Soil Characterization

Middle East Technical University
Civil Engineering Department
CE 468 Geotechnical Design

Chapter 1: Soil Characterization
This chapter is a short summary of Geoteknik Mhendisliinde Saha Deneyleri (Erol and ekinmez, 2014).
Please refer to the book for more detailed information and references.
CHAPTER 1
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
1.1. Introduction
In order to solve geotechnical problems first of all soil behavior must be modelled accurately. Since
1900s different researchers developed various numerical and theoretical methods to represent realistic
soil behavior. Recently there are various methods that can precisely model even complex soil behavior
of different soil types. Before using either the numerical or theoretical methods, soil parameters must
be accurately determined to define the exact in-situ behavior of it. For this two main approaches are
valid:
(i)
Sampling and laboratory tests parameters are calculated (direct approach)
(ii)
In-situ tests parameters are calculated by means of correlations (indirect approach)
Indeed, both approaches are mutually complementary approaches.
{
Why do we use indirect approach ?
Laboratoty tests are composed of two main group tests:
Soil Classification Tests
Sieve Analysis, Hydrometer, Atterberg
Limit Tests, Specific Gravity Test, Dry
Examples:
Density Test, Maximum and Minimum
Void Ratio Tests, Proctor Test, etc.
Sample Type: Disturbed sample
Time-Cost: Fast and economic tests
Strength and Compressibility Tests

Direct Shear Box Test, Triaxial Tests,
Unconfined Compression Test,
Consolidation (Oedometer) Test, Swell
Tests, etc.
Undisturbed sample
Slow and expensive tests
For cohesionless soils: it is difficult to obtain high quality undisturbed samples.

For cohesive soils: obtaining sufficient amount of results from strength and compressibility tests
takes too long time.
Thus, for both cohesionless and cohesive soils various empirical methods (correlations) were
developed.
}
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 1/20


{
How the correlation methods are developed?
For a site and specific soil type, laboratory tests and in-situ tests are performed. Using statistical
methods (regression etc.) correlation is developed in order to get laboratory test results from the results
of in-situ tests.
}
Be careful before using these correlations! Not every correlation can represent each soil type.
Correlations developed for different soils under different in-situ conditions. For example a correlation
developed for behavior of London Clay may not realistically represent Ankara Clay. Moreover, the
standard deviations of these correlations are high which the accuracy of these is another controversial
issue. Even for same soil type, different correlations calculate different values for the parameters. In
addition, mostly used static and dynamic penetration tests apply higher strains during the test process
than the strain levels that soil encounter during soil-structure interaction.
1.2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
1.2.1. Soil Classification
Clayton (1993) proposed a simple way to classify soil/rock depending on the SPT- value.
Table 1.1. Soil and rock classification from SPT- values (Clayton, 1993)
Soil Type
SPT-
Sand
(1 )60
Clay
60
Weak rock
60
03
38
8 25
25 42
42 58
04
48
8 15
15 30
30 60
> 60
0 80
80 200
> 200
Soil Classification
Very loose
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very dense
Very soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
Very weak
Weak
Medium weak to very stiff
1.2.2. Cohesionless Soils

1.2.2.1. Relative Density ( )
Terzaghi and Peck (1967), proposed a general approach for the relation between SPT- and (Table
1.2).
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 2/20


Table 1.2. SPT- - relation (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

SPT- Range
04
4 10
10 30
30 50
> 50
Soil Classification (%)

Very loose
0 15
Loose
15 35
Medium dense
35 65
Dense
65 85
Very dense
85 100
Coduto (2000) showed the difference between correlations proposed by Holtz and Gibbs (1979) and
Bazaraa (1967) in Figure 1.1.
2
Efektif
rt yk,
(lb/ft
Effective
overburden
pressure,
) (lb/ft2)
Effective overburden pressure, (kN/m2)
Holtz and Gibbs (1979)

Bazaraa (1967)
1000
50
2000
100
3000
150
4000
200
5000
250
300
6000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SPT-
Figure 1.1. Comparison between correlations proposed by Bazaraa (1967) and Holtz and Gibbs
(1979) (Coduto, 2000)
1.2.2.2. Angle of Shearing Resistance ( )
Stroud (1988) revised the correlation which was previously proposed by Peck et al. (1974). In Figure
1.2 relation between SPT-(1 )60 - is given depending on overconsolidation ratio (). Here, :
normally consolidated soils.
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 3/20


