Uo Ce Ca Ce rece a are) aC eRe ee as eee eer ee aT CR a eae eet em a ata eee See uM eRe eeu et Centr gan cs Cee me Cam rst ne meet rt tee Ce eae er eee ee See a Re acne teste Sr MU Ue ca ieee REM st ee Ra eet} et an cere heer eeeten eeret re a on tel ane AY) Ao oes a —— ee Beatle) Der Ce eRe Lom MU eo eee Senter DUM ene cio Meier a mPa Pet DSC anne Rea ce eat eat eet Cea aes a Cen SCT hes Cee ue See Me eter Rr meester eS Ce A RccaeCicieme tam eC irene etree SCN en nunca Sk aCe ue ne RW ere UCU a mer Cee ened aout ars ae Rea ee Sa a me meine ie ee mee? Uae met ea Uy University with a degree in geology and from the University of Fe SC Tc a eMac ury oe alee Mis ce ee eet uae mM ie Ciencia Ua uu eects hee eet en Pate ne Recency SUM mn RU a ae Ya ese CCU i os eo aan acne ce Cn CoMiCumemcne ac vaar slit} ee ee eee Siena M. Carter CIARA OC MMT CIEE ORIN) RAM ERIE i : and b oN asa} SN ree EE i i iW Bentley j c2CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES Michael Carter ‘and Stephen P Bentley PENTECH PRESS Publishers: LondonFirst published 1991 by Pentech Press Limited Graham Lodge, Graham Road London NW4 30G : Pentech Press, 1991 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Carter, M. Correlations of soil properties. I, Soils. Geotechnical properties I. Title If. Bentley, S.P. 624.15136 ISBN 0-7273-0317-1 Printed in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Led, Worcester 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 particularly true of small projects or for preliminary designs. Our aim in this book has been to gather together material that would be of practical assistance to those faced with the problem of having to estimate 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 have had to be selective in our approach and we hope that our final choice provides a workable compendium. Modern in-situ testing methods is a rapidly developing 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 values of engineering properties for various types or classes of soil, together with correlations between different properties. Particular emphasis is given to correlations with soil classification tests and to the use of classification systems. Included in the correlations are properties that are difficult 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 between 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 classification data. Stephen P Bentley Cardiff, Wales Michael Carter Colombo, Sri LankaContents V CHAPTER 1 GRADING AND PLASTICITY 1 1.1 GRADING 1.1.1 The influence of grading on soil properties 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 plastic limit tests 7 1.2.3. The shrinkage limit test 3B. 1.2.4 Consistency limits as indicators of soil behaviour (0 1.2.5 Limitations on the use of consistency limits 12) 7 a J 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 41 TYPICAL VALUES () 4.2 PERMEABILITY AND GRADING 51CHAPTER 5 CONSOLIDATION AND SETTLEMENT 55 CHAPTER 8 SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING 5.1 COMPRESSIBILITY OF CLAYS 55 CHARACTERISTICS 105 5.1.1. The compressibility parameters 56 81 IDENTIFICATION 105 5.1.2 Settlement calculations using consolidation theory 58 5.1.3 Settlement calculations using elasticity theory 59 8.2 SWELLING POTENTIAL 107 5.1.4 Typical values and correlations of compressibility 8.2.1 Relation to other properties 107 coefficients 60 8.3 SWELLING PRE 5.1.5 Settlement corrections 62 G PRESSURE 113 5.2 RATE OF CONSOLIDATION OF CLAYS 65 CHAPTER 9 FROS ROST E 5.3 SECONDARY COMPRESSION 68 SUSCEPTIBILITY 116 5.4 SETTLEMENT OF SANDS AND GRAVELS 70, 9.1 ICE SEGREGATION 116 5.4.1 Probes and standard penetration tests 70 } 92 GRAIN SIZES vI7. 5.4.2 Plate bearing tests 74 fi 9.3. PLASTICITY ~ 119 References 122 CHAPTER 6 SHEAR STRENGTH 76 Index 128 6.1 THE CHOICE OF TOTAL OR EFFECTIVE STRESS | ANALYSIS (78, 6.1.1 The choice in practice — 179 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 a 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Chapter 1 GRADING AND PLASTICITY The concepts 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 first 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 different 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 ofa soil determines many | of its characteristics. Since it is such an obvious property, and easy to © measure, it is plainly a suitable first 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 bea 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 soi! 