Íhit'S: @seismicisolation

ÍHIT'S
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
c LAT OF SOIL
p
Michaef Cárter
and
Stephen P Bentley
PENTECH PRESS
Publishers: London
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Preface
Engineers and geologists are often expected to give predictions of soil

behaviour even when little or no relevant test results are available.
This is particular!} 7 true of small projects or for preliminary designs.
Our aim in this book has been to gather together material that vvould
be of practica! assistance to those faced with the problem of having to
estímate soil behaviour from little or no laboratory test data.
The field of soil property correlations is diverse and complex and
our main difficulty in producing the work was the volume of material
available. Consequently, we ha ve had to be selective in our approach
and we hope that our final choíce provides a workable compendium.
Modern in-situ testing methods is a rapidly developmg aspect of
geotechnical engineering which warrants a text to itself: this aspect is
not dealt with here but, where appropriate, suitable references are
given.
The work presents typical valúes of engineering properties for
various types or classes of soil, together with correlations between
different properties. Particular emphasis is given to correlations with
soil classifícation tests and to the use of classification systems.
Included in the correlations are properties that are diffícult to
measure directly, such as frost susceptibility and swelling potential. In
addition, some explanations are given of the engineering relevance of
the various properties and the justification of the correlations
betw;een properties is discussed.
Such predictions can, of course, never be a substitute for proper
testing but we hope that the information in this book will enable
optimum use of soil classifícation data.
Stephen P Bentley
Cardiff, Wales
Michael Cárter
Colombo, Sri Lanka
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Contents
CHAPTER 1 GRADING AND PLASTICITY 1
1.1 GRADING 1
1.1.1 The influence of grading on soil properties 1
1.1.2 Standard grading divisions and sieve sizes 3
1.2 PLASTICITY 3
1.2.1 Consistency Limits 6
1.2.2 Development of the liquid and plástic limit tests 7
1.2.3 The shrinkage limit test 8
1.2.4 Consistency limits as indicators of soil behaviour 10
1.2.5 Limitations on the use of consistency limits 12
CHAPTER 2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 13
2.1 COMMON SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 14

2.2 CORRELATION OF THE UNIFIED, BS AND
AASHTO SYSTEMS 38
CHAPTER 3 DENSITY 39
3.1 NATURAL DENSITY 39

3.2 COMPACTED DENSITY 43
3.2.1 Compaction test standards 43
3.2.2 Typical compacted densities 45
3.2.3 Typical moisture-density curves 49
CHAPTER 4 PERMEABILITY 50
4.1 TYPICAL VALÚES 51

4.2 PERMEABILITY AND GRADING 51
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
CHAPTER 5 CONSOLIDATION AND SETTLEMENT 55
5.1 COMPRESSIBILITY OF CLAYS 55

5.1.1 The compressibility parameters 56
5.1.2 Setílement calculations using consolidation theory 58
5.1.3 Settlement calculations using elasticiíy theory 59
5.1.4 Typical valúes and correlations of compressibility
coefiícients 60
5.1.5 Settlement corrections 62
5.2 RATE OF CONSOLIDATION OF CLAYS 65
5.3 SECONDARY COMPRESSION 68
5.4 SETTLEMENT OF SANDS AND GRAVELS 70
5.4.1 Probes and standard penetration tests 70
5.4.2 Píate bearing tests 74
CHAPTER 6 SHEAR STRENGTH 76
6.1 THE CHOICE OF TOTAL OR EFFECTIVE STRESS

ANALYSIS 78
6.1.1 The choice in practice 79
6.2 UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF CLAYS 80
6.2.1 Remoulded shear strength 81
6.2.2 Undisturbed shear strength 83
6.2.3 Predictions using the standard penetration test 89
6.3 DRAINED AND EFFECTIVE SHEAR STRENGTH
OF CLAYS 89
6.4 SHEAR STRENGTH OF GRANULAR SOILS 90
6.5 LATERAL PRESSURES IN A SOIL MASS 92
CHAPTER 7 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO 97
7.1 THE TEST METHOD 97

7.2 CORRELATIONS WITH SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS 97
7.3 CBR AND SHEAR STRENGTH 104
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
CHAPTER 8 SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING
CHARACTERISTICS 105
8.1 IDENTIFICATION 105

8.2 SWELLING POTENTIAL 107
8.2.1 Relation to other properties 107
8.3 SWELLING PRESSURE 113
CHAPTER 9 FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY 116
9.1 ICE SEGREGATION 116

9.2 GRAINSIZES 117
9.3 PLASTICITY 119
References 122
Index 128
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
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 fírst 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 diíferent 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 fírst 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 unim-
portant.
1.1.1 The influence of grading on soil properties

During the early development of soil mechanics, engineers relied
heavily on past experience and found it convenient to classify soils so
that experience gained with a particular type of soil could be used to
assess the suitability of similar soils for any specific purpose and to
indícate appropriate methods of treatment. Thus, the concept of soil
classification aróse early in the development of soil mechanics. Even
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
today, despite the development in analytical techniques which has

taken place, geotechnical engineers rely heavily on past experience,
and soil classification systems are an invaluable aid, particularly
where soils are to be used in a remoulded form, such as in the
construction of embankments and filis. The use of grading in soil
classifíations is discussed in Chapter 2.
Poorly-graded soils, typically trióse with a very small range of
particle sizes, contain a higher proportion of voids than well-graded
soils, in which the fíner particles fíll the voids between the coarser
grains. Thus, grading iníluences the density of soils. This is indicated
in a general way in Chapter 3 (Table 3.1). Another consequence of the
greater degree of packing achievable by well-graded soils is that the
proportion of voids within the soils is reduced. In addition, although
the proportion of voids in fine-grained soils is relatively high, the size
of individual voids is extremely small. Since the proportion and size of
voids aíTecí íhe flow of water through a soil, grading can be seen ío
influence permeability. The theoretical relationship between grading
and permeability is discussed in Chapter 4 and the coefficient of
permeability is related to grain size in Figure 4.1.
Since consolidation involves the squeezing-out of water from the
soil voids, as the soil grains pack closer together under load, it follows
that the rate at which consolidation takes place is controlled by the
soil permeability. Since permeability is, in turn, partly controlled by
grading, it can be seen that grading influences the rate of consolida-
tion. Also, since fíne-grained soils and poorly-graded soils have a
higher proportion of voids, and tend to be less well-packed than
coarse-grained and well-graded soils, they tend to consolídate more.
Thus, the consolidation properties of a soil are profoundly iníluenced
by its grading. Since fine-grained soils tend, by and large, to be more
compressible than coarse-grained soils, and consolídate at a much
slower rate, it is these soils that are of most concern to the engineer.
Their gradings are much too fine to be measured by conventional
means and, at these small particle sizes, the properties of the minerals
present are of more importance than the grading. Specific correla-
tions between grading and consolidation characteristics do not,
therefore, exist. However, the efíect of grading on consolidation is
taken into account indirectly in some soil classifications which are
used to assess the suitability of soils for earthworks and pavement
subgrades.
Shear strength is also affected by grading, since grading influences
the amount of interlock between particles but correlations between
grading and shear strength are not possible because other factors,
such as the angularity of the particles, the confíning pressure, the
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
GRADING AND PLASTICITY 3
compaction and consolidation history, and the types of the clay

minerals are of overriding importance. The variability of some of
tríese factors is reduced where only compacted soils are considered
and, with the aid of soil classifícation systems, the iníluence of grading
on shear strength can be given in a general way, as indicated in Table
6.2. Similarly, the influence of the grading of coarse-grained soils on
their California bearing ratio is indicated in Table 7.2 and, to some
extent, in Figure 7.3.
In a broad sense, both swelling properties and frost susceptibility
are influenced by grading. Correlation between grain size and frost
susceptibility can be seen in Chapter 9 but the identifícation of
expansive clays, discussed in Chapter 8, relies almost entirely on the
plasticity properties, the only relevant aspect of grading being the
proportion of material finer than 2/rni.
1.1.2 Standard grading divisions and sieve sizes

Although grading, as the most basic of soil properties, is used to both
identify and classify soils, the división of soils into categories, based
on grading, varíes according to the agency or classifícation system
used. A comparison of some common defínitions used is given in
Figure 1.1.
For soil particles larger than 60¿on, grading is carried out using
standard square mesh sieves. Table 1.1 shows standard sieve sizes and
gives a comparison between British and American standards.
1.2 PLASTICITY
Just as the concepts of particle size and grading can be readily

appreciated for coarse-grained soils, so it is obvious that clays are
somehow fundamentally different from coarse-grained soils, since
clays exhibit the property of plasticity whereas sands and gravéis do
not.
Plasticity is the ability of a material to be moulded (irreversibly
deformed) without fracturing. In soils, it is due to the electrochemical
behaviour of the clay minerals and is unique to soils containing clay-
mineral particles. These are plate-like structures which typically
possess a negative electrical charge on their face surface, brought
about by inherent flaws within the chemical lattice. In nature, this
negative charge is cancelled out by cations (Na+ , Ca+ + etc.) present
in the pore water. The positive to negative attraction, between the
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES
British Standard and MIT

silt sand grave 1 cobb-
clay les boulders
f m c f m c f m c
O.OO2 O.OO6 O.O2 O.O6 0.2 0.6 6 2O 6O 20O
Unif ied Soil Classif¡catión System

sand gravei cobb-
fines ( silt, clay )
f m ] c f c les bouiders
0.075 0.425 2 4.75 19 75 300
AST1KD422, D653)
sand «Ato- bouiders
fines (silt, clay ) gravei
f | m |c les
O.075 0.425 2 4.75 75 300
AASHTO(T88)
sand
colloids clay silt gravei bouiders
f c
O.CO1 O.OO5 O.075 0.425 75
Grain size ( mm)

LILI 1 I ! 1 luí. S i l . | t ,l I I 1 s ; luí. I i t i Inn I _ÍL1.1_1_5 1 1 1 luí i l i i i i
0.001 O.01 0.1 1 10 100 10OO
Figure 1.1 Some common dejlnitions ofsoils, classijled by particle size (modified after
Al-Hussaini, 1977)
catión and the clay mineral, pro vides a network of bonds throughout
the clay mass, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. Also, because water
molecules themselves are polarised, water molecules immediately
adjacent to the clay minerals become attracted and bonded (adsor-
bed) to the surface to form an 'adsorption complex'. Since these
electrochemical bonds act through the water surrounding the clay
particles, the attraction is maintained even when large deformations
take place between clay particles, to produce the phe orne ion of
plasticity.
Plástic soils - clays - are often described as 'cohesive' to distmguish
them from non-plastic soils - sands and gravéis - which are described
as 'granular' or 'non-cohesive'. Thus, the terms 'plástic' and 'cohe-
sive' are often used synonymously. Since all plástic soils are cohesive
and all cohesive soils are plástic this seems quite reasonable, yet, not
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
GRADING AND PLASTICITY
Table 1.1 COMPARISON OF STANDARD SIEVES TYPICALLY USED IN SOIL TESTING

Oíd (Imperial)
Aperíure Í/.S. sieve B.S. sieve
B.S. sieve
size designation designation
designation
75mm 3in 75mm 3in

63mm 2în 63mm 2iin
50mm 2in 50mm 2in
37.5mm l|in 37.5mm lîn
28ram * 28m *
25mm lin * lin
20mm * 20mm *
19mm lin * |in
14mm * 14mm *
12.5mm Un * lin
lO.Omm * lOmm *
9.5mm fin * fin
6.3mm ¿in 6.3mm ¿in
S.Omm * 5mm *
4.75mm No. 4 * 16
3.35mm * 3,35mm *
3.18mm * * sin
2.36mm No. 8 * No. 7
2.00mm * 2.00mm *
1.70mm * 1.70mm No. 10
l.ISmm No. 16 1.18mm No. 14
850/mi No. 20 850/im No. 18
600^m No. 30 600/zm No. 25
425/^m No. 40 425/im No. 36
300/zm No. 50 300/im No. 52
250/im No. 60 * No. 60
150¿un No. 100 100/zm No. 100
75/im No. 200 75/zm No. 200
63/ím * 63/ím *
* 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 síructure
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
only are the two properties subtly diíferent in nature, their underlying
cause is quite different. Whereas plasticity is the property that allows
deformation without cracking, cohesión is the possession of shear
strength which allows the soil to maintain its shape under load, even
when it is not confíned. And whereas plasticity is produced by the
electrochemical nature of the clay particles, cohesión 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 diíferences. Firstly, although sands cannot be moulded without
cracking, they can possess a weak cohesión, 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 síowly, íheir
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 cohesión,
even though they are non-plastic. Thus, it can be seen that plasticity
and cohesión 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 producís 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
suspensión 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) identifíed fíve limits but only three (shrinkage,
plástic and liquid limits) have been used in soil mechanics. The liquid
and plástic limits represent the moisture contents at the borderline
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
"'" ' " ''. ' " . '
••'•' •- '••'.' :'•' ';•

llfi? ^ .'"/''/ ^ (' T%V/-t
'&£M^¡ $%%®®$&,
Liquid Viscous Plástic S emi-plastic Solid
suspensión liquid solid solid
(a)
Volume
•o
i •••
O 1
w
Solid | - Plástic =Liquid
•o
E
a
<n o.
Water content
(b)
Figure 1.3 Consistency limits: (o) change from liquid to solid as a soil dries out; (b)
volume and consistency changes wiíh water content change
between plástic and liquid phases and between semi-solid and solid
phases, as indicated in Figure 1.3. The shrinkage limit represents the
11 moisture content at which further drying of the soil causes no further
reduction in volume. This is illustrated ín Figure 1.3(b). In elec-
trochemical terms, the clay mineral particles are far enough apart at
the liquid limit to reduce the electrochemical attraction to almost
zero, and at the plástic limit there is the minimum amount of water
present to maintain the flexibility of the bonds.
1.2.2 Development of the liquid and plástic limit tests

The methods of measurement of the liquid and plástic limits have
changed Hule since 1910. The method of hand-rolling clay into fine
threads to determine the plástic limit remained virtually as it was
originally defined until Harison (1988) suggested a procedure using a
cone penetrometer. The liquid limit test, in which soil was originally
held in a cupped hand and tapped gently, evolved to provide
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 1.2 CORRECTION FACTORS FOR THE ONE-POINT LIQUID LJMIT TEST
No. of Factor No. of Factor No. of Factor

blows F blows F blows F
15 0.95 22 0.99 29 1.01

16 0.96 23 0.99 30 1.02
17 0.96 24 0.99 31 1.02
18 ' 0.97 25 1.00 32 1.02
19 0.97 26 1.00 33 1.02
20 0.98 27 1.01 34 1.03
21 0.98 28 1.01 35 1.03
Liquid limit = moisture contení of test specimen x factor F.
much-needed standardisation: a metal dish replaced the cupped hand

and the Casagrande apparatus, developed in 1932, replaced the
original hand-tapping. The introduction of the cone penetrometer
method in 1922 further improved repeatability of the liquid limit test.
When the Casagrande method is used to determine the liquid limit,
a plot is drawn of moisture coníent against blow count (to a
logarithmic scale). For soils of a similar geológica! origin, the slope of
the plot is similar, so that once one point has been established, it is
possible to draw a line through it, at the correct slope to obtain an
approximate valué of the liquid limit without the need for furíher
testing: this is the one-point Liquid Limit test. All British soils have
been found to show a similar slope so that their liquid limits may be
obtained in this way. As an alternative to constructing a graph, liquid
limit valúes are obtained by multiplying the moisture contení valué of
the test specimen by a correction factor, obtained from Table 1.2.
Results are less accurate than for the full test procedure but tesing is
much quicker.
1.2.3 The shrinkage limit test

The shrinkage limit test is difíicult to carry out and results vary
according to the test method used ¿ nd sometímes even deoend on the
initial moisture contení of the test specimen. If íhe specimen is síowly
dried from a water contení near the auid limit (for exarr de, using
the ASTM D 427 procedure), a shrinkage limit valué of giv ,ter than
the plástic limit may be obtained; this is meaningless when considered
in the contexí of Figure 1.3. This is paríicularly írue wiíh sandy and
silíy clays. Likewise, if íhe soil is in iís naíural, undisíurbed síaíe íhen
the shrinkage limií is often greater íhan the plástic limit due to the soil
structure (Holíz and Kovacs 1981). Karlsson (1977), who carried out
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
shrinkage limit tests on a number of Swedish clays, found that

shrinkage limit was related to sensitivity (discussed in Chapter 6). For
clays of médium sensitivity the shrinkage limit of undisturbed
samples was about equal to the plástic limit, whereas undisturbed
highly sensitive clays showed shrinkage limits greater than the plástic
limits. Undisturbed organic clays showed shrinkage limits well below
the plástic limits. For all the soils tested, the shrinkage limits of the
disturbed samples were lower than those of the undisturbed samples,
and below the plástic limit.
In his lectures at Harvard University, Casagrande suggested that
the initial moisture contení for shrinkage limit tests should be slightly
above the plástic limit, but it is difficult to prepare specimens to such
low moisture contents without entrapping air bubbles. It has been
found that for soils prepared in this way and that plot near the A-line
of a plasticity chart (see Figure 2.1), the shrinkage limit is about 20. If
the soil plots an amount Ap vertically above or below the A-line, then
the shrinkage limit will be less than or greater than 20 by Ap. That is
for plots Ap above the A-line
= 20-Ap
Soil B SL = 27
Soil A SL = 14
Figure 1.4 Casagrande 's procedure for estimating the shrinkage limit
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
For ploís Ap below íhe A-line
This procedure ío deíermine íhe shrinkage limií (for soils prepared in

the manner suggested by Casagrande) has been found ío be as
accuraíe as íhe íesí itself. An alternaíive and even simpler procedure is
illusíraíed in Figure 1 .4. The U-line and A-line of íhe plasíiciíy charl
are exíended ío meel ai co-ordinaíes ( — 43.5, —46.4) and a line is
drawn from íhe ploííed poiní ío íhis inlerseclion, as illusíraíed. This
line crosses íhe liquid limií axis ai a valué approximaíely equal ío íhe
shrinkage limit.
1.2.4 Consistency limits as indicators of soil behaviour
The liquid limit should, from the way it is defined in Figure 1 .3, be íhe
minimum moisture contení ai which íhe shear sírengíh of the soil is
zero. However, because of the way the standard liquid limit tesis have
been defíned, the soil actually has a small shear sírength. The
Casagrande procedure models a slope failure due ío dynamic loading
under quick undrained condiíions. The shear strengíh of the speci-
men is progressively reduced by increasing iís moisíure conlení until
a speciííc energy inpuí, in íhe form of síandard íaps, causes a failure of
a standard slope in íhe defíned manner. The alíernative cone method,
devised by íhe Swedish Geotechnical Commission in 1922, is also an
indirecí shear sírengíh test thaí models bearing failure under quick
undrained condiíions. The consequence of these tesl procedures is
that all soils at their liquid limil exhibit íhe same valué of undrained
shear sírengíh. Casagrande (1932) eslimaled this valué as 2.6kN/m2,
and laler work by Skemplon and Norlhey (1952) indicated valúes of
l-2kN/m2. The hand rolling procedure used in íhe plasíic limil lest
can be regarded as a measure of the toughness of a soil (íhe energy
required ío fracíure il) which is also relaled lo shear sírengíh,
although there are no obvious analogies for íhe mechanism of failure.
Il has been found Ihat all soils at the plástic limit exhibit similar valúes
of undrained shear strengíh reported by a number of researchers as
being 100-200kN/m2. Il was recognised as early as 1910 Ihal íhe
consislency limil lesls are measures of shear strengíh, and Atlerberg's
assislanl, íhe geologisl Simón Johansson, presenled an árdele on íhe
sírengíh of soils al different moisíure conlenls in 1914.
From íhe preceding discussion il can be seen Ihaí all remoulded
soils change íheir sírengíh Ihroughoul Iheir plasíic range from aboul
IkN/m 2 al íhe liquid limil lo abouí 100kN/m2 al the plástic limit. The
plasticiíy índex is Iherefore íhe change of waíer conlení needed lo
bring aboul a sírengíh change of roughly one hundred-fold, within
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
the plástic range of the soil. A remoulded soil with a moisture content
within the plástic 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 plástic 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 plástic limits. Correlations of remoulded shear
strength and moisture content, related to the liquid and plástic 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 fací that most clays, both in their
natural state and when used in earthworks, are in a plástic state.
A further consequence of these concepts is that a soil with a low
plasticity Índex requires only a small reduction in moisture content to
bring about a substantial increase in shear strength. Conversely, a soil
with a high plasticity Índex will not stabilise under load until large
moisture content changes have taken place. This implies that highly
plástic 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 coefíicient of consolidation. Consolida-
tion properties are discussed in Chapter 5.
The special property of plasticity in clays is a function of the
electrochemical behaviour of the clay minerals: soils that possess no
clay minerals do not exhibit plasticity and, as their moisture content
is reduced, they pass directly from the liquid to the semi-solid state.
The Atterberg limits can give indications of both the type of clay
minerals present and the amount. The ratio of the plasticity Índex to
the percentage of material finer than 2¿¿m 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 valúes hold true not only
for the activity of the puré 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
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
clay to swell in the presence of water and may be used to i

expansive clays. In a less precise manner, swelling and shrinkage
properties are also related to the liquid limit, so that this too can be
used to help identify expansive clays. This is discussed in Chapter 8.
In broad terms, the plasticity Índex reflects the ratio of clay mineral
to silt and fine sand in a soil, that is the proportion of clay minerals in
the fines. Since the silt-, sand- and clay-sized particles each nave their
characteristic angles of internal friction, their relative proportions
largely determine the angle of internal friction, (f)T, (and henee to a
large extent the angle of efíective shearing resistance, </>') of clay soils.
Thus there are, perhaps surprisingly, correlations of <pr and $ with
plasticity índex. These are given in Chapter 6.
1.2.5 Limitations on the use of consistency limits

It can be seen íhat, like grading, the Atterberg limits are poteníially
a3«•*
related to a wide variety of soil properties. That this has been found to
be true, gives ampie justifícation for the use of grading and plasticity
properties in the soil classifícation 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 fíner than 425jUm, and the degree
to which this fraction reflects the properties of the soil will depend on
the proporíion of coarse material present and on the precise grading
of the soil.
Another limitation is that the limit tests are performed on
remoulded soils and the correlations are not generally valid for
undisturbed soils unless the soil properties do not change substan-
tially during remoulding. This is the case with many nor-
mally-consolidated clays but the properties of over-consolidated
clays, sensitive clays and cemented soils often differ markedly from
those predicted from Atterberg limit tests.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
r
Chapter 2
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEMS
The purpose of a soil classifícation system is to group together soils

with similar properties or attributes. From the engineering stand-
point, 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
valué, 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 íhey 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 contení and soil plasticity are to
be preferred as a basis for a classification system to properties such as
moisture contení, density, shear sírengíh and CBR valué.
Implicií in the concepí íhaí soils wiíh similar properíies can be
grouped íogeíher is íhe assumpíion íhaí correlaíions exisí beíween
íhe various soil properíies. Thaí íhis is írue is borne ouí noí only by
íhe success of soil classifícaíion sysíems buí also by íhe many
correlaíions given íhroughouí íhis íexí. However, since correlaíions
are only approximaíe, classification sysíems can give only a rough
guide ío suiíabiliíy and behaviour: a limiíaíion which muí be
appreciaíed if classificaíion sysíems are ío be used sensibly. This is
paríicularly imporíaní where a classifícaíion sysíem, based on íhe
íesíing of disíurbed samples, is used ío predicí properíies íhaí depend
on íhe síaíe of íhe soil mass. For insíance, since íhe shear sírengíh of a
clay is heavily influenced by facíors such as moisíure coníenl and field
densiíy, a classificaíion sysíem based on soil plasíiciíy íesís alone
cannoí be expecíed ío predicí bearing capaciíy ío any greaí accuracy.
13
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
In this respect, classifícation systems are more applicable where soils

are used in remoulded form than where they are used in their natural
state and it is not surprising that the most commonly used engineer-
ing soil classifícation systems were all developed for earthworks,
highways or airports work.
2.1 COMMON SOIL CLASSIFÍCATION SYSTEMS
The most widely used engineering soil classifícation systems through-

out the English-speaking world are the Uniííed system and the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offíciáis
(AASHTO) system. Of these, the Unified system is the more generally
applicable and more widely used. It was developed from a system
proposed by Casagrande (1948) and referred to as the Airfield
Classifícaíion System. Coarse-grained soils (sands and gravéis) are
classifíed according to their grading, and fine-grained soils (silts and
clays) and organic soils are classifíed according to their plasticity, as
indicated in Table 2.1. Classifícation is carried out using particle size
distribution data and liquid limit and plasticity índex valúes, as
shown in Table 2.2. An ingenious feature of the system is the
differentiation of silts and clays by means of the plasticity chart,
included in the table. The position of the A-line was fíxed by
Casagrande, based on empirical data. The only modifícation from
Casagrande's original proposal is the small deviation at the lower
end. The system can also be used to classify soils using only fíeld
identifícation, as indicated in Table 2.3.
An advantage of the system is that it can be easily extended to
include more soil groups, giving a fíner degree of classifícation if
required.
The American Association for Testing and Materials have adopted
the Unified system as a basis for the ASTM soil classifícation, entitled
'Standard Test Method for Classifícation of Soils for Engineering
Purposes', designation D2487. The presentation is somewhat difíer-
ent from that of the Unified system but the raethod of classifícation is
almost identical. The main differences are that the ASTM classifíca-
tion D2487 requires classifícation tests to be rformed whereas the
Unifíed system allows a tentative classifíca; m based on visual
inspection only; and the ASTM system gives a subdivisión of the
groups which produces a rigidly specifíed ñame for each soil type. The
main soil classifícation chart is given in Table 2.4 and the ASTM
versión of the soil plasticity chart is given in Figure 2.1. Defínitions of
the soil descriptions used are given in Table 2.5. The coefíicient of
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 15
Table 2.1 THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: BASIC SOIL GROUPINGS
Group
Majar divisions Typical ñames
symbols
1
!§
§ -s: """" 'S
^"" * •*+
yi Well graded gravéis, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravéis, gravel-sand

mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravéis, poorly graded

GW
GP
jg C^ s! ^f* ~SS ^J e
^S C •g <í o1 GM
"S -2 ^ gravel-sand-silt mixtures
^» ^j ^
'o ^S '3
^3
.^.
X.
ftj ^J Clayey gravéis, poorly graded
^3 •*••»
^j Q ^j
1^ GC
Sí e; "S gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Ijl Well graded sands, gravelly sands,
1§ little or no fines SW
^
líl
djl Poorly graded sands, gravelly
SP
^ V^ Í3 ^* 0S sands, little or no fines
o "^ "3 S .§
=3 -^ J ^
Silty sands, poorly graded
Sands with
(appreciable
SM
amount of
sand-silt mixtures
fines)
jf 1
fines
Clayey sands, poorly graded