Very loose
15 35
Relative density, (%)

50
65
Dense
Medium dense
85
100
Very dense
Peck et al. (1953)
SPT-( )
20
40
60
80
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
()
Figure 1.2. Relation between SPT-( ) - - (Stroud, 1988)
Bowles (1996) proposed relation between SPT-(1 )70 relative density ( ) angle of shearing
resistance ( ) saturated unit weight ( ) as given in Table 1.3. Relation between relative density and
values can also be represented by the following analytic equation. Here, is in decimal.
() = 28 + 15 (2)
Table 1.3. Relation between SPT-( ) - - - (Bowles, 1996)

Definition
Fine
( ) Medium
Coarse
Fine
Medium
Coarse
( )
Very loose
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very dense
0
12
23
36
26 28
27 28
28 30
0.15
36
47
59
28 30
30 32
30 34
0.35
7 15
8 20
10 25
30 34
32 36
33 40
0.65
16 30
21 40
26 45
33 38
36 42
40 50
0.85
> 40
> 45
< 50
11 16
14 18
17 20
17 22
20 23
Schmertmann (1975) proposed relation between 0

- SPT- - as shown in Figure 1.3.
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 4/20

SPT-

Effective overburden pressure, (kN/m2)
Figure 1.3. Relation between - SPT- - (Schmertmann, 1975)
1.2.2.3. Deformation Modulus ( )
Stroud (1988) stated that relation between SPT- depends on the load level ( ) applied
on the soil. By using a wide database, Stroud (1988) proposed relation between SPT-
( ) for both cohesion and cohesionless soils (Figure 1.4). Here, : net foundation pressure
and : net ultimate bearing capacity.
10
8
(MN/m2)
Over sonsolidated sand and gravel
6
4
Overconsolidated clays
= %15
= %50
Normally consolidated sands
2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 1.4. Relation between - SPT- ( ) (Stroud, 1988)
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) proposed correlations for sandy soils as shown in the following equation
set.
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 5/20

2)

, :
50060
:
100060
=
: 150060
Bowles (1996) summarized the various correlations developed for different soil types as given in
Table 1.4. Correlations listed in Table 1.4 are given for normally consolidated sands and must be
multiplied by ()0.5 for overconsolidated sands.
Table 1.4. Correlations between SPT- (Bowles, 1996)
Soil Type
NC Sands
(kN/m2)
500(55 + 15)
700055
600055
(15000 22000) ln 55
(2600 2900)55
Gravelly sands
250(55 + 15)
Clayey sands
600(55 + 6) (For 55 15)

2000 + 600(55 + 6) (For 55 > 15 )
Saturated sands
Silts, sandy silts, clayey silts
1200(55 + 6)
320(55 + 15)
300(55 + 6)
FHWA (2002a) proposed the correlations listed in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5. Correlations between SPT- (FHWA, 2002a)
Soil Type
Silt, sandy silt, low cohesive mix soils
Clean fine-medium sand and low silty sands
Coarse sand and gravelly sands
Sandy gravels
1.2.3. Cohesive Soils
(kN/m2)
400(1 )60
700(1 )60
1000(1 )60
1200(1 )60
1.2.3.1. Undrained Shear Strength ( )
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) stated that relation between ( ) and SPT- given in Table 1.6 can
approximately be represented by ( ) = 0.06 .
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 6/20


Table 1.6. Relation between SPT- (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

SPT- Consistency Approximate ratio
02
Very soft
< 1/8
24
Soft
1/8 1/4
4 8 Medium stiff
1/4 1/2
8 15
Stiff
1/2 1
15 30
Very stiff
12
> 30
Hard
>2
: atmospheric pressure 100 kN/m2
Database comprised of 1200 SPT- values from 42 different sites in U.K. by Stroud (1974). In this
study, unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests were performed on high quality undisturbed
samples in order to obtained actual undrained shear strength values of clayey soils. As a result Stroud
(1974) reported that for clayey soils with plasticity index () in range of 25 60 and SPT- values in
range of 10 60 blow/30 cm, undrained shear strength values obtained from UU tests are in range of
25 500 kN/m2. Stroud (1974) proposed a correlation between 1 and as shown in Figure 1.5
where 1 is a factor depending on plasticity index and,
(2 ) = 1 60
The above equation can also be approximately represented by the following equation set.
(6 7) 60
< 20:
(2 ) = 20 < < 30: (4 5) 60
> 30:
4.2 60
10
( )
8
6
4
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
(%)
Figure 1.5. Relation between SPT- - - (Stroud, 1974)
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 7/20


