasticity
and cohesin go together not because they are different facets of the
same property, but because clay particles are at the same time both
extremely small and composed of minerals, the producs of chemical
alteration, that possess particular electrochemical features.
o
i
O 1
w
Solid | - Plstic =Liquid
o
E
a
<n o.
Water content
(b)
Figure 1.3 Consistency limits: (o) change from liquid to solid as a soil dries out; (b)
volume and consistency changes wih water content change
between plstic and liquid phases and between semi-solid and solid
phases, as indicated in Figure 1.3. The shrinkage limit represents the
11 moisture content at which further drying of the soil causes no further
reduction in volume. This is illustrated n Figure 1.3(b). In elec-
trochemical terms, the clay mineral particles are far enough apart at
the liquid limit to reduce the electrochemical attraction to almost
zero, and at the plstic limit there is the minimum amount of water
present to maintain the flexibility of the bonds.
Table 1.2 CORRECTION FACTORS FOR THE ONE-POINT LIQUID LJMIT TEST
Soil B SL = 27
Soil A SL = 14
Figure 1.4 Casagrande 's procedure for estimating the shrinkage limit
10 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
the plstic range of the soil. A remoulded soil with a moisture content
within the plstic range can be expected to have a shear strength
somewhere between these extremes and it seems reasonable to
assume that, for a given soil, its actual shear strength will be related to
its moisture content. Also, assuming that the general pattern of shear
strength change with moisture content, across the plstic range, is
similar for all soils, then it should be possible to predict the remoulded
shear strength of any clay from a knowledge of its moisture content
and its liquid and plstic limits. Correlations of remoulded shear
strength and moisture content, related to the liquid and plstic limit,
have been obtained and are discussed in Chapter 6. With slight
corrections and some loss of accuracy, these correlations may also be
used to predict the shear strength of undisturbed clays. This is
especially useful in view of the fac that most clays, both in their
natural state and when used in earthworks, are in a plstic state.
A further consequence of these concepts is that a soil with a low
plasticity ndex requires only a small reduction in moisture content to
bring about a substantial increase in shear strength. Conversely, a soil
with a high plasticity ndex will not stabilise under load until large
moisture content changes have taken place. This implies that highly
plstic soils will be less stable and that a correlation may exist
between plasticity and compressibility. Also, the liquid limit depends
on the amounts and types of clay minerals present, which control the
permeability, henee the rate of consolidation, implying a correlation
between liquid limit and the coeficient of consolidation. Consolida-
tion properties are discussed in Chapter 5.
The special property of plasticity in clays is a function of the
electrochemical behaviour of the clay minerals: soils that possess no
clay minerals do not exhibit plasticity and, as their moisture content
is reduced, they pass directly from the liquid to the semi-solid state.
The Atterberg limits can give indications of both the type of clay
minerals present and the amount. The ratio of the plasticity ndex to
the percentage of material finer than 2m gives an indication of the
plasticity of the purely clay-sized portion of the soil and is called the
'activity'. Kaolinite has an activity of 0.3-0.5; 1; ilute of ~0.9; and
montmorillonite of greater than 1.5. These vales hold true not only
for the activity of the pur clay minerals but also for coarser-grained
soils whose clay fraction is composed of these minerals. A high
activity is associated with those clay minerals that can adsorb large
amounts of water within their mineral lattice, and is related to the
chemistry of the clay particles. This penetration of the clay minerals
by water molecules causes an increase in volume of the clay minerals,
so that the soil swells. Thus, activity is a measure of the propensity of a
12 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
related to a wide variety of soil properties. That this has been found to
be true, gives ampie justifcation for the use of grading and plasticity
properties in the soil classifcation systems. However, although
Atterberg limits do enable intriguingly good predictions for some
engineering properties, certain limitations must be recognised. Limit
tests are performed on the material fner than 425jUm, and the degree
to which this fraction reflects the properties of the soil will depend on
the proporion of coarse material present and on the precise grading
of the soil.
Another limitation is that the limit tests are performed on
remoulded soils and the correlations are not generally valid for
undisturbed soils unless the soil properties do not change substan-
tially during remoulding. This is the case with many nor-
mally-consolidated clays but the properties of over-consolidated
clays, sensitive clays and cemented soils often differ markedly from
those predicted from Atterberg limit tests.
r
Chapter 2
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS
13
14 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Table 2.1 THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: BASIC SOIL GROUPINGS
Group
Majar divisions Typical ames
symbols
1
!
-s: """" 'S
^"" * *+
yi Well graded gravis, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines
GP
jg C^ s! ^f* ~SS ^J e
^S C g < o1 GM
"S -2 ^ gravel-sand-silt mixtures
^ ^j ^
'o ^S '3
^3
.^.
X.
ftj ^J Clayey gravis, poorly graded
^3 *
^j Q ^j
1^ GC
S e; "S gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Ijl Well graded sands, gravelly sands,
1 little or no fines SW
^
ll
djl Poorly graded sands, gravelly
SP
^ V^ 3 ^* 0S sands, little or no fines
o "^ "3 S .
=3 -^ J ^
Silty sands, poorly graded
Sands with
(appreciable
SM
amount of
sand-silt mixtures
fines)
jf 1
fines
fe
Su ^~*' 1\ Inorganic silts, micaceous or
dictomaceous fine sandy or silty MH
soils, elastic silts
"^ . a
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
CH
fat clays
^5 -^ gj
Organic clays of mdium to high
OH
plasticity
t ?
i 1
"~ ^. ^^ fD
r^-
X w ^ c3
kw . ^^
** ffO
uw r-f
fc
O
X
Q
w
O
t~\ ^
O
3 -.
(ti
- , rj
CT |^
^3 l^ tro to
Q\
O ^J
3"
u E-. 1 3
OQ S' L o
O
s e * 2 Nr
Si * \r O. U r-
_
^ ero
1-1
^
cr C0 "
r-*- C/3 ^t) en
^ cr
Si 0
03
P
ff
"S
n
n
So "d
W
o cr TO t>
^-t- r-f
H-i)
P cr
^i
OQ rt> ^ z
-. ^ o i^.
p tr ^
P o L i~i r^-
<-+
tr o"
~ o 2" r~?r
. rt
35
(u
3-
?? nT o"
en ! co ^ *J en H
s \
fD ""^
1-1 rt -i < D- n 3
ft
>-i n> ^
en < CL
P 3 P (D 3 W
(-* r^ 3 ^ Lrt
o\4
O " - - - ^ ' ' 1 ' -
JK
o s *J
-\-^ ^-< iDCD io-* rp
W -1
*- >^
P SH "la.
cr
O
3
h en *"t P
*< ro
jD ^ 2^ cr
S^ *>*. o
3
p
3
2
m \
3. c cr c^ -t
P3
|_
3
'
3
_. c ._ cr o *-t 3 r
^
Cr ~- O" fu ^
* \ S CL
u>
o^ 5' " a rl
t^ ^J "w ("* 18 P-
ta
5- 3' ^ ^ , .
-ire C_
i-t"
OJ
0
r- ^ f> ' ir 5 f ^ re >
3 en Sr 3 _ 3
S" i^ 5^ m 3 . |- H
O
0 ^ P
"-> * ^S 3
en
o ^ "^ S
^rc "w MP- ^.2. .
3
rt-
0,8 o
C en O. .' i^
Oj ftj *-3 *C
on
i ^
O O o
-" ^ ^ >-i E- S -j 3-
e/i
C/l
^ C^ 3
00 C/3
S
IVD 00 O
n o O
13
O 3 3 o
>
S 3- O- K
O "^J ao
cr
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 17
Equation of "A--I ne
60 .Horizontal at Pl='\L
then PI=O.7 3(LL- 2O)
-25.5 1
z,^
j
"-
0^"
s
<?y
s /
/
**
f
y
.Equation o "IT-I ne o*
*> v . v
I 5 0 Vertical at LL=16 to Pl =
X
| 40
then Pl=0.KLL-fi )
\*
vJ/>
s
&D/^ /
0^
/
/
VJ
/
^
_>.
X
o 30
"5
<0
&^
ov,
a 20
A ox
/ MH or OH
10 / /
7
4
O
Z
/
!
1O
CL-ML
I
20
/
30
^
MLo rOL
40 SO 60 70 80 90 10O 110 120
Liquidlimit (LL)
Figure 2.1 Soil plasticity chart used with the ASTM and Unified soil classifi-
cation sysems
H fl
^n < - 5C aj
'3 .2 '
I'S
lis i 5 *
1*11*
3
Plstic fines (for identification procedures, see CL
below)
GC
2^5=
equivalen! to th
8 *= a e J U
^03
a j ,a
3J** g ^^ Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with SP
4.75mm sieve
^J *-.
Ib .O o-S some intermedate size missing
o :s
Sands
1 4 IH
. * ^ c 2
Ui
I
O.