SC
sand-clay mixtures
Inorganic silts and very fine sands,

rock flour, silty or clayey fine ML
s sands with slight plasticity
"a Inorganic clays of low to médium

I plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy CL
clays, silty clays, lean clays
•^ Q C*3 ¿o " ~~
^ sj E!
"^S 'r» ^
Organic silts and organic silt-
OL
1 s'^
a v^ s:
clays of low plasticity
fe»££
Su ^~*' 1\ Inorganic silts, micaceous or
dictomaceous fine sandy or silty MH
soils, elastic silts
"^ .§ a
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
CH
fat clays
^5 -^ gj
Organic clays of médium to high
OH
plasticity
Highly organic soils Peat and other highly organic soils Pt
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
o 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 n
O
percentage of fines (fraction smaller than 75/ím sieve size) coarse grained soils are
classified as follows: m
a
Less than 5% GW,GP, SW, SP
w E"/
C H
More than 12% GM, GC, SM, SC 2¡
5% to 12% Borderline cases requiring 3 O
w y^
use of dual symbols h< 0 on
O
& > ^ §? nO c0
o P TI
aP "^ ?t
.»
Plattlcity lnd*x
M U *• Ot 0»
P
í3
*£
Crí n> 3fc— nt ^^ *-4- | II
Í3 Ttrt> reg ro So
^ *-»•
0
IIII
c
IIII
Q
•"' C.TÍ M 0
^•í, ^ñS fl>
í±
O *-JO O O O O O
5 i »—* î o O
J (^ c^ "^ S ^* \^3
h- to to
h*« H«"M
"^-J fi) O *£*• 3 * cr to
**•«
to *•—
to
K«.
o "^
i r*
-o "
" n> o S s ^^§ rti
re
1- '~- "- ON
~. ^ S r
É
tí í?
i 1 É
"~ »^. ^^ fD
r^-
X w ^ c3
kwí . ^^
** ffO
uw r-f
fc» •
O
X
Q
w
O
t~\ ^
O
3 »-—.
(ti
- , rj
CT |^
^3 l^ tro to
Q\
O ^J
£3"
u E-. °1 3
OQ S' Lí o
O
s e * 2 Nr
Si ° * \r O. U r-
_
^ ero
1-1
^
cr C0 "
r-*- C/3 ^t) en
^ cr
Si 0
03
P
f—f
«
"S
n
n
So "d
W
o cr TO t>
^-t- r-f
H-i)
P cr
î
OQ rt> ^ z
-. ^ o i^.
p tr ^™í
P o £L i~i r^-
í
<-+•
tr o"
» ~ o 2" r~?r
«. ° rt
35
(u
3-
?? nT o"
en !¿ co ^ *J en H
— s \
fD ""^
1-1 rt •-i < D- n 3
ft
>-i n> ^
en < CL «í
P 3 P (D Í3 W
(-* r^ ¿3 ^ Lrt
o\4
O "• - • - - « • • —^ ' ' 1 ' -
JK
•o s *J
-\-^ ^-< iDCD io-* rp
W -1
*-• >^
P SH "la.
cr
O
3
h en *"t P
*< « ro
jD ^ 2^£ cr
S^ *>*. o
3
p
3
2
m \
3. c cr c^ í-t
P3
|_
3
'
3
_. c ._ cr o *-t 3 r
^
Cr ~- O" fu ^
•* \ S CL
u>
o^ 5' §" a rl
t»^ ^J • "w ("*• 18 £ P-
ta
5- 3' ^ ^ , £.
•-ire C_
i-t"
OJ
0
r- ^ f> ' ir 5 fí ^Ü re >
3 en Sr 3 _ 3
« S" i^ 5^ m 3 . |±- H
O
0 ^ P
"-•> * ^S 3
en
o ^ "^ S
^rc "w MP- ^.2. • .
3
rt- »
0,8 oí
C en O. £.' i—^
Oj ftj *-3 *C
on
i— »^
O O o
-" ^ ^ >-i E- S -j 3-
e/i
C/l
^ C^ 3
00 C/3
S
IVD 00 O
n o O
13
O 3 3 o
>
S 3- O- K
O "^J ao
cr
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS AND FINE-GRAINED

FRACTION OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
70
Equation of "A--IÍ ne
60 .Horizontal at Pl='\L
then PI=O.7 3(LL- 2O)
-25.5 1
z,^
j
"°-
0^"
s
<?y
s /
/
**
f
y
.Equation oí "IT-I ne o*
*> v . »v
I 5 0 Vertical at LL=16 to Pl =
X
| 40
then Pl=0.íKLL-fi )
\°*
vJ/>
s
&D/^ /
0^
/
/
VJ
/
^
_>.
X
o 30
"5
<0
¿
&•í^
ov,
a 20
A ox
/ MH or OH
10 /£ /
7
4
O
Z
/
!
1O
CL-ML
I
20
/
30
^
MLo rOL
40 SO 60 70 80 90 10O 110 120
Liquidlimit (LL)
Figure 2.1 Soil plasticity chart used with the ASTM and Unified soil classifi-
cation sysíems
uniformity, Cu, and the coefficient of curvature, Ce, of the grading

curve, which are used in the classification, are defined in Table 2.4.
The soil ñames used for each of the soil groups are defíned in Tables
2.6, 2.7 and 2.8.
The British Standard classification system (BS 5930) is, like the
Unified system, also based on the Casagrande classification but the
definitions of sand and gravel are slightly different, to be in keeping
with other British Standards, and the fine-grained soils are divided
into fíve plasticity ranges rather than the simple 'low' and 'high'
divisions of the Unified and the original Casagrande systems. In
addition, a considerable number of sub-groups have been introduced.
The basic soil ñames, symbols and qualifying terms are given in Table
2.9 and the definitions of the soil groups and sub-groups can be
obtained from Table 2.10 in conjunction with the BS versión of the
plasticity chart, Figure 2.2.
It can be seen that both the ASTM and, particularly, the BS soil
classification systems subdivide the soil into a much larger number of
groups than the earlier systems. Although this allows a more precise
classification, it negates two of the main attributes of the Unified
classification: the systems are not longer simple and easy to remember
but require constant reference to a table and chart; and they cannot
be implemented without recourse to laboratory testing.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.3 THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: FIELD IDENTIFICATION

Field identiflcation procedures
Group
(Excluding par ticíes larger than 75mm and basing fractions on
symbols
estimated weights)
e»
Cf Wide range in grain size and substantial GW
^
£ a
<¿
^3
1§ amounts of all intermedíate particle sizes
|o?
¡ |,
•-Q*_ ' ^.^ s5j -C^
1
I
§^^.
•5; ^:
{j "-^
Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with
some intermedíate sizes missing
GP
t 1%I« s-
1
2 •*=<-.£ s ^ -c: ^- Non-plastic fines (for identiflcation procedures, GM
-Ü
i~
"""* ^
^ -5
J .0a £- .u
s; -S
". = -!-'<=• see ML below)
H fl
^n <ú í- 5C aj
'3 .2 '¿
íI'S
lis i 5 •*
1*11*
ü 3
Plástic fines (for identification procedures, see CL
below)
GC
2^5= °
equivalen! to th
?í|l -a o Wide range in grain sizes and substantial SW

(For visual classification, the
2J "a amounts of all intermedióte paríicle sizes

fraction is smaller íhan
More íhan half of coarse
8 •*= a e J U
^03
a «j ,a
3J** g ^^ Predominantly one size or a range of sizes with SP
4.75mm sieve
^J *-.
Ib .O o-S some intermedíate size missing
o :s
Sands
ís o -« Non-plastic fines (for identification procedures,

o .•S -2:^
-c o^^ see ML below)
SM
- ^. .a ^- -^
1 4 IH
. *¿ ^ c 2
Ui
«I
O.
Plástic fines (for identification procedures, see CL
W) Co _g Q below)
SC
ü
13
o Identification procedures on fraction smaller íhan 425um sieve
u
.n
Dry sírength Toughness
3 Dilatancy
O (crushing (consistency
ja (reaction
« charac- near plástic
to shaking)
^ .<£ teristics) limit)
1 .s h's;
1
X «,
V, — .N
*
S
U
-¿ll
§:s-s
None to
slight
Quick to
slow
None ML
Í3 O o;
2"£ S E
'55
a.|.g Médium None to
"« o -Si
.! 1 « £
=*• §^ ~" to high very slow
Médium CL
¡>t
<*x¡o jjf_ Slight to
ia^ C
médium
Slow Slight OL
;S-s c
^ •«§*
Slight to Slow to Slight to
^ o médium none médium
MH
Su E*-" 0
53 -.3 -.
1 "G.g J
High to
li|
Í3 * Q
^: ^ «u
very high
None High CH
* o, Médium None to Slight to

to high very slow "•sdium
OH
Readily identified by colour, odou; pongy feel

Highly organic soils
and frequently by fibrous texture
Pt
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.4 THE ASTM (UNIFIED) SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (AFTER ASTM D2847-85)
Soil classification
Criterio for assigning group symbols and group ñames using ¡aboratory testsí Group „ 2
Coarse-grained soil Gravéis Clean gravéis Cu>4 and l < C c ^ 3 5 GW Well-graded gravel6
More than 50% More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% fines3 Cu <4 and/or l>Cc>3 5 GP Poorly graded gravel6
retained on No. 200 fraction retained on No. 4
Gravéis with fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel 6 ' 7 - 8
(0.075mm) sieve (4.75mm) sieve
More than 12% fines3 Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel 6 ' 7 ' 8
Sands Clean sands Cu^óand lsSCc<3 5 SW Well-graded sand9
50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines4 Cu ^ 6 and/or l > C c > 3 5 SP Poorly graded sand 9
fraction passes No. 4
Sands with fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand 7 ' 8 ' 9
(4.75mm) sieve
More than 12% fines4 Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand 7 - 8 - 9
Fine-grained soils Silts and clays Inorganic P / < 7 and plots on or above 'A' line 10 CL Leanclay11-12-13
50% or more passes Liquid limit less than 50 P/sí4 or plots below 'A' line 10 ML Silt 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3
the No. 200 sieve 00
Organic Liquid limit - oven dried <0.75 OL Organic clay 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 4 o
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt 1 1 - 1 2 ' 1 3 ' 1 5
r
F a t c l a y n . 12.13 o
Silts and clays Inorganic P7 plots on or above 'A' line CH
Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below 'A' line MH Elasticsilt 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3
oo
Organic Liquid limit - oven dried <0.75 OH Organic clay 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3 ' 1 6 00
h—<
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt"' 1 2 - 1 3 ' 1 7 TI

HH
n
Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in colour, and organic odour PT Peal
H
h-H
1. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve. SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay 10. If Atterberglimils piolín hatched área, soil isa CL-ML. O
2. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, silty clay.
add 'with cobbles or boulders, or both' to group ñame. 5. Cu = D60/í)10 CV = —^r- 11. If soil contains 15 to 29% plus, No. 200, add 'with sand'
3. Gravéis with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: Ü10XÍ;60 or 'with gravel', whichever is predominant. LTt
GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt 6. If soil contains > 15% sand, add 'with sand' to group 12. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, H
GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay ñame. add 'sandy' to group ñame. m
GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt 7. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM,or 13. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly 2
oo
GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay SC-SM. gravel, add 'gravelly' to group ñame.
4. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: 8. If fines are organic, add 'with organic fines' to group 14. PI 5=4 and plots on or above 'A' line.
SW-SM well-graded sand with silt ñame. 15. PI <4 or plots below 'A' line.
SW-SC well-graded sand with clay 9. If soil contains 15% gravel, add 'with gravel' to group 16. PI plots on or above 'A' line.
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt ñame. 17. PI plots below 'A' line.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.5 DEFINITIONS OF SOIL DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
Description Defmition of material*
Boulders Retained on 300mm (12in) sieve

Cobbles Passing 300mm (12in); retained on 75mm (Sin) sieves
Gravel Passing 75mm (Sin): reíained on 4.75mm (No. 4) sieves
coarse Passing 75mm (Sin); retained on 19mm (|in) sieves
fine Passing 19mm (|in); retained on 4.75mm (No. 4) sieves
Sand Passing 4.75mm (No. 4); retained on 75/zm (No. 200) sieves
coarse Passing 4.75mm (No. 4); retained on 2mm (No. 10) sieves
médium Passing 2mm (No. 10); retained on 425/mi (No. 40) sieves
fine Passing 425/¿m (No. 40); retained on 75/¿m (No. 200) sieves
Clay Passing 75/mi (No. 200) sieve that can be made to exhibit plasíicity
within a range of water contents and that, exhibits considerable
strength when air dry. For classification, a clay is a fine-grained soil,
or fine-grained portion of a soil, with a plasticity índex of equal to or
greaíer than 4, and ploís above íhe 'A' line on íhe plasíicity charí.
Silt Passing 75/^m (No. 200) that is nonplastic or very slightly plástic and
exhibits little or no dry strength when air dry. For classification, silt
is a fine-grained soil, or fine-grained portion of a soil, with a plasticity
Índex less than 4 or which ploís below the 'A' line on the plasticity
charí.
Organic clay A clay or sill with sufficient organic conlent to influence íhe soil
or sill properlies. For classification, an organic clay or silt is a soil that
would be classified as a clay or silí excepl Ihat ils liquid limil valué
afler oven drying is less Ihan 75% of ils liquid limií before oven
drying.
Peat A soil composed of vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposi-
lion usually wilh an organic odour, a dark-brown lo black colour, a
spongy consislency and a lexture ranging from fibrous lo amor-
phous.
* Sieve sizes and numbers refer to U.S. square sieves.
As a result of the introduction of these classification systems, a

subtle change has arisen in the defmition of silt. Normally, silt and
clay particles are defíned by their particle size, the división between
silt and clay being 5/rni in the ASTM and AASHTO defmitions, and
2/mi in the BS defmition. The plasticity chart was a useful way of
separating silts from clays, which worked for mosí soils: clays
generally plotted above the A-line and silts below üthough excep-
tional clays were known to plot below it. Now, , ?r classification
purposes, whether a soil is a silt or a clay is defíned in terms of whether
it plots above or below the A-line, rather than on its particle sie. The
British Standard system suggests that, to avoid confusión, the term
'M-soil' is used for those fine-grained soils that plot below the A-line,
but this does not seem to ha ve gained popular acceptance.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SILT(M-SOIL), M, plots bolowA-line\y becombinedas

CLAY, C, plots above A-line / FINE SOIL, F.
U - Uppor plasticity rango
L - Low plasticity i - Inter- V - Very
H - High E - Extremely high
medíate high
70
60
°> X
NOTE: the letter O is added

to the symboi of any material
50 - containing a significant
proportion of organic matter
C:V x ME
e.g. MHO
y
= 40
2
er CH X ^MV
3 30
Cl
20 - M«J
mn
CL x MI
10
ML
O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 9O 100 110 120
Plasticity indox (%)
Figure 2.2 Soilplasiicity chart used with the British Standard soil classification system
Although the Casagrande-type systems classify soils aceording to

their engineering properties, they are not strictly interpretive, in that
they do not overtly classify soils as good or bad for a particular use.
However, they can be readily used in this way with the aid of tables or
charts such as those indicated in Tables 2.11 and 2.12.
The AASHTO soil classification system (M 145) does not classify
soils by type (i.e. sands, clays etc.) but simply divides them into seven
major groups, as shown in Table 2.13. Groups A-1, A-2 and A-7 are
usually subdivided as indicated. Typical materials in each group are
indicated in Table 2.14. Although soils are divided into granular
materials (groups A-1, A-2 and A-3) and silt-clay materials (groups
A-4 to A-7), the distinction is less clear-cut than with the Casag-
rande-type systems. This is particularly true of the A-2 group, which
can include soils with a considerable silt or clay content. Clays are
distingushed from silts on the basis that clays have a plasicity Índex of
greater than 10: unlike the A-line división of the Casagrande
plasticity chart, this rather arbitrary división does no truly distin-
guish between these two types of soils. Also, organic soils are not
included in the classification. However, the system must be judged
aceording to its own aims, which are specifically to assess the
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
O
o
!*
W
Table 2.6 FLOW CHART FOR CLASSIFYING COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (MORE THAN so% RETAINED ON is^m SIEVE) m
r1
>
H
h—<
GROUP ÑAME O
Z
<5% fines and •» < 15% sand- >Well-graded gravel C/3
Síl5%sand- 'Well-graded gravel with sand O

^
and/or l > C c > 3 < 15% sand- >Poorly graded gravel 00
> 15% sand- >Poorly graded gravel with sand O
fines-ML or MH >GW-GM < 15% sand - >Well-graded gravel with silt

5=15% sand >Well-graded gravel with silt and sand O
and TJ
fines-CL, CH,— >GW-GC -»<15%sand- >Well-graded gravel with clay (or silty clay) m
(or CL-ML) >15%sand- >Well-graded gravel with clay and sand &
GRAVEL H
H-H
% gravel> ^5-12% fines (or silty clay and sand) m
in
%sand
fínes-ML or MH +GP-GM <15%sand >Poorly graded gravel with silt
Cu<4 and/or l>Cc>3 >15%sand- >Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand
fines-CL or CH, >GP-GC < 15% sand >Poorly graded gravel with clay or silty clay
(or CL-ML) »Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand
(or silty clay and sand)
fines-ML or MH *GM < 15% sand - "Silty gravel

^ 15% sand- »Silty gravel with sand
12% fines fines-CL or CH - *GC -> < 15% sand- ••Clayey gravel
^ > 15% sand- >Clayey gravel with sand
fínes-CL-ML >GC-GM -* < 15% sand- vSilty, clayey gravel
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
"'5=15% sand- >Silty, clayey gravel with sand
•• • • • n n n • • B 1 1 E1 1 1 1 I I I » » ) } ) ) ) J Jl J
,<5% fines Cu ^ 6 and 1 < Ce < 3 —'o vv -^^^ '-^- 1J 70 giavci > Well-graded sand
"~^^ 15% gravel > Well-graded sand with gravel
,' T-J
C u < 6 and/or 1 >Cc>3 ><STp l jf*1 1 ^ " A OTIVPl »Poorly graded sand
• > 15% gravel >Poorly graded sand with gravel
* fines-ML or MH ——+SW-SM -:——> < 15% gravel »Well-graded sand with silt
Cu^óand l<Cc<3
X ^^15% gravel * Well-graded sand with silt and gravel
"""^fines-CL,CH, —»sw-sc .:—-»<15% gravel »Well-graded sand with clay (or silty clay)
(or CL-ML) ^ > 15% gravel »Well-graded sand with clay and gravel
SAND
(or silty clay and gravel)
5-12% fines
, fines-ML or MH >SP-SM >< 15% gravel- *Poorly graded sand with silt
' ^15% gravel- + Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
Cu<6 and/or l>Cc>3x,
fines-CL or CH >SP-SC » < 15% gravel- •••Poorly graded sand with clay (or silty clay)
(or CL-ML) ' ^ 15% gravel - •••Poorly graded sand with clay and gravel
oo
(or silty clay and gravel) O
F
fines-ML or MH -SM < 15% gravel - ->Silty sand n
15% gravel - ->Silty sand with gravel r
>12% fines fines-CL-CH >SC < 15% gravel - -*Clayey sand 00
->Clayey sand with gravel

>—t
*Q
H-<
fines-CL-ML ->SC-SM <15% gravel- -*Silty, clayey sand n
^ 15% gravel • ->Silty, clayey sand with gravel
H
o
00
H
m
oo
K)
ÜJ
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
K)
O
Table 2.7 FLOW CHART FOR CLASSIFYING INORGANIC FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% OR MORE PASSES 75/«n SIEVE) O
?o
GROUP SYMBOL 50
GROUP ÑAME m
<3Q% plus No. 200^< 15% plus No. 200 «-Lean clay H f—-4
\5-29%
15-29% plus No. 200-x—>%
2C sand >% gravel—>Lean clay with sand o
PI>7and % sand <% gravel—>Lean clay with gravel
plots on or above % sand ^ % gravel <15% gravel — ->Sandy lean clay
'A'-line plus No. 200<f 5*15% gravel — -»Sandy lean clay with gravel
% sand < % gravel« <15% sand — ->-Gravelly lean clay
O<
l^\5% sand -»Gravelly lean clay with sand H-
r
,<30% plus No. 200<-»<15% plus No. 200- -*Silty clay
'15-29% plus No. 2(Kk^»% sand ^% gravel—»Silty clay with sand O
TI
4 < P I < 7 and >CL-MI N. t /o sand <% gravel—>Silty clay with gravel en
Inorganic > plots on or above % sand gravel • <15% gravel >Sandy silty clay
'A'-line plus No. 200<( "* ^ 15% gravel >-Sandy silty clay with gravel tn
C/3
% sand <% gravelv^ > < 15% sand >Gravelly silty cay
15% sand >Gravelly silty clay with sand
,<30% plus No. 200^-* < 15% plus No. 200- i-Silt
LL<50 " 15-29% plus No. 200 % sand >% gravel—»Silt with sand
PI<4 or plots- % sand < % gravel—>Silt with gravel
below 'A'-line
<
% sand ^% grávela—>< 15% gravel >-Sandy silt
^ ^ 15% gravel «-Sandy silt with gravel
% sand < % gravel^—+< 15% sand ^Gravelly silt
^ 15% sand ———->Gravelly silt with sand
, /LL-overdried
Orgahic — . ,<0.75 >SeeTable2.8
1 LL-not dned @Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
vv v i t i i i i i i i i i * » M I J I » » * * * » V * V I * f t f t i i > ft}11IliVIt J11 I I I 1I I I i
<30% plus No. 200^-»<15% plus No. 200 -»Fat clay

