If a new "straight" section deviates from the initial straight line after some elapsed time t,

there is usually a cause such as adding or removing surcharge (or fill), water table lowering,
or the like. When this deviation occurs, reinitialize the previous curve. Reinitialization
consists in using the time and settlement values at some time in the vicinity of the deviation
of the points from the straight line and recomputing the plot points. For example, Fig.
2-23 shows linear deviation at t = 43 days, s = 13.5 cm. We will arbitrarily reinitialize
the curve at
/ = 30 days s = 11 cm
t/s, day/cm
t, day
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
5, cm
0.9
1.5
1.9
2.5
3.7
4.1
4.4
t, day
10
11
12
14
16
22
30
s, cm
4.8
5.3
5.6
6.4
7.0
8.7
11.0
t, day
43
56
70
90
s, cm
13.5
15.0
16.1
17.0
t-to
13
26
40
60
S-S0
2.5
4.0
5.1
6.0
At/As
5.2
6.5
7.8
10.0
Reinitialize at 30
Settlement
at 90 days = 17.0 cm
at 230 days:
as shown in typical computations on the figure. These become t[ and s/, so the new plot
continues on Fig. 2-23 in the form of
_ versus (t - 30)
SxL
For measured data of t = 56 days, s = 15.0 cm, obtain plot points of
5 6 - 3 0 26
Plot t/s = 6.5 versus t = 26 days as shown on Fig. 2-23.
To make a final settlement estimate, obtain a and /3 from the linear hyperbolic curve and
compute a table of settlement values s using several arbitrarily selected time values t in Eq.
(2-47Z?) until time increases result in almost no increase in settlement s. Plot these values on
a graph of time t versus settlement s. The approximate asymptote represents the maximum
estimated settlement. With care and enough t and s field data you may be able to estimate the
final total settlement within 10 to 20 percent.
2-10.6 Secondary Consolidation
After primary consolidation the soil structure continues to adjust to the load for some additional
time. This settlement is termed secondary consolidation or secondary compression
and may continue for many years, but at an approximately logarithmic rate. At the end of
secondary consolidation the soil has reached a new K0 state. The total settlement when accounting
for both primary AHp and secondary AH8 compression is
Atftotai = AHp + AH8
The slope of a plot of deformation versus log time beyond the Dioo location is used (see
Fig. 2-13a) to obtain the secondary compression index Ca, computed as
= M1M1 = A^_ (2.48)
log hltx log f2/fi
Now using this Ca index, the field secondary compression (or settlement) AHS after some
time ^ = h + Aris computed as
AH8 = HfCalog^ (2-49)
where for the preceding two equations
Hu = thickness of laboratory sample at time f ,-
AHi5
= change in sample thickness at some time ti taken from the deformation versus log
time curve; try to use one log cycle
t2 = time at end of primary consolidation t\ + At as just defined and consistent with
cv. Find the initial field time t\ using Eq. (2-38), then rearrange to find tgo (use
T = 0.848 from Table 2-4) and t\oo « W0.9; for Ar choose some convenient
time lapse.
Hf = thickness of field-consolidating stratum at the end of primary consolidation. Commonly
one uses initial thickness unless the primary consolidation is very large, say,
more than 10 percent of the initial thickness.
The slope of the secondary branch of the deformation versus log time curve is very nearly
a constant for a remolded soil but varies with the load for "undisturbed" soil samples. For
"undisturbed" field samples you should obtain Ca as the slope of that curve from that laboratory
pressure closest to the estimated field loading.
Secondary consolidation (or settlement) is only a small component of the total settlement
for most inorganic soils. For highly organic soils (for example, very peaty) the secondary
settlement component may be larger than the primary consolidation value.
2-10.7 Compression Index Correlations
A laboratory consolidation test takes a considerable amount of time and is both labor- and
computation-intensive (unless the test has been automated 19). In any case it is rather expensive,
and in most cases at least two—and preferably three—tests should be performed in each
critical stratum. Because of these factors a substantial effort has been undertaken to attempt
to correlate the compression indexes to some other more easily determined soil index properties.