1.2.3.2. Oedometric Deformation Modulus ()

Based on the previously stated study, Stroud (1974) proposed a correlation between 2 and for the
relation between coefficient of volumetric compression ( ) and SPT- value as shown in Figure 1.6.
Here, 2 is a factor depending on plasticity index and
(/2 ) =
1000
1
= 2 60
( )
800
600
400
200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
(%)
Figure 1.6. Relation between SPT- - - (Stroud, 1974)
1.3. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Begemann (1965) proposed a soil classification chart depending on the sleeve friction ( ) and cone
resistance ( ) as shown in Figure 1.7.
2
Cone resistance, (MN/m )
50
Fine (<16) content
40
30
Silty sand
5
15
25
35
45
65
95
100
20
10
Sand and gravel
0.1
Cla
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

2
Sleeve friction, (MN/m )
0.7
0.8
Figure 1.7. Soil classification (Begemann, 1965)
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 8/20


Robertson (1990) stated that similar with SPT- values also cone resistance values would increase
with depth in same type of soil. Hence, cone resistance values must be corrected for overburden
pressure. Based on this approach Robertson (1990) proposed a soil classification chart as shown in
Figure 1.8. In this chart, for CPT and CPTU tests the left-hand side and right-hand side charts must be
used, respectively.
Zone Soil Behavior Type

1.
Sensitive, fine grained
2.
Organic soil peat
3.
Clay silty clay
*Over consolidated or cemented
4.
5.
6.
Clayey silt silty clay

Silty sand sandy silt
Clean sand silty sand
7.
8.
9.
Gravelly sand sand

Very stiff sand clayey sand*
Very stiff fine grained*
Figure 1.8. Soil behavior classification (Robertson, 1990)

In Figure 1.8; is normalized cone resistance, is normalized friction ratio, is pore pressure ratio
and,
and
= ( 0 )0
= + 2 (1 )
: total and effective overburden pressure at

Where; : corrected total cone resistance, 0 and 0
depth of soil investigated, respectively, : area ratio ( ).
(%) = [ ( 0 )] 100
= = (2 0 )( 0 )
{Please read pages 85 90 in the book for details.}
Robertson (1990) also defined a soil behavior index ( ) in order to define the soil behavior
analytically by using the following equation:
= [(3.47 log )2 + (log + 1.22)2 ]0.5
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 9/20


In Table 1.7, values for different soil behaviors defined in Figure 1.8 are given.
Table 1.8. Ranges of for different types of soil behavior (Robertson, 1990)
Zone Type of Soil Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sensitive , fine grained

Organic soil peat
> 3.6
Silty clay clay
2.95 3.6
Clayey silt silty clay
2.60 2.95
Silty sand sandy silt
2.05 2.6
Clean sand silty sand
1.31 2.05
Gravelly sand dense sand
< 1.31
Very stiff sand clayey sand*
Very stiff fine grained*
*Over consolidated or cemented
1.3.2. Cohesive Soils

1.3.2.1. Undrained Shear Strength ( )
Based on the bearing capacity theory, during cone penetration test bearing capacity is fully mobilized
and relation between bearing capacity and undrained shear strength according to total stress approach
is:
Where, : cone factor.
= + 0
Fugro (2004) proposed the following values for :
For normally consolidated clays, = 15 16

For over consolidated clays, = 18 19
1.3.2.2. Oedometric Deformation Modulus ()

Sanglerat (1972) proposed a correlation coefficient ( ) in Table 1.9 for the relation between
coefficient of volumetric compression ( ) and CPT- value as shown in the following equation:
= 1 =
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 10/20


Table 1.9. coefficients (Sanglerat, 1972)
Range of values
< 0.7 /2
0.7 /2 < < 2.0 /2
> 2.0 /2
> 2 /2
< 2 /2
< 2 /2
< 1.2 /2
values
Soil Type
Low plasticity clay
(CL)
3 < < 6
1 < < 3
Low plasticity silt

(ML)
3 < < 8
2 < < 5
1 < < 2.5
2 < < 6
2 < < 8
< 0.7 /2
50 < < 100 1.5 < < 4
100 < < 200 1 < < 1.5
> 200 0.4 < < 1
Where; : natural water content (%).
High plasticity silt

and clay
(MH ve CH)
Organic silt (OL)
Peat and organic
clay (Pt, OH)
1.3.3. Cohesionless Soils