N gravel—>Fat clay with sand
15-29% plus No. 2(XK^% sand
PI plots on or >CH % sand <% gravel—>Fat clay with gravel
above 'A'-line ,% sand gravel < 15% gravel >Sandy fat clay
> 30% plus No ^\5% gravel >Sandy fat clay with gravel
N,
% sand < % gravel < 15% sand >Gravelly fat clay
Inorganic ^ 15% sand ^Gravelly fat clay with sand
,<30% plus No. 200^-> < 15% plus No. 200 «-Elastic silt
15-29% plus No. 2(Xk-*% sand ^% gravel—»Elastic silt with sand
PI plots below >MH % sand < % gravel—»Elastic silt with gravel
'A'-line % sand <% gravel-^—><15% gravel ->Sandy elastic silt
Sí 30% plus No.
; 15% gravel >Sandy elastic silt with gravel
% sand < % gravel :15% sand ^Gravelly elastic silt
: 15% sand >Gravelly elastic silt with sand
t/3
O
/LL-overdried
Organic — —-j<0.75 —»OH >SeeTable 2.8
1 LL-not dned
o
r
>
GO
U2
HH
TI
HH
O
>
H
hH
O
•z
co
en
H
tn
2
t/J
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.8 FLOW CHART FOR CLASSIFYING ORGANIC FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% OR MORE PASSES 75/im SIEVE)
GROUP SYMBOL GROUP ÑAME i-o
ON
<30% plus No. 200- <15% plus No. 200- >Organic clay n
15-29% plus No. 200-= • % sand ^ % gravel >Organic clay with sand o
' % sand < % gravel >Organic clay with gravel
and plots on % sand > % graveé < 15% gravel >Sandy organic clay tfl
or above 'A'-line 5=30% plus No. 200 5*15% gravel >Sandy organic clay with gravel
H
% sand <% gravel- -»<15% sand >Gravelly organic clay
O
• > 1 5 % sand >Gravelly organic clay with sand
oo
<30% plus No. 200 ><15% plus No. 200 -»Organic silt O
15-29% plus No. 20(k % sand ¿t % gravel -* Organic silt with sand 00
• % sand < % gravel -* Organic silt with gravel o
I—I
PI<4 or plots sand ^ % gravel - < 15% gravel -*Sandy organic silt r
below 'A'-line Ss 30% plus No. 2 >15% gravel— ->Sandy organic silt with gravel "U
%sand < % gravel <15% sand ->Gravelly organic silt O
Sil5% sand -*Gravelly organic silt with sand TI
m
?d
<30% plus No. 200- > < 1 5 % plus No. 200- H
> Organic clay NH
'15-29% plus No. 200-

m
% sand 5s % gravel > Organic clay with sand 00
% sand < % gravel * Organic clay with gravel
Plots on or % sand ^ % gravel • -K 15% gravel >Sandy organic clay
above 'A'-line Ss 30% plus No. 200 •>15% gravel >Sandy organic clay with gravel
% sand <% gravel. -*<15% sand >Gravelly organic clay
15% s a n d — "•Gravelly organic clay with sand
OH ,<30% plus No. 200- •<15% plus No. 200- -+Organic silt
'15-29% plus No. 200- -» % sand ^ % gravel -»Organic silt with sand
' % sand < % gravel -* Organic silt with gravel
Plots below, % sand > % gravel- < 15% gravel -*Sandy organic silt
'A'-line •> 30% plus No. 2 15% gravel — -+Sandy organic silt with gravel
% sand < % gravel <15% sand -*Gravelly organic silt
»Gravelly organic silt with sand
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.9 ÑAMES AND DESCRIPTIVE LETTERS FOR GRADING AND PLASTICITY
CHARACTERISTICS
Descriptive ñame Letter
Main íerms GRAVEL G

SAND S
Qualifying terms Well graded W
Poorly graded P
Uniform Pu
Gap graded Pg
Main terms FINE SOIL, FINES F
may be differentiated into M or C
SILT (M-SOIL) M
plots below A-line of plasticity chart
(of restricted plástic range)
CLAY C
plots abo ve A-line (fully plástic)
Qualifying terms Of low plasticity L
Of intermedíate plasíicity I
Of high plasticity H
Of very high plastisity V
Of extremely high plasticity E
Of upper plasticity range* U
incorporating groups I, H, V and E
Main term PEAT Pt

Qualifying term Organic O
may be suffixed to any group
* This term is a useful guide when it is not possible or not required to desígnate the range of liquid limit more closely,
e.g. during the rapid assessment of soils.
suitability of soils for pavement subgrades; the higher group numbers

being progressively less suitable. In this way the system is more
restricted yet more interpretive than the Casagrande-type systems,
since it not only classifíes soils into groups of similar properties but
also passes judgement about the quality or suitability of the soils in
each group. A further refínement of the AASHTO system in this
respect is the use of a 'group Índex', to evalúate subgrade quality. It is
calculated from the formula:
Group index = (JF-35)[0.2 + 0.005(LL-40)]-r-0.01(F-15)(P/-10)
where F is the percentage passing 0.075mm sieve, expressed as a
whole number. This percentage is based only on the
material passing the 75mm sieve
LL is the liquid limit
and PI is the plasticity Índex.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Coarse soils (<35% fines) tf
o;
5"
S)
Sands (>50% of coarse Gravéis (> 50% of coarse
material is of sand size - material is of gravel size - C/3
O
< 2mm) >2mm) «Ci
03
o
— < P E?. 2- E£ o. <; OQ oo o. oo v¡
X
Vi
<~>í M 2- o << d
1 «5* £1 | £2. lf a le. z

D
0.0 | o.s-
«< o
is - . 3
w;
^ o
>
O
1-t
P
C/3 S0 ^ § O O O
•TI
< <-
0
2 2
rt —
n
p
oo
—
£?
0
*o <•
X <*
*í
<!<
33
O
sr
y.
^
V^
g «;
00 sñ1
*•< v<« *•< ^í CS H
fD O3 *"~* O w "f»*
o
tP* £
«< ve;
w
p
3
Q.
oci P
-i Q. -Í"«f o? § »3 ¡
o a p n o> p « P n Oo
*< g o. 0.0.
oí 3
Í £L
i ~ »£*
wS
I
0.a" | |
...'•. o.
-. si P«
i"*
00 00 00 00 OO 00
oo 9 9 ^^
!!l!í||¡!¡l¡
£3 jy i^ y ""CJ *^ t^ (JQ «^ CJQ OQ M
nciQ'Sro^'c/3(roPooP ^ 3
CT tr « S-. ^_ O 3 a. g o. o.^
fj* ""O £^" t-*- O^
*J- p* J^' ^ J5-"
Q. p.
CB
("L Q.
Cu
CÍ* (TQ
>-t
«5"3"c«9tS3-^
^ p- P CT. v J
3"Tj¿. o JJ" D.
CyQ P ^^° i t v^
TiO-'-iD.
p rj n3 o»
O. D- O. Q.
p) p^
g-J"
« ~-
O.([q
p
1
u | i- 1 §• S>J i: g. i* g- |
IfÎ
^" << 0_
p"
***
00
s t * °
1—•
1
OOOOOOOOOOO) OOOOOOOO OOOO
o o o o o «• n o o o oo
OOOQOo ^^'fl^ ^'TS onnoo" J ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
--J Vi t>J A
V p p vi A
\ --J
V p o vi A
Vi OJ A O
vo T T I w «o T T 1 u> •** t^
O ^¿> *—l Vi Vi
0 O0 ^
>— * vi O
O O0
>—» Vi P
i1
A 3
v/>
[ >—
1 I
Vi
y»
1
-
>—
l T
Vi
U> Vi U) Vi
Vi
@Seismicisolation
SHIIÍÍ3cIOHcI 1IOS HO SMOI1V13HHOD
@Seismicisolation
•
3
c
_0
c c
•— o
ei
u
000
vi vi r~— o\D
o oo
f> 1 1 Os
Vi Vi C*- O"\>
! 1 CTN E -
W «0 0 0 A
r*"} « ^
oo v— A
rm V ^T¡ */•} t^- A
ri
^J
c/3
U 'U "U
us tn «j -U •S
— EC
< <<
o H-] 2 PC > W
•su uu uu £££uuuuu •
•o
BO
1
^-¿ C
l/J t/J _J
û s
-*—i •*-*
>-> |3 >> |o o -S
'"5 -2 :§ "ale 'Q Ü O "S.43

O.
n '£* .2 tí ft >-. OO '-S •- "tí js ^ 3 o
•-; C
U U U J2 "S -^-SP"!
O
JH
§-8 y
,_Q "a | "S-'-S E CX
t_
¡_, r* ^_^ gJ O O O ^
'^ ^
i—i ^^
r^ j^>
-^^ ^ •^ u u •- O
^-» ¡> <u £Q j^y *~i c*-< tfc-i (*_, pj o ü o <" O
w o •g ;- u x E c c
•< —i t_ x í> w ^ « « O ^ ^ O x
<-<-<i_ih-.lx;,>tU O —
C O
03
i— i .. c o *
Q
'3 "§.«
cr ? S? ü '
l.§
•3 U _ - u .H oo —
Oo 00
^3
o O , c "Lñ "O
Su
00
§ 5
C r™1 ^
I
E 2
i I
I
Io I J
Ist¡_T">í
>.
vi
c
U 1 w -2
_« /Un " 0
C
ü «s 3 C cd
5
'« *o 0
t^ =¿ o3
•*•*% ^«^ c
— "o
'« ^ 15
^?^ J"?*O ^
S? -=
"«3 *4J >-. >-> 3 'Cfl
J *0 o o .y o.
Cfl
rt o3 •o-a
c c ->-> >,
a i— J5 ^* A
6o cd cd rzn r^?
í/3 </3 t/3 U
O QJ •^J ¡s
•a
M ..' E
O
3 _0fl c TT
B c e a
CS
Wl o o «
Ü C/2 eÍ<— |
UH IX U. u
_N
c °"S 35
a"Z a
2.H^ —t a uw cE 5 o r- =i '^
-
0#
1 Z o 'E *- S> S.,
*- ?".
rs os
co •-
kH
0 * >. "« Ij's «

13 —. o *3
1—« í*^
•S ^-2
W3 O
?^*
I o
S *-" ^ 'C
u
O Ü 3 O w rt
3 | "3
M
rt > "c *°* ° ~* o '° E
a M 03
C/D
rrt rz3
u3 C/2
^^ ^^ ^ U
S2
cd
~§
— ü
i^ *5» S
S
u toü >_»
(ssuy %S9~S£) iJ «i AH
o
sXep pire sjiis (S3UU A
ípuBS Jo /ÍUSABJQ °/ 59) S^-ÎD pu^ ^ns O
C t^
Ít3
CU * !•? . _> 'Bl

oc o « >
••3 E O U
(S3UIJ %g£<) SITOS 3UIJ O Cu o
O \0
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
LO
O
Table 2.11 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF COMPACTED SOILS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE UNIFIED SYSTEM (AFTER USBR 1974)
O
Relative desirability for various uses
(No. 1 is considered the best)
o
&
Important engineering properties
Rolled m
Earthfill dams Canal seclions Foundalions Roadways
r
H
H-4
Filis
O
Shear oo
Workability Homo- Com- Seepage Frost
Permeability strenglh ibility Erosión Seepage Frosl
Ty"ÍCal
Group as a qeneous ,, pacled . nol heave . O
ñames when compacted when , Core Shell resist- impar- heave Surfacing
symbols conslruclion embank- earth impar- nol
ofsoil groups compacted and compacted anee lant posswle
material mení lining lant possible
salurated saturated
Well-graded gravéis, GW Pervious Excellent Negligible Excellent — 1 3 TI

gravel-sand mixtures,
O
little or no fines TI
«
Poorly graded gravéis, GP Very Good Negligible Good 2 W
gravel-sand mixtures, pervious H
t—í
little or no fines W
oo
Silty gravéis, poorly GM Semipervious Good Negligible Good 1 4 4 9 5
graded gravel-sand-silt to irnpervious
mixtures
Clayey gravéis, poorly GC Impervious Good Very low Good 2 6 5 5 1
graded gravel-sand-clay to fair
mixtures
3
Well-graded sands, SW Pervious Excelent Negligible Excellent — — If 6
gravelly sands, little c1 gravelly
no fines
4 7
Poorly graded sands, SP Pervious Good Very low Fair If If 5 6 4
gravelly sands, little or gravelly gravelly
no fines.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
ÍN r^
2 - o O 13 cc oo
o ca
-
•<ñ o "Z u 2. c •-
•~o W
s so r- ÜJ
o •—
oc ¡> o u
—
=
*= 1* 0 i* O -55 i_i O
M
o o
'« o "3 'a o o
bu a U á S ti, cu
O
O. BU
E
3
E
3
E
3
•3 -3 '•uo J2
00 oo 00
o
0
S
4>
S
U
•s. s X X
ki
?
0
O
33
cS 2 1 2
UH
£
O
l_
'3
U.
o
o
D.
0
w
o
CU
b.
0
o
to
rvious
Vi
vious
vious
vious
3 3 3 3
_0 VI
3 o .2 3
,O VI
3
to
">
.2 "> £; O
'>
(_r _O _o
.§• E S.
& II 8. .1 .§8. .1- _§S. 1 8.
»o B Ji S E 1o U o E a
u j u
c/5 ai S U 0 2 U o £
05 o 0 -^
TJ ^
"O
05
d
Organic silts and orgar
diatomaceous fine saín
Organic clays of mediu
Peat and other highly
00
§s "ío
Inorganic clays of low
clays, silty clays, lean

Clayey sands, poorly
gravelly clays, sandy
2
"C •gá 4J 'Q
to o
«
médium plastüty,
C •— "H. ° 1
to high plasticity
graded sand-clay
rt _^j _rt
a g "S,g so.
Inorganic silts,
u S, ""
"? _o
micáceo us or
C3 *J
organic soils
.-* w
tfl"
T3 V3
a _" "o <2
•o "o •S
— t¡
>i
Ss •al 0 Jj to «
mixtures
1 cu 5 o "S C8 « o
"8 3 "o
ll
00 S 00 • —
clays
*¡o
2 -|
¡55 ec E l| i '1
i— < tS 'vi
IM
O
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
K)
Table 2.12 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF COMPACTED SOILS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE EXTENDED CASAGRANDE SYSTEM
(AFTER CP2001: BSI 1957)
H
H— <
Casagrande Valué as a road Potential frost Shrinkage or Drainage Bulk dry density Applicable observations O
group- foundation when action swelling characteristics at optimum and tests relating to the 00
symbol not subject tofrost properties compaction, material in place o

action Ib. /cu. f t . and (or carnea out on on
voids ratio, e undisturbed samples) O
HH
{—<
GW Excellent Non to very slight Almost none Excellent >125

<?<0.35 0
GC Excellent Médium Very slight Practically >130 *d
Dry density and relative tn
impervious e<0.30
compaction. H
GU Good None Almost none Excellent I-H
e<0.50 Moisture content and frt

c/5
GP Good to excellent None to very Almost none Excellent
slight Cementation durability
e<0.45 í» *
GF Good to excellent Slight to médium Fair to practically of grams.

Almost none >120
impervious e < 0.40 Stratification and
to slight
SW Excellent to good None to very * Almost none drainage characteristics.
Excellent >120
c_ t ight
• i 4. f\ r\ <Ü.4(J Ground-water conditions.
'-"'o
SC Excellent to good Médium Very slight Practically >125
Large scale loading tests,
impervious e<0.35 California Bearing Ratio
SU Fair tests.
None to very Almost none Excellent >100
i• i i
slight f\ < 0.70 Shear tests and other
SP Fair to good None to very Almost none >100 strength tests.
Excellent
slight e < 0.70
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SF Fair to good Slight to high Almost none Fair to practically - > 105
to médium impervious e < 0.60
ML Fair to poor Médium to very Slight to Fair to poor >ioo

high médium e<0.70
CL Fair to poor Médium to high Médium Practically >ioo Dry density and relativo
impervious e<0.70
compaction,
OL Poor Médium to high Médium to Poor >90
•» • v
high e < 0.90 Moisture contení and
MI Fair to poor Médium Médium to
1 * 1
Fair to poor >ioo Stratification fissures, etc.
high e < 0.70
CI Fair to poor Slight High Fair to practically >95 Drainage and ground-
water conditions.
impervious e < 0.80
Poor High Consolidation tests.
Oí Slight Fair to practically >95 Loading tests.
impervious e < 0.80
MH Poor Médium to high High Poor California Bearing Ratio C/D
> 1 00 tests. O
CH Poor to very póor Very slight High Practically >90 Shear tests and other r
strength tests. n
impervious e<0.90 r
OH Very poor Very slight High Practially >ioo w
C/5
impervious e < 0.70
Pt Extremely poor Slight Very high Fair to poor — Consolidation tests. •n
H—4
HH
O
Note. Group symbols as for Unified system except for placticity ranges: H
H—t
L - low plasticity, PI less than 35% O
I - intermedíate plasticity, PI 35-50% 2!
H - high plasticity, PI greater than 50% 00
Oí
b
H
m
C/3
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
/ •'' ' • .. ..
' *-
Table 2.13 AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (M 145)
,-, , , .~ Granular materials Silt-clay materials O

General classmcatwn ,->cn/ / • TC \ or less passing /jum) (More than 35% passing 75 m ¡»
m
t-1
4-7 4-3 4-2 A-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 >
Group classification H
A-l-a A-l-b 4-2-4 4-2-5 4-2-6 4-2-7 4-7-5: 4-7-6 g
Sieve analysis: O
TI
Percentage passing:
2mm 50 max — — — — — — Q
425/rni 30 max 50 max 51 min — — — — ___ P
75/¿m 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 minn 36 min *o
Charateristics of . O
fraction passing m
70
425/im: H
Liquid limit — — 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min m
Plasticity índex 6 max NP 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min* w
'"
Group índex
- typical valúes 0 0 0 4 max 8 max 12 max 16 max 20 max
Usual types of Stone fragments Fine Silty or clayey gravel and sarid Silty soils Clayey soils
significant gravel and sand sand- '
constituent materials
. •' . ' .' •
General rating as
subgrade Excellent to good Fair to poor
* Plasticity Índex of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity índex of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
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.
Granular materials Silty clay materials
Group A-l. Typically a well graded Group A-4. Typically a nonplastic or

mixture of stone fragments or moderately plástic silty soil usually
gravel, coarse to fine sand and a with a high percentage passing the
nonplastic or feebly plástic soil 0.075mm sieve. The group also in-
binder. However, this group also cludes mixtures of silty fine sands
includes stone fragments, gravel, and silty gravelly sands.
coarse sand, volcanic cinders, etc.
without soil binder. Group A-5. Similar to material de-
Subgroup A-l-a is predominantly scribed under group A-4 except that
stone fragments or gravel, with or it is usually diatomaceous or
without binder. micaceous and may be elastic as
Subgroup A-l-b is predominantly indicated by the high liquid limit.
coarse sand with or without binder. Group A-6. Typically a plástic clay
Group A-3. Typically fine beach sand soil having a high percentage pas-
or desert sand without silty or sing the 0.075mm sieve. Also mix-
clayey fines or with a very small tures of clayey soil with sand and
proportion of nonplastic silt. The fine gravel. Materials in this group
group also includes stream-deposi- have a high volume change between
ted mixtures of poorly graded fine wet and dry states.
sand with limited amounts of coarse Group A-7. Similar to material de-
sand and gravel. scribed under group A-6 except that
Group A-2. Includes a wide variety of it has the high liquid limit charac-
'granular' materials which are bor- teristic of group A-5 and may be
derline between the granular A-l elastic as well as subject ío high
and A-3 groups and the silty-clay volume change.
materials of groups A-4 to A-7. It Subgroup A-7-5 materials have mod-
includes all materials with not more érate plasticity Índices in relation to
than 35% fines which are too plás- the liquid limits and may be highly
tic or have too many fines to be elastic as well as subject to volume
classified as A-l or A-3. change.
Subgroups A-2-4 and A-2-5 include Subgroup A-7-6 materials have high
various granular materials whose plasticity Índices in relation to the
finer particles (0.425mm down) liquid limits and are subject to
have íhe characteristics of the A-4 extremely high volume change.
and A-5 groups, respectively.
Subgroups A-2-6 and A-2-7 are simi- Group A-8. Includes highly organic
=- lar to those described above but materials. Classification of these
f=» whose finer particles have the char- materials is based on visual inspec-
^ acteristics of A-6 and A-7 groups, tion and is not related to grading or
respectively. plasticity.
^
^
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.15 COMPARISON OF SOIL GROUP IN UNIFIED SYSTEM
Comparable soil group

BS system in Unified system
Group Subgroup Subdivisión Most probable Possible
G GW GW SW'2'
S p(2)
GP GPu GP
GPg GP GW'1' SP'2) SW'1"2'
G-F G-M GWM GW-GM SW-SM'2'
GPM GP-GM GW-GM'1', SP-SM'2',
SW-SM'1"2'
G-C GWC GW-GC SW-SC'2'
GPC GP-GC GW-GC'1', SP-SC'2',
SW-SC'1"2'
GF GM GM SM'2'
GC GC SC'2'
S sw SW
SP SPu SP
SPg SP SW'1'
S-F S-M SWM SW-SM
SPM SP-SM SW-SM'1'
S-C SWC SW-SC
SPC SP-SC SW-SC'1'
SF SM SM
SC SC
FG MG MLG, MIG ML, OL(3) GM< 2) , SM'2"5'
MHG, MVG,
MEG MH, OH(3>
CG CLG, CIG CL'4' GC'2', SC'2"5'
CHG, CVG,
CEG CH(4)
FS MS MLS, MIS, ML, OL(3) SM'5'
MHS, MVS,
MES MH, OH'3'
CS CLS, CIS CL(4> SC'5'
CHS, CVS, CES CH'4'
F M ML, MI ML, OL(3)
MH, MV, ME MH, OH(3)
C CL, CI CL'4' -
CH, CV, CE CH'4'
Pt Pt
Notes:
(1) These possibilities arise because soil that is judged to be gap-graded using the BS system may satisfy the criterion
Cc=(D 30 ) :z /(D 10 xí) 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 suffíxed 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 (<425¿im) in the Unified
system but having at least 35% fines in the BS system.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.16 COMPARISON OF SOIL GROUP IN AASHTO SYSTEM
Soil group Comparable soil groups

in in AASHTO system
Umfied/ASTM Most Possible but
systems Possible
probable improbable
GW A-l-a A-2-4, A-2-5,

A-2-6, A-2-7
GP A-l-a A-l-b A-3, A-2-4,
A-2-5, A-2-6,
A-2-7
GM A-l-b, A-2-4, A-2-6 A-4, A-5, A-6,
A-2-5, A-2-7 A-7-5, A-7-6,
A-l-a
GC A-2-6, A-2-7 A-2-4, A-6 A-4, A-7-6,
A-7-5
SW A-l-b A-l-a A-3, A-2-4,
A-2-5, A-2-6,
A-2-7
SP A-3, A-l-b A-l-a A-2-4, A-2-5,
A-2-6, A-2-7
SM A-l-b, A-2-4, A-2-6, A-4, A-6, A-7-5,
A-2-5, A-2-7 A-5 A-7-6, A-l-a
se A-2-6, A-2-7 A-2-4, A-6, A-7-5
A-4, A-7-6
ML A-4, A-5 A-6, A-7-5, —
CL A-6, A-7-6 A-4 —
OL A-4, A-5 A-6, A-7-5,
A-7-6 —
MH A-7-5, A-5 — A-7-6
CH A-7-6 A-7-5 —
OH A-7-5, A-5 — A-7-6
Pt — — —
When applying the formula, the following rules are used:

(1) When the calculated group Índex is negative, it is reported as
zero.
(2) It is reported to the nearest whole number.
(3) When calculating the group índex of subgroups A-2-6 and
A-2-7, only the plasticity índex portion of the formula should
be used.
The group Índex is usually shown in brackets after the group symbol.
Because of the criteria that define subgroups A-l-a, A-l-b, A-2-4,
A-2-5 and group A3, their group índex will always be zero, so the
group índex is usually omitted from the classification.
Originally the group índex was used directly to obtain pavement
thickness designs, using the 'group índex method' but this approach
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 2.17 COMPARISON OF SOIL GROUPS FROM THE AASHTO TO THE UNIFIED SYSTEMS
Comparable soil groups

Soil group
in Unified/ASTM systems
in
AASHTO Most Possible but
Possible
system probable improbable
A-l-a GW, GP SW, SP GM, SM

A-l-b SW,SP,GM,SM GP —
A-3 SP — SW, GP
A-2-4 GM, SM GC, SC GW, GP, SW, SP
A-2-5 GM, SM — GW,GP,SW,SP
A-2-6 GC, SC GM, SM GW, GP, SW, SP
A-2-7 GM,GC,SM,SC — GW,GP,SW,SP
A-4 ML, OL CL, SM, SC GM, GC
A-5 OH, MH, ML,
OL — SM, GM
A-6 CL ML, OL, SC GC, GM, SM
A-7-5 OH, MH ML,OL,CH GM,SM,GC,SC
A-7-6 CH, CL ML, OL, SC OH, MH, GC,
GM, SM
has now been superseded and group índex valúes are used only as a
guide.
Numerous other methods of classification have been proposed.
Classifícations 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 beíween 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 Unifíed 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.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
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 efíect of the contained water. The relationship between bulk and
dry densities is:
where p¿ is the dry density

pb is the bulk densiíy
and wn is the moisture contení.
Bulk density is usually of primary consideration where density

valúes are used directly; to calcúlate earth pressures behind retaining
walls or basements, for example, since it is the combined mass of soil
and water that determines the pressure.
Probably a more common use of density is as a measure of the state
of packing of soil particles, and, for this, dry density is a more
appropriate measure. Where density measurements are used in this
way, a high dry density is usually sought. Although high density is
not, of itself, an important characteristic, it implies that oíher
properties of the soil will be desirable from the engineering poiní of
view. An increase in soil packing is accompanied by an increase in
sírength, a decrease in compressibility and a decrease in permeability
which, in turn, can lead to reduced shrinkage/swell problems.
Typical valúes of natural density are given for various soil types in
Table 3.1. Throughouí the chapter densiíy valúes are given in kg/m 3 ;
to convert to unit weighís, in kN/m3, íhe mulíiplying factor is
0.009806.
For granular soils, the relative densiíy is often considered to be
39
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
TabJe 3.1 TYPICAL VALÚES OF NATURAL DENSITY
Natural density (kg/m3)