Also, if the first laboratory consolidation test correlates reasonably well with one or
more of the following expressions, additional verification tests may not be required.
Correlations have particular value in preliminary site studies before extensive soil exploration
and testing is undertaken for a final design
Table 2-5 lists several equations, along with their sources, that might be used to make
compression index estimates. If the compression ratio Cc or other ratios are used, they can
be obtained from expressions such as Eq. (2-46); but you must somehow estimate the in situ
void ratio eo (usually from an estimated Gs in the range of 2.68 to 2.72).
It appears that better values are obtained when more than one index property is used (remember
that Ip uses both the liquid and plastic limits).
Because the compression settlement also depends on the initial in situ void ratio eo, it is
probably better to use those equations that include eo either directly or indirectly (y or WN).
Here are suggestions for using Table 2-5:
1. It might be more useful if you have done at least one consolidation test and then use a
correlation to verify it (say within ±10 percent).
2. If you have not done any consolidation tests, you should use at least two table equations
and average the results.
3. You should start compiling a local database so that you can identify one of the equations,
with minor adjustments to the numerical constants, as defining the local soil.
19A computer program such as that in Bowles (1992) is helpful in consolidation test data reduction.
TABLE 2-5
Correlation equations for soil compressibility/consolidation
Compression index, Cc Comments Source/Reference
Cc = 0.009(wL - 10) (±30% error) Clays of moderate St Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
Cc = 0.31(eo + 0.003wL + 0.0004w,v - 0.34) 678 data points Azzouz et al. (1976)
/<v \2 4
C0 = 0.UlG5 - ^ All clays Rendon-Herrero (1983)
\7dry/
Cc = 0.0093WAT 109 data points Koppula (1981)
Cc = -0.0997 + 0.009wL + 0.0014/^ +
0.0036W/V + 0.1165eo + 0.0025CP 109 data points Koppula (1981)
Cc = 0.329[wNGs - 0.027wP +
0.0133/P(l. 192 + CpHp) All inorganic clays Carrier (1985)
Cc = 0.046 + 0.0104/p Best for IP < 50% Nakase et al. (1988)
Cc = 0.00234wLGs AU inorganic clays Nagaraj and Srinivasa Murthy
(1985, 1986)
Cc = 1.15(eo - 0.35) All clays Nishida (1956)
Cc = 0.009w# + 0.005wL All clays Koppula (1986)
Cc = -0.156 + 0.41Ie0 + O.OOO58wL 72 data points Al-Khafaji and Andersland
(1992)
Recompression index, Cr
Cr = 0.000463wLGs Nagaraj and Srinivasa Murthy
(1985)
Cr = 0.00194(/P - 4.6) Best for IP < 50% Nakase et al. (1988)
= 0.05 to 0.1 Cc In desperation
Secondary compression index, Ca
Ca = 0.00168 + 0.00033/p Nakase et al. (1988)
= 0.0001H>,V NAFAC DM7.1 p. 7.1-237
Ca = 0.032Cc 0.025 < Ca < 0.1 Mesri and Godlewski (1977)
= 0.06 to 0.07Cc Peats and organic soil Mesri (1986)
= 0.015 to 0.03Cc Sandy clays Mesri et al. (1990)
Notes: 1. Use WL, wp, H>#, Ip as percent, not decimal.