Plstic fines (for identification procedures, see CL
W) Co _g Q below)
SC
13
o Identification procedures on fraction smaller han 425um sieve
u
.n
Dry srength Toughness
3 Dilatancy
O (crushing (consistency
ja (reaction
charac- near plstic
to shaking)
^ .< teristics) limit)
1 .s h's;
1
X ,
V, .N
*
S
U
-ll
:s-s
None to
slight
Quick to
slow
None ML
3 O o;
2" S E
'55
a.|.g Mdium None to
" o -Si
.! 1
=* ^ ~" to high very slow
Mdium CL
>t
<*xo jjf_ Slight to
ia^ C
mdium
Slow Slight OL
;S-s c
^ *
Slight to Slow to Slight to
^ o mdium none mdium
MH
Su E*-" 0
53 -.3 -.
1 "G.g J
High to
li|
3 * Q
^: ^ u
very high
None High CH
Coarse-grained soil Gravis Clean gravis Cu>4 and l < C c ^ 3 5 GW Well-graded gravel6
More than 50% More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% fines3 Cu <4 and/or l>Cc>3 5 GP Poorly graded gravel6
retained on No. 200 fraction retained on No. 4
Gravis with fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel 6 ' 7 - 8
(0.075mm) sieve (4.75mm) sieve
More than 12% fines3 Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel 6 ' 7 ' 8
Sands Clean sands Cu^and lsSCc<3 5 SW Well-graded sand9
50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines4 Cu ^ 6 and/or l > C c > 3 5 SP Poorly graded sand 9
fraction passes No. 4
Sands with fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand 7 ' 8 ' 9
(4.75mm) sieve
More than 12% fines4 Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand 7 - 8 - 9
Fine-grained soils Silts and clays Inorganic P / < 7 and plots on or above 'A' line 10 CL Leanclay11-12-13
50% or more passes Liquid limit less than 50 P/s4 or plots below 'A' line 10 ML Silt 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3
the No. 200 sieve 00
Organic Liquid limit - oven dried <0.75 OL Organic clay 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 4 o
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt 1 1 - 1 2 ' 1 3 ' 1 5
r
F a t c l a y n . 12.13 o
Silts and clays Inorganic P7 plots on or above 'A' line CH
Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below 'A' line MH Elasticsilt 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3
oo
Organic Liquid limit - oven dried <0.75 OH Organic clay 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3 ' 1 6 00
h<
1. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve. SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay 10. If Atterberglimils pioln hatched rea, soil isa CL-ML. O
2. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, silty clay.
add 'with cobbles or boulders, or both' to group ame. 5. Cu = D60/)10 CV = ^r- 11. If soil contains 15 to 29% plus, No. 200, add 'with sand'
3. Gravis with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: 10X;60 or 'with gravel', whichever is predominant. LTt
GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt 6. If soil contains > 15% sand, add 'with sand' to group 12. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, H
GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay ame. add 'sandy' to group ame. m
GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt 7. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM,or 13. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly 2
oo
GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay SC-SM. gravel, add 'gravelly' to group ame.
4. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: 8. If fines are organic, add 'with organic fines' to group 14. PI 5=4 and plots on or above 'A' line.
SW-SM well-graded sand with silt ame. 15. PI <4 or plots below 'A' line.
SW-SC well-graded sand with clay 9. If soil contains 15% gravel, add 'with gravel' to group 16. PI plots on or above 'A' line.
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt ame. 17. PI plots below 'A' line.
20 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Table 2.5 DEFINITIONS OF SOIL DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
60
> X
e.g. MHO
y
= 40
2
er CH X ^MV
3 30
Cl
20 - MJ
mn
CL x MI
10
ML
O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 9O 100 110 120
Plasticity indox (%)
Figure 2.2 Soilplasiicity chart used with the British Standard soil classification system
,<5% fines Cu ^ 6 and 1 < Ce < 3 'o vv -^^^ '-^- 1J 70 giavci > Well-graded sand
"~^^ 15% gravel > Well-graded sand with gravel
,' T-J
C u < 6 and/or 1 >Cc>3 ><STp l jf*1 1 ^ " A OTIVPl Poorly graded sand
> 15% gravel >Poorly graded sand with gravel
* fines-ML or MH +SW-SM -:> < 15% gravel Well-graded sand with silt
Cu^and l<Cc<3
X ^^15% gravel * Well-graded sand with silt and gravel
"""^fines-CL,CH, sw-sc .:-<15% gravel Well-graded sand with clay (or silty clay)
(or CL-ML) ^ > 15% gravel Well-graded sand with clay and gravel
SAND
(or silty clay and gravel)
5-12% fines
, fines-ML or MH >SP-SM >< 15% gravel- *Poorly graded sand with silt
' ^15% gravel- + Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
Cu<6 and/or l>Cc>3x,
fines-CL or CH >SP-SC < 15% gravel- Poorly graded sand with clay (or silty clay)
(or CL-ML) ' ^ 15% gravel - Poorly graded sand with clay and gravel
oo
(or silty clay and gravel) O
F
fines-ML or MH -SM < 15% gravel - ->Silty sand n
15% gravel - ->Silty sand with gravel r
>12% fines fines-CL-CH >SC < 15% gravel - -*Clayey sand 00
H
m
oo
K)
J
K)
O
Table 2.7 FLOW CHART FOR CLASSIFYING INORGANIC FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% OR MORE PASSES 75/n SIEVE) O
?o
GROUP SYMBOL 50
GROUP AME m
<3Q% plus No. 200^< 15% plus No. 200 -Lean clay H f-4
\5-29%
15-29% plus No. 200-x>%
2C sand >% gravel>Lean clay with sand o
PI>7and % sand <% gravel>Lean clay with gravel
plots on or above % sand ^ % gravel <15% gravel ->Sandy lean clay
'A'-line plus No. 200<f 5*15% gravel -Sandy lean clay with gravel
% sand < % gravel <15% sand ->-Gravelly lean clay
O<
l^\5% sand -Gravelly lean clay with sand H-
r
,<30% plus No. 200<-<15% plus No. 200- -*Silty clay
'15-29% plus No. 2(Kk^% sand ^% gravelSilty clay with sand O
TI
4 < P I < 7 and >CL-MI N. t /o sand <% gravel>Silty clay with gravel en
Inorganic > plots on or above % sand gravel <15% gravel >Sandy silty clay
'A'-line plus No. 200<( "* ^ 15% gravel >-Sandy silty clay with gravel tn
C/3
% sand <% gravelv^ > < 15% sand >Gravelly silty cay
15% sand >Gravelly silty clay with sand
,<30% plus No. 200^-* < 15% plus No. 200- i-Silt
LL<50 " 15-29% plus No. 200 % sand >% gravelSilt with sand
PI<4 or plots- % sand < % gravel>Silt with gravel
below 'A'-line
<
% sand ^% grvela>< 15% gravel >-Sandy silt
^ ^ 15% gravel -Sandy silt with gravel
% sand < % gravel^+< 15% sand ^Gravelly silt
^ 15% sand ->Gravelly silt with sand
, /LL-overdried
Orgahic . ,<0.75 >SeeTable2.8
1 LL-not dned
vv v i t i i i i i i i i i * M I J I * * * V * V I * f t f t i i > ft}11IliVIt J11 I I I 1I I I i
,<30% plus No. 200^-> < 15% plus No. 200 -Elastic silt
15-29% plus No. 2(Xk-*% sand ^% gravelElastic silt with sand
PI plots below >MH % sand < % gravelElastic silt with gravel
'A'-line % sand <% gravel-^><15% gravel ->Sandy elastic silt
S 30% plus No.
; 15% gravel >Sandy elastic silt with gravel
% sand < % gravel :15% sand ^Gravelly elastic silt
: 15% sand >Gravelly elastic silt with sand
t/3
O
/LL-overdried
Organic -j<0.75 OH >SeeTable 2.8
1 LL-not dned
o
r
>
GO
U2
HH
TI
HH
O
>
H
hH
O
z
co
en
H
tn
2
t/J
Table 2.8 FLOW CHART FOR CLASSIFYING ORGANIC FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% OR MORE PASSES 75/im SIEVE)
GROUP SYMBOL GROUP AME i-o
ON
<30% plus No. 200- <15% plus No. 200- >Organic clay n
15-29% plus No. 200-= % sand ^ % gravel >Organic clay with sand o
' % sand < % gravel >Organic clay with gravel
and plots on % sand > % grave < 15% gravel >Sandy organic clay tfl
or above 'A'-line 5=30% plus No. 200 5*15% gravel >Sandy organic clay with gravel
H
% sand <% gravel- -<15% sand >Gravelly organic clay
O
> 1 5 % sand >Gravelly organic clay with sand
oo
<30% plus No. 200 ><15% plus No. 200 -Organic silt O
15-29% plus No. 20(k % sand t % gravel -* Organic silt with sand 00
% sand < % gravel -* Organic silt with gravel o
II
PI<4 or plots sand ^ % gravel - < 15% gravel -*Sandy organic silt r
below 'A'-line Ss 30% plus No. 2 >15% gravel ->Sandy organic silt with gravel "U
%sand < % gravel <15% sand ->Gravelly organic silt O
Sil5% sand -*Gravelly organic silt with sand TI
m
?d
<30% plus No. 200- > < 1 5 % plus No. 200- H
> Organic clay NH
OH ,<30% plus No. 200- <15% plus No. 200- -+Organic silt
'15-29% plus No. 200- - % sand ^ % gravel -Organic silt with sand
' % sand < % gravel -* Organic silt with gravel
Plots below, % sand > % gravel- < 15% gravel -*Sandy organic silt
'A'-line > 30% plus No. 2 15% gravel -+Sandy organic silt with gravel
% sand < % gravel <15% sand -*Gravelly organic silt
Gravelly organic silt with sand
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 27
Table 2.9 AMES AND DESCRIPTIVE LETTERS FOR GRADING AND PLASTICITY
CHARACTERISTICS
* This term is a useful guide when it is not possible or not required to desgnate the range of liquid limit more closely,
e.g. during the rapid assessment of soils.
o
< P E?. 2- E o. <; OQ oo o. oo v
X
Vi
<~> M 2- o << d
1 5* 1 | 2. lf a le. z
D
0.0 | o.s-
< o
is - . 3
w;
^ o
>
O
1-t
P
C/3 S0 ^ O O O
TI
< <-
0
2 2
rt
n
p
oo
?