Material Bulk density* Dry density
Sands and gravéis: very loóse 1700-1800 1300-1400

loóse 1800-1900 1400-1500
médium dense 1900-2100 1500-1800
dense 2000-2200 1700-2000
very dense 2200-2300 2000-2200
Poorly-graded sands 1700-1900 1300-1500
Well-graded sands 1800-2300 1400-2200
Well-graded sand/gravel mixtures 1900-2300 1500-2200
Clays: unconsolidated muds 1600-1700 900-1100
soft, open-síructured 1700-1900 1100-1400
typical, normally consolidaíed 1800-2200 1300-1900
boulder clays (overconsolidated) 2000-2400 1700-2200
Red tropical soils 1700-2100 1300-1800
1 Assumes saturated or nearly saturated conditions.
more important than the absolute density. This is defíned as:

— ec Pdr
relative density = •
max — e min
• Pá Par 'Par,
where p¿, pdmax and pdmin are the dry densities in the fíeld and at the
densest and loosest síates of compaction
and e, emax and em-m are the corresponding voids ratios, respectively.
Because of the difficulty of measuring fíeld densities in sands and
gravéis, valúes are usually estimaíed from standard peneíration test
results. A classifícation of relative densiíy and SPT iV-values,
although widely used, has received repeated criticism.
Work by Gibbs and Holtz (1957) indicated that the relationship
beíween relative density and SPT valúes depends on the character-
istics of sand, whether it is dry or saturated, and on íhe 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 valúes (Ar1) are obtained using the formula:
N, = CNJV
For clarifícation purposes ií should be noted that alíhough the
interpretador! of Terzaghi and Peck's (1948) classifícation, which led
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
DENSITY 41
Table 3.2 SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED CORRECTION FACTORS
Units of
D f ~ f .„ , overburden
Reference Correction factor (C N )
L/l C ¿OÍ4/ C
K)
Gibbs and Holtz (1957) 50

Q = 10 +< psi
[equation by Teng 1962]
Peck and Bazaraa (1969) ksf
3.25 +0.5a;
Peck, Hanson and 20

kg/cm2 or tsf
Thornburn (1974)
Seed (1976) CN = l-1.251og 10 cr; kg/cm2 or tsf
Tokimatsu and 1.7

^-, n2 or tsf
Yoshimi (1983) 0.7 + a'v
Liao and Whiíman (1986) kg/cm2 or tsf
For fine sands

of médium Dr
For dense,
coarse sands
Skempton (1986) CN= when normally kg/cm2 or tsf
Consolidated
1.7 For overconsolidated
0. fine sands
to this particular correction, originated with Gibbs and Holtz (1957),

the actual equation for the correction factor can be attributed to Teng
(1962).
Although SPT correction factors were discussed at some length by
Liao and Whitman (1986), the deímitive work on the subject is that of
Skempton (1986). Skempton points ouí that in carrying out the SPT
test the energy delivered to the sampler, and therefore the blow count
obíained in any given sand deposit at a particular effective over-
burden pressure, can still vary to a signifícant extent depending on íhe
method of releasing the hammer, on the type of anvil and on the
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 33 SUMMARY OF ROD ENERGY RATIOS (AFTER SKEMPTON 1986)
Hammer Reléase ER ERJ60
Japan Donut Tombi 78 1.3

Donut 2 turns of rope 65 1.1
China Pilcon type Trip 60 1.0
Donut Manual 55 0.9
USA Safety 2 turns of rope 55 0.9
Donut 2 turns of rope 45 0.75
UK Pilcon, Dando, Trip 60 1.0
oíd standard 2 turns of rope 50 0.8
length of rods, if less than lOm. His suggestion is that N valúes

measured by any particular method should be normalised to some
standard rod energy raíio (ERT), and a valué of 60% is proposed. A
summary of rod energy ratios for a range of hammers and reléase
methods (wiíh rod lengths > lOm) is given in Table 3.3. N valúes
measured wiíh a known or estimated ERT valué can be normalised by
the conversión:
60
60
where A represents other correction factors detailed in Table 3.4.
Skempton (1986) síates thaí the Terzaghi-Peck limits of blow
count for various grades of relative density, as enumerated by Gibbs
and Holtz, appear to be good average valúes for normally con-
solidated natural sand deposits, provided that blow counts are
corrected for overburden pressure ((N1) and normalised to a 60% rod
energy ratio C/Vj)^), see Table 3.5.
Table 3.4 APPROXIMATE CORRECTIONS (A) TO MEASURED N

VALÚES (AFTER SKEMPTON 1986)
Rod lengíh: >10m 1.0

6-1 Om t.95
4-6m 0.85
3^m 0.7
Standard sampler 1.0
US sampler wiíhouí liners 1.2
Borehole diameíer: 65-115rnm 1.0
150mm 1.05
200mm 1.15
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
DENSITY 43
Table 3.5 TERZAGHI AND PECK'S CLASSIFICATTON* (AFTER SKEMPTON 1986)
Dt Classification NK-0.75) "i (Ní)60 (NiW#

Very loóse
0 15 4 44 3
Loóse
0 35 10 11 g 65
0.5 Médium (18) 20 15 60
0 65 30 33 25 59
Dense
0 85 50 55 42 58
Very dense
1.0 (70) 77 58 58
*C W =U; £Rr/
Another correction often applied to SPT valúes when assessing the

relative density of silts and fine sands below the water table is:
with no correction for N valúes of less than 15. This is based on the
work of Terzaghi and it is suggested that, because of the low
permeability of such soils, pore water pressures build up during
driving of the sampler, resulting in increased ./V- valúes. This approach
is recommended by Tomlinson (1980) in his discussion of the
application of corrections to SPT JV-values.
However, corrections appear to be somewhat academic in the light
of errors that can arise as a result of bad practice when carrying out
tests below the water table. In order to obtain meaningful resulís, the
borehole should be kept surcharged with water above the ground
water level at all times. This is often neglected, both because it
requires a large supply of water and simply out of ignorance.
Consequently, groundwater flows into the borehole, loosening the
sand and resulting in artificially low JV-values. Alternatively, unrealis-
íically high N-values may be obíained if drillers drive the casing
ahead of the borehole, to reduce the problem of sand washing up the
casing, thus compacting the sand beneath.
3.2 COMPACTED DENSITY
3.2.1 Compaction test standards

The compacted density of a soil is not a fundamental property but
depends on íhe manner in which compaction is carried out.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Compaction tests provide a standard method of compaction and a

standard amount of compacíive efíbrí to produce a soil density
against which site valúes can be compared.
Soil is usually contained in a mould and compacíed using a
hammer which is repeatedly raised and allowed to fall. Typical
compaction equipment is illustrated in Figure 3.1. To control íhe
compactive effbrt - the energy per unit volume - the dimensions of the
mould and rammer are precisely specifíed and the number of layers in
which compaction is carried out, the number of blows per layer and
the height of fall of the rammer are all controlled. There are basically
two standards of compactive eífort, commonly referred to as 'stan-
dard' and 'heavy' in the U.K. In the U.S. these are referred to as
'standard' and 'modified' and are detailed in ASTM-D698/AASHTO
T-99 and ASTM-D 1557/AASHTO T-180, respecíively. Most tests
use a special mould of about 1 litre capacity but for coarse-grained
soiís the larger California Bearing Ratio (CBR) mould is used. Slighí
e i
Collar
Ls:
ES es
-Mould
fifi
í
Base
Rammer-
11
y
V
Figure 3.1 Typical compaction mould and hand rammer used incompaction tests
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
DENSITY 45
Table 3.6 COMPARISON OF EQUIPMENT SIZES, NUMBER OF RAMMER BLOWS AND NUMBER
OF LAYERS OF SOIL USED IN VARIOUS COMPACTION TESTS. DIMENSIONS d, f AND h AND
WEIGHT W ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 3.1
Mould Mould Mould Rammer Rammer Number Blows

Test designarían volume día. d ht. h wt. W fallf of per
d) (mm) (mm) (kg) (mm) layers layer
BS 1377:1975
Test 12 1.0 105 115.5 2.5 300 3 27
Test 12 (modified) 2.32 152 127 2.5 300 3 62
Test 13 1.0 105 115.5 4.5 450 5 27
Test 13 (modified) 2.32 152 127 4.5 450 5 62
AASHTO
T145 0.94 101.5 116.4 2.50 304.8 3 25
TI 80 0.94 101.5 116.4 4.54 457.2 5 25
TI 80 (modified) 2.32 152 127 4.54 457.2 5 56
The modified forras of the test use a CBR mould and are suitable for coarser soils.
differences exist between British and American Standards, as in-

dicated in Table 3.6, which gives mould and rammer sizes for the
various tests.
With sands and gravéis, the rammer tends to displace the material
rather than compací it so that the densities obtained in the
compaction test are unrealisíically low when compared with what can
be achieved on site. To overeóme this, a vibrating hammer can be
used instead of the rammer. Vibration is typically carried out for 60
seconds per layer under a constant forcé of 30-40kg.
3.2.2 Typical compacíed densities

The compacted density achieved for a soil depends on the soil type, its
moisíure contení and the compactive effort used. Table 3.7 shows
typical valúes of máximum dry density (MDD) and optimum
moisture coníení for soil classes, using íhe Unified classifícation
sysíem,for soils compacíed to AASHTO or BS standard compaction:
AASHTO T99 (5.51b rammer method) or BS 1377:1975 Test 12
(2.5kg rammer method). The valúes given are based on typical valúes
given by Krebs and Walker (1971) and the U.S. Army Engineer
Waíerways Experiment Station (1960), and on the authors' own
experience. A similar set of valúes but related ío íhe AASHTO soil
classifícaíion system, is given in Table 3.8. These are based on íhe
above valúes and the relationship between the AASHTO and Unified
soil classifícation systems, and on valúes suggested by Gregg (1960).
It should be noted that clean sands often show no clear optimum
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 3.7 TYPICAL COMPACTED DENSITIES AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENTS FOR SOIL
TYPES USING THE UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MDD Optimum
standard moisture
Soil description Class compaction content
(kg/m3) (%)
Gravel/sand mixtures:
well-graded, clean GW 2000-2150 11-8
poorly-graded, clean GP 1850-2000 14-11
well-graded, small silí content GM 1900-2150 12-8
well-graded, small clay content GC 1850-2000 14-9
Sands and sandy soils:
well-graded, clean SW 1750-2100 16-9
poorly-graded, small silt content SP 1600-1900 21-12
well-graded, small silt contení SM 1750-2000 16-11
well-graded, small clay content se 1700-2000 19-11
Fine-grained soils oflow plasticity:
silís ML 1500-1900 24-12
clays CL 1500-1900 24-12
organic silís OL 1300-1600 33-21
Fine-grained soils of high plasticity:
silts MH 1100-1500 40-24
clays CH 1300-1700 36-19
organic clays OH 1050-1600 45-21
Table 3.8 TYPICAL COMPACTED DENSITIES AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENTS FOR SOIL
TYPES USING THE AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
BSIAASHTO compaction
Max dry Opí, moisture
Soil description Class
densiíy contení
(kg/m3) (%)
Well-graded gravel/sand mixtures A-l 1850-2150 • 5-15
Silty or clayey gravel and sand A-2 1750-2150 9-18
Poorly-graded sands A-3 1600-1900 5-12
Silíy sands and gravéis of low plasíicity A-4 1500-2000 10-20
Elastic silts, diatomaceous or micaceous A-5 1350-1600 20-35
Plástic clay, sandy clay A-6 1500-1900 10-30
Highly plasíic or elastic clay A-7 1300-1850 15-35
moisture content and that peak densiíy may be achieved when íhe
sand is completely dry.
Work carried out by Morin and Todor (1977) on red tropical soils
in África and South America gave ;orrelations betvveen the optimurn
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
DENSITY 47
10 20 30 40
Plástic limit - %
(a)
1000
10
Opíimum moisture contení - %

(b)
Figure 3.2 Relationships of optimum moisíure contení wiíh plástic limií and with
máximum dry density for red tropical soils (after Morin and Todor, 1977)
moisture contení and plasíic limií and beíween opíimum moisíure

contení and máximum dry densiíy, as indicated in Figure 3.2. Morin
and Todor also produced a relaíionship beíween opíimum moisíure
coníent and íhe perceníage of paríicles fíner than 2¿um buí íhis
showed too wide a scalter to be of use and has noí been included.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-
1.55 .
6 8 10 12 U 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Moisture contení - % of dry weight
Figure 3.3 Typical moisture-densüy curves (modified after Woods and Liíehiser, 1938
and Joslin, 1959)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
DENSITY 49
3.23 Typical moisture-density curves

Work carried out by Woods and Litehiser (1938) in Ohio indicated
that, for Ohio soils, nearly all moisture-density curves have a
characteristic shape. On the basis of over 10,000 tests 26 typical
curves were produced, as shown in Figure 3.3. Use of the curves
allows the máximum dry density and optimum moisture content to be
estimated from a single point on the curve, greatly reducing time and
eífort. It should be noted that the curves are plots of bulk density,
instead of the more usual dry density, against moisture content. The
inset table gives íhe corresponding máximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for each curve. When used with rapid
moisture content determinations, these curves provide quick and
fairly accurate estimates. They have been found to be applicable in
many áreas, though minor modifications have sometimes been
necessary. Accuracy is improved if the moisture content of the test
specimen is cióse to optimum and preferably on the dry rather than
the wet side. The curves are not valid for unusual materials such as
uniformly graded sand, highly micaceous soils, diatomaceous earth,
volcanic soils or soils in which the specific gravity of the solids diífers
greatly from 2.67.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Chapter 4
PERMEABILITY
The coefncient of permeability is defíned as the quantity of flow

through unit área of soil under a unit pressure gradient. This assumes
a linear reíationship between the pressure gradient and quantity of
flow, q, which is the basis for Darcy's law:
(4J)
where k is the coefficient of permeabiíity
A is the área of flow
and i is the hydraulic pressure gradient.
If the volume of flow q is divided by the área A then the velocity of flow
v is obíained and Equation (4.1) can be written:
*-?i (4.2)
From this, it can be seen thaí the coefficient of permeability can be

thought of as the veíociíy of flow that results from a unit pressure
gradient. Since pressure is usually measured as head of water and
pressure is loss of head per unit distance, i typically has the
dimensions m/m so thaí k has the units of veíociíy; typically m/s.
However, ií should be remembered that área A is the total área of soil
being considered but parí of íhis área will be occupied by solid
partióles so íhe área of flow wilí be less. This means íhaí veíociíy u is
only a noíional valué, used for calculaíing volumes of flow, and íhe
true average veíociíy of flow ut will be greater:
l +e
n
where e and n are the voids ratio and porosity of íhe soil, respectively.
The permeability of a soil is sírongly iníluenced by its macro-
50
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
PERMEABILITY 51
structure: clays coníaining físsures or fine bands of sand will have

permeabilities which are many times that of the clay material itself.
Also, since flow tends to follow the line of least resisíance, stratiñed
soils often have horizontal permeabilities which are many times the
vertical permeability and the overall permeability will be approxi-
mately equal to the horizontal permeability. Because of the small size
of laboratory specimens and the way they are obtained and prepared,
large-scale features are absent and test results do not give a true
indication of fíeld valúes in soils with a pronounced macro-structure.
Moreover, laboratory tests usually constrain water to flow vertically
through the specimen whereas the horizontal permeability may be
much greater, and henee of overriding importance so far as site
conditions are concerned. Field tests overeóme these shortcoming,
but, since íhe pattern of water flow from a well can only be guessed,
iníerpretation of íhe test results is diííícuíí and uncertain. Thus, one
set of problems is exchanged for another.
4.1 TYPICAL VALÚES
The íypical range of valúes encounfered is indicaíed by Table 4.1,

which is based on informalion originally presented by Casagrande
and Fadum (1940). Superimposed on íhe charí are íypical valúes for
compacíed soils, classifíed by íhe Unifíed sysíem. These relate to soils
compacíed using the heavy compaction slandard: AASHTO T-180
(lOlb rammer) or BS 1377:1975, Tesí 13 (4.5kg rammer). Typical
permeabiliíy valúes for highway materíals, suggested by Krebs and
Walker (1971), are given in Table 4.2. Addiíional informaíion on the
influence of voids ratio in differení soil types is given by Mitcheíl
(1976).
4.2 PERMEABILITY AND GRADING
A theoreíical equaíion relaíing the coefíícient of permeability ío íhe

soil and permeaní properíies was developed by Táylor (1948). This
gave:
v e3
wfaere k is the coefficient of permeability

Ds is some effective paríicle diameíer
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 4.1 TYPICAL PERMEABILITY VALÚES FOR SOILS
10 - I I ,0-10
I
1Q-9
I
1( 8 io- 7
.... i .
10'6
I
io-
I
5 10'2
I
KT1
i
m/s
Coefficient of 10'9 10' 10 -7 10- 10 -5 10- io-3 10 -2 10
— 1
10 100
permeability i
(log scale) cm/s
10 -10 10 -9
10 10 -6 10~ 5 10 -4 10 10 10-
ft/s
Practically
impermeable
Very low Low Médium High
Drainage Practically Poor Good

conditions: impermeable
Typical soil GC—>• GM—)*• SM SW-K GW-.

groups:
CH SC SM-SC SP->
MH
MC-CL
Soil types: Homogeneous Silts, fine sands, silty sands, Clean sands, sand Clean
clays below glacial till, stratified clays and gravel mixtures gravéis
the zone of
weathering Fissured and weathered clays and clays
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
modified by the eflects of vegetation
Note: the arrow adjacent lo l

PERMEABILITY 53
•
j
Table 4.2 TYPICAL PERMEABILITY VALÚES FOR HIGHWAY MATERIALS
Material
_ Permeability (m/s)
Uniformly graded coarse aggregate 0.4-4 x 10~ 3

Well-graded aggregate without fines 4 x 10~ 3 -4x 10~ 5
Concrete sand, low dust content 7x 10~ 4 -7x 10~ 6
Concrete sand, high dust content 7xlO~6-7xlO~8
Silty and clayey sands 10~ 7 -10~ 9
Compactad silí 7x 10" 8 -7x 10~ 10
Compacted clay less than 10~ 9
Bituminous concrete* 4 x 10~ 5 -4x 10~ 8
i
Portland cement concrete less than 10~ 10
* New pavements; valúes as low as 10~ 10 have been reported for sealed, traflíc-compacted highway pavement.
y is the unit weight or weight density of the permeant

\i is the viscosity of the permeant
e is the voids ratio
and c is a shape factor.
In soils, the permeant is usually water and the efíective particle
diameter Ds is usually taken as the 10% (or eífective) particle size D10.
Yhis led to the Hazen formula:
y e3
where the constant C, repíaces - —
Based on experimental work with clean sands, Hazen (1911)
proposed a valué of between 0.01 and 0.015 for C15 where k is in m/s
and Z>10 is in mm. However, this ignores the large efíect that even
small changes in e will have on the valué of k, as can be seen from
Taylor's equation, and can be expected to give only very approximate
resuíts. For instance, experimental work by Lañe and Washburn
(1946), reporíed in Lambe and Whitman (1979) gives Cl valúes of
beíween 0.01 and 0.42 with an average valué of 0.16, whilsí Holtz and
Kovacs (1981) suggesí a range of 0.004 ío 0.12 with an average valué
of 0.01. The equation is usuaíly considered ío be valid for soils having
a coefficient of permeability of at least 10~5m/s.
Figure 4.1 gives ploís of k againsí D10, based on experimental
results, in which the valué oí e has been taken into account. It will be
noted that the correlaíions given all relate to sands and gravéis. The
greaíer range of particle size which is present in most clays and íhe
effecís of the clay mineralogy make such correlations more resíricíive
for clays. Some useful information on the permeabiliíy of clays is
provided by Tavenas et al. (1983a and b),
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
0.05
w
X. Burmister
E C u = 1.5, e = 0.75
Hazen formula
o.01 - C u = 3, e = 0.7
Limited to D-0= 0.1 — 3mm,
C u <5
Mansur
Mississippi r í v e r
O.OO5
sands
C u =2 - 3,
e = 0.9 - 0.6 ,'
o
a - field tests '
- Icb tests, 'ÍV
c
o
© O.OO1 USNavy
o Correlation oí lab test valúes
ü of various materials
C u = 2 — 1 2 ( í o w e r Cu valúes a r e
associated with higher e vaiues )
O.OOO5
Liirited to D 10 /D g less than 1.4
D 1O /D S >1.4 c r C u ?12 lie in a tange

of tower permeabilities
NOTE: correlations shown are for remolded

compacted sands and sand-grave! mixtures
C u = cc«í í ¡cieni oí ufiiíOírnity
e = voids ratio
O.OOO1
O.1 0,5 1 10
Grain size, D10 - mm
Figure 4.1 The permeability of sands and gravéis
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
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 instan-
taneous, 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 consoli-
dation 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, píate bearing
tests may be used but their results are difíicult 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 par-
ameters. As indicated in Figure 5.1, either ampie thickness, h, or voids
ratio, e, may be plotted againsí consolidation pressure, p, which may
itself be plotted either ío a natural scale or, more usually, to a
logarithmic scale.
55
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
56 CORRELATIONS OF SOÍL PROPERTIES
Virgin compression curve
O 2 4 6 8 1O
o
Consolldation prossur* , p MN/m
(a)
OverconsoJidation pressure
(O
=C
Unloading
I!
« b.
Recompression
CJ O
O.01 O.t 1 10
Consoüdation prsssura, p - MN/m *
íb)
Figure 5.1 Typical ploís of compressibiliíy test results
5.1.1 The compressibility parameíers

The process of compression on a soil can be usefully ill-.otrated by
means of íhe model soil sample, as illusírated in Pigure 5.2.
Recognising thaí compression íakes place by a reduction in the
volume of voids, with virtually no change in íhe volume of íhe solid
paríicles, compressibiliíy was originally defíned by íhe eoeffkieaí of
compressibiliíy, a,, which is íhe change in voids ratio per unií increase
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
CONSOLIDATION AND SETTLEMENT 57
Pressure p1
Pressure Pffdp = ¡
lililí
de dh
Voids Vol. e.
Yoids
Solías Vol. 1 Soiids
Figure 5.2 Compression of the model soil sample
in pressure. In terms of the model soil sample,

de e, — e->
"y ~™~ < (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 área, this is proportional to the proportional
change of volume of a soil, and gives rise to the concept of the
coefíiclenl of volunie of compressibility, mv, which is much more
commonly used:
d(volume) 1 dh 1
v volunie dp h áp
Refemng to the soil sample, mv can also be expressed in terms of the
voids ratio:
dh 1 1
(5.3)
This is the slope of íhe curve in Figure 5.1 (a) when h is plotted against
p. From Equations 5.1 and 5.3, the relationship between these two
deímitions of compressibility is:
av = my(l+e) (5.4)
It can be seen thaí 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 valué applies only to a specific pressure range. However, the
curve obtained in figure 5.1(b) when the logarithm of consolidation
pressure is used, approximaíes much more closely ío a straight line, at
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
least on the virgin compression curve. This gives rise to two further
measures of compressibility, the compression índex, Cc, and the
modifíed compression índex or compression ratio, CC£, which are the
slopes of the virgin compression curves obtained by plotting e or h,
respectively, against logp:
áe (5.5)
d(logp)
logpa-logp! logípa/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, íhe 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 relaíed to mv:
1 e-e
v 1 i
C,
givmg
(5.8)
For the compression parí of the curve, the terms recompression índex,,
Cr5 and modiíled recompresslon Index, Cr£, are used, defined in the
same ways as Cc and CC£, respectively.
5.1.2 Setíleinení calcóla tions using consolida tion theory

Returning to íhe basic defíniíion of the coefficient of volume
compressibility, given in equation 5.2:
áh 1
iri-
h áp;
(5.9)
li can be seen that, once my is known for a particular pressure range,

the compression, dh, of a layer of íhickness, h, due to a load
increment, dp, can be calculated by simply íurning the above
equation around:
áh =
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
since dh is normally thoughí of as íhe setílement, p, and áh is the

applied pressure increase, <j, this becomes:
p = Ham, (5.10)
where specimen íhickness, h, is now replaced by íhickness, H, of íhe
compressible síraíum. The average valué of a across a compressible
layer, due lo some applied loading, is usually calculaíed using
elaslicity theory. Allhough nol strictly valid for soils, ií gives
sufficienlly accuraíe valúes. Selílemenl is Ihen oblained using consoli-
daíion theory by way of Equation 5.10.
Where valúes of Cc are obtained, mv valúes may be calculated from
Equation 5.8, using the appropriale valúes of consolidaíion pressure
and voids ratio. Alternaíively, Equalions 5.8 and 5.10 may be
combined and seíílemenl calculated direcíly from Cc valúes:
Iog(p2/Pi)
l+e (p-
givmg
> = #C
l+e
5.1.3 Settleoiení calculations using elasticity theory

An alterna ti ve approach is to calcúlate displacements (seíílements)
directly using elasticiíy theory, thus reducing thetwo sepárate stages
in the seítlement calculation ío one, and obviaíing the need to
—
— calcúlate average valúes of consolidaíion pressure across soil layers.
Numerous solutions, for both síresses and displacements, have been
produced, many of which have been presented by Poulos and Da vis
(1974).
The problem wiíh using elastic soluíions ío calculaíe seíílernenís is
thaí ií requires the evaluation of Young's modulus, E, and Poisson's
raíio, v, neither of which are measured, or are strictly meaningful, for
soil consolidaíion problems. Considering Equation 5.9, since the
raíio áh/h can be íhoughí of as a sírain, my is sírain/síress, wiíh units
I/stress; íypically m2/kN or m2/MN. Thus, ií is by defíniíion akin ío
íhe reciprocal of Young's modulus, £, and whereas E can be
envisaged simplisíically as íhe síress required ío double íhe length of
an object, mv can be envisaged as an área of soil which, if subjecíed to
a unit load, will just disappear! Of course, such absurdiíies do noí
occur in realiíy because íhe relationships are not valid for íhese
extremes. Addiíionally, íhe relationship beíween E and mv is not a
simple reciprocal one because E is defíned for a specirnen wiíh
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
unrestrained sides whereas mv is definH for a specimen which is

laterally constrained. The relationship bt ween E and my therefore
depends on the valué of Poisson's ratio, th\.>£\
1 (l + v)(l-2v) ' -,
This relationship can then be used when calcúlate lg settlements

using elastic theory. When used in this context, E is nc> ^strictly an
elastic constant, but it does represent the response of thc'soil to a
single loading applied over a long period. To emphasise the p¿*nt, the
term 'deformation modulus' is sometimes used for E defined L < this
way. Thus, eíastic theory can be used to calcúlate consolidaron •-,-;—a
settlements, even though these are not elastic (i.e. recoverable). T¿ 7
main problem lies in obtaining a valué of Poisson's ratio that
properly represents the consolidation behaviour of soils. Poisson's
ratio is not measured in standard soil testing and, indeed, it is
virtually impossible to obtain realistic measurements. However, it
has been pointed out by Skempton and Bjerrum (1957) that very little
lateral strain occurs during the consolidaíion of clays so that,
efíectively, Poisson's ratio is zero, and
where M is the defonnaíion modulus or constrained modulus.

