0 Up votes0 Down votes

4 views5 pagesAug 03, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

© All Rights Reserved

- QI Paper. PDF
- journal.pdf
- Soil Stabilization, Bell 1989
- Soil Cement Stabilisation Specs
- Lay Out of Geo Tech Lab
- Microstructural and Mechanical Characteristic of Potential Ferro Laterite Soil as Sub-base Material
- Stabilization of Alluvial Soil for Subgrade Using Rice Husk Ash,
- IGC-2015 Submission 374
- Geotechnical Properties of Saw Dust Ash Stabilized Southwestern
- AIEEE 2005 Maths
- lm-ce6511-sm-iii-qb
- articulo5.pdf
- Basic-Soil Class-Activity P95717 P95725
- Specification
- 345 Lab Report
- THE EFFECT OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES ON THE BEARING CAPACITY OF SELECTED SOILS IN AL - NAJAF GOVERNORATE-IRAQ
- Effects of Waste Glass (WG) on the Strength Characteristics of Cement Stabilized Expansive Soil
- Properties & Mechanical Test Tanah Timbunan
- Geotechnic
- Collection Soil Question

You are on page 1of 5

P.G. Student, Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University

Chennai, Chennai–600 025, India. E-mail: arunmurugan18@gmail.com

V.K. Stalin

Assistant Professor, Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Anna

University Chennai, Chennai–600 025, India. Email: staliniisc@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT: Many empirical correlations have been obtained to predict the Engineering properties with the help of Index

properties. These empirical equations are not only used to predict the engineering properties, but also can be used as a

measure of validating experimental values. Of the available mathematical correlations, hyperbolic model has been widely

used by many researchers to establish the stress-strain, time-settlement, time-swelling and time-shrinkage characteristics of

fine grained soils. In this investigation an attempt is made to re-examine the suitability of hyperbolic model for widely

varying plasticity characteristics, initial moisture content and initial density. Using hyperbolic model few equations are

proposed in this paper for predicting the stress-strain behaviour, suction-water content and time-shrinkage behaviour of soil

for any liquid limit, initial moisture content and density. The validity of the proposed equations have been attempted and

found to be in good agreement experimental values.

stages. In this paper, attempts are made to predict the stress–

Understanding and prediction of index and engineering

strain behaviour of soil, shrinkage and suction characteristics

characteristics of soils have their own significance in the

of soil based on hyperbolic model for varying initial

geotechnical engineering practices and need hardly be

conditions such as initial moisture content, density, clay

stressed. Empirical correlations are available to predict the

content etc.

properties like compression index swell potential,

permeability coefficient, shear strength etc., using index

properties. Kondner (1963) proposed a functional form based 2. MATERIALS

on hyperbolic stress–strain function, which developed later Natural soils were collected from nearby Chennai area at 1.5 m

by Duncan & Chang (1970) for static and qusai-static depth from ground level by making open trench. Commercial

behaviour of soil. Al-Shayea et al. (2002) used hyperbolic soil bentonite was collected from local market. The physical

model for simulating stress-strain response of soils by properties of natural soils and bentonite are shown in Table 1

varying confining pressure. Sridharan & Prakash (1985) (a) and (b). The soils were selected such that they exhibit

studied from the Terzahi’s theory of consolidation and wide range of plasticity characteristics.

showed that T/U and T relation was rectangular hyperbola

over a fairly wide range of degree of consolidation. In the Table 1: (a) Physical Properties of Soils

plot of T/U versus T, a straight line was fitted for the range

of 60% to 90% degree of consolidation with a high precision, Ben-

Soil- Soil Soil- Soil

Soil description tonite

for calculating the coefficient of consolidation. Stalin et al. (1) (2) (3) (4)

(1)

