Chapter 3

Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Abstract With the necessary theoretical framework covered in Chapter 2, this

chapter discusses the correlations relating the different soil parameters deter-
mined in the laboratory for both cohesive and cohesionless soils. Parameters
covered in this chapter include permeability, consolidation, undrained and
drained shear strength, stiffness and modulus and coefficient of earth pressure
at rest. The relationships between the parameters discussed herein are not
necessarily all empirical. Some theoretical relationships are also given. In
addition to the theoretical and empirical relationships, typical values of the
parameters are provided wherever possible. Correlations with laboratory data
to be directly used in pile design are also provided.

Keywords Laboratory tests • Design parameters • Correlations • Consolidation •

Shear strength • Pile design

With the necessary theoretical framework covered in Chap. 2, this chapter discusses
the correlations relating the different soil parameters determined in the laboratory.
The relationships between the parameters discussed herein are not necessarily all
empirical. Some theoretical relationships are also given. In addition to the theoret-
ical and empirical relationships, typical values of the parameters are provided
wherever possible.

3.1 Permeability

Permeability relationships for granular and cohesive soils depend on different

parameters. Therefore, they are covered separately in this section.

© Springer India 2016 51

J. Ameratunga et al., Correlations of Soil and Rock Properties
in Geotechnical Engineering, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering,
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2629-1_3
52 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

3.1.1 Granular Soils

Granular soils have higher permeability than cohesive soils. Within granular soils,
the permeability increases with the grain size. Generally, granular soils are assumed
to be free draining. However, when they contain more than 15 % fines, they are no
longer free draining. Fines in excess of 30 % can reduce the permeability
significantly.
In clean uniform loose sands with less than 5 % fines, with D10 in the range of
0.1–3.0 mm, Hazen (1911, 1930) suggested that the permeability k can be related to
D10 by

kðcm=sÞ ¼ C D210 ð3:1Þ

where D10 is in mm, and C is a constant that varies between 0.5 and 1.5. The scatter
in C is considerably large as reported by many researchers and documented by
Carrier III (2003), who suggested using Kozeny-Carman equation instead of
Hazen’s.
Kozeny-Carman equation, proposed by Kozeny (1927) and improved by
Carman (1938, 1956) is:

1 γ w e3
k¼ ð3:2Þ
CKC S μw 1 þ e
2

where CK-C ¼ Kozeny-Carman factor (approximately 5) to account for the pore

shape and tortuosity of the flow channels, and S ¼ specific surface area per unit
volume of grains. For uniform spherical grains, S ¼ 6/D where D is the grain
diameter. For non-spherical grains of different sizes, determining S is not straight-
forward. Carrier III (2003) modified Eq. (3.2) slightly and suggested a method to
derive the specific surface from the sieve analysis data.
Lambe and Whitman (1979) noted that e versus log k variation is often linear
for both fine and coarse grained soils. Further, k varies linearly with e2, e2/(1 þ e),
and e3/(1 þ e) in granular soils. Figure 3.1 shows the k-e-D10 chart proposed by
US Navy (1982) for coarse grained soils with Cu ¼ 2–12 and D10/D5 < 1.4, based
on laboratory test data on remolded compacted sand. Chapuis (2004) related
k (cm/s), e and D10 (mm) through the following equation for natural uniform
sand and gravel, which is valid when permeability is in the range of
101–103 cm/s.

0:7825
e3
kðcm=sÞ ¼ 2:4622 D210 ð3:3Þ
1þe

k-e-D10 variation, based on Chapuis (2004) equation are also shown in Fig. 3.1 for
comparison.
3.1 Permeability 53

10

US Navy (1982)
Chapuis

1
Permeability k (cm/s)

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.1 0.3 0.5 1 3

Effective grain size D10 (mm)

Fig. 3.1 Permeability – void ratio – effective grain size relation for coarse grained soils from US
Navy (1982) and Chapuis (2004)

3.1.2 Cohesive Soils

Kozeny-Carman equation does not hold very well for cohesive soils. However, as
noted by Taylor (1948) and Lambe and Whitman (1979), void ratio is proportional
to the logarithm of permeability. Therefore,
e0  e
logk ¼ logk0  ð3:4Þ
Ck

where, k is the permeability at void ratio of e (possibly under some surcharge), and
k0 is the in situ permeability at in situ void ratio of e0. 1/Ck is the slope of the log
k versus e line. Ck is the dimensionless permeability change index that can be taken
as approximately 0.5 e0. Equation (3.4) works well for e0 < 2.5. Mesri and Olsen
(1971) suggested that, for clays, log k varies linearly with log e.
For remoulded clays, Carrier III and Beckman (1984) showed that
 
0:0174 e  0:027ðPL  0:242PI Þ 4:29
kðm=sÞ  ð3:5Þ
1þe PI

The permeability of compacted clays is significantly lower for clays compacted

wet of optimum than dry of optimum. For applications requiring low permeability
54 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

(e.g., clay liners at the bottom of waste disposal ponds), it may be better to compact
at water contents greater than the optimum water content.

3.2 Consolidation

There are several parameters defining the consolidation behavior of clays. They
include, compression index, recompression index, constrained modulus, coefficient
of consolidation and coefficient of secondary compression. They are discussed
separately in this section.

3.2.1 Compression Index

Compression index Cc (see Fig. 2.12b) is the slope of the virgin consolidation line, a
0 0
straight line in the e  logσ v space. The e  σ v values will be located on this line
when the clay is normally consolidated, irrespective of the stress level. Cc is a
measure of how stiff the clay is when it is normally consolidated, and is an
important parameter in computing the final consolidation settlements. It is often
related to the in situ natural water content wn, initial in situ void ratio e0, liquid limit
LL, or plasticity index PI. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested that the correla-
tions based on natural water content work better than the ones based on LL or e0.
Koppula (1981) evaluated the relationship between Cc and eight other parameters
and observed that the one with the least error is given by

Cc ¼ 0:01wn ð3:6Þ

where, wn is in percentage. For saturated soils, assuming Gs ¼ 2.70, Eq. (3.6) can be
written as

Cc ¼ 0:37e0 ð3:7Þ

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) classify the clays based on compressibility as shown in
Table 3.1.
Winterkorn and Fang (1975) tabulated Cc values showing that they are signif-
icantly larger for undisturbed clays than the remolded ones. Some of the empirical
correlations for Cc are summarized in Table 3.2. Further correlations for Cc are
given in Sridharan and Nagaraj (2000) and Djoenaidi (1985). Some typical values
of compression index reported in the literature are summarized in Table 3.3.
3.2 Consolidation 55

Table 3.1 Compressibility Compressibility Cc

classification based on Cc
Slight or low <0.2
Moderate of intermediate 0.2–0.4
High >0.4

Table 3.2 Empirical correlations for Cc

Correlation Comments References
Cc ¼ 0.009 (LL-10) Undisturbed clay of sensitivity less Terzaghi and Peck
than 4. Reliability  30 % (1948)
Cc ¼ 0.007 (LL-10) Remoulded clay Skempton (1944)
Cc ¼ 0.0046 (LL-9) Sao Paulo, Brazil clays Cozzolino (1961)
CC ¼ 0.0186 (LL-30) Soft silty Brazilian clays Cozzolino (1961)
Cc ¼ 0.01 (LL-13) All clays USACE (1990)
Cc ¼ 0.008 (LL-8.2) Indiana soils Lo and Lovell (1982)
Cc ¼ 0.21 þ 0.008 LL Weathered & soft Bangkok clays Balasubramaniam and
Brenner (1981)
Cc ¼ 0.30 (e0 – 0.27) Inorganic silty clay Hough (1957)
Cc ¼ 1.15(e0 – 0.35) All clays Azzouz et al. (1976)
Cc ¼ 0.75(e0 – 0.50) Soils of very low plasticity Azzouz et al. (1976)
Cc ¼ 0.4(e0 – 0.25) Clays from Greece & parts of US Azzouz et al. (1976)
 2:382
90 samples; Bowles (1988) suggests e0 Rendon-Herrero (1980)
Cc ¼ 0:141G1:2
s
1þe0
Gs be less than 0.8
Cc ¼ 0.256 þ 0.43(e0 – Brazilian clays Cozzolino (1961)
0.84)
Cc ¼ 0.54 (e0 – 0.35) All clays Nishida (1956)
Cc ¼ 0.22 þ 0.29 e0 Weathered and soft Bangkok clays Balasubramaniam and
Brenner (1981)
Cc ¼ 0.575 e0– 0.241 French clays Balasubramaniam and
Brenner (1981)
Cc ¼ 0.5363(e0 – 0.411) Indiana soils Goldberg et al. (1979)
Cc ¼ 0.496 e0 – 0.195 Indiana soils Lo and Lovell (1982)
Cc ¼ 0.40(e0 – 0.25) Clays from Greece & parts of US Azzouz et al. (1976)
Cc ¼ 0.01 wn Chicago clays Azzouz et al. (1976)
Cc ¼ 0.01 wn Canada clays Koppula (1981)
Cc ¼ 0.0115 wn Organic soils, peat USACE (1990) and
Azzouz et al. (1976)
Cc ¼ 0.012 wn All clays USACE (1990)
Cc ¼ 0.01(wn – 5) Clays from Greece & parts of US Azzouz et al. (1976)
Cc ¼ 0.0126 wn – 0.162 Indiana soils Lo and Lovell (1982)
Cc ¼ 0.008 wn þ 0.20 Weathered soft Bangkok clays Balasubramaniam and
Brenner (1981)
Cc ¼ 0.0147 wn – 0.213 French clays Balasubramaniam and
Brenner (1981)
Cc ¼ (1 þ e0)[0.1 þ 0.006 Varved clays USACE (1990)
(wn – 25)]
56 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Table 3.3 Typical values of compression index for undisturbed clays

