caracterizacion de tepetates

Sociedad Mexicana de

Ingeniería Geotécnica, A.C.

XXVI Reunión Nacional de Mecánica de Suelos

e Ingeniería Geotécnica Noviembre 14 a 16, 2012 – Cancún, Quintana Roo

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERÍA GEOTÉCNICA A.C.

Correlaciones de Compresibilidad para Suelos en la Isla Curtis, Queensland, Australia

Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Curtis Island, Queensland, Australia

Francisco ARIAS1, Carlos FUENTES1, Mahi GALAGODA1, Joseph BAKA1

1Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals, Inc.

RESUMEN: Tiempo y presupuesto son los principales limitantes de las pruebas de campo y laboratorio en las investigaciones del subsuelo. Más aún, en ocasiones los suelos son difíciles de muestrear y los ensayos en muestras inalteradas pueden ser limitados. Afortunadamente el ingeniero geotecnista puede correlacionar las propiedades índice de muestras alteradas de suelo con parámetros de compresibilidad. Estas correlaciones pueden usarse también para verificar la calidad de los parámetros del suelo obtenidos de pruebas de laboratorio. El uso de correlaciones mejora sustancialmente cuando éstas se obtienen específicamente para un sitio particular, utilizando bases de datos de pruebas de laboratorio en suelos locales. Este artículo presenta los resultados de un proceso de obtención de correlaciones para estimar parámetros de compresibilidad para suelos de la Isla Curtis en Queensland, Australia, considerando una base de datos de más de 80 pruebas de consolidación de suelos locales. Esta base de datos es parte de una investigación multimillonaria del subsuelo encaminada a desarrollar plantas de gas natural en la isla. Como resultado de este proceso se propone una serie de correlaciones empíricas para hacer estimados preliminares mas precisos de asentamiento en suelos de la Isla Curtis.

ABSTRACT: Time and budget are major issues in most projects that limit the extent of soil sampling and field and laboratory testing to assess soil conditions. Furthermore, in occasions soils are difficult to sample and limited laboratory tests can be performed on undisturbed samples. Fortunately, the geotechnical engineer can often use soil index properties from disturbed samples to correlate compressibility parameters. These correlations are also used to check the quality of soil parameters obtained from laboratory tests. The use of correlations is enhanced when they are tailored to be site-specific, using databases from local soils. This paper presents the results of a process developed to obtain correlations to determine compressibility parameters for soils in Curtis Island in Queensland, Australia, considering a database of more than 80 consolidation tests on local soils. This database is part of a multimillion dollar geotechnical site investigation program performed to develop a liquefied natural gas hub in the island. As a result of this process new empirical correlations are proposed to perform more accurate preliminary settlement computations on soils in Curtis Island.

1 INTRODUCTION

A complex site stratigraphy consisting of colluvial and residual soils and parental mudstone (argillite) bedrock with intensity of weathering varying significantly is present in Curtis Island. Changing soil conditions between borings spaced a few meters is common, as revealed by more than 200 boreholes drilled at the site.

Stiff to hard clayey soils with varying contents of sand and hard gravels are present across the site. These soils are difficult to sample with conventional tools (Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c), which limits the collection of undisturbed soil samples suitable for laboratory testing. Despite these limitations, more than 80 undisturbed soil samples were collected and tested for consolidation, routinely accompanied by

moisture content and Atterberg limit tests. These consolidation, moisture content and Atterberg limit tests form the database used to obtain new empirical correlations to better estimate preliminary soil compressibility parameters for soils in Curtis Island.

2 SITE DESCRIPTION

Curtis Island is located near the city of Gladstone, in the state of Queensland, northeastern Australia (Figure 2). At the southwestern side of the island, three major LNG plants are currently under construction by Bechtel. Mangroves and flat tidally inundated foreshore areas are present along the coastal line. The site was vegetated with natural bushland dominated by eucalypt trees with variable

4 Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Curtis Island, Queensland, Australia


density, and was used in the past for stock grazing. Existing site levels across the site range approximately from +3.0 m AHD (Australian High Datum) along the western foreshore area up to +50/60 m AHD at the top of the hills which border the site.

Figure 1(a). SPT sampler damaged during soil sampling.

Figure 1(b). Diamond core barrel damaged during coring.

Figure 1(c). Thin-walled tube damaged during soil sampling.

Figure 2. Curtis Island location at Queensland, Australia.

3 SITE GEOLOGY

Curtis Island is underlain by the Lower Paleozoic Wandilla Formation of the Curtis Island Group (Figure 3), which consists of layered, interbedded mudstone with subordinate arenite and minor chert. There is also presence of Quaternary aged Holocene alluvial deposits comprising gravel, sand, silt and clay, in areas of the site immediately adjacent to the island coastline. The site is underlain by approximately 4-16 m of medium stiff to hard, silty clay, gravelly clays, and dense/very dense clayey gravels. Some of these strata appear to be of colluvial origin and overlie residual more clayey strata, which in turn is the result of the weathering process of the mudstone bedrock. At the mudflat low-lying area close to the coastal line, there is commonly a 1.0-2.0 m thick upper soft to medium stiff clayey layer with variable organic content.

