See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248159359

Geotechnical and mineralogical characteristics of marl deposits in Jordan

Article  in  Environmental Geology · October 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-1128-5

CITATIONS READS

9 696

4 authors, including:

Fathi Shaqour Ghaleb Jarrar

University of Jordan The University of Jordan.
19 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   670 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Steve Hencher
University of Leeds
60 PUBLICATIONS   866 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovative slope safety management system in Hong Kong View project

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree of Science in Geology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fathi Shaqour on 30 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Geol (2008) 55:1777–1783
DOI 10.1007/s00254-007-1128-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Geotechnical and mineralogical characteristics of marl deposits

in Jordan
Fathi M. Shaqour Æ Ghaleb Jarrar Æ
Steve Hencher Æ Mostafa Kuisi

Received: 6 December 2006 / Accepted: 11 November 2007 / Published online: 27 November 2007
Ó Springer-Verlag 2007

Abstract Marls and marly limestone deposits cover most Keywords Engineering geology
Marl deposits

of Northern Jordan, where Amman City and its suburbs are Jordan
Geotechnical characteristics
located. These deposits serve as foundations for most
buildings and roads as well as fill material for structural
back filling, especially road bases and sub-bases. The Introduction
present study aims at investigating the geotechnical char-
acteristics and mineral composition of the marl units of The Upper Cretaceous marl and limestone deposits outcrop
these deposits through field investigations and laboratory over most of central Jordan including the city of Amman
testing. Using X-ray diffraction technique along with and its suburbs (Fig. 1). These deposits act as the foun-
chemical analysis, representative samples of marl horizons dations of most of the buildings and road bases in the
were tested for mineral composition, and for a set of index Greater Amman area. Marl is also used widely as fill
and geotechnical properties including: specific gravity, material, especially for road bases.
grain size, Atterberg limits, Proctor compaction and shear This paper discusses some of the geotechnical charac-
strength properties. The test results show a positive linear teristics of the Upper Cretaceous Shueib Formation which
relationship as expected between the clay content and both comprises alternating marl and limestone horizons with
liquid and plastic limits. The tests results also show an variable amounts of clay, and which outcrops in the northern
inverse linear relationship between the clay content and the suburbs of Amman City. Many cases of landsliding and
maximum dry density in both standard and modified foundation failures are associated with this Formation
compaction. This is attributed to the adsorption of water by (Fig. 2), and this is probably related to factors such as clay
the clay minerals. The relationship is more prominent in content, potential for swelling and low shear strength. When
the case of modified compaction test. The results also used as fill, there is a potential for unacceptable settlement
indicate a similar relationship for the angle of internal due to improper compaction and/or consolidation. Swelling
friction. No clear correlation between cohesion and clay can occur and may depend on factors such as the type of clay
content was apparent. present, percentage of clay content, plasticity, surcharge
pressure, temperature, duration of wetting, method of
compaction and initial moisture content (O’Neil and
Gazzaly 1977; Williams and Donaldson 1980).
The present study is aimed at relating geotechnical
characteristics to mineral composition of the marl deposits
F. M. Shaqour (&)
G. Jarrar
M. Kuisi
Applied Geology and Environment, of the Shueib Formation within Amman City through
University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan laboratory investigation. X-ray diffraction and chemical
e-mail: shaqourf@yahoo.com tests are carried out on the clay size fraction of the marl
samples to determine the percentages of the actual clay
S. Hencher
Earth Sciences Department, minerals and carbonate mud. Index and geotechnical
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK characteristics are also tested and analyzed.

123
1778 Environ Geol (2008) 55:1777–1783

Fig. 1 Geological Map of Zarqa River Basin. Shueib Formation forms the upper part of A1–6 limestone

