Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-01844-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Relationships between undrained shear strength, liquidity index,

and water content ratio of clays
Satoru Shimobe 1 & Giovanni Spagnoli 2

Received: 17 June 2019 / Accepted: 6 May 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Clays are very important in environmental geotechnical applications because of their characteristics. This paper considered over
500 data from literature and from laboratory. Undrained shear strength (remolded and undisturbed), liquidity index (IL), and
water content ratio (WCR) have been compared among each other. Because natural clays have different physical and mineral-
ogical properties, no unique relationship exists. The relationship between remolded and undisturbed undrained shear strength and
liquidity index (IL) is scattered. On the contrary, if only remolded undrained shear strength values are plotted against the liquidity
index, a good tendency is observed considering also the ratio of plastic limit to liquid limit in the range of IL between 0.8 and 1.3.

Keywords Clays . Atterberg limits . Undrained shear strength . Liquidity index . Water content ratio . Plasticity ratio

Abbreviations w Water content

CF Clay fraction (% < 2 μm) WCR Water content ratio¼ LL w

FC Fall cone test α
and

Material constant  gradient of the IL-WCR
d Cone penetration (mm) relationship ¼ 1−R1
p
IL (LI) Liquidity index (ILc obtained by fall cone test) β
and
Material constant  intercept of the IL-WCR
Rp
ILN Logarithmic liquidity index = ln(w/PL)/ln(LL/PL) relationship ¼ 1−Rp
LL (wL) Liquid limit (%; wLc obtained by fall cone test)
PL (wP) Plastic limit (%; wPc obtained by fall cone test)
PI (Ip) Plasticity index=LL-PL=wL − wp.
PL
Rp (Rpc) Plasticity ratio¼ LL (that obtained by fall cone test)
Introduction
Rs Strength ratio=sur(PL)/sur(LL) (=sPL/sLL)
In geotechnical engineering clays are very important be-
St Sensitivity ratio=su/sur
cause their characteristics, e.g., low permeability, high
su (Undisturbed) undrained shear strength (kPa)
heavy metal retention, and cationic organic contaminants,
sur Remolded undrained shear strength (kPa)
are very important for different applications such as liners
sur(LL) (Remolded) undrained shear strength at
for waste disposal. Therefore, the basic geotechnical prop-
liquid limit (=sLL)
erties of clays such as Atterberg limits, consistency, and
sur(PL) (Remolded) undrained shear strength at plastic
liquidity index, IL, are key factors in the geotechnical
limit (=sPL)
assessment during each construction project. In the last
years, an enormous amount of data and correlations have
been generated. It would be challenging to quote them all;
* Giovanni Spagnoli
giovanni.spagnoli@mbcc-group.com; giovanni.spagnoli@basf.com however, Atterberg limits have been correlated in the past
with several geotechnical properties such as swelling, hy-
Satoru Shimobe
shimobe.satoru@nihon-u.ac.jp
draulic properties, specific surface area, SSA, cation ex-
change capacity, CEC, undrained shear strength, com-
1
College of Science and Technology, Nihon University, pressibility (see for instance Wroth and Wood 1978;
Funabashi 274-8501, Japan Locat and Demers 1988; Muhunthan 1991; Al-Khafaji
2
BASF Construction Solutions GmbH, Dr.-Albert-Frank-Straße 32, 1993; Yilmaz 2000, 2004; Atkinson 2007; Mitchell and
83308 Trostberg, Germany Soga 2005; Dolinar 2009; Dolinar and Škrabl 2013;
 S. Shimobe, G. Spagnoli

Vardanega and Haigh 2014; Spagnoli et al. 2019 to name Based on the analytical analysis and experimental facts,
few), showing that the basic geotechnical characteriza- Koumoto and Houlsby (2001) obtained a value of sur at LL
tions already help to qualitatively understand the engi- of 1.38 kPa for a fall cone test (here abbreviated as FC) of 60°
neering properties of clays. IL has been widely related and 60 g with a cone penetration d of 11.5 mm at the LL
with the undrained shear strength, su (e.g., Schofield and assuming Rs =100.
Wroth 1968; Houston and Mitchell 1969; Wroth and
surðFCÞ ¼ e½ 
1:070−I LN
Wood 1978; Locat and Demers 1988; Muir Wood 1990; 0:217 ð3Þ
Vardanega and Haigh 2014). IL is defined as:
where ILN is the logarithmic liquidity index, i.e., [ln(w/PL)/
w−PL ln(LL/PL)].
IL ¼ ð1Þ
PI Vardanega and Haigh (2014) evaluated 641 data on 101
soil samples from 12 countries, as shown in Table 1, in a linear
where w is the water content, plasticity index (PI) is the difference
log sur-IL relationship. According to them, Rs is not 100, rather
between liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL). Basically, IL is
35 is more realistic, as it depends on clay minerals:
the relative consistency of a fine-grained soil in the original state.
If a soil has the natural moisture content and the liquid limit of the sur ¼ surðLLÞ 34:3ð1−I L Þ ≈surðLLÞ 35ð1−I L Þ ð4Þ
same value, the liquidity index will be 1. If the natural moisture
content of soil is less than the liquid limit, but more than the which is valid for IL values between 0.2 and 1.1.
plastic limit, the liquidity index will be less than 1. For sensitive Table 2 shows the undrained shear strength at liquid and
clay, the natural moisture content may be greater than the liquid plastic limits of soils (sLL, sPL) and its strength ratio (Rs) for
limit and value of IL will exceed 1. Heavily overconsolidated different values from the literature.
(OCR) clay deposits (values up to 40, e.g., Mayne and Kuriakose et al. (2017) investigated the relation between
Mitchell 1988) have the natural water content, which may be the normalized water content, w, to the liquid limit, LL, de-
lower than the plastic limit. In that scenario, the liquidity index fined as water content ratio (WCR) and sur, claiming to be a
is smaller than 0. If the soil has LI value less than zero, the soil good replacer of IL with the expression having the form of:
will behave like brittle or crumbled into pieces. If IL value is
equal to zero, then the soil will behave similar to a plastic log sur ¼ a−bðWCRÞ ð5Þ
material.
whereby they identified, for the clayey samples they tested,
It is reported in the literature that soils at their LL and
values of 2.644 and 2.55 for material constants, a and b,
PL have fixed undrained shear strength values, which is
respectively.
around 2 kPa at their LL and 100 to 200 kPa at PL (see
Besides, WCR is widely used for identifying the swell
Carter and Bentley 1991), whereby Haigh et al. (2013)
potential of expansive clays (swell index), trafficability of
and more recently Spagnoli et al. (2019) observed that
construction vehicles, and sustainability to liquefaction (e.g.,
PL is likely not linked to a fixed shear strength value.
Vijayvergiya and Ghazzaly 1973; Shimobe 2011).
However, following the current established soil mechani-
The authors have collected, organized, and analyzed over
cal theories, it can be seen that (remolded) soils change
500 data from the literature from the past years, considering
their strength throughout their plastic range (LL-PL) from
the su-WCR-IL relation. Also, new laboratory data has been
1 kPa at LL to 100 kPa at PL, whereby plasticity index,
collected and compared with the works of other authors. The
PI, seems to be a change of water content needed to create
goal was to verify based on a vast literature review, whether
a strength change of about one hundred–fold in the plastic
WCR could be possibly a replacer for IL, and if a relationship
range of soil (e.g., Skempton and Northey 1952; Sharma
among undrained shear strength, WCR, and IL exists. Besides,
and Bora 2003). Therefore, a correlation between shear
in this paper, we mainly focused on the remolded (disturbed)
strength and water content exists, which can be used to
cohesive soils and referred to the undisturbed cohesive soils
predict the shear strength variations of clays.
considering the sensitivity ratio St in discussing the overall
For instance, Wroth and Wood (1978) used the vane shear
properties and behaviors of soils due to disturbance (based
experimental results by Skempton and Northey (1952)
on our research results).
obtaining for remolded undrained shear strength, sur , the fol-
lowing relationship (see also Table 1):