2. One may compute the in situ void ratio as eo = wNGs if S -> 100 percent.
3. Cp = percent clay (usually material finer than 0.002 mm).
4. Equations that use eOy w^, and WL are for both normally and overconsolidated soils.
2-10.8 Compression Index Correlations and Preconsolidation
A reliable estimate of the effective preconsolidation pressure p'c is difficult without performing
a consolidation test. There have been a few correlations given for p'c of which one was
given by Nagaraj and Srinivasa Murthy (1985, 1986) for saturated soils preconsolidated by
overburden pressure (as opposed to shrinkage or chemical factors):
log10 p'c = 5.97 - 5.32(wN/wL) - 0.25 log10 p'o (2-50)
As an example, for
wN = 25%; wL = 50% (liquid limit);
The OCR = 776/48 = 16. While this is a very large OCR, we could have predicted that there
would be some overconsolidation, with w^ = WL/2—certainly a case where WM is closer to
wp than to w^.
For soils preconsolidated by cementation and shrinkage Nagaraj and Srinivasa Murthy
(1985, 1986) suggest
p'c = 3.1Ssu - 2.9 (units of kPa) (2-51)
where su = in situ undrained shear strength as defined in Sec. 2-11A and determined by the
field vane shear test described in Sec. 3-12.
As previously noted, it is possible to estimate whether a soil is preconsolidated from overburden
pressure by noting the position of the natural water content w^ with respect to the
Atterberg limits of wp and wi on Fig. 2-2a:
1. If WM is closer to the liquid limit Wi than to wp the soil is likely to be normally consolidated.
2. If WM is closer to the plastic limit wp than to Wi the soil is likely to be preconsolidated.
Unfortunately this information cannot be used in a quantitative manner or for over- or preconsolidation
caused by shrinkage or chemical action. All that can be said with any certainty
is that if the soil is preconsolidated it is not likely to settle as much under a foundation load
as a similar soil in a normally consolidated state.
2-11 SHEAR STRENGTH
Soil strength is the resistance to mass deformation developed from a combination of particle
rolling, sliding, and crushing and is reduced by any pore pressure that exists or develops
during particle movement. This resistance to deformation is the shear strength of the soil
as opposed to the compressive or tensile strength of other engineering materials. The shear
strength is measured in terms of two soil parameters: interparticle attraction or cohesion c,
and resistance to interparticle slip called the angle of internal friction </>. Grain crushing,
resistance to rolling, and other factors are implicitly included in these two parameters. In
equation form the shear strength in terms of total stresses is
s = c + crtan</> (2-52)
and, using effective strength parameters,
s = c' + <r'tan</>' (2-52a)
where terms not identified earlier are
s = shear strength (sometimes called r), kPa, ksf, etc.
a = normal stress on shear plane (either total a or effective <r'), kPa, ksf, etc.
a' = a - u = effective normal stress (defined in Sec. 2-9)
we have
Next Page
The strength parameters are often used as constants, but they are quite dependent on the
type of laboratory test, previous stress history, and current state (particle packing, grain shape,
and water content). As a consequence, obtaining accurate values is not a trivial task, and the
values obtained actually apply only to the current soil state. Also whereas Eq. (2-52) has a
linear form, in real soils for the reasons just cited thi^ equation is often a curve.
The shear envelope defined by Eq. (2-52), obtained from the locus of tangent points to a
series of Mohr's circles (see Fig. 2-24), constitutes the limiting states of soil stresses. Since
there are two parameters in these equations (c, </>), at least two soil tests must be performed
to obtain their values using either simultaneous equations or, most commonly, a graphical
solution. From the Mohr's circle20 of Fig. 2-24, the normal stress on the shear plane in terms
of principal stresses cr\ and cr3 is
<rn = Zl^Zl+ El^Zl cos 26 (2-53)
The principal stress difference a\ - cr3 (also called the deviator stress Acri) used above and
as shown on Fig. 2-24 at failure is the instant increase in compression stress starting from
(J3. The vertical stress increase A/7 from foundation loads in situ from p'o is also the deviator
stress.
Figure 2-24 Mohr's failure stress circle for a triaxial compression test series with only a single test shown for
clarity and to include shear strength terminology. Also shown is orientation of the shear plane in sample and shear
and normal stresses on plane. Note conventional use of first quadrant for stress plot even though stresses are all
compressive. In-depth theory of Mohr's circle construction is available