Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
c
p
LAT
Michaef Crter
and
Stephen P Bentley
PENTECH PRESS
Publishers: London
OF SOIL
Preface
Contents
1.1
GRADING
1.1.1 The influence of grading on soil properties
1.1.2 Standard grading divisions and sieve sizes
1
1
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
13
2.1
14
2.2
38
CHAPTER 3 DENSITY
39
3.1
NATURAL DENSITY
39
3.2
COMPACTED DENSITY
3.2.1 Compaction test standards
3.2.2 Typical compacted densities
3.2.3 Typical moisture-density curves
43
43
45
49
CHAPTER 4 PERMEABILITY
50
4.1
TYPICAL VALES
51
4.2
51
55
5.1
COMPRESSIBILITY OF CLAYS
5.1.1 The compressibility parameters
5.1.2 Setlement calculations using consolidation theory
5.1.3 Settlement calculations using elasticiy theory
5.1.4 Typical vales and correlations of compressibility
coeficients
5.1.5 Settlement corrections
55
56
58
59
5.2
65
5.3
SECONDARY COMPRESSION
68
5.4
70
70
74
6.2
60
62
76
78
79
80
81
83
89
89
6.4
90
6.5
92
97
7.1
97
7.2
97
104
105
8.1
IDENTIFICATION
105
8.2
SWELLING POTENTIAL
8.2.1 Relation to other properties
107
107
8.3
SWELLING PRESSURE
113
116
9.1
ICE SEGREGATION
116
9.2
9.3
GRAINSIZES
PLASTICITY
117
119
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
It can be readily appreciated by even the most untrained eye that
gravel is a somewhat diferent material from sand. Likewise, silt and
clay are different again. Perhaps not quite so obvious is that it is not
just the particle size that is important but the distribution of sizes that
make up a particular soil. Thus, the grading of a soil determines many
of its characteristics. Since it is such an obvious property, and easy to
measure, it is plainly a suitable frst choice as the most fundamental
property to assess the characteristics of soil, at least for coarse grained
soils. Of course to rely on grading alone is to overlook the influences
of such characteristics as particle shape, mineral composition and
degree of compaction. Nevertheless, grading has been found to be a
major factor in determining the properties of soils, particularly
coarse-grained soils where mineral composition is relatively unimportant.
1.1.1
1.2
PLASTICITY
clay
sand
f
grave 1
0.6
cobbles
2O
6O
boulders
20O
f
0.075
m
0.425
gravei
f
] c
2
4.75
19
cobbles bouiders
75
300
AST1KD422, D653)
sand
f
O.075
0.425
gravei
|c
2
4.75
Ato- bouiders
les
75
300
AASHTO(T88)
colloids
clay
O.CO1
sand
silt
O.OO5
f
O.075
bouiders
gravei
c
0.425
75
lu. S
0.001
| t ,l I I 1 s
O.01
lu. I i t
0.1
Inn I
_L1.1_1_5 1 1 1
10
lu i l i i
100
10OO
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 (adsorbed) 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 'cohesive' are often used synonymously. Since all plstic soils are cohesive
and all cohesive soils are plstic this seems quite reasonable, yet, not
/.S. sieve
designation
B.S. sieve
designation
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28ram
25mm
20mm
19mm
14mm
12.5mm
lO.Omm
9.5mm
6.3mm
S.Omm
4.75mm
3.35mm
3.18mm
2.36mm
2.00mm
1.70mm
l.ISmm
850/mi
600^m
425/^m
300/zm
250/im
150un
75/im
63/m
3in
2^in
2in
l|in
*
lin
*
lin
*
75mm
63mm
50mm
37.5mm
28m
*
20mm
*
14mm
*
lOmm
*
6.3mm
5mm
*
3,35mm
*
*
2.00mm
1.70mm
1.18mm
850/im
600/zm
425/im
300/im
*
100/zm
75/zm
63/m
Un
*
fin
in
*
No. 4
*
*
No. 8
*
*
No. 16
No. 20
No. 30
No. 40
No. 50
No. 60
No. 100
No. 200
*
Od (Imperial)
B.S. sieve
designation
3in
2iin
2in
l^in
*
lin
*
|in
*
lin
*
fin
in
*
16
sin
No. 7
*
No. 10
No. 14
No. 18
No. 25
No. 36
No. 52
No. 60
No. 100
No. 200
*
* 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
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.
1.2.1
Consistency limits
The notion of soil consistency limits stems from the concept that soil
can exist in any of four states, depending on its moisture content. This
is illustrated in Figure 1.3, where soil is shown settling out of a
suspensin in water, and slowly drying out. Initially, the soil is in the
form of a viscous liquid, with no shear strength. As its moisture
content is reduced, it begins to attain some strength but is still easily
moulded: this is the plastic-solid phase. Further drying reduces its
ability to be moulded so that it tends to crack as moulding occurs: this
is the semi-solid phase. Eventually, the soil becomes so dry that it is a
brittle solid. Early ideas on the consistency concept and procedures
for its measurement were developed by Atterberg, a Swedish chemist
and agricultural researcher in about 1910. In his original work
Atterberg (1911) identifed fve limits but only three (shrinkage,
plstic and liquid limits) have been used in soil mechanics. The liquid
and plstic limits represent the moisture contents at the borderline
"'"
llfi?
Viscous
liquid
Plstic
solid
'&M^
$%%$&,
S emi-plastic
Solid
solid
Volume
(a)
Solid
o
O
w
1
- Plstic =Liquid
o
E
a
o.
<n
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
11
between plstic and liquid phases and between semi-solid and solid
phases, as indicated in Figure 1.3. The shrinkage limit represents the
moisture content at which further drying of the soil causes no further
reduction in volume. This is illustrated n Figure 1.3(b). In electrochemical 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.
1.2.2
Table 1.2
No. of
blows
Factor
F
No. of
blows
Factor
F
No. of
blows
Factor
F
15
16
17
18 '
19
20
21
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.98
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1.01
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.03
The shrinkage limit test is dificult to carry out and results vary
according to the test method used nd sometmes even deoend on the
initial moisture conten of the test specimen. If he specimen is sowly
dried from a water conten near the auid limit (for exarr de, using
the ASTM D 427 procedure), a shrinkage limit valu of giv ,ter than
the plstic limit may be obtained; this is meaningless when considered
in the contex of Figure 1.3. This is paricularly rue wih sandy and
sily clays. Likewise, if he soil is in is naural, undisurbed sae hen
the shrinkage limi is often greater han the plstic limit due to the soil
structure (Holz and Kovacs 1981). Karlsson (1977), who carried out
Soil B SL = 27
Soil A SL = 14
Figure 1.4 Casagrande 's procedure for estimating the shrinkage limit
10
The liquid limit should, from the way it is defined in Figure 1 .3, be he
minimum moisture conten ai which he shear srengh of the soil is
zero. However, because of the way the standard liquid limit tesis have
been defned, the soil actually has a small shear srength. The
Casagrande procedure models a slope failure due o dynamic loading
under quick undrained condiions. The shear strengh of the specimen is progressively reduced by increasing is moisure conlen until
a specic energy inpu, in he form of sandard aps, causes a failure of
a standard slope in he defned manner. The alernative cone method,
devised by he Swedish Geotechnical Commission in 1922, is also an
indirec shear srengh test tha models bearing failure under quick
undrained condiions. The consequence of these tesl procedures is
that all soils at their liquid limil exhibit he same valu of undrained
shear srengh. Casagrande (1932) eslimaled this valu as 2.6kN/m2,
and laler work by Skemplon and Norlhey (1952) indicated vales of
l-2kN/m2. The hand rolling procedure used in he plasic limil lest
can be regarded as a measure of the toughness of a soil (he energy
required o fracure il) which is also relaled lo shear srengh,
although there are no obvious analogies for he mechanism of failure.
Il has been found Ihat all soils at the plstic limit exhibit similar vales
of undrained shear strengh reported by a number of researchers as
being 100-200kN/m2. Il was recognised as early as 1910 Ihal he
consislency limil lesls are measures of shear strengh, and Atlerberg's
assislanl, he geologisl Simn Johansson, presenled an rdele on he
srengh of soils al different moisure conlenls in 1914.
From he preceding discussion il can be seen Iha all remoulded
soils change heir srengh Ihroughoul Iheir plasic range from aboul
IkN/m 2 al he liquid limil lo abou 100kN/m2 al the plstic limit. The
plasticiy ndex is Iherefore he change of waer conlen needed lo
bring aboul a srengh change of roughly one hundred-fold, within
11
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. Consolidation 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
It can be seen hat, like grading, the Atterberg limits are potenially
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 substantially during remoulding. This is the case with many normally-consolidated clays but the properties of over-consolidated
clays, sensitive clays and cemented soils often differ markedly from
those predicted from Atterberg limit tests.
a3
Chapter 2
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS
The purpose of a soil classifcation system is to group together soils
with similar properties or attributes. From the engineering standpoint, it is the geotechnical properties, such as the permeability, shear
strength and compressibility, that are important.
The first step to classifying a soil is to identify it. Identification may
be based simply on inspection or on test results. To be of practical
valu, a classification system should utilise only a few easily-measured
properties. Preferably, the system should permit identification by
either inspection or testing. Tests should be as simple as possible and,
in this respect, tests that require disturbed samples are preferable: not
only do hey dispense with the need for undisturbed sampling or field
testing but, in addition, the properties they measure do not depend on
the structure of the soil mass. Thus, properties such as grain size,
mineral composition, organic matter conten and soil plasticity are to
be preferred as a basis for a classification system to properties such as
moisture conten, density, shear srengh and CBR valu.