Figure 3. Detail of the geologic map of Curtis Island and the Port City of Gladstone, Queensland, Australia.

ARIAS et al. 5


4 SOIL INVESTIGATION

The soil investigation program consisted mainly of borehole drilling, supplemented by a number of test pits and geophysical testing. Boreholes were typically drilled using solid flight augering methods, followed by open-hole rotary wash boring using polymer fluids for cutting removal and borehole stability. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were carried out at regular depth intervals to recover disturbed soil samples and to provide an indication of the in-situ strength of soil and weathered rock strata. Undisturbed tube samples were also taken at selected depths in suitable cohesive strata using 63-mm diameter thin-walled tube samplers pushed (no rotation) into the soil.

5 TEST RESULTS

The data used in this study includes more than 80 consolidation tests from more than 200 borings drilled across the site. All consolidation tests were performed in 1-D consolidation oedometer devices, in accordance with Australian Specification AS 1289.6.6.1 - 1998.

The database has been compiled over four different investigation campaigns, starting in March 2009 and ending in December 2011. The consolidation tests were performed in different laboratory facilities over time. The tests were commenced typically with an initial stress of 25 kPa, with stress increments doubling to a final stress of 1600 kPa. In various cases an unload-reload cycle was started at 400 kPa. Figure 4 shows a typical consolidation test plot from the database. All consolidation tests included Atterberg limits and moisture content tests. Specific gravity (Gs) was measured on several consolidation soil samples, while in other cases typical previously observed values were assumed, as variation was negligible. Maximum past pressure was calculated using the Casagrande procedure. A correction to the virgin compression curve was done with the Schmertmann procedure (Schmertmann 1955) to account for disturbance of the soil samples during sampling, transportation and storage.

Some consolidation tests done on samples with high organic matter content were eliminated from the database. These samples showed atypical high water contents and liquid limits. Table 1 summarizes the consolidation and soil index properties included in the database.

Figure 4. Typical consolidation test plot from the database.

6 COMPRESSIBILITY CORRELATIONS

It is typical to use correlations to estimate compress-ibility parameters of clay in geotechnical practice. The correlated compressibility parameters are used to perform preliminary settlement calculations without requiring expensive, time-consuming laboratory test-ing. Only basic soil index properties such as moisture content (wn) and Atterberg limits are required.

The compressibility parameters of clay that are commonly correlated to soil index properties are the compression index (Cc) and the compression ratio (CR).

Consolidation settlement of normally consolidated clay is then calculated as:

'0

'0

0

c

PPP

logHe1

Ch

∆∆

++

= (1)

0

c

e1C

CR+

= (2)

Where: ∆h = Consolidation settlement Cc = Compression index CR = Compression ratio e0 = Initial void ratio H = Thickness of the compressible layer that under-

go consolidation '0P = Initial effective vertical stress at the center of the

compressible layer ∆P = Stress increment at the center of the compress-

ible layer due to external loading



Initial efforts to correlate soil index properties with compressibility parameters were done by Terzaghi and Peck (Terzaghi and Peck 1967). Further correla-tions with extensive databases have been developed by several authors and are discussed in the following sections. This paper presents new empirical correla-tions proposed to better predict Cc and CR for the stiff clayey soils in Curtis Island.

7 COMPRESSIBILITY CORRELATIONS

Preliminary settlement calculations performed with the use of compressibility correlations may vary sig-nificantly depending on the correlation selected. Alt-hough these calculations are preliminary, sufficient accuracy is required at early stages of the project to select foundation alternatives (i.e. shallow vs. deep foundations) and to identify soil improvement re-quirements (e.g. excavation and soil replacement, pre-loading, soil inclusions, vertical drains, etc). Early identification of the most appropriate foundation sys-tem or soil treatment option may be the difference between a successful profitable project and one that requires extensive re-work (e.g. change of foundation system or late implementation of a soil improvement program). Considering these facts, it is important to stress that preliminary settlement estimates should be as accurate as possible, and they should be rati-fied rather than rectified at later design stages with more complete field and laboratory testing programs.

Development of site-specific compressibility correlations for preliminary settlement calculations is a practice that is becoming more popular in the industry. Technical papers describing database manipulation and statistical correlation process have been presented in geotechnical forums (Crumley et al., 2003) and are part of advanced degree dissertations in geotechnical engineering (Dayal 2006; Djoenaidi 1985).

7.1 Variability of Compressibility Correlations Table 2 shows a compilation done by the authors of more than 60 compressibility correlations to estimate compression index Cc based on index properties. However, there are close to a hundred published cor-relations in the technical literature, and even specific engineering software programs (Afkhami 2012) which calculate compressibility correlations based on index properties.

Figure 5a shows the variation of the compression index with typical index properties, considering several published correlations (Djoenaidi 1985). Figure 5b shows the area of variation (shaded area) of the compression index, which will be referenced later in this paper. As it can be seen on this figure, there is a relatively large variation of the compression

index Cc correlated to the liquid limit LL, specially for soils with high plasticity (LL>40); a medium variation when related to the initial void ratio e0, and a moderate variation when correlated to the moisture content wn. Based on these observations, it seems that there is a better chance to get a reasonable correlated compression index with the moisture content.

