Correlation of Cohesion Based on SPT-N Values and Finding Liquid Limit Based on Plasticity

Index in United Kingdom: Case Study

Abdelrahman S. Abu Serriya and Bashir H. Osman

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sinnar, Sinnar, Sudan

Key words: Cohesion, standard penetration test, Abstract: This study is an attempt to evaluate the
Atterberg limit, PLAXIS, the UK cohesion values based on number of blows of Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) in the clay of the United Kingdom.
To develop equation, twenty one samples were collected
and The SPT-N values were between 6 and 54. Also, the
cohesion values varied between 5 and 265 kPa. The
Corresponding Author: correlation analysis was conducted for cohesion and
Abdelrahman S. Abu Serriya number of blows in SPT (SPT-N). The proposed equation
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sinnar, was validated using 5 independent values and the
Sinnar, Sudan estimated values of cohesion based on SPT-N fall in the
range of of actual values. Furthermore, real applications
Page No.: 3633-3639 practice include bearing capacity and elastic settlement
Volume: 15, Issue 21, 2020 were used to validate the proposed equation using
ISSN: 1816-949x multiple way for calculation by previous equation and
Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences PLAXIS Model and they found that the proposed equation
Copy Right: Medwell Publications is applicable for using in geotechnical application.

INTRODUCTION Hara et al.[4] evaluated the relationship between

undrained shear strength and SPT. They collected data
The soil strength is an important matter for all from 25 sites in Japan. The proposed equation is . They
designer in geotechnical field. The soil strength is mainly compared their equation with previous data from
based on cohesion (c), friction angle and modulus of Mikasa[31] and Yanase[32] studies and the proposed
elasticity. Also, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is equation gave closed values for actual data from these
widely used in evaluation of soil strength. Many studies.
researchers in the past have found relationship between Stroud[5] collected 120 samples from 13 sites in
SPT and cohesion in clay soil. These include Sowers[1], London in the UK. He correlated between undrained shear
Hatanaka and Uchida[2], Terzaghi and Peck[3], strength and SPT. The proposed equation is.
Hara et al.[4], Stroud[5], Schmertmann[6], McCarthy[7], Sivrikaya and Togrol[15] collected 1190 samples from
Nixon[8], Ajayi and Balogun[9], Kulhawy and Mayne[10], private companies, universities and one public institution
Murthy[11], Serajuddin and Chowdhury[12], Bowles[13], in different locations in Turkey. They correlated between
Sivrikaya and Togrol[14], Sivrikaya and Togrol[15], unconfined compressive strength and SPT (field,
Fattah et al.[16], Brown and Hettiarachchi[17], correction) according to a different type of soil and
Kalantary et al. , Hettiarachchi and Brown[19],
[18]
different type of tests. The proposed equations are for CH
Sivrikaya[20], Nassaji and Kalantari[21], Bashar[22], for CL for clay and for fine-grained soils where c in all
Mahmoud[23], Shaha[24], McCarthy[25], Alam et al.[26], previous equations is in kPa. They compared their
Kumar et al.[27], Singh et al.[28], Yusof and Zabidi[29] and proposed equation with Sivrikaya and Togrol[14], Stroud[5]
Puri et al.[30]. and Sowers[33] equations. For CH type, Sivrikaya and