Another reason for choosing a zero valué is that calculated
seítlements based on elastic solutions then become identical wiíh
those based on consolidaíion íheory, which has been shown over the
years to give reasonable predictions provided that suitable correc-
tions are made for the pore pressure response of the soil (Skempton
and Bjerrum 1957).
5.1.4 Typical valaes and correlatioos of eompressibiüty eoeffkients

Typical valúes of the coefficient of volumc compressibiliíy, mv are
indicated in Table 5.1, along with descripti ? íerms for the various
ranges of compressibility. Although my is the most suiíable, and most
popular, of the compressibility coefficients for the direct calculation
of settlements, its variabiiity with confining pressure makes it less
useful when quoting typical conipressibilities or when correlating
compressibñity with some other property. For íhis reason, the
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 5.1 TYPICAL VALÚES OF THE COEFFICIENT OF VOLUME COMPRESSIBILITY AND

DESCRIPTIVE TERMS USED (AFTER CÁRTER 1983)
Coefficient ofvolume
Descriptive compressíbility, /nv
Type of clay
term
(m2/MN) (ft 2 /ton)
Heavy over-consolidated boulder Very low <0.05 < 0.005

clays, stiff weathered rocks (e.g. compressibility
weathered mudstone) and hard clays
Boulder clays, marls, very stiff tropical Low 0.05-0.1 0.005-0.01
red clays compressibility
Firm clays, glacial outwash clays, lake Médium 0.1-0.3 0.01-0.03
deposits, weathered marls, firm boulder compressibility
clays, normally Consolidated clays at
depth and firm tropical red clays
Normally Consolidated alluvial clays High 0.3-1.5 0.03-0.15
such as estuarine and delta deposits, compressibility
and sensitivo clays
Highly organic alluvial clays and peats Very high >0.15
compressibility
Table 5.2 TYPICAL VALÚES OF COMPRESSIBILITY INDEX, Cc (AFTER HOLTZ AND KOVACS
1981)
Soil
Normally Consolidated médium sensitivo clays 0.2 to 0.5

Chicago silty clay (CL) 0.15 to 0.3
Boston blue clay (CL) 0.3 to 0.5
Vicksburg Buckshot clay (CH) 0.5 to 0.6
Swedish médium sensitive clays (CL-CH) 1 to3
Canadian Leda clays (CL-CH) 1 to4
México City clay (MH) 7to 10
Organic clays (OH) 4 and up
Peats (Pí) 10tol5
Organic silt and clayey silts (ML-MH) 1.5 to 4.0
San Francisco Bay Mud (CL) 0.4 to 1.2
San Francisco Oíd Bay clays (CH) 0.7 ío 0.9
Bangkok clay (CH) 0.4
compression Índex, Cc, is usually preferred. Typical valué of compres-

sion índex are given in Table 5.2.
Skempton (1944) proposed the folio wing relationship between
compression índex and liquid limit (LL) for normally-consolidated
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 53 SOME PUBLISHED CORRELATIONS FOR COMPRESSION ÍNDICES (AFTER AZOUZ ET

AL. 1976)
Equation Regions of applicability
Cc=0.007 (LL-7) Remoulded clays

Ce,=0.208e0+0.0083 Chicago clays
Cc = 17.66xKT 5 >vj 3 w n -1.35x10
-1 Chicago clays
Cc=1.15(e0-0.35) All clays
Cc=0.30(e0-0.27) Inorganic, cohesive soil; silt,
some clay; silty clay; clay
= l.15x10 -2, Organic soils-meadow mats,
peats, and organic silt and clay
Cc = 0.75(e0-0.50) Soils of very low plasticity
€« = 0.1566 All clays
C =O.OlH> Chicago clays
As summarised by Azzouz, Krizek, and Corotis (1976).

Note: w0 = natural water contení.
clays:
C= 0.007(LL-10).
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) proposed a similar relationship, based on
research with clays of low and médium sensitivity:
CC = 0.009(LL-10).
This relationship has a reliability range of +30% and is valid for
inorganic clays of sensitivity up to 4 (see Chapter 6) and liquid limit
up to 100. Based on the work of Skempton and Northey (1952) and
Roscoe et al. (1958), Wroth and Wood (1978) used critical state soil
niechanics considerations to deduce a relationship between cornpres-
sion índex and plasticity índex (PI) for remoulded clays:
where Gs is the specific gravity of the soil solids. Table 5.3 produced by
Azzouz et al. (1976) gives a summary of a number of published
correlations.
The recompression índex, Cr, is defined in the same way as Cc
except that it applies to the unlo,?ding phase of the cons Midation test.
Typical valúes of Cr range from 0)15 to 0.35 (Roscoe ei ¡I. 1958) and
are often assumed to be 5-10% of Cc.
5.1.5 Settlement corrections
If the results of oedometer tests are used directly to calcúlate
settlements, the valúes obtained tend to over-estimate the settlements
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
that actually occur, particularly with overconsolidated clays. An

exception to this is in the case of very sensitive clays, where predicted
settlements may slightly under-estimate actual valúes. The reason for
this is that the pore pressure response of ciays in the fíeld differs from
that of confined laboratory specimens. This has been discussed by
Skempton and Bjerrum (1957), who show that the ratio of actual
settlement to calculated settlement depends on both the response of
the pore water pressures to applied loads and the geometry of each
problem. The response of the pore water pressures to loading can be
measured in the triaxial test and is expressed in terms of Skempton's
(1954) pore pressure parameters, A and B. For saturated clays, actual
settlement, pfieid, is given by:
h«av¡ly ovar- over-

een so I ¡ di f & d Consolidated normally
• •nd? c l a y s clayí 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

Pore pressure coefficient, A
Figure 5.3 Typical valúes of the factor \ifor afoundaíion width b on a compressible
layer of thickness h (afíer Skempton, 1954)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
O
O
w
r
>
H
HH
Table 5.4 TYPICAL VALÚES OF CONSOLIDATION FACTOR n FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF SOIL (ATER CÁRTER 1983) O
Type of clay Definitions of H and b

co
= 0.5 H/b=l o
HH
Very sensitive clays (soft alluvial,

estuarine, marine clays)
1.0-1.1 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.1
1 i 1 - j
. ,.j,,rrr^ r
"O
*l
O
Tf
Normally Consolidated clays 0.8-1.0 0.7-1.0 0.7-1.0 m
H
b •Assumed spread of load '•
•/. . • . " • • ' • • ' • . • • . • • • • ' • •*•'•
Over-consolidated clav (Lias, 0.6-0.8 0.5-0.7 0.4-0.7 ctompresslble layer w
H Compresslble layer
London, OxforH ,,ild clays)
Surface layer Approximate approach
Heavily over-consolidaív-J clays 0.5-0.6 0.4-0.5 0.2-0.4 for subsurface layer
(Boulder clay, marl)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
where p is the calculated oedometer settlement and ¡i is a factor which

depends on the pore pressure parameter.
The distribution of stresses across a layer of soil depends on the
ratio of width, b, of a foundation to thickness, H, of the layer. Valúes
of ^ can be obtained for given valúes of pore pressure parameter, A,
from Figure 5.3. Valúes of parameter A are not normally measured in
the laboratory tests commonly used for foundation design but they
are found to depend on the consolidation history of the clay,
particularly the degree of overconsolidation. For most practical
purposes it is suffícient to use valúes of \i selected from Table 5.4.
5.2 RATE OF CONSOLIDATION OF CLAYS

The rate of settlement of a saturated soil is expressed by the coefflcient
of consolidation, cv. Theoretically, consolidation takes an infínitely
long time to be completed and it is usual to calcúlate the time taken
for a given degree of consolidation, U, to occur, where U is defined by:
U =r
Consolidation settlement after a given time, t
Final consolidation settlement
The time, í, for a given degree of consolidation to occur is given by:
where d is the máximum length of the drainage path (equal to half

the layer thickness for drainage top and bottom)
and 7^, is called the basic time factor. Valúes of Tv for various valúes
of U are given in Table 5.5.
The rate of settlement of a soil, and henee the valué of cv, is
governed by two factors: the amount of water to be squeezed out of
the soil and the rate at which that water can flow out. The amount of
water to be squeezed out depends on the coeñlcient of compress-
ibility, mv, and the rate at which it will flow depends on the coefficient
of permeability, k. The relationship between cv, mv and k is:
m Wvw
"*v/
where yw is the weight density (unit weight) of water.
Because of the wide range of permeabilities that exist in soils, the
coefficient of consolidation can itself vary widely, from less than
Im2/yr for clays of low permeability to 1000m2/yr or more for very
sandy clays, fissured clays and weathered rocks. Some typical valúes
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Os
Ov
O
:" ' ' ' 0
tn
r
Table 5.5 VALÚES OF TIME FACTOR, Tv H
• • .• J> • i—<
O
T, Drainage conditions and pressure distributions !z!
rr oo
Casel Case 2 Case 3 Casel* Case 2 Case 3 §
0.1 0.008 0.047 0003 ..-.-..-. ;•-... . O
•• :':••• :•:'••.•::':•.••::•• -6ií4<«<>síí?sXsai«S!î»!»<>ix. . >.•••'.•: :.•'•:.:•. •.•.•:•/:•.••/• tn
0.2 0.031 0.100 0.009 L
0.3 0.071 0.158 0.024 , . . , ?o

0.4 0.126 0.221 0.048 O
0.5 0.197 0.294 0.092 *ü
: M
0.6 0.287 0.383 0.160 1 • !*
0.7 :, ' - . '. H
0.403 0.500 0.271 h—H
(T)
0.8 0.567 0.665 0.440 . /
t/J
0.9 0.848 0.940 /
0.720 ;..'• .i.;.:.-.. ..:.'....•...-. i- 1 i- ¡•.•'.•'.-••V;'."..-. ••?.'.'•! «C!WiXOWÍÜN^Mviww^
Any pressure distribution, Decreasing pressure, drainage Decreasing pressure, drainage

drainage top and bottom at bottom only at top only
* Case 1 may be used for uniform pressure distribution with drainage at top or bottom only.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 5.6 TYPICAL VALÚES OF THE COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION, cv
Soil
(cm 2 /sxl(T 4 ) (m 2 /yr)
Boston blue clay (CL) 40 + 20 12±6

(Ladd and Luscher, 1965)
Organic silt (OH) 2-10 0.6-3
(Lowe, Zaccheo, and Feldman, 1964)
Glacial lake clays (CL) 6.5-8.7 2.0-2.7
(Wallace and Otto, 1964)
Chicago silty clay (CL) 8.5 2.7
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
Swedish médium sensitive clays (CL-CH)
(Holtz and Broms, 1972)
1. laboratory 0.4-0.7 0.1-0.2
2. field 0.7-3.0 0.2-1.0
San Francisco Bay Mud (CL) 2-4 0.6-1.2
México City clay (MH) 0.9-1.5 0.3-0.5
(Leonards and Girault, 1961)
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 100 120 140 160

Liquid limit - %
Figure 5.4 Approximate correlations between coefficient of consolidation and liquid
limit (after US Navy, 1988)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
for clays are given in Table 5.6, and an approximate correlation with
liquid limit is shown in Figure 5.4.
5.3 SECONDARY COMPRESSION
Secondary compression is a vólume change under load that takes

place at constant efíective stress; that is, after the excess pore water
pressure has dissipated. It is thought to result from compression of
the constituent soil particles at a microscopic or molecular scale and
is particularly signifícant in organic soils. Coefficients of secondary
compression may be defíned in a way that is analogous to the
definitions of compression Índex and modified compression Índex,
except that the índices are related to time instead of pressure. Thus,
the secondary compression índex, Ca is:
de
(5.11)
"~d(logí)
where de is the change in voids ratio over a time interval, di, from time
í x to time í2: see Figure 5.5. Similarly, the modified secondary
compression Índex, Ca£ is:
dh/h
(5.12)
d(logí)
o
4><
O
O
>
O
su
c
e
E
o
e
a. P r i m a r y con «oí ¡dat ion Secondary compression
V)
Log time, t
Figure 5.5 Plotting and calculation of secondary compression
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
where ep is the voids ratio at the start of the linear portion of the
e-logp (or áh — logp) curve. The modified secondary compression
Índex is sometimes also referred to as the secondary compression
ratio or the rate of secondary compression.
Calculations of secondary compression are obtained by rearrang-
ing Equation 5.12: specimen compression dh becomes secondary
settlment, pc; specimen thickness, h, becomes layer thickness, H; and
the time is taken over a specifíc interval, from tí to í 2 :
pc = CMHlog(t2/í1)
or
For the purpose of secondary settlement calculations, secondary

settlement is assumed to start when primary settlement is substan-
tially complete. Thus, if primary settlements were substantially
complete in 12 years, the valué of tí would be 12. The valué of í2
depends on the assumed lifespan of the structure under consideration.
Valúes of Ca or CZ£ are obtained from e — logp or áh— log p plots,
as indicated in Figure 5.5. Ca is usually assumed to be related to Cc,
with valúes of CJCC typically in the range 0.025-0.006 for inorganic
soils and 0.035-0.085 for organic soils. Some typical valúes are given
in Table 5.7. Mesri (1973) obtained a relationship between CaE and
natural moisture content, given in Figure 5.6.
Table 5.7
Soil CJCC
Organic silts 0.035-0.06

Amorphous and fibrous peat 0.035-0.085
Canadian muskeg . 0.09-0.10
Leda clay (Canadá) 0.03-0.06
Post-glacial Swedish clay 0.05-0.07
Soft blue clay (Victoria, B.C.) 0.026
Organic clays and silts 0.04-0.06
Sensitive clay, Portland, ME 0.025-0.055
San Francisco Bay Mud 0.04-0.06
New Liskeard (Canadá) varved clay 0.03-0.06
México City clay 0.03-0.035
Hudson River silt 0.03-0.06
New Haven organic clay silt 0.04-0.075
* Modified after Mesri and Goldlewsk'(197""-
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
-i i I I I lili I I I I I I I II
10O
ü
M
X
»
TJ
c 10-
o
<a
co
9
a
E
o
u
a
•o
c
o
u 1-
«
o
TJ
•o
o
2
0.1 i i r r MI i i f i iT
10 1OO 1000
Natural moisture contení - %
Figure 5.6 Correlation between modified secondary compression índex and natural
moisture contení (after Mesri, 1973)
5.4 SETTLEMENT OF SANOS AND GRAVELS
5.4.1 Probes and standard penetrador tests

As mentioned in the introductory re, rks to this chapter, the
near-impossibility of obtaining and testing imdisturbed samples of
granular soils means that consolidation testing is not possible.
Instead, settlements are usually estimated from insitu test results,
most commonly using the standard penetration test, although the use
of probes, in the form of static or dynamic cones, has become more
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
widespread in recent years (ESOPT, 1982; INSITU, 1986; ISOPT

1988). A useful review of the interpretaron of some penetration tests
for sands is given by Robertson and Campanella (1985).
The most commonly-used correlations for settlement estímales in
sands, based on SPT results, are those established by Terzaghi and
Peck (1967), shown in Figure 5.7. Terzaghi and Peck point out that
the correlations show wide scatter and should not be regarded as
anything more than a rough-and-ready guide. Considering the
practical problems of obtaining meaningful SPT results, especially in
sands below the water table, and the disagreements over various
*= corrections to be applied to the results, the correlations are of dubious
= valué in many cases. Yet settlement estimates are of crucial import-
«E*
ance for the determination of allowable foundation pressures on
granular soils, whose high ultímate bearing capacity means that
ruu — — — — — — — — — 70
6OO
\- 6O
CM
E ry den se
H 5OO ê ••^— • 50
• \ ^-^.•*-—
3
^ s^ Dense
S 40O 4O «
a .
x
c
| 3OO X,
^ e
c
30 o
.0 • •••• i» • i 4-1
íí^30
S
Med um d<snse
| 200 2O
< V
S5o —• —
100 '•*•». 10
—™——. •• i.
Loóse
O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Footing width - m
Figure 5.7 Chart for estimating allowable bearing pressures on sands using standard
penetration test results, based on 25mm settlement. Continuous Unes are based on the
original chart by Terzaghi and Peck (1967); broken Unes are iníerpolations
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
settlement rather than bearing failure is the controlling factor. In view

of all these considerations it is surprising that settlement calculations
for granular soils have for so long relied on such an unsatisfactory
procedure. Perhaps it reflects a lack of problems with foundations on
granular soils.
Meyerhof (1956, 1974) also produced relationships between SPT
results and settlement which gave similar valúes to those of Figure
5.7. However, both the Meyerhof and the Terzaghi and Peck valúes
are considered to be conservative, and Bowles (1982) suggests that, in
the light of field observations and the stated opinions of many
authors, the Meyerhof equations should be adjusted to give an
approximate 50% increase in allowable bearing capacity for 25mm of
settlement (qa), thus:
for foundation widths B metres,
005 Kd up to 1.2m
N for foundation widths B metres,
4a(kN/m2) = greater than 1.2m
0.08 \
where N is the SPT N-valué (standard blows per 300mm)
Ká = 1 +0.33D/5 up to a máximum valué of 1.33
and D is the depth to the foundation base, in metres.
Plots of these equations, for D = 0 (i.e. a surface foundation) are
shown in Figure 5.8. For founding depths up to D = B, valúes
obtained from this chart may be multiplied by Ká. Terzaghi and Peck
suggest that, for saturated sands, allowable bearing pressures ob-
tained from Figure 5.7 should be reduced by a half for shallow
foundations and by a third where depth D is approximately equal to
width B. Bowles (1982) gives no mention of such reductions but it
seems prudent to also apply them when using the above equations
and Figure 5.8. Allowable bearing pressures for settlements other
than 25mm may be obtained pro-rata.
Raft foundations are known to settle less than strip footings, and
Tomlinson (1980) suggests that the allowable settlements obtained
from Figure 5.7 be doubled for this type of foundation. Alternatively,
Bowles gives a modified form of the Meyerhof equation for rafts:
N
Work by Menzenbach (1967) established a rough relationship

between deformation modulus, E¿, and SPT N-value, as shown in
Figure 5.9. This can be used in conjunction with elasticity theory to
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
800
O 1 2 3 4
Footirvg width - m
Figure 5.8 Allowable bearing pressure for footings founded ai surface level, for
settlement limited lo approximately 25mm (after Bowles, 1982)
obtain settlement predictions. For instance, for a strip foundation of

width B, loading intensity q, settlement p is given by:
= 2.25
where Poisson's ratio v is usually taken as 0.15 for sands. Valúes of
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
100 I l
Overburden pressure - kPa
80
60
•o
o
O 40
"S
E
i_
o
i
20
2O 40 60
SPT N-value - blows/SOOmm
Figure 5.9 Correlation between deformation modulas, Ed and SPT N-value for granular
soils (after Menzenbach, 1967)
allowable bearing pressure for 25mm settlement, obtained in this

way, are broadly in line with the valúes obtained from Figure 5.8.
It should be noted that, although the rate of settlement is not
determined from SPT results, the high permeability of granular soils
produces rapid response to loading so seti- ment times are very short
and rarely considered.
5.4.2 Píate bearing tests

Píate bearing tests offer a more direct method of measuring settle-
ments but the usefulness of the results is limited by two constraints:
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
(1) the depth of sand stressed by a píate is only a fraction of that

stressed by a full-sized foundation, and
(2) settlement predictions require knowledge of the scale effects
between the settlement of a píate and that of a full-sized
foundation.
The most commonly-used correlation for scale effects between
píate and foundation settlements is that given by Terzaghi and Peck
(1967):
where p is the settlement of a square foundation of side B ft, and

p t is the settlement of a 1-foot square píate.
If the foundation width is measured in metres, this becomes:
2B
,0.3
An alternative, and more general, relationship was derived by
Menard and Rousseau (1962):
Pi =
P2
where pí and p2 are the settlements of the píate and footing
B± and B2 are their respective widths
and a depends on the soil type. Typical a valúes are:
Sands and gravéis 2 to ^
Saturated silts i
Clays and dry silts § to 2 -
Compacted ful 1.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Chapter 6
SHEAR STRENGTH
It is usually assumed that the shear strength of soils is governed by the

Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
s = c + <7 tan 4> (6.1)
where s is the shear stress ai failure along any plañe
a is the normal stress on that plañe
and c and (f) are the shear strength parameters; cohesión 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 modifíed to
or
s = c' + a' tan 4>
where u is the pore water pressure
a' = (a—u), the effective normal stress (on the soil skeleton)
and c' and </>' are the shear strength parameters related to effective
stresses.
Thus when considering the shear strength of soils, there is a choice:
either the total, combined reponse of the soil and pore rater can be
considered (Equation 6.1); or the specific response of the s« il skeleton
can be separated from the pore water pressure by considen -. effective
stresses (Equation 6.2).
The effective stress approach gives a truc measure of the response of
the soil skeleton to the loads imposed on it. Perhaps the simplest case
is that of a load applied to a saturated soil that is allowed to drain. If
the rate of application of the load is sufficiently slow, pore water
76
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
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 ülustrated 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 tensión effects,
giving them some cohesión.
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 cohesión valué as shown
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
xjjl---Effective stress failure

envelope
'Total stress failure envelope
Figure 6.3 Mohr diagram for saturated clay in terms of total and effective síresses
in Figure 6.3, even though, in effective stress terms, the material is

basically frictional. Thus, in a sense, the phenomenon of cohesión is
an illusion brought abouí by the response of pore water pressures to
imposed loads. To underline this point, the term 'apparent cohesión'
is often used. Partially saturated soils, tested in undrained conditions,
will show a behaviour which is intermedíate between that for drained
conditions and for saturated undrained conditions, depending on the
degree of saturation.
6.1 THE CHOICE OF TOTAL OR EFFECTIVE STRESS

ANALYSIS
When the soil is loaded rapidly so that there is no time for movement
of pore water to take place, its immediate response - the proportions
of the resulting confining pressures that are carried by the soil
skeleton and the pore water - is itself a property of the soil. This
instantaneous response can, in fací, be quantifíed in terms of
Skempton's (1954) pore pressure parameters, which are described in.
Chapter 5. This means that the total response of the soil to an applied
load, including the pore pressures generated, can be simulated and
measured in a laboratory test and there is no need to take account of
the sepárate responses of the skeleton and the pore water. Only the
total applied stresses need be considered in the analysis and only the
corresponding total stress strength parameter~ need be measured
when testing. Strictly speaking, this is not qui ; true because soil
strength is usually measured in the triaxial test, in which axially
symmetric stress conditions exist, whereas many soil problems
approximate to plañe strain conditions, for which the soil response
diíiers slightly, but the errors involved are small enough to be ignored
for practical purposes.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 79
The equilibrium pore water pressures that are eventually estab-

lished 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, efíective 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 equalisa-
tion of excess pore water pressures within the test specimen.
6.1.1 The choice in practice