(2004) observed from the shrinkage test conducted on Specific Gravity 2.68 2.60 2.65 2.66 2.77

bentonite + sand mixtures that the time-shrinkage curves LL % 70 45 24 60 70

generally follow hyperbolic relationship irrespective of the PL % 34 20 18 21 41

soil type and amount of coarser fraction. Dakshinamurthy PI % 36 25 6 39 30

(1978) proposed a new empirical equation to predict the Free Swell Index % 76 40 10 150 294

swelling of expansive clays using hyperbolic relationship. Maximum

17.28 17.8 19.4 18.09 15.2

The swelling experiments were conducted by Sivapullaiah et Dry Density, kN/m3

al. (1996) on bentonite + sand mixtures at a constant density OMC,% 14.5 13.5 12.2 16.95 24.25

and IMC. They found that irrespective of percentage of sand Compressibility

CH CI CL CH CH

in bentonite, the time-swell relationship follow hyperbolic Classification

632

Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model

Table 1: (b) Physical Properties of Soils linearization of the curve, initial portion of the curve

Ben- is ignored. The slopes and intercept of that plot was

Properties

Soil Soil Soil

tonite determined. A typical plot of (strain/stress) % Vs

(5) (6) (7) Strain hyperbolic relationship after ignoring initial

(2)

Specific Gravity 2.71 2.6 2.7 2.8 portion of stress–strain curves is shown in Figure 2.

Liquid Limit % 62.5 69 72 430

Linearised equation is

Plastic Limit % 27.5 31 40 48 Y = X / (c + mX)

Plasticity Index % 35 38 32 382

Shrinkage Limit % 9.3 12 10 7.5

Free Swell Index % 78.0 70 70 350

Maximum Dry

16.5 15.9 16 12.8

Strain/Stress, kN/m2

Density, kN/m3

OMC,% 23.36 25 28 35

Compressibility

CH CH CH CVH

Classification

3. METHODS

Unconfined compressive strength, suction and shrinkage

tests were conducted on natural and commercial soils for

varying initial moisture content and density. The stress–strain

Strain

curve, suction–water content curve and time–shrinkage

curves were analysed for linearization, so as to propose a Fig. 2: Strain Vs Strain /Stress Relationship for Soil–4

more generalized equation for predicting the same.

Where,

3.1 Procedure Involved in the Determination of Soil

Properties Using Hyperbolic Model c = Intercept of (X/Y) Vs X plot

1. The values of ‘X’ and ‘Y’ variable (For example m = Slope of hyperbolic plot of (X/Y) Vs X plot

strain (X)-stress (Y) or time (X)–shrinkage (Y)) is

3. The linear portion of the transformed plot (i.e. ‘X’ Vs

obtained from different engineering properties for

‘(X/Y)’) was critically analyzed using best fitting

varying initial conditions such as density, IMC, clay

curve technique by ignoring some initial points and

content etc., from experimental results. A typical

“X-Y” variables of strain–stress (kN/m2) is shown the same alone was considered for analysis and

in Figure 1. proposing a more generalized empirical equations.

4.1 Stress–Strain Behaviour of Soil

Considering stress–strain curve as rectangular hyperbola, the

Stress, kN/m2

high correlation coefficient of 0.95 to 0.91. The soil with low

liquid limit (LL) is not following a hyperbolic relationship.

Hence, such curves observed for low clay content or low

liquid limit or dry side of optimum were ignored. Further, it

is noticed from table 2 that the slope (m) and intercept (c) of

the linear plot ((ε/σ) = m (ε) + c), keeps decreasing with

initial moisture content, initial density and liquid limit.

Strain

Hence, the slope and intercept are independently related to

Fig. 1: Stress–Strain Relationship for Soil–4 ratio of liquid and initial moisture content. A generalized

equation is proposed to predict the stress–strain behaviour of

2. The X’ and ‘Y’ variables were transformed and soil as,

repotted as ‘X’ Vs ‘(X/Y)’. Because the initial

portion of the curve would not impart in the σ = ε/(2.518 (LL/IMC)–1.24 × ε + 0.544 (LL/IMC)–3.23) (1)

633

Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model

Table 2: Best Fit Linear Equations of Transformed Plot of Table 3: Best fit Linear Equations of Transformed Plot of