1.3.3.1. Relative Density ( )
Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) proposed a correlation between - as shown in Figure 1.9 by using the
results of calibration chamber test on various types of sand.
Figure 1.9. Relation between - - (Jamiolkowski et al., 1985)
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 11/20


1.3.3.2. Angle of Shearing Resistance ( )

Robertson and Campanella (1983) performed calibration chamber and drained triaxial tests on
uncemented and medium compressible clean silica sands and proposed a correlation between effective
), cone resistance ( ) and as shown in Figure 1.10.

overburden stress (0
Figure 1.10. Relation between - - (Robertson and Campanella, 1983)

1.3.3.3. Deformation Modulus ( )
Deformation modulus of cohesionless soils depends on relative density of soil, over consolidation
ratio of soil and effective overburden pressure on the soil.
Robertson and Campanella (1983) proposed a correlation between cone resistance and deformation
modulus for two different strain levels: 25 and 50 depending on the effective overburden pressure as
shown in Figure 1.11.
By using results calibration chamber test, Lunne and Christophersen (1983) proposed a correlation
between 0 and as shown in Figure 1.12. The correlation can also represented by the following
equation sets:
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 12/20


NC Sands,
< 10 /2
10 /2 < < 50 /2
> 50 /2
OC Sands,
< 50 /2
> 50 /2
0 = 4
0 = 2 + 20 (/2 )
0 = 120 /2
0 = 5
0 = 250
Lunne and Christophersen (1983) also stated that if there is a stress increase at an amount of than
) (0
+ ) a correlation proposed by Janbu (1963) is valid for :
for range of stress within (0
]0.5
= 0 [(0
+ 0.5 )0
Figure 1.11. Relation between - ve - (Robertson and Campanella, 1983)
Robertson et al. (2010) proposed the following equation for sands under axial strain at a level of 0.1%:
and
= ( 0 )
= 0.01510(0.55+1.68)
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 13/20


Figure 1.12. Relation between - (Lunne and Christoffersen, 1983)
1.4. Pressuremeter Test (PMT)

Briaud (1992) stated that for the determination of soil whether cohesive or cohesionless ratio of
is an indicator:
Cohesive soils: ( ) > 12
Cohesionless soils: 7 < ( ) < 12
Briaud (1992) proposed the criteria given in Table 1.10 for the determination of soil type and
compressibility/consistency conditions depending on the limit pressure ( ) values. Moreover, Biraud
(1992) stated that the net limit pressure ( ) and Menards modulus ( ) values are in the ranges
given in Table 1.11 for different soil types.
Table 1.11. Soil classification depending on values (Briaud, 1992)
(kN/m2)
Soil
SPT-
0 10
0 500
Loose
Medium dense 500 1500 10 30
Sand
1500 2500 30 50
Dense
> 50
> 2500
Very dense
Clay
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Soft
Medium stiff
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
0 200
200 400
400 800
800 1600
> 1600
* : undrained shear strength
* (kN/m2)
0 25
25 50
50 100
100 200
> 200
Page 14/20


Table 1.12. and ranges for various soil types (Briaud, 1992)
Soft
CLAY
Medium Stiff
0 200
200 400
0 2.5
2.5 5.0
Soil Type
(kN/m )
2
(MN/m2)
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
400 800 800 1600 > 1600

5.0 12.0 12.0 25.0
> 25.0
Soil Type
Loose
SAND
Medium dense
(kN/m2)
0 500
500 1500
1500 2500
> 2500
0 3.5
3.5 12.0
12.0 22.5
> 22.5
(MN/m2)
Dense
Very dense
1.4.2. Undrained Shear Strength ( )
Baguelin et al. (1978) proposed a correlation between and as shown in Figure 1.13. Same
correlation can also be represented by the following equation.
0.75
= 0.21
Where; is atmospheric pressure (100 kN/m2). The accuracy of this correlation is low as seen in
Figure 1.13.
Figure 1.13. Relation between - ( = 1 tsf 100 (kN/m2)) (Briaud, 1992)

Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 15/20


Another correlation is proposed by Baguelin et al. (1978) as shown in Figure 1.14.
Figure 1.14. Relation between - (Baguelin et al., 1978)

1.4.3. Oedometric Deformation Modulus ()
Amar et al. (1991) stated that oedometric deformation modulus ( = 1 ) can be calculated by
using the pressuremeter test data and the following equation.
Where; : Menards factor (Table 1.13).
Table 1.13. Menards factor (Briaud, 1992)