Soil Cc References
Normally consolidated medium sensitive clays 0.2–0.5 Holtz and Kovacs (1981)
Organic silt and clayey silts (ML-MH) 1.5–4.0
Organic clays (OH) >4
Peats (Pt) 10–15
Boston blue clay, undisturbed (CL) 0.35 Lambe and Whitman (1979)
Chicago clay undisturbed (CH) 0.42
Cincinnati clay (CL) 0.17
Louisiana clay, undisturbed (CH) 0.33
New Orleans clay undisturbed (CH) 0.29
Siburua clay (CH) 0.21
Kaolinite (CL/CH) 0.21–0.26
Na-Montmorillonite(CH) 2.6
Chicago silty clay (CL) 0.15–0.30 Holtz and Kovacs (1981)
Boston blue clay (CL) 0.3–0.5
Vicksburg buckshot clay (CH) 0.5–0.6
Swedish medium sensitive clays (CL-CH) 1–3
Canadian Leda clays (CL-CH) 1–4
Mexico City clay (MH) 7–10
San Francisco Bay mud (CL) 0.4–1.2
Bangkok clays (CH) 0.4
Uniform sand, loose (SP) 0.05–0.06 USACE (1990)
Uniform sand, dense (SP) 0.02–0.03
Uniform silts (ML) 0.2

For normally consolidated clays, mv and Cc are related by

0:434Cc
mv ¼ ð3:8Þ
ð1 þ e0 Þσ 0average

0
where σ average is the average value of the vertical normal stress during
consolidation.
The undrained shear strengths of a clay at plastic limit and liquid limit are
approximately 170 kPa and 1.7 kPa, respectively, differing by about 100 times.
Noting that the undrained shear strength is proportional to the effective consolida-
tion pressures, the effective consolidation pressures at plastic limit and liquid limit
also would differ by 100 times. Noting that the change in void ratio between the
plastic and liquid limit of a saturated clay is given by PI Gs, the compression
index can be written as (Wroth and Wood 1978)


PI
Cc ¼ Gs ð3:9Þ
200
3.2 Consolidation 57

3.2.2 Recompression Index or Swelling Index

There are no reliable correlations reported in the literature for the recompression
index (Cr) or the swelling index (Cs), which can be assumed to be equal for all
practical purposes. In reality, the recompression index can be slightly less than the
swelling index.
Recompression index can be estimated on the basis that Cr/Cc is typically in the
range of 1/5–1/10. There are exceptions. Lambe and Whitman (1979) reported that
in Na-Montmorillonite, the swelling index can be as high as 2.5.
During recompression, mv and Cr are related by

0:434Cr
mv ¼ ð3:10Þ
ð1 þ e0 Þσ 0average
0
where σ average is the average value of the vertical normal stress during consolida-
tion while the clay is still overconsolidated.
In critical state soil mechanics, the stress path is monitored in the three dimen-
sional ln p0 -q-V space. Here p0 is the mean effective stress, defined as
(σ 0 1 þ σ 0 2 þ σ 0 3)/3, q is the deviator stress defined as σ 1-σ 3, and V ¼ specific volume
defined as 1 þ e. The parameters λ and κ, very similar to Cc and Cr, are the slopes of
0
the virgin consolidation line and the unloading line in the V  ln p space where the
specific volume V (¼1 þ e) is plotted against the natural logarithm of the mean
effective stress p0 . It can be shown that

Cc ¼ λln10 ¼ 2:3026λ ð3:11Þ

Cr ¼ κln10 ¼ 2:3026κ ð3:12Þ

The plastic volumetric strain ratio Λ is defined as

λκ
Λ¼ ð3:13Þ
λ

It is a parameter that is commonly used in the critical state soil mechanics.

3.2.3 Compression Ratio and Recompression Ratio

In the early days of soil mechanics, a parameter known as compression ratio (CR)
or modified compression index (Ccε) was used widely in computing consolidation
settlements. It is similar to Cc, and is the slope of the virgin compression line when
the vertical normal strain (instead of void ratio) is plotted against the logarithm of
effective normal stress. It is defined as Cc/(1 þ e0) where e0 is the initial void ratio.
For most clays subjected to consolidation tests, it varies in the range of 0.2–0.4.
58 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Table 3.4 Classification Cc Cr

or 1þe
based on soil compressibility Description 1þe0 0

CR or RR Very slightly compressible <0.05

Slightly compressible 0.05–0.10
Moderately compressible 0.10–0.20
Highly compressible 0.20–0.35
Very highly compressible >0.35

Table 3.5 Empirical correlations for the compression ratio

Soil type Correlation References
Marine clays of southeast Asia CR ¼ 0.0043 wn Azzouz et al. (1976)
CR ¼ 0.0045 LL Balasubramaniam and
Brenner (1981)
Bangkok clays CR ¼ 0.00463LL – 0.013 Balasubramaniam and
CR ¼ 0.00566 wn – 0.037 Brenner (1981)
French clays CR ¼ 0.0039 wn þ 0.013 Balasubramaniam and
Brenner (1981)
Indiana clays CR ¼ 0.0249 þ 0.003 wn Lo and Lovell (1982)
CR ¼ 0.0294 þ 0.00238 LL
CR ¼ 0.0125 þ 0.0.152e0
Indiana clays CR ¼ 0.2037(e0  0.2465) Goldberg et al. (1979)
Clays from Greece & parts of US CR ¼ 0.002 (LL þ 9) Azzouz et al. (1976)
CR ¼ 0.14(e0 þ 0.007)
CR ¼ 0.003 (wn þ 7)
CR ¼ 0.126(e0 þ 0.003LL-0.06)
Chicago clays CR ¼ 0.208 e0 þ 0.0083 Azzouz et al. (1976)
Inorganic & organic clays and CR ¼ 0.156 e0 þ 0.0107 Elnaggar and Krizek
silty soils (1970)

Similarly, a recompression ratio (RR) or a modified recompression index is defined

as Cr/(1 þ e0). Based on the compression ratio or recompression ratio, the com-
pressibility of a clay can be classified as shown in Table 3.4. CR and RR are still
used by the practicing engineers.
Selected empirical correlations for the compression ratio, from the extensive list,
collated and presented by Djoenaidi (1985) are listed in Table 3.5.

3.2.4 Constrained Modulus

The constrained modulus D is approximately related to the preconsolidation

pressure by (Canadian Geotechnical Society 1992):
3.2 Consolidation 59

0
D ¼ ð40 to 80Þσ p ð3:14Þ

where, the upper end of the range is applicable for stiff clays and lower end for the
soft clays.

3.2.5 Coefficient of Consolidation cv

When a load is applied at the ground level, how quickly the consolidation process is
completed depends on the coefficient of consolidation cv. Larger the cv, faster is the
consolidation process. Generally, cv is an order of magnitude larger in
overconsolidated clays than in normally consolidated clays. It can be deduced
from Eq. (2.39) that cv increases with increasing permeability and stiffness of the
soil skeleton. Stiffer soil skeletons enables faster consolidation.
cv can vary from less than 1 m2/year for low permeability clays to as high as
1000 m2/year for sandy clays of high permeability. Tezaghi et al. (1996) suggested
that clays with LL ¼ 10–100 have cv in the range of 0.3–30 m2/year. Figure 3.2
proposed by U.S. Navy (1982) can be used as a rough guide or first order estimates
for checking cv values determined in the laboratory. Soil disturbance delays the
consolidation and hence reduces the coefficient of consolidation of both normally
consolidated and overconsolidated clays.