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 indicate appropriate methods of treatment. Thus, the concept of soil classification arose early in the development of soil mechanics. Even ee ween nes ee eee eee tT tr eo cee | ere meer serrate eran iar fil ne le pg pe iti gh A gr A A Ls wt = ate2 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPTRTIES today, despite the development i 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 fills. The use of grading in soil classifiations is discussed in Chapter 2. : _ Poorly-graded soils, typically those with a very smal! range of | Balicle sizes, contain a higher proporiion of voids than well-graded | Soll soils, in which the finer particles fill the voids between the coarser grains. Thus, grading influences the density of soils, This is indicated ina general way in Chapter 3 (Table 3.1). Another co consequence of the reater degree of packing achievable by well-graded soils is that the roportion 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 y! voids affect the flow of water through a soll, grading can be Seen to '\ “Intletice permeability The theoretical relationship between pradin 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 fine-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 consolidate more. Thus, the consolidation properties of a soil are profoundly influenced by its grading. Since fine-grained soils tend, by and large, to be more compressible than coarse-grained soils, and consolidate 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 effect 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 n ,; grading and shear strength are not ossible because other factors, |_such as the _ang ularity of the particle GRADING AND PLASTICITY = 3 compaction and consolidation history, and the t y minerals are of overriding importance. The variability of some of | these factors is reduced where only compacted soils are considered and, with the aid of soil classification systems, the influence 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 identification 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 2m. 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 division of soils into categories, based on grading, varies according to the agency or classification system used. A comparison of some common definitions used is given in Figure 1.1. For soil particles larger than 60m, 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. * 12 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 gravels 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- rtictes. ese are plate-like structures whic 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 |bi dp Fb 4, 4 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES British Standard and MIT [ait | sand | aravel Toone. Tm Tele Ta Tete [om Te [ie] boulders 0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 9.2 0.6 2 6 60 Unified Soil Classification System tines ( silt, clay) ASTM (D422, D 653) [sand ca fines (silt, clay) pe fet boulders 0.075 0.425 2 4.75 AASHTO (T 88) sand 0.001 0.005 0.075 0.425 2 75 Grain size ( mm) duutai 1 | 6.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Figure 1.1 Some common definitions of soils, classified by particle size (modi ified after Al-Hussaini, 1977) cation and the clay mineral, provides 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 phenomenon of lasticity. a rastigsoils — clays — are often described as ‘cohesive’ to distinguish them from non-plastic soils — sands and gravels — which are described as ‘granular’ or ‘non-cohesive’. Thus, the terms ‘plastic’ and ‘cohe- sive’ are often used synonymously. Since all plastic soils are cohesive and all cohesive soils are plastic this seems quite reasonable, yet, not ORADING AND PLASTIC YT J Table 1.1 COMPARISON OF STANDARD SIEVES TYPICALLY USED IN SOIL TESTING Aperture U.S. sieve B.S. sieve pane erial) size designation designation de » Steve esignation 75mm 3in 75mm 3in 63mm 2hin 63mm 2hin 