Implici in the concep ha soils wih similar properies can be
grouped ogeher is he assumpion ha correlaions exis beween
he various soil properies. Tha his is rue is borne ou no only by
he success of soil classifcaion sysems bu also by he many
correlaions given hroughou his ex. However, since correlaions
are only approximae, classification sysems can give only a rough
guide o suiabiliy and behaviour: a limiaion which mu be
appreciaed if classificaion sysems are o be used sensibly. This is
paricularly imporan where a classifcaion sysem, based on he
esing of disurbed samples, is used o predic properies ha depend
on he sae of he soil mass. For insance, since he shear srengh of a
clay is heavily influenced by facors such as moisure conenl and field
densiy, a classificaion sysem based on soil plasiciy ess alone
canno be expeced o predic bearing capaciy o any grea accuracy.
13
14
yi
!
1
jg
'o ^S '3
^3
.^.
^3
X.
ftj
*
* *+
s!
^f*
^S C
"S -2 ^
^ ^j ^
~SS
^J e
< o1
^
^ V^ 3 ^*
"^ "3 S .
GP
GM
graded
SW
0S
SP
Silty sands,
poorly
sand-silt mixtures
graded
SM
graded
J ^
jf 1
s
"a
I
C*3
Sands with
fines
(appreciable
amount of
fines)
=3 -^
GW
Ijl
^ sj E!
"^S 'r ^
GC
S e; "S
Group
symbols
^J
1^
Typical ames
C^
^j Q ^j
ll
djl
15
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
Pt
o " ~~
1
s'^
a v^ s:
fe
Su ^~*' 1\
"^ .
^5 -^ gj
a\
Use grain size curve in identifying the fractions as given under field Identification
Determine percentages of gravel and sand from grain size curve. Depending on
percentage of fines (fraction smaller than 75/m sieve size) coarse grained soils are
classified as follows:
Less than 5%
More than 12%
5% to 12%
Plattlcity lnd*x
.
O *-JO
M
O
U
O
*
O
Ot
O
0
O
J (^
i r*
i 1
- ,
"~
Si * \r O. U ri^.
~ o
2"
o
m
*
"
^, ^S fl>
c^
^. ^^
"^ S ^*
- -
r~?r
'
'
'
^3 l^
tro
ero
1-1
p
rt
-i
o cr
.
fD ""^
1-1
-o "
"
n>
fD
rt
*J
-\-^
\
c0
II
to to
\^3
ho
h*
S s ^^
to
DP
(-*
C0
,
'
.
-ire
3
u>
r- ^ f>
* ^S
0 ^ P
"->
0,8
o
C en O. .'
-" ^ ^
r-f
35
(u
n
3
5- 3' ^ ^
S" i^ 5^
"
t>
^-t-
CL
SH "la.
5 i
^ c3
* ^i
**
kw . ^^
3"
3-
??
3
o\4
h
P3
'
|_
^i
ft
P
cr
P o
>-i n>
rti
re
r-f
ffO
uw
fc
3
OQ
^t) en
Si
^ cr
L
nT o"
en
!
OQ
i~i
CL
P
r^
en <
en *"t P
*<
o
3
S^ *>*.
ro
^ 2
jD
^
cr
3
_. c ._ cr o
*-t
C_
o^ 5' " a rl
t^
^J "w
("* 18
o ^ "^ S
ftj
*-3
*C
E- S -j 3-
IIII
to
1-
'~-
to
to
*
"-
K.
ON
t~\ ^
P
ff
03
rt>
r^-
^
<-+
tr
co
(D
3
C
2
H
O
o
"^
~. ^
o
3 -.
(ti
S' L
"S
n
n
o"
*J
3
^
JK
C/3
00
r
ta
0
>
OJ
H
O
on
i ^
O
13
H
W
Lrt
en
3
P-
3
rt-
"d
W
o
e/i
IVD
So
C/l
00
y^
on
O
TI
3
.
m
E"/
h<
Q
IIII
a
w
3
w
0
i-t"
re
ir 5 f ^
en Sr 3 _
m 3 . |-
3
en
i^
O
>-i
0
**
C/3
H-i)
So
^ *-
** 3 * cr
"^-J fi) O
r-*-
TO
ro
aP "^ ?t
3 Ttrt> reg
u E-.
^J
Q\
O
3
-t
-1
H"M
X w
^
cr
tr
<
r^-
GW,GP, SW, SP
GM, GC, SM, SC
Borderline cases requiring
use of dual symbols
nO
^^ *-4-
CT |^
rj
s e * 2 Nr
-. ^
& > ^ ?
3fc
nt
"'
C.T M
*
Cr n>
P
3
O
3-
^ C^
3
3
O- K
O "^J
cr
3
o
>
ao
17
z,^
70
Equation of "A--I ne
60 .Horizontal at Pl='\L
then PI=O.7 3(LL- 2O)
-25.5
y
/
&
.Equation o "IT-I ne
I 5 0 Vertical at LL=16 to Pl =
X
then Pl=0.KLL-fi )
| 40
_>.
o 30
"5
<0
a 20
10
7
4
/
Z
A
/
CL-ML
!
1O
20
ox
"-
0^"
o*
*> v
\*
vJ/>
/
^
. v
0^
&D/^ /
VJ
**
<?y
ov,
MH
or
OH
MLo rOL
30
40
SO
60
70
80
90
10O
110
120
Liquidlimit (LL)
Figure 2.1 Soil plasticity chart used with the ASTM and Unified soil classification sysems
18
Table 2.3
GW
GP
GM
1*11*
3
GC
-a o
J
U
^03
SW
g
^^
^J *-.
SP
-
.S -2:^
-c o^^
- ^. .a ^- -^
SM
SC
Cf
^
a
|,
<
^3
I
|o?
^^.
5; ^:
{j "-^
t
1
^
'3 .2 '
I'S
lis i
2^5=
8 *= a
3J**
Ib
o
s
H fl
.O
:s
o
o
Ui
I
O.
W)
13
o
u
.n
^n
5 *
?|l
2J
"a
.<
1
X ,
*
S
V, .N
3 O o;
U
'55
2" S E
" o -Si
=*
.! 1
ia^
-s c
^ *
Su
1
5C
aj
1 4 IH
. * ^ c 2
Co
_g Q
h's;
-ll
:s-s
a.|.g
^ ~"
>t
<*xo jjf_
;S
o-S
3
O
<
a j ,a
ja
1 .s
^-
= -!-'<=
"""*
Sands
More han half of coarse
fraction is smaller han
4.75mm sieve
-c:
^ -5
J .0a - .u
s; -S
".
i~
Group
symbols
E*-"
0
53 -.3 -.
"G.g J
li|
Dry srength
(crushing
characteristics)
Dilatancy
(reaction
to shaking)
Toughness
(consistency
near plstic
limit)
None to
slight
Quick to
slow
None
ML
Mdium
to high
None to
very slow
Mdium
CL
Slight to
mdium
Slow
Slight
OL
Slight to
mdium
Slow to
none
Slight to
mdium
MH
High to
very high
None
High
CH
Mdium
to high
None to
very slow
Slight to
"sdium
OH
3 * Q
^: ^ u
*
o,
Pt
Table 2.4
Coarse-grained soil
More than 50%
retained on No. 200
(0.075mm) sieve
Fine-grained soils
50% or more passes
the No. 200 sieve
Gravis
More than 50% of coarse
fraction retained on No. 4
(4.75mm) sieve
Clean gravis
Less than 5% fines3
GW
GP
Well-graded gravel6
Poorly graded gravel6
Fines classify as ML or MH
Fines classify as CL or CH
GM
GC
Sands
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes No. 4
(4.75mm) sieve
Clean sands
Less than 5% fines4
Cu^and lsSCc<3 5
Cu ^ 6 and/or l > C c > 3 5
SW
SP
Well-graded sand9
Poorly graded sand 9
Fines classify as ML or MH
Fines classify as CL or CH
SM
SC
Inorganic
CL
ML
Leanclay11-12-13
Silt 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3
Organic
OL
Organic clay 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 4
Organic silt 1 1 - 1 2 ' 1 3 ' 1 5
Inorganic
Organic
Group
CH
MH
OH
PT
F a t c l a y n . 12.13
00
r
o
Elasticsilt 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3
oo
00
h<
TI
n
H
HH
h-H
5. Cu = D60/)10
CV = ^r10X;60
LTt
H
m
2
oo
20
Table 2.5
SYSTEM
Description
Defmition of material*
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
coarse
fine
Sand
coarse
mdium
fine
Clay
Silt
Organic clay
or sill
Peat
21
C:V
ME
= 40
2
er
>
CH X
^MV
3 30
Cl
- MJ
20
mn
CL
x MI
10
ML
O
10
20
30
4O
50
60
70
80
9O
100
110 120
Figure 2.2
Soilplasiicity chart used with the British Standard soil classification system
o
!*
W
m
r1
>
Table 2.6 FLOW CHART FOR CLASSIFYING COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (MORE THAN so% RETAINED ON is^m SIEVE)
GROUP AME
<5% fines
and
fines-ML or MH
and
GRAVEL
% gravel>
%sand
>GW-GM
>Well-graded gravel
'Well-graded gravel with sand
>Poorly graded gravel
>Poorly graded gravel with sand
^5-12% fines
h<
O
Z
C/3
O
^
00
O
TJ
m
&
H
H-H
m
in
fnes-ML or MH
+GP-GM
fines-CL or CH,
(or CL-ML)
>GP-GC
fines-ML or MH
*GM
12% fines
fines-CL or CH - *GC
fnes-CL-ML
>GC-GM
<15%sand
>15%sand< 15% sand
< 15% sand ^ 15% sand-> < 15% sand^ > 15% sand-* < 15% sand"'5=15% sand-
n n n
,<5% fines
B 1 1 E1 1 1 1 I I I
'o vv
) } ) ) ) J Jl J
-^^^
'-^- 1J 70 giavci
,' T-J
C u < 6 and/or 1 >Cc>3
Cu^and l<Cc<3
SAND
-:> <
15% gravel
"""^fines-CL,CH,
(or CL-ML)
5-12% fines
, fines-ML or MH
Cu<6 and/or l>Cc>3x,
>SP-SM
fines-CL or CH
(or CL-ML)
>SP-SC
fines-ML or MH
-SM
fines-CL-CH
>SC
>< 15% gravel' ^15% gravel < 15% gravel' ^ 15% gravel -
>12% fines
fines-CL-ML
->SC-SM
n
r
00
>t
*Q
n
H
o
H-<
00
m
oo
K)
J
K)
Table 2.7
FLOW CHART FOR CLASSIFYING INORGANIC FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% OR MORE PASSES 75/n SIEVE)
GROUP SYMBOL
GROUP AME
O
O
?o
50
PI>7and
plots on or above
'A'-line
Inorganic
LL<50
i-Silt
% sand >% gravelSilt with sand
% sand < % gravel>Silt with gravel
% 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
1 LL-not dned
<
>SeeTable2.8
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 >
PI plots on or
above 'A'-line
>CH
Inorganic
PI plots below
'A'-line
>MH
ft}11IliVIt
J11 I I I 1I I I i
-Fat clay
<30% plus No. 200^-<15% plus No. 200
N
gravel>Fat clay with sand
15-29% plus No. 2(XK^% sand
% sand <% gravel>Fat clay with gravel
gravel
< 15% gravel
>Sandy fat clay
,% sand
^\5% gravel
>Sandy fat clay with gravel
> 30% plus No
N,
< 15% sand
>Gravelly fat clay
% sand < % gravel
^ 15% sand
^Gravelly fat clay with sand
,<30% plus No. 200^-> < 15% plus No. 200
-Elastic silt
15-29% plus No. 2(Xk-*% sand ^% gravelElastic silt with sand
% sand < % gravelElastic silt with gravel
% sand <% gravel-^><15% gravel
->Sandy elastic silt
S 30% plus No.