100

Lower bound for undisturbed

overconsolidated clays
Coefficient of consolidation, cv (m2/year)

10
Normally
consolidated
clays

1 Upper bound for

remoulded clays

0.1
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Liquid limit

Fig. 3.2 cv  LL relation (After U.S. Navy 1982)

60 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Table 3.6 Some typical Material Cα/Cc

Cα/Cc values
Granular soils including rockfill 0.02  0.01
Shale and mudstone 0.03  0.01
Inorganic clays and silts 0.04  0.01
Organic clays and silts 0.05  0.01
Peats and muskeg 0.06  0.01
After Mesri et al. (1994)

3.2.6 Secondary Compression

Mesri and Godlewski (1977) suggested that the ratio of Cα/Cc generally varies in
the range of 0.025–0.10, with an average value of about 0.05. The upper end of the
range applies to organic soils including peat and muskeg. The lower end is for
inorganic soils including clays and granular soils. Some of the values suggested by
Mesri et al. (1994) are given in Table 3.6.
As a first approximation, Cαε [see Eq. (2.56)] of normally consolidated clays can
be estimated as (US Navy 1982)

Cαε ¼ 0:0001wn for 10 < wn ð%Þ < 3000 ð3:15Þ

where wn is the natural water content in percentage. When overconsolidated, Cα and

Cαε can be significantly less, in the order of 30–50 % of the values reported for
normally consolidated clays. Figure 3.3 can be used for estimating the modified
secondary compression index from the natural water content, for normally consol-
idated clays.
On the basis of the coefficient of secondary compression clays can be classified
as shown in Table 3.7.

0 0
3.3 Shear Strength Parameters c and ϕ

The cohesion c and friction angle ϕ are the two main shear strength parameters
required in any geotechnical analysis. They are discussed in this section, along with
relevant empirical correlations. The different ways of defining these parameters and
their inter-relationships are discussed here.

0
3.3.1 Cohesion in Terms of Effective Stress c

In terms of effective stresses, the failure envelope generally passes through the
0 0
origin in the τ-σ plane for most normally consolidated soils, suggesting c ¼ 0. Only
in the case of cemented soils, partially saturated soils and heavily overconsolidated
 0 0
3.3 Shear Strength Parameters c and ϕ 61

1
1. Whangamarino clay
2. Mexico City clay
3. Calcareous organic silt
Modified secondary compression index, Cae

4. Leda clay
5. Norwegian plastic clay
6. Amorphous and fibrouspeat

0.1
6

2
1

3
5 8 7
0.01 4
11 7. Canadian muskeg
8. Organic marine deposits
10 9. Boston blue clay
10. Chicago blue clay
9
11. Organicsilty clay
o Organic silt, etc.

0.001
10 100 1000 10000
Natural water content, wn (%)

Fig. 3.3 Modified secondary compression index versus natural water content for NC clays
(Adapted from Holtz and Kovacs 1981; Data from Mesri 1973)

Table 3.7 Classification Description Cαε

based on Cαε
Very low <0.002
Low 0.002–0.004
Medium 0.004–0.008
High 0.008–0.016
Very high 0.016–0.032
Extremely high 0.064

soils, there can be some effective cohesion. For uncemented soils including clays,
the shear strength in terms effective stresses is mainly frictional. Based on the
Danish code of practice for foundations, Sorensen and Okkels (2013) suggest that a
0
cautious estimate of c for overconsolidated clays can be obtained from
0
c ¼ 0:1 cu ð3:16Þ
0
They also suggest that c is poorly correlated to PI. Australian Standards for
0 0
retaining walls (AS 4678) suggests the values for c and ϕ in Table 3.8.
62 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

0 0
Table 3.8 Typical values of c and ϕ
Soil parameters
0 0
Soil c ϕ
group Typical soils in group (kPa) (degrees)
Poor Soft and firm clay of medium to high plasticity; silty clays; loose 0–5 17–25
variable clayey fills; loose sandy silts
Average Stiff sandy clays; gravelly clays; compact clayey sands and 0–10 26–32
sandy silts; compacted clay fills
Good Gravelly sands, compacted sands, controlled crushed sandstone 0–5 32–37
and graveled fills, dense well graded sands
Very Weak weathered rock, controlled fills of road base, gravel and 0–25 36–43
good recycled concrete
After AS 4678-2002

16

14

12
f'tc - f'cv (Degrees)

10

0
0.1 1 10 100
Normalised mean effective principal stress at failure p'f/pa

Fig. 3.4 Dilatancy angle from triaxial compression tests versus normalised mean effective stress
for different relative densities in sands (Adapted from Bolton 1986)

0
For natural intact normally consolidated clays, ϕ can vary from less than 20 to
0
little more than 30 . For compacted clays, ϕ is typically in the range of 25 –30 ,
but can be slightly higher.

3.3.2 Effects of Dilatancy in Granular Soils

0 0
The relation between the dilatancy component ϕ peak  ϕ cv from a triaxial com-
0
pression test, the relative density, and the mean principal stress at failure p f
suggested by Bolton (1986) for sands is shown in Fig. 3.4. Here, pa is the
 0 0
3.3 Shear Strength Parameters c and ϕ 63

atmospheric pressure, which is about 101.3 kPa. The relationship can be expressed
as (Bolton 1986; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)
( " 0
!# )
0 0 pf
ϕtc  ϕcv ¼ 3 Dr 10  ln 100  1 ð3:17Þ
pa

0 0
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggest taking ϕpeak  ϕcv as the dilatancy angle ψ.
Bolton (1986) suggested from laboratory test data that for plane strain compression
loading
0 0
ϕpeak ¼ ϕcv þ 0:8 ψ ð3:18Þ

For triaxial compression loading, Eq. 3.18 can be modified as (Salgado 2008)
0 0
ϕpeak  ϕcv þ 0:5 ψ ð3:19Þ

A simple and somewhat crude approximation for dilatancy angle, as often used
in Plaxis analysis, is
0
ψ ¼ ϕpeak  30 ð3:20Þ
0
where ψ ¼ 0 for ϕ peak < 30 .
Now that we have defined different friction angles, which one should we use in
practice? It depends on the level of strain expected in the field situation. Most
geotechnical problems involve small strains, and it is unlikely that the peak is
0
exceeded. Therefore, it is recommended to use ϕ peak as default value. For problems
0
involving large strains ϕ cv and for those with very large strains (e.g., landslides,
0
slopes, pre-existing shear failures such as old landslide sites) ϕ res would be
appropriate.

0 0 0
3.3.3 ϕ peak, ϕ cv, ϕ res Relationships with Plasticity Index
for Clays

There is clear evidence that increasing plasticity leads to a reduction in the peak
0
friction angle ϕ peak. The increasing plasticity is often due to the increasing clay
fraction of flaky grains which have lesser frictional resistance. From the limited
data reported in the literature, U.S. Navy (1971) and Ladd et al. (1977) observed the
0
trend between ϕ peak and plasticity index, shown in Fig. 3.5, for normally consol-
0
idated clays, as documented by Holtz and Kovacs (1981). These ϕ peak values were
0 0
measured at failure conditions defined as maximum values of σ 1/σ 3 in triaxial
 64 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

45
Kenney (1959)
40 Bjerrum and Simons (1960)
Ladd et al. (1977)
35
f¢peak at (s¢1/s¢3)max or f¢ res

30
Average f'peak (Bjerrum and Simons 1960)

25

20
± 1 standard deviation (US Navy 1971)
15

10

5 Clayey shales
Range for natural soils
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity index
0 0
Fig. 3.5 Variation of ϕ peak and ϕ res with plasticity index for normally consolidated clays

compression tests. The average values and the 1 standard deviation band are
shown in the figure, along with the test data used in developing these trend lines. It
is clear that the peak friction angle decreases with increasing PI.
The lower part of Fig. 3.5 shows the variation of the average residual friction
0
angle ϕ res of normally consolidated cohesive soils with the plasticity index, as
suggested by U.S. Air Force (1983). Some test data for clayey shales are also shown
in the figure. At residual state, the clays are completely remolded and have
undergone very large strains. The clay fraction and the mineralogy are the two
0
factors that govern the residual friction angle ϕ res. It can range from 15 for
kaolinite to 5 for montmorillonite, with illite at 10 (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).
0
Soils with less than 15 % fines behave like granular soils, with ϕ res greater than 25 ,
0
and close to their ϕ cv.
Sorensen and Okkels (2013) analysed an extensive database of normally con-
solidated reconstituted and undisturbed natural clays from the Danish Geotechnical
Institute, along with the data from Kenney (1959), Brooker and Ireland (1965),
Bjerrum and Simons (1960) and Tezaghi et al. (1996) shown in Fig. 3.6. They
suggested that for a cautious lower bound estimate, the peak friction angle can be
taken as
0
ϕpeak ¼ 39  11 logPI ð3:21Þ