sur ¼ 170eð−4:6I L Þ ¼ 1:7Rs ð1−I L Þ ð2Þ Methods

More than 500 data from over 100 publications have been
where sur at LL was 1.7 kPa, sur at PL was 170 kPa, and the collected and analyzed (see Tables 1 and 2). Regarding
strength ratio sur(PL)/sur(LL), defined as Rs, was set to 100. Table 1, i.e., relationships between undrained shear strength
Table 1 Relationships between undrained shear strength su and liquidity index IL and water content ratio WCR

Type Eq. Authors Proposed equations (su, sur: kPa) Applications Remarks
no.

su-IL relation (semi-logarithmic or power 1 Wroth and Wood (1978) sur = 170 exp. (− 4.6IL) = 1.7Rs(1-IL) Remolded soils; critical state theory sur(LL) = 1.7 kPa, sur(PL) = 170 kPa; Rs = 100 (Wood 1985)
model) 2 Whyte (1982) sur = 1.6 exp. [(4.23 (1 − IL)] Remolded soils
3 Leroueil et al. (1983) sur = 1/(IL − 0.21)2 Remolded soils; 0.5 < IL <2.5
4 Locat and Demers (1988) sur = (1.167/IL)2.44 Remolded soils; 1.5 < IL< 6.0 Strengths at high liquidity indices
5 Hirata et al. (1990) sur = exp. (− 3.361IL + 0.376) Remolded soils
6 Terzaghi et al. (1996) sur = 2(IL)−2.8 Remolded soils
7 Shimobe (2000, 2010) su = 98 St・exp. Undisturbed and remolded soils Considering sensitivity ratio St
[ln{0.4755/(IL + 0.5012(1 − IL))}/0.19]
8a Yilmaz (2000) sur = exp. (0.026 − 1.21IL) Remolded soils
8b Yilmaz (2000) su = 98 exp. (0.026 − 1.22IL) Undisturbed soils
9a Koumoto and Houlsby sur(FC) = exp. [(1.070 − ILN)/0.217] Remolded soils; 60° 60 g fall cone (FC) Dynamic sur(LL) = 1.38 kPa, Rs = 100; dLL = 11.5 mm
(2001)
9b Koumoto and Houlsby ILN = 1.070–0.217 ln [sur(FC)] ditto (logarithmic liquidity index formulation) Another equation form by Vardanega and Haigh (2014)
(2001)
−1.6
10 NGI (2002) sur = 4.2(IL) Remolded soils
11 NGI (2002) sur = 3.9(IL) −2.0 Remolded soils
12a Yang et al. (2006) sur = 159.6 exp.(− 3.97IL) Remolded soils
12b Yang et al. (2006) su = 231.9 exp.(− 2.96IL) Undisturbed soils
13 Berilgen et al. (2007) sur = 28 exp. (− 1.33IL) Remolded soils
14 Edil and Benson (2009) sur = 144.9 exp. (− 1.72IL) Remolded soils
15a Vardanega and Haigh IL = 1.150–0.283 ln (sur) Remolded soils R2 = 0.948, n = 641, SE = 0.059
(2014)
15b Vardanega and Haigh sur = sur(LL)34.3(1−IL) ≈ sur(LL)35(1-IL) ditto (rearranging Eq. 15a); 0.2 < IL < 1.1 sur(LL) = 1.7 kPa; Rs = 35 (depending on clay mineralogy)
(2014)
15c Vardanega and Haigh ILN = 1.120–0.226 ln (sur) ditto (logarithmic liquidity index formulation) R2 = 0.949, n = 641, SE = 0.046
(2014)
15d Vardanega and Haigh IL = 1.030–0.266 ln (sur) ditto (6 soils) Data from Koumoto and Houlsby (2001); sur(LL) = 1.1 kPa,
(2014) Rs = 44
Relationships between undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and water content ratio of clays

15e Vardanega and Haigh sur = sur(LL)83.5(1−ILN) ditto (Rearranging Eq. 15c) sur(LL) = 1.7 kPa, Rs = 83.5
(2014)
16 Cangir and Dipova (2017) su (UC/UU) = − 41 ln (IL) + 19.41 Undisturbed soils; unconfined compression test Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test (UU)
(UC) also
su-WCR relation (semi-logarithmic 17 Federico (1983) sur = exp. [5.25(1.161 − WCR)] Remolded soils
or power model) 18 Tsuchida (1999) sur = 1.4 (WCR)−4.5 Remolded soils Tsuchida et al. (2002)
19 Lee (2004) sur = 182.93 exp. (− 2.3714 WCR) Remolded soils
20 Berilgen et al. (2007) sur = 145 exp. (− 2.86 WCR) Remolded soils
21 O’Kelly (2013) log sur = log sur(LL) + (log Rs/log α) × log Remolded soils α = LL/PL (Vardanega and Haigh 2014, 2017)
(1/WCR)
22 Kang et al. (2017) sur = 1.71 (WCR)−4.1 Remolded soils
23 Vardanega and Haigh sur = 10(2.72–2.585WCR) Remolded soils Data from Kuriakose et al. (2017)
(2017)
24 Sharma and Sridharan log (sur(FC)/1.7) = log (1.04) − 4.9 log (WCR) Remolded soils; 60° 60 g & 30° 100 g/400 g fall R2 = 0.945, n = 43; sur(LL) = 1.7 kPa, sur(PL) = 170 kPa,
(2018) cones Rs=100