50mm 2in $O0mm 2in 37.5mm Liin 37.5mm ltin 28mm * 28m * 25mm - din * lin 20mm * 20mm * 19mm Zin * jin 14mm * 14mm * 12.5mm din * din 10.06mm # !Omm * 9.5mm din * Zin 6.3mm din 6.3mm din 5.0mm * 5mm * 4.75mm No.4 * * 3.35mm * 3,35mm 3.18mm * * din 2.36mm No.8 * No.7 2.00mm * 2.00mm * 1.70mm * 1.70mm No. 10 1.18mm No. 16 1.18mm No. 14 850um No. 20 850m No. 18 600nm No. 30 600;:m No. 25 425m No. 40 425m No. 36 300nm No. 50 300um No. 52 250um No. 60 * No. 60 150j¢m No. 100 10044m No. 100 75am No. 200 75pm No. 200 63pm * 63um * * These sieve sizes are either unavailable or are not normally used. (a) (b) Figure 1.2 Electrochemical bonding between clay-mineral particles; (a) dispersed Structure, (b) flocculated structureCORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES ‘ GRADING AND PLASTICITY 7 only are the two properties subtly different in nature, their underlying cause is quite different. Whereas plasticity is the property that allows deformation without cracking, cohesion is the possession of shear strength which allows the soil to maintain its shape under load, even when it is not confined, And whereas plasticity 1s produced by the electrochemical nature of the clay particles, cohesion occurs as a a LOTR result_of their very small size, which results in extremely low tn - a an permeabilities and allows pore water pressure changes: during Liquid Viscous = Plastic Semi-plastic — Solid deformation that gives clays the shear strength properties we describe Suspension —_Iiquid gsol'd solid as cohesive. The precise mechanism involved is déscribed more 34a) thoroughty in Chapter 6, but three simple examples help illustrate FS these differences. Firstly, although sands cannot be moulded without St a cracking, they can possess a weak cohesion, allowing children to of 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 slowly, their 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 cohesion, Volume Liquid Shrinksge limit Plastic Ilmit Liquid limit Lg ge Piasticity Index even though they are non-plastic. Thus, it can be seen that plasticity Water content and cohesion go together not because they are different facets of the (b) same property, but because clay particles are at the same time both extremely small and composed of minerals. the products of chemical] Figure 1.3 | Consistency limits: (a) change from liquid to solid as a soil dries out; (b) £xiremery smal and composed of minerals, the products ol chemice ° volume and consistency changes with water content change alteration, that possess particular electrochemical features. ° * between plastic and liquid phases and between semi-solid and solid 1.2.1 Consistency limits nar tee ; phases, as indicated in Figure 1.3. The shrinkage limit represents the The notion of soil consistency limits stems from the concept that sojl__ moisture content at which further drying of the soil causes no further can exist in any of four states, depending on its moisture content. This reduction in volume. This is illustrated in Figure 1.3(b). In elec- is illustrated in Figure 1.3, where soil is shown settling out of a trochemical terms, the Tay mninoral pariidley ase lar onoug apact a suspension in water, and slowly drying out. Initially, the soil is in the 7 the hqutdtimit to reduce the electrochemical attraction 1o almost form of a viscous liquid, with no shear strength. As its moisture rend, and at the plastic Inalt there is the minim seen ete, content is reduced, it begins to attain some strength but is still easily present fo maintain the lexibility of the bonds... SS 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 - ae is the semi-solid phase. Eventually, the soil becomes so dry that it is a 1.2.2 Development of the liquid and plastic limit tests brittle solid. Early ideas on the consistency concept and procedures The methods of measurement of the liquid and plastic limits have . for its measurement were developed by Atterberg, a Swedish chemist changed little since 1910. The method of hand-rolling clay into fine ” and agricultural researcher in about 1910. In his original work threads to determine the plastic limit remained virtually as it was Atterberg (1911) identified five limits but only three (shrinkage, . originally defined until Harison (1988) suggested a procedure using a plastic and liquid limits) have been used in soil mechanics. The liquid cone penetrometer. The liquid limit test, in which soil was originally and plastic limits represent the moisture contents at the borderline held in a cupped hand and tapped gently, evolved to provide8 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERT Table 1.2 CORRECTION FACTORS FOR THE ONE-POINT LIQUID LIMIT TEST eee No. of Factor No, of Factor No, of Factor blows F blows F blows F eee 1S 0.9 22 0.99 29 1.0L 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 1.0] 34 1.03 2! 