The best estimate (i.e., mean) of the peak friction angle is given by
 0 0
3.3 Shear Strength Parameters c and ϕ 65

45
Test data (N.C.)
40 Lower Bound

35 Mean

30

25
f¢ (°)

20

15

10 233 points (Sorensen and Okkels 2013)

Data from Kenney (1959), Brooker and
5 Ireland (1965), Bjerrum and Simons (1960),
and Terzaghi et al. (1996)
0
1 10 100 1000
Plasticity index
0
Fig. 3.6 ϕ peak versus PI for normally consolidated clays (After Sorensen and Okkels 2013)

0
ϕpeak ¼ 43  10 logPI ð3:22Þ

For overconsolidated clays, Sorensen and Okkels (2013) suggested that the
cautious lower bound estimate of the peak friction angle can be given by
0
ϕpeak ¼ 44  14 logPI for 4 < PI < 50 ð3:23Þ
0
ϕpeak ¼ 30  6 logPI for 50  PI < 150 ð3:24Þ

The best estimates for overconsolidated clays are given by

0
ϕpeak ¼ 45  14 logPI for 4 < PI < 50 ð3:25Þ
0
ϕpeak ¼ 26  3 logPI for 50  PI < 150 ð3:26Þ

Sorensen and Okkels (2013) lower bound estimates for normally consolidated clays
are very close to those of overconsolidated clays.
0
The critical state friction angle ϕ cv in normally consolidated cohesive soils can
be related to PI by (Mitchell 1976; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)
0
sin ϕcv  0:8  0:094lnPI ð3:27Þ

The data used in developing this relation is shown in Fig. 3.7. The critical state
friction angle decreases with increasing PI and activity of the clay mineral. It is
greater for Kaolinite of low activity than Montmorillonite of very high activity.
66 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

45

40

35

30
φ¢cv (degrees)

25
Kaolinite
20 Illite

15

10 Undisturbed soil
Montmorillonite
5 Remolded soil

0
5 10 25 50 100 200
Plasticity index
0
Fig. 3.7 Variation of ϕ cv with plasticity index for normally consolidated clays

With considerable scatter seen in the Figs. 2.22, 2.23, and 2.24, Eqs. (3.21), (3.22),
(3.23), (3.24), (3.25), (3.26), and (3.27) should be used with caution. For normally
0 0
consolidated clays, ϕ peak should be very close to the ϕ cv, which can also be seen
from Figs. 3.5 and 3.7.

3.3.4 Other Friction Angle Correlations

What is referred to simply as friction angle in literature, especially in most

textbooks, generally means the peak friction angle in terms of effective stresses,
which is obtained from a triaxial compression test. We will do the same from now
on and omit the subscripts, unless stated otherwise. In fact this is the friction angle
that is used commonly in geotechnical and foundation designs.
0
The friction angle ϕ of a granular soils increases with the angularity of the
grains, surface roughness and relative density. Anecdotal evidence suggests some
increase in friction angle with the grain size. Well graded granular soils generally
have higher friction angle than the poorly graded ones. Wet soils have 1 –2 lower
0
ϕ than the dry soils. Figure 3.8 shows the friction angles determined from triaxial
compression tests for different granular soils that have no plastic fines. Here, the
friction angle is related to the soil type, relative density and unit weight. It can be
0
seen that densely packed well graded gravels can have ϕ as high as 45 . Even
higher friction angles have been reported in the literature. Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
0
suggested some representative values of ϕ for sands and silts, as shown in Table 3.9.
The relationship between the friction angle, the blow count from standard penetra-
tion test, and the relative density for sands is shown in Fig. 3.9.
 0 0
3.3 Shear Strength Parameters c and ϕ 67

45
43
41
Friction angle φ¢ (Degrees)

39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Dry unit weight (kN/m3)

Fig. 3.8 Friction angles of granular soils (U.S. Navy 1982)

0
Table 3.9 Representative ϕ (Degrees)
values of ϕ0 for sands and silts
Soil Loose Dense
Sand, round grains, uniform 27.5 34
Sand, angular grains, well graded 33 45
Sandy gravels 35 50
Silty sand 27–33 30–34
Inorganic silt 27–30 30–35
After Terzaghi and Peck (1967)

0
Friction angle of a granular soil determined from triaxial compression tests ϕ tc
was related to relative density by Schmertmann (1978) as shown in Fig. 3.10.
Some effective friction angle values suggested by the Australian Standard for
earth retaining structures (AS 4678-2002) for soils and rocks are given in
Table 3.10.
0
The peak effective friction angle ϕ peak of a granular soil can be written as
(BS 8002 1994)
0
ϕpeak ¼ 30 þ kA þ kB þ kC ð3:28Þ

where, kA, kB and kC account for the angularity of the grains (0 –4 ), grain size
distribution (0 –4 ), and relative density expressed in terms of blow counts from the
standard penetration test (0 –9 ), respectively. These values are given in Table 3.11.
0
The critical state friction angle ϕ cv, which is independent of the relative density,
can be estimated as
68 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

*
Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

#
Dr (%) 0 15 35 65 85 100

*
N60 0 4 10 30 50

0 3(2) 8(5) 25(20) 42(35)

##
(N1)60
28 30 36 41
** ′
φ (deg)
65 59 58
##
(N1)60 /Dr2

*
Terzaghi and Peck (1948); #Gibbs and Holtz (1957); ##
Skempton (1986) with Tokimatsu and Seed (1987)
in parentheses; **Peck et al. (1974)

Fig. 3.9 Relationship between relative density, friction angle and blow count from a standard
penetration test for sands

47

45

43
Friction angle f'tc (Degrees)

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative density (%)
0
Fig. 3.10 ϕ tc  Dr relations (Adapted from Schmertmann 1978)
 0 0
3.3 Shear Strength Parameters c and ϕ 69

0
Table 3.10 ϕ for some soils and rocks as suggested by AS 4678-2002
0
Material ϕ ( )
Soils Soft and firm clay of medium to high plasticity, silty clays, loose variable 17–25
clayey fills, loose sandy silts (use c0 ¼ 0–5 kPa)
Stiff sandy clays, gravelly clays, compacted clayey sands and sandy silts, 26–32
compacted clay fill (use c0 ¼ 0–10 kPa)
Gravelly sands, compacted sands, controlled crushed sandstone and gravel 32–37
fills, dense well graded sands (use c0 ¼ 0–5 kPa)
Weak weathered rock, controlled fills of roadbase, gravelly and recycled 36–43
concrete (use c0 ¼ 0–25 kPa)
Rocks Chalk 35
Weathered granite 33
Fresh basalt 37
Weak sandstone 42
Weak siltstone 35
Weak mudstone 28

Table 3.11 kA, kB, kC values k – value

for Eqs. (3.28) and (3.29)
kA Rounded grains 0
Sub-angular grains 2
Angular grains 4
kB Uniformly graded (Cu < 2) 0
Moderately graded (2 < Cu < 6) 2
Well graded (Cu > 6) 4
kC N60 < 10 0
N60 ¼ 20 2
N60 ¼ 40 6
N60 ¼ 60 9
After AS 4678-2002

0
ϕcv ¼ 30 þ kA þ kB ð3:29Þ

3.3.5 Stress Path Dependence of Friction Angles

In reality, the friction angle depends on the boundary conditions and the stress path
followed to failure. In the field situations, within axisymmetric and plane strain
conditions that are commonly assumed, there can be compressive or tensile loading.
Some of the laboratory tests carried out to replicate the field situations are triaxial
compression, triaxial extension, plane strain compression, plane strain extension,
0
direct shear, direct simple shear, etc. Plane strain compression friction angle ϕ psc of
0
 
a sand is 2 –7 greater than the direct shear friction angle ϕ ds. Allen et al. (2004)
suggested that for granular soils
70 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Table 3.12 Relative values of friction angles of cohesionless soils from different tests
Test type Friction angle
0
Triaxial compression 1.0 ϕ tc
0
Triaxial extension 1.12 ϕ tc
0
Plane strain compression 1.12 ϕ tc
0
Plane strain extension 1.12 (for PSC to TC)  1.12 (TE to TC) ¼ 1.25ϕ tc
0 0 0 0
1 1
Direct shear test tan [tan ϕ psc  cos ϕ cv] ¼ tan [tan 1.12 ϕ tc  cos ϕ cv]
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)