su (undisturbed) undrained shear strength, sur remolded undrained shear strength, LL liquid limit, PL plastic limit, sur(LL) undrained shear strength at LL, sur(PL) undrained shear strength at PL, α ratio of
liquid limit to plastic limit (LL/PL), Rs strength ratio at LL and PL [sur(PL)/sur(LL)], St sensitivity ratio (su/sur), IL (LI) liquidity index [(w-PL)/Ip], Ip (PI) plasticity index (LL-PL), ILN logarithmic liquidity
index [ln(w/PL)/ln(LL/PL)], WCR water content ratio (w/LL), w water content, R2 coefficient of determination, n number of soil samples, SE standard error
 S. Shimobe, G. Spagnoli

Table 2 Undrained shear strength at liquid and plastic limits of soils (sLL, sPL) and its strength ratio (Rs). Figures in parenthesis are average or
recommended values

Authors sLL (kPa) sPL (kPa) Rs=sPL/ Test for su Remarks

sLL

Casagrande (1939) 2–3 (2.65) Average strength depending on the LL apparatus

BS1377 (1948) 110 Quoted by Whyte (1982)
Skempton and Northey (1952) 0.7–1.75 85–125 (110) 100 VST su-IL relationship (quoted by Whyte (1982))
Hansbo (1957) 1.5–2.0 FCT Hansbo equation su = kmg/d2
Norman (1958) 1.1–2.3 Miniature VST Apparatus of ASTM standards (25–50% higher)
0.8–1.6 Apparatus of BS standards
Youssef et al. (1965) 1.3–2.7 (1.7) VST Mean value of 1.7 kPa at LL
Wroth and Wood (1978) 1.7 170 100 VST Mean values at LL & PL, respectively
Dennehy (1978) 30–220 (115) UU TC Casagrande cup method; quoted by Whyte (1982)
Arrowsmith (1978) 17–224 (110) UC Casagrande cup method; quoted by Whyte (1982)
Whyte (1982) 0.5–5.6 (1.6) 20–220 (110) 70 Extrusion
Leroueil et al. (1983) 1.6 FCT & VST 60° 60 g cone; 0.5 <IL < 2.5
Federico (1983) 1.7–2.8 VST Fall cone method (30° 80 g cone)
Wasti and Bezirci (1986) 0.5–5.6 36–430 VST Casagrande cup method
0.8–4.8 (2.2) 35–600 Fall cone method (30° 80 g/240 g cones)
Medhat and Whyte (1986) 1.6 110 Upon literature review
Locat and Demers (1988) 0.2–2.04 Viscometer FCT & 1.5 < IL < 6
Muir Wood (1990) 2 200 100
Sridharan and Prakash (1998) 0.66–1.35 Viscometer
Koumoto and Houlsby (2001) 1.38–4.52 (108, 138) Theoretical analysis (FCT); depending on the depth of
(1.83, 1.38) penetration for 60° 60 g cone
Sharma and Bora (2003) 1.7 170 100 FCT Fall cone method (60°60 g; 30°100 g/400 g cones)
CEN ISO/TS 17892-6: 2004 1.57–1.59 FCT 60° 60 g or 30° 80 g cones
(fall cone test) (1.6)
Zentar et al. (2009) 1.2–1.4 (1.3) 50–80 (65) 42–57 FCT & VST 30° 80 g cone
Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010) 1.2–12 (2.3) 68–530 (180) 78 VST & reverse VSTLab overestimates su at LL
extrusion
Nagaraj et al. (2012) 0.2–12 35–600 Variations of sLL & sPL: 60 & 17 times
Haigh et al. (2013) 1.41–1.76 17–530 (152) 71 soil samples from literature
(1.7)
O’Kelly (2013) 0.64–2.1 34–123 (82) 43–128 VST 14 mineral soils; mean value of 82 kPa at PL
(1.15) (75)
Vardanega and Haigh (2014) 1.7 35 Upon literature review (101 soils); 0.2 < IL < 1.1
Shi and Herle (2017) 1.4 115 fine-grained soils from literature (Hong et al. 2003)
Mengistu (2017) 1.63–6.78 101.65–201.94 30–63 VST Clay soils at 5 sites; Casagrande method
Karakan and Demir (2018) 2.55 71–460 (170.5) 13–360 FCT Casagrande & fall cone methods (22
(80) kaolinite/bentonite-sand mixtures)

VST vane shear test, FCT fall cone test, UU TC unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test, UC unconfined compression test

su and liquidity index IL and normalized water content WCR,
all data regarding remolded and undisturbed strengths are
shown. Regarding the relation between undrained shear
strength at liquid and plastic limits of soils (sLL, sPL) and Rs,
values coming from vane shear tests, fall cone tests, extrusion/
reverse extrusion tests, triaxial compression tests, and uncon-
fined compression tests were considered (Table 2). Since the
aim of this paper is to obtain a general overview rather than to
obtain a correlation, we think that from the scientific point of
view, the approach we followed is correct.
Results and discussion
Figure 1 shows the relationship between undisturbed and
remolded undrained shear strength, su and sur, respectively,
and IL for over 500 data. Data of remolded soils shows a
general trend with the form of log sur = A − BIL (where A and
B are material constant). It is possible to note from Fig. 1 that
all data show a wider range in terms of response.
On the su-IL diagram of soils of Fig. 1, because both remolded
and undisturbed data were used, referring to vast data analyzed in
this paper, the difference between undisturbed and remolded
soils is not clear and become confused. Here, the data group of
undisturbed soils (with a dotted line in Fig. 1) was differentiated
from the remolded ones, based on the depositional and geotech-
nical properties of these soils. In order to evaluate the undrained
strength of undisturbed (intact) cohesive soil, there is an impor-
tant parameter of sensitivity ratio, St, defined as a ratio of undis-
turbed strength to remolded one (¼ su=sur ). The sensitivity ratio
varies greatly depending on the geotechnical characteristics of
cohesive soil according to its sedimentary environment and the
sample quality due to disturbance (e.g., Wood 1985; Shimobe
and Spagnoli 2019). Then, although the undrained strength of
undisturbed soil su is given as (remolded strength sur) × (sensi-
tivity ratio St), it is natural that the undisturbed strength of cohe-
sive soils with the same state amount and consistency (i.e., IL and
LL) varies greatly depending on their sensitivity ratio. The ex-
perimental evidence of extended fall cone tests (sur, ILc), vane
shear, and unconfined compression tests (su, sur ) to prove this
Relationships between undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and water content ratio of clays