; 15% gravel
>Sandy elastic silt with gravel
:15% sand
^Gravelly elastic silt
% sand < % gravel
: 15% sand
>Gravelly elastic silt with sand
t/3
/LL-overdried
Organic
-j<0.75
1 LL-not dned
O
OH
>SeeTable 2.8
o
r
>
GO
U2
HH
TI
HH
O
>
H
hH
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
<30% plus No. 200-
and plots on
or above 'A'-line
% sand ^ % gravel
' % sand < % gravel
< 15% gravel
5*15% gravel
-<15% sand
> 1 5 % sand
AME
>Organic clay
>Organic clay with sand
>Organic clay with gravel
>Sandy organic clay
>Sandy organic clay with gravel
>Gravelly organic clay
>Gravelly organic clay with sand
i-o
ON
n
o
tfl
H
O
oo
PI<4 or plots
below 'A'-line
Plots on or
above 'A'-line
> < 1 5 % plus No. 200'15-29% plus No. 200% sand ^ % gravel
OH
Plots below,
'A'-line
<15% plus No. 200'15-29% plus No. 200% sand > % gravel-
% sand t % gravel
% sand < % gravel
< 15% gravel
>15% gravel
<15% sand
Sil5% sand
% sand 5s % gravel
% sand < % gravel
-K 15% gravel
>15% gravel
-*<15% sand
15% s a n d
- % sand ^ % gravel
' % sand < % gravel
< 15% gravel
15% gravel
<15% sand
-Organic silt
-* Organic silt with sand
-* Organic silt with gravel
-*Sandy organic silt
->Sandy organic silt with gravel
->Gravelly organic silt
-*Gravelly organic silt with sand
> Organic clay
> Organic clay with sand
* Organic clay with gravel
>Sandy organic clay
>Sandy organic clay with gravel
>Gravelly organic clay
"Gravelly organic clay with sand
-+Organic silt
-Organic silt with sand
-* Organic silt with gravel
-*Sandy organic silt
-+Sandy organic silt with gravel
-*Gravelly organic silt
Gravelly organic silt with sand
O
00
o
II
r
"U
O
TI
m
?d
H
NH
m
00
27
CHARACTERISTICS
Main erms
Qualifying terms
Main terms
Descriptive ame
Letter
GRAVEL
SAND
Well graded
Poorly graded
Uniform
Gap graded
G
S
W
P
Pu
Pg
F
M
C
Qualifying terms
Of low plasticity
Of intermedate plasicity
Of high plasticity
Of very high plastisity
Of extremely high plasticity
Of upper plasticity range*
incorporating groups I, H, V and E
L
I
H
V
E
U
Main term
Qualifying term
PEAT
Organic
may be suffixed to any group
Pt
O
* 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.
and
tf
o;
P E?.
1 5*
S0
< <0
rt
tP*
< ve;
*< g
<!<
X <*
CS
O3
3
Q.
p n
| |
o.
00
w;
sr
O
0.0.
0.a"
...'.
*"~*
oci P
-i Q.
y.
^
w
D
>
P
O
V^
g ;
"f*
3
P n
o 3
00
jy i^
y ""CJ
*^
t^ (JQ ^ CJQ
P
i"*
^^
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
g-J"
~O.([q
p
If^I
0_
p"
00
***
1
1
OOOOOOOOOOO)
OOOOOOOO
OOOO
OOOQOo
^^'fl^
^'TS
TiO-'-iD.
p rj n3 o
O. D- O. Q.
p)
p^
S>J i: g. i* g-
u | i- 1
^" <<
5"3"c9tS3-^
^
p- P CT. v J
3"Tj. o JJ" D.
CyQ P ^^ i t v^
--J Vi t>J A
p p vi A
o o o o o n o o o oo
onnoo" J ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
\
--J
Vi
OJ
0 O0 ^
>
Vi
U>
>
Vi
1
U)
Vi
i1
O O0
vi
** t^
^> *l Vi Vi
> *
v/>
[
V p o vi A
o T T 1 u>
vo T T I w
Vi
>
Vi
Vi
Oo
!!l!||!l
3
s1
H
wS
9 9
v
X
oo
03
Vi
<< d
o?
p
si
OO 00
o. oo
-"f
o>
L
-.
Ci
O
TI
33
C/3
O
a le.
is - .
*o <
fD
00
2- o
oo
o.
00 00
<~>
?
^
OQ oo
p
*<
w
p
o. <;
lf
| o.s<
o
1-t
C/3
2 2
*< v<
2- E
1 | 2.
0.0
S)
5"
A 3
29
c
_0
c c
ei
u
o oo
000
vi vi r~ o\D
rm
f>
W
V
0
^T
0
*/}
0
t^-
A
A
ri
^J
c/3
o H-] 2 PC > W
Vi Vi C*- O"\>
1 Os
r*"}
1 CTN
v A
U 'U "U
-U
us tn j
< <<
uuuuu
l/J t/J _J
EC
o
BO
^- C
^u s
>->
-*i
|3
'"5 -2 : "ale
n '* .2 t ft >-.
,_Q "a |
"S-'-S E
_, r* ^_^ gJ
'Q
OO
*-*
>>
|o
O "S.43
O O O ^
'^ ^
ii ^^
r^ j^>
-^^ ^
pj
< i t_ x > w
^
O ^ ^ O x
<-<-<i_ih-.lx;,>tU
00
o
E
Su
I
i
E
2
3
0
t^
'
"o
^
^?^
"3 *4J
J"?*O
>-. >->
6o
3
'Cfl
J *0
Cfl
o-a
c c ->-> >,
a
o3
= o3
**% ^^
cd cd rzn r^?
/3 </3 t/3 U
".
? S? '
l.
oo
3 U _ - u .H
c
O ,
5
C
s
' *o
c c
i .. c
'3
cr
c
U
u - O
O
C
^3
>.
vi
-8
o <"
03
i
00
-;
Oo
-S
O.
3
O
JH
CX
t_
U U U J2 "S -^-SP"!
c*-< tfc-i (*_,
w o g ;- u x
'-S - "t js ^
r1
"L "O
Io I J
I
Ist_T">
w
-2
/Un "
_
C
cd
15
S?
O QJ ^J
i J5 ^*
A
s
3 _0fl c
-=
o o .y o.
M ..' E
O
TT
c e a
o o
CS
Wl
C/2
IX
UH
e< |
U.
c "S
a"Z
2.H^
0#
*- ?".
" Ij's
kH
rs os
co -
oo
su uu uu
rt
* >.