Table 3.13 Relative values of friction angles of normally consolidated cohesive soils from
different tests
Test type Friction angle
0
Triaxial compression 1.0 ϕ tc
0
Triaxial extension 1.22 ϕ tc
0
Plane strain compression 1.10 ϕ tc
0
Plane strain extension 1.10 (for PSC to TC)  1.22 (TE to TC) ¼ 1.34ϕ tc
0 0 0 0
Direct shear test tan1 [tan ϕ psc  cos ϕ cv] ¼ tan1 [tan 1.10 ϕ tc  cos ϕ cv]
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)

0
ϕ psc ¼ tan 1 ð1:2 tan ϕds Þ ð3:30Þ
0
Direct shear friction angle ϕ ds of a sand can be greater or less than the triaxial
0 0
compression friction angle ϕ tc, depending on ϕ cv, relative density and the stress
0
level. The relationships among the values of ϕ for cohesionless soils, as determined
from the different tests are summarized in Table 3.12 (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).
Similar relationships for cohesive soils are given in Table 3.13.
It can be seen from Tables 3.12 and 3.13 that the conventional triaxial compres-
0 0
sion test gives the lowest possible values for ϕ peak. Therefore, using ϕ tc for other
types of loadings, without any adjustment, can lead to conservative solutions.
Castellanos and Brandon (2013) showed from an extensive database of tests
conducted on riverine and lacustrine alluvial intact specimens from New Orleans,
USA, that the effective friction angle from CU triaxial test is significantly greater
than the ones from consolidated drained direct shear tests, and they both decrease
0
with increasing PI (Fig. 3.11). Their ϕ versus PI relationship can be approximated
as:

0 PI
ϕtcðCUÞ ¼ 45  ð3:31Þ
0:5 þ 0:04PI

and
0
ϕds ¼ 31 þ 0:0017PI 2  0:3642PI ð3:32Þ
 0 0
3.3 Shear Strength Parameters c and ϕ 71

40
CU Triaxial

35 CD Direct shear

30

25
f '(°)

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Plasticity index
0
Fig. 3.11 ϕ versus PI relationship for CU triaxial and direct shear tests on intact specimens
(Adapted from Castellanos and Brandon 2013)

They also noted that the difference was insignificance in the case of remoulded
clays. They attributed this to the destruction of the anisotropic fabric during
remoulding which makes the shear strength independent of the failure plane
orientation.
From the work of Bolton (1986), and supported by other test data, Schanz and
Vermeer (1996) suggested that the peak friction angles of sands under triaxial and
plane strain conditions are related by

0 1 0 0

ϕtc  3ϕ psc þ 2ϕcv ð3:33Þ
5
0
They noted that while ϕ peak is significantly larger for plane strain compression than
0
triaxial compression, the dilatancy angle ψ and the critical state friction angle ϕ cv
appear to be the same for both loading conditions. It is also evident from Eq. (3.33)
0 0
that the difference between ϕ psc and ϕ tc (both peak values) becomes smaller with
0 0
lower relative densities where ϕ tc gets closer to ϕ cv.
In critical state soil mechanics, the slope of the failure envelope for triaxial
compression loading in p0 -q plane is Mc, given by
0
6 sin ϕtc
Mc ¼ 0 ð3:34Þ
3  sin ϕtc

In triaxial extension, the slope Me is given by

72 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Table 3.14 Typical values of Soil Af

Skempton’s A-parameter at
Sensitive clays 1.2–3
failure
Normally consolidated clays 0.7–1.3
Overconsolidated clays 0.3–0.7
Heavily overconsolidated clays 0.5–0
Very loose fine sand 2–3
Medium fine sand 0
Dense fine sand 0.3
Loess 0.2
Saturated silt, moderately dense 0.5
After Winterkorn and Fang (1975) and Leonards (1962)

0
6 sin ϕtc
Me ¼ 0 ð3:35Þ
3 þ sin ϕtc

3.3.6 Skempton’s Pore Pressure Parameters

Skempton (1954) proposed a simple method to estimate the pore water pressure
change in a saturated or partially saturated soil, when subjected to undrained
loading under principal stress increments Δσ 1 and Δσ 3. The equation is given as

Δu ¼ B½Δσ 3 þ AðΔσ 1  Δσ 3 Þ ð3:36Þ

where A and B are known as Skempton’s pore pressure parameters. B is a measure

of the degree of saturation, which varies between 0 for dry soils and 1 for saturated
soils. The A-parameter can vary during the shear, and is denoted by Af at failure.
Some typical values of Af are given in Table 3.14.
From modified Cam clay model, it can be shown that Af is given by

 M
1
Af CIUC
¼ 2Λ þ 3
ð3:37Þ
M

3.3.7 Sensitivity of Clays

The level of sensitivity observed in the clays varies geographically. Significantly

greater values of sensitivity have been reported from Scandinavian countries,
compared to those from Canada or USA. As a result, there are slightly different
classification scales, which are shown in Table 3.15. High sensitivity is generally
associated with high liquidity index. Scandinavian clays have liquidity index
significantly larger than 1.0.
3.4 Undrained Shear Strength of a Clay cu 73

Table 3.15 Sensitivity Sensitivity, St

classification
Description U.S. Canadaa Sweden
Low sensitive 2–4 1–2 <10
Medium sensitive 4–8 2–4 10–30
Highly sensitive 8–16 4–8 30–50
Extra sensitive 16 8–16 50–100
Quick – >16 >100
a
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992)

Very Medium
soft Soft Stiff Very stiff Hard
or firm

qu (kPa): 0 25 50 100 200 400

N60**: 0 2 4 8 15 30

Eu/pa :
#
0 15 40 80 200

qc/pa :
##
0 5 8 15 30 60
# ##
** Terzaghi and Peck (1967) Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) Szechy and Varga (1978)

Fig. 3.12 Undrained strength classifications

3.4 Undrained Shear Strength of a Clay cu

Cohesive soils can be classified based on the unconfined compressive strength

qu as shown in Fig. 3.12. Undrained shear strength cu is given by half of qu.
For very stiff and hard clays, the water content would be less than the plastic
limit. For very soft clays, the liquidity index is generally greater than 0.5.
Although standard penetration test is not reliable in clays, when there are
some data, they can be used in evaluating the consistency of the clay as
shown in Fig. 3.12.
A rough estimate of the undrained shear strength can be obtained from (Hara
et al. 1971; Kulhawy and Mayne 1990)
cu
¼ 0:29 N0:72
60 ð3:38Þ
pa

Equation (3.38) can give unrealistically high estimates of cu. For K0-consoli-
dated soils, it can be shown from the first principles that

  0
cu K 0 þ A f ð1  K 0 Þ sin ϕtc
¼
 0 ð3:39Þ
σ 0vo CK 0 UC 1 þ 2A f  1 sin ϕtc

For isotropically consolidated soils, the Eq. 3.39 reduces to

74 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

 0
cu sin ϕtc
¼
 0 ð3:40Þ
σ 0vo CIUC 1 þ 2A f  1 sin ϕtc

The friction angle is the same for K0 and isotropic consolidation (Mayne 1985;
Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).
From modified Cam Clay model, it can be shown that for normally consolidated
clays that are consolidated isotropically (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990).


cu
¼ 0:129 þ 0:00435PI ð3:41Þ
σ 0vo CIUC

From modified Cam clay model, it can also be shown that (Wroth and Houlsby
1985):



cu M 1 Λ
¼ ð3:42Þ
σ 0vo CIUC 2 2

Wroth (1984) showed that

0
cu ϕ
¼ cv ð3:43Þ
σ 0vo 100

The undrained strength determined from isotropic consolidation and K0 consol-

idation are related by (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990):



cu cu
¼ 0:15 þ 0:49 0 ð3:44Þ
σ 0vo CK 0 UC σ vo CIUC

Equation (3.44) was obtained by regression analysis of 48 data points from different
normally consolidated clays.
0
cu/σ vo of normally consolidated clays in situ generally varies in the range of
0.2–0.3. Skempton (1957) suggested that for normally consolidated clays, based on
vane shear test data,
cu
¼ 0:0037PI þ 0:11 ð3:45Þ
σ 0vo