3633
 J. Eng. Applied Sci., 15 (21): 3633-3639, 2020

Togrol[14] closed enough to their equation. Sivrikaya and limit and plasticity index equation is found by regression
Togrol[14] and Stroud[5] closed enough to their equations. analysis as well. The linear relationship is selected based
For clay, their equation is underestimation for on previous comprehensive studies.
Nixon[8]. For fine-grained soil, Sivrikaya and Togrol[14]
and Terzaghi and Peck[3] closed enough to their equations. Model development: To validate a model, two way of
Edil et al.[34] collected huge data from Wisconsin in validation is used: the first way is comparison between the
the USA. They compared their data (SPT versus cohesion) real values of independent five samples and the estimated
with previous equations and they found that Hara et al.[4] values based on the research proposed equations and this
is the best fit for their data. way is used to validate both: the proposed equation of
Singh et al.[28] collected 200 samples from Imphal cohesion and SPT-N and the proposed equation of liquid
in India. They correlated between SPT and limit and plasticity index. The second way of validation is
unconfined compressive strength. The proposed equation two parts. The first part is comparison between the net
is and they compared their equation with previous studies
allowable bearing capacity calculated using Terzaghi[35]
like Terzaghi and Peck[3], Hara et al.[4], Stroud[5],
equation based on real values and estimated values. In
Sowers[33], Nixon[8], Sivrikaya and Togrol[14] and
addition, the net allowable bearing capacity calculated
Hettiarachchi and Brown[19]. And they found that Terzaghi
using Terzaghi and Peck[36] equation.
and Peck[3], Stroud[5] and Sivrikaya and Togrol[14]
equations were the best fit with their data and their
proposed equation. The first part explained in next: Firstly, the net
allowable bearing capacity is calculated based on
MATERIALS AND METHODS Terzaghi[35] equation using real values. The Terzaghi[35]
equation is:
The methodology starts from data collection and data
preparation. Then, the next step is model development and q u  1.3c' N c +qN q +0.4 BN  (2)
model validation in the end.
q  Df (3)
Data collection: Twenty-one samples of clay soil are
collected from private sector company in the UK. The
qu-q
data contains SPT, cohesion, liquid limit and plastic limit q all net   (4)
FS
results. The depth of samples is between 2 and 4 m depth.
Furthermore, sieve analysis, dry density and moisture
content are conducted for the samples. The SPT-N values Where:
were between 6 and 54. Also, the cohesion values varied qu = The ultimate bearing capacity (kN mG2)
between 5 and 265 kPa. While the liquid limit values vary B = Breadth of foundation was used (m) which
between 21 and 92% and the plasticity index values vary equal 1 m
between 5 and 70%. Nc, Nq = Bearing capacity factors
and Nγ
Data preparation: The SPT-N values are corrected for Df = Depth measured from the ground surface to
field procedures and corrections are applied using the under of foundation (m) which equal 1.5 m
following equation: c’ = Cohesion (KN mG2)
qall(net) = The net allowable bearing capacity (KN mG2)
NHBSR FS = A factor of safety which equal 3 as
N 60  (1)
60 recommended by Das and Sivakugan[37]

Where: Secondly, the net allowable bearing capacity is

N60 = The corrected standard penetration number for calculated based on Terzaghi[35] equation using the
field condition estimated values according to the same previous equation.
N = The measured value of standard penetration test in Thirdly, the net allowable bearing capacity is calculated
the field using Terzaghi and Peck[36] equation and it is:
ηH = Hammer efficiency (%)
ηB = Correction for borehole diameter q all net   15.13N
ηS = Sampler correction (5)
ηR = Correction for rod length
The second part is validation using calculation of the
Model development: The regression analysis is used to maximum elastic settlement and compared between
find the proposed equation for cohesion and SPT-N. liquid calculation model based on PLAXIS 3D Model and

3634
 J. Eng. Applied Sci., 15 (21): 3633-3639, 2020

Janbu, etc. equation. The elastic Settlement (Se) is 300

calculated for ensure of safety of the net allowable bearing 250 y = 3.71x+14.75
2

Cohesion (kPa)
capacity. And it is calculated based on PLAXIS R = 0.66
200
Model and Janbu, etc., equation is:
150

qo B 100
Se  A1A 2 (6)
Es 50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Where:
N-value of SPT
qo = The net applied pressure on the foundation which
equal the maximum of the net allowable bearing Fig. 1: The linear relationship between the cohesion
capacity of estimated values and actual values based on SPT values of clay in the UK
(kPa mG2)
μs = Poisson’s ratio of soil which equal 0.35 250
Stround[5]
Es = Average modulus of elasticity of the soil under the 200 Brown and Hattiarchchi[17]