Stress–Strain Curves of Soil for Varying IMC and Density Suction–Water Content Curves of Soils for Varying Initial

Density IMC Moisture Content (IMC)

Soil Equation

(kN/m3) (%) Soil IMC% Equation

16.0 11.0 (ε/σ) = 0.273 (ε) + 0.002 Soil - 1 70 (ψ/w) = 0.025 (ψ) – 0.904

16.5 12.0 (ε/σ) = 0.282 (ε) + 0.003 Soil - 4 40 (ψ/w) = 0.049 (ψ) – 2.176

Soil - 1 17.28 14.5 (ε/σ) = 0.221 (ε) + 0.004

67 (ψ/w) = 0.033 (ψ) – 4.195

16.5 18.0 (ε/σ) = 0.937 (ε) + 0.001

16 19.75 (ε/σ) = 0.892 (ε) + 0.006 50 (ψ/w) = 0.035 (ψ) – 3.566

Soil - 5

16.5 10.75 (ε/σ) = 0.349 (ε) + 0.003 40 (ψ/w) = 0.041 (ψ) – 3.476

17.84 13.5 (ε/σ) = 0.219 (ε) + 0.007 32 (ψ/w) = 0.042 (ψ) – 1.919

Soil - 2

17.0 17.90 (ε/σ) = 0.7 (ε) + 0.015 63 (ψ/w) = 0.026 (ψ) – 2.093

16.5 19.90 (ε/σ) = 0.950 (ε) + 0.019 53 (ψ/w) = 0.029 (ψ) – 2.114

17.95 16.6 (ε/σ) = 0.525 (ε) + 0.003

Soil - 6

43 (ψ/w) = 0.037 (ψ) – 2.308

18.095 16.95 (ε/σ) = 0.499 (ε) + 0.003 33 (ψ/w) = 0.050 (ψ) – 4.560

Soil - 4

17.95 17.5 (ε/σ) = 0.635 (ε) + 0.003 64 (ψ/w) = 0.022 (ψ) – 1.251

17.7 18.5 (ε/σ) = 0.622 (ε) + 0.003

52 (ψ/w) = 0.034 (ψ) – 2.579

15.2 24.25 (ε/σ) = 0.2163 (ε) + 0.011 Soil - 7

Bent (1) 43 (ψ/w) = 0.038 (ψ) – 2.152

14.5 29 (ε/σ) = 0.572 (ε) + 0.036

90 % Bent 15.4 19.5 (ε/σ) = 0.075 (ε) + 0.007 33 (ψ/w) = 0.047 (ψ) – 3.696

(1) + 10 % 16.0 23.75 (ε/σ) = 0.261 (ε) + 0.03

Sand 15.4 26.5 (ε/σ) = 0.577 (ε) + 0.045 It is observed that the slope is decreasing with increasing

70 % Bent 17.6 18 (ε/σ) = 0.312 (ε) + 0.023 IMC and intercept is increasing with increasing IMC.

(1) + 30 % 17.25 20 (ε/σ) = 0.288 (ε) + 0.025 Further, both slope and intercept are decreases with

Sand 16.5 22 (ε/σ) = 0.787 (ε) + 0.063 increasing clay content (LL). Hence the slope and intercept

18.5 12.5 (ε/σ) = 0.3075 (ε) + 0.001 are independently related to product of LL and IMC. Using

50 % Bent

18.95 15 (ε/σ) = 0.451 (ε) + 0.024 this correlation an empirical equation is proposed to predict

(1) + 50 %

18.5 16.5 (ε/σ) = 0.687 (ε) + 0.056 the suction–water content curve of soil.

Sand

17.5 18.5 (ε/σ) = 1.360 (ε) + 0.076

w = ψ/(90.94(LL × IMC)–0.97 × ψ – 20297 (LL × IMC)–1.4) (2)

The stress–strain values predicted based on above equation Based on above equation (2), the suction–water content

(1) are in close agreement with experimental values irrespective values were predicted and found to be in close agreement

of soil type, density and IMC as shown in Figure 3. with experimental values irrespective of soil type and IMC as

shown in Figure 4.