S
^-2
W3 O
*^
rt >
S *-"
?^*
o
I
03
C/D
(ssuy %S9~S)
sXep pire sjiis
puBS Jo /USABJQ
^
"3
~*
o '
^^ ^^ ^
"c **
a M
rrt rz3
u3 C/2
i^ *5
u to >_
iJ i AH
(S3UU
t a uw cE 5
o r- =i '^
Z o
'E *- S> S.,
13
O 3 O
'C
u
. o
*3
rt
S2
cd
o
A
t3
C t^
CU * !?
u
35
_N
. _>
oc o
O Cu
'Bl
>
3 E O U
\0
LO
O
Table 2.11 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF COMPACTED SOILS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE UNIFIED SYSTEM (AFTER USBR 1974)
o
&
Canal seclions
Foundalions
m
r
H
Roadways
H-4
Filis
Group
symbols
Permeability
when
compacted
Shear
strenglh
compacted
and
salurated
Well-graded gravis,
gravel-sand mixtures,
little or no fines
GW
Pervious
Excellent
GP
GM
Semipervious Good
to irnpervious
Negligible
Good
GC
Impervious
Good
to fair
Very low
Good
Well-graded sands,
gravelly sands, little c1
no fines
SW
Pervious
Excelent
Negligible
Excellent
SP
Pervious
Good
Very low
Fair
Ty"Cal
ames
ofsoil groups
Very
pervious
Good
ibility
when
compacted
saturated
Negligible
Negligible
Workability
as a
conslruclion
material
Homoqeneous
,
Core
embankmen
Excellent
,,
Shell
ComErosin
pacled
resistearth
anee
lining
Seepage
Seepage
.
nol
imparimparlant
lant
Frost
Frosl
heave
heave
nol
posswle
possible
1
Good
.
Surfacing
oo
O
TI
O
TI
W
H
t
W
oo
3
If
6
gravelly
4
7
If
If
gravelly gravelly
s so
1*
bu
i*
"3
U
3
4>
E
3
vious
Vi
3
_0
">
. E
o
S.
c/5
o
1
T3
Ss
"8 3
2 -|
55 ec
E
J2
00
oo
X
s.
ki
o
o
l_
UH
.2
&
B
II
Ji S
u
ai
"?
tfl"
E
3
'uo
S
05
TJ
"C
3 3
o .2
"> ;
VI
3
o
o
BU
g
rt
_^j
a g
.-* w
V3
al
cu 5
00
4J 'Q
C
"S,g so.
a _"
0
Jj
o "S
l| i '1
i < tS
3
O
'3
U.
8.
.1- _S.
.1 .8.
1o
0 -^
b.
to
3
,O
'>
(_r
00
w
o
D.
vious
rvious
cS 2
cu
o
o
O.
CU
to
VI
3
_O
_o
8.
a
2
^
05
"O
to
"H.
_o
to
C8
"o
'vi
Inorganic silts,
micceo us or
diatomaceous fine san
O
O
vious
33
i_i
'a
ti,
-3
U
O -55
S
oc > o u
r- J
'
2.
~o W
=
*=
o ca
cc oo
O 13
"Z u
<
2 -
r^
"o
_rt
u
"o
00
2
1
S, ""
C3
*J
"o <2
S
t
>i
ll
00
*o
IM
31
K)
Table 2.12 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF COMPACTED SOILS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE EXTENDED CASAGRANDE SYSTEM
(AFTER CP2001: BSI 1957)
Casagrande
groupsymbol
Valu as a road
foundation when
not subject tofrost
action
Potential frost
action
Shrinkage or
swelling
properties
Drainage
characteristics
GW
Excellent
Almost none
Excellent
GC
Excellent
Mdium
Very slight
GU
Good
None
Almost none
Practically
impervious
Excellent
Applicable observations
and tests relating to the
material in place
(or carnea out on
undisturbed samples)
H
H <
O
00
o
on
O
HH
{<
>125
<?<0.35
>130
e<0.30
e<0.50
GP
Good to excellent
GF
Good to excellent
SW
Excellent to good
SC
Excellent to good
SU
Fair
SP
Fair to good
None to very
slight
Slight to mdium
None to very *
i 4.
c_ t ight
'-"'o
Mdium
None to very
i i i
slight
None to very
slight
Almost none
Almost none
to slight
Almost none
Excellent
Fair to practically
impervious
Excellent
e<0.45
>120
e < 0.40
>120
f\ r\ <.4(J
Almost none
Practically
impervious
Excellent
Almost none
Excellent
Very slight
>125
e<0.35
>100
f\ < 0.70
>100
e < 0.70
0
Dry density and relative
compaction.
Moisture content and
Cementation durability
*
of grams.
Stratification and
drainage characteristics.
Ground-water conditions.
Large scale loading tests,
California Bearing Ratio
tests.
Shear tests and other
strength tests.
*d
tn
H
I-H
frt
c/5
SF
Fair to good
Slight to high
Almost none
to mdium
Fair to practically
impervious
ML
Fair to poor
Mdium to very
high
Mdium to high
Slight to
mdium
Mdium
Fair to poor
CL
Fair to poor
OL
Poor
Mdium to high
CI
Fair to poor
Slight
Mdium to
high
Mdium to
1 * 1
high
High
MI
Fair to poor
Mdium
Poor
Slight
High
MH
Poor
Mdium to high
High
CH
Very slight
High
OH
Very poor
Very slight
High
Pt
Extremely poor
Very high
Slight
Note. Group symbols as for Unified system except for placticity ranges:
L - low plasticity, PI less than 35%
I - intermedate plasticity, PI 35-50%
H - high plasticity, PI greater than 50%
- > 105
e < 0.60
>ioo
e<0.70
Practically
impervious
Poor
Fair to poor
Fair to practically
impervious
Fair to practically
impervious
Poor
Practically
impervious
Practially
impervious
Fair to poor
>ioo
e<0.70
>90
e < 0.90
>ioo
e < 0.70
>95
e < 0.80
>95
e < 0.80
> 1 00
>90
e<0.90
>ioo
e < 0.70
C/5
Consolidation tests.
n
H4
HH
O
H
Ht
2!
00
O
C/3
/ ''
Table 2.13
..
'
..
'
,-,
, , .~
General classmcatwn
Granular materials
,->cn/
/
TC
4-7
4-3
Silt-clay materials
(More than 35% passing 75 m
A-4
4-2
*-
4-5
4-6
4-7
Group classification
A-l-a
Sieve analysis:
Percentage passing:
2mm
425/rni
75/m
Charateristics of
fraction passing
425/im:
Liquid limit
Plasticity ndex
Group ndex
- typical vales
A-l-b
4-2-5
4-2-6
4-7-5: 4-7-6
4-2-7
g
O
TI
50 max
30 max
15 max
50 max
25 max
51 min
10 max
35 max
35 max
35 max
35 max
Q
___
36 min
36 min
36 minn
36 min
*o
. O
6 max
NP
40 max
10 max
41 min
10 max
40 max
11 min
41 min
11 min
40 max
10 max
41 min
10 max
40 max
11 min
41 min
11 min*
'"
0
Usual types of
Stone fragments
significant
gravel and sand
constituent materials
General rating as
subgrade
4-2-4
m
t-1
>
0
Fine
sand-
4 max
Excellent to good
' .'
8 max
12 max
Silty soils
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.
16 max
20 max
Clayey soils
70
H
m
w
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.
=f=
^
^
^
Granular materials
Group A-5. Similar to material described under group A-4 except that
it is usually diatomaceous or
micaceous and may be elastic as
indicated by the high liquid limit.
Group A-6. Typically a plstic clay
soil having a high percentage passing the 0.075mm sieve. Also mixtures of clayey soil with sand and
fine gravel. Materials in this group
have a high volume change between
wet and dry states.
Group A-7. Similar to material described under group A-6 except that
it has the high liquid limit characteristic of group A-5 and may be
elastic as well as subject o high
volume change.
Subgroup A-7-5 materials have modrate plasticity ndices in relation to
the liquid limits and may be highly
elastic as well as subject to volume
change.
Subgroup A-7-6 materials have high
plasticity ndices in relation to the
liquid limits and are subject to
extremely high volume change.
Group A-8. Includes highly organic
materials. Classification of these
materials is based on visual inspection and is not related to grading or
plasticity.
36
BS system
Group
Subgroup
GW
GP
G-F
G-M
G-C
GF
S
FG
S-M
SM
SC
MG
CG
FS
MS
CS
M
C
Pt
GPu
GPg
GWM
GPM
GW
GP
GP
GW-GM
GP-GM
GWC
GPC
GW-GC
GP-GC
SPu
SPg
SWM
SPM
SWC
SPC
GM
GC
SW
SP
SP
SW-SM
SP-SM
SW-SC
SP-SC
SM
SC
ML, OL(3)
GM< 2) , SM'2"5'
MH, OH(3>
CL'4'
GC'2', SC'2"5'
CH(4)
ML, OL(3)
SM'5'
sw
S-C
SF
GM
GC
SP
S-F
Subdivisin
MLG, MIG
MHG, MVG,
MEG
CLG, CIG
CHG, CVG,
CEG
MLS, MIS,
MHS, MVS,
MES
CLS, CIS
CHS, CVS, CES
ML, MI
MH, MV, ME
CL, CI
CH, CV, CE
MH, OH'3'
CL(4>
CH'4'
ML, OL(3)
MH, OH(3)
CL'4'
CH'4'
Pt
SW'2'
S p(2)
SC'5'
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.