Cohesion (kPa)
foundation which equal 20000 kN mG2 Low PI clay[6]
150 Research-UK
L = Length of the foundation which equal 1 m
B = Width of the foundation which equal 1 m 100
H = Depth of the bottom of the foundation to a rigid 50
layer which equal = 4 0
A1 = A function based on H/B and L/B 0 10 20 30 40 50
A2 = A function based on N-value of SPT

It is noted that the previous method of validation is Fig. 2: Comparison of cohesion based on SPT value
used only for the proposed equation of cohesion and between the research equation and the previous
SPT-N. studies

proposed equation by Stroud, Brown and Hettiarachchi[27]

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
and Schmertmann[6] are closed to the research proposed
equation. Furthermore, the country of Stroud study and
Model development: The correlation between SPT-N the research country are the same one which is the UK.
values and cohesion was developed to find the empirical Figure 2 shows comparison of cohesion based on SPT
formula. In addition, the plasticity index and liquid limit value between the research equation from side and the
is correlated to find empirical formula. The proposed previous studies from other side.
equations are in the following.
Correlation between SPT-N versus cohesion:
Correlation between SPT-N versus cohesion: Correlation Analyses between liquid limit and plasticity
Correlation Analyses is found relationship between index is conducted and the proposed equation is:
SPT-N and cohesion and the proposed equation
is:
PI  0.95LL-22.79 (8)
c  3.71N+14.75 (7)
Where:
PI = Plasticity Index
Where:
LL = Liquid Limit
c = Cohesion
N = Number of blows in the standard penetration test Figure 3 shows the linear relationship between
plasticity index and liquid limit in clay of the UK and the
Figure 1 shows the linear relationship between the coefficient of determination is 0.86.
cohesion based on SPT values of clay in the UK. The The research proposed equation is compared to
coefficient of determination is 0.66 and it indicate for previous studies and the comparison shows that the
directly proportional one to another. proposed equation by Naveena et al.[38] and
The research proposed equation is compared to Kuriakose, etc, are closed to the research proposed
previous studies and the comparison shows that the equation.

3635
 J. Eng. Applied Sci., 15 (21): 3633-3639, 2020

Table 1: The actual values and the estimated values of cohesion based on SPT-N
N-value of SPT Actual value of cohesion (kPa) for clay in the UK Estimated value of cohesion (kPa) based on research equation
16 64 74.11
32 117 133.47
42 190 170.57
53 200 211.38
54 200 215.09

Table 2: The actual and the estimated values of plasticity index based on liquid limit
Liquid limit (%) Actual value of plasticity index (%) for clay in the UK Estimated value of plasticity index (%) for clay based on research equation
25 12 0.95
37 14 12.35
49 25 23.75
55 33 29.45
70 45 43.7

-2
80 The net allowable bearing capacity (kN m )
y = 0.95x-22.79 using the real values
70 -2
The net allowable bearing capacity (kN m )
R2 = 0.86
Plasticity index (%)

60 using estimated values based on research equation

The net allowable bearing capacity (kN m-2)

Being capacity (kN m )

-2
50 900
800 based on Terzaghi and Peck[36] equation
40 700
600
30 500
400
20 300
10 200
100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Liquid limit (%) N-value of SPT

Fig. 3: The linear relationship between plasticity index Fig. 5: The net allowable bearing capacity calculated
and liquid limit in clay of the UK based on real values and estimated values and the
net allowable bearing capacity based on Terzaghi
100 Norwegain clays, Kuriakose, etc and Peck[36] formula
Plasticity index (%)