0
*o <
X <*
*
<!<
33
O
sr
y.
^
V^
g ;
00 s1
*< v< *< ^ CS H
fD O3 *"~* O w "f*
o
tP*
< ve;
w
p
3
Q.
oci P
-i Q. -"f o? 3
o a p n o> p P n Oo
*< g o. 0.0.
o 3
L
i ~ *
wS
I
0.a" | |
...'. o.
-. si P
i"*
00 00 00 00 OO 00
oo 9 9 ^^
!!l!||!l
3 jy i^ y ""CJ *^ t^ (JQ ^ CJQ OQ M
nciQ'Sro^'c/3(roPooP ^ 3
CT tr S-. ^_ O 3 a. g o. o.^
fj* ""O ^" t-*- O^
*J- p* J^' ^ J5-"
Q. p.
CB
("L Q.
Cu
C* (TQ
>-t
5"3"c9tS3-^
^ p- P CT. v J
3"Tj. o JJ" D.
CyQ P ^^ i t v^
TiO-'-iD.
p rj n3 o
O. D- O. Q.
p) p^
g-J"
~-
O.([q
p
1
u | i- 1 S>J i: g. i* g- |
If^I
^" << 0_
p"
***
00
s t *
1
1
OOOOOOOOOOO) OOOOOOOO OOOO
o o o o o n o o o oo
OOOQOo ^^'fl^ ^'TS onnoo" J ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
--J Vi t>J A
V p p vi A
\ --J
V p o vi A
Vi OJ A O
vo T T I w o T T 1 u> ** t^
O ^> *l Vi Vi
0 O0 ^
> * vi O
O O0
> Vi P
i1
A 3
v/>
[ >
1 I
Vi
y
1
-
>
l T
Vi
U> Vi U) Vi
Vi
c
_0
c c
o
ei
u
000
vi vi r~ o\D
o oo
f> 1 1 Os
Vi Vi C*- O"\>
! 1 CTN E -
W 0 0 0 A
r*"} ^
oo v A
rm V ^T */} t^- A
ri
^J
c/3
U 'U "U
us tn j -U S
EC
< <<
o H-] 2 PC > W
su uu uu uuuuu
o
BO
1
^- C
l/J t/J _J
^u s
-*i *-*
>-> |3 >> |o o -S
U U U J2 "S -^-SP"!
O
JH
-8 y
,_Q "a | "S-'-S E CX
t_
_, r* ^_^ gJ O O O ^
'^ ^
ii ^^
r^ j^>
-^^ ^ ^ u u - O
^- > <u Q j^y *~i c*-< tfc-i (*_, pj o o <" O
w o g ;- u x E c c
< i t_ x > w ^ O ^ ^ O x
<-<-<i_ih-.lx;,>tU O
C O
03
i i .. c o *
Q
'3 ".
cr ? S? '
l.
3 U _ - u .H oo
Oo 00
^3
o O , c "L "O
Su
00
5
C r1 ^
I
E 2
i I
I
Io I J
Ist_T">
>.
vi
c
U 1 w -2
_ /Un " 0
C
s 3 C cd
5
' *o 0
t^ = o3
**% ^^ c
"o
' ^ 15
^?^ J"?*O ^
S? -=
"3 *4J >-. >-> 3 'Cfl
J *0 o o .y o.
Cfl
rt o3 o-a
c c ->-> >,
a i J5 ^* A
6o cd cd rzn r^?
/3 </3 t/3 U
O QJ ^J s
a
M ..' E
O
3 _0fl c TT
B c e a
CS
Wl o o
C/2 e< |
UH IX U. u
_N
c "S 35
a"Z a
2.H^ t a uw cE 5 o r- =i '^
-
0#
1 Z o 'E *- S> S.,
*- ?".
rs os
co -
kH
3 | "3
M
a M 03
C/D
rrt rz3
u3 C/2
^^ ^^ ^ U
S2
cd
~
i^ *5 S
S
u to >_
(ssuy %S9~S) iJ i AH
o
sXep pire sjiis (S3UU A
puBS Jo /USABJQ / 59) S^-^ID pu^ ^ns O
C t^
t3
CU * !? . _> 'Bl
oc o >
3 E O U
(S3UIJ %g<) SITOS 3UIJ O Cu o
O \0
LO
O
Table 2.11 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF COMPACTED SOILS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE UNIFIED SYSTEM (AFTER USBR 1974)
O
Relative desirability for various uses
(No. 1 is considered the best)
o
&
Important engineering properties
Rolled m
Earthfill dams Canal seclions Foundalions Roadways
r
H
H-4
Filis
O
Shear oo
Workability Homo- Com- Seepage Frost
Permeability strenglh ibility Erosin Seepage Frosl
Ty"Cal
Group as a qeneous ,, pacled . nol heave . O
ames when compacted when , Core Shell resist- impar- heave Surfacing
symbols conslruclion embank- earth impar- nol
ofsoil groups compacted and compacted anee lant posswle
material men lining lant possible
salurated saturated
little or no fines W
oo
Silty gravis, poorly GM Semipervious Good Negligible Good 1 4 4 9 5
graded gravel-sand-silt to irnpervious
mixtures
Clayey gravis, poorly GC Impervious Good Very low Good 2 6 5 5 1
graded gravel-sand-clay to fair
mixtures
3
Well-graded sands, SW Pervious Excelent Negligible Excellent If 6
gravelly sands, little c1 gravelly
no fines
4 7
Poorly graded sands, SP Pervious Good Very low Fair If If 5 6 4
gravelly sands, little or gravelly gravelly
no fines.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 31
N r^
2 - o O 13 cc oo
o ca
-
< o "Z u 2. c -
~o W
s so r- J
o
oc > o u
=
*= 1* 0 i* O -55 i_i O
M
o o
' o "3 'a o o
bu a U S ti, cu
O
O. BU
E
3
E
3
E
3
3 -3 'uo J2
00 oo 00
o
0
S
4>
S
U
s. s X X
ki
?
0
O
33
cS 2 1 2
UH
O
l_
'3
U.
o
o
D.
0
w
o
CU
b.
0
o
to
rvious
Vi
vious
vious
vious
3 3 3 3
_0 VI
3 o .2 3
,O VI
3
to
">
.2 "> ; O
'>
(_r _O _o
. E S.
& II 8. .1 .8. .1- _S. 1 8.
o B Ji S E 1o U o E a
u j u
c/5 ai S U 0 2 U o
05 o 0 -^
TJ ^
"O
05
d
Organic silts and orgar
00
s "o
Inorganic clays of low
2
"C g 4J 'Q
to o
mdium plastty,
C "H. 1
to high plasticity
graded sand-clay
rt _^j _rt
a g "S,g so.
Inorganic silts,
u S, ""
"? _o
micceo us or
C3 *J
organic soils
.-* w
tfl"
T3 V3
a _" "o <2
o "o S
t
>i
Ss al 0 Jj to
mixtures
1 cu 5 o "S C8 o
"8 3 "o
ll
00 S 00
clays
*o
2 -|
55 ec E l| i '1
i < tS 'vi
IM
O
K)
Table 2.12 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF COMPACTED SOILS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE EXTENDED CASAGRANDE SYSTEM
(AFTER CP2001: BSI 1957)
H
H <
Casagrande Valu as a road Potential frost Shrinkage or Drainage Bulk dry density Applicable observations O
group- foundation when action swelling characteristics at optimum and tests relating to the 00
75/m 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 minn 36 min *o
Charateristics of . O
fraction passing m
70
425/im: H
Liquid limit 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min m
Plasticity ndex 6 max NP 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min* w
'"
Group ndex
- typical vales 0 0 0 4 max 8 max 12 max 16 max 20 max
Usual types of Stone fragments Fine Silty or clayey gravel and sarid Silty soils Clayey soils
significant gravel and sand sand- '
constituent materials
. ' . ' .'