Foundations impose both shear stresses and compressive stresses
(confining pressures) on the underlying soil. The shear stresses must
be carried by the soil skeleton but the compressive stresses are initially
carried largely by the resulting increase in pore water pressures. This
leaves the effective stresses little changed, which implies that the
foundation loading is not accompanied by any increase in shear
strength. As the excess pore pressures dissipate, the soil consolídales,
and effective stresses increase, leading to an increase in shear strength.
Thus, for foundations, it is the short term condition - the immediate
response of the soil - that is most critical. This is the justifícation for
the use of quick undrained shear strength tests and total stress
analysis for foundation design.
With excavations, compressive stresses are reduced by removal of
soil but shear stresses are imposed on the sides of the excavation
owing to removal of lateral support. Initially, the reduction in
compressive stresses is manifested within the soil mainly as a
reduction in pore water pressures, with little change in eífective
stresses so that, as with foundations, soil shear strength remains little
aífected by the changed loading. Eventually, water flows into the soil
that forms the excavation sides, restoring the pore-water pressures.
This reduces the effective stresses, causes swelling and reduces shear
strength. Thus, for excavations, long-term conditions are the most
critical. Since long-term pore pressures depend on drainage condi-
tions and cannot be simulated by soil tests, an eífective stress analysis
must be used so that pore water pressures can be considered
separately from stresses in the oil skeleton.
During embankment construction, additional layers of material
impose a pressure on the lower part of the embankment. As with
foundations, this tends to créate increased pore water pressures and,
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
by the same argument, short-term conditions are an important

consideration. This implies that total stress analysis and quick
undrained shear strength tests are appropriate, and up to the 1960s it
was not uncommon for embankments to be designed in this way.
However, additional stresses can be created by the compaction
process itself but, offsetting this, the material is unlikely to be
saturated so that a significant proportion of the added pressures may
be carried immediately by the soil skeleton. These complications
make it impossible to simúlate the total response of the soil in a test
specimen and, to overeóme this, effective stress analysis is now used.
Also, it is usually more economical to design embankments for
long-term stability and to monitor pore water pressures during
construction, slowing down the rate of construction where necessary,
to keep them within safe limits.
A special case of embankment stability, often quoted in text books,
is that of the rapid drawdown of water level behind an embankment
dam. In this case, the soil in the embankment has had time to
consolídate under its own weight (implying long-term conditions) but
support from the adjacent water is withdrawn rapidly (implying
short-term conditions). This can be simulated by the Consolidated
undrained triaxial test, in which the test specimens are allowed to
drain and consolídate under the applied cell pressure. Once consoli-
dation is complete, specimens are sheared rapidly under conditions of
no drainage. In this way, the response of the soil to both long-term
consolidation and short-term shearing is simulated in the test,
allowing a total stress analysis to be used. The simulation of
long-term conditions in a test is assumed to be possible in this case
because the water in the reservoir ensures that the soil on the
up-stream face of the dam will alway s be saturated. However, the
rapid drawdown condition can be better, more thoroughly, analysed
in terms of eífective stresses, using the effective stress strength
parameters which musí be measured anyway for normal long-term
stability analysis of the dam slopes. The use of the Consolidated
undrained test without pore pressure measurement is therefore more
of historical interest than practical application.
With natural slopes, we are always dealing with conditions that
have been in equilibrium for a long period of time, although seasonal
variations will occur, and effective stress analysis is appropri e.
6.2 UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH OF CLAYS
Shear strength is obtained from the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion,
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 81
Table 6.1 ESTIMATING THE SHEAR STRENGTH OF CLAYS
Shear strength Descriptive

Characteristics
(kN/m 2 ) term
<20 Very soft Exudes between fingers when squeezed

20-^W) Soft Moulded by light finger pressure
40-75 Firm Moulded by strong finger pressure
75-150 Stiff Can be indented by thumb
150-300 Very stif Can be indeníed by thumb nail
>300 Hard
Note: thesc strength descriptions and tests conform with standard practice and with the recommendations of B.S.
5930 (1981).
Table 6.2 TYPICAL SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF COMPACTED CLAYS
Undrained shear strength

(kN/m)
Soil description Class*
As compacted Saturated
Silty sands, sand-silt mix SM 50 20

Clayey sands, sand-clay mix SC 74 11
Silts and clayey silts ML 67 9
Clays of low plasticity CL 86 13
Clayey silts, elastic silts MH 72 20
Clay of high plasticity CH 103 11
1 Uniíied classification system.
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 valué and is equal to
the apparent cohesión. The valué 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 valúes for the shear strengths of compacted clays are given
in Table 6.2. Valúes refer to soils compacted to the máximum 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 Remoulded shear strength

As discussed in Chapter 1, the liquid and plástic limits are moisture
contents at which soil has specific valúes of undrained shear strength.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2.0
1.8 Clay LL PL Pl A c t i v i t y
Horten 30 16 14 0.36
London 73 25 48 0.96
Gosport 80 30 50 0.89
1.6 Shellhaven 97 32 65 1.27
1.4
x 1.2
o
•o
Í 1.0-Liquid limit
2
3
cr
2 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Plástic limit
-0.2 I I I I lili I I I I I I I 11 J I I I I III 1 l i l i

0.1 O.5 1 5 1O 5O 100 5OO
Undrained shear strength - kN/ra 2
Figure 6.4 Correlation between shear strength and liquidity índex (after Skempton and
Noríhey, 1952)
It therefore follows that, for a remoulded soil, the shear strength

depends on the valué of the natural moisture contení in relation to the
liquid and plástic limit valúes. This can be conveniently expressed by
using the concept of liquidity índex defined by:
w n -PL w n -PL
Liquidity índex = -—
LL-PL Pl
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 83
where LL and PL are the liquid and plástic limits, respectively

PI is the plasticity índex
and wn is the natural moisture content.
Curves relating remoulded undrained shear strength to liquidity
índex have been established by Skempton and Northey (1952). These
are given in Figure 6.4.
6.2.2 Undisturbed shear strength

The shear strength of undisturbed clays depends on the consolidation
history of the clay as well as the fabric characteristics.
The ratio of natural shear strength to remoulded shear strength is
known as the sensitivity. It is most marked in soft, lightly con-
solidated clays which have an open structure and a high moisture
content. Sensitivity may be related to liquidity Índex, and this has
indeed been found so by a number of researchers, whose findings are
given and discussed by Holtz and Kovacs (1981). Much of this data is
for the sensitive clays of Canadá and Scandinavia but the work of
Skempton and Northey (1952) relates mainly to clays of relatively
modérate sensitivity with natural moisture contents below the liquid
limit. Their fíndings are given in Figure 6.5.
Further, since both remoulded shear strength and sensitivity can be
correlated with liquidity Índex, it foliows that a correlation must exist
between undisturbed shear strength and liquidity índex. Such a
relationship, obtained by combining the correlations given in Figures
200
100
5O
I
(O
20
§ 10
(O
-0.2 O 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Liquidity Indax
Figure 6.5 Correlation between sensitivity and liquidity índex (after Skempton and
Northey, 1952)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
200 i
100
g 5O
x.
Z
JS
**
O)
e
o
co
10
i i I I I 1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

e
--. Liquidity indax
ti 2
'a
Figure 6.6 Relationship between the natural shear slrength of undisturbed clays and
liquidity índex
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 eífective overburden pressure. This
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 85
is to be expected when it is remembered that, in terms of eñective

stress, shear strength is basically a frictional phenomenon and
depends on confming pressure. If the constant of proportionality
between shear strength and eñective overburden pressure is known
then shear strength can be inferred from eñective overburden
pressure; that is, from depth. This problem has been investigated by a
number of researchers, with a view to establishing a correlation
between the shear strength/overburden pressure ratio and some soil
classification parameter, typically the plasticity índex. Such a correla-
tion would be of great practical valué, since it would enable the
undrained shear strength (Su) to be estimated from a simple
classification test.
Historically, much use has been made for normally consolidated
clays of the relationship of Skempton (1957):
<7V =
0.11+0.0037P/
where, PI is the plasticity Índex. At first sight it is not evident that
SJ(j'v should be related to the plasticity Índex. However, the valué of 0
can be expected to depend on the shape, size, packing and mineral
composition of the clay particles, as will the plasticity índex, so the
two properties are related in some manner (see Figure 6.12). Figure
0.8 i
Bjerrum(1972) "aged"
Skempton (1957)
0)
I
n
Bjerrum (1972) "young'
Kenn0y(1976)
I I j I
100 200
Plasticity index
Figure 6.7 Relationship between the ratio of undrained shear strength to effective
overburden pressure and plasticity index for normally-consolidated clays (modified after
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981).
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6.7 includes other results obtained by a number of researchers. As can

be seen, their findings vary and should only be used with caution.
However, such correlations particularly that of Skempton (1957) are
useful for preliminary estímales and checking laboratory data on
normally Consolidated clays. For overconsolidated clays, Kenney
(1959), stated that the relationship is influenced mainly by the stress
history and is essentially independent of plasticity Índex. A correla-
tion between the shear strength/overburden pressure ratio and
liquidity índex for Norwegian quick clays was presented by Bjerrum
and Simons (1960), as indicated in Figure 6.8. Again, results show so
much scatter that the interpretation of the results is open to question,
and all that can be said with certainty is that, for Norwegian quick
clays, the ratio is around 0.1 to 0.15.
Besides the influence of geological history on undrained shear
strength, the stress history during test also affects results. Thus, shear
strengths obtained by unconfined compression testing or triaxial
testing can be expected to difíer from those obtained by shear vane
(Wroth, 1984). The relative valúes of the shear strengths have been
examined by a number of researchers, and the ratio of 'true'
undrained shear strength (based on the back-analysis of embankment
failures) to shear vane valúes seems to depend on the plasticity índex,
as indicated by Figure 6.9.
Strictly, undrained shear strength depends on the effective consoli-
dation pressure, which is the average of the effective overburden
0.4
•3
(0
o» (0
o I °'3
9
•o
Sí
(O
Jaw 0.2
O
X»
o o
•o o-1
Liquidity Índex
Figure 6.8 Relationship between the ratio of undrained shear strength and effective
overburden pressure and liquidity Índex for Norwegian clays (after Bjerrum and
Simons, 1960)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 87
1.4
O • Bjerrum (1972)
O^í Milligan (1972)
1.2 O Ladd and Foott (1974) -
Flaate and Preber (1974)
D O @ LaRochella et al. 1974)
D Holtz and Holm (1979)
1.0 * - Layered and varved clays
II Bjerrum's (1972)
3k
0.8 recommended curve
o
09
Ü 0.6
O
v.
u. «-CH
o
Ü
0.4
20 40 6O 80 10O 120
Plasticity índex
Figure 6.9 Correlation factor for field vane test results, depending on plasticiíy índex,
basedon back-analysis of embankment failures (after Ladd, 1975 and Laddet al., 1977)
pressure and the lateral pressures. For overconsolidated clays,

comparison of shear strength with effective consolidation pressure
gives better correlations than with effective overburden pressure.
According to Bjerrum (1972), working with normally-consolidated
late glacial clays, whilst recent sediments are normally Consolidated,
older clays tend to be slightly overconsolidated, the overconsolida-
tion ratio depending somewhat on the plasticity Índex, as indicated in
Figure 6.10. Combining this with Bjerrum's shear strength/overbur-
den pressure relationships (Figure 6.7), and correcting the resulting
shear strengths using the factor // from Figure 6.9, Mesri (1975)
concluded that the ratio of the field shear strength to effective
consolidation pressure was independent of plasticity índex and was
equal to 0.22. The scatter of results which ha ve gone into producing
this conclusión are so wide that it must be viewed with great caution
but, if validated, it could be of practical valué.
Although the literature contains much debate concerning Su/a; and
overconsolidation ratios (Ladd et al, 1977; Wroth, 1984), in practical
terms it is more straightforward to measure the undrained shear
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2.0
20 40 6O 100
Plasticity índex
Figure 6.10 Relationship between overconsoliation ratio and plasticity Índex for
late-glacial clays (after Bjerrum, 1972)
500
. Soil groups refer
to Unified
400 - system
g 3OO
ffl
•H
W
m 200
0)
£.
V)
"O
•a Terzaghi and Peck

c
D
1O 20 3O 40 50 6O
SPT N-valué-blows/SOOmm
Figure 6.11 Approximate correlations beíween undrained shear strength and standard
penetration test N-values (after Terzaghi and Peck, 1967 and Sowers, 1979}
strength of overconsolidated clays than to predict it from other

índices.
6.2.3 Predictions using the standard penetration test

Attempts have been made to correlate the unconfined compressive
strength or the undrained shear strength of clays with the results of
standard penetration tests, with varying degrees of success. Some
suggested relationships are given in Figure 6.11.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 89
63 DRAINED AND EFFECTIVE SHEAR STRENGTH OF

CLAYS
As discussed previously it is often important to carry out stability

calculations in terms of effective stresses. This is particularly truc of
slope stability calculations. The soil strength parameters used in these
calculations are obtained from either drained shear box or triaxial
tests (giving cd and </>d) or from Consolidated undrained triaxial tests
with pore pressure measurement (giving </>éu and c'cu). In theory there
should be little difíerence between the two sets of valúes, for saturated
clays, although in practice there may be minor differences.
* A relationship between diaÍnecLshjea£.stEejftgth and plasticity Índex
for remoulded clays has been established by Gibson (1953), as
indicated in Figure 6.12. Also shown is a relationship between the
residual shear strength, or true angle of internal friction, and
plasticity índex. The existence of these relationships arises because
both plasticity Índex and shear strength reflect the clay mineral
composition of the soil: as the clay mineral content increases,
4O i i
«
&
•o 30
Drained »h««r <¿d [_U^ ^M' Hf
£ 20
w
o 10 Truo angl© of internal friction
o
=
i /
=
20 40 60 80 100 120
^
*¿
Plasticity indox
—
^
Figure 6.12 Relationships between angle of shearing resistance and plasticity Índex
(after Gibson, 1953)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 6.3 TYPICAL ANGLES OF EFFECTIVE SHEARING RESISTANCE FOR COMPACTED CLAYS
Soil description Class* (deg)
Silty clays, sand-silt mix SM 34

Clayey sands, sand-clay mix SC 31
Silts and clayey silts ML 32
Clays of low plasticity CL 28
Clayey silts, elastic silts MH 25
Clays of high plasticiíy CH 19
* Unified classification system.
plasticity índex mercases and shear strength decreases. As described

previously, the strength of clays, in eñective stress terms, is basically
frictional so c' = 0. This is certainly the case with remoulded saturated
clays but partially saturated clays, where meniscus effects draw the
particles together to produce inter-particle stresses, may appear to
have a small cohesión valué, though this itelf is a frictional
phenomenon.
Typical valúes of the angle of shearing resistance, 0', for compacted
clays are given in Table 6.3. Valúes are for soils compacted to the
máximum dry density according to the standard compaction test
(AASHTOT99,5.51brammermethod;orBS 1377:1975 test 12,2.5kg
rammer method).
6.4 SHEAR STRENGTH OF GRANULAR SOILS
Because of their high permeability, pore water pressures do not build

up when granular soils are subjected to shearing forces, as they do
with clays. The complicátion of total and effective stresses is therefore
avoided and the phenomenon of apparent cohesión, or undrained
shear strength, does not occur. Consequently, the shear strength of
granular soils is defíned exclusively in terms of the frictional resistance
between the grains, as measured by the angle of shearing resistance.
Typical valúes of the angle of shearing resistance for sands and
gravéis are given in Table 6.4.
Typical valúes for compacted soils are given in Table 6.5. Valúes
refer to soil compacted to máximum dry density at optimum moisture
content as defíned in the standard compaction test: AASHTO T99
(5.51b rammer method) or BS 1377:1975 test 12 (2.5kg rammer
method).
A relationship between dry density or relative density and the angle
of shearing resistance is given by the US Navy (1982), as shown in
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 91
Table 6.4 TYPICAL VALÚES OF THE ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE OF COHESIONLESS

SOILS
0 (deg)
Material
Loóse Dense
Uniform sand, round grains 27 34

Well-graded sand, angular grains 33 45
Sandy gravéis 35 50
Silty sand 27-33 30-34
Inorganic silt 27-30 30-35
Table 6.5 TYPICAL VALÚES OF THE ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE FOR COMPACTED
SANDS AND GRAVELS
Angle of shearing
So// description Class*
resistance, (f> (deg)
Well-graded sand-gravel mixtures GW >38

Poorly-graded sand gravel mixtures GP >37
Silty gravéis, poorly graded sand-gravel-silt GM >34
Clayey gravéis, poorly graded sand-gravel-clay GC >31
Well-graded clean sand, gravelly sands SW 38
Poorly-graded clean sands, gravelly sands SP 37
1 Unified classification system.
O
O 50
c
Material type (Unified classification)
(O
2 • 40
o> a
c o
« 30
*- Relative density
o
.£
o>
< 20
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Dry density - t / m 3 ( M g / m 3 )
Figure 6.13 Typical valúes ofdensüy and angle of shearing resistance of cohesionless
soils (modified after US Navy, 1982)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
80
Relative density
/
60
/ Very dense
50
/'
o
3
40
/
x /
7
i
X
a
V)
20
xx
10 X A K v
4
X Loóse . ^t*
Very loóse *A,
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
g!e of shearing resistance, ^°
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 valúes, shown in Figure 6.14. The correla-
tion between SPT valúes and relative density is also shown, enabling
a comparison to be made with the US Navy valúes.
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.
6.5 LATERAL PRESSURES IN A SOIL MASS
Consideration of lateral pressures is usu;-lly associated with the

design of retaining walls, basement walls pile foundations and
tunnels, where interest is centered on the m ¿i ñmum and máximum
lateral pressures that can occur; that is, on the coefficients of active
and passive pressure. Approximate solutions for active and passive
pressure problems can be obtained using the simple Coulomb (1773)
wedge theory or by consideration of Mohr's circles of stress at failure
(Rankine, 1857). The Rankine approach is still used for cohesive and
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 93
<0
e
&
o
O
O
05
O
O)
c
a
e
£
w
o>
c
20 4O 60 100
Relativo density - %
Figure 6.15 Relationships beíween angle ofshearing resistance and relaíive density for
various sands (after Hilf, 1975)
cohesive granular (c —</>) soils but both the Rankine and Coulomb
methods give signifícant 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 postúlate curved
failure surfaces (Caquot and Kerisel, 1966; Terzaghi and Peck, 1967).
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
0.8
D Sangamon sand (subangular)
w • Wabash sand (subangular)
o O Chatahoochee sand (subangular)
• Brasted sand
o Sand (Simons, 1958)
0.6 • Belgium sand
(O 4- Minnesota sand (rounded)
o»
o X Pennsylvania sand (angular)
t_
a
£
O
O.4
o O.2
U
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Angle of shearing resistance, 0'- degrees
42 44 46
rt
Figure 6.16 Correlation between the coefficient of earth pressure at rest and the
angle of shearing resistance for normally-consolidated sands (after Al-Hussaini and
Townsend, 1975}
0.8
K n = 1 - sin0' ±0.5
0.3
12 14
Angle of shearing resistance, 0'- degrees

Figure 6.17 Correlation beíween the coefficient of earth pressure at rest and the angle
of shearing resistance, in terms ofeffective stresses (after Laddet al., 1977). Key ío data:
(1) Brooker and Ireland (1965), (2) Ladd (1965), (3) Bishop (1958), (4) Simons (1958),
(5) Campanella and Vaid (1972), (6) Compiled by Wroth (1972), (7) Abdelhamid and
Krizek (1976)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHEAR STRENGTH 95
1.0
K 0 = 0.44 + 0.42(PI/100)
(O
O
•• 0.8
**
(O
o o
O o
o
a
§ 0.6
m
0.4
• Undisturbed
o
ó 0.2 o Disturbed or laboratory reconsolidated
from a sediment
o
ü
20 40 60 80 100 120
Plasticiiy índex, Pl
Figure 6.18 Correlaíion between the coefficient ofearthpressure ai rest - obtainedfrom

laboratory tests, and plasücily índex (afíer Massarsch, 1979}
Active and passive pressures represent the limiting valúes of lateral

earth pressure, when the soil has reached a failure condition, and
require a certain amount of movement for pressures to attain these
valúes. This can be of practical importance in the calculation of design
pressures behind rigid structures, such as strutted retaining walls, in
which movement may be insufiícient to allow the soil to reach a
passive state. For such conditions, it is useful to be able to estimate the
valué of horizontal stress in the undisturbed ground. This cannot be
obtained from theoretical considerations of limit equilibrium, as is
the case for active and passive pressures, but depends on the
geological history of the soil. However, using an approximate theory
(Késdi, 1974) the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, KQ for a
normally-consolidated soil can be related to the angle of shearing
resistance:
This relationship has been found to hold true for normally-con-

solidated sands and clays, as indicated in Figures 6.16 and 6.17. In
addition, a relationship between K0 and plasticity índex has been
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3.0 i T í
2.8
o Boston blue clay, Pl=23 (Ladd, 1965)
2.6
2.4
2
o 2.2
(O
o 2.0
3
(O
(O
£ 1.8
a
£
*"" 4 C
9
Brooker and ireland (1965)
° 1.4
c
9
~ 1.2
"5O Plasticity índex s"
Ü
0.6
0.4
3 4 6 8 10 2O 3O
Overconsolidation ratio
Figure 6.19 Correlation between coefficient of earth pressure at rest and overconsolida-
tion ratio for clays of various plasicity índices (data by Ladd, 1965, and Brooker and
Ireland, 1965; replotted by Ladd, 1971)
obtained by Massarsch (1979), as shown in Figure 6.18. The above

relationships are valid for normally Consolidated clays but for
overconsolidated clays the valué of KQ is heavily dependent on the
overconsolidation ratio. For these clays, K0 can be estimated from
Figure 6.19, which shows relationships between K0 and overconsoli-
dation ratio for clays of different plasticity índex valúes.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Chapter 7
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
7.1 THE TEST METHOD

The CBR test was originally developed at the California División of
Highways in the 1930s as parí 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 penétrate 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 standar-
dized and are given in the AASHTO Standard Speciíications, 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 valúes and arise purely as a result of converting the U.S.
specifícation 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 valúes 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 valúes, it seems a reasonable
97
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 7.1 VARIATIONS OF TEST METHOD FOR CBR TEST
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 contení
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 simúlate 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 valué 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 valúes
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.
assumption that CBR valúes are related to soil classification in some

way. However, CBR valúes depend not only on soil type but also on
density, moisture content and, to some extent, method of prepara-
tion. These factors must therefore be taken into account when
considering correlations between CBR and soil classification tests.
A number of attempts have been made to correlate CBR with soil
plasticity. A correlation between plasticity Índex and CBR, for design
purposes, is given by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory
(1970), as indicated inTable 7.2. This is based on wide e- perience of
subgrade soil but is limited to British soils compacte at atural
moisture content according to the Ministry of Transport (1969)
specification. Thus, the precise density and moisture content condi-
tions corresponding to the given CBR valúes is not specified. This
severely limits the use of the table outside Britain.
The valúes used by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
...
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO 99
Table 7.2 ESTIMATED LABORATORY CBR VALÚES FOR BRITISH SOILS COMPACTED AT THE
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
CBR (%)
Depth of water-table below
Plasticity índex formation level
Type of soil
More than 600mm 600mm or less
Heavy clay 70 2 1
60 2 1.5
50 2.5 2
40 3 2
Silty clay 30 5 3
Sandy clay 20 6 4
10 7 5
Silt — 2 1
Sand (poorly graded) non-plastic 20 10
Sand (well graded) non-plastic 40 15
Well-graded sandy gravel non-plastic 60 20
owe much to the work of Black (1962), who obtained correlations

between CBR and plasticity Índex for various valúes of liquidity Índex
(defined in Chapter 6), as shown in Figure 7.1. The valúes obtained
from Figure 7.1 refer to saturated soils. For unsaturated soils, the
CBR can be estimated by applying a correction to the saturated valué,
using Figure 7.2.
Morin and Todor (1977) report on attempts to correlate soaked
CBR valúes, at optimum moisture content and máximum dry density
for tropical African and South American soils with the producís:
plasticity índex times the perecent passing the no. 200 or no. 40 US
sieves. They concluded that no well-defíned relationship existed.
However, de Graft-Johnson et al. (1969) obtained a correlation of
CBR with plasticity and grading using the concept of suitability
índex, defined by:
Suitability Índex =
LL.log(P/)
where A is the percentage passing a 2.4mm BS sieve. Their fmdings
are given in Figure 7.3. Note, however, that the CBR valúes are for
samples compacted to máximum dry density at optimum moisture
content according to the Ghana standard of compaction. This
specifies the use of a standard CBR mould and a lOlb (4.5kg) rammer
with an 18-inch (450mm) drop; to compact soil in 5 layers using 25
blows per layer. Samples are tested after a 4-day soak.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Liquidity índex
m m in tfí
N; i» CO CO 0> 0> o O
O O O O O O* r-* T-"
80 I 71 i
7O
1.25
60
5O
1.3
•E 40
09
(O
30
20
10 Probable •quilibrium CBR

under pavements in
southern England
1 I ! ! ! I ! II I 1
O
0.4 4 10 40 1OO 40O
California Bearing Ratio
Figure 7.1 Relationships between CBR and plasticity índex at various liquidity índex
valúes (after Black, 1962)
Further work on lateritic gravéis (de Graft- Johnson et al. 1972) led
to the establishment of a relationship between CBR and the ratio of
máximum dry density to plasticity Índex 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, plástic limit or plasticity Índex. 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 valúes of less than 9 and the standard
deviation obtained was 1.8. They therefore suggest that the correla-
tion is only of sufficient accuracy for preliminary identification of
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
100
80
5 60 o London Clay
•5 o Brickearth, Harmondsworth
•5 • Black cotton soil, Ngong
• Red coffee soil, Thika Sagana
I 40
20
£ Unsaturated CBR = K X saturated CBR at same moisture content
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Correction factor, K
Figure 7.2 Correction of CBR valúes for paríial saíuration (after Black, 1962)
120
100
¿o 80
i
ce
O 60
1
í
<ñ 40
20
O 1 2 3 4
Suitability índex, S
Figure 7.3 Relaíionship beíween suitability Índex and soaked CBR valus (after de
Graft-Johnson eí al., 1969}
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
140 I T i l 1 T
120
1OO
(O
3
¿C
8O
00
1 60
a
o
I 40
20
l i l i
10 50 100 5OO 10OO
Máximum drydensity- kg/m3