37
Soil group
in
Umfied/ASTM
systems
Most
probable
GW
A-l-a
GP
A-l-a
A-l-b
GM
A-l-b, A-2-4,
A-2-5, A-2-7
A-2-6
GC
A-2-6, A-2-7
A-2-4, A-6
SW
A-l-b
A-l-a
SP
A-3, A-l-b
A-l-a
SM
se
A-l-b, A-2-4,
A-2-5, A-2-7
A-2-6, A-2-7
ML
CL
OL
A-4, A-5
A-6, A-7-6
A-4, A-5
MH
CH
OH
Pt
A-7-5, A-5
A-7-6
A-7-5, A-5
A-2-6, A-4,
A-5
A-2-4, A-6,
A-4, A-7-6
A-6, A-7-5,
A-4
A-6, A-7-5,
A-7-6
A-7-5
Possible
Possible but
improbable
A-2-4, A-2-5,
A-2-6, A-2-7
A-3, A-2-4,
A-2-5, A-2-6,
A-2-7
A-4, A-5, A-6,
A-7-5, A-7-6,
A-l-a
A-4, A-7-6,
A-7-5
A-3, A-2-4,
A-2-5, A-2-6,
A-2-7
A-2-4, A-2-5,
A-2-6, A-2-7
A-6, A-7-5,
A-7-6, A-l-a
A-7-5
A-7-6
A-7-6
38
Table 2.17
Soil group
in
AASHTO
system
A-l-a
A-l-b
A-3
A-2-4
A-2-5
A-2-6
A-2-7
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7-5
A-7-6
GW, GP
SW,SP,GM,SM
SP
GM, SM
GM, SM
GC, SC
GM,GC,SM,SC
ML, OL
OH, MH, ML,
OL
CL
OH, MH
CH, CL
Possible
Possible but
improbable
SW, SP
GM, SM
GP
GC, SC
GM, SM
CL, SM, SC
ML, OL, SC
ML,OL,CH
ML, OL, SC
SW, GP
GW, GP, SW, SP
GW,GP,SW,SP
GW, GP, SW, SP
GW,GP,SW,SP
GM, GC
SM, GM
GC, GM, SM
GM,SM,GC,SC
OH, MH, GC,
GM, SM
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.
2.2 CORRELATION OF THE UNIFIED, BS AND AASHTO
SYSTEMS
A correlation between the BS and Unified/ASTM systems is given in
Table 2.15. Because the two systems share a common origin, it is
possible to correlate the soil groups with a reasonable degree of
confidence. However, minor differences beween the systems mean
that the possibility of ambiguity can arise, as explained in the
accompanying notes. The totally different basis of the AASHTO
system means that there is no direct equivalence between it and the
groups of the Unified system. This is indicated in Tables 2.16 and 2.17
which show correlations between the Unifed and AASHTO systems.
A full comparison of the Unified, AASHTO and now-superseded US
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) systems is given by Liu (1970). The
FAA soil classification system is, like the AASHTO system, an
interpretive one in that soil is divided into a number of classes
according to their suitability as runway subgrades. However, the
FAA now uses the Unified system.
Chapter 3
DENSITY
3.1 NATURAL DENSITY
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:
40
TabJe 3.1
Bulk density*
Dry density
1700-1800
1800-1900
1900-2100
2000-2200
2200-2300
1700-1900
1800-2300
1900-2300
1300-1400
1400-1500
1500-1800
1700-2000
2000-2200
1300-1500
1400-2200
1500-2200
1600-1700
1700-1900
1800-2200
2000-2400
900-1100
1100-1400
1300-1900
1700-2200
1700-2100
1300-1800
1 Assumes
relative density =
max
e min
Pdr
P
Par
'Par,
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 characteristics 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
Table 3.2
41
D f
Reference
~
f
. ,
Correction factor (C N )
Units of
overburden
L/l C O4/ C
K)
Gibbs and Holtz (1957)
[equation by Teng 1962]
50
psi
Q = 10 +<
4
ksf
3.25 +0.5a;
20
CN = l-1.251og 10 cr;
1.7
Tokimatsu and
Yoshimi (1983)
kg/cm2 or tsf
kg/cm2 or tsf
n2 or tsf
^-,
0.7 + a'v
kg/cm2 or tsf
Skempton (1986)
For dense,
coarse sands
when normally
Consolidated
CN=
1.7
0.
kg/cm2 or tsf
For overconsolidated
fine sands
42
Table 33
Relase
ER
ERJ60
Japan
Donut
Donut
Tombi
2 turns of rope
78
65
1.3
1.1
China
Pilcon type
Donut
Trip
Manual
60
55
1.0
0.9
USA
Safety
Donut
2 turns of rope
2 turns of rope
55
45
0.9
0.75
UK
Pilcon, Dando,
od standard
Trip
2 turns of rope
60
50
1.0
0.8
60
1.0
t.95
0.85
0.7
Standard sampler
US sampler wihou liners
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.05
1.15
DENSITY
43
Classification
Very lose
0 15
NK-0.75)
4
Lose
0 35
0.5
0 65
Mdium
"i
44
(N)60
(NiW#
10
(18)
30
11
20
33
g
15
25
60
59
50
55
42
58
(70)
77
58
58
65
Dense
0 85
Very dense
1.0
*C W =U; Rr/
44
Collar
Ls:
es
ES
-Mould
fifi
Base
Rammer-
11
Figure 3.1
DENSITY
Table 3.6
45
Mould Mould
volume da. d
(mm)
d)
Mould
ht. h
(mm)
BS 1377:1975
Test 12
Test 12 (modified)
Test 13
Test 13 (modified)
1.0
2.32
1.0
2.32
105
152
105
152
115.5
127
115.5
127
2.5
4.5
4.5
300
300
450
450
3
3
5
5
27
62
27
62
AASHTO
T145
TI 80
TI 80 (modified)
0.94
0.94
2.32
101.5
101.5
152
116.4
116.4
127
2.50
4.54
4.54
304.8
457.2
457.2
3
5
5
25
25
56
Test designaran
2.5
The modified forras of the test use a CBR mould and are suitable for coarser soils.
differences exist between British and American Standards, as indicated in Table 3.6, which gives mould and rammer sizes for the
various tests.
With sands and gravis, the rammer tends to displace the material
rather than compac it so that the densities obtained in the
compaction test are unrealisically low when compared with what can
be achieved on site. To overeme this, a vibrating hammer can be
used instead of the rammer. Vibration is typically carried out for 60
seconds per layer under a constant forc of 30-40kg.
3.2.2
The compacted density achieved for a soil depends on the soil type, its
moisure conten and the compactive effort used. Table 3.7 shows
typical vales of mximum dry density (MDD) and optimum
moisture conen for soil classes, using he Unified classifcation
sysem,for soils compaced to AASHTO or BS standard compaction:
AASHTO T99 (5.51b rammer method) or BS 1377:1975 Test 12
(2.5kg rammer method). The vales given are based on typical vales
given by Krebs and Walker (1971) and the U.S. Army Engineer
Waerways Experiment Station (1960), and on the authors' own
experience. A similar set of vales but related o he AASHTO soil
classifcaion system, is given in Table 3.8. These are based on he
above vales and the relationship between the AASHTO and Unified
soil classifcation systems, and on vales suggested by Gregg (1960).
It should be noted that clean sands often show no clear optimum
46
Table 3.7
Soil description
Gravel/sand mixtures:
well-graded, clean
poorly-graded, clean
well-graded, small sil content
well-graded, small clay content
Sands and sandy soils:
well-graded, clean
poorly-graded, small silt content
well-graded, small silt conten
well-graded, small clay content
Fine-grained soils oflow plasticity:
sils
clays
organic sils
Fine-grained soils of high plasticity:
silts
clays
organic clays
Table 3.8
Class
MDD
standard
compaction
(kg/m3)
Optimum
moisture
content
(%)
GW
GP
GM
GC
2000-2150
1850-2000
1900-2150
1850-2000
11-8
14-11
12-8
14-9
SW
SP
SM
se
1750-2100
1600-1900
1750-2000
1700-2000
16-9
21-12
16-11
19-11
ML
CL
OL
1500-1900
1500-1900
1300-1600
24-12
24-12
33-21
MH
CH
OH
1100-1500
1300-1700
1050-1600
40-24
36-19
45-21
BSIAASHTO compaction
Soil description
Class
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
Max dry
densiy
(kg/m3)
Op, moisture
conten
(%)
1850-2150
1750-2150
1600-1900
1500-2000
1350-1600
1500-1900
1300-1850
5-15
9-18
5-12
10-20
20-35
10-30
15-35
DENSITY
10
20
30
47
40
Plstic limit - %
(a)
1000
10
48
2-
1.55
6
10
12 U
16
18 20
22
24
26
28 30
.
32 34
36
38 40
Figure 3.3 Typical moisture-densy curves (modified after Woods and Liehiser, 1938
and Joslin, 1959)
DENSITY
49
Chapter 4
PERMEABILITY
The coefncient of permeability is defned as the quantity of flow
through unit rea of soil under a unit pressure gradient. This assumes
a linear reationship between the pressure gradient and quantity of
flow, q, which is the basis for Darcy's law:
(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)
l +e
n
where e and n are the voids ratio and porosity of he soil, respectively.
The permeability of a soil is srongly inluenced by its macro50
PERMEABILITY
51
e3
10 - I I
,0-10
1Q-9
1(
.... i .
io- 7
10'6
I
io5
I
10 -5
10-
io-3
10'2
KT1
i
m/s
Coefficient of
permeability
(log scale)
10'9
10-
10 -7
10'
10 -2
10
10
cm/s
10 -10
10
-9
10 -6
10
10~ 5
10 -4
10
10-
10
ft/s
Practically
impermeable
Drainage
conditions:
Practically
impermeable
Typical soil
groups:
GC> GM)*
Homogeneous
clays below
the zone of
weathering
Mdium
Poor
CH
Soil types:
Low
Very low
High
Good
SM
SM-SC
SC
MH
MC-CL
SW-K
GW-.