Figure 5a. Variability of Compression Index Cc with index properties.

Figure 5b. Area of variation of compression index Cc correlated to index properties (Plots prepared by the authors based on original plots from Djoenaidi 1985, Figure 5a).

7.2 Compressibility correlation with liquid limit Figure 6 shows the variation of the compression index with liquid limit for the site soil, and the area of variation of Cc shown in Figure 5b. There is a large data dispersion and the best trendline obtained has a poor correlation, with a coefficient of determination R2=16%; thus no regression equation is proposed to correlate compression index with liquid limit. This poor correlation with liquid limit has been observed previously by others (Dayal 2006; Azzous 1976; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990), and may be explained by the fact that soils with the same liquid limit may have different plastic and shrinkage limits, thereby exhibiting different shrinkage or volume-change behavior. As a consequence, the soils are bound to exhibit different compressibility behavior even though the liquid limit is the same. Any attempt to correlate compressibility characteristics with liquid limit alone will be limited because the plasticity and volume-change properties would not be considered; viz., plastic limit and shrinkage limit (Sridharan and Nagaraj 2000). It has been noted that void ratio and

ARIAS et al. 7


natural moisture content are the best estimators to correlate compressibility parameters (Bartlett and Lee 2004). This is demonstrated in the following sections.

Compression Index vs. Liquid Limit

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Liquid Limit, LL (%)

Com

pres

sion

Inde

x, C

c

Area of Variationof Cc

Trend Line

Figure 6. Compression index vs. liquid limit.

7.3 Compressibility correlation with initial void ratio, e0.

Figure 7 shows the variation of the compression in-dex with the initial void ratio for the soils in Curtis Is-land, and the area of variation of Cc shown in Figure 5b. In this case there is a moderate dispersion of da-ta, and the best trendline obtained has a better coef-ficient of determination R2=79%. Predictive perfor-mance with coefficients of determination >45% is considered sufficient for use in preliminary design and to supplement laboratory investigation (Bartlett and Lee 2004). The proposed correlation is:

1059.0e1163.0e286.0C 02

0C +−= (3)

Compression Index vs. Initial Void Ratio

Proposed correlation:Cc = 0.286 e0

2 - 0.1163 e0 + 0.1059R2 = 0.7884

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Initial Void Ratio, e0

Com

pres

sion

Inde

x, C

C

Area of Variationof Cc

Figure 7. Compression index correlation with initial void ratio.

7.4 Compressibility correlation with initial natural moisture content, wn.

Figure 8 shows the variation of the compression in-dex with the natural moisture content for the soils in Curtis Island, and the area of variation of Cc shown in Figure 5b.

Compresion Index vs. Moisture Content

Proposed correlation:Cc = 0.0002 wn

2 - 0.0034 wn

+ 0.1227R2 = 0.78

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Moisture Content, w n (%)

Com

pres

sion

Inde

x, C

c

Area of Variation of Cc

Figure 8. Compression index correlation with natural mois-ture content.

As mentioned in Section 7.1, there is a moderate variation when the compression index is correlated to the moisture content wn, and a better chance to get a reasonable correlation.

In this case there is a moderate dispersion of data, and the best trendline obtained has a good coefficient of determination R2=78%. The proposed correlation is:

1227.0w0034.0w0002.0C n2

nC +−= (4)

An alternative to the compression index Cc is the compression ratio CR, defined in Equation (2).

The benefit of using the compression ratio CR in-stead of the compression index Cc for preliminary settlement calculations is that CR already includes the initial void ratio e0, which is more difficult to de-termine in the laboratory. However, the following equation can be used to estimate the initial void ratio in saturated soils:

sn0 Gwe = (5)

Where: Gs = Specific gravity.

Figure 9 shows typical ranges of CR reported by various authors. Figure 10 shows the area of variation (shaded area) of CR.

Figure 11 shows the variation of the compression ratio CR with the natural moisture content of soils from Curtis Island. In this case a medium dispersion is noted with a coefficient of determination R2=38%. The proposed correlation is:



0485.0w0015.0w5E3CR n2n ++−= (6)

Figure 11 also shows that compression ratio estimates based on the plot proposed by Lambe and Whitman (1969) tends to underestimate the value of CR for soils in Curtis Island. This is exemplified in Section 7.6.

Moisture Content vs. Compression Ratio

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

10 100 1000

Moisture Content, wn (%)

Com

pres

sion

Rat

io, C

R (%

)

+15%

-15%

Lambe &Whitman1969

Azzouz et al1976

Bartlett & Lee 2004

Crumley et al2003

Solanki et al2010

Figure 9. Compression ratio vs. moisture content variation.

Moisture Content vs. Compression Ratio

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

10 100 1000


Com

pres

sion

Rat

io, C

R (%

)

Area of variation of CR with wn

Figure 10. Area of variation of compression ratio CR vs. moisture content wn.