Stress, kN/m2

Water Content, %

Strain

Fig. 3: Comparisons of Experimental and Predicted Values Suction, kN/m2

of Stress–Strain Curve for Soil – (2) Fig. 4: Comparison of Experimental Vs Predicted Values of

Suction–Water Content Curve for Soil – (1)

4.2 Suction–Water Content Behaviour of Soil

An empirical equation is proposed to predict the suction– 4.3 Time-Shrinkage Behaviour of Soil

water content curve of any soil irrespective of LL and IMC Earlier Stalin et al. (2004) have proposed an empirical

using hyperbolic relationship. Treating suction–water content equation to predict the time–shrinkage behaviour of soil

curve as rectangular hyperbola, the curve is re-plotted into irrespective of soil type. In that equation influence of IMC is

suction Vs (suction/water content) with high correlation not included. The existing equation could not be used

coefficient of 0.999. The slope (m) and intercept (c) of the successfully to predict the shrinkage of soil with IMC lower

linear plot ((ψ/w) = m (ψ) – c) is shown in Table 3. than LL water content. In order to overcome this difficulty,

634

Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model

IMC in the existing equation. The hyperbolic shape of time–

Vertical Shrinkage, mm

vertical shrinkage curve is re-plotted into time–(time/vertical

shrinkage) with high correlation coefficient of 0.94 to 0.99.

The slope (m) and intercept (c) of linear plot ((t/Vsh) = m (t) +

c) with high correlation coefficient is shown in Table 4. It is

observed that the slope is decreasing with increase in IMC

and intercept is increasing with increase in IMC. From the

closer observation of graph, it is noticed that the slopes of

linear equations are decreasing with increase in liquid limit.

Hence, attempt is made to correlate the slope and intercepts Time, min

with liquid limit and IMC of respective soils. Using this

Fig. 5: Comparisons of Experimental and Predicted Values

correlation an empirical equation is proposed to predict time

of Time–Vertical Shrinkage Curve for Bentonite - (2)

–shrinkage behaviour of soil.

The following conclusions may be drawn from this study,

Table 4: Best Fit Linear Equations of Transformed Plot of

Time–Shrinkage Curves of Soils for Varying Liquid Limit 1. Stress–Strain characteristics of low plastic clays and

(LL) and Initial Moisture Content (IMC) clays whose initial moisture content is on the dry of

LL IMC optimum side are not following hyperbolic relationship.

Soil Equation

(%) (%) 2. The slope and intercepts of linearised transformed plot of

50 (t/Vsh) = 0.116 (t) + 1626 strain–(strain/stress) relationship are decreasing with

Soil - 5 62.5 40 (t/Vsh) = 0.24 (t) + 183.7 increasing liquid limit, IMC and density, irrespective of

30 (t/Vsh) = 0.296 (t) + 819.9 soil type and hence a generalized equation is proposed to

60 (t/Vsh) = 0.095 (t) + 1175 predict the stress – strain characteristics of clays.

50 (t/Vsh) = 0.087 (t) + 1754

Soil - 6 69

40 (t/Vsh) = 0.208 (t) + 556.9

σ = ε / (2.518 (LL / IMC)–1.24 × ε + 0.544 (LL / IMC)–3.23)

30 (t/Vsh) = 0.26 (t) + 1292 3. Suction–Water Content curves were re-plotted into

60 (t/Vsh) = 0.11 (t) + 544.3 suction Vs (suction/water content) and the slope and

50 (t/Vsh) = 0.133 (t) + 759.5 intercepts of the transformed plot is linearly decreasing