0.98 28 1.01 35 ‘£.03 ee Liquid limil = moisture content 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 content against blow count {to a logarithmic scale). For soils of a similar geological 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 value of the liquid limit without the need for further 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 values are obtained by multiplying the moisture content value 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 difficult to carry out and results. vary according to the test method used and sometimes even depend on the initial moisture content of the test specimen. If the specimen is slowly dried from a water content near the liquid limit (for example, using the ASTM D 427 procedure), a shrinkage limit value of greater than the plastic limit may be obtained; this is meaningless when considered in the context of Figure 1.3. This is particularly true with sandy and silty clays. Likewise, if the soil is in its natural, undisturbed state then the shrinkage limit is often greater than the plastic limit due to the soil structure (Holtz and Kovacs 1981). Karlsson (1977), who carried out me a GRADING AND PLASTICITY 9 shrinkage limit tests on a number of Swedish clays, found that shrinkage limit was related to sensitivity (discussed in Chapter 6). For clays of medium sensitivity the shrinkage limit of undisturbed samples was about equal to the plastic limit, whereas undisturbed highly sensitive clays showed shrinkage limits greater than the plastic limits. Undisturbed organic clays showed shrinkage limits well be!ow the plastic limits. For all the soils tested, the shrinkage limits of the disturbed samples were lower than those of the undisturbed samples, and below the plastic limit. In his lectures at Harvard University, Casagrande suggested that the initial moisture content for shrinkage limit tests should be slightly above the plastic 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 ofa 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 SL=20—Ap + 7% °° w oy ve 50 o: a o of > 4 ¢* “ . » st Pl S Ky A B SoliB SL = 27 SollA SL = 14 Figure 1.4 Casagrande’s procedure for estimating the shrinkage limit oes qwte Me tie ape 2c tee10 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERT For plots Ap below the A-line SL=20+ Ap This procedure to determine the shrinkage limit (for soils prepared in the manner suggested by Casagrande) has been found to be as accurate as the test itself. An alternative and even simpler procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.4. The U-line and A-line of the plasticity chart are extended to meet at co-ordinates (—43.5, —46.4) and a line is drawn from the plotted point to this intersection, as illustrated. This line crosses the liquid limit axis at a value approximately equal to the 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 the minimum moisture content at which the shear strength of the soil is zero, However, because of the way the standard liquid limit tests have “been defined, the soil actually has a small shear strength. The Casagrande procedure models a slope failure due to dynamic loadin under quick undrained conditions. The shear strength of the speci- men is progressively reduced by increasing its moisture content until a specific energy input, in the form of standard taps, causes a failure of a standard slope in the defined manner. The alternative cone method, devised by the Swedish Geotechnical Commission in 1922, is also an indirect shear strength test that models bearing failure under quick undrained conditions. The consequence of