Fig. 1 Relationship between undrained shear strength and IL

issue, is shown in Fig. 2 based on the authors’ research results
(e.g., Shimobe and Spagnoli 2019). Besides, in this figure, newly
supplemented data also are indicated. Shimobe and Spagnoli
(2019) proposed the su-IL relationship for cohesive soils consid-
ering the sensitivity ratio St (from remolded soils to sensitive
ones). The proposed equation for undisturbed and remolded soils
is as follows (also other suggested equations, see Table 1):
h 
 i
su ¼ 98 St ⋅ exp ln 0:4755= I L þ 0:5012ð1−I L Þ =0:19 ð6Þ

Fig. 2 Liquidity index against undrained shear strength (revised from Shimobe and Spagnoli 2019)
 S. Shimobe, G. Spagnoli

whereby Eq. (6) considers the predicted strength equation for From Eq. (7), the IL-WCR relationship is linear and α and
remolded soils when st = 1. β represent its gradient and intercept, respectively. Namely,
As a well-known relationship between remolded undrained the relation is greatly dependent on the parameter Rp value
shear strength and liquidity index of clays exists, there is a (Shimobe 2011; Spagnoli and Oreste 2019).
unique equation suggested by Terzaghi et al. (1996) for in- Combining the sur-WCR relationship as suggested by
stance (see Table 1 and Fig. 1). This data includes soft clay Tsuchida (1999) in Table 1 (Eq. (18) and Eq. (8)), the follow-
and silt deposits obtained from different sites of the world. ing equation is obtained:
Similarly, Vardanega and Haigh (2014) also proposed the 1:4
sur-IL relation based on the data from a large number of soil sur ¼   4:5 ðin kPaÞ ð9Þ
samples (101 soils). However, even their proposed equation 1−Rp I L þ Rp
(range of 0.2 < IL < 1.1) cannot explain well the Scandinavian
Equation (9) describes the sur-IL relation with different Rp
marine soft clays (e.g., Swedish and Finnish quick clays after
values. As an indicator against the sur-IL relations, Eq. (9) with
D’Ignazio et al. 2016) and volcanic soils. Besides, other var-
the common Rp values range (from 0.1 to 0.9) is shown in Fig.
ious suggested equations (e.g., Leroueil et al. 1983; NGI
3 together for comparison with previously proposed equations
2002; Wyatt 2009) also seem to be subjected to the different
and experimental data (see Table 1 and Fig. 1). As a result, it
regional characteristics and clay mineral types. Therefore, it
can be seen from this figure that all the previous empirical
can be noted from both Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2 that no
equations seem to almost coincide each other if those applica-
unique relationship exists at least for remolded and undis-
tions are within about 0.8 < IL < 1.3 and that the trend lines
turbed soils.
indicated by Srinivasa Murthy et al. (1986) and Chacko and
In Fig. 3, the correlation between remolded undrained
Jacob (2018) deviate greatly from the many measured values.
shear strength sur and liquidity index IL is shown. Data seem
Besides, the IL = 0.8 line inserted in Fig. 3 represents the char-
to follow a more uniform path with respect to Fig. 1. As
acteristics line used in the state chart for practical or engineer-
suggested by Kuriakose et al. (2017), IL could be substituted
ing soil classification (e.g., Moroto 1993; So 1998; Shimobe
by the WCR in order to simplify the procedure to obtain un-
and Spagnoli 2019). According to the authors’ opinion and
drained shear strength values. Following the suggestion of
experience, on the physical meaning of this value, the un-
Shimobe (2011), the parameter Rp (ratio of PL to LL, PL/
drained shear strength at IL = 0.8 provides about twice times
LL) is introduced considering:
of that at LL (surðI L ¼0:8Þ ≅2surðLLÞ ).
I L ¼ αðWCRÞ−β ð7Þ Figure 4 shows the results considering the relationships
between undisturbed and remolded shear strengths vs WCR
which can be written as: for some of the data presented in this manuscript. Here, the
w   WCR = 0.8 line inserted in this figure represents the charac-
WCR ¼ ¼ 1−Rp I L þ Rp ð8Þ teristics line on volcanic cohesive soil (Kanto loam, Japan)
LL
and its practical use suggested by So (1998). This value is
where α and β are material constants; those can be replaced as based on a large number of geotechnical investigation results
R
α ¼ 1−R
1
p
; β ¼ 1−Rp p ¼ Rp α using the parameter Rp. by static cone penetration tests (CPT). If the soil has

Fig. 3 Relationship between remolded undrained shear strength and IL

Relationships between undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and water content ratio of clays

Fig. 4 Relationship between undrained shear strength and WCR

WCR > 0.8, this is categorized as “soft loam and difficult
construction ground.” It is possible to observe a rough ten-
dency which is almost uniform. However, data by Nagaraj
et al. (1997) are not within the tendency. They represent in
situ undisturbed soils, and also those strengths have higher
values at the same WCR. In remolded soils, looking well at
Koumoto (1990, 1992) data considering Eq. (5), the gradient
of b values in the sur-WCR relationships tends to reduce
with increasing LL and decreasing Rp. Therefore, it is obvi-
ous that the index parameter Rp with consistency character-
istics influences greatly on the sur-WCR relationship. For
comparison with various proposed equations, if those