Compression Ratio vs. Moisture Content

Proposed correlationCR = 3E-05 w n

2 + 0.0015w n + 0.0485R2 = 0.3719

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

10 100 1000


Com

pres

sion

Rat

io, C

R (%

)

Lambe &Whitman1969

Area of variation of CR

Figure 11. Compression ratio CR correlation with moisture content wn.

7.5 Recompression index. The ratio between recompression and compression indexes (Cr/Cc) for the stiff clays in Cutis Island was found to be on the order of 20%, as shown in Figure 12.

22.0CC cr = (7)

This ratio is in accordance with previous ratios

reported by others (Wroth 1979).

Compression Index vs. Recompression Index

Cr = 0.2172Cc

R2 = 0.8143

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Compression Index Cc

Rec

ompr

essi

on In

dex

Cr

Figure 12. Compression index Cc vs. recompression index Cr.

7.6 Settlement calculation with the proposed correlations

The following examples illustrate the use of the new proposed compressibility correlations for settlement calculation.

Data: − Foundation type = circular 4.0 m diameter − Foundation contact pressure = 100 kPa, − Thickness of compressible clayey layer (normally

consolidated clay) = 4.0 m, starting at ground surface

− Groundwater table = at ground surface. − Soil effective (submerged) unit weight, γ’ = 10

kN/m3 − Soil moisture content, wn = 20% − Soil specific gravity Gs = 2.7. − Initial effective vertical stress at the center of the

compressible layer: '0P = (2m) (10 kN/m3) = 20 kPa

− Stress increment at the center of the compressible layer due to foundation loading: ∆p = (Contact pressure) (Boussinesq dissipation factor) = (100 kPa) (0.65) =65 kPa

ARIAS et al. 9


7.6.1 Settlement calculation with Compression Index Cc.

Compression ratio calculated with equation (4), initial void ratio determined with equation (5), and consoli-dation settlement estimated with equation (1) are as follows: − Cc = 0.14 − e0 = 0.54 − ∆h = 0.23 m

Calculating settlement using the compression

index Cc estimated from the well-known plot shown in Figure 13 below (Terzaghi et al. 1996) provide the following results:

− Cc = 0.20 − ∆h = 0.32 m

Figure 13. Compression index Cc correlation with moisture content w0, from Terzaghi et al. (1996).

The preliminary consolidation settlement was overestimated (40%) with the use of generic correlations (Figure 13) when compared to the settlement calculated with the new proposed correlation.

7.6.2 Settlement calculation with Compression Ratio CR.

Compression ratio calculated with equation (6) and consolidation settlement estimated with equations (1) and (2) are as follows: − CR = 0.09 − ∆h = 0.22 m

Calculating settlement using the compression ratio

CR estimated from the well-known plot shown on

Figure 14 (Lambe & Whitman 1969) provides the following results:

− CR = 0.04 − ∆h = 0.10 m

Figure 14. Compression ratio

+ 0

c

e1C

correlation with

moisture content w0, from Lambe and Whitman (1969).

The preliminary consolidation settlement was underestimated (50%) with the use of generic correlations or plots (Figure 14) when compared to the settlement calculated with the new proposed correlation. Also, there is good agreement between the consolidation settlements calculated with the proposed correlations for compression index (0.23 m) and compression ratio (0.22 m).

8 CONCLUSIONS

Relationships between soil compressibility character-istics with index properties should be used as intend-ed – only for preliminary calculations and never as a substitute for results of actual tests. There is no uni-versal correlation applicable to clayey soils. The cor-relation varies and is site-specific. The precision on these calculations can be significantly enhanced when new site-specific empirical correlations are de-veloped from local laboratory test databases. The process to obtain these correlations is relatively sim-ple and beneficial in cases projects expand to new areas that have not been previously investigated, but for which a database of nearby soil tests exists. The proposed empirical correlations for settlement calculation in Curtis Island are:

1059.0e1163.0e286.0C 02

0C +−= (3)



1227.0w0034.0w0002.0C n2

nC +−= (4)

0485.0w0015.0w5E3CR n2n ++−= (6)

22.0CC cr = (7)

The utilization of the above mentioned correlations is preferred over the generic correlations and plots presented in the classic technical literature to estimate settlement on the clayey soils in Curtis Island. The examples presented in Section 7.6 show that settlement calculation based on generic well-know and industry-accepted correlations (Figures 13 and 14) tend to overestimate or underestimate settlement in the range of 40-50%. In particular, correlations with liquid limit should be avoided as they have shown poor correlations in previous investigations, as it was corroborated in this investigation. It is recommended that the natural moisture content wn is used to estimate compressibility parameters whenever possible, as this is a good predictor of Cc and CR, and it is relatively easier to determine in the laboratory than e0.

ARIAS et al. 11


Table 1. Database - consolidation and index test.