General rating as
subgrade Excellent to good Fair to poor
* Plasticity ndex of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity ndex of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 35
Table 2.14 DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL TYPES IN THE AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Classification of materials in the various groups applies only to the fraction passing the
75mm sieve. The proportions of boulder and cobble-sized particles should be recorded
separately and any specification regarding the use of A-l, A-2 or A-3 materials in
construction should state whether boulders are permitted.
^
^
36 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
G GW GW SW'2'
S p(2)
GP GPu GP
GPg GP GW'1' SP'2) SW'1"2'
G-F G-M GWM GW-GM SW-SM'2'
GPM GP-GM GW-GM'1', SP-SM'2',
SW-SM'1"2'
G-C GWC GW-GC SW-SC'2'
GPC GP-GC GW-GC'1', SP-SC'2',
SW-SC'1"2'
GF GM GM SM'2'
GC GC SC'2'
S sw SW
SP SPu SP
SPg SP SW'1'
S-F S-M SWM SW-SM
SPM SP-SM SW-SM'1'
S-C SWC SW-SC
SPC SP-SC SW-SC'1'
SF SM SM
SC SC
FG MG MLG, MIG ML, OL(3) GM< 2) , SM'2"5'
MHG, MVG,
MEG MH, OH(3>
CG CLG, CIG CL'4' GC'2', SC'2"5'
CHG, CVG,
CEG CH(4)
FS MS MLS, MIS, ML, OL(3) SM'5'
MHS, MVS,
MES MH, OH'3'
CS CLS, CIS CL(4> SC'5'
CHS, CVS, CES CH'4'
F M ML, MI ML, OL(3)
MH, MV, ME MH, OH(3)
C CL, CI CL'4' -
CH, CV, CE CH'4'
Pt Pt
Notes:
(1) These possibilities arise because soil that is judged to be gap-graded using the BS system may satisfy the criterion
Cc=(D 30 ) :z /(D 10 x) 60 ) = between 1 and 3 used in the Unified system.
(2) These possibilities arise because of diflerences in the definitions of sand and gravel sizes between the BS and
Unified systems.
(3) Soil will be classified into these groups if the BS symbol is suffxed with the letter 'O'.
(4) Soil will be classified into these groups if it plots above the A line, even if the BS symbol is suffixed with the letter
'O'. However, this will rarely happen.
(5) These possibilities arise because fine soiis are defined as having at least 50% fines (<425im) in the Unified
system but having at least 35% fines in the BS system.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 37
Table 2.17 COMPARISON OF SOIL GROUPS FROM THE AASHTO TO THE UNIFIED SYSTEMS
has now been superseded and group ndex vales are used only as a
guide.
Numerous other methods of classification have been proposed.
Classifcations aimed specifically at identifying expansivo soils and
frost susceptible soils are given in Chapters 8 and 9.
There are two measures of soil density; bulk density which mcludes
the mass of both soil and pore water, and dry density which ignores
the efect of the contained water. The relationship between bulk and
dry densities is:
39
40 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
where p, pdmax and pdmin are the dry densities in the feld and at the
densest and loosest sates of compaction
and e, emax and em-m are the corresponding voids ratios, respectively.
Because of the difficulty of measuring feld densities in sands and
gravis, vales are usually estimaed from standard peneration test
results. A classifcation of relative densiy and SPT iV-values,
although widely used, has received repeated criticism.
Work by Gibbs and Holtz (1957) indicated that the relationship
beween relative density and SPT vales depends on the character-
istics of sand, whether it is dry or saturated, and on he overburden
pressure. This led to the suggestion that correction factors (CN) for
overburden pressure should be applied in the determination of
relative density and for foundation calculations.
Recommendations, from a number of sources are given in Table
3.2. Corrected N vales (Ar1) are obtained using the formula:
N, = CNJV
For clarifcation purposes i should be noted that alhough the
interpretador! of Terzaghi and Peck's (1948) classifcation, which led
DENSITY 41
Units of
D f ~ f . , overburden
Reference Correction factor (C N )
L/l C O4/ C
K)
3.25 +0.5a;
60
60
where A represents other correction factors detailed in Table 3.4.
Skempton (1986) sates tha the Terzaghi-Peck limits of blow
count for various grades of relative density, as enumerated by Gibbs
and Holtz, appear to be good average vales for normally con-
solidated natural sand deposits, provided that blow counts are
corrected for overburden pressure ((N1) and normalised to a 60% rod
energy ratio C/Vj)^), see Table 3.5.
*C W =U; Rr/
with no correction for N vales of less than 15. This is based on the
work of Terzaghi and it is suggested that, because of the low
permeability of such soils, pore water pressures build up during
driving of the sampler, resulting in increased ./V- vales. This approach
is recommended by Tomlinson (1980) in his discussion of the
application of corrections to SPT JV-values.
However, corrections appear to be somewhat academic in the light
of errors that can arise as a result of bad practice when carrying out
tests below the water table. In order to obtain meaningful resuls, the
borehole should be kept surcharged with water above the ground
water level at all times. This is often neglected, both because it
requires a large supply of water and simply out of ignorance.
Consequently, groundwater flows into the borehole, loosening the
sand and resulting in artificially low JV-values. Alternatively, unrealis-
ically high N-values may be obained if drillers drive the casing
ahead of the borehole, to reduce the problem of sand washing up the
casing, thus compacting the sand beneath.
e i
Collar
Ls:
ES es
-Mould
fifi
Base
Rammer-
11
y
V
Figure 3.1 Typical compaction mould and hand rammer used incompaction tests
DENSITY 45
Table 3.6 COMPARISON OF EQUIPMENT SIZES, NUMBER OF RAMMER BLOWS AND NUMBER
OF LAYERS OF SOIL USED IN VARIOUS COMPACTION TESTS. DIMENSIONS d, f AND h AND
WEIGHT W ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3.1
BS 1377:1975
Test 12 1.0 105 115.5 2.5 300 3 27
Test 12 (modified) 2.32 152 127 2.5 300 3 62
Test 13 1.0 105 115.5 4.5 450 5 27
Test 13 (modified) 2.32 152 127 4.5 450 5 62
AASHTO
T145 0.94 101.5 116.4 2.50 304.8 3 25
TI 80 0.94 101.5 116.4 4.54 457.2 5 25
TI 80 (modified) 2.32 152 127 4.54 457.2 5 56
The modified forras of the test use a CBR mould and are suitable for coarser soils.
Table 3.7 TYPICAL COMPACTED DENSITIES AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENTS FOR SOIL
TYPES USING THE UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MDD Optimum
standard moisture
Soil description Class compaction content
(kg/m3) (%)
Gravel/sand mixtures:
well-graded, clean GW 2000-2150 11-8
poorly-graded, clean GP 1850-2000 14-11
well-graded, small sil content GM 1900-2150 12-8
well-graded, small clay content GC 1850-2000 14-9
Sands and sandy soils:
well-graded, clean SW 1750-2100 16-9
poorly-graded, small silt content SP 1600-1900 21-12
well-graded, small silt conten SM 1750-2000 16-11
well-graded, small clay content se 1700-2000 19-11
Fine-grained soils oflow plasticity:
sils ML 1500-1900 24-12
clays CL 1500-1900 24-12
organic sils OL 1300-1600 33-21
Fine-grained soils of high plasticity:
silts MH 1100-1500 40-24
clays CH 1300-1700 36-19
organic clays OH 1050-1600 45-21
Table 3.8 TYPICAL COMPACTED DENSITIES AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENTS FOR SOIL
TYPES USING THE AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
BSIAASHTO compaction
Max dry Op, moisture
Soil description Class
densiy conten
(kg/m3) (%)
Well-graded gravel/sand mixtures A-l 1850-2150 5-15
Silty or clayey gravel and sand A-2 1750-2150 9-18
Poorly-graded sands A-3 1600-1900 5-12
Sily sands and gravis of low plasicity A-4 1500-2000 10-20
Elastic silts, diatomaceous or micaceous A-5 1350-1600 20-35
Plstic clay, sandy clay A-6 1500-1900 10-30
Highly plasic or elastic clay A-7 1300-1850 15-35
10 20 30 40
Plstic limit - %
(a)
1000
10
Figure 3.2 Relationships of optimum moisure conten wih plstic limi and with
mximum dry density for red tropical soils (after Morin and Todor, 1977)
2-
1.55 .
6 8 10 12 U 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Moisture conten - % of dry weight
Figure 3.3 Typical moisture-densy curves (modified after Woods and Liehiser, 1938
and Joslin, 1959)
DENSITY 49
(4J)
where k is the coefficient of permeabiity
A is the rea of flow
and i is the hydraulic pressure gradient.