Fig. 5 Relationship between strength ratio and LL


Fig. 6 Relationship between strength ratio and plasticity ratio
application ranges are 0.8 < WCR < 1.2, the sur values
estimated by those will become approximate ones with
almost the same order (also see Table 1).
With regard to the relationship of strength ratio to Atterberg
limits, some data from Table 2 are plotted. Figure 5 shows the
Fig. 7 Relation between plasticity ratio and clay fraction
S. Shimobe, G. Spagnoli
relationship between Rs and LL considering both Casagrande
and fall cone tests. Besides, the Rs values were determined
using each strength at liquid and plastic limits of the soil,
based on the remolded strength sur-water content w relation-
ships (e.g., sur = awb, where a and b are material constants;
Relationships between undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and water content ratio of clays
Fig. 8 Comparison between Rp values obtained by the fall cone tests and the Casagrande method
sLL = a(LL)b at w = LL, sPL = a(PL)b at w = PL) obtained from
several strength measurement methods by vane shear tests,
fall cone tests, extrusion/reverse extrusion tests, triaxial com-
pression tests, and unconfined compression tests. From the
figure, it is possible to observe that contrasting information
comes out. Nagaraj et al. (2012) and Karakan and Demir
(2018) directly link Rs to LL, whereas Wroth and Wood
(1978), Whyte (1982), and Brown and Huxley (1996) do not
link Rs to LL whereby the former is a constant value, 100 (for
Wroth and Wood 1978) and 70 (for Whyte 1982; Brown and
Huxley 1996). From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the ratio sur(PL)/
sur(LL) is quite variable, ranging between 20 and 300. This
agrees with the conclusions of Nagaraj et al. (2012); however,
no strength ratio’s trend is connected with the LL. From the
data shown in Fig. 5, it is therefore not possible to observe a
general interdependency between the strength ratio and LL.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between Rs and Rp defined
as the ratio of plastic limit to liquid limit. No unique tendency
is observed. It is well known that the plasticity ratio decreases
for increasing smectite amount (see Lambe and Whitman
1969; Lupini et al. 1981; Sridharan et al. 1988; Liu et al.
2011). Plasticity ratio seems also to be linked to the clay frac-
tion, CF (<2μm); i.e., Rp is inversely proportional to the clay
fraction CF (Fig. 7).
From above discussion, it is clear that soils cannot have a
unique value of strength at different values of water contents.
As liquid limit or plastic limit describe the water holding ca-
pacity of the soil at different states of consistency, it can be
inferred that different soils having different values of liquid
limit or plastic limit cannot be presumed to have unique un-
drained strength.
Regarding the value Rp, a comparison has been done consid-
ering both lab data of fall cone and Casagrande methods, where a
variety of clayey, silty, volcanic, organic, and mixed soils were
tested according to the JIS A 1205 (2009) and data from the
literature shown in the legend of Fig. 8. Where not explicitly
mentioned, “several other researchers” refer to Grabowska-
Olszewska (2003), Chinn and Pillai (2008), Ghiabi and
Selvadurai (2007), and Arifin (2008). Interestingly, the data do
not show a widespread behavior. This plot includes a variety of
soils with different plasticity obtained from around the world and
also has a valid accuracy within ± 20% except for few data.
Conclusions
Data from over 100 publications considering more than 500
data points have been used to understand what the relationship
linking undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and water
content ratio of clays is. Considering the su-IL relationship
using both remolded and undisturbed data, it is possible to
state that no unique relationship exists. If only remolded sur
are used, data follow a more uniform path. Introducing the
value parameter Rp (ratio of PL to LL, PL/LL), considering
the material constants α and β, and substituting IL-WCR rela-
tionship in the sur-WCR relation, the sur-IL relation with dif-
ferent Rp values is obtained. Considering however a larger
database where undisturbed and remolded undrained shear
strength values are considered, the su-WCR relationship is
not as unique as it should be. Only for WCR values larger
than 0.8 a relationship is observed. Furthermore, a correlation
between the ratio of the undrained shear strength at liquid and