Boring Soil Origin (Alluvial or Colluvial / Residual)

Soil Type

Depth (m)

Water Content

(%)

INDEX PARAMETERS

CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS

LL PL PI eo Cc CR

836 Alluvial or Colluvial

Clayey Sand With Gravel

1.0 12.9 28 19 9 0.39 0.02 0.02


Gravelly Silty Clay Some Sand

1.5 21.8 34 15 19 0.62 0.15 0.09

311 Residual Silty Clay Some Sand

7.2 22.2 35 22 13 0.72 0.08 0.05

TP 409

Residual Silty Clay (EW Mudstone)

3.6 6.5 35 24 11 0.39 0.08 0.05

TP 409


3.6 6.5 35 24 11 0.44 0.10 0.07

TP 409


3.6 6.5 35 24 11 0.44 0.09 0.06

TP 409


3.6 6.5 35 24 11 0.38 0.06 0.05


Clay 1.0 15.6 36 18 18 0.80 0.12 0.07


9.0 17.8 37 25 12 0.87 0.16 0.09


Sandy Clay 1.0 12.0 38 19 19 0.42 0.10 0.07


Sandy Clay w/Gravel

2.5 11.9 39 16 23 0.42 0.10 0.07

946 Fill Clay 1.7 15.3 39 16 23 0.43 0.09 0.07


Silty Clay some Sand & Gravel

1.2 20.6 39 18 21 0.65 0.17 0.10


Clay with Sand 3.5 15.9 39 14 25 0.48 0.11 0.08

904 FILL Fill: Clay w/Sand

1.0 12.3 40 16 24 0.40 0.04 0.03

910 FILL Clayey Gravel w/sand organics

3.8 67.1 41 18 23 1.90 0.53 0.18

823 Residual Clay 20.5 19.9 41 27 14 0.74 0.17 0.10

30A Alluvial or Colluvial

Silty Clay 1.0 13.5 42 16 26 0.58 0.15 0.10


Silty Gravelly Clay

2.5 20.5 43 17 26 0.58 0.12 0.08


Silty Clay Some Sand

3.0 20.0 43 16 27 0.54 0.16 0.11

TP 402

Residual Clay (EW Mud-stone)

4.0 13.6 43 28 15 0.72 0.06 0.03

TP 402


4.0 13.6 43 28 15 0.74 0.09 0.05

TP 402


4.0 13.6 43 28 15 0.64 0.06 0.03

TP 402


4.0 13.6 43 28 15 0.64 0.08 0.05

821 Residual Clay 20.5 22.9 43 28 15 0.67 0.16 0.09


Clay w/Sand 5.5 18.0 44 17 27 0.53 0.15 0.10


Clay/Silt 0.5 28.4 44 27 17 0.72 0.16 0.09

912 Residual Clay with Sand 9.0 20.7 46 22 24 0.63 0.14 0.09


Sandy Clay With Gravel

1.5 22.2 46 21 25 0.82 0.11 0.06




Soil Type

Depth (m)

Water Content

(%)

INDEX PARAMETERS


LL PL PI eo Cc CR

823 Residual Gravelly Clay 7.5 20.0 47 29 18 0.74 0.15 0.09


Clay 4.8 17.9 47 17 30 0.51 0.15 0.10


Sandy Clay with Gravel

6.5 18.5 47 24 23 0.67 0.17 0.10


Silty Clay with Relict Rock Structure

7.5 43.0 47 28 19 1.00 0.35 0.17

800 Residual Mudstone (EW) 8.5 16.6 48 25 23 0.50 0.08 0.05

945 Residual Sandy Clay (EW Mudstone)

8.2 22.5 49 22 27 0.69 0.17 0.10



1.5 19.3 50 19 31 0.56 0.19 0.12


Clayey Gravel w/Sand

4.0 18.3 50 34 16 0.50 0.15 0.10


Sandy Clay 0.0 38.5 52 27 25 3.02 0.96 0.24

905 Residual Clay w/Sand 3.0 20.9 52 17 35 0.64 0.11 0.06


Sandy Clay (EW Mudstone)

2.2 15.4 53 20 33 0.52 0.14 0.09


Clay 2.0 18.4 53 16 37 0.43 0.09 0.06

211 Residual Silty Clay/Sandy Clay

1.7 15.2 53 25 28 0.57 0.07 0.05


Clay with Sand 3.5 17.1 53 20 33 0.66 0.14 0.08


Clay 1.5 17.8 53 27 26 0.46 0.18 0.12


Clayey Silt/Silty Clay some Sand & Gravel

13.5 34.0 54 35 19 1.00 0.30 0.15


Sandy Clay 0.7 15.5 54 16 38 0.50 0.13 0.09


Silty Clay with Rock Fragments

1.0 23.6 54 20 34 0.51 0.24 0.16


CLAY w/Sand 2.0 17.0 54 20 34 0.54 0.12 0.08

5 Residual Sandy Clay 7.5 38.3 55 25 30 0.96 0.27 0.14


2.7 22.7 56 20 36 0.71 0.18 0.11


Clayey Silt/Silty Clay

11.5 30.1 56 30 26 0.88 0.33 0.18


Clay 14.5 30.5 56 34 22 0.81 0.16 0.09


Clayey Sand With Gravel

0.3 23.0 56 19 37 0.97 0.23 0.12


Silty Clay some Sand

2.5 23.1 56 20 36 0.71 0.18 0.11


Clayey Silt/Silty Clay

10.0 26.2 57 34 23 0.98 0.28 0.14


Silty Clay 0.6 61.6 57 20 37 1.75 0.82 0.30


Clay With Sand 1.7 23.6 57 19 38 0.65 0.19 0.11


Clay with Sand 0.5 21.3 58 21 37 0.77 0.19 0.11

TP-402

Alluvial or Colluvial

Silty Clay 0.8 11.4 58 26 32 0.63 0.18 0.11

ARIAS et al. 13



Soil Type

Depth (m)