Geological setting The thickness of the Formation ranges from 36 to 72 m

(Masri 1963); it is about 70 m in the area of Greater Amman.
The Shueib Formation represents the middle part of the The age of the Formation is Cenomanian to Lower Turonian
Upper Cretaceous deposits in Jordan, which are locally (Wetzel and Morton 1959; Basha 1978; Dilley 1985).
classified into two series: Ajlune (lower) and Balqa The formation of the marly limestone deposits out-
(upper) and subdivided into A1–A7, and B1–B5 forma- cropping in the Wadi Shueib area, northwest of Amman
tions, respectively (Masri 1963). In South Jordan the City was first named by Masri (1963). The Shueib For-
succession from A1–A6 is generally undifferentiated, and mation was adopted by the Jordan National Geological
described as one unit A1–6 overlain by the A7 massive Mapping Project. In some locations two units, namely, A5
limestone (Powell 1989). Figure 1 shows the outcrop of (lower) and A6 (upper) (McDonald and Partners 1965) can
unit A1–6 in central and northern parts of Jordan. The be recognized .
Shueib Formation represents the upper part of this Formation comprises thick sequences of marl and
sequence and is designated as A5,6. This Formation limestone with a 1:1 ratio and a total thickness of about
consists of marls, marly limestone and bands of strong 40 m. The upper part of the Formation generally comprises
limestone, which are occasionally dolomitic. The strong, thin layers of marly limestone and marls with generally low
jointed limestone of the Formation is often water bear- permeability (Abed 2000). Figure 3 presents a typical
ing, whilst the clayey, marly horizons act as aquitards. columnar section of the Formation.
This combination can contribute to the landsliding
through the local development of perched water table.
The Formation typically appears as yellow to yellow- Test procedure and results
gray deposits with gentle slopes forming saddles between
prominent cliffs of the underlying Hummar (A4) and Five disturbed representative samples of about 10 kg each
overlying Wadi Es Sir (A7) Formations. It is generally were taken from the five major marl horizons of the Shueib
covered by talus, soil, vegetation and/or calcrete making Formation in the typical section area, north of Amman City;
it difficult to distinguish individual beds. The limestone their stratigraphic locations are indicated in Fig. 3. All
horizons in the middle and upper parts of the Formation samples were tested using X-ray diffraction to identify the
form local steep slopes. Lenses of varicolored shale and mineral composition. Typical X-ray graphs are presented in
mudstone are also present. Fig. 4. Chemical analysis was also conducted for the major

123
Environ Geol (2008) 55:1777–1783 1779

Thin bedded marly limestone

Creamy marl
Yellowish marly limestone
Yellow grey to greenish marl

Yellowish marly limestone

Yellowish to greenish marl
Thin bedded limestone and
marly limestone beds, 10 cm
thickness

Thin bedded limestone

Thin bedded limestone and

buff to yellow grey marly
limestone beds, 10 cm thickness
Yellowish marl
Limestone milky to light
grey, strong, thick bedded to
massive, fossilliferous

Yellowish marl
Marly limestone, light grey to
white and yellow grey
Marl, yellow grey to white,
limestone nodules and lenses, grey
calcareous mud with layers of thin
nodular limestone
Thin bedded limestone and
marly limestone

Yellowish to greenish marl

Limestone; strong, medium to

thin bedded, nodular,
fossilliferous, fractured,
alternating with marl

Fig. 3 Typical columnar section for Shueib Formation north-west of

Amman City
Fig. 2 Landslides within Shueib Formation on a main road, northern
Amman City. a Landslide triggered by road cut and seepage from Calcite Kaolinite Kaolinite
4.05 7.15 Illite / smectite
septic tanks of the existing buildings. b Landslide triggered by the
10.8 12.4
road cut on the lift
Calcite Quartz
Intensity

elements of the clay size fraction of the five marl samples

and the percentages of the comprising oxides calculated
Calcite Quartz
using a standard formula based on molar polarity. Test
results indicate calcite content ranging between 45 and
70%, while clay content comprising kaolinite, smectite and
illite ranges between 30 and 54%. Samples, S1–S4 show
θ
2θ
almost 1:1 ratio of calcite to clay mineral content, while
only sample S5 shows a ratio of about 2:1 (Table 1). Fig. 4 Typical X-ray chart showing mineral constituents of the marl
The samples were also tested for geotechnical charac- samples
teristics including: specific gravity, grain size distribution,
liquid limit and plastic limit. The ASTM D4318 (2005) test samples of the marl were determined by direct shear. Test
method was followed for the determination of liquid and results of the geotechnical and compaction characteristics
plastic limits and the pipette method was used for the of the marl are shown in Table 2.
determination of clay size content.
In addition, maximum dry densities and optimum
moisture contents of the marl samples were also determined Grain size analysis
by using standard and modified Proctor tests based on
ASTM D698 (2003a) and ASTM D1557 (2003b) standards. Grain size analysis was carried out following ASTM D422
The internal friction angle and cohesion of reconstituted (2006) and ASTM D1140 (2000) (Fig. 5). Gravel content