Soil - 7 72 with LL and IMC. Accordingly, a generalized equation is

40 (t/Vsh) = 0.149 (t) + 987.5

30 (t/Vsh) = 0.16 (t) + 1071 proposed to predict the suction–water content

70 (t/Vsh) = 0.169 (t) + 648.3 characteristics for any LL and IMC as

Bentonite (1) 70 49 (t/Vsh) = 0.243 (t) + 107.4 w = ψ/(90.94(LL × IMC)–0.97 × ψ – 20297 (LL × IMC)-1.4)

28 (t/Vsh) = 0.625 (t) + 355.7

430 (t/Vsh) = 0.093 (t) + 747.5 4. An empirical equation is proposed to predict time -

Bentonite (2) 430 301 (t/Vsh) = 0.082 (t) + 723.8 vertical shrinkage behaviour for any liquid limit and IMC

172 (t/Vsh) = 0.142 (t) + 722.6 as

70% Bent (1)

49 34 (t/Vsh) = 0.235 (t) + 442

Vsh = t/(4.784 (LL × IMC)–0.35 × t + 2693 (LL × IMC)–0.11)

+ 30 % Sand

50% Bent (1)

35 25 (t/Vsh) = 0.397 (t) + 604.7 REFERENCES

+ 50 % Sand

30% Bent (1) Al-Shayea, S. Abduljuwad, R. Bashir, Al-Ghamedy and I.

21 15 (t/Vsh) = 0.933 (t) + 140.6

+ 70 % Sand Asi (2002). “Determination of Parameters for a

70% Bent (2)

245 172 (t/Vsh) = 0.091 (t) + 772.3 Hyperbolic Model of Soils”, Proceedings of the institution

+ 30 % Sand

50% Bent (2)

of civil engineers, Geotechnical Engineering 156, April

170 119 (t/Vsh) = 0.116 (t) + 796.5 2003 issue GE 2. pp. 105–117.

+ 50 % Sand

30% Bent (2) Dakshanamurthy, V. (1978). “A New Method to Predict

85 60 (t/Vsh) = 0.293 (t) + 503.1

+ 70 % Sand Swelling using a Hyperbolic Equation”, Geotechnical

Engineering, 9, pp. 29–38.

The time–shrinkage values were predicted based on above Duncan J.M. and Chang C.Y. (1970). “Nonlinear Analysis of

equation (3) and found to be in close agreement with Sstress and Strain in Soils”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics

experimental values irrespective of soil type (LL) and IMC and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96, No. SM 5, pp.

as shown in Figure 5. 1629–1653.

635

Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model

Kondner R.L. (1963). “Hyperbolic Stress–Strain Response: Sivapulliah, P.V., Sridharan, A. and Stalin, V.K. (1996).

Cohesive Soils”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and “Swelling Behaviour of Soil Bentonite Mixtures”,

Foundations Division, ASCE, 89, No. SM1, pp. 115–143. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 808–814.

Sridharan, A and Prakash, K. (1985). “Improved Rectangular Stalin, V.K., Anuradha, P. and Ambily A.P. (2004). “A

Hyperbolic Method for the Determination of Coefficient Study on the Control of Shrinkage Potential of Expansive

of Consolidation”, Geotechnical Testing Journal Clays and Their Predictions”, 15th South East Asian

GTJODJ, Vol. 8, No. 1, March 1985, pp. 37–40. Geotechnical Society Conference, November 2004,

Bangkok, Thailand, Vol. 1, pp. 867–870.