plastic limits of soils (sLL, sPL) defined as Rs and Rp was
plotted showing that no direct link is observed. However,
plasticity ratio is inversely proportional to the clay fraction
and a good match is observed for Rp values obtained with
the fall cone test and the Casagrande method. We observed
that from a vast database that the interdependency between
undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and water content
ratio is not unique due to the different physical and chemical
characteristics of the clays. Finally, this study would be cer-
tainly of interest to geotechnical researchers and engineers to
understand both merits and demerits of many empirical equa-
tions proposed in the literatures.
References
Åhnberg H (2006). Strength of stabilised soils –a laboratory study on
clays and organic soils stabilised with different types of binder.
Ph. D. Thesis, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden
Åhnberg H, Larsson R, Holmén M (2013) Degradation of clay due to
cyclic loadings and deformations. In: proceedings of the 18th inter-
national conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineer-
ing, Paris, 1411–1414
Ale MO, Manuwa SI (2011) Penetration resistance and hydraulic con-
ductivity of soil under intensive and continuous usage in Akure,
Southwestern Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the Nigerian Branch of
International Soil and Tillage Research Organisation (ISTRO)-
Nigeria Symposium held at the University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria
from 21st-24th February. 327-334
Al-Khafaji AN (1993) Estimation soil compaction parameters by means
of Atterberg limits. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 26(4):359–368
Andersson-Sköld Y, Torrance JK, Lind B, Odén K, Stevens RL, Rankka
K (2005) Quick clay – a case study of chemical perspective in
Southwest Sweden. Eng Geol 82(2):107–118
Aoyama K, Miyamori T, Wakiyama T, Kikuchi D (2002) The influence
of physico-chemical property on improved soil character. Jo Jpn Soc
Civ Eng No.721/VI-57:207–219 (in Japanese)
Arifin YF (2008). Thermo-hydro-mechanical behavior of compacted
bentonite-sand mixtures: an experimental study. Ph. D. Thesis.
Bauhaus-University Weimar, Germany
Arrowsmith EJ (1978) Roadwork fills: a materials engineer’s viewpoint.
In: Proceedings of the Conference on Clay Fills, London, pp 25–36
Atkinson J (2007) The mechanics of soils and foundations. Taylor &
Francis, London
Barker JE, Rogers CD, Boardman DI (2006) Physio-chemical changes in
clay caused by ion migration from lime piles. J Mater Civ Eng 18(2):
182–189
Bo MW (2008) Compressibility of ultra-soft soil. World Scientific
Publishing Company, Singapore
British Standards Institution (1948). British standard (BS) 1377: 1948,
Methods of Test for Soil Classification and Compaction
Brown PJ, Huxley MA (1996) The cone factor for a 30° cone. Ground
Eng 29(10):34–36
Campbell DJ (1975) Liquid limit determination of arable topsoils using a
drop cone penetrometer. J Soil Sci 26:234–240
Campbell DJ (1976) Plastic limit determination using a drop cone pene-
trometer. J Soil Sci 27:295–300
Campos LFA, de Macedo RS, Kiyohara PK, Ferreira HC (1999)
Características de plasticidade de argilas para uso em cerâmica
vermelha ou estrutural (plasticity characteristics of clays for use in
S. Shimobe, G. Spagnoli
structural clay products). Cerâmica 45(295):140–145 (in
Portuguese)
Cangir B, Dipova N (2017) Estimation of undrained shear strength of
Konyaalti silty clays. Indian J Geo Mar Sci 46(3):513–520
Carter M, Bentley SP (1991) Correlations of soil properties. Pentec Press,
London
Casagrande A (1939) Notes on soil mechanics. Harvard University,
Graduate School of Engineering, First Sem
CEN ISO/TS 17892–6 (2004) Geotechnical investigation and testing -
laboratory testing of soil - part 6: fall cone test. International
Organization for Standards
Chacko J, Jacob DS (2018) Study on strength characteristics of Kuttanad
clay based on its water content and consistency limits. Int Res J Eng
Technol 5(4):3221–3225
Chinn C, Pillai UPP (2008) Self-repair of compacted vertisols from cen-
tral Queensland, Australia. Geoderma 144(3–4):491–501
Clarke BG, Hughes DB, Hashemi S (2008) Physical characteristics of
subglacial tills. Géotechniques 58(1):67–76
Clayton C, Kingston E, Priest J, Schultheiss P, NGHP E, Scientific Party
N (2008) Testing of pressurised cores containing gas hydrate from
deep ocean sediments. In: Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2008), Vancouver, British
Columbia, CANADA, July 6–10, 2008
D’Ignazio M, Phoon KK, Tan SA, Länsivaara TT (2016) Correlations for
undrained shear strength of Finnish soft clays. Can Geotech J
53(10):1628–1645
Dennehy JP (1978) The remoulded undrained shear strength of cohesive
soils and its influence on the stability of embankment fill. In:
Proceedings of the Conference on Clay Fills, London, pp 87–94
Dolinar B (2009) Predicting the hydraulic conductivity of saturated clays
using plasticity-value correlations. Appl Clay Sci 45(1–2):90–94
Dolinar B, Škrabl S (2013) Atterberg limits in relation to other properties
of fine-grained soils. Acta Geotechn Slov 10(2):4–13
Dolinar B, Trauner L (2007) The impact of structure on the undrained
shear strength of cohesive soils. Eng Geol 92(1–2):88–96
Dumbleton MJ and West G (1970). The suction and strength of
remoulded soils as affected by composition. RRL Report LR306.
Wokingham: Road Research Laboratory
Dundulis K, Kaczynski R, Krauzlis K, Zarzojus G (2008) Engineering
geological properties of Vilnius and Warsaw region tills as building
subsoils. Geology 50(Supplement):S11–S15 Vilnius
Edil TB, Benson CH (2009) Comparison of basic laboratory test results
with more sophisticated laboratory and in situ tests methods on soils
in southeastern Wisconsin. Final report of Wisconsin highway re-
search program #0092-06-05, pp 11-12
Federico A (1983) Relationships (Cu-w) and (Cu-δ) for remolded clayey
soils at high water content. Riv Ital Geotec 18(1):38–41
Feng TW (2001) A linear log d log w model for the determination of
consistency limits of soils. Can Geotech J 38(6):1335–1342
Feng TW (2002) Effects of small cement content on consolidation be-
havior of a lacustrine clay. Geotech Test J 25(1):53–60
Feng TW (2005). Reappraisal of the fall cone test. In: Proceedings of 16th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering (Osaka). Millpress Science Publishers/IOS Press. Vol.
16, No. 2, 357–360
Ghiabi H, Selvadurai APS (2007) Laboratory testing of a soft silty clay.
In: Soft Soil Engineering: Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Soft Soil Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 4-6
October 2006 (p. 447-456). CRC Press
Grabowska-Olszewska B (2003) Modelling physical properties of mix-
tures of clays: example of two-component mixture of kaolinite and
montmorillonite. Appl Clay Sci 22:251–259
Gülen M, Kiliç H (2019) Yoğrulmuş Killerde Dayanım ve Deformasyon
Parametrelerinin Düşen Koni ve Veyn Deneyleri ile Belirlenmesi.
Teknik Dergi. https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.483348 (in Turkish)
Relationships between undrained shear strength, liquidity index, and water content ratio of clays
Haigh SK, Vardanega PJ, Bolton MD (2013) The plastic limit of clays.