these test procedures is that all soils at their liquid limit exhibit the same value of undrained shear strength. Casagrande (1932) estimated this value as 2.6kN/m2, and later work by Skempton and Northey (1952) indicated values of r ~2kN/m?. The hand rolling procedure used in the plastic limit test an be regarded as a measure of the toughness of a soil (the energy required to fracture it) which is also related to shear strength, although there are no obvious analogies for the mechanism of failure. It has been found that all soils at the plastic limit exhibit similar values of undrained shear strength reported by a number of researchers as being 100-200kN/m7?. It was recognised as early as 1910 that the consistency limit tests are measures of shear strength, and Atterberg’s assistant, the geologist Simon Johansson, presented an article on the strength of soils at different moisture contents in 1914. From the preceding discussion it can be seen that all remoulded soils change their strength throughout their plastic range from about IkN/m?7at the liquid limit to about 100kN/m? at the plastic limit. The plasticity index is therefore the change of water content needed to _bring about a strength change of roughly one hundred- fold, within GRADING AND PLASTICITY 11 the plastic range of the soil. A remoulded soil with a moisture conten t within _within the plastic range can be expected to have a shear streng lastic range can be expected to have a shear stren th somewhere between “somewhere betwoen thie existence and it seems rensonable 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 plastic 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 plastic limits. Correlations of remoulded shear strength and moisture content, related to the liquid and plastic 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 !s especially useful in view of the fact that most clays, both in their natural state and when used in earthworks, are in a plastic state. A further consequence of these concepts is that a soil with a low plasticity index requires only a small reduction in moisture content to bring about a substantial increase in shear strength. Conversely, a soil with a high plasticity index will not stabilise under load until large moisture content changes have taken place. This implies that highly. plastic soils will be less stable and that a correlation ma exist between plasticity and compressibility. Also, the liquid limit depends . on the amounts and types of clay minerals present, which control tt re permeability, hence the rate of consolidation, implying a correlation between liquid limit and the coefficient 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 index t the percentage of material finer than 24m 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; illite of ~0.9; and montmorillonite of greater than 1.5. These values hold true not only for the activity of the pure 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 of water within their mineral lattice, and is related to the chemistry of the clay particles. This penetration of the clay m 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 ofa Ln! ns Layla a | [rc (FOS YM \ co it£ CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES clay to swell in the presence of water and may be used to identify expansive Clays. In a less precise manner, swelling and shrinkage , i ; id limit, so that this too can be used to help identify expansive clays, This is discussed in Chapter 8. In broad terms, the plasticity index 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 have their characteristic angles of internal friction, their relative proportions largely determine the angle of internal friction, ¢., (and hence to a large extent the angle of effective shearing resistance, ’) of clay soils. Thus there are, perhaps surprisingly, correlations of ¢, and ¢' with plasticity index. These are given in Chapter 6. 