636

- QI Paper. PDFUploaded byPrasad Naidu Adapa
- journal.pdfUploaded bygopika menon
- Soil Stabilization, Bell 1989Uploaded byAle Quiñonez
- Soil Cement Stabilisation SpecsUploaded bylimbadz
- Lay Out of Geo Tech LabUploaded byKhalid Yousaf
- Microstructural and Mechanical Characteristic of Potential Ferro Laterite Soil as Sub-base MaterialUploaded byZubair Saing
- Stabilization of Alluvial Soil for Subgrade Using Rice Husk Ash,Uploaded byLeonel Cotes de la Hoz
- IGC-2015 Submission 374Uploaded byshahqazwsx
- Geotechnical Properties of Saw Dust Ash Stabilized SouthwesternUploaded bySandeep Agarwal
- AIEEE 2005 MathsUploaded byKainshk Gupta
- lm-ce6511-sm-iii-qbUploaded byUthra Mohan
- articulo5.pdfUploaded byrosario
- Basic-Soil Class-Activity P95717 P95725Uploaded byazman94
- SpecificationUploaded byrajinder_hpiph
- 345 Lab ReportUploaded byMax Kondrath
- THE EFFECT OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES ON THE BEARING CAPACITY OF SELECTED SOILS IN AL - NAJAF GOVERNORATE-IRAQUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Effects of Waste Glass (WG) on the Strength Characteristics of Cement Stabilized Expansive SoilUploaded byAJER JOURNAL
- Properties & Mechanical Test Tanah TimbunanUploaded byzhafira
- GeotechnicUploaded byJaa Idris
- Collection Soil QuestionUploaded byElizabeth Santiago
- Material Testing ManualUploaded bySandeep Kumar
- ASTM D4647D4647M.21784Uploaded byRicardo10985
- Siddharth B ( 2AV16CV446 ).pdfUploaded byElectro Xexual
- Soil+Testing+ReportUploaded byEinstein Jebone
- Geotech LecUploaded byEdison Bote
- D2487.12278-1_2Uploaded byoscargon19
- Method Statement Site Clearing, Grubbing, Grading, Excavation and BackfillingUploaded byescalonaronald4788
- lec39.pdfUploaded byKhairulShafiq
- AggregateUploaded bySalahuddin M
- Applied Soil Mechanics with ABAQUS Applications.pdfUploaded byRodrigo Muñoz Valderrama

- The_Vibration_of_Thin_Plates_by_using_Mo.pdfUploaded byprodn123
- Tehreez : September / October IssueUploaded byAmeen Ahmad
- Heat ExchangersUploaded byMohammed Kabiruddin
- Origin 1 The OmniverseUploaded bySUPERALEXtheGREATEST
- Aromatic Hetero Cyclic Chemistry[1]Uploaded bymarcelo_souza_59
- Tutorial 6 (Protein Structure) SS10 v1 0Uploaded byrildabidajrs
- 411 Energy Dissipation in Self Compacting Concrete With or Without Fibers in Co LibreUploaded byreloaded63
- Tension Ring in Masonry DomeUploaded bySoumya Rao
- Halogen Bonding Recent AdvancesUploaded byVictor Hugo
- MIT18_06S10_pset10_s10_solUploaded bydjoseph_1
- TAKE HOME QUIZ Thermo.docxUploaded byMichael Quidor
- GenaratorUploaded bykumarkaul
- Exp-1 Tension Test.pdfUploaded byHanamant Hunashikatti
- Ethylene Oxidation on Silver Catalysts eUploaded byYeni Paola Garcia
- researchpaper-Review-on-theories-regarding-material-bending.pdfUploaded byAli Varmazyar
- Differential angle of arrival' Theory, evaluation, and measurement feasibilityUploaded byfractin
- Assessment of Water PumpsUploaded byranveer
- Crack Arresting Mechanism Fr cUploaded bywjzabala
- Units of length, area, volume, mass and weightUploaded byMark Ure
- Report Lightning ArresterUploaded byYadagiri Sonta
- Manual Skimmer Tunze Comline 9001 / 9001 DCUploaded byjuliocdias
- Vectors & TensorsUploaded byAryce_
- FrictionUploaded byburak
- Gravity as a Factor of Aggregative Stability and CoagulationUploaded byMagesh kumar
- Microsoft Word - VectorsUploaded byjitender8
- Chapter 21 NeutralizationUploaded byronayme29
- Aqa Phy2h w Qp Jan08Uploaded byAngela Grant
- Elasticity by Gordon C. EverstineUploaded byredjellou
- TCAD Simulation.pdfUploaded bynandan_pappu
- DNV-CN30-7_2014Uploaded byhendry_hdw

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.