Géotechnique 63(6):435–440
Hansbo S (1957) A new approach to the determination of the shear
strength of clay by the fall cone test. Swedish Geotech. Institute
Proc. Stockholm 14:5–47
Harison JA (1988) Using the BS cone penetrometer for the determination
of the plastic limit of soils. Géotechnique 38(3):433–438
Hassan MDM (2009). Engineering characteristics of cement stabilized
soft Finnish clay - a laboratory study. Licentiate Thesis, Helsinki
University of Technology
Hirata S, Yao S, Nishida K (1990) Multiple regression analysis between
the mechanical and physical properties of cohesive soils. Soils
Found 30(3):91–108
Houston WN, Mitchell JK (1969) Property interrelationships in sensitive
clays. J Soil Mech Found Div 95(4):1037–1062
Hong Z, Liu H, Negami T ( 2003) Remolded undrained strength of soils.
China Ocean Eng 171:143–152
Jacob K, Hari G (2016) Study on the relationship of compression index
from water content, Atterberg limits and field density for Kuttanad
clay. Int J Innov Res Technol 3(4):33–38
Jamiolkowski M (2006). Stabilization of the Tower of Pisa. R. B. Peck
Lecture, Geo-Institute, ASCE
Jin F, Fan RD, Du YJ (2010) Application of soil bentonite amended with
zeolite for cutoff wall backfill in land contaminated remediation. In:
proceedings of the 7th international symposium on lowland technol-
ogy, Saga, Japan
JIS A 1205 (2009) Test method for liquid limit and plastic limit of soils.
Japanese Standards Association
Kang G, Tsuchida T, Tang TX, Kalim TP (2017) Consistency measure-
ment of cement-treated marine clay using fall cone test and
Casagrande liquid limit test. Soils Found 57(5):802–814
Karakan E, Demir S (2018) Relationship between undrained shear
strength with Atterberg limits of kaolinite/bentonite – quartz mix-
tures. Uluslararası Mühendislik Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dergisi
10(3):92–102
Kayabali K, Tüfenkçi OO (2008). Plastik ve likit limitin tayini için yeni
bir yaklaşim, 75–87 (in Turkish)
Kayabali K, Tufenkci OO (2010) Shear strength of remolded soils at
consistency limits. Can Geotech J 47(3):259–266
Koumoto T (1990) Determination of both liquid and plastic limits of clays
by the fall cone test. Trans Jpn Soc Irrig Drain Reclam Eng 146:95–
100 (in Japanese)
Koumoto T (1992) Characteristics of undrained shear strength of saturat-
ed disturbed clays. Soils Found 32(2):176–179 (in Japanese)
Koumoto T, Houlsby GT (2001) Theory and practice of the fall cone test.
Geotechnique 51(8):701–712. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2001.
51.8.701
Koumoto T, Kondo F, Houlsby GT (2007). Applicability of fall cone
method to determine the plastic limit of clays. In: Proc. of Annual
Meeting of The Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Rural
Engineering (JSIDRE), 890-891 (in Japanese)
Kuriakose B, Abraham BM, Sridharan A, Jose BT (2017) Water content
ratio: an effective substitute for liquidity index for prediction of
shear strength of clays. Geotech Geol Eng 35(4):1577–1586
Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1969) Soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc
Larsson S, Dahlström M, Nilsson B (2003) A complementary field study
on the uniformity of lime-cement columns – field tests at Strängnäs.
Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre Arbetsrapport, 27
Lee LT (2004) Method to rapidly assess the index properties of fine-
grained dredged materials. Geotech Test J 27(5):464–468
Lee LT, Freeman RB (2007) An alternative test method for assessing
consistency limits. Geotech Test J 30(4):274–281
Lee LT, Freeman RB (2009) Dual-weight fall cone method for simulta-
neous liquid and plastic limit determination. J Geotech Geoenviron
135(1):158–161
Leroueil S, Tavenas F, Le Bihan JP (1983) Propriétés caractéristiques des
argiles de l’est du Canada. Can Geotech J 20(4):681–705 (in French)
Li K (2004) A study of determining properties of fine-grained soil by fall
cone test. Master Thesis. Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan
(in Chinese)
Liao HJ, Lin CC, Huang CJ (2008) Modeling the effect of ground im-
provement on reducing movement during bermed excavation in
clay. J Chin Inst Eng 31(1):81–93
Liu SY, Shao GH, Du YJ, Cai GJ (2011) Depositional and geotechnical
properties of marine clays in Lianyungang, China. Eng Geol 121(1–
2):66–74
Lo KY, Hinchberger SD (2007) Stability analysis accounting for macro-
scopic and microscopic structures in clays. Soft Soil Engineering –
Chan & Law (eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, 3-34
Locat J, Demers D (1988) Viscosity, yield stress, remolded strength, and
liquidity index relationships for sensitive clays. Can Geotech J
25(4):799–806
Lupini JF, Skinner AE, Vaughan PR (1981) The drained residual strength
of cohesive soils. Géotechnique 31(2):181–213
Mahajan SP, Budhu M (2008) Shear viscosity of clays to compute vis-
cous resistance. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference
of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances
in Geomechanics (IACMAG), Goa, Panaji. 1516–1523
Mahajan SP, Budhu M (2009) Shear viscosity of clays using the fall cone
test. Géotechnique 59(6):539–543
Matusiewicz W, Lechowicz Z, Wrzesinski G (2016). Wyznaczanie
granicy płynności metodą Casagrandego i penetrometrem
stożkowym. Przegląd Naukowy - Inżynieria i Kształtowanie
Środowiska (2016), 25 (3):290–300
Mayne PW, Mitchell JK (1988) Profiling of overconsolidation ratio in
clays by field vane. Can Geotech J 25(1):150–157
Medhat F, Whyte IL (1986) An appraisal of soil index tests. Eng Geol
Spec Publ Geol Soc Lond 2(1):317–323
Mengistu J (2017) Correlating liquidity index with vane-shear strength of
clays in Addis Ababa. Master Thesis. Addis Ababa University
Institute of Technology, Ethiopia
Mitchell JK, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of soil behavior. John Wiley
and Sons
Morin P, Dawe CR (1987) Geotechnical properties of two deep-sea ma-
rine soils from the Labrador Sea. Can Geotech J 24(4):536–548
Moroto N (1993) Basic properties of loam soils in Aomori prefecture,
Japan. Soils Found 33(2):35–46
Muhunthan B (1991) Liquid limit and surface area of clays.
Géotechnique 41(1):135–138
Muir Wood D (1990) Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Nagaraj TS, Miura N, Yamadera A (1997). Re-examination of classifica-
tion of soft clay deposits – needs and methodology. In: Proc. of
Indian geotechnical Conf., Vol. 1, 431–434
Nagaraj HB, Sridharan A, Mallikarjuna HM (2012) Re-examination of
undrained strength at Atterberg limits water contents. Geotech Geol
Eng 30(4):727–736
NGI (2002) Early soil investigations for “fast track projects”. Report
521553, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway
Norman LEJ (1958) A comparison of values of liquid limit determined
with apparatus having bases of different hardness. Géotechnique 8:
79–83
O’Kelly BC (2013) Atterberg limits and remolded shear strength - water
content relationships. Geotech Test J 36(6):939–947
Omotosho O, Ogboin AS (2009) Active soils of the Niger Delta in road
pavement design and construction. Geotech Geol Eng 27(1):81–88
Orhan M, Ozer M, Isik NS (2006) Comparison of Casagrande and cone
penetration tests for the determination of liquid limit of natural soils.
J Fac Eng Architect Gazi Univ 21(4):711–720