Water Content

(%)

INDEX PARAMETERS


LL PL PI eo Cc CR


Silty Clay 2.0 11.4 59 16 43 0.42 0.13 0.09

858 Residual Sandy Clay w/Gravel /Sandy SILT w gravel

4.5 29.0 59 32 27 0.73 0.24 0.14

TP-401


Silty Clay 0.6/2.5

13.7 59 24 35 0.78 0.25 0.14

TP-401


Silty Clay 0.6/2.7

13.7 59 24 35 0.63 0.17 0.10



4.2 17.7 60 17 43 0.51 0.13 0.09


Clay w/Gravel 4.0 24.3 60 17 43 0.58 0.23 0.15

47 Residual Silty Clay/Clayey Silt

7.5 26.0 61 23 38 0.69 0.18 0.10


Clay (Mudstone) 1.0 20.1 62 17 45 0.56 0.18 0.11

201 Residual Silty Clay 1.2 19.5 62 22 40 0.62 0.09 0.06

853 Residual Clay with Sand 7.0 28.3 62 30 32 0.74 0.15 0.08


Sandy Clay w/Gravel

3.0 23.0 63 19 44 0.65 0.17 0.10


Silty clay/ Clay-ey Silt

1.8 25.7 63 26 37 0.56 0.15 0.10


Sandy Clay 0.5 51.6 63 22 41 1.54 0.53 0.21



2.5 28.3 64 24 40 0.82 0.17 0.10

5 Residual Sandy Clay 1.5 17.0 64 23 41 0.56 0.13 0.08


Clay 4.5 25.8 64 23 41 0.76 0.21 0.12


Clay 2.7 22.0 65 20 45 0.68 0.24 0.14


8.5 19.0 65 26 39 0.62 0.07 0.04


Silty Clay 8.5 34.4 66 35 31 0.98 0.33 0.17


Clayey Gravel w/Sand

2.0 18.6 66 20 46 0.54 0.16 0.10

821 Residual Silty Clay 10.5 28.2 67 32 35 0.75 0.14 0.08

834 Residual Mudstone (MH) Clay w/Sand/ Silt w/sand

11.5 44.6 68 35 33 1.23 0.39 0.17


Silty Clay 3.5 22.8 68 22 46 0.75 0.33 0.19


7.7 26.0 69 24 45 0.57 0.07 0.04


Sandy Clay with Gravel

2.0 29.3 75 27 48 0.75 0.10 0.06

300 Residual Silty Clay/Some Sand

10.7 17.4 84 22 62 0.55 0.09 0.06



Table 2. Compression Index (Cc) Correlations

a) CC = f (e) Compression Index Applicability Reference CC = 0.156 e0 + 0.0107 All clays Holtz and

Kovacs (1981)

CC = 1.15 (e0 - 0.35) All clays Nishida (1956)

Cc = 0.30 (e0 - 0.27) Inorganic, silty clays

Holtz and Kovacs (1981)

CC = 0.75 (e0 - 0.50) Low plasticity clays


CC = 0.40 (e0 – 0.25) All natural soils Azzous et al. (1976)

CC = 0.208 e0 + 0.0083 Chicago clays Bowles (1989)

CC = 0.35 (e0 - 0.50) Organic soils Hough (1957)

CC = 0.246 + 0.43 (e0-0.25)

Motley clays from Sao Paulo, Brazil

Cozzolino (1961)

CC = 0.4066 e0 – 0.0415 Surat clayey allu-vial deposits

Solanki et al. (2010)

CC = 0.256 + 0.43 (e0-0.84)

Brazilian clays Cozzolino (1961)

CC = 0.43 (e0 – 0.25) Brazilian clays Cozzolino (1961)

CC = 1.21 + 1.055 (e0-1.87)

Motley clays from Sao Paulo City

Cozzolino (1961)

CC=0.44 (e0 - 0.30) Pakistan clays Serajuddin and Ahmed

(1967) CC=0.4049 (e0 - 0.3216) Pakistan clays Serajuddin

(1987) CC = 0.20 e1.6 Naturally sedi-

mented young soils

Shorten (1955)

CC = 0.2237 eL All remolded, normally consoli-dated clays

Nagaraj and Srini-

vasa (1983) CC = 0.243 eL All remolded,

normally consoli-dated clays

Nagaraj and Srini-

vasa (1986) CC = 0.274 eL Clay-sand mixes Nagaraj et

al. (1995) CC = 1.15 (e - e0) All clays Nishida

(1956) CC= 0.54 (e0 – 0.37) South Korea coast Yoon et al.

(2004) CC= 0.39 (e0 – 0.13) East Korea coast Yoon et al.