If the volume of flow q is divided by the rea A then the velocity of flow
v is obained and Equation (4.1) can be written:
*-?i (4.2)
50
PERMEABILITY 51
10 -10 10 -9
10 10 -6 10~ 5 10 -4 10 10 10-
ft/s
Practically
impermeable
Very low Low Mdium High
Soil types: Homogeneous Silts, fine sands, silty sands, Clean sands, sand Clean
clays below glacial till, stratified clays and gravel mixtures gravis
the zone of
weathering Fissured and weathered clays and clays
modified by the eflects of vegetation
j
Table 4.2 TYPICAL PERMEABILITY VALES FOR HIGHWAY MATERIALS
Material
_ Permeability (m/s)
* New pavements; vales as low as 10~ 10 have been reported for sealed, traflc-compacted highway pavement.
y e3
where the constant C, repaces -
Based on experimental work with clean sands, Hazen (1911)
proposed a valu of between 0.01 and 0.015 for C15 where k is in m/s
and Z>10 is in mm. However, this ignores the large efect that even
small changes in e will have on the valu of k, as can be seen from
Taylor's equation, and can be expected to give only very approximate
resuts. For instance, experimental work by Lae and Washburn
(1946), repored in Lambe and Whitman (1979) gives Cl vales of
beween 0.01 and 0.42 with an average valu of 0.16, whils Holtz and
Kovacs (1981) sugges a range of 0.004 o 0.12 with an average valu
of 0.01. The equation is usualy considered o be valid for soils having
a coefficient of permeability of at least 10~5m/s.
Figure 4.1 gives plos of k agains D10, based on experimental
results, in which the valu o e has been taken into account. It will be
noted that the correlaions given all relate to sands and gravis. The
greaer range of particle size which is present in most clays and he
effecs of the clay mineralogy make such correlations more resricive
for clays. Some useful information on the permeabiliy of clays is
provided by Tavenas et al. (1983a and b),
54 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
0.05
w
X. Burmister
E C u = 1.5, e = 0.75
Hazen formula
o.01 - C u = 3, e = 0.7
Limited to D-0= 0.1 3mm,
C u <5
Mansur
Mississippi r v e r
O.OO5
sands
C u =2 - 3,
e = 0.9 - 0.6 ,'
o
a - field tests '
- Icb tests, 'V
c
o
O.OO1 USNavy
o Correlation o lab test vales
of various materials
C u = 2 1 2 ( o w e r Cu vales a r e
associated with higher e vaiues )
O.OOO5
Liirited to D 10 /D g less than 1.4
55
56 CORRELATIONS OF SOL PROPERTIES
O 2 4 6 8 1O
o
Consolldation prossur* , p MN/m
(a)
OverconsoJidation pressure
(O
=C
Unloading
I!
b.
Recompression
CJ O
O.01 O.t 1 10
b)
Pressure p1
Pressure Pffdp =
lilil
de dh
Voids Vol. e.
Yoids
This is the slope of he curve in Figure 5.1 (a) when h is plotted against
p. From Equations 5.1 and 5.3, the relationship between these two
demitions of compressibility is:
av = my(l+e) (5.4)
It can be seen tha the slope of the curve in Figure 5.1 (a) is not
constant. This means that the coefficients av and mv also vary and that
a given valu applies only to a specific pressure range. However, the
curve obtained in figure 5.1(b) when the logarithm of consolidation
pressure is used, approximaes much more closely o a straight line, at
58 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
least on the virgin compression curve. This gives rise to two further
measures of compressibility, the compression ndex, Cc, and the
modifed compression ndex or compression ratio, CC, which are the
slopes of the virgin compression curves obtained by plotting e or h,
respectively, against logp:
e (5.5)
d(logp)
logpa-logp! logpa/pi)
dh de 1 e,-e, 1
CC- -T/d(logp)- ~ ^^ (5.6)
1 Iog(p2/Pl)
Note that, for these evaluations, logarithms are taken to the base
10. From equations 5.5 and 5.6, he relationship between Cc and Cce
foliows that between av and mv:
C^CJl+eJ (5.7)
Of the two, Cc is much more commonly used. From equations 5.3 and
5.5, it can be relaed to mv:
1 e-e
v 1 i
C,
givmg
(5.8)
For the compression par of the curve, the terms recompression ndex,,
Cr5 and modiled recompresslon Index, Cr, are used, defined in the
same ways as Cc and CC, respectively.
Coefficient ofvolume
Descriptive compressbility, /nv
Type of clay
term
(m2/MN) (ft 2 /ton)
Table 5.2 TYPICAL VALES OF COMPRESSIBILITY INDEX, Cc (AFTER HOLTZ AND KOVACS
1981)
Soil
clays:
C= 0.007(LL-10).
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) proposed a similar relationship, based on
research with clays of low and mdium sensitivity:
CC = 0.009(LL-10).
This relationship has a reliability range of +30% and is valid for
inorganic clays of sensitivity up to 4 (see Chapter 6) and liquid limit
up to 100. Based on the work of Skempton and Northey (1952) and
Roscoe et al. (1958), Wroth and Wood (1978) used critical state soil
niechanics considerations to deduce a relationship between cornpres-
sion ndex and plasticity ndex (PI) for remoulded clays:
where Gs is the specific gravity of the soil solids. Table 5.3 produced by
Azzouz et al. (1976) gives a summary of a number of published
correlations.
The recompression ndex, Cr, is defined in the same way as Cc
except that it applies to the unlo,?ding phase of the cons Midation test.
Typical vales of Cr range from 0)15 to 0.35 (Roscoe ei I. 1958) and
are often assumed to be 5-10% of Cc.
5.1.5 Settlement corrections
If the results of oedometer tests are used directly to calclate
settlements, the vales obtained tend to over-estimate the settlements
CONSOLIDATION AND SETTLEMENT 63
1.2
Figure 5.3 Typical vales of the factor \ifor afoundaion width b on a compressible
layer of thickness h (afer Skempton, 1954)
O
O
w
r
>
H
HH
Table 5.4 TYPICAL VALES OF CONSOLIDATION FACTOR n FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF SOIL (ATER CRTER 1983) O
U =r
Consolidation settlement after a given time, t
Final consolidation settlement
The time, , for a given degree of consolidation to occur is given by:
m Wvw
"*v/
where yw is the weight density (unit weight) of water.
Because of the wide range of permeabilities that exist in soils, the
coefficient of consolidation can itself vary widely, from less than
Im2/yr for clays of low permeability to 1000m2/yr or more for very
sandy clays, fissured clays and weathered rocks. Some typical vales
Os
Ov
O
:" ' ' ' 0
tn
r
Table 5.5 VALES OF TIME FACTOR, Tv H
. J> i<
O
T, Drainage conditions and pressure distributions !z!
rr oo
Casel Case 2 Case 3 Casel* Case 2 Case 3
0.1 0.008 0.047 0003 ..-.-..-. ;-... . O
:': ::'.::':.:: -6i4<<>s?sXsaiS!^i!<>ix. . >.'.: :.':.:. ..:/:./ tn
0.2 0.031 0.100 0.009 L
Soil
(cm 2 /sxl(T 4 ) (m 2 /yr)
1-1OO
Undisturbed samples
C v in r a n g o of v i r g i n c o m p r e s s i o n
C y in r a n g a of r c o m p r e s s en lies
above this lower limit
Completeiy
remoided samples
lies b e l o w t h i s upper limit
for clays are given in Table 5.6, and an approximate correlation with
liquid limit is shown in Figure 5.4.
o
4><
O
O
>
O
su
c
e
E
o
e
a. P r i m a r y con o dat ion Secondary compression
V)
Log time, t
where ep is the voids ratio at the start of the linear portion of the
e-logp (or h logp) curve. The modified secondary compression
ndex is sometimes also referred to as the secondary compression
ratio or the rate of secondary compression.
Calculations of secondary compression are obtained by rearrang-
ing Equation 5.12: specimen compression dh becomes secondary
settlment, pc; specimen thickness, h, becomes layer thickness, H; and
the time is taken over a specifc interval, from t to 2 :
pc = CMHlog(t2/1)
or
Table 5.7
Soil CJCC
-i i I I I lili I I I I I I I II
10O
TJ
c 10-
o
<a
co
9
a
E
o
u
a
o
c
o
u 1-
o
TJ
o
o
2
0.1 i i r r MI i i f i iT
10 1OO 1000
Natural moisture conten - %
Figure 5.6 Correlation between modified secondary compression ndex and natural
moisture conten (after Mesri, 1973)
ruu 70
6OO
\- 6O
CM
E ry den se
H 5OO ^e ^ 50
\ ^-^.*-
3
^ s^ Dense
S 40O 4O
a .
x
c
| 3OO X,
^ e
c
30 o
.0 i i 4-1
^30
S
Med um d<snse
| 200 2O
< V
S5o
100 '*. 10
. i.
Lose
O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Footing width - m
Figure 5.7 Chart for estimating allowable bearing pressures on sands using standard
penetration test results, based on 25mm settlement. Continuous Unes are based on the
original chart by Terzaghi and Peck (1967); broken Unes are inerpolations
72 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
800
O 1 2 3 4
Footirvg width - m
Figure 5.8 Allowable bearing pressure for footings founded ai surface level, for
settlement limited lo approximately 25mm (after Bowles, 1982)
= 2.25
100 I l
80
60
o
o
O 40
"S
E
i_
o
i
20
2O 40 60
SPT N-value - blows/SOOmm
Figure 5.9 Correlation between deformation modulas, Ed and SPT N-value for granular
soils (after Menzenbach, 1967)
or
s = c' + a' tan 4>
where u is the pore water pressure
a' = (au), the effective normal stress (on the soil skeleton)
and c' and </>' are the shear strength parameters related to effective
stresses.