1.2.5 Limitations on the use of consistency limits It can be seen that, like grading, the Atterberg limits are potentially related to a wide variety of soil properties. That this has been found to be true, gives ample justification for the use of grading and plasticity properties in the soil classification 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 finer than 425m, and the degree to which this fraction reflects the properties of the soil will depend o “the proportion of coarse material present and onthe precise ormding proportion 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- mahy-consolidated clays bu € properties of over-consolidate clays, sensitive clays and cemented soils often differ markedly from {nose predicted Irom Atterberg limit tests. Chapter 2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS The purpose of a soil classification 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 value, 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 they 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 content and soil plasticity are to be preferred as a basis for a classification system to properties such as moisture content, density, shear strength and CBR value. Implicit in the concept that soils with similar properties can be grouped together is the assumption that correlations exist between the various soil properties. That this is true is borne out not only by the success of soil classification systems but also by the many correlations given throughout this text. However, since correlations are only approximate, classification systems can give only a rough guide to suitability and behaviour: a limitation which mut be appreciated if classification systems are to be used sensibly. This is particularly important where a classification system, based on the testing of disturbed samples, is used to predict properties that depend on the state of the soil mass. For instance, since the shear strength ofa clay is heavily influenced by factors such as moisture content and field density, a classification system based on soil plasticity tests alone cannot be expected to predict bearing capacity to any great accuracy. 1314 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTI® SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS [5 In this respect, classification systems are more applicable where soils Table 2.1 THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: BASIC SOIL GROUPINGS. 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- Major divisions Typical names ing soil classification systems were all developed for earthworks, highways or airports work. Group symbols Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines <é Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines (little er no fines) 2.1 COMMON SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS Clean gravels | Silty gravels, poorly graded The most widely used engineering soil classification systems through- ae gravel-sand-silt mixtures out the English-speaking world are the Unified system and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (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 Classification System. Coarse-grained soils (sands and gravels) are classified according to their grading, and fine-grained soils (silts and clays) and organic soils are classified according to their plasticity, as indicated in Table 2.1. Classification is carried out using particle size distribution data and liquid limit and plasticity index values, 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 fixed by Casagrande, based on empirical data. The only modification from Casagrande’s original proposal is the small deviation at the lower vock flows, silty. or clayey. hing end. The system can also be used to classify soils using only field sands with slight plasticity identification, 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 finer degree of classification if required. ’ The American Association for Testing and Materials have adopted the Unified system as a basis for the ASTM soil classification, entitled ‘Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes’, designation D2487. The presentation is somewhat differ- ent from that of the Unified system but the method of classification is almost identical. The main differences are that the ASTM classifica- tion D2487 requires classification tests to be performed whereas the Unified system allows a tentative classification based on visual inspection only; and the ASTM system gives a subdivision