Plasticity índex
Figure 7.4 Relationship between the ratio of máximum dry densiíy lo plasticity índex
and CBRfor laterite-quartz gravéis (modified after de Graft-Johnson et al., 1972}
materials. They further suggest that such correlation may be of more

use if derived for specifíc geological regions.
Both the AASHTO and Unifíed soil classification systems were
devised for the specific purpose of assessing the suitability of soils for
use in road and airfíeld construction. Since the CBR valué of a soil is
also a measure of its performance as a subgrade, logic suggests that
there should be some general relationship between the soil groups
and CBR valúes. Approximate correlations between CBR and soil
classes, suggested by íhe US Highways Research Board and by the
US Corps of Engineers are given by Liu (1967) and presented in
Figures 7.5 and 7.6. A similar correlation, for South American red
tropical soils, is given in Figure 7.7.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
A-1-a
AASHTO system A-1 -b
A-2-4 and 5
I A-2-6 and 7
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6 and 7
GW
Unified system
tem I <3P
GM
GC& SW
| SPandSM
se
ML. CL and CH
MH
OL and OH
2 3 4 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 60 80
Figure 7.5 Approximate relationships between soil classes and CBR valúes (after
Liu, 1967)
[GW
GM
GP
GU
SP
I su & sel
ML&CL
MH&OL
[CH,OH
3 4 6 8 10 15 20 3O 40 60 80
Figure 7.6 Approximate relationships between Unified soil classes and CBR valúes
(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 valúes
for South American red tropical soils (after Morin and Todor, 1975)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
7.3 CBR AND SHEAR STRENGTH
The CBR test can be thought of as a bearing capacity problem in

miniature, in which the standard plunger acts as a small foundation.
Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation for circular foundations is:
where c is the cohesión of the soil

y is its bulk density
Po is the overburden pressure at the base of the plunger
B is the diameter of the plunger
and N c' N and N are Terzaghi's bearing capacity factors.
For a saturated clay in undrained conditions, the angle of shearing
resistance, </>, (in terms of total stress) is zero. This gives bearing
capacity factors of JVC = 5.14 (2 + n), Na = l, and Nv = 0. Thus, the
third term in the equation disappears and, since overburden pressure
p0 is equal only to the relatively light pressure exerted by the
surcharge weights, the second term can also be neglected. The
equation thus reduces to:
This agrees with experience that the number of surcharge weights

used affects the CBR valué for sands, for which Nq is much greater,
but not for clays.
Using SI units, the CBR valué is 100% for a plunger pressure of
6900kN/m2 (10001b/in2) at a penetration of 2.5mm, giving:
4uxlOO
= 0.09c
6900
where qu and c are in kN/m2.
Work carried out by Black (1961) on single-sized sand and
correlations with other work for clay suggests that this approach
gives calculated CBR valúes that are cióse to measured valúes for field
tests. Laboratory CBR valúes can be expected to be higher for sands
because of the restraining iníluence of the mould. Black (1961) also
sugests that, when calculating <ju, the su stitu on:
c = s tan 0r
is used, where s is the soil suction and <¿>r is e true , ngle of internal
friction.
Since, for cohesive soils, the true angle oí internal friction can be
estimated from the plasticity índex (see Figure 6.12), this opens up the
possibility of predicting both cohesión and CBR valúes from
plasticity Índex and soil suction valúes.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Chapter 8
SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING
CHARACTERISTICS
Expansiva soils are those that show a marked volume change with
increases and decreases of moisture contení. 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 áreas where prevailing climatic conditions lead to
signifícant 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
The simplest swelling identification test is called the free-swell test

(Holtz and Gibbs 1956). The test is performed by slowly pouring
lOcm3 of dry soil (<425¿mi) into a lOOcm3 graduated cylinder fílled
with water, and observing the equilibrium swelled volume. Free swell
is defined as:
(Final volume) —(Initial volume)
Free swell = - . . . \ 100(%)
Initial volume
Table 8.1 gives free swelling data for some common clay minerals.
In field situations, the amount of swelling or shrinkage, or whether
any volume change occurs at all, wiíl depend on a number of factors,
such as moisture content changes, thickness of the deposit, initial
density, groundwater chemistry, confining pressures, and possibly
other factors. However, commonly a fundamental ingredient is the
105
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 8.1 FREE SWELLING DATA FOR CLAY MINERALS, % (AFTER MIELENZ AND KING,
1955)
Ca-Mont.:
Forest, Mississippi 145
Wilson Creek Dam, Coló 95
Davis Dam, Arizona , 45-85
Osage, Wyoming (prepared from Na-Mont.), 125
Na-Mont, Osage, Wyoming 1,400-1,600

Na-Hectorite, Héctor, California 1,600-2,000
I Hite:
Fithian, Illinois . 115-120
Morris, Illinois. . 60
Tazewell, Virginia 15
Kaolinite:
Mesa Alta, New México 5
Macón, Georgia 60
Langley, N. Carolina . . 20
Halloysite, Santa Rita, New México 70
Table 8.2 TYPICAL RANGES OF ATTERBERG LIMIT VALÚES
Dominant pore water catión

Clay mineral Ca2+ Na*
PL LL PL LL
Montmorillonite 65-79 123-177 86-97 280-700

Illite 36^2 69-100 34-41 61-75
Kaolinite 26-36 34-73 26-28 29-52
presence of monmorillonite, or other smectite, and more specifícally

its proportion in the soil. In some instances, clay-mineral type can be
identifica from the origin and geological setting of the soil, together
with consideration of Atterberg limits. Typical tanges of Atterberg
limits are shown in Table 8.2: note the effect of the dominant catión in
the pore water. Another indicator of clay-mineral type is Skempton's
(1953) activity (Ac) which relates plasticity índex to the proportion of
clay present in the soil:
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING CHARACTERISTICS 107
where C is the percentage fmer than 0.002mm. Typical activity valúes

are:
Sodium montmorillonite 7.2
Calcium montmorillonite 1.5
Illite 0.9 and
Kaolinite 0.33-0.46.
8.2 SWELLING POTENTIAL
An indication of the susceptibility of a soil to shrinkage or swelling

due to decreases or increases in moisture content is provided by the
swelling potential test.
The swelling potential is defmed as the percentage swell of a
laterally confined sample which has been compacted to máximum
density at optimum moisture content according to the standard
compaction test (BS 1377:1975 Test 12, 2.5kg rammer method or
AASHTO T99, 5.51b rammer method) and then allowed to swell
under a surcharge of 6.9kN/m2 (llb/in 2 ).
In order to give meaning to the signifícance of swelling potential
valúes, descriptive terms are used for various ranges of swelling
potential, as indicated in Table 8.3.
Tabie 8J DESCRIPTIVE TERMS FOR SWELLING POTENTIAL
Swelling potential (%) Description
0-1.5 Low
1.5-5 Médium
5-25 High
25 + Very high
8.2.1 Relation to other properties

The swelling potential test is not normally carried out, and a number
of researchers have tried to correlate swelling potential with plasticity
índex. Since both the liquid and plástic limits and the swelling
properties of a soil are governed by the amounts and types of clay
minerals present, it seems reasonable to postúlate that such a
correlation exists. Seed, et al. (1962) established the relationship:
<? — £r\Y ÍDJ\2.4-4
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
where S is the swelling potential

PI is the plasticity Índex
and K is a constant, equal to 3.6 x 10~ 5 .
This equation applies to soils with clay contents of between 8% and

65%. The calculated valué is probably accurate to within about 33%
of the laboratory valué. Although their results are based on work with
artificial mixtures of sands and clays, the correlation has been shown
to be applicable to natural soils. Using this equation and allowing for
the possible 33% error in calculated valúes of swelling potential,
ranges of plasticity índex valúes may be obtained for the various
classes of swelling potential, as indicated in columns 1 and 2 of Table
8.4. Also indicated in the table are valúes suggested by Krebs and
Walker (1971).
A correlation between swelling potential and plasticity Índex was
found by Chen (1988), based on tests of 321 undisturbed samples. He
proposed:
where 5 = 0.2558
A = 0.0838
and e is the natural number, 2.718.
He also established a correlation of plasticity índex againt a
swelling potential obtained for a surcharge pressure of 48kN/m2
(6.941b/in2). A comparison of various correlations between swelling
potential and plasticity índex is shown in Figure 8.1. It should be
noted that the Holtz and Gibbs (1956) correlation given in the figure
is not really comparable with the others since their volume change
measurements were carried out on air-dried specimens of undisturbed
soil. The valúes given in the chart are therefore not strictly swelling
potential. This is discussed later in this section.
Table 8.4 IDENTIFICATION OF SWELLING SOILS BASED ON PLASTICITY INDEX
Swelling potential Plasticity índex1 Plasticity índex11
Low (0-1.5%) 0-15 0-15

Médium (1.5-5%) 10-30 15-24
High (5-25%) 20-55 25-46
Very high (25 + %) >40 >46
1 Based on the relationship given by Seed el al. (1962).

2 Valúes according to Krebs and Walker (1971).
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
10 20 30 40
Plasticity índex - %
Figure 8.1 A comparison of various correlations between swelling potential and
plasticity índex (after Chen, 1988)
Although soils exhibiting high swelling characteristics usually have

high plasticity Índices, not all soils with high plasticity Índices have a
high swelling potential. Thus, the plasticity índex can be used only as
a rough guide to swelling potential.
Logic suggests that there should be relationships between potential
for expansión and both shrinkage limit and linear shrinkage. Table
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
J
Table 8.5 SUGGESTED CUIDE TO THE DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSIÓN

USING SHRINKAGE LIMIT AND LINEAR SHRINKAGE
Potential for expansión Shrinkage limit (%) Linear shrinkage (%)
Critical < 10 >8

Marginal 10-12 5-8
Non-critical >12 0-5
8.5 shows a general guide for these relationships suggested by

Altmeyer (1955). However, although a knowledge of shrinkage limit
is useful in assessing potential volume changes, other researchers have
been unable to establish a conclusive correlation between it and
swelling potential (Chen, 1988).
Work by Seed et al. (1962) suggests that there is a correlation
between swelling potential and trie contení of clay-sized paríicles
(finer than 0.002mm). Unfortunately, the correlation includes factors
which depend on the type of clay present. They therefore suggested an
alternative approach using the concept of activity. Swelling potential
is related to activity as shown in Figure 8.2. However, Seed et al.
(1962) suggest that, when using this figure, activity be defmed as:
A -
Ac~C-5
This is because a plot of plasticity índex against clay content passes

through the origin for clay contents in excess of 40% but not for lower
clay contents, as indicated in Figure 8.3. Using the amended
definition helps to compénsate for this, for soils with the lower clay
contents.
Holtz and Gibbs (1956) correlated volume change with colloid
content (defmed as finer than 0.00 Imm), plasticity Índex and
shrinkage limit, as indicated in Figure 8.4. They suggest that, because
of the uncertainty of the correlations, the potential for expansión
should be assessed by the simultaneous consideration of all three
correlations, as indicated in Table 8.6. Their procedure has been
adopted by the US Water and Power Resources Service (formerly the
US Bureau of Reclamation). It should be remembered that their
volume change measurements, whilst being made at a pressure of
6.9kN/m2 (llb/in2) are for air-dried undisturbed soils and so are not
directly comparable with the valúes of swelling potential discussed
previously (see Figure 8.1). Also, their results are based on only 45
samples.
Figure 8.5 shows a chart given by Holtz and Kovacs (1981) which
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Plasticity Índex Activity
00
' o
O
n m
O- o
3
O
§ on
o
" en
^
r
r
h—(
Z
O
n
n
H
Cí
d m
a
00
HH
SP
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
40
32
24
o
16
20 40 O 20 40 O 8 16 24
uoiioid contení (iess PSasiícíty ¡ndex Shrinkag» limit - %
than O.OOlmm) - mm
Figure 8.4 Relationships beíween volume change and colloid contení, plasticiíy Índex
and shrinkage limit, respectively for air-dry to saturated conditions under a load of
6.9kN/m2 (Ipsí) (afíer Holtz and Gibbs, 1956)
Table 8.6 ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL VOLUME CHANCES OF CLAYS (AFTER HOLTZ AND
GIBBS 1956)
Data from Índex tests
Colloid contení Probable expansión Potential for

% finer than % total volume change* expansión
O.OOlmm PI SL
>28 >35 <11 >30 Very high

20-31 25-41 7-12 20-30 High
13-23 15-28 10-16 10-30 Médium
<15 <18 >15 <10 Low
*Based on a loading of 6.9kN/m2(llb/inz).
gives a guide to the swelling and collapse susceptibility of soils related

to their liquid limit and in-situ dry density.
A more sophisticated relationship which can take imo account the
change in moisture content from an initial valué to ituí ion is
presented by Weston(1980). This correlation, established foi soil in
the Transvaal, is essentially a more fully developed versión of
previous relationships described by Williams (1957) and Van de
Merwe (1964). Swelling potential is given by:
Swell (%) = 0.000411 (W LW r 4 - 17 (P),-0.386 1-2.33
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2000
„ 1800
E
o>
át
1600
c
•o 1400
Expansión
1200 Collapse
1OOO
800
20 40 6O 80 1OO
Liquid Hmit
Figure 8.5 A guide to the suscepübility to collapse or expansión ofsoils, based on liquid
limit and insitu dry density (after Holíz and Kovacs, 1981)
where w¡ is the initial moisture contení

P is the vertical pressure (kN/m2), under which swell takes
place
and W Í S the weighted liquid limit defmed by:
%<0.425mm\0
where LL is the liquid limit
8.3 SWELLING PRESSURE

Once a potentially expansive soil has been identifíed and a qualitative
indication of the potential swell has been made, an evaluation of the
swelling pressure is necessary for design purposes. Swelling pressure
can be determined from a one-dimensional oedometer test; a number
of variations of this test have been developed (Jennings and Knight,
1957; Burland, 1975) but commonly the specimen is flooded and the
load required to maintain constant volume is recorded (Fredlund,
1969). Alternatively, the swelling pressure can be predicted from
empirical relationships with more routinely measured parameters.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
0.6
Sweil pressure
<30kPa
Swell pressure
30-125kPa
•2 0.4
x
Sweil pressure
•D
C 125-300 kPa
03
Swell pressure
C/D
0.2 >300kPa
0.0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid limit
Figure 8.6 Relationship between swell índex and swelling pressure for a range ofliquid
limit (after Vijayvergiya and Ghassahy, 1973)
Table 8.7 ESTIMATING PROBABLE SWELLING PRESSURE (AFTER CHEN, 1988)
Laboratory and jield data

Prnhflhlp
Swelling Degree
Standard expansión
Percentage L iquid pressure, of
passing penetraíion percent total
limit, (kN/m2) expansión
75um siete resisíance, volume change
(%)
blows¡300mm
>35 >60 >30 >10 >1000 Very high
60-95 40-60 20-30 3-10 250-1000 High
30-60 30-40 10-20 1-5 150-250 Médium
<30 <30 <10 <1 <50 Low
Vijayvergiya and Ghassahy (1973) suggested a means of esíimating

the swelling pressure using a swell índex (/s):
LL
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
where wn = natural water contení (%) and

LL = liquid limit.
The relationship between Is and swelling pressure, across a range of
liquid limits, is shown in Figure 8.6. Based on experience with
expensive soils in the Rocky Mountain área of the United States,
Chen (1988) suggested a predictive relationship for swelling pressure
using percentage of fines, liquid limit and the standard penetration
resistance, as given in Table 8.7. Note that the 'probable expansión'
given in Table 8.7 is the swelling potential for a coníming load of
48kN/m2 (10001b/ft2), based on the premise that this is a typical
foundation pressure for light structures.
During the past decade a number of theoretical equations have
been developed for computing heave in expansive soils. Most require
an evaluation of the swelling pressure (Rama Rao and Fredlund,
1980; Fredlund et al. 1980) but some are based on measurement of
soil suction (Snethen, 1980; Johnson, 1980).
«5
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Chapter 9
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY
Two potentially damaging effects are associated with frost action in

soils, the expansión 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 températe 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 eífectively 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 partéele, 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 0°C 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
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY 117
Four factors are of particular signifícance in affecting the amount of

ice segregation during soil freezing; the pore size of the soil, the
moisture supply, the rate of heat extraction and the confming
pressure. Theory and observation indícate that the suction potential
of soils and their susceptibility to ice segregation increáses as pore size
decreases. However, the low permeability of heavy clays may restrict
water migration sufficiently to prevent significant ice segregation
(Penner, 1968). Thus highly frost susceptible soils possess pore size
distributions which produce an optimum combination of soil suction
and permeability. In view of the cióse correspondence between pore
size and grain size, and the relative ease with which the latter may be
measured, frost susceptibility criteria based on soil textures are
frequently used.
9.2 GRAIN SIZES

The freezing behaviour of soils with varying grain size distributions
has been the subject of much study. Beskow (1935) showed that frost
heaving increáses rapidly from nearly zero for coarse sand to a
máximum in the fine silt sizes, from which it slowly declines to
approach zero again in heavy clays. For engineering purposes
Beskow proposed a división of soils into non-frost susceptible and
frost susceptible groups, and presented an empiricaly derived grading
(Figure 9.1). This may be simplified to a general statement that coarse
and médium sands are generally non-frost susceptible, that is ice
lenses do not normally develop when they freeze, whereas fine sands,
silts and all but the heaviest clays are frost susceptible and are subject
to considerable ice lensing during freezing, providing a water supply
is present. Glossop and Skempton (1945) observed that well sorted
soils in which less than 30% of the particles are silt size are non-frost
heaving. Casagrande (1932) suggested that the particle size critical to
soil heave is 0.02mm: if the proportion of such particles is less than
1%, no heave is expected, but considerable heaving may occur if this
amount is o ver 3% in non-uniform soils and o ver 10% in very
uniform soils. The influence of the <0.02mm fraction was also
demonstrated by Kaplar (1970) for gravelly sands where the coarser
fraction was progressively removed. Figure 9.2 shows the relation-
ship between average rate of heave (mm/day) and the percentagefiner
than 0.02mm; these results were obtained under specific laboratory
conditions and they should only be used as a guide to the field
response. A qualitative classification of frost susceptibility based
entirely on grain size and used in Swedish practice (Hansbo, 1975) is
given in Table 9.1.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Average rate of heave - mm/day Percent passing
,-«.
o
O
o
U) w
?o
ti S
w
t-1
>
H
i—i
Ü I
O
V;
CJ
«
o O
"5
?
tí r
J«—4
2 <n
mm* *d
a. N
n
2 a- O
TJ
B"
S' H
O
»-*, h—H
<3 »^*. W
"3 c/3
?
C3-
"5
EX.
§sx
"3
«> 2
-t
u
"5
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Table 9.1 FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOIL GROUPS: SWEDISH PRACTICE (AFTER HANSBO,
1975)
Frost susceptibility
Group Soils
or danger
I None Gravel, sand, gravelly tills

II Modérate Fine clay (>4 0% clayf contení);
sandy tills, clayey tills with
>16% fines 1
III Sírong Silt, coarse clay (clayf content
15-25%); silty tills
f Defined as 2/j.m.
: Defined as O.Oómm.
Reed et al. (1979) noted that predictions from grain size distribu-
tions failed to take account of the fact that soils can exist at different
states of density and therefore porosity, yet they have the same grain
size distribution. They derived expressions for predicting frost heave
(Y, in mm/day), and one of their simpler expressions, based on pore
diameters, is:
Y =1.694(D40/D80)- 0.3805
where D40 and D80 are the pore diameters whereby 40% and 80% of
the pores are larger respectively.
9.3 PLASTICITY
Frost susceptibility tends to be a feature of silty and sandy clays, that

is, soils of low to médium plasticity. Table 9.2 gives a correlation of
Table 9.2 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF FROST SUSCEPTIBLE SOILS
Permeability rating Identification Frost susceptibility
High permeability Granular: Not susceptible

< 10% finer than 15um
Granular:
Intermedíate > 10% finer than 15um
permeability Cohesive: Susceptible
PI<20
Low permeability Cohesive: Not susceptible
PI>20
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
30.0
Clayaj
Gravolly SAND, SW •ILTS
V«ry Hlfh Clayey QRAVEL. QM-QC
QRAVEL, QM-QC
Loan CLAY, CL O
O
w
Hlfh r
H
HH
o
Madlum Clay«i oo
Sandy
QRAVEL QRAVEL O
QP SANOS 00
SIltyQRAVELS
SM-8C o
I-H
Low and SC t-1
T!
O
TI
Gravo! ly and W
Very Low
Sandy CLAYS
CL
W
oo
SW-SM,
Sandy SP-SM h«av« 1oOOkg/m
/and SM du« to
QRAVELS
In «Itu 1920 kg/m
fraozing of
por» water
10 10O
P«rc«ntag* fln*r than 0-02mm
* 100% «aturatlon, froat p*n«tratlon
Figure 9.3 Average rate ofheê plotted against per-centage finer than 0.02rv°nfrom rat*
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
labor-atory tests of a range of^ Mr al soils (after Kaplar, 1974)
Table 93 FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOILS RELATED TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION (AFTER us

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND KREBS AND WALKER 1971)
Group Description
Fl Gravelly soils: 3-20% finer than 0.02mm