For overconsolidated, this ratio is larger and it increases with the overconso-
lidation ratio. Ladd et al. (1977) showed that



cu cu
¼ OCR0:8 ð3:46Þ
σ 0vo OC σ 0vo NC

Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) suggested that for clays of low to moderate plasticity
index
3.4 Undrained Shear Strength of a Clay cu 75

1000 1000
Horten London Gosport
Shellhaven Sensitivity
Remolded undrained shear strength, kPa

100 St = 0.8713e2.275LI 100

R² = 0.8638

Sensitivity
10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Liquidity index
Fig. 3.13 Remolded undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and sensitivity relationship
(Adapted from Skempton and Northey 1952)


cu
¼ ð0:23  0:04ÞOCR0:8 ð3:47Þ
σ 0vo OC

For overconsolidated clays of low to moderate plasticity, the above equation can
also be approximated as (Jamiolkowski et al. 1985)
!
cu
¼ 0:23  0:04 ð3:48Þ
σ 0p
OC

0 0
Mesri (1989) suggested that cu/σ p ¼ 0.22 where σ p is the preconsolidation pressure.
In a triaxial compression test, the undrained shear strength increases with the
increase in strain rate. A ten-fold (i.e. one log cycle) increase in the strain rate will
increase the undrained shear strength by 10 %. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
suggested strain rate ε_ of 1 % per hour as the standard reference rate, and the
following equation to adjust the undrained shear strength to this reference rate.
cu
½cu ε_ ¼1%=hour ¼ ð3:49Þ
1 þ 0:1log_ε

Graham et al. (1983) reported that these trends are also true for direct simple shear
tests and K0 consolidated triaxial extension tests.
Skempton and Northey (1952) summarized some sensitivity – liquidity index
data for some clays of moderate sensitivity, which are shown in Fig. 3.13.
76 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

1000
Undisturbed undrained shear strength, kPa

100

10
Horten
Shellhaven
K&M (1990)_Wood(1983)
K&M (1990)_Wood(1983)
1
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Liquidity index

Fig. 3.14 Undisturbed undrained shear strength versus liquidity index derived from Fig. 3.13

The trend of sensitivity increasing with liquidity index is clear and they can be
related by

St ¼ 0:87expð2:28LI Þ ð3:50Þ

Skempton and Northey (1952) also produced the remolded undrained shear
strength versus liquidity index variation for four different clays which fall into a
narrow band in Fig. 3.13. At a specific LI, from the sensitivity estimated from
Eq. (3.50) or Fig. 3.13, and the remolded undrained shear strength derived from the
same figure, it is possible to estimate the undisturbed undrained shear strength. The
shear strength values thus derived for undisturbed Horten and Shellhaven clays are
used as the upper and lower bound of the shaded band shown in Fig. 3.14. Also
shown in the figure is the band suggested by Wood (1983) and recommended by
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990).

3.5 Soil Stiffness and Young’s Modulus

Young’s modulus E is the most common parameter used as a measure of stiffness. It

is required in determining deformations, including settlements. In granular soils, it
is derived through penetration test data from in situ tests such as standard
3.5 Soil Stiffness and Young’s Modulus 77

1600

1400

1200

1000 PI < 30
Eu /cu

800

600

400 30 < PI < 50

200 PI > 50

0
1 10
Overconsolidation ratio, OCR
Fig. 3.15 Eu/cu  PI  OCR relation for clays

penetration test, cone penetration test, etc. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested
that for normally consolidated clean sands

E
 10N 60 ð3:51Þ
pa

and for sands with fines,

E
 5N 60 ð3:52Þ
pa

where, N60 is the blow count from standard penetration corrected for energy rating.
Schmertmann et al. (1978) suggested that for axisymmetric loading E ¼ 2.5 qc and
for plane strain loading E ¼ 3.5 qc, where qc is the cone resistance from a cone
penetration test.
The undrained modulus of clays (Eu) is generally estimated from an appropriate
value of the modulus ratio Eu/cu, which is generally in the range of 100–1000. It can
be derived from Fig. 3.15 proposed by Duncan and Buchignani (1976) and the
U.S. Army (1994). Typical values of Eu for different clay types, as recommended
by U.S. Army (1994) are given in Table 3.16. Poisson’s ratio ν of a material is
defined as
78 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Table 3.16 Typical values of Clay Eu (MPa)

Eu for clays
Very soft clay 0.5–5
Soft clay 5–20
Medium clay 20–50
Stiff clay, silty clay 50–100
Sandy clay 25–200
Clay shale 100–200
After U.S. Army (1994) and Bowles (1986)

Table 3.17 Typical values of Material Poisson’s ratio

Poisson’s ratio
Saturated clays (undrained) 0.5
Saturated clays (drained) 0.2–0.4
Dense sand 0.3–0.4
Loose sand 0.1–0.3
Loess 0.1–0.3
Ice 0.36
Aluminum 0.35
Steel 0.29
Concrete 0.15
Bowles (1986), Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), and Lambe and
Whitman (1979)

lateral normal strain

ν¼ ð3:53Þ
longitudinal normal strain

and is in the range of 0–0.5 for most engineering materials. For saturated undrained
clays, assuming no volume change, it can be shown theoretically that the Poisson’s
ratio is 0.5. Typical values of some soils are given in Table 3.17, along with other
materials. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested that the drained Poisson’s ratio of
granular soils can be estimated as
0
ϕ  25 0
νd ¼ 0:1 þ 0:3 tc for ϕtc < 45∘ ð3:54Þ
20

The drained Poisson’s ratio of slightly overconsolidated clays increases slightly

with PI, OCR and stress level.
Foundations on soils or rocks are designed to be safe against any possible
bearing capacity failure and to undergo settlements that are within tolerable limits.
Preliminary estimates of the footing dimensions can be arrived at on the basis of the
presumed bearing capacity values given in Table 3.18. These values are generally
conservative and should be used with caution.
3.6 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest Ko 79

Table 3.18 Presumed bearing capacity values

Presumed
allowable bearing
Group Description capacity (kPa) Remarks
Coarse Dense gravel or dense sand >600 Width of footing B > 1 m. Water
grained and gravel table at > B below the footing.
soil Compact gravel or compact 200–600
sand and gravel
Loose gravel or loose sand <200
and gravel
Dense sand >300
Compact sand 100–300
Loose sand <100
Fine Very stiff or hard clays or 300–600 If PI > 30 and clay content
grained heterogeneous mixtures >25 %, there are possible swell/
soil such as tills shrink problems.
Stiff clays 150–300
Firm clays 75–150
Soft clays and silts <75
Very soft clays and silts Not applicable
After Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992)

3.6 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest Ko

Treating the soil as a linear elastic continuum, it can be shown that

ν
K0 ¼ ð3:55Þ
1ν

where ν is the Poisson’s ratio.

Jaky (1948) showed that for all particulate materials including soils
0

1  sin ϕ 2 0
K0 ¼ 0 1 þ sin ϕ ð3:56Þ
1 þ sin ϕ 3
0
3 sin ϕ
2
Noting that 1 þ 0 is about 0.9 for typical values of friction angles, Jaky’s
1þ sin ϕ
original suggestion was to take K0 as
 0

ðK 0 ÞNC ¼ 0:9 1  sin ϕ ð3:57Þ

which has been simplified and commonly used as

0
ðK 0 ÞNC ¼ 1  sin ϕ ð3:58Þ
80 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

for normally consolidated soils. When the soils are overconsolidated, K0 can be
significantly greater, and can be estimated as (Brooker and Ireland 1965; European
Committee for Standardization 1994)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðK 0 ÞOC ¼ ðK 0 ÞNC OCR ð3:59Þ

Mayne and Kulhawy (1982) suggested that

 0
0
ðK 0 ÞOC ¼ 1  sin ϕ OCR sin ϕ ð3:60Þ

(K0)OC is commonly expressed as

ðK 0 ÞOC ¼ ðK 0 ÞNC OCRm ð3:61Þ

where, m is an exponent commonly taken as 0.5, which is also suggested by the

Eurocode (European Committee for Standardisation 1994). Ladd et al. (1977)
suggested that m ¼ 0.42 for low plastic clays and m ¼ 0.32 for highly plastic clays.
0 0
For sloping ground, where σ v and σ h are no longer principal stresses, Kezdi
(1972) extended Jaky’s equation to
0
1  sin ϕ
K0 ¼ ð3:62Þ
1 þ sin β

where β is the inclination of the slope to the horizontal. Brooker and Ireland (1965)
showed that for normally consolidated clays
0
K 0 ¼ 0:95  sin ϕ ð3:63Þ

Alpan (1967) showed that for normally consolidated clays

K 0 ¼ 0:19 þ 0:233logPI ð3:64Þ

Massarsch (1979) showed that for normally consolidated clays

K 0 ¼ 0:44 þ 0:0042PI ð3:65Þ

Some typical values of K0 reported in literature are summarized in Table 3.19

(Craig 2004).