SP->
Clean
gravis
100
PERMEABILITY
53
Table 4.2
Material
Permeability (m/s)
_
0.4-4 x 10~ 3
4 x 10~ 3 -4x 10~ 5
7x 10~ 4 -7x 10~ 6
7xlO~6-7xlO~8
10~ 7 -10~ 9
7x 10" 8 -7x 10~ 10
less than 10~ 9
4 x 10~ 5 -4x 10~ 8
less than 10~ 10
* New pavements; vales as low as 10~ 10 have been reported for sealed, traflc-compacted highway pavement.
54
Burmister
X.
Hazen formula
C u = 1.5, e = 0.75
C u = 3, e = 0.7
o.01 -
Mansur
Mississippi r v e r
sands
O.OO5
C u =2 - 3,
e = 0.9 - 0.6 ,'
o
a
- field tests
- Icb tests,
'
'V
c
o
USNavy
O.OO1
O.OOO5
0,5
10
Chapter 5
CONSOLIDATION AND
SETTLEMENT
The settlement of soils in response to loading can be broadly divided
into two types: elastic settlement and time-dependent settlement.
Elastic settlements are the simplest to deal with; they are instantaneous, recoverable, and can be calculated from linear elastic theory.
Time-dependent settlements occur in both granular and cohesive
soils, although the response time for granular soils is usually short. In
addition to being time-dependent, their response to loading is
non-linear, and deformations are only partially recoverable. Two
types of time-dependent settlement are recognised. Primary consolidation results from the squeezing out of water from the soil voids
under the influence of excess pore water pressures, generated by the
applied loading. Secondary compression occurs essentially after all
the excess pore pressures have been dissipated, that is, after primary
consolidation is substantially complete, but the mechanisms involved
are not fully understood. The settlement of granular soils is more
difficult to predict with any accuracy, largely because of the difficulty
of obtaining and testing undisturbed soil samples, and settlements are
usually estimated by indirect methods. Alteraatively, pate bearing
tests may be used but their results are dificult to interpret.
5.1 COMPRESSIBILITY OF CLAYS
The compressibility of clays is usually measured by means of
oedometer (consolidometer) tests, or similar methods (see Tavenas
and Leroueil 1987). Results may be expressed in a number of ways,
leading to a, sometimes conftising, variety of compressibility parameters. As indicated in Figure 5.1, either ampie thickness, h, or voids
ratio, e, may be plotted agains consolidation pressure, p, which may
itself be plotted either o a natural scale or, more usually, to a
logarithmic scale.
55
56
1O
(a)
OverconsoJidation pressure
(O
=C
I!
Unloading
Recompression
b.
CJ O
O.01
O.t
10
Figure 5.1
57
Pressure p1
Pressure Pffdp =
lilil
dh
de
Voids
Solas
Figure 5.2
Vol. e.
Yoids
Soiids
Vol. 1
(5.1)
P2~Pi
and is the slope of the curve shown in Figure 5.1 (a) when e is plotted
against p. From an engineering viewpoint, it is the proportional
change of thickness of a specimen that is of direct concern. For a
constant cross-sectional rea, this is proportional to the proportional
change of volume of a soil, and gives rise to the concept of the
coeficlenl of volunie of compressibility, mv, which is much more
commonly used:
d(volume) 1
dh 1
v
volunie dp
h p
Refemng to the soil sample, mv can also be expressed in terms of the
voids ratio:
1
dh 1
(5.3)
"y
~~
<
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
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:
(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:
e-e
1
v 1
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.
5.1.2
h 1
irih p;
(5.9)
h =
59
(5.10)
5.1.3
l+e
60
' -,
-,-;a
61
Type of clay
Descriptive
term
Coefficient ofvolume
compressbility, /nv
(m2/MN)
(ft 2 /ton)
Very low
compressibility
<0.05
< 0.005
Low
compressibility
0.05-0.1
0.005-0.01
Mdium
compressibility
0.1-0.3
0.01-0.03
High
compressibility
0.3-1.5
0.03-0.15
Very high
compressibility
Table 5.2
1981)
>0.15
Soil
Normally Consolidated mdium sensitivo clays
Chicago silty clay (CL)
Boston blue clay (CL)
Vicksburg Buckshot clay (CH)
Swedish mdium sensitive clays (CL-CH)
Canadian Leda clays (CL-CH)
Mxico City clay (MH)
Organic clays (OH)
Peats (P)
Organic silt and clayey silts (ML-MH)
San Francisco Bay Mud (CL)
San Francisco Od Bay clays (CH)
Bangkok clay (CH)
0.2 to 0.5
0.15 to 0.3
0.3 to 0.5
0.5 to 0.6
1 to3
1 to4
7to 10
4 and up
10tol5
1.5 to 4.0
0.4 to 1.2
0.7 o 0.9
0.4
compression ndex, Cc, is usually preferred. Typical valu of compression ndex are given in Table 5.2.
Skempton (1944) proposed the folio wing relationship between
compression ndex and liquid limit (LL) for normally-consolidated
62
Regions of applicability
Cc=0.007 (LL-7)
Ce,=0.208e0+0.0083
Cc = 17.66xKT 5 >vj
Cc=1.15(e0-0.35)
Cc=0.30(e0-0.27)
Remoulded clays
Chicago clays
Chicago clays
All clays
Inorganic, cohesive soil; silt,
some clay; silty clay; clay
Organic soils-meadow mats,
peats, and organic silt and clay
Soils of very low plasticity
All clays
Chicago clays
3 w n -1.35x10
= l.15x10 -2,
Cc = 0.75(e0-0.50)
= 0.1566
C =O.OlH>
-1
clays:
C=
0.007(LL-10).
Settlement corrections
63
overConsolidated
clay
normally
c o n s o l i d a t*d clays
clay*
1.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
O
O
w
r
>
H
O
HH
Table 5.4
TYPICAL VALES OF CONSOLIDATION FACTOR n FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF SOIL (ATER CRTER 1983)
Type of clay
Definitions of H and b
= 0.5
co
H/b=l
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
0.8-1.0
0.7-1.0
0.7-1.0
H
Over-consolidated clav (Lias,
London, OxforH
,,ild clays)
0.6-0.8
0.5-0.7
0.4-0.7
0.5-0.6
0.4-0.5
0.2-0.4
. ,.j,,rrr^
- j
b
ctompresslble
Surface layer
layer
o
HH
r
"O
*l
O
Tf
m
Compresslble layer
Approximate approach
for subsurface layer
65
m
"*v/
Wvw
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
. J>
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
T,
rr
Casel
Case 2
Case 3
0.008
0.031
0.071
0.126
0.197
0.287
0.403
0.567
0.848
0.047
0.100
0.158
0.221
0.294
0.383
0.500
0.665
0.940
0003
0.009
0.024
0.048
0.092
0.160
0.271
0.440
0.720
Casel*
..-.-..-.
;-...
:': ::'.::':.::
Case 2
Case 3
-6i4<<>s?sXsaiS!^i!<>ix. .
.
>.'.: :.':.:. ..:/:./
* Case 1 may be used for uniform pressure distribution with drainage at top or bottom only.
O
tn
?o
O
:
' - . '.
.
i- .'.'.-V;'."..-. ?.'.'!
O
!z!
oo
, . .
H
i<
:,
/
C!WiXOWN^Mviww^
*
M
!*
H
hH
(T)
t/J
67
Soil
Boston blue clay (CL)
(Ladd and Luscher, 1965)
Organic silt (OH)
(Lowe, Zaccheo, and Feldman, 1964)
Glacial lake clays (CL)
(Wallace and Otto, 1964)
Chicago silty clay (CL)
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
Swedish mdium sensitive clays (CL-CH)
(Holtz and Broms, 1972)
1. laboratory
2. field
San Francisco Bay Mud (CL)
Mxico City clay (MH)
(Leonards and Girault, 1961)
(cm 2 /sxl(T 4 )
(m 2 /yr)
40 + 20
126
2-10
0.6-3
6.5-8.7
2.0-2.7
8.5
2.7
0.4-0.7
0.7-3.0
2-4
0.9-1.5
0.1-0.2
0.2-1.0
0.6-1.2
0.3-0.5
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
40
60
8O
100
Liquid limit - %
120
140
160
68
for clays are given in Table 5.6, and an approximate correlation with
liquid limit is shown in Figure 5.4.
(5.11)
where de is the change in voids ratio over a time interval, di, from time
x to time 2: see Figure 5.5. Similarly, the modified secondary
compression ndex, Ca is:
dh/h
d(log)
o
4><
O
>
O
su
c
e
E
o
e
a.
V)
Secondary compression
Log time, t
Figure 5.5
(5.12)
69
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 rearranging 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
Organic silts
Amorphous and fibrous peat
Canadian muskeg
Leda clay (Canad)
Post-glacial Swedish clay
Soft blue clay (Victoria, B.C.)
Organic clays and silts
Sensitive clay, Portland, ME
San Francisco Bay Mud
New Liskeard (Canad) varved clay
Mxico City clay
Hudson River silt
New Haven organic clay silt
* Modified after Mesri and Goldlewsk'(197""-
CJCC
0.035-0.06
0.035-0.085
. 0.09-0.10
0.03-0.06
0.05-0.07
0.026
0.04-0.06
0.025-0.055
0.04-0.06
0.03-0.06
0.03-0.035
0.03-0.06
0.04-0.075
70
10O
I I I lili
i r
I I I I II
TJ
c
o
10-
<a
co
E
o
u
a
o
c
o
u
1-
TJ
o
o
2
0.1
10
r MI
1OO
i i f i iT
1000
Figure 5.6 Correlation between modified secondary compression ndex and natural
moisture conten (after Mesri, 1973)
*=
=
E*
71
70
\-
6OO
6O
CM
ry den se
^e ^
H 5OO
50
^-^.*-
^ s^ Dense
S 40O
4O
c
X,
| 3OO
.0
^
^30
e
c
30 o
4-1
Med um d<snse
| 200
2O
<
100
S5o
10
'*.