Thus when considering the shear strength of soils, there is a choice:
either the total, combined reponse of the soil and pore rater can be
considered (Equation 6.1); or the specific response of the s il skeleton
can be separated from the pore water pressure by considen -. effective
stresses (Equation 6.2).
The effective stress approach gives a truc measure of the response of
the soil skeleton to the loads imposed on it. Perhaps the simplest case
is that of a load applied to a saturated soil that is allowed to drain. If
the rate of application of the load is sufficiently slow, pore water
76
SHEAR STRENGTH 77
Figure 6.1 Mohr diagram representing the general Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
Direct stress
Figure 6.2 Mohr diagram for a normally-consolidated clay, for effective stresses
pressures will not built up and the total stresses will equal the effective
stresses. For drained conditions, or in terms of effective stresses, it is
found that the shear strength of soils is principally a frictional
phenomenon, with c' = 0, as lustrated in Figure 6.2. This does not
appear to be the case for overconsolidated clays which have a built-in
pre-stress (see Singh et al. 1973), or for partially saturated clays in
which the particles are drawn together by surface tensin effects,
giving them some cohesin.
When soil is loaded, the increase in confming pressure within the
soil skeleton squeezes the particles closer together, reducing the
volume of the voids. However, in a saturated clay this cannot take
place unless some of the pore water can drain from the voids. Thus,
for a saturated clay in conditions of no drainage, an increase in
confining pressure cannot be carried by the soil skeleton but results
instead in an equal increase in pore water pressure. Since shear
strength depends on the effective stresses, transmitted by interparticle
contacts, and these remain unchanged irrespective of the applied
confining pressure, it follows that undrained shear strength will also
be independent of confining pressure. Because of this, samples of
saturated clay tested in a quick undrained triaxial test give Mohr's
circles of constant diameter and an apparent cohesin valu as shown
78 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Figure 6.3 Mohr diagram for saturated clay in terms of total and effective sresses
Note: thesc strength descriptions and tests conform with standard practice and with the recommendations of B.S.
5930 (1981).
Equation (6.1). However, for most saturated clays, tested under quick
undrained conditions, the angle of shearing resistance is zero. This
means that the shear strength of the clay is a fixed valu and is equal to
the apparent cohesin. The valu of the undrained shear strength may
be estimated by moulding a piece of clay between the fingers and
applying the observations indicated in Table 6.1.
Typical vales for the shear strengths of compacted clays are given
in Table 6.2. Vales refer to soils compacted to the mximum dry
density obtained in the standard compaction test: AASHTO T99
(5.51b rammer method) or BS 1377:1975 Test 12 (2.5kg rammer
method).
2.0
1.8 Clay LL PL Pl A c t i v i t y
Horten 30 16 14 0.36
London 73 25 48 0.96
Gosport 80 30 50 0.89
1.6 Shellhaven 97 32 65 1.27
1.4
x 1.2
o
o
1.0-Liquid limit
2
3
cr
2 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Plstic limit
200
100
5O
I
(O
20
10
(O
-0.2 O 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Liquidity Indax
Figure 6.5 Correlation between sensitivity and liquidity ndex (after Skempton and
Northey, 1952)
84 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
200 i
100
g 5O
x.
Z
JS
**
O)
e
o
co
10
i i I I I 1
Figure 6.6 Relationship between the natural shear slrength of undisturbed clays and
liquidity ndex
6.4 and 6.5, is shown in Figure 6.6, which then provides a useful
predictive tool for assessing the shear strength of undisturbed soils.
It is found that for most normally-consolidated clays, undrained
shear strength is proportional to efective overburden pressure. This
SHEAR STRENGTH 85
<7V =
0.11+0.0037P/
where, PI is the plasticity ndex. At first sight it is not evident that
SJ(j'v should be related to the plasticity ndex. However, the valu of 0
can be expected to depend on the shape, size, packing and mineral
composition of the clay particles, as will the plasticity ndex, so the
two properties are related in some manner (see Figure 6.12). Figure
0.8 i
Bjerrum(1972) "aged"
Skempton (1957)
0)
I
n
Kenn0y(1976)
I I j I
100 200
Plasticity index
Figure 6.7 Relationship between the ratio of undrained shear strength to effective
overburden pressure and plasticity index for normally-consolidated clays (modified after
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981).
86 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
0.4
3
(0
o (0
o I '3
9
o
S
(O
Jaw 0.2
O
X
o o
o o-1
Liquidity ndex
Figure 6.8 Relationship between the ratio of undrained shear strength and effective
overburden pressure and liquidity ndex for Norwegian clays (after Bjerrum and
Simons, 1960)
SHEAR STRENGTH 87
1.4
O Bjerrum (1972)
O^ Milligan (1972)
1.2 O Ladd and Foott (1974) -
Flaate and Preber (1974)
D O @ LaRochella et al. 1974)
D Holtz and Holm (1979)
II Bjerrum's (1972)
3k
0.8 recommended curve
o
09
0.6
O
v.
u. -CH
o
0.4
20 40 6O 80 10O 120
Plasticity ndex
Figure 6.9 Correlation factor for field vane test results, depending on plasticiy ndex,
basedon back-analysis of embankment failures (after Ladd, 1975 and Laddet al., 1977)
2.0
20 40 6O 100
Plasticity ndex
Figure 6.10 Relationship between overconsoliation ratio and plasticity ndex for
late-glacial clays (after Bjerrum, 1972)
500
. Soil groups refer
to Unified
400 - system
g 3OO
ffl
H
W
m 200
0)
.
V)
"O
4O i i
&
o 30
20
w
o 10 Truo angl of internal friction
o
=
i /
=
20 40 60 80 100 120
^
*
Plasticity indox
^
Figure 6.12 Relationships between angle of shearing resistance and plasticity ndex
(after Gibson, 1953)
90 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Table 6.3 TYPICAL ANGLES OF EFFECTIVE SHEARING RESISTANCE FOR COMPACTED CLAYS
0 (deg)
Material
Lose Dense
Table 6.5 TYPICAL VALES OF THE ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE FOR COMPACTED
SANDS AND GRAVELS
Angle of shearing
So// description Class*
resistance, (f> (deg)
O
O 50
c
Material type (Unified classification)
(O
2 40
o> a
c o
30
*- Relative density
o
.
o>
< 20
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Dry density - t / m 3 ( M g / m 3 )
Figure 6.13 Typical vales ofdensy and angle of shearing resistance of cohesionless
soils (modified after US Navy, 1982)
92 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
80
Relative density
/
60
/ Very dense
50
/'
o
3
40
/
x /
7
i
X
a
V)
20
xx
10 X A K v
4
X Lose . ^t*
Very lose *A,
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Figure 6.14 Estimation of the angle of shearing resistance of granular soils from
standard penetration test result (after Peck et ai, 1974)
Figure 6.13. The material types indicated in the figure relate to the
Unified classification system. Peck et al. (1974) give a correlation with
standard penetration test vales, shown in Figure 6.14. The correla-
tion between SPT vales and relative density is also shown, enabling
a comparison to be made with the US Navy vales.
Examination of Figures 6.13 and 6.14 shows reasonable agreement
between the two correlations. However, considerable variation can
exist within each soil type, as indicated by Figure 6.15, which shows
plots of the angle of shearing resistance against relative density for a
number of sands.
<0
e
&
o
O
O
05
O
O)
c
a
e
o>
c
20 4O 60 100
Relativo density - %
Figure 6.15 Relationships beween angle ofshearing resistance and relaive density for
various sands (after Hilf, 1975)
cohesive granular (c </>) soils but both the Rankine and Coulomb
methods give signifcant over-estimates of lateral pressure for the
passive condition and, for granular soils, it is more usual to obtain
coefficients of earth pressure using analyses that postlate curved
failure surfaces (Caquot and Kerisel, 1966; Terzaghi and Peck, 1967).