Table 3.19 Typical values of Soil description K0

K0
Dense sand 0.35
Loose sand 0.60
Normally consolidated clays (Norway) 0.5–0.6
Clay with OCR ¼ 3.5 (London) 1.0
Clay with OCR ¼ 20 (London) 2.8
3.7 Using Laboratory Test Data in Pile Designs 81

Table 3.20 Relationships for the unit skin friction fs in driven piles
Soil Type Equation Remarks References
Clay f s ¼ α cu α ¼ 1.0 (cu  25 kN/m2) API (1984)
α ¼ 0.5 (cu 70 kN/m2)
Linear variation in between
α ¼ 1.0 (cu  35 kN/m2) Semple & Rigden
α ¼ 0.5 (cu 80 kN/m2) (1984)
Linear variation in between
Length factor applies for L/d > 50
 0:5  0:5 
Fleming
α ¼ σcu0 cu
0 f or σcu0  1
nc σ v et al. (1985)
 0:5  0:25
v
 vo

α ¼ σcu0 cu
σ 0 f or σ 0 1
cu
v nc v vo

f s ¼ β σv 0 0
β ¼ ð1  sin φ Þtan φ ðOCRÞ0:5 Burland (1973)
Meyerhof (1976)
0
Silica sand f s ¼ β σv  β ¼ 0.15 – 0.35 (compression) McClelland (1974)
( f s ò f slim 0.10 – 0.24 (tension)
β ¼ 0.44 for φ0 ¼ 28 Meyerhof (1976)
0.75 for φ0 ¼ 35
1.2 for φ0 ¼ 37
β ¼ ðK=K o ÞK o tan ðφ:δ=φÞ Stas and Kulhawy
δ/φ depends on interface materials (1984)
(range 0.5–1.0);
K/Ko depends on installation method
(range 0.5–2.0)
Ko ¼ coefficient of earth pressure at rest,
and is a function of OCR
0
Uncemented cal- fs ¼ βσ v β ¼ 0.05 – 0.1 Poulos (1988)
careous sand
After Poulos (1989)

3.7 Using Laboratory Test Data in Pile Designs

The unit shaft resistance fs for driven piles can be estimated as fs ¼ α cu (total stress
0
method) or f s ¼ β σ v (effective stress method), where α ¼ adhesion factor and
β ¼ Ks tan δ with Ks and δ being the lateral earth pressure coefficient and the
interfacial friction angle, respectively, at the soil-pile interface. The correlations
for fs of driven piles are summarized in Table 3.20. The unit skin friction correla-
tions for the bored piles are given in Table 3.21. Correlations for the end bearing
capacity of the pile tip fb are given in Table 3.22.
82 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Table 3.21 Relationships for the unit skin friction fs in bored piles
Soil type Equation Remarks References
Clay f s ¼ α cu α ¼ 0.45 (London clay) Skempton
(1959)
α ¼ 0.7 times value for driven displace- Fleming
ment pile et al. (1985)
0
f s ¼ K tanδ σ v K is lesser of K0 or 0.5(1þ K0) Fleming
et al. (1985)
K/ K0 ¼ 2/3 to 1; K0 is a function of OCR; δ Stas and
depends on interface materials Kulhawy
(1984)
Silica sand f s ¼ β σv
0
β ¼ 0.1 for φ0 ¼ 33 Meyerhof
(1976)
β ¼ 0.2 for φ0 ¼ 35 Kraft and
β ¼ 0.35 for φ0 ¼ 37 Lyons (1974)

 
β ¼ F tan φ  5
where F ¼ 0.7 (compression) & 0.5
(tension)
0
Uncemented f s ¼ β σv β ¼ 0.5 to 0.8 Poulos (1988)
calcareous sand ( f s ò f slim fslim ¼ 60 to 100 kN/m2
After Poulos (1989)

Table 3.22 Relationships for the end bearing capacity

Soil type Equation Remarks References
Clay f b ¼ N c cub Nc ¼ 9 for L/D 3 Skempton
cub ¼ value of cu in vicinity of pile tip (1959)
0
Silica sand1 f b ¼ Nq σv Nq ¼ 40 API (1984)
ð f s ò f blim Þ2 Nq plotted against φ0 Berezantzev
et al. (1961)
Nq related to φ0 , relative density and mean Felming
effective stress et al. (1985)
Nq from cavity expansion theory, as a func- Vesic (1972)
tion of φ0 and volume compressibility
Uncemented f b ¼ Nq σv
0
Nq ¼ 20 Datta
calcareous sand et al. (1980)
ð f b ò f blim Þ2 Typical range of Nq ¼ 8–20 Poulos
(1988)
Nq determined for reduced value of φ0 Dutt and
(e.g. 18 ) Ingram
(1984)
After Poulos (1989)
Notes
1. For silica and calcareous sands, the above expressions apply for driven piles only
2. Typical limiting values fblim range from l0 MN/m2 to 15 MN/m2 for silica sand, and 3–5 MN/m2
for calcareous sand; the latter value depends on soil compressibility
References 83