(2004)

CC= 0.37 (e0 – 0.28) West Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

CC= 0.46 (e0 – 0.28) West Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

Cc=0.5928 e0 – 0.247 Clayey soils of Salt Lake Valley, Utah

Bartlett and Lee (2004)

Table 2. Cont’d.

b) CC = f (LL) Compression Index Applicability Reference CC = 0.007 (LL - 7) Remolded clays Skempton

(1944) CC =0.009 (LL - 10) Clay of medium to

slight sensitivity (St<4, LL<100)


CC = 0.006 (LL - 9) All clays with LL<100%

Azzous et al. (1976)

CC = 0.0046 (LL - 9) Brazilian clays Cozzolino (1961)

CC = (LL - 13) / 109 All Clays Mayne (1980)

CC = 0.0186 (LL - 30) Motley clays from Sao Paulo

Cozzolino (1961)

CC = 0.0061 LL - 0.0024 Surat clayey allu-vial deposits

Mayne (1980)

Cc = 0.0078 (LL - 14) Pakistani clays Serajuddin and Ahmed

(1967) Cc = 0.012 (LL + 16.4) South Korea coast Yoon et al.

(2004) Cc = 0.011 (LL - 6.36) East Korea coast Yoon et al.

(2004) Cc = 0.01 (LL - 10.9) West Korea coast Yoon et al.

(2004) CC 10 = 0.009 (LL - 8) Osaka Bay clay Tsuchida

(1991) CC 10 = 0.009 LL Tokyo Bay clay Tsuchida

(1991) c) CC = f (Ip)

Compression Index Applicability Reference Cc = 0.0082 Ip + 0.0915 Surat clayey allu-

vial deposits Solanki et al. (2010)

d) CC = f (wn) Compression Index Applicability Reference CC = 0.01 wn Chicago clays Azzous et

al. (1976) CC = 0.01 (wn - 5) All clays Azzous et

al. (1976) CC = 0.0115 wn Organic soils,

peat Holtz and Kovacs (1981)

CC = 17.66X10-5 wn2+

5.93X10-3 wn -1.35X10-1 Chicago clays Peck and

Reed (1954)

CC = 0.01 (wn - 7.549) All clays Herrero (1983)

CC = 0.85 [(wn / 100)3]0.5 Finnish muds and clays

Helenelund (1951)

CC= 0.0091w + 0.0522 Surat clayey allu-vial deposits

Solanki et al. (2010)

CC= 0.013 (wn – 3.85) South Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

CC= 0.01 (wn + 2.83) East Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

CC= 0.011 (wn - 11.22) West Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

Cc=0.0163 wn - 0.247 Clayey soils of Salt Lake Valley, Utah

Bartlett and Lee (2004)

ARIAS et al. 15


Table 2. Cont’d. e) CC = f (x,y,z)

Compression Index Applicability Reference CC = 0.37 (e0 + 0.003 LL + 0.0004 wn - 0.34)

All clays Azzous et al. (1976)

CC = -0.156 + 0.411 e0 + 0.00058 LL

All clays Al-Khafaji and An-dersland (1992)

CC = -0.156 + 0.41 e0 + 0.00058 LL

All clays Al-Khafaji and An-dersland (1992)

CC = (1+e0) [0.1 + (wn-25) 0.006]

Varved clays Holtz and Kovacs (1981)

CC = 0.141 Gs1.2

[(1+e0)/Gs]2.38 All clays Herrero

(1983) CC = 0.5 (γw/γd)2.4 All soil types Herrero

(1980) CC = 0.50 Gs (Ip / 100) All clays Holtz and

Kovacs (1981)

CC = 0.329 [0.027 (w-LP) + 0.0133 IP (1.192 + ACT-1)]

All remolded, normally consoli-dated clays

Carrier (1985)

CC = 0.2343 wn Gs All clays Nagaraj (1985)

CC = 0.009 wn + 0.002 LL -0.10

All clays Nagaraj and Srini-

vasa (1986) CC = 0.0023 LL GS All clays Nagaraj

(1985) CC = 0.141 GS (γW/γS)12/5 All soils Herrero

(1980) Cc = -0.0003wn + 0.538e0+ 0.002 LL - 0.3

South Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

Cc = 0.0098 LL + 0.194 e0 -0.0025 PI – 0.256

East Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

CC = 0.0038 wn + 0.12 e0 + 0.0065 LL – 0.248

West Korea coast Yoon et al. (2004)

Cc = 0.2765 [Gs {(1+eo)/Gs}2 – 0.5171]

Bangladesh soils Serajuddin (1987)

Table 2 Notation: wn = Natural moisture content. Gs = Specific Gravity. e = Void ratio at a specific pressure. e0 = Initial void ratio. eL = Void ratio at liquid limit. LL = Liquid limit. Ip = Plasticity index. St = Sensitivity = undisturbed undrained shear

strength/remolded undrained shear strength. Cc10 = Compression index when consolidation pressure p=10

kg/cm2

REFERENCES

Afkhami A.A. (2012). Novoformula Software version 1.2.2012.306, Novo Tech Software Ltd.

Al-Khafaji A.W.N. and Andersland O.B. (1992). “Equations for Compression Index Approxima-tion”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 118(1), pp 148-153.