90 Naveena et al.[38]
80
70 Research-UK
60 the 20% of the estimated values fall in the range
50
40 of 20-30% of liquid limit values which could be
30 ignored.
20
10
0
Figure 5 shows the net allowable bearing capacity
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 calculated based on real values and estimated values and
Liquid limit (%) the net allowable bearing capacity based on Terzaghi and
Peck[36] formula
It is clear from (Fig. 5) that the net allowable bearing
Fig. 4: Comparison of plasticity index and liquid limit
between the research equation and the previous capacity based on Terzaghi and Peck[36] formula is
studies overestimated of other method and the net allowable
bearing capacity using estimated values is closed to real
Figure 4 shows comparison of plasticity index and values from other method. The maximum elastic
liquid limit between the research equation and the settlement is calculated using PLAXIS 3D and the
previous studies. parameters of soil and load that used in soil
settlement model for clay in PLAXIS 3D is shown in
Model validation: Table 1 shows the actual values and Table 3.
the estimated values of cohesion based on SPT-N. From Figure 6 the PLAXIS model for the distribution of
Table 1, it is clear that the estimated values fall in the settlement of square foundation with B equal 1 m for
range of of the real values of cohesion based on SPT-N. sample of clay that has SPT value equal 32.
Table 2 shows the actual and the estimated values of The maximum elastic settlement based on different
plasticity index based on liquid limit. calculation is still less than Meyerh of’s theory which is
From Table 2, it is clear that 80% of the 25 mm according to Fig. 7. Figure 7 shows the maximum
estimated values fall in the range of of the real elastic settlement calculated based on PLAXIS Model and
values of cohesion based on SPT-N. Furthermore, Janbu, etc.

3636
 J. Eng. Applied Sci., 15 (21): 3633-3639, 2020

Table 3: The parameters of soil and load that used in soil settlement model for clay in PLAXIS 3D
Soil Clay
Material mode Mohr-Coulomb
Drainage type Undrained B1 Cohesion
Minimum of the real values and estimated
Friction angle 0
Unsaturated bulk unit weight (Kn mG3) 17
Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Young’s modulus (kN mG2) 10000
Surface load Maximum of the real values and estimated values of the net allowable bearing capacity Surface load
dimension (m) 1
Undrained B: Undrained or short-term material behaviour in which stiffness is defined in terms of effective properties and strength is defined as
undrained shear strength. A large bulk stiffness for water is automatically applied to make the soil as a whole incompressible and (excess) pore
pressures are calculated, even above the phreatic surface
[*10-3 m]
8.00
7.20
6.40

5.60
4.80

4.00
3.20
2.40
z 1.60

x 0.80
0.00

Fig. 6: The PLAXIS Model for the distribution of settlement of square foundation with B equal 1 m for sample of clay
that has SPT value equal 32
The maximum settlement (mm) based on
PLAXIS 3D 2013 model cohesion based on SPT-N. The second way is comparison
20
The maximum settlement (mm) based between several ways of calculation of the net allowable
on Janbu, etc., equation
18 bearing capacity and another comparison between two
Settlement (mm)

16
14 ways of calculation the maximum elastic settlement. In
12
10 addition, they found that using research equation gives
8 enough accuracy to calculate the net allowable bearing
6
4 capacity and maximum settlement using manual method
2
0 or model method.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Also, twenty-one samples were used to correlate
N-value of SPT linear relationship between plasticity index and liquid
limit. And the proposed equation is PI = 0.95 LL-22.79.
Fig. 7: The maximum elastic settlement calculated based The equation was validated using the first way and it
on PLAXIS Model and Janbu, etc found that the estimated values based on research
equation fall in the range of of the real values of
CONCLUSION plasticity index based on liquid limit.

On the basis of the above findings, the following Funding: This research received no external funding.
conclusions can be drawn: twenty-one samples were used
to correlate linear relationship between SPT-N and Simple summary: This study aims to find the cohesion
cohesion in clay of the UK. Furthermore, the proposed of clay soil in the United Kingdom based on standard
equation is c = 3.71 N+14.75. Also, the equation was penetration test without carry out the test using the
validated using two way: the first way is comparison proposed equation. The proposed equation comes from
between the real values and estimated values and they correlation real data from the field and several method of
found that the estimated values based on research model validations are used and the proposed equation is
equation fall in the range of of the real values of applicable to practice and use.