F2 Sands: 3-15% finer than 0.02mm
F3 (a) Gravelly soils: >20% finer than 0.02mm
(b) Sands (except silty fine sands): > 15% finer than 0.02mm
(b) Clays: PI>12
(c) Varved clays: with uniform conditions
F4 (a) Silts: including sandy silts
(b) Fine silty sands: > 15% finer than 0.02mm
(c) Lean clays: PI<12
(d) Varved clays: with non-uniform conditions
frost susceptibility and permeability with grading and plasticity Índex

suitable for preliminary identification based on recommendations
by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (1970). A similar
classification system (Table 9.3) involving grading and plasticity was
established by Linell et al. (1963) and is used by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers to assess frost susceptibility for pavement design. Once
again the critical particle size is given as 0.02mm. The groups are in
order of increasing frost susceptibility, with group F4 soils being
particularly frost susceptible. A relationship showing the average rate
of heave (mm/day) for a range of soil groups, defined by the Unified
system, is given in Figure 9.3.
Migration of water and frost heaving are also influenced by the
mineralogy of the clay fraction. Clay minerals with expandable
structures are able to hold more water but the water is relatively
immobile compared with non-expandable clay minerals. Conse-
quently, strong frost heaving is more likely to be associated with soils
where the fines are devoid of montmorillomite and related minerals.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
REFERENCES
AASHTO, 1982. Standard specifications for transportador! materials and methods of

testing and sampling. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
ASTM, 1970. Standard test method for classification of soils for engineering purposes.
American Association for Testing and Materials, ASTM Designation D2487-1969.
Abdelhamid, M. S. and Krizek, R. J., 1976. At rest lateral earth pressure of a
consolidating clay. Proceedings of ASCE Journal ofthe Geotechnical Engineering
División, 102: 721-738.
Agarwai, K. B. and Ghanekar, K. D., 1970. Prediction of CBR from plasticity
characteristics of soils. Proceedings of 2nd South-east Asían Conference on Soil
Engineering, Singapore, 571-576.
Al-Hussaini, M. M., 1977. Contribution to the engineering soil classification of
cohesionless soils. Final report, miscellaneous paper S-77-21, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experimení Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 70pp.
Al-Hussaini, M. M. and Townsend, F. C., 1975. 'Investigation of K 0 testing in
cohesionless soils.' Technical Report S-75-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 70pp.
Altmeyer, W. T., 1955. Discussion of engineering properties of expansive clays.
Proceedings ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation División, 81.
Atterberg, A., 1911. Lerornas fórhallande till vatten, deras plasticitetsgránser cch
plastiitetsgrader (The behaviour of clays with water, their limits of plasticity and
their degrees of plasticity). Kungliga Lantbruksakademiens Handlingar och Tidskrift,
50(2): 132-158; also in International Mitteilungen für Bodenkunde, 1: 10-43.
Azzouz, A. S., Krizek, R. J. and Corotis, R. B., 1976. Regression analysis of soil
compressibility. Soils and Foundations, 16(2): 19-29.
BS 1377, 1975. Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes, British
Standards Institution.
BS 5930,1981. Code of practice for site investigations. British Standards Institution.
BSI 1957. Site Investigation. British Standard Code of Practice, CP 2001.
Beskow, G., 1935. Soil freezing and frost heaving with special application to roads and
railways. Swedish Geotechnical Society, Series C, no. 375.
Bishop, A. W., 1958. Test requirements of measuring the coe^cient of earth pressure at
rest. Proceedings of Conference on Earth Pressure Problt is, Bru;¿ els, 1: 2-14.
Black, W. P. M., 1961. The calculation of laboratory and in-sitM valúas of California
bearing ratio from bearing capacity data. Geotechnique, 11 -21
Black, W. P. M., 1962. A method of estimating the CBR of cohesi > „ soils, ai piasticity
data. Geotechnique, 12: 271-272.
Bjerrum, L., 1954. Geotechnical properties of Norwegian marim. clays. Geotechnique,
4: 49-69.
Bjerrum, L., 1972. Embankments on soft ground. Proceedings of ASCE Specialty
Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue
University, 2: 1-54.
122
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
REFERENCES 123
Bjerrum, L. and Simons, N. E., 1960. Comparison of shear strength characteristics of

normally Consolidated clays. Proceedings ofthe ASCE Research Conference on the
Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, Boulder: 711-726.
Bowles, J. E., 1982. Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 816pp.
Bozozuk, M. and Leonards, G. A., 1972. The Gloucester test fill. Proceedings ofthe
Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue University, 1: 299-317.
Brooker, E.W. and Ireland, H. O., 1965. Earth pressures at rest related to stress
history. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2: 1-15.
Burland, J. B. 1975. Discussion. Proceedings ofóth Regional Conference for África on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1: 168-169.
Campanella, R. G. and Vaid, Y. P., 1972. A simple K0-triaxial cell. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 9: 249-260.
Caquot, A. and Kerisel, J., 1966. Traite de Mechanique des Sois. Gauthier-Villars,
París, 509pp.
Cárter, M., 1983. Geotechnical Engineering Handbook. Pentech Press, London, 226pp.
Casagrade, A., 1932a. Discussion on frosí heaving. Proc. Highways Research Board,
12: 169.
Casagrande, A., 1932b. Research on the Atterberg limits of soils. Public Roads, 13(8):
121-136.
Casagrande, A., 1948. Classification and identificaíion of soils. Transactions ASCE,
113: 901-932.
Casagrande, A. and Fadum, R. E., 1940. Notes on soil testingfor engineering purposes.
Harvard University Gradúate School of Engineering, publication 268.
Castro, G., 1969. Liquefaction ofSands. Harvard Soil Mechanics Series, No. 81,112pp.
Chen, F. H., 1988. Foundations on Expansive Soils. Development in Geotechnical
Engineering, no. 12, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 280pp.
Coulomb, C.A., 1773 (1976). Essai sur une application des regles de maximus et
minimus á quelques problémes de statique, relatifs á l'architecture. Mémoies de
Mathématique et de Physique, Presentes a l'Académie Royale des Siences, par divers
Savns, et lüs dans ses Assemblées París, 7: 343-382 (Volume for 1773 published in
1776).
de Graft-Johnson, J. W. S. and Bhatia, H. S., 1969. The engineering characteristics of
the lateritic gravéis of Ghana. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, México, 2: 13-43.
de Graft-Johnson, J. W. S., Bhatia, H. S. and Yaboa, S. L., 1972. Influence of geology
and physical properties on strength characteristics of lateritic gravéis for road
pavemenís. Highway Research Board Record, 405: 87-104.
ESOPT. 1982. Proceedings of 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Amsterdam.
Edén, W. J., 1971. Sample triáis in overconsolidated sensitive clay. In: Sampling ofSoil
and Rock, ASTM special technical publication no. 483.
Flaate, K. and Preber, T., 1974. Stability of road embankments. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 11: 72-88.
Fredlund, D. G. 1969. Consolidometer test precedural factors affecting swell proper-
ties. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Expansive Clay Soils, Texas,
435-456.
Fredlund, D. G., Hasan, J. U. and Filson, H. L., 1980. The prediction of total heave.
Proceedings of 4íh International Conference on Expansive Soils, 1-17.
Gibbs, H.J., 1969. Discussion on expansive soils and moisture movement in partially
saturated soils. Proceedings of7th International conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. México City.
Gibbs, H. J. and Holtz, W. G., 1957. Research on determining the density of sand by
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
spoon penetration testing. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Soil

Mechantes and Foundation Engineering, London, 1: 35-39.
Gibson, R. E., 1953. Experimental determination of the true cohesión and true angle of
internal friction in clays. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, 126-130.
Glossop, R. and Skempton, A. W. 1945. Particle size in silts and sands. J. Inst. Civil
Engineers, 25: 81-105.
Gregg, L. E., 1960. Earthworks. In: K. B. Woods (Editor), Highway Engineering
Handbook, McGraw-Hill.
Hansbo, S., 1975. Jordmatariallára. Almquist and Wiksell Fórlag AB, Stockholm,
218pp.
Harrison, J. A. 1988. Using the BS cone penetrometer for the determination of the
plástic limit of soils. Geotechnique 38: 433—438.
Harris, C. 1987. Mechanisms of mass movement in periglacial environments. In: Slope
Stability (Eds. M. G. Anderson and K. S. Richards), John Wiley, 531-560.
Hazen, A., 1911. Discussion of Dams on Sand Foundations. Transactions ASCE, 73:
199-203.
Hilf, J. W., 1975. Compacted Fill. In: H. F. Winterkorn and H. Y. Fang (Editors),
Foundation Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinholcí.
Holtz, R. D. and Broms, B. B., Sweden. Proceding of ASCE Speciality Conference on
Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue University, 1:
435-464.
Holtz, R. D. and Holm, G., 1979. Test embankment on an organic silty clay.
Proceeding oflth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Brighton, 3: 79-86.
Holtz, R. D. and Kovacs, W. D., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 733pp.
Holtz, W. G. and Gibbs, H. J., 1956. Engineering properties of expansive clays.
Transactions ASCE, 121: 641-677.
INSITU. 1986. Proceedings of ASCE Speciality Conference. INSITU 86, Blacksburg.
ISOPT. 1988. Proceedings of Ist International Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Orlando.
Jennings, J. E.B. and Knight, K. 1957. The prediction of total heave from the double
oedometer test. Trans. S. Afr. Instn. Civ. Engrs., 7: 285-291.
Johnson, L. D., 1980. Field test sections on expansive soil. Proceedings of 4th
International Conference on Expansive Soils.
Joslin, J. G., 1959. Óhio's typical moisture - density curves. Symposium on Application
of Soil Testing in Highway Design and Construction, ASTM Special Technical
Publication, 239: 119-123.
Kaplar, C. W., 1974. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research Laboratory, CRREL Report,
250.
Karlsson, R., 1977. Consistency Limits. Swedish Council for Building Research,
document D6, 40pp.
Kenney, T. C., 1959. Discussion of Geotechnical properties of glacial lake clays.
Proceedings ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation División, 85:
67-79.
Kenney, T. C., 1976. Formal and geotechnical characteristics of glacial-lake carved
soils. Laurits Bjerrum Memorial Volume - Contributions to Soil Mechanics,
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, 15-39.
Kezdi, A., 1974. Handbook of Soil Mechanics, Vol. J: Soil Physics. Elsevier.
Konrad, J-M. and Morgenstern, N. R., 1981. The segregation potential of a freezing
soil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18: 482-491.
Krebs, R. D. and Walker, E. D., 1971. Highway Materials. McGraw-Hill.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
REFERENCES 125
Publication 272, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, 107pp.
Ladd, C. C., 1975. Foundation Design of Embankments Constructed on Connecíicut
Valley Varved Clays. Research Report R75-7, Geotechnical Publication 343,
Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 438pp.
Ladd, C. C. and Foote, R., 1974. A new design procedure for stability of soft clay.
Proceedings ASCE Journal ofthe Geotechnical Engineering División, 100: 763-786.
Ladd, C. C., Foote, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F. and Poulos, H. G., 1977.
Stress-deformation and strength characteristics. Proceedings of 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 2: 421-494.
Ladd, C. C. and Luscher, U., 1965. Engineering properíies ofthe soils underlying the
M.I.T. campus. Research report R65-68, Department of Civil Engineering, Mass-
achusetts Institute of Technology.
Ladd, R. S., 1965. Use of electrical pressure transducers to measure soil pressure.
Research Report R65-48. Soil Publication 180, Department of Civil Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 79pp.
Lambe, T. W. and Whitrnan, R. V., 1979. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley, New York,
553pp.
Lañe, K. S. and Washburn, D. E., 1946. Capillary tests by capillorimeter and soil filled
tubes. Proceedings Highway Research Board.
La Rochelle, P., Trak, B., Tavenas, F. and Roy, M., 1974. Failure of a test embankment
on a sensitive Champlain clay deposit. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 11:142-164.
Leonards, G. A., 1976. Estimating consolidation settlements of shallow foundations on
overconsolidated clays, Transportation Research Board, special report 163.
Leonards, G. A. and Girault, P., 1961. A study ofthe one-dimensional consolidation
test. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, París, 1: 116-130.
Liao, S. C. and Whitman, R. V. 1986. Overburden Correction Factors for SPT in Sand.
Proceedings ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering División, 112: 373-380.
Liu, T. K., 1967. A review of engineering soil classification systems. Highway Research
Board Record, 156: 1-22.
Lowe, J., Zacchea, P. F. and Feldman, H. S., —964. Consolidation testing with back
pressure. Proceeding ofASCE Journal ofSoil Mechanics and Foundation División, 90:
69-86.
Massarsch, K. R., 1979. Lateral earth pressure in normally consolidated clay.
Proceedings of7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Brighton, 2: 245-250.
Menard, L. and Rousseau, J., 1962. L'evaluaíion des tassements tendances nouvelles.
Sols-Soils, 1: 13-28.
Menzenbach, E., 1967. Le capacidad suportante de pilotes y grupos de pilotes.
Technologia (Ingeneria Civil), Series 2, No. 1.
Mesri, G., 1973. The coefficient of secondary compression. Proceedings ASCE Journal
ofSoil Mechanics and Foundation División, 99: 123-137.
Mesri, G. and Godlewski, P. M., 1977. Time and stress compressibility interrelation-
ships. Proceedings ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering División, 103:
417-^30.
Meyerhof, G. G., 1936. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils.
Proceedings ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation División, 82.
Meyerhof, G. G., 1974. General Report: outside Europe. Proceedings of European
Symposium on Penetration Testing, Stockholm, 2: 40-48.
Mielenz, R. C. and King, M. E., 1955. Physical-chemical properíies and engineering
performance of clays. Calif. Div. Mines Bull., 196-254.
Miller, R. D., 1972. Freezing and heaving of saturated and unsaturated soils. Highways
Research Record, 393: 1-11.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Milligan, V., 1972. Discussion of Embankments on soft ground. Proceedings ofASCE

Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures.
Purdue University, 3: 41-48.
Ministry of Transport, 1969. Specificaíion for road and bridge works. HMSO.
Mitchell, J. K. and Gardner, W. S., 1975. In-situ measurement of volume change
characteristics. Proceedings ofthe ASCE Specialty Conference on In-situ measure-
ment ofSoil Properties. Raleigh, N. Carolina, 2: 333.
Mitchell, J. K. 1976. Fundamental of Soil Behaviour. John Wiley, 422pp.
Morin, W. J. and Todor, P.C., 1977. Latentes and laíeritic soils and other problem
soils ofthe tropics. United States Agency for International Development, AlO/csd
3682.
Peck, R. B. and Bazaraa, A. R. S. S., 1969. Discussion. Proceedings ASCE Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation División, 95: 305-309.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. and Thornburn, T. H., 1974. Foundation Engineering. John
Wiley, London, 514pp.
Penner, E. 1968. Particle size as a basis for predicting frost action in soils. Soils and
Foundations 8: 21-29.
Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H., 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics.
John Wüey, New York, 41ípp.
Rama Rao, R. and Fredlund, D.G., 1988. Closed-form heave solutions for expansive
soils. Proceedings ASCE Journal ofGeotechnical Engineering División, 114: 573-588.
Rankine, W. J. M., 1857. On the stability of loóse earíh. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society, London, 147.
Reed, M. A., Lovel, C. W., Alíschaeffi, A. G. and Wood, L. E. 1979. Frost heaving rate
predicted from pore size distribution. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 16: 463-472.
Robertson, P. K. and Companella, R. G. 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration tests,
Part I: Sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 718-733.
Roscoe, K. H., Schofield, A. N. and Wroth, C. P., 1958. On the yielding of soils.
Geotechnique, 8: 2-52.
Seed, H. B., Woodward, R. J. and Lundgran, R., 1962. Prediction of swelling potential
of compacted clays. Proceedings ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
División, 88: 107-131.
Seed, H. B. 1976. Evaluation of soil liquefaction effects on level ground during
earthquakes. ASCE Speciality Session, Liquefaction Problems in Geotechnical
Engineering, Preprint 2752, ASCE National Convention, Sept./Oct., 1976, 1-105.
Simons, N. E., 1958. Discussion of test requirements for measuring the coefñcient of
1 earth pressure at rest. Proceedings of Conference on Earth pressure Problems,
Brussels, 3: 40-53.
Singh, R., Henkel, D. J. and Sangrey, D. A., 1973. Shear and K0 swelling of
overconsolidated clay. Proceedings ofSth International Conference on Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundation Engineering, 367-376.
Skempton, A. W., 1944. Notes on the compressibility of clays. Quat. Journ. Geol. Soc.,
100:119-135.
Skempton, A. W., 1953. The colloidal activity of clays. Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation ""•qineering, Zurich, 57-61.
Skempton, A. W., 1954. The pore pressure coeL. . snts A and B. Geotechnique 4:
143-147.
Skempton, A. W. and Northey, R. D., 1952. The sensitivity of clays. Geotechnique, 3:
30-53.
Skempton, A. W. and Bjerrum, L., 1957. A contribution to the settlement analysis of
foundations on clay. Geotechnique, 7: 168-178.
Skempton, A. W. 1986. Standard penetration test procedures and effects in sand of
overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation.
Geotechnique 36: 425-447.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
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 forcé 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, México City, 1-46.
Taylor, D. W., 1948. Fundamentáis 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 contení. Soils and Foundations, 23: 56-74.
Tomlinson, M. J., 1980. Foundation Design and Construction. Pitman, London,
793pp.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1970. A guide to the structural design of
new pavements. TRRL, Road Note 29, HMSO.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970. Engineering and design: pavement design for
frost conditions. Corps of Engineers EM-110-345-306.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1960. The Unified Soil Classifica-
tion System. Technical memorándum 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 Índex and
percentage clay fraction of soils. Civil Engineer in South África, 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 Forcé
Base. Proceedings ofASCE Journal ofSoil Mechanics and Foundation División, 90:
197-20.
Weston, D. J., 1980. Expansive roadbed treatment for Southern África. Proceedings of
4íh 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 índex 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.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
INDEX
AASHTO soil classification system 14, see also under AASHTO, BS, Unifíed
21 27, 34, 35 systems
and CBR valúes 102 Collapse potential
compared with the Unifíed system 37, and density 111, 112
38 Coefficient of compressibility 56, 57
AASHTO standard compaction tests 44 typical valúes 61
Activity 11 Coefficient of curvature 17
and expansive minerals 107 Coeffícient of earth pressure 92-96
and plasíiciíy índex 106 active 92, 93, 95
and swelling potential 110 passive 92, 93, 95
Adsorption complex 4 at rest 95
Angle of internal friction 12, 89 Coeffícient of permeability 50,51
Angle of shearing resistance 12, 76, 89 and consolidation 65
ASTM/Unified soil classification and grading 51,53
system 14 and soil classification 51
and CBR valúes 102 typical valúes 51
and frost susceptibiliíy 121 Coefficients of secondary
see also Unifíed soil classification consolidation 68, 69
system Coefficient of uniformity 17
Atterberg limits Coefficient of volume
see Consistency limits compressibility 56, 57
Cohesión 6, 76-78
BS soil classification system 14, 17, Cohesión soils 4
27-29 Compacted density 43^47
BS soil descriptions 17 and CBR 99, 100
BS standard compaction tests 44 and shear strength 81
Bulk density 39 Compaction tests 43^45, 49
Compressibility 55
California Bearing ratio 2, 97, 98 Coefficient of 56, 57, 61
and liquidity Índex 99 coefficiení of volume 56, 57
and máximum dry density 99, 100 Compression Índex 58
and optimum moisture content 100 modified 58
and plasticity Índex 98, 100 valúes and correlaticns 60
and shear strength 104 Consistency limits . 6, 7
and soil classification 102 and consolidation 11
and suitability índex 99 and expansiveness 106
Casagrande soil classification and shear strength 11
system 14 see also Liquid, Plástic and Shrinkage
Cations 223 limits
Classifícation systems for soils Consolidation 2, 55
review 13, 14 and consistency limits 10
for frost susceptibility 119, 121 and compressibility 65
128
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
and permeabiiity 65 Máximum dry densiíy 45
coefficiení of 65-68 and CBR '99,100
parameíers 55-58 and opíimum moisíure content 46
theory 58 and shear strength 81
Consolídomeíer 55 standard curves for 49
Constrained modulus 60 Modified compression Índex 58
Moisíure content
Drained shear strength and swelling potential 112, 113
see shear strength Moisíure-density curves, íypical 49
Defomation modulus 60 Montmorillonite 106, 107, 121
Dry density 39
Oedomeíer 55
Effective shear strengíh Optimum moisture contení 45
see shear sírength and CBR 100
Effective stresses 76, 78-80 and máximum dry density 46
Expansive soils 11, 12, 105-107 and plasticiíy 46
íypical moislure-densiíy curves 49
Free swell 105
Frost heave 119 Overconsolidaíed clays 86, 87
Frost susceptibility 116, 117
and grading 117-119 Parlicle size distribution
and plasticiíy Índex 119-121 see Grading
and soil classificaíion 119, 121 Permeabiliíy 2
ideníifícation of soil 119 and consolidalion 65
and grading 51, 53
Grading 1-3 and soil classification 51
and frost susceptibility 117-119 coefficient of 50, 51
and permeabiiity 53 Plasticiíy 3, 6
classifications 4 Plasíiciíy índex 7, 11
effects on other properíies 2 and acíiviíy 106
and CBR 98, 100
Hazen's formula 53 and frosl susceplibiliíy 119-121
Hveem síabilometer 97 and swelling poíeníial 107, 112, 113
Plástic limit 6-8, 10-12
Ice segregaíion 116 and optimum moisture content 46
Ilute 107 Píate bearing tesí 74, 75
Internal friction, angle of 12,89 Poisson's raíio 60, 73
Kaolinite 107 Relaíive densiíy 40
Lateral earth pressures 92-96 Secondary compression 55

see also coefficient of earíh pressure coefficienís of 68, 69
Linear shrinkage Sensiíiviíy 83
and swelling poíential 110 Seítlement 58, 59
Liquidity Índex 82 correcíions 62,65
and CBR 99 of sands and gravéis 70-75
and shear strength 81-84 Shearing resisíance, angle of 76
and sensitivity 83 Shear sírengíh 2, 76-92
Liquid limit 6-8, 10-12 and CBR 104
and CBR 99 and consisíency limiís 10
and swelling potential 110 and liquidiíy índex 82
and swelling pressure 115 and SPT valúes 88
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
PRC i-K. í ic,b
and swelíing poteníial 110 Suiíability índex 99

drained 89
Swell Índex 114
eífective 89, 90
of ciays 89, 90 Swelíing potentiaí Í07
and densiíy 111, 112
of granular soils 90-92
parameters 76 and linear shrinkage 110
remoulded '81-83 and liquid limit 112
total and effecíive 78-80 and moisture contení 112-, 113
undrained 80-88 and plasticiíy Índex 107-109, 112
Shrinkage limit 6, 9-11 and shrinkage limit 110, 112
Sieve analysis and vertical pressure 112, 113
see Grading Swelíing pressure 113-115
Sieve sizes 3 and liquid limit 115
Smectite 106 and SPT valué 115
Soil classification systems, and swell Índex 114
see Classification systems
see also under AASHTO, BS, Unified Total and efiective stress 76
systems analysis 78-80
Stability analysis 79, 80
Standard compaction tesis 43-45 Undrained shear strengíh
one point test 49 see shear sírengíh
Standard peneíraíion test 40-43, 70-72 *Unified soil classification system 14
and seítlemení 71, 72 and CBR valúes 102
and undrained shear strength 88 and frost susceptibílity 121
Suction pressure 116 compared with oíher systems 38
Young's modulus 59
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation

Íhit'S: @seismicisolation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Íhit'S: @seismicisolation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Íhit'S: @seismicisolation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ÍHIT'S

Engineers and geologists are often expected to give predictions of soil

CHAPTER 1 GRADING AND PLASTICITY 1

CHAPTER 2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 13

2.1 COMMON SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 14

3.1 NATURAL DENSITY 39

4.1 TYPICAL VALÚES 51

5.1 COMPRESSIBILITY OF CLAYS 55

CHAPTER 6 SHEAR STRENGTH 76

6.1 THE CHOICE OF TOTAL OR EFFECTIVE STRESS

CHAPTER 7 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO 97

7.1 THE TEST METHOD 97

8.1 IDENTIFICATION 105

CHAPTER 9 FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY 116

9.1 ICE SEGREGATION 116

It can be readily appreciated by even the most untrained eye that

1.1.1 The influence of grading on soil properties

today, despite the development in analytical techniques which has

compaction and consolidation history, and the types of the clay

1.1.2 Standard grading divisions and sieve sizes

Just as the concepts of particle size and grading can be readily

British Standard and MIT

Unif ied Soil Classif¡catión System

Grain size ( mm)

0.001 O.01 0.1 1 10 100 10OO

Table 1.1 COMPARISON OF STANDARD SIEVES TYPICALLY USED IN SOIL TESTING

75mm 3in 75mm 3in

1.2.1 Consistency limits

"'" ' " ''. ' " . '

••'•' •- '••'.' :'•' ';•

1.2.2 Development of the liquid and plástic limit tests

No. of Factor No. of Factor No. of Factor

15 0.95 22 0.99 29 1.01

Liquid limit = moisture contení of test specimen x factor F.

much-needed standardisation: a metal dish replaced the cupped hand

1.2.3 The shrinkage limit test

shrinkage limit tests on a number of Swedish clays, found that

For ploís Ap below íhe A-line

This procedure ío deíermine íhe shrinkage limií (for soils prepared in

clay to swell in the presence of water and may be used to i

1.2.5 Limitations on the use of consistency limits

The purpose of a soil classifícation system is to group together soils

In this respect, classifícation systems are more applicable where soils

2.1 COMMON SOIL CLASSIFÍCATION SYSTEMS

The most widely used engineering soil classifícation systems through-

Poorly graded gravéis, gravel-sand

Silty gravéis, poorly graded

Clayey sands, poorly graded

Inorganic silts and very fine sands,

"a Inorganic clays of low to médium

Highly organic soils Peat and other highly organic soils Pt

FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS AND FINE-GRAINED

uniformity, Cu, and the coefficient of curvature, Ce, of the grading

Table 2.3 THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: FIELD IDENTIFICATION

?í|l -a o Wide range in grain sizes and substantial SW

2J "a amounts of all intermedióte paríicle sizes

ís o -« Non-plastic fines (for identification procedures,

* o, Médium None to Slight to

Readily identified by colour, odou; pongy feel

rt > "c ° ° ~* o '° E