of the Organic clays of medium to high groups which produces a rigidly specified name for each soil type. The plasticity F main soil classification chart is given in Table 2.4 and the ASTM ~ version of the soil plasticity chart is given in Figure 2.1. Definitions of Highly organic soils Peat and other highly organic soils the soil descriptions used are given in Table 2.5. The coefficient of e No. 4 sieve si More than half of coarse fraction is larger than fines) Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures Gravels with (appreciable amount of Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Coarse grained soils More than half of material is larger than 75pm sieve si + Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines (little or no e Clean sands Silty sands, poorly graded _ sand-silt mixtures No. 4 sieve st wY es ; 3 S SS > Sa S <= mm S = w a = fraction is smatler than fines) Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures Sands with (appreciable amount of Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays e liquid limit less than 50 - than 75pm sieve si. Silts and clays Organic silts and organic silt- clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or dictomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts Fine grained soils More than half of material is smaller Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Silts and clays liquid limit greater than SO16 CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES Table 2.2) THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA Group Laboratory classification symbols criteria Deo C,=~—— Greater than 4 10 D 2 =P 30) Between | and 3 Dio X Deo Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Above ‘A’ fine with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases Atterberg limits above | requiring use of dual ‘A’ line, with PJ greater | symbols ‘A’ line, or PI greater than 4 classified as follows: aw Og on an ES 3 3 aD Az 5 & Ss fu gfe 8 Bo Blog q a c . Sie 8 "5-2 | Atterberg limits below 3 ae O 3-2 ‘A’ line, or PI less | Above ‘A’ line with — S | s'3 Bm » | than 4 PI between 4 and 7 2 |'s “4.9 % SA) oe S35 are borderline cases x | oo 5 = Sos . . a ga mA 2 2 | Atterberg limits above | requiring use of dual Slog “Cy £ | ‘A’ line, with PI greater | symbols & Soro a oe OM 5 » | than7 Ss jue wes EY Sl c = § ei{S8 SOR Den Slo f C,=—— Greater than 6 £1 & 10 S 2 = [5 GS o o z S|2E& (D0) “| & 4 2 C,=———- Between 1 and 3 w BO ° ol . D,,xD =|. 6 = a 10 60 D o a3 e . . . £8 Sa Not meeting all gradation requirements for A] SOS an > ia — 9 S SW Ele sé ge Soe Oo 3 a Sy es Aa& Atterberg limits below ELAS % 2 | 2 & 3 to & Q E e o o8 WN _ oh wo 3 = A 3 mn & w “4 > Plasticity Indes is GQ $0 20 30 40 $0 80 TU BO BO 199 Liquid thmit Plasticity chart SOIL CLASSIFICA LIVIN OTOLTEIO FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS AND FINE-GRAINED FRACTION OF COARSE-GRAINED SCILS Cio p 70 Equation of “A”-iine Horizontal at Pl=4 to LL=25.5, then PI=0.73(LL-20) 60 Equation of “U"-line Vertical at LL=16 to Pi=7, then Pl=0.9(LL-8) 50 40 30 Plasticity index (PI) 0 10 20 30 40 #50 #60 70 80 90 100 110 20 Liquid limit (LU) Figure 2.1 Soil plasticity chart used with the ASTM and Unified soil classift- cation systems uniformity, Cu, and the coefficient of curvature, Cc, of the grading curve, which dre used in the classification, are defined | 24. e soil names used for each of the soil groups are defined 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 five 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 names, 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 version 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.