.
i.
Lose
O
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
4a(kN/m2) =
005 Kd
N
0.08 \
73
800
Footirvg width - m
Figure 5.8 Allowable bearing pressure for footings founded ai surface level, for
settlement limited lo approximately 25mm (after Bowles, 1982)
74
80
60
o
o
O
40
"S
E
i_
o
i
20
2O
40
60
Pate bearing tests offer a more direct method of measuring settlements but the usefulness of the results is limited by two constraints:
75
2B
,0.3
Chapter 6
SHEAR STRENGTH
It is usually assumed that the shear strength of soils is governed by the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
(6.1)
s = c + <7 tan 4>
where s is the shear stress ai failure along any plae
a is the normal stress on that plae
and c and (f) are the shear strength parameters; cohesin and angle of
shearing resistance.
This is shown graphically on the Morir diagram given in Figure 6.1.
A complication arises because the normal stresses within a soil are
carried partly by the soil skeleton itself and partly by water within the
soil voids. Considering only the stresses within the soil skeleton,
equation (1) is modifed to
or
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
Figure 6.3
Mohr diagram for saturated clay in terms of total and effective sresses
SHEAR STRENGTH
79
The equilibrium pore water pressures that are eventually established are, unlike the immediate response, not a property of the soil
but depend on the surrounding conditions. Long-term pore water
pressures cannot therefore be simulated in the laboratory must be
considered separately. Henee, efective stress analysis must be used
where long-term stability is important. In testing, the response of the
soil skeleton can be measured either by allowing drainage of the
specimen so that no more pressures build up or by measuring the pore
water pressure within the specimen. In either case, tests must be
carried out slowly enough to allow complete dissipation or equalisation of excess pore water pressures within the test specimen.
6.1.1
80
SHEAR STRENGTH
Table 6.1
81
Shear strength
(kN/m 2 )
Descriptive
term
<20
20-^W)
40-75
75-150
150-300
>300
Very soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very stif
Hard
Characteristics
Exudes between fingers when squeezed
Moulded by light finger pressure
Moulded by strong finger pressure
Can be indented by thumb
Can be indened by thumb nail
Note: thesc strength descriptions and tests conform with standard practice and with the recommendations of B.S.
5930 (1981).
Table 6.2
Soil description
Silty sands, sand-silt mix
Clayey sands, sand-clay mix
Silts and clayey silts
Clays of low plasticity
Clayey silts, elastic silts
Clay of high plasticity
1
Class*
SM
SC
ML
CL
MH
CH
Saturated
50
74
67
86
72
103
20
11
9
13
20
11
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).
6.2.1
82
1.8
Clay
Horten
London
Gosport
1.6
Shellhaven
LL
PL
Pl A c t i v i t y
30
73
80
97
16
25
30
32
14
48
50
0.36
65
1.27
0.96
0.89
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
-0.2
0.1
I I I lili
I I I I I 11
I I I I III
5O 100
Undrained shear strength - kN/ra 2
O.5
1O
l i l i
5OO
Figure 6.4 Correlation between shear strength and liquidity ndex (after Skempton and
Norhey, 1952)
w n -PL
Pl
SHEAR STRENGTH
83
I
(O
20
10
(O
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
O.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Liquidity Indax
Figure 6.5 Correlation between sensitivity and liquidity ndex (after Skempton and
Northey, 1952)
2.0
84
100
5O
x.
Z
JS
**
O)
e
o
co
10
i
0.2
--.
ti
0.4
0.6
Liquidity indax
0.8
1.0
1.2
2
'a
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
0.11+0.0037P/
Bjerrum(1972) "aged"
Skempton (1957)
0)
I
n
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
o
o
S
(O
X
3
(0
(0
I
'3
9
o
Jaw 0.2
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
1.2
Bjerrum (1972)
O^ Milligan (1972)
D O
1.0
II
Bjerrum's (1972)
recommended curve
3k
0.8
o
09
0.6
v.
u.
-CH
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)
88
2.0
40
20
100
6O
Plasticity ndex
Figure 6.10 Relationship between overconsoliation ratio and plasticity ndex for
late-glacial clays (after Bjerrum, 1972)
500
400
g 3OO
ffl
H
W
m 200
0)
.
V)
"O
c
D
1O
20
3O
40
50
6O
SPT N-valu-blows/SOOmm
Figure 6.11 Approximate correlations beween undrained shear strength and standard
penetration test N-values (after Terzaghi and Peck, 1967 and Sowers, 1979}
SHEAR STRENGTH
63
89
4O
&
o
30
20
o 10
o
i /
20
40
60
80
100
^
*
Plasticity indox
Figure 6.12 Relationships between angle of shearing resistance and plasticity ndex
(after Gibson, 1953)
120
Soil description
Class*
SM
SC
ML
CL
MH
CH
(deg)
34
31
32
28
25
19
SHEAR STRENGTH
Table 6.4
SOILS
91
0 (deg)
Material
Uniform sand, round grains
Well-graded sand, angular grains
Sandy gravis
Silty sand
Inorganic silt
Table 6.5
Lose
Dense
27
33
35
27-33
27-30
34
45
50
30-34
30-35
So// description
Class*
Angle of shearing
resistance, (f> (deg)
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
>38
>37
>34
>31
38
37
1 Unified
O
O
classification system.
50
40
o> a
c o
2
*o
30
Relative density
.
o>
<
20
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
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)
2.4
92
/
/'
60
50
x
/
40
20
V)
10
4
Relative density
Very dense
28
xx
30 32
X
A K
Lose . ^t*
Very lose *A,
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 correlation 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.
SHEAR STRENGTH
93
<0
e
&
o
O
O
05
O
O)
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
0.8
4X
w
o
0.6
(O
o
o
t_
O
O.4
o O.2
U
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
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
rt
SHEAR STRENGTH
95
1.0
(O
O
**
K 0 = 0.44 + 0.42(PI/100)
0.8
(O
o
a
O o
0.6
0.4
Undisturbed
0.2
20
40
60
80
100
120
Plasticiiy ndex, Pl
96
2.8
o Boston blue clay, Pl=23 (Ladd, 1965)
2.6
2.4
2
o
(O
2.2
2.0
3
(O
(O
1.8
*""
1.4
"5O
1.2
Plasticity ndex
s"
0.6
0.4
3
8 10
2O
3O
Overconsolidation ratio
Figure 6.19 Correlation between coefficient of earth pressure at rest and overconsolidation ratio for clays of various plasicity ndices (data by Ladd, 1965, and Brooker and
Ireland, 1965; replotted by Ladd, 1971)
Chapter 7
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
7.1 THE TEST METHOD
The CBR test was originally developed at the California Divisin of
Highways in the 1930s as par of a study of pavement failures. Its
purpose was to provide an assessment of the relative stability of fine
crushed rock base materials. Later its use was extended to subgrades.
It is now widely used for pavement design throughout the world.
Ironically, it was used for pavement design in California for only a few
years, and was superseded by the Hveem Stabilometer test.
During testing, a plunger is made to pentrate the soil, which is
contained in a standard mould, at a specified rate of penetration. The
resulting load-deflection curve is compared with that obtained for a
standard crushed rock. The test details ha ve been largely standardized and are given in the AASHTO Standard Speciications, Test
T193, and in BS 1377:1975, Test 16. Slight variations exist between
the American and British standards but these should have little effect
on the CBR vales and arise purely as a result of converting the U.S.
specifcation to metric units. However, significant variations in
sample preparation and test procedures can occur, even within the
specifications. This can give rise to difficulties when comparing CBR
results from different sources. Table 7.1 shows some of the variations
between methods.
The CBR test is used exclusively in conjunction with pavement
design methods and the method of sample preparation and testing
must relate to the assumptions made in the design method as well as
to assumed site conditions. For instance, the design method may
assume that soaked CBR vales are always used, regardless of actual
site conditions.
7.2 CORRELATIONS WITH SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS
In view of the fact that early pavement design methods were based on
soil classification tests rather trian CBR vales, it seems a reasonable
97
98
Table 7.1
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.
Testing top and bottom faces
It is usual American practice to test the bottom of the specimen whereas in Britain both
top and bottom faces are tested and the average taken. Since the top face usually gives a
lower CBR valu than the bottom face, this variation can significantly affect results.
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.
...
99
CBR (%)
Depth of water-table below
formation level
Plasticity ndex
Type of soil
Heavy clay
Silty clay
Sandy clay
Silt
Sand (poorly graded)
Sand (well graded)
Well-graded sandy gravel
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
non-plastic
non-plastic
non-plastic
600mm or less
2
2
2.5
3
5
6
7
2
20
40
60
1
1.5
2
2
3
4
5
1
10
15
20
LL.log(P/)
100
m
80
Liquidity ndex
in
tf
N;
CO CO
0>
0>
O*
r-*
T-"
I 71
7O
1.25
60
5O
1.3
E
09
(O
40
30
20
10
O
0.4
10
40
! I ! II
1OO
40O
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 correlation is only of sufficient accuracy for preliminary identification of
101
100
80
o
o
5 60
5
I 40
London Clay
Brickearth, Harmondsworth
Black cotton soil, Ngong
Red coffee soil, Thika Sagana
20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Correction factor, K
Figure 7.2
120
100
80
i
ce
60
< 40
20
Suitability ndex, S
Figure 7.3 Relaionship beween suitability ndex and soaked CBR valus (after de
Graft-Johnson e al., 1969}
1.6
102
1 T
120
1OO
(O
3
C
8O
00
1 60
a
o
I 40
20
l i l i
10
50
100
5OO
10OO
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}
103
A-1-a
A-1 -b
AASHTO system
A-2-4 and 5
I A-2-6 and 7
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6 and 7
GW
I
<3P
GM
tem
Unified system
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
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
Chapter 8
SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING
CHARACTERISTICS
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
106
Table 8.1
1955)
FREE SWELLING DATA FOR CLAY MINERALS, % (AFTER MIELENZ AND KING,
Ca-Mont.:
Forest, Mississippi
Wilson Creek Dam, Col
Davis Dam, Arizona
,
Osage, Wyoming (prepared from Na-Mont.),
145
95
45-85
125
1,400-1,600
1,600-2,000
I Hite:
Fithian, Illinois .