94 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
0.8
D Sangamon sand (subangular)
w Wabash sand (subangular)
o O Chatahoochee sand (subangular)
Brasted sand
o Sand (Simons, 1958)
0.6 Belgium sand
(O 4- Minnesota sand (rounded)
o
o X Pennsylvania sand (angular)
t_
a
O
O.4
o O.2
U
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Angle of shearing resistance, 0'- degrees
42 44 46
rt
Figure 6.16 Correlation between the coefficient of earth pressure at rest and the
angle of shearing resistance for normally-consolidated sands (after Al-Hussaini and
Townsend, 1975}
0.8
K n = 1 - sin0' 0.5
0.3
12 14
1.0
K 0 = 0.44 + 0.42(PI/100)
(O
O
0.8
**
(O
o o
O o
o
a
0.6
m
0.4
Undisturbed
o
0.2 o Disturbed or laboratory reconsolidated
from a sediment
o
20 40 60 80 100 120
Plasticiiy ndex, Pl
3.0 i T
2.8
o Boston blue clay, Pl=23 (Ladd, 1965)
2.6
2.4
2
o 2.2
(O
o 2.0
3
(O
(O
1.8
a
*"" 4 C
9
Brooker and ireland (1965)
1.4
c
9
~ 1.2
"5O Plasticity ndex s"
0.6
0.4
3 4 6 8 10 2O 3O
Overconsolidation ratio
Figure 6.19 Correlation between coefficient of earth pressure at rest and overconsolida-
tion ratio for clays of various plasicity ndices (data by Ladd, 1965, and Brooker and
Ireland, 1965; replotted by Ladd, 1971)
Density
The CBR is usually quoted for the assumed density of the soil in place. This will
typically be 90%, 95% or 100% dry density, as specified in either a standard (2.5kg
rammer) or heavy (4.5kg rammer) compaction test.
Moisture conten
The aim is to test the specimen under the worst likely conditions that will occur within
the subgrade. In practice, soil is usually compacted at optimum moisture content, as
specified in a compaction test, and then either tested immediately or soaked for 4 days
before testing.
Surcharge weights
Surcharge weights are placed on the specimen before testing to simlate the weight of
pavement materials overlying the subgrade. In practice, 3 weights are usually used but
this can vary. The effect of the surcharge weights is more marked with granular soils.
Method of compaction
The AASHTO specification stipulates the use of dynamic compaction (using a
rammer) but the BS specification allows the use of static compaction (using a load
frame) or dynamic compaction (using either a rammer or a vibrating hammer).
Insitu vales
If tests are carried out on completed construction, the lack of confining influence of the
mould and drying out of the surface can affect results.
...
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO 99
Table 7.2 ESTIMATED LABORATORY CBR VALES FOR BRITISH SOILS COMPACTED AT THE
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
CBR (%)
Depth of water-table below
Plasticity ndex formation level
Type of soil
More than 600mm 600mm or less
Heavy clay 70 2 1
60 2 1.5
50 2.5 2
40 3 2
Silty clay 30 5 3
Sandy clay 20 6 4
10 7 5
Silt 2 1
Sand (poorly graded) non-plastic 20 10
Sand (well graded) non-plastic 40 15
Well-graded sandy gravel non-plastic 60 20
Suitability ndex =
LL.log(P/)
where A is the percentage passing a 2.4mm BS sieve. Their fmdings
are given in Figure 7.3. Note, however, that the CBR vales are for
samples compacted to mximum dry density at optimum moisture
content according to the Ghana standard of compaction. This
specifies the use of a standard CBR mould and a lOlb (4.5kg) rammer
with an 18-inch (450mm) drop; to compact soil in 5 layers using 25
blows per layer. Samples are tested after a 4-day soak.
100 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Liquidity ndex
m m in tf
N; i CO CO 0> 0> o O
O O O O O O* r-* T-"
80 I 71 i
7O
1.25
60
5O
1.3
E 40
09
(O
30
20
Figure 7.1 Relationships between CBR and plasticity ndex at various liquidity ndex
vales (after Black, 1962)
Further work on lateritic gravis (de Graft- Johnson et al. 1972) led
to the establishment of a relationship between CBR and the ratio of
mximum dry density to plasticity ndex as shown in Figure 7.4.
Agarwal and Ghanekar (1970), based on tests of 48 Indian
fine-grained soils, found no significant correlation between CBR and
either liquid limit, plstic limit or plasticity ndex. However, they did
obtain better correlations when optimum moisture content was taken
into account. The best fit relationship was for CBR with optimum
moisture content and liquid limit:
The soils tested all had CBR vales of less than 9 and the standard
deviation obtained was 1.8. They therefore suggest that the correla-
tion is only of sufficient accuracy for preliminary identification of
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO 101
100
80
5 60 o London Clay
5 o Brickearth, Harmondsworth
5 Black cotton soil, Ngong
Red coffee soil, Thika Sagana
I 40
20
Unsaturated CBR = K X saturated CBR at same moisture content
Figure 7.2 Correction of CBR vales for parial sauration (after Black, 1962)
120
100
o 80
i
ce
O 60
1
< 40
20
O 1 2 3 4
Suitability ndex, S
Figure 7.3 Relaionship beween suitability ndex and soaked CBR valus (after de
Graft-Johnson e al., 1969}
102 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
140 I T i l 1 T
120
1OO
(O
3
C
8O
00
1 60
a
o
I 40
20
l i l i
Figure 7.4 Relationship between the ratio of mximum dry densiy lo plasticity ndex
and CBRfor laterite-quartz gravis (modified after de Graft-Johnson et al., 1972}
A-1-a
AASHTO system A-1 -b
A-2-4 and 5
I A-2-6 and 7
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6 and 7
GW
Unified system
tem I <3P
GM
GC& SW
| SPandSM
se
ML. CL and CH
MH
OL and OH
2 3 4 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 60 80
Figure 7.5 Approximate relationships between soil classes and CBR vales (after
Liu, 1967)
[GW
GM
GP
GU
SP
I su & sel
ML&CL
MH&OL
[CH,OH
3 4 6 8 10 15 20 3O 40 60 80
Figure 7.6 Approximate relationships between Unified soil classes and CBR vales
(after US Army Corps of Engineers, 1970)
A-2-4
[A-2-6
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7-5
A-7-6
6 8 10 15 20 30 40 60 80100 150
Figure 7.7 Approximate relationships between AASHTO soil classes and CBR vales
for South American red tropical soils (after Morin and Todor, 1975)
104 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Expansiva soils are those that show a marked volume change with
increases and decreases of moisture conten. Such swelling properties
are restricted to soils containing clay minerals which are susceptible
to penetration of their chemical structure by water molecules.
Clay swelling and consequential ground heave is a common annual
phenomenon in reas where prevailing climatic conditions lead to
signifcant seasonal wetting and drying, the greatest seasonal heave
occurring in regions with semi-arid climates where pronounced short
wet and long dry periods lead to major moisture changes in the soil.
Moisture content changes may also result, in these regions and
others, from the activities of man, such as, removal of vegetation and
construction works.
8.1 IDENTIFICATION
105
106 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
Table 8.1 FREE SWELLING DATA FOR CLAY MINERALS, % (AFTER MIELENZ AND KING,
1955)
Ca-Mont.:
Forest, Mississippi 145
Wilson Creek Dam, Col 95
Davis Dam, Arizona , 45-85
Osage, Wyoming (prepared from Na-Mont.), 125
I Hite:
Fithian, Illinois . 115-120
Morris, Illinois. . 60
Tazewell, Virginia 15
Kaolinite:
Mesa Alta, New Mxico 5
Macn, Georgia 60
Langley, N. Carolina . . 20
0-1.5 Low
1.5-5 Mdium
5-25 High
25 + Very high
where 5 = 0.2558
A = 0.0838
and e is the natural number, 2.718.
He also established a correlation of plasticity ndex againt a
swelling potential obtained for a surcharge pressure of 48kN/m2
(6.941b/in2). A comparison of various correlations between swelling
potential and plasticity ndex is shown in Figure 8.1. It should be
noted that the Holtz and Gibbs (1956) correlation given in the figure
is not really comparable with the others since their volume change
measurements were carried out on air-dried specimens of undisturbed
soil. The vales given in the chart are therefore not strictly swelling
potential. This is discussed later in this section.
10 20 30 40
Plasticity ndex - %
Figure 8.1 A comparison of various correlations between swelling potential and
plasticity ndex (after Chen, 1988)
J
110 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
A -
Ac~C-5
00
' o
O
n m
O- o
3
O
on
o
" en
^
r
r
h(
Z
O
n
n
H
C
d m
a
00
HH
SP
112 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
40
32
24
o
16
20 40 O 20 40 O 8 16 24
uoiioid conten (iess PSasicty ndex Shrinkag limit - %
than O.OOlmm) - mm
Figure 8.4 Relationships beween volume change and colloid conten, plasticiy ndex
and shrinkage limit, respectively for air-dry to saturated conditions under a load of
6.9kN/m2 (Ips) (afer Holtz and Gibbs, 1956)
Table 8.6 ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL VOLUME CHANCES OF CLAYS (AFTER HOLTZ AND
GIBBS 1956)
2000
1800
E
o>
t
1600
c
o 1400
Expansin
1200 Collapse
1OOO
800
20 40 6O 80 1OO
Liquid Hmit
Figure 8.5 A guide to the suscepbility to collapse or expansin ofsoils, based on liquid
limit and insitu dry density (after Holz and Kovacs, 1981)
0.6
Sweil pressure
<30kPa
Swell pressure
30-125kPa
2 0.4
x
Sweil pressure
D
C 125-300 kPa
03
Swell pressure
C/D
0.2 >300kPa
0.0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid limit
Figure 8.6 Relationship between swell ndex and swelling pressure for a range ofliquid
limit (after Vijayvergiya and Ghassahy, 1973)
LL
SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING CHARACTERISTICS 115
5
Chapter 9
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY
116
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY 117
V;
CJ
o O
"5
?
t r
J4
2 <n
mm* *d
a. N
n
2 a- O
TJ
B"
S' H
O
-*, hH
<3 ^*. W
"3 c/3
?