3637
 J. Eng. Applied Sci., 15 (21): 3633-3639, 2020

REFERENCES 15. Sivrikaya, O. and E. Togrol, 2006. Determination of

undrained strength of fine-grained soils by means of
01. Sowers, G.F., 1954. Modern procedures for SPT and its application in Turkey. Eng. Geol., 86:
underground investigation. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil 52-69.
Eng., 80: 1-11. 16. Fattah, M.Y., H.H. Baqir and O.F. Al-Rawi, 2006.
02. Hatanaka, M. and A. Uchida, 1996. Empirical Field and laboratory evaluation of a soft clay
correlation between penetration resistance and Southern Iraq. Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil
internal friction angle of sandy soils. Soils Found., Engineering Conference, March 28-30, 2006,
36: 1-9. Amman, Jordan, pp: 28-30.
03. Terzaghi, K. and R.B. Peck, 1967. Soil Mechanics in 17. Brown, T. and H. Hettiarachchi, 2008. Estimating
Engineering Practice. 2nd Edn., John Willey and shear strength properties of soils using SPT blow
Sons, New York, USA., pp: 729. counts: An energy balance approach. GeoCongress
04. Hara, A., T. Ohta, M. Niwa, S. Tanaka and T. Banno, Charact. Monit. Model. Geo Syst., 1: 364-371.
1974. Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive 18. Kalantary, F., H. Ardalan and N. Nariman-Zadeh,
soils. Soils Found., 14: 1-12. 2009. An investigation on the Su-NSPT correlation
05. Stroud, M.A., 1974. The standard penetration test in using GMDH type neural networks and genetic
insensitive clays and soft rocks. Proceedings of the algorithms. Eng. Geol., 104: 144-155.
1st European Symposium on Penetration Testing, 19. Hettiarachchi, H. and T. Brown, 2009. Use of SPT
June 5-7, 1974, Stockholm, Sweden, pp: 367-375. blow counts to estimate shear strength properties of
06. Schmertmann, J.H., 1975. Measurement of in situ soils: Energy balance approach. J. Geotech.
shear strength, SOA report. Proceedings of the ASCE Geoenviron. Eng., 135: 830-834.
Spec Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil 20. Sivrikaya, O., 2009. Comparison of artificial neural
Properties, March 1, 1975, Raleigh, North Carolina, networks models with correlative works on
pp: 57-138. undrained shear strength. Eurasian Soil Sci., 42:
07. McCarthy, D.F., 1977. Essentials of Soil Mechanics 1487-1496.
and Foundations. Reston Publishing Company, 21. Nassaji, F. and B. Kalantari, 2011. SPT capability to
Virginia,. estimate undrained shear strength of fine-grained
08. Nixon, I.K., 1982. Standard penetration test: State of soils of Tehran, Iran. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng., 16:
the art report. Proceedings of the 2nd European 1229-1238.
Symposium on Penetration Testing, May 24-27, 22. Bashar, A., 2000. Geotechnical characterization of
1982, Amsterdam, pp: 3-24. Dhaka metropolitan area. M.Sc. Thesis, Bangladesh
09. Ajayi, L. and L. Balogun, 1988. Penetration testing University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka,
in tropical lateritic and residual soils-Nigerian Bangladesh.
experience. Proceedings of the 1st International 23. Mahmoud, M., 2013. Reliability of using Standard
Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, March Penetration Test (SPT) in predicting properties of
20-24, 1988, Orlando, pp: 315-328. silty clay with sand soil. Int. J. Civil Struct. Eng., 3:
10. Kulhway, F.H. and P.W. Mayne, 1990. Manual on 545-556.
estimating soil properties for foundation design. 24. Shaha, N.R., 2013. Relationship between penetration
Report EL-6800, Research Project 1493-6. Electric resistance and strength compressibility
Power Research Institute, Palto, CA., characteristics of soil. M.Sc. Thesis, Bangladesh
http://www.geoengineer.org/EPRI_reports/EL-680 University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka,
0.pdf. Bangladesh.
11. Murthy, V., 1993. Textbook of Soil Mechanics and 25. McCarthy, F.D., 2007. Essentials of Soil Mechanics
Foundation Engineering. CBS Publishers & and Foundations. 7th Edn., Pearson Prentice Hall,
Distributors/Alkem Company, New Delhi, India,.
Ohio, USA, ISBN: 0-13-114560-6.
12. Serajuddin, M. and M. Chowdhury, 1996.
26. Alam, M.J., N.R. Shaha and M.K. Shohug, 2015.
Correlation between standard penetration resistance
Relationship between standard penetration resistance
and unconfined compressive strength of Bangladesh
and strength-compressibility parameters of clay. J.
cohesive deposits. J. Civil Eng. Inst. Eng.
Civil Eng. (IEB.), 43: 115-131.
Bangladesh, 24: 69-83.
27. Kumar, R., K. Bhargava and D. Choudhury, 2016.
13. Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design.
Estimation of engineering properties of soils from
5th Edn., McGraw-Hill Education, New York, USA.,
field SPT using random number generation. INAE
ISBN:9780079122476, Pages: 1175.
Lett., 1: 77-84.
14. Sivrikaya, O. and E. Togrol, 2002. Relations between
SPT-N and qu. Proceedings of the 5th International 28. Singh, N.B., N. Jibanchand and K.R. Devi, 2017.
Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Applicability of standard penetration tests to estimate
September 25-27, 2002, Istanbul Technical undrained shear strength of soils of imphal. Int. J.
University, Istanbul, Turkey, pp: 943-952. Eng. Technol. Sci. Res., 4: 250-255.