Pant RR (2007). Evaluation of consolidation parameters of cohesive soils
using PCPT method. Master Thesis. Louisiana State University,
USA
Sasanakul I, Vanadit-Ellis W, Sharp M, Abdoun T, Ubilla J, Steedman S,
Stone K (2008) New Orleans levee system performance during
Hurricane Katrina: 17th Street Canal and Orleans Canal North. J
Geotech Geoenviron 134(5):657–667
Schofield AN, Wroth CP (1968) Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-
Hill, New York
Sharma B, Bora PK (2003) Plastic limit, liquid limit and undrained shear
strength of soil – reappraisal. J Geotech Geoenviron 129(8):774–777
Sharma B, Sridharan A (2018) Liquid and plastic limits of clays by cone
method. Int J Geo-Eng 9(1):22–31
Shi XS, Herle I (2017) Undrained shear strength and water content dis-
tribution of remoulded clay mixtures. Geotechnik 40(1):60–63
Shimobe S (2000) Correlations among liquidity index, undrained shear
strength and fall cone penetration of fine-grained soils. In: Proc. of
Coastal Geotechnical Engineering in Practice, Balkema, Rotterdam
(the Netherlands), Vol. 1, 141–146
Shimobe S (2010) Determination of index properties and undrained shear
strength of soils using the fall-cone test. In: Proceeding of the 7th
International Symposium on Lowland Technology, 16-18
Shimobe S (2011) Correlation between normalized water content and
liquid index of soils. In: Proceedings of the 46 th National
Conference on geotechnical engineering.,Kobe. 287–288 (in
Japanese)
Shimobe S, Spagnoli G (2019) Some relations among fall cone penetra-
tion, liquidity index and undrained shear strength of clays consider-
ing the sensitivity ratio. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78(7):5029–5038.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-019-01478-2
Sivapullaiah PV, Sridharan A (1985) Liquid limit of soil mixtures.
Geotech Test J 8(3):111–116
Skempton AW, Northey RD (1952) The sensitivity of clays.
Géotechnique 3(1):30–53
So E (1998) Statistical correlation between allophane content and index
properties for volcanic cohesive soil. Soils Found 38(4):85–93
Spagnoli G, Feinendegen M (2017) Relationship between measured plas-
tic limit and plastic limit estimated from undrained shear strength,
water content ratio and liquidity index. Clay Miner 52(4):509–519
Spagnoli G, Oreste P (2019) Relation water content ratio-to-liquidity
index versus the Atterberg limits ratio evaluated with the
Kaniadakis exponential law. Geomech Geoeng 14(2):148–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2018.1532117
Spagnoli G, Feinendegen M, Di Matteo L, Rubinos DA (2019) The flow
index of clays and its relationship with some basic geotechnical
properties. Geotech Test J 42(6):1685–1700. https://doi.org/10.
1520/GTJ20180110
Sridharan A, Prakash K (1998) Characteristic water contents of a fine-
grained soil-water system. Géotechnique 48(3):337–346
Sridharan A, Rao SM, Murthy NS (1988) Liquid limit of kaolinitic soils.
Géotechnique 38(2):191–198
Sridharan A, Nagaraj HB, Prakash K (1999) Determination of the plas-
ticity index from flow index. Geotech Test J 22(2):175–181
Srinivasa Murthy BR, Nagaraj TS and Vatsala A (1986). Critical reap-
praisal of empirical shear strength equations. In: Proc. Asian region-
al Sym. On Geotech. Problems and practices in found. Eng.
Colombo, Sri Lanka 1:248–292
Stone KJ, Kyambadde BS (2007) Determination of strength and index
properties of fine-grained soils using a soil minipenetrometer. J
Geotech Geoenviron 133(6):667–673
Stróżyk J and Tankiewicz M (2013). Undrained shear strength of the
heavily consolidated clay. Annals of Warsaw University of life sci-
ences-SGGW. Land Reclam, 45(2), 207–216
S. Shimobe, G. Spagnoli
Tanaka H (2002) Re-examination of established relations between index
properties and soil parameters. In: Proc. of coastal geotechnical en-
gineering in practice, Vol. 2, 3–25
Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering
practice, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York
Tsuchida T (1999) Development and use of foamed treated soil in port
and airport project. Rep Port Harbour Res Inst 38(2):131–167 (in
Japanese)
Tsuchida T, Watabe Y, Kang MS (2002) Evaluation of structure and
mechanical properties of Pleistocene clay in Osaka Bay. Port
Airport Res Inst Rep 41(2):45–91
Tsurugasaki K, Miyake M, Baba S, Sumida H (2009) Experiments of
underwater clay current by drum centrifuge. In: Proc. of the 44th
Japan National Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
(Yokohama), 243–244 (in Japanese)
Uppal HL, Aggarwal HR (1958). A new method of determining the liquid
limit of soils. Bulletin 19, Central Road Research Inst., New Delhi,
India
Vardanega PJ, Haigh SK (2014) The undrained strength – liquidity index
relationship. Can Geotech J 51(9):1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.
1139/cgj-2013-0169
Vardanega PJ, Haigh SK (2017) Discussion of “water content ratio: an
effective substitute for liquidity index for prediction of shear
strength of clays” by Beshy Kuriakose, Benny Mathews Abraham,
A Sridharan and Babu T Jose. Geotech Geol Eng 35(6):3039–3044
Vijayvergiya VN, Ghazzaly OJ (1973) Prediction of swelling potential of
natural clays. In: Proc. of the 3rd international research and engineer-
ing conference on expansive clays, Haifa, 227-236
Wasti Y, Bezirci MH (1986) Determination of the consistency limits of
soils by the fall cone test. Can Geotech J 23(2):241–246
Whyte IL (1982) Soil plasticity and strength – a new approach using
extrusion. Ground Eng 15(1):16–24
Wood DM (1985) Some fall-cone tests. Géotechnique 35(1):64–68
Wroth CP, Wood DM (1978) The correlation of index properties with
some basic engineering properties of soils. Can Geotech J 15(2):
137–145
Wyatt JB (2009) Sensitivity and clay mineralogy of weathered tephra-
derived soil materials in the Tauranga region. Master Thesis. The
University of Waikato, New Zealand
Yafrate NJ, DeJong JT (2005) Considerations in evaluating the
remoulded undrained shear strength from full-flow penetrometer
cycling. In: Gourvenec S, Cassidy M (eds) Proc. of Int. Symp. On
Frontiers in offshore Geotecnics (ISFOG). Taylor & Francis,
Rotterdam, pp 991–997
Yafrate NJ, DeJong JT (2007) Influence of penetration rate on measured
resistance with full flow penetrometers in soft clay. In: Advances in
Measurement and Modeling of Soil Behavior (Geo-Denver 2007), 1–10
Yang SL, Kvalstad T, Solheim A, Forsberg CF (2006) Parameter studies of
sediments in the Storegga Slide region. Geo-Mar Lett 26(4):213–224
Yilmaz I (2000) Evaluation of shear strength of clayey soils by using their
liquidity index. Bull Eng Geol Environ 59(3):227–229
Yilmaz I (2004). Relationships between liquid limit, cation exchange
capacity, and swelling potentials of clayey soils. Eurasian Soil Sci
37(5):506–512
Youssef MS, El Ramli AH, El Demery M (1965) Relationship between
shear strength, consolidation, liquid limit and plastic limit for
remolded clays. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. On soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, Montreal, Vol. 1, 126–129
Yudhbir, Shukla R (1991) Water content - cone penetration behaviour of
fine-grained soils. In: Proceedings of Geo-Coast ‘91, pp 141–146
Zentar R, Abriak NE, Dubois V (2009) Fall cone test to characterize shear
strength of organic sediments. J Geotech Geoenviron 135(1):153–157
Zhang Y, Qu Y, Liu G, Wu S (2003) Engineering geological properties of
Miocene hard clays along the middle line of the north-south diver-
sion water project in China. Bull Eng Geol Environ 62(3):213–219