References

Allen TM, Bathurst RJ, Holtz RD, Lee WF, Walters D (2004) New method for prediction of loads
in steel reinforced soil walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(11):1109–1120
Alpan I (1967) The empirical evaluation of the coefficient K0 and K0R. Soils Found 7(1):31–40
American Petroleum Institute (1984) Recommended practice for planning, designing and
constructing fixed offshore platforms, API RP2A, 15th edn. American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC
AS 4678-2002 Earth retaining structures, Australian Standard
Azzouz AS, Krizek RJ, Corotis RB (1976) Regression analysis of soil compressibility. Soils Found
16(2):19–29
Balasubramaniam AS, Brenner RP (1981) Chapter 7: Consolidation and settlement of soft clay. In:
Brand EW, Brenner RP (eds) Soft clay engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 481–566
Berezantzev VG, Khristoforov VS, Golubkov VN (1961) Load bearing capacity and deformation
of piled foundations. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Paris, 2, pp 11–15
Bjerrum L, Simons NE (1960) Comparison of shear strength characteristics of normally consol-
idated clays. In: Proceedings of research conference on the shear strength of cohesive soils,
ASCE, Boulder, Colorado, pp 711–726
Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36(1):65–78
Bowles JE (1988) Foundation analysis and design, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Brooker EW, Ireland HO (1965) Earth pressures at rest related to stress history. Can Geotech J
2(1):1–15
BS 8002 (1994) Code of practice for earth retaining structures. British Standards Institution,
London
Burland JB (1973) Shaft friction of piles in clay – a simple fundamental approach. Ground Eng
6(3):30–42
Burmister DM (1949) Principles and techniques of soil identification. In: Proceedings of annual
highway research board meeting, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 29,
pp 402–433
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992) Canadian foundation engineering manual, 3rd edn, 511 pp
Carman PC (1938) The determination of the specific surfaces of powders. J Soc Chem Ind Trans
57:225
Carman PC (1956) Flow of gases through porous media. Butterworths Scientific Publications,
London
Carrier WD III (2003) Good bye Hazen; Hello, Kozeny-Carman. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 129(11):1054–1056
Carrier WD III, Beckman JF (1984) Correlations between index tests and the properties of
remolded clays. Geotechnique 34(2):211–228
Castellanos BA,. Brandon TL (2013) A comparison between the shear strength measured with
direct shear and triaxial devices on undisturbed and remolded soils. In: Proceedings of the 18th
international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris, 1, pp 317–320
Chapuis RP (2004) Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using
effective diameter and void ratio. Can Geotech J 41(5):787–795
Cozzolino VM (1961) Statistical forecasting of compression index. In: Proceedings of the 5th
ICSMFE, Paris, pp 51–53
Craig RF (2004) Craig’s soil mechanics, 7th edn. Spon Press/Taylor and Francis Group, London
Datta M, Gulhati SK, Rao GV (1980) An appraisal of the existing practise of determining the axial
load capacity of deep penetration piles in calcareous sands. In: Proceedings of 12th annual
OTC, Houston Paper OTC 3867, pp 119–130
Djoenaidi WJ (1985) A compendium of soil properties and correlations, MEngSc thesis, Univer-
sity of Sydney, Australia
84 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Duncan JM, Buchignani AL (1976) An engineering manual for settlement studies, Geotechnical
Engineering Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
USA, 94 p
Dutt RN, Ingram WB (1984) Jackup rig siting in calcareous soils. In: Proceedings of 16th annual
OTC, Houston Paper OTC 4840, 541–548
European Committee for Standardisation (1994) Eurocode 7: geotechnical design – Part 1,
Brussels
Elnaggar MA, Krizek RJ (1970) Statistical approximation for consolidation settlement. Highway
research record, no. 323, HRB, pp 87–96
Fleming WGK, Weltman AJ, Randolph MF, Elson WK (1985) Piling engineering. Surrey
University Press/Wiley, Glasgow/New York
Goldberg GD, Lovell CW, Miles RD (1979) Use of geotechnical data bank, Transportation
Research Record, No. 702, TRB, pp 140–146
Graham J, Crooks JHA, Bell AL (1983) Time effects on the stress-strain behavior of natural soft
clays. Geotechnique 33(3):327–340
Hara A, Ohata T, Niwa M (1971) Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils Found
14(3):1–12
Hazen A (1911) Discussion on “Dams on sand foundations”. Trans ASCE 73:199
Hazen A (1930) “Water supply” American civil engineers handbook. Wiley, New York
Holtz RD, Kovacs WD (1981) An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs
Hough BK (1957) Basic soils engineering. The Ronald Press Co., New York
Jaky J (1948) Pressures in silos. In: Proceedings of 2nd ICSMFE, Rotterdam, Holland, 1, pp
103–107
Jamiolkowski M, Ladd CC, Germaine JT, Lancellotta R (1985) New developments in field and
laboratory testing of soils. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, San Francisco, 1, pp 57–154
Kenney TC (1959) Discussion of “Geotechnical properties of glacial lake clays,” by T.H. Wu.
J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 85(SM3):67–79
Kezdi A (1972) Stability of rigid structures. In: Proceedings of 5th ECSMFE, Madrid, 2,
pp 105–130
Koppula SD (1981) Statistical evaluation of compression index. Geotech Test J ASTM 4(2):68–73
Kozeny J (1927) ueber kapillareLeitung des Wassers im Boden, Wien, Akad Wiss 136(2a):271
Kraft LM, Lyons CG (1974) State-of-the art: ultimate axial capacity of grouted piles. In: Pro-
ceedings of 6th annual OTC, Houston, pp 487–503
Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design,
Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, USA
Ladd CC, Foott R, Ishihara K, Schlosser F, Poulos HG (1977) Stress-deformation and strength
characteristics. In: Proceedings of 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, 2, pp 421–494
Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1979) Soil mechanics SI version. Wiley, New York, 553 p
Leonards GA (1962) Foundation engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York
Lo YKT, Lovell CW (1982) Prediction of soil properties from simple indices, Transportation
Research record, No. 873, Overconsolidated clays: Shales, TRB, pp 43–49
Massarsch KR (1979) Lateral earth pressure in normally consolidated clay. In: Proceedings of the
7th ECSMFE, Brighton, England, 2, pp 245–250
Mayne PW (1985) Stress anisotropy effects on clay strength. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(3):
356–366
Mayne PW, Kulhawy FH (1982) K0-OCR relationships in soils. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 108
(GT6):851–872
McClelland B (1974) Design of deep penetration piles for ocean structures. J Geotech Eng ASCE
100(GT 7):705–747
Mesri G (1973) Coefficient of secondary compression. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE
99(SM1):123–137
References 85

Mesri G (1989) A reevaluation of su(mob)  0.22 σ0 p using laboratory shear tests. Can Geotech J
26(1):162–164
Mesri G, Godlewski PM (1977) Time and stress compressibility interrelationship. J Geotech Eng
Div ASCE 103(GT5):417–430
Mesri G, Olsen RE (1971) Mechanisms controlling the permeability of clays. Clay Clay Miner
19:151–158
Mesri G, Lo DOK Feng TW (1994) Settlement of embankments on soft clays. In: Proceedings
of settlement ’94, ASCE specialty conference, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, 1,
pp 8–56
Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations. J Geotech Eng ASC
102(GT3):195–228
Mitchell JK (1976) Fundamentals of soil behavior. Wiley, New York
Nishida Y (1956) A brief note on compression index of soil. J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE, 82
(SM3):1027-1 to 1027-14
Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornburn TH (1974) Foundation engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Poulos HG (1988) The mechanics of calcareous sediments. Jaeger Memorial Lecture, 5th
Australia-New Zealand Geomechanics Conference, pp 8–41
Poulos HG (1989) Pile behavior – theory and application. Geotechnique 39(3):365–415
Rendon-Herrero O (1980) Universal compression index equation. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE
106(GT11):1179–1200
Salgado R (2008) The engineering of foundation. McGraw Hill, New York, 882 p
Schanz T, Vermeer PA (1996) Angles of friction and dilatancy of sand. Geotechnique
46(1):145–151
Schmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test performance and design, Report
FHWA-TS-78-209. U.S. Dept of Transportation, Washington, 145 pp
Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP, Brown PR (1978) Improved strain influence factor diagrams.
J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 104(8):1131–1135
Semple RM, Rigden WJ (1984) Shaft capacity of driven piles in clay, Analysis and design of pile
foundations, ASCE, pp 59–79
Skempton AW (1944) Notes on the compressibility of clays. Q J Geol Soc Lond 100:119–135
Skempton AW (1954) The pore pressure coefficients A and B. Geotechnique 4:143–147
Skempton AW (1957) Discussion on “The planning and design of the new Hong Kong airport”.
Proc Inst Civil Eng Lond 7:305–307
Skempton AW (1959) Cast-in-situ bored piles in London clay. Geotechnique 9(4):153–173
Skempton AW (1986) Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden
pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique 36(3):
425–447
Skempton AW, Northey RD (1952) The sensitivity of clays. Geotechnique 3:30–53
Sorensen KK, Okkels N (2013) Correlation between drained shear strength and plasticity index of
undisturbed overconsolidated clays. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on
soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris, Presses des Ponts, 1, pp 423–428
Sridharan A, Nagaraj HB (2000) Compressibility behavior of remoulded fine grained soils and
correlations with index properties. Can Geotech J 37(3):712–722
Stas CV, Kulhawy FH (1984) Critical evaluation of design methods for foundations under axial
uplift and compression loading, Report for EPRI, No. EL-3771, Cornell University
Szechy K, Varga L (1978) Foundation engineering – soil exploration and spread foundations.
Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, 508 p
Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York, 700 pp
Terzaghi K, Peck R (1948) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York
Terzaghi K, Peck R (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Tezaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 3rd edn. Wiley,
New York
86 3 Correlations for Laboratory Test Parameters

Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking.

J Geotech Eng ASCE 113(8):861–878
USACE (1990) Engineering and design – settlement analysis, EM1110-1-1904, Department of the
Army, US Army Corps of Engineers
US Air Force (1983) Soils and geology procedures for foundation design of buildings and other
structures, Air Force Manual AFM pp 88–3 Chapter 7 (Also U.S. Army Technical Manual
5-818-1), Departments of the Army and Air Force, Washington, DC
U.S.Army (1994) Settlement analysis, Technical Engineering and Design Guides, ASCE
U.S. Navy (1971) Soil mechanics, foundations and earth structures, NAVFAC Design manual
DM-7, Washington, DC
U.S. Navy (1982) Soil mechanics – design manual 7.1, Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
Vesic AS (1972) Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE
98:265–290
Winterkorn HF, Fang H-Y (1975) Foundation engineering handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, New York
Wood DM (1983) Index properties and critical state soil mechanics. In: Proceedings of the
symposium on recent developments in laboratory and field tests and analysis of geotechnical
problems, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, pp 301–309
Wroth CP (1984) The interpretation of in situ soil tests. Geotechnique 34(4):449–489
Wroth CP, Houlsby GT (1985) Soil mechanics – property characterisation and analysis pro-
cedures. In: Proceedings of the 11th ICSMFE, San Francisco, pp 1–55
Wroth CP, Wood DM (1978) The correlation of index properties with some basic engineering
properties of soils. Can Geotech J 15(2):137–145