‘Jui wy. AO|Iq SI0Id Tq “L] “auret IIs Uta pues papesd Ajsood WWS-dS ‘aul] |Y¥, 2a0gR Jo LO sjord [gq ‘OF dnos8 0} joaeid ulm, ppe ‘poaesd a, ¢] Sule]UOD HOS fT ‘6 ABD Gis pury popesd-ypan JS-ysS a “sun YY, wojpsg sio(d id p> fd “93 “QUIEY WIS Yaw pues papeis-jpom JS-AAS “oul .Y, 2Aogy to uc s1OId pus ps [gy ‘pl dnoid O1 sauyy auedsio wim, ppe ‘aucduo aie souy jp “3 :SJOQUIAS FENp Juinbas soul) %ZL 01g WIM spueg “pF “auteu dnoid o} Ajjaaciad, ppe *paars "WS"DS Azo YM J2aBId popes Aprood 39-qh ¥2 dqueunuopaid ‘p9z ‘oN snd % OF SUIBUOD [IOS JT ‘ECT J0°'WO-DD oquids jenp asn “PW -FD se Apisseps sauy sy oy UIS Yim joauss popes’ Apood py-gH = ‘suieu dnoj3 o; Apues, ppe “WRU ABD YIM [2Ae1 Popes3-[[M JO-MO ' bo “pues Apurutuopaid "QoZ “ON snd % oF suleiuOS j105 JP “ZT dnoi3 0} pus yim, ppe ‘pues 94g] S suleiOd [104 J] “9 WIS UI [aad papesd-|jam WO-MO wr “yuRUIWOplid SI JIADqIIY *BABIT yitn, JO sjoquids [Enp asmba sauy %Z] 01S YUM spaawg ‘¢ > .Pues YUM, ppe OOT ON “said 67 OL] SUlEIUOD [IOS JT “TT ‘sueu dnosd 0} ,Y1Oq JO ‘sJapinog JO $31qQqo9 YIM, ppe “Aaja Alls “Y10q 19 ‘slapynog 10 s3;QqQoo poulEjUCS sjdures play jt “7 é “TAA 1D 2 st los ‘wade paysiey ur ioyd sum Gaquany jf O] Agp> YUM pues psper3 Aylood 55-g5 "DAMS (WILE?) UI-g 34) SuIssed [eLaieu: oy Ue paseg "| E 1Ww3g Ld InOpo duesIO puR *INoOpOS UL Yep ‘IayeW StuesIO APPLE . sitios siuedso Ayyaiy V Ge crenzrrs His 1uRdIG paup jou ~ uy pinbry an gence Ael BuesIQ HO SLQ> pap uaao — uty pinbry HUBZIO < cecer lis 2nse[y HW aul] .Y¥, Mojaq sjord Jef S10UI JO Q¢ itu] pinbrT a errr Abb 14 HD ouy .y, dAoge JO uo siotd yo a1UesIOUT SAB]I PUR SIIS 5 revert ke sun 10 | Su 20 - at Pinbrt | set | A oeverceersAbp WUeTIO 10 SL0> pep udsao — yy pinbry aed IO 9AdIS 002 “ON ou} ever ls 1W oP] YW, MOjaq Slo[d Jo pS Ig OS WEY) ssa] wut] prmbry | sassed s10u 30 %O¢ ever Ae) UesT ID osu] ,¥, aAcqe Jo uo slojd pue 4S yg SUBBIOU] SABO PUB SHS S[LOs poulezs-auly erg _pues AakeQ 3S HD 10 J2 se Apissepo sauty | ,souy %Z] URYI WOW 51 . pues Ais HF 10 TW] se Apissepo surg SOUT} YUM SPURS onats (wus /"p) owe . : . : fp ‘ON Sassed uonaely 9S1B03 JO JIOUI 10 %S spues s£ <29 <] J0/pue gn sf 9DS] pure gsnyd H3 10 7D st Ajissepo soury HW JO TW se Ayisseps saury sf <2 = WO-MD+— HW 10 TA-souy pues yim [saei3 popeid AyJ00g —— pues %C] <. joaeid popesd Ajicog — pues %¢] > a0 PUES YUM JonBlz popess-ljaaq — pues %¢] < Jaaeid popesd-[[o4y, —— pues 4%] > —~ MAD €<97<] J0O/puk pong €SIDS] pue ven)» souy %o > IWYN dNOYD TOPWAS dNOUD (SASIS WS. NO G3NIVL3Y %0$ NVHL FUOW) STIOS GANIVHD-3SYVOD ONIAZISSVTD WOd LUVHD MOTI 9°F FIGUL CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES NN AN25 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS CORRELATIONS OF SOIL PROPERTIES 24 PUES YUM JIS SSB]D A]PIALID purs %Sl= Ys onsel> ATPIaAvIH pues %S1> PAGS yum IIIs sels Apues+——— joaer8 wo] & is Susels Apueg-~——— Joaws® YS] > [2ABI3 GILM UIs SSe[y—paaeIs 4, > pues % Pues YIM IIs ONsEIA—poaele y= pues % 00 "ON snd %67-$1 IIS onseyy O0¢ "ON said % ST > aS poaes %> puys % pues yum Agi yey ATpIABID puss yc[< Ayo yey Afpaawzy pues %¢] > aed yim AED 1B) Apueg+~———._ oad 6] = Aeyo 1ey Apueg+———. Joaer# %¢] > feaeid yA ABD Jey — jones % > pues », POEs VIM Aej> ey jones », < pues %—007 ON Snyd %6z-¢7 Ap eq O07 “ON snid y%oT> oS jones %> pues % pues yim ys AysAesc) pues %S1< wis AyaatIyH pues %&¢[> jone1Z Ym yls APUEG—- Joaels GL S is Apueg+———- JoaBd $1 > [aaeld YUM IIS+—pPAeis % > pues % PUES YIM HISe—Jaatss % = pues % MWS > yonead % > PUPS % z Ss ppaesd %< pues yor 00Z “ON snd %67-S1 00Z “ON snid % ST > pues ym Aep Ayis Appears pues wore Keo Ayyts Appaawiry pues %&¢[ > jaaeid yum Aepd Ayes Apueg+-——— Joarss yo <= Aeyo ips Apueg+—— aavsd 4, ¢1 > jaatis yim AB Aypige—joness &% > pues % pues yum Aeja Ayigw—yoaess % = pues % Agia Aris > spress %> pues % a> paesd “%€ pues % | S007 "ON snd % 67-61 007 ‘ON std % GT >>00z pues yum dep ues, Apjaawiy pues %OT Se Aep wes, Apjaazsy PUES YC] > ———>[saels o> pues &% jaaeid yim ABp ueay Apueg—_ joarid e&%¢1 = ovz Ss poansd *% <= pues % Jaatsd YM Av[D URI] —OAtsT % > pus Y pues yin Aej UBT] —jaaels YZ pues % 00r ‘ON said %62-S1 Aep wey 00Z ‘ON snd %ST > Soo2 FINN dNow)D TOEGWNAS dNOXD DS paess %> pues unt "ON snid %OF < s Dove "ON snd %O¢ € [PARIS % & pues ey “ON snid %OF ‘ON snd %oc z _, POUP 100-77 ST FIQEL 295 HO (se o> TT) onus aul-.¥, Oos9q 101d Id 002 "ON snid %O¢ > fuBsiouy Sul], ¥, aaoqe HD+— Jo uo sqord jd ooz "ON snd % OE > Pep 100-7] : ——_ — ‘ 1 3 ST AGEL 2 10 @ O> ae tt) ae 1Q ‘ON stud %OE Zz auty-,¥, MOTEq IW+— sioid 10 p> Id \ os> TT OZ “ON snid %OE> Dove ON sud %OF< ouit-.¥, 20k JO UO s}0[d auURsIOU \aw pue (S1dS¢ / | > aulf-,¥. aaoqge 10 ua s)0;d Wer ue £ (JARIS “4S. SaSSVd FYOW YO %0s) STIOS GANIVHD-3NId DINVOUONI ONIAAISSYID AOA LUVHD MOTI LZ FQUL re a ar gus Te a dati