Morris, Illinois. .
Tazewell, Virginia
115-120
60
15
Kaolinite:
Mesa Alta, New Mxico
Macn, Georgia
Langley, N. Carolina . .
5
60
20
70
Table 8.2
Clay mineral
Montmorillonite
Illite
Kaolinite
Ca2+
Na*
PL
LL
PL
LL
65-79
36^2
26-36
123-177
69-100
34-73
86-97
280-700
34-41
26-28
61-75
29-52
107
Description
0-1.5
1.5-5
5-25
25 +
Low
Mdium
High
Very high
8.2.1
The swelling potential test is not normally carried out, and a number
of researchers have tried to correlate swelling potential with plasticity
ndex. Since both the liquid and plstic limits and the swelling
properties of a soil are governed by the amounts and types of clay
minerals present, it seems reasonable to postlate that such a
correlation exists. Seed, et al. (1962) established the relationship:
<? r\Y
DJ\2.4-4
108
Table 8.4
Swelling potential
Plasticity ndex1
Plasticity ndex11
Low (0-1.5%)
Mdium (1.5-5%)
High (5-25%)
Very high (25 + %)
0-15
10-30
20-55
>40
0-15
15-24
25-46
>46
1 Based
2
10
20
109
30
40
Plasticity ndex - %
Figure 8.1 A comparison of various correlations between swelling potential and
plasticity ndex (after Chen, 1988)
110
Table 8.5
Critical
Marginal
Non-critical
< 10
10-12
>12
>8
5-8
0-5
Plasticity ndex
Activity
00
' o
O-
n
o
O
m
"
on
en
^
r
r
Z
O
h(
C
d
n
H
m
00
HH
n
SP
112
40
32
24
o
16
40
20
20
40
PSasicty ndex
16
24
Shrinkag limit - %
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)
Data from ndex tests
Colloid conten
% finer than
O.OOlmm
>28
20-31
13-23
<15
PI
SL
>35
25-41
15-28
<18
<11
7-12
10-16
>15
Probable expansin
% total volume change*
Potential for
expansin
>30
Very high
High
Mdium
Low
20-30
10-30
<10
1-2.33
113
2000
1800
o>
1600
c
o
1400
Expansin
1200
Collapse
1OOO
800
40
20
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)
114
0.6
2
x
0.4
Sweil pressure
<30kPa
Swell pressure
30-125kPa
Sweil pressure
125-300 kPa
C
03
C/D
Swell pressure
>300kPa
0.2
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)
Table 8.7
Percentage
passing
75um siete
L iquid
limit,
(%)
Standard
penetraion
resisance,
blows300mm
>35
60-95
30-60
<30
>60
40-60
30-40
<30
>30
20-30
10-20
<10
Swelling
expansin
pressure,
percent total
(kN/m2)
volume change
Degree
of
expansin
>10
3-10
1-5
<1
Very high
High
Mdium
Low
>1000
250-1000
150-250
<50
115
Chapter 9
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY
Two potentially damaging effects are associated with frost action in
soils, the expansin and lifting of the ground in winter (frost heaving
and frost boiling) and the loss of bearing capacity during the spring
thaw. Soils that display one or both of these manifestations are
referred to as 'frost susceptible', The problem of frost damage is
widespread: it occurs in temprate regions where there is seasonal soil
freezing as well as in the high latitude permafrost regions.
9.1 ICE SEGREGATION
Simple freezing of interstitial water causes little ground uplift. Frost
heave occurs to a much greater extent where water is free to enter the
soil and migrate to the freezing front. At the freezing front layers of
clear ice grow parallel to the ground surface by displacing the
overlying soil layer. The migrating water must come largely from
groundwater below the layer in which ice is segregating, for ice and
frozen ground will efectively prevent any downward percolation
from the ground surface. Ice segregation can occur, not only where
the freezing penetrales to saturated soils below the water table but
also when the freezing front penetrates unsaturated soils in the
capillary fringe abo ve the water table.
The thermodynamics of moisture movement to the freezing front
are complex; a useful summary is given by Harris (1987). One
consideration is the presence of films of unfroze: 'adsorbed' water in
frozen soils, separating soil ice from soil partele, and enabling
particle-free ice lenses to develop (Tagaki 197S . Another is the
concept of secondary frost heaving which involves the movement of
moisture in a frozen fringe abo ve the 0C isotherm (Miller, 1972;
Konrad and Morganstern, 1981). However, for practical purposes
the mechanism of moisture movement can be considered to be driven
by suction pressure generated by ice growth at the freezing front.
116
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY
117
Percent passing
o
O
o
w
U)
ti
?o
w
t-1
>
H
S
I
ii
V;
CJ
"5
a.
a-
B"
S'
-*,
^*.
?
<3
"3
C3"5
EX.
sx
"3
>
-t
2
u
"5
o
t
<n
mm*
O
r
J4
*d
O
TJ
H
hH
W
c/3
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY
Table 9.1
1975)
Group
Frost susceptibility
or danger
I
II
None
Modrate
III
Srong
119
Soils
Gravel, sand, gravelly tills
Fine clay (>4 0% clayf conten);
sandy tills, clayey tills with
>16% fines 1
Silt, coarse clay (clayf content
15-25%); silty tills
Defined as 2/j.m.
as O.Omm.
: Defined
Reed et al. (1979) noted that predictions from grain size distributions 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
Permeability rating
Identification
Frost susceptibility
High permeability
Granular:
< 10% finer than 15um
Not susceptible
Intermedate
permeability
Low permeability
Granular:
> 10% finer than 15um
Cohesive:
PI<20
Cohesive:
PI>20
Susceptible
Not susceptible
30.0
Clayaj
ILTS
Gravolly SAND, SW
Clayey QRAVEL. QM-QC
Vry Hlfh
QRAVEL, QM-QC
O
O
Loan CLAY, CL
w
r
Hlfh
HH
o
Madlum
Sandy
QRAVEL
QP
SIltyQRAVELS
Low
oo
O
Clayi
QRAVEL
SANOS
SM-8C
and SC
00
o
I-H
t-1
T!
O
TI
W
Gravo! ly and
Sandy CLAYS
CL
Very Low
Sandy
QRAVELS
SW-SM,
SP-SM
/and SM
W
oo
hav 1oOOkg/m
du to
In Itu 1920 kg/m
fraozing of
por water
10
Prcntag* fln*r than 0-02mm
10O
Figure 9.3 Average rate ofhe^e plotted against per-centage finer than 0.02rvnfrom
labor-atory tests of a range of^ Mr al soils (after Kaplar, 1974)
rat*
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY
Table 93
121
Group
Description
Fl
F2
F3
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
F4
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
123
124
REFERENCES
125
126
REFERENCES
127
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 Classification 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,
21 27, 34, 35
and CBR vales 102
compared with the Unifed system 37,
38
AASHTO standard compaction tests 44
Activity 11
and expansive minerals 107
and plasiciy ndex 106
and swelling potential 110
Adsorption complex 4
Angle of internal friction 12, 89
Angle of shearing resistance 12, 76, 89
ASTM/Unified soil classification
system 14
and CBR vales 102
and frost susceptibiliy 121
see also Unifed soil classification
system
Atterberg limits
see Consistency limits
BS soil classification system 14, 17,
27-29
BS soil descriptions 17
BS standard compaction tests 44
Bulk density 39
California Bearing ratio 2, 97, 98
and liquidity ndex 99
and mximum dry density 99, 100
and optimum moisture content 100
and plasticity ndex 98, 100
and shear strength 104
and soil classification 102
and suitability ndex 99
Casagrande soil classification
system 14
Cations 223
Classifcation systems for soils
review 13, 14
for frost susceptibility 119, 121
128
and permeabiiity 65
coefficien of 65-68
parameers 55-58
theory 58
Consoldomeer 55
Constrained modulus 60
12,89
107
Oedomeer 55
Optimum moisture conten 45
and CBR 100
and mximum dry density 46
and plasticiy 46
ypical moislure-densiy curves 49
Overconsolidaed clays
86, 87
PRC
i-K. ic,b
Suiability ndex 99
Swell ndex 114
Sweling potentia 07
and densiy 111, 112
and linear shrinkage 110
and liquid limit 112
and moisture conten 112-, 113
and plasticiy ndex 107-109, 112
and shrinkage limit 110, 112
and vertical pressure 112, 113
Sweling pressure 113-115
and liquid limit 115
and SPT valu 115
and swell ndex 114
Total and efiective stress 76
analysis 78-80
Undrained shear strengh
see shear srengh
*Unified soil classification system 14
and CBR vales 102
and frost susceptiblity 121
compared with oher systems 38
Young's modulus 59