123
1780 Environ Geol (2008) 55:1777–1783

Table 1 Chemical analysis results for the clay fraction of samples Atterberg limits
S1–S5
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Liquid and plastic limits were determined following ASTM
D4318 (2005) (Fig. 6). Four samples S2–S5) showed quite
SiO2 24.7 25.1 26.3 26.4 17.0 close values (40–47% for liquid limits and 35–44% for
Al2O3 9.11 10.0 10.1 11.0 6.1 plastic limits). Sample S1 showed lower liquid limit and
MgO 1.31 1.20 1.18 1.23 1.19 plastic limit of 28 and 23%, respectively. All samples have
Fe2O3 3.62 3.57 3.47 3.12 2.62 low values of plasticity index (3–5) and are classified as
CaO 30.3 28.7 25.6 28.3 39.3 ML in the plasticity chart.
K2O 1.39 1.46 1.43 1.18 1.28
Na2O 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.09
MnO 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.48 0.83 Specific gravity
P2O5 0.51 0.22 0.30 0.25 0.30
Loss on ignition 29.2 28.7 28.8 29.0 33.9 The samples show a range of specific gravities from a
(LOI) minimum of 2.69 for sample S2 to a maximum of 2.81 for
Calcite wt% 52.9 50.7 45.0 49.9 69.4 sample S3.
Clay minerals wt% 46.0 48.8 54.3 49.5 29.9

Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content

varied quite widely from 13 to 46% in the form of in situ
concretions within the marl. The clay fraction also varied Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of
similarly, ranging from 19 to 44%. the marl were determined according to ASTM D698

Fig. 5 Grain size distribution 100

curves of the marl samples S2 S1 S3 S4 S5
(S1–S5) 90

80
Percent Finer By Weight

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size (mm)

Table 2 Geotechnical characteristics of the marl samples (S1–S5)

No. MC Soil Group USC Grain size analysis Atterberg limits Specific Standard Proctor Modified Proctor
(%) system gravity (Gs)
Gravel Sand Silt Clay LL PL PI OMC MDD OMC MDD
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g/cm3) (%) (g/cm3)

S1 11.3 ML 46 15 20 19 28 23 5 2.77 15.0 1.85 13.0 1.99

S2 10.3 ML 13 19 29 39 47 44 3 2.69 13.4 1.81 12.0 1.86
S3 24.3 ML 19 17 20 44 40 35 5 2.81 15.2 1.79 13.8 1.87
S4 15.5 ML 28 17 26 29 44 39 5 2.74 15.6 1.78 11.8 1.89
S5 19.5 ML 33 9 21 37 47 43 4 2.77 16.8 1.73 15.8 1.85
MC Moisture content, OMC optimum moisture content, MDD maximum dry density

123
Environ Geol (2008) 55:1777–1783 1781

2.1
60 s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
2
55

1.9

Dry density (gm/cm )

50

3
Moisture content %

1.8
45

1.7
40

1.6
35

1.5
30

1.4
25

1.3
20

1.2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
15

5
Moisture content %
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of blows Fig. 8 Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the
marl samples S1–S5 (modified Proctor test results)
Fig. 6 Liquid limit curves of the marl samples S1–S5