Peat
Clay
Silt
Sand and
Gravel
Sand
Soil Type
Overconsolidated
Normally
consolidated
Weathered and/or
remoulded
For all
values
9 16
2/3
8 14
1/2
7 - 12
1/3
6 10
1/4
79
1/2
> 16
> 14
2/3
1/2
1/2
> 10
1/3
1/3
1/4
Very fractured
Others
Low fractured or
weathered
= 1/3
= 1/2
= 2/3
Rock
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
> 12
Page 16/20


1.5. Other Correlations

1.5.1. Effective Angle of Shearing Resistance ( ) for Cohesive Soils
Figure 1.15. Relation between plasticity index - (Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri, 1996)
Figure 1.16. Relation between plasticity index - (Gibson, 1953)
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 17/20


1.5.2. Effective Cohesion ( ) for Cohesive Soils
Figure 1.17. Relation between effective cohesion and preconsolidation pressure

(Mesri and Abdel-Gaffar, 1993)
1.5.3. Consolidation Parameters for Cohesive Soils

Skempton (1944) and Terzaghi and Peck (1948) proposed a correlation between and :
= ( 10)
Where; = 0.007 (Skempton, 1944) or = 0.009 (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948).
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 18/20


Figure 1.18. Relation between correlation coefficient and liquid limit (US Navy, 1982)
1.6. Idealized Soil Profile

For a single borehole
Soil classification by comparing in-situ test results and laboratory test results
Group similar adjacent soil sublayers = SOIL LAYERS

and define the upper and lower boundaries of the soil layers
Calculate average values obtained from in-situ and lab tests for each layer
Draw the soil profile (2D for diffferent sections or 3D if

possible) with accurate elevation and scale
Join the similar soil types in adjacent boreholes and calculate the average
values of results obtained from in-situ and lab tests
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 19/20


Calculate the relevant soil parameters from the average values
Determination of soil parameters
Determination of upper and lower boundary of the idealized soil layers
Determination of ground water level of the idealized soil layer
Draw the idealized soil profile, write the name of soil, soil
consistency/compressibility, USCS classification name, all parameters
calculated/obtained, upper and lower elevations, thickness of layers,
draw ground water level (GWL)
Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ
Page 20/20

Soil Characterization

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Soil Characterization

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Middle East Technical University

Civil Engineering Department

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

Strength and Compressibility Tests

For cohesionless soils: it is difficult to obtain high quality undisturbed samples.

Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ

Middle East Technical University

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

1.2.2. Cohesionless Soils

Middle East Technical University

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

Table 1.2. SPT- - relation (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

Soil Classification (%)

Effective overburden pressure, (kN/m2)

Holtz and Gibbs (1979)

Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ

Middle East Technical University

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

Relative density, (%)

Peck et al. (1953)

Figure 1.2. Relation between SPT-( ) - - (Stroud, 1988)

Table 1.3. Relation between SPT-( ) - - - (Bowles, 1996)

Schmertmann (1975) proposed relation between 0

Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

Middle East Technical University

Effective overburden pressure, (kN/m2)

Figure 1.3. Relation between - SPT- - (Schmertmann, 1975)

1.2.2.3. Deformation Modulus ( )

Over sonsolidated sand and gravel

Normally consolidated sands

Figure 1.4. Relation between - SPT- ( ) (Stroud, 1988)

Middle East Technical University

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

600(55 + 6) (For 55 15)

Silts, sandy silts, clayey silts

FHWA (2002a) proposed the correlations listed in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5. Correlations between SPT- (FHWA, 2002a)

1.2.3.1. Undrained Shear Strength ( )

Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ

Middle East Technical University

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

Table 1.6. Relation between SPT- (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)

Figure 1.5. Relation between SPT- - - (Stroud, 1974)

Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ

Middle East Technical University

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

1.2.3.2. Oedometric Deformation Modulus ()

Figure 1.6. Relation between SPT- - - (Stroud, 1974)

1.3. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Cone resistance, (MN/m )

Fine (<16) content

Sand and gravel

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 1.7. Soil classification (Begemann, 1965)

Dr. Zeynep EKNMEZ

Middle East Technical University

CE 468 Geotechnical Design

Zone Soil Behavior Type

Clayey silt silty clay

Gravelly sand sand

Figure 1.8. Soil behavior classification (Robertson, 1990)

: total and effective overburden pressure at