Azzous A.S., Krizek R.J. and Corotis R.B. (1976). “Regression Analysis of Soil Compressibility”, Soils and Foundations, No. 2, Vol. 16, pp. 19-29.

Bartlett S.F. and Lee H.S. (2004). Estimation of Compression Properties of Clayey Soils, Salt Lake Valley, Utah, prepared for the Utah DOT Research Division, Report UT-04.28.

Bowles J.E. (1989). Physical and Geotechnical Prop-erties of Soils, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.

Carrier, W.D. III (1985). “Consolidation Parameters Derived from Index Tests”, Géotechnique, 35(2), pp. 211-213.

Cozzolino V.M. (1961), “Statistical Forecasting of Compression Index”, Proceedings of the 5th In-ternational Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 51-53.

Crumley A., Fernández A.L. y Regalado C.A. (2003), “Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Puerto Rico”, Soil and Rock America, 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dayal N. (2006). Consolidation Analysis of Greater Cincinnati Soils, M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Djoenaidi W.J. (1985). A Compendium of Soil Properties and Correlations, M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia.

Helenelund K.V. (1951), On Consolidation and Set-tlement of Loaded Soil Layers, PhD Thesis, Fin-land Technical Institute.

Herrero O.R. (1980), “Universal Compression Index Equation”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engi-neering Division, ASCE, 106(11), pp. 1179-1199.

Herrero O.R. (1983), “Universal Compression Index Equation: Closure”, Journal of Geotechnical En-gineering, ASCE, 109(5), pp. 755-761.

Holtz R.D. and Kovacs W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.

Hough B.K. (1957). Basic Soil Engineering, 1st Edi-tion, New York, The Ronald Press Company.

Kulhawy F.H. and Mayne P.W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Cornell University Geotechnical Engineering Group, Ithaca, New York, p. 6-3.

Lambe W.T. and Whitman R.V. (1969). Soil Mechanics, New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Mayne P.W. (1980). “Cam-Clay Predictions of Undrained Strength”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(11), pp. 1219-1242.

Nagaraj T.S. and Srinivasa M.B.R. (1983). “Rational-ization of Skempton’s Compressibility Equation”, Géotechnique, 33(40), pp. 433-443.



Nagaraj, T.S. and Srinivasa M.B.R. (1985), “Predic-tion of the Preconsolidation Pressure and Recompression Index of Soils”, Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 1985, pp 199-202.

Nagaraj T.S. and Srinivasa M.B.R. (1986), “A Critical Reappraisal of Compression Index Equations”, Géotechnique, 36(1), pp. 27-32.

Nagaraj T.S., Pandian N.S., Narasimha R.P.S.R and Vishnu B.T. (1995). “Stress-State –Time -Permeability Relationships for Saturated Soils”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Compression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils, Hiroshima, Japan, pp. 537-542.

Nishida Y. (1956). “A Brief Note on Compression In-dex of Soils”, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, No. SM3. Vol. 82, pp. 1027-1 to 1027-14.

Peck R.B. and Reed W.C. (1954). Engineering Prop-erties of Chicago Subsoils, Engineering Experi-ment Station, University of Illinois, Bulletin 423.

Schmertmann J.H. (1955). “The Undisturbed Consolidation Behavior of Clay”, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 120, pp. 1201-1233.

Serajuddin M. and Ahmed A. (1967). “Studies on En-gineering Properties of East Pakistan Soils”, Proc. First Southeast Asian Regional Confer-ence on Soil Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 9-12.

Serajuddin M. (1987), “Universal Compression Index Equation and Bangladesh Soils”, Proc. Ninth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Vol. 1, pp 5-61 to 5-72.

Shorten G.G (1955). “Quasi-Overconsolidation and Creep Phenomena in Shallow Marine and Estu-arine Organo-Calcareous Silts, Fiji”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32, pp. 89-105.

Skempton A.W. (1944). “Notes on the Compressibil-ity of Clays”, Quarterly Journal of Geological So-ciety of London, Vol. 100, pp. 119-135.

Solanki C.H., Desai M.D. and Desai J.A. (2010), “Quick Settlement Analysis of Cohesive Alluvial Deposits Using New Empirical Correlations”, Journal of Civil Engineering Research and Prac-tice, No. 2, Vol. 7, pp. 49-58.

Sridharan A. and Nagaraj H.B. (2000). “Compressibility Behavior of Remolded, Fine-Grained Soils and Correlations with Index Properties”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37, 3, pp. 712-722.

Terzaghi K. and Peck R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Terzaghi K., Peck R.B. and Mesri G. (1996). Soil Me-chanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 106.

Tsuchida T. (1991). “A New Concept of e-log p Rela-tionship for Clays”, Proceedings of the 9th Asian Region Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, Vol. 1, pp. 87-90.

Wroth C.P. (1979), “Correlation of Some Engineering Properties of Soils”, 2nd International Conference on Behavior of Offshore Structures, London, pp 121-132.

Yoon, G.L., Kim, B.T., and Joen, S.S. (2004), “Empir-ical Correlations of Compression Index for Ma-rine Clay from Regression Analysis”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, (41), pp 1213-1221.

caracterizacion de tepetates

Documents