(2003a) and ASTM D1557 (2003b) for standard and (60 9 60 9 20 mm dimensions, with a volume of
modified Proctor tests, respectively. Maximum dry densi- 72 cm3). Shearing was conducted at a rate of 0.6 mm/min.
ties ranged from 1.73 to 1.85 g/cm3, with optimum The tests were conducted to investigate the variability
moisture contents of 16.8 and 15.0% based on standard of shear strength with density. Samples S1 and S4 were
Proctor tests. Maximum dry densities ranged between 1.85 tested at modified Proctor maximum dry densities of 1.99
and 1.99 g/cm3 and optimum moisture contents ranged and 1.89 g/cm3 with optimum moisture contents of 13 and
between13.0 and 15.8% based on the modified Proctor test. 12%, respectively, while samples S2 and S5 were tested
The relationship between optimum moisture contents and at the standard Proctor maximum dry densities of 1.81
maximum dry densities are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for the and 1.73 g/cm3 with 13.4 and 16.8% optimum moisture
standard and modified Proctor test results. contents, respectively. Tests were carried out on individ-
ual samples prepared at the specified densities and
moisture contents at three different normal stress levels
Shear strength and the results are presented in Fig. 9. It can be con-
cluded that the measured friction angle was highly
Four marl samples were tested for direct shear strength sensitive to prepared density ranging from 38° for the
after removal of the gravel size which retained on seive densest sample (S4) to 22° for the least-dense sample
No.10. The tests were conducted following ASTM D3080. (S5). Apparent cohesion was similar for all samples
The shear box used for testing has an area of 36 cm2 (about 50 kPa).

2
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
1.9 500
450 S1 S2 S5 S4
1.8
Dry Density (gm/cm )
3

400
Shear Stress (kPa)

1.7 350
300
1.6
250
1.5
200

1.4 150
100
1.3
50
1.2 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Moisture content % Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 7 Maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the Fig. 9 Direct shear test results showing failure envelopes of the marl
marl samples S1–S5 (standard Proctor test results) samples (S1–S4)

123
1782 Environ Geol (2008) 55:1777–1783

50 2.05
Sstandard Proctor Modified Proctor

Maximum dry density (gm/cm )

3
45 2.00

40 1.95
Liquid/pastic limit (%)

35 1.90

30 1.85

25 1.80

20 1.75

15 1.70
0 10 20 30 40 50
Clay content vs Liquid limit Clay content vs Plastic limit
10 Clay content (%)
10 20 30 40 50
Clay content (%) Fig. 12 Clay content versus maximum dry densities (standard and
modified Proctor)
Fig. 10 Relationship between clay content and liquid and plastic
limits
and modified) with clay content, which shows an inverse
Discussion linear relationship with almost consistent optimum mois-
ture contents. The relation is more marked in case of
The series of tests allow some conclusions to be drawn modified compaction test. Tests also indicate the same
about the geotechnical characteristics of the marl horizons effect on the angle of shearing resistance, which decreased
from the Shueib Formation near Amman City. with increase in clay content. When the sum of clay and silt
The samples showed relatively high plasticity and content were compared to each other, a similar relationship
therefore low plasticity indexes (PI) that showed no change was noticed; but however, with more deviation of the
or even decrease of PI with increasing clay content points from the trend line (Fig. 13). This indicates that the
(Fig. 10). The effect of clay and silt content together on clay content has an adverse effect on the maximum dry
these limits is the same as that of the clay content alone, density. However, this needs to be further investigated to
with slight differences (Fig. 11). determine the extent of percentages of clay content in such
Clay content appears to affect the maximum dry density soils and their role in decreasing or increasing maximum
in the case of the standard compaction test. This is attrib- dry density, and to determine which type of clay has the
uted to adsorption of water by the clay minerals, whereas highest effect. Direct shear test results indicate that the
other clay-sized minerals such as carbonate do not have samples compacted to modified maximum dry density (S1
such an effect. Slightly different behavior was noticed in and S4) gave higher angles of internal friction than those
case of modified compaction test due to higher energies two samples (S2 and S5) compacted to standard maximum
applied to the samples, which resulted in different reactions dry density and this is mainly due to higher densities.
of the slightly variable mixtures of grain sizes. Figure 12 However, there is no apparent correlation between the clay
presents the variation of maximum dry density (standard content and cohesion (Fig. 14). This lack of correlation

Clay and silt ontent vs Liquid limit Clay and silt content vs Plastic limit
50
2.05
Standard Proctor Modified Proctor
Maximum dry density (gm/cm )

45
3
Liquid/Plastic limit (%)

2.00
40
1.95
35
1.90
30
25 1.85

20 1.80

15 1.75

10 1.70
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Clay and silt content (%) Clay/Silt content (%)

Fig. 11 Relationship between clay and silt content, and liquid and Fig. 13 Clay and silt content versus maximum dry densities (stan-
plastic limits dard and modified Proctor)