C3-
"5
EX.
sx
"3
> 2
-t
u
"5
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY 119
Table 9.1 FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOIL GROUPS: SWEDISH PRACTICE (AFTER HANSBO,
1975)
Frost susceptibility
Group Soils
or danger
f Defined as 2/j.m.
: Defined as O.Omm.
Reed et al. (1979) noted that predictions from grain size distribu-
tions failed to take account of the fact that soils can exist at different
states of density and therefore porosity, yet they have the same grain
size distribution. They derived expressions for predicting frost heave
(Y, in mm/day), and one of their simpler expressions, based on pore
diameters, is:
Y =1.694(D40/D80)- 0.3805
where D40 and D80 are the pore diameters whereby 40% and 80% of
the pores are larger respectively.
9.3 PLASTICITY
w
Hlfh r
H
HH
o
Madlum Clayi oo
Sandy
QRAVEL QRAVEL O
QP SANOS 00
SIltyQRAVELS
SM-8C o
I-H
Low and SC t-1
T!
O
TI
Gravo! ly and W
Very Low
Sandy CLAYS
CL
W
oo
SW-SM,
Sandy SP-SM hav 1oOOkg/m
/and SM du to
QRAVELS
In Itu 1920 kg/m
fraozing of
por water
10 10O
Prcntag* fln*r than 0-02mm
* 100% aturatlon, froat p*ntratlon
Figure 9.3 Average rate ofhe^e plotted against per-centage finer than 0.02rvnfrom rat*
labor-atory tests of a range of^ Mr al soils (after Kaplar, 1974)
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY 121
Group Description
122
REFERENCES 123
Snethen, D. R., 1980. Characterization of expansiva soils using soil suction data.
Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Expansive Soils, 1: 54-15.
Sowers, G. F., 1979. Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Macmillan.
Tagaki, S., 1979. Segregation freezing as the cause of suction forc for ice lens
formation. Engineering Geology 13: 92-100.
Tavenas, F., Lebland, P., Jean, P. and Leroueil, S., 1983a. The permeability of nature
soft clays. Part I: Methods of laboratory measurement. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 20: 629-644.
Tavenas, F., Jean, P. Lebland, P. and Leroueil, S., 1983b. The permeability of natural
soft clays. Part II: Permeability characteristics. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 20:
645-660.
Tavenas, F. and Leroueil, S., 1987. State of the art on laboratory and in-situ
stress-strain-time behaviour of clays. Proceedings of International Symposium on
Geotechnical Engineering of Soft Soils, Mxico City, 1-46.
Taylor, D. W., 1948. Fundamentis ofSoil Mechanics. John Wiley, New York, 700pp.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John
Wiley, London, 729pp.
Teng, W. C., 1962. Foundation Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Thorburn, S., 1963. Tentative correlation chart for the standard penetration test in
non-cohesive soils. Civil Engineering Public Works Review.
Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., 1983. Empirical correlations of soil liquefaction based
on SPT N-values and fines conten. Soils and Foundations, 23: 56-74.
Tomlinson, M. J., 1980. Foundation Design and Construction. Pitman, London,
793pp.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1970. A guide to the structural design of
new pavements. TRRL, Road Note 29, HMSO.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970. Engineering and design: pavement design for
frost conditions. Corps of Engineers EM-110-345-306.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1960. The Unified Soil Classifica-
tion System. Technical memorndum No. 3-357.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1974. Earth Manual. Denver, 810pp.
U.S. Federal Aviation Agency, 1984. Airport Paving. Advisory Circular 150/5320-6.
U.S. Navy, 1982. Design Manual: Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures,
Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Navfac, U.S. Naval Publications and
Forms Center.
Van der Merwe, D. H., 1964. Prediction of heave from the plasticity ndex and
percentage clay fraction of soils. Civil Engineer in South frica, 6: 103-107.
Vijayvergiya, V. N. and Ghazzaley, O. L, 1973. Prediction of swelling potential for
natural clays. Proceedings ofSrd International Conference on Expansive Soils, Haifi,
1:227-236.
Wallace, G. B. and Otto, W. C., 1964. Differential settlement at Selfridge Air Forc
Base. Proceedings ofASCE Journal ofSoil Mechanics and Foundation Divisin, 90:
197-20.
Weston, D. J., 1980. Expansive roadbed treatment for Southern frica. Proceedings of
4h International Conference on Expansive Soils. 1: 339-360.
Williams, A. A. B., 1957. Discussion. Trans. S. Afr. Instn. Civ. Engrs., 8.
Woods, K. B. and Litehiser, R.R., 1938. Soil mechanics applied to highway engineering
in Ohio. Ohio State University Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin 99.
Wroth, C. P., 1972. General theories of earth pressures and deformation. Proceedings
of5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Madrid,
2: 33-52.
Wroth, C. P. and Wood, D. M., 1978. The correlation of ndex properties with some
basic engineering properties of soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15: 137-145.
Wroth, C. P., 1984. The interpretation of insitu soil tests. Geotechnique, 34: 449-489.
INDEX
AASHTO soil classification system 14, see also under AASHTO, BS, Unifed
21 27, 34, 35 systems
and CBR vales 102 Collapse potential
compared with the Unifed system 37, and density 111, 112
38 Coefficient of compressibility 56, 57
AASHTO standard compaction tests 44 typical vales 61
Activity 11 Coefficient of curvature 17
and expansive minerals 107 Coeffcient of earth pressure 92-96
and plasiciy ndex 106 active 92, 93, 95
and swelling potential 110 passive 92, 93, 95
Adsorption complex 4 at rest 95
Angle of internal friction 12, 89 Coeffcient of permeability 50,51
Angle of shearing resistance 12, 76, 89 and consolidation 65
ASTM/Unified soil classification and grading 51,53
system 14 and soil classification 51
and CBR vales 102 typical vales 51
and frost susceptibiliy 121 Coefficients of secondary
see also Unifed soil classification consolidation 68, 69
system Coefficient of uniformity 17
Atterberg limits Coefficient of volume
see Consistency limits compressibility 56, 57
Cohesin 6, 76-78
BS soil classification system 14, 17, Cohesin soils 4
27-29 Compacted density 43^47
BS soil descriptions 17 and CBR 99, 100
BS standard compaction tests 44 and shear strength 81
Bulk density 39 Compaction tests 43^45, 49
Compressibility 55
California Bearing ratio 2, 97, 98 Coefficient of 56, 57, 61
and liquidity ndex 99 coefficien of volume 56, 57
and mximum dry density 99, 100 Compression ndex 58
and optimum moisture content 100 modified 58
and plasticity ndex 98, 100 vales and correlaticns 60
and shear strength 104 Consistency limits . 6, 7
and soil classification 102 and consolidation 11
and suitability ndex 99 and expansiveness 106
Casagrande soil classification and shear strength 11
system 14 see also Liquid, Plstic and Shrinkage
Cations 223 limits
Classifcation systems for soils Consolidation 2, 55
review 13, 14 and consistency limits 10
for frost susceptibility 119, 121 and compressibility 65
128
and permeabiiity 65 Mximum dry densiy 45
coefficien of 65-68 and CBR '99,100
parameers 55-58 and opimum moisure content 46
theory 58 and shear strength 81
Consoldomeer 55 standard curves for 49
Constrained modulus 60 Modified compression ndex 58
Moisure content
Drained shear strength and swelling potential 112, 113
see shear strength Moisure-density curves, ypical 49
Defomation modulus 60 Montmorillonite 106, 107, 121
Dry density 39
Oedomeer 55
Effective shear strengh Optimum moisture conten 45
see shear srength and CBR 100
Effective stresses 76, 78-80 and mximum dry density 46
Expansive soils 11, 12, 105-107 and plasticiy 46
ypical moislure-densiy curves 49
Free swell 105
Frost heave 119 Overconsolidaed clays 86, 87
Frost susceptibility 116, 117
and grading 117-119 Parlicle size distribution
and plasticiy ndex 119-121 see Grading
and soil classificaion 119, 121 Permeabiliy 2
idenifcation of soil 119 and consolidalion 65
and grading 51, 53
Grading 1-3 and soil classification 51
and frost susceptibility 117-119 coefficient of 50, 51
and permeabiiity 53 Plasticiy 3, 6
classifications 4 Plasiciy ndex 7, 11
effects on other properies 2 and aciviy 106
and CBR 98, 100
Hazen's formula 53 and frosl susceplibiliy 119-121
Hveem sabilometer 97 and swelling poenial 107, 112, 113
Plstic limit 6-8, 10-12
Ice segregaion 116 and optimum moisture content 46
Ilute 107 Pate bearing tes 74, 75
Internal friction, angle of 12,89 Poisson's raio 60, 73