3638
 J. Eng. Applied Sci., 15 (21): 3633-3639, 2020

29. Yusof, N. and H. Zabidi, 2018. Reliability of 34. Edil, T.B., C.H. Benson, L. Li, D.M. Mickelson and
using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in F.F. Camargo, 2009. Comparison of basic laboratory
predicting properties of soil. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., Vol. test results with more sophisticated laboratory and
1082, in-situ tests methods on soils in Southeastern
30. Puri, N., H.D. Prasad and A. Jain, 2018. Wisconsin (No. WHRP 09-02). Wisconsin
Prediction of geotechnical parameters using machine Department of Transportation, Wisconsin, USA.
learning techniques. Procedia Comput. Sci., 125: 35. Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. 1st
509-517. Edn., Wiley, New York, ISBN: 978-0-471-85305-3,
31. Mikasa, M., 1971. Characteristics of soft deposits in Pages: 528.
36. Terzaghi, K. and R.B. Peck, 1958. Soil Mechanics in
Osaka district. Archit. Soc. Archtectural Assoc.
Engineering Practice. 1st Edn., Wiley, New York,
Japan, 52: 38-42. USA.,.
32. Yanase, S., 1969. Soundings in the alluvial clay 37. Das, B.M. and N. Sivakugan, 2020. Principles of
stratums (on the results of several methods). Rep. Foundation Engineering. 9th Edn., Cengage
Port Hobour Res. Inst., 8: 37-58. Learning, Boston, Massachusetts,.
33. Sowers, G.F. and G.B. Sowers, 1979. 38. Naveena, N., S.J. Sanjay and N.S. Chandanshree,
Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: 2018. Establishing relationship between plasticity
Geotechnical Engineering. 4th Edn., index and liquid limit by simple linear regression
Macmillan, New York, ISBN-13: 9780024138705, analysis. Int. J. Res. Applied Sci. Eng. Technol.
Pages: 621. (IJRASET.), 6: 1975-1978.

3639