123
Environ Geol (2008) 55:1777–1783 1783

60 Recommendation
50
Further investigation is required to determine the miner-
alogy of the clay fractions in terms of clayey and carbonate
Cohesion (kPa)

40
mud within the fine size fraction (\75 microns) that may
30 contribute to either increase or decrease of possible
achieved maximum dry densities and eventually maximum
20
strength of the soil, notwithstanding the swelling potential
10 that may be an additional issue. The influence of carbonate
Clay Content Clay & silt Content mud content within the fine fraction, on the engineering
0 properties of soils, especially swelling behavior, needs to
0 20 40 60 80
Clay / Silt content (%) be thoroughly investigated. Also undisturbed samples need
to be tested to evaluate the sliding potential of such
Fig. 14 Clay/clay and silt content versus cohesion deposits.

Acknowledgments The authors thank the University of Jordan for

supporting and financing the project. No. 34/2003–2004.
might be related to the fact that the clay content of clay
minerals and carbonate mud has not been differentiated.
Those samples with clay content comprising true clay References
minerals might be expected to exhibit greater cohesion than
those where the clay fraction is predominantly carbonate Abed AM (2000) Geology of Jordan and its environment and water
mud; but this needs to be further investigated. (in Arabic), publications of the Jordanian Geological Association
No. 1, p 571
ASTM D1140 (2000) Standard test methods for amount of material in
soil finer than No. 200 (75 micrometer) sieve
Conclusions ASTM D698 (2003a) Standard test methods for laboratory compac-
tion characteristics of soil using standard effects [12,400
Geotechnical testing was carried out on disturbed samples FT-LBF/FT 3(600 KN-M/M 3)]
ASTM D1557 (2003b) Standard test methods for laboratory compac-
in order to determine some of the geotechnical properties tion characteristics of soil using modified effects
of the material. Test results allow for the following ASTM D4318 (2005) Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic
conclusions: limit, and plasticity index of soils
ASTM D422 (2006) Standard test methods for particle size analysis
of soils
1. Measured angle of internal friction is sensitive to the Basha SH (1978) Foraminifera from the Ajlune Group of East Jordan.
prepared density, while the apparent cohesion is not. J Geol Soc Iraq 11:67–91
2. The samples show a positive linear relationship Bender F (1974) Geology of Jordan. Borntraaeger, Berlin, p 196
between the clay fraction content and both liquid and Dilley FC (1985) Cretaceous correlations in the Hamza wells 1–5.
NRA, Paleontological report No.5
plastic limits with apparently no effect of composition; MacDonald Sir M and Partners (1965) East Bank water resources
however, this needs further investigation. (6 volumes), Central Water Authority Amman
3. The samples show relatively high plasticity and Masri M (1963) The Geology of the Amman Zarqa area (Central
therefore low plasticity indexes (PI) with no change Water Authority, Amman, Jordan, unpublished report) p 74
O’Neil MW, Gazzaly OI (1977) Swell Potential related to building
or even decrease of PI with the increase of clay content. performance, ASCE 103, GT 12:1363–1379
4. The effect of clay and silt content together on these Parker DH (1970) The hydrogeology of the Mesozoic-Cenozoic
limits is the same as the clay content alone, with slight aquifers of the western highlands and plateau of east Jordan.
differences. UNDP/FAO technical reports, p 424
Powell JH (1989) Stratigraphy and sedimentation of the Phanerozoic
5. Clay content seems to have an adverse effect on the rocks in Central and South Jordan part b: Kurnub, Ajlune and
maximum dry density. Balqa Groups. (Geology Directorate, Natural Resources Author-
6. The tested marl samples have a 1:1 ratio of carbonate ity, Amman, Jordan), Bulletin 11, p 130
mud to clay minerals, apart from sample No. 5 which Wetzel R, Morton DM (1959) Contribution a la geologie de la
Transjordanie, notes et Memoirs sur le Moyen Orient 7:95–191
has about 2:1 ratio. However, no clear difference in the Williams AB, Donaldson GW (1980) Proceedings of the 4th
geotechnical properties that could be attributed to the international conference on expansive clay soils. Colorado
carbonate mud is evident. 2:834–844

123

View publication stats