Yanhouide Jeannot Ahossin Guezo Masterthesis 2007

CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS FOR EMBANKMENT
SETTLEMENT ON SOFT CLAY SOILS IN HOUSTON

AREA
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Cullen College of Engineering
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Civil Engineering
by
Yanhouidé Jeannot AHOSSIN GUEZO
August 2007
AREA
___________________________
Yanhouidé J. Ahossin Guezo
Approved:
______________________________
Chairman of the Committee
C. Vipulanandan, Professor and Chairman,
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Committee Members: ______________________________

Ömer Bilgin, Assistant Professor,
Civil and Environmental Engineering
______________________________
Ken W. White, Professor,
Mechanical Engineering
______________________________ ______________________________
Larry C. Witte, Associate Dean, C. Vipulanandan, Professor and Chairman,
Cullen College of Engineering Civil and Environmental Engineering
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis is the result of guidance and support from several individuals. I would like to
acknowledge these individuals who have assisted me throughout my graduate career both
personally and professionally.
I want to acknowledge my research advisor, Dr. Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan for giving
me the opportunity to pursue this project. I would also like to thank Dr. Ömer Bilgin and
Dr. Ken W. White for serving in my committee.
I want to gratefully acknowledge my fellow graduate students Hector Gonzalez,
Sivaram Harendra and Onur Guvener for their encouragement, kind assistance and
support throughout my graduate studies.
I want to thank the Texas Department of Transportation for their financial support to this
research project.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the unwavering support, encouragement, love, and
guidance I have received from my family throughout my life. I want to specifically
express my deepest appreciation to my parents Christine Akuegninou and Eugene Guezo,
my uncles Albert T. Ahossin and Bernard Akpo Amoussouga, my siblings Japhet
Senamin, Jocelyne Bidossessi, Prisca Gueguede and Judicael.
iii
AREA
An Abstract
Of a Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Cullen College of Engineering
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Civil Engineering
by
Yanhouidé Jeannot AHOSSIN GUEZO
August 2007
iv
ABSTRACT
Overestimation of settlement on overconsolidated soft clays may require ground
improvement before construction with added delay and cost to a project. Since the soft
soil shear strength is low, the structures on the soft soils are generally designed so that the
increase in the stress is relatively small and the total stress in the ground will be close to
the preconsolidation pressure. Hence there is a need to investigate methods to better
predict the settlement of embankments on soft soils. Hence the recompression index,
determined from a consolidation test is needed to estimate the settlement. Although
recompression index has been quantified in the literature, its determination is not clearly
defined, especially when there is a hysteretic unloading loop for the soft clay soil. Also
the influence of the unloading stress level on the recompression index is not clearly
quantified.
The major focus of this study was to investigate methods to better predict the
settlement of embankments on soft soils using the consolidation test parameters. This
study not only involved a series of laboratory tests to determine the consolidation
parameters of clays as well as instrumentation of two embankments to measure the
settlements. Conventional methods of predicting the settlement of embankments was
reviewed. Since the load on the soft soil was small, it was important to define the
recompression index of overconsolidated soft CH clay soils which exhibited hysteretic
behavior. Based on the methods used to determine the recompression index (Cr), over
750% difference in the minimum and maximum Cr values was observed for the Houston
area soft CH clay. Effect of applied stresses on the recompression index was also
investigated.
v
The boreholes at the two test sites were instrumented with extensometers (vertical
deflection), pore water pressure transducer and inclinometer to monitor lateral movement.
Soil samples collected from the sites were tested and characterized based on their
consolidation properties, the measured settlements and rate of settlement for six months
were compared to the conventional and modified method of prediction. Also 2D finite
element model was used to predict the measured settlement.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... xviii
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1. General................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Organization........................................................................................................ 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 4
2.1. General................................................................................................................ 4
2.2. Soft clay soil definition....................................................................................... 4
2.3. Embankment settlement...................................................................................... 6
2.4. Ground improvement methods ......................................................................... 23
2.5. Modelling.......................................................................................................... 32
2.6. Embankments case studies review and analysis ............................................... 38
3. SOFT SOILS & HIGHWAY EMBANKMENTS IN HOUSTON........................... 44
3.1. Behavior of marine and deltaic soft clays......................................................... 44
3.2. Highway embankments..................................................................................... 62
3.3. Summary and discussion................................................................................. 114
4. LABORATORY TESTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................................... 116
4.1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 116
4.2. Tests results..................................................................................................... 117
vii
4.3. Houston clay soil characterization .................................................................. 128
4.4. Preconsolidation pressure (σp)........................................................................ 128
4.5. Compression index (Cc) .................................................................................. 132
4.6. Recompression index (Cr)............................................................................... 142
4.7. Coefficient of consolidation (Cv) .................................................................... 151
4.8. Constant Rate of Strain consolidation test results........................................... 154
5. FIELD STUDY....................................................................................................... 160
5.1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 160
5.2. Site history and previous site investigation .................................................... 161
5.3. Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 163
5.4. NASA Road 1 embankment instrumentation ................................................. 167
5.5. SH3 embankment instrumentation and results ............................................... 168
6. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 179
6.1. General............................................................................................................ 179
6.2. Plain strain Finite Element Modeling ............................................................. 179
6.3. Elements.......................................................................................................... 180
6.4. Constitutive Model.......................................................................................... 180
6.5. Parameters....................................................................................................... 181
6.6. Results............................................................................................................. 182
6.7. Summary ......................................................................................................... 182
7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ......................................................... 183
viii
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 186
APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 195
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 217
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2-1 Typical configuration of soil layers under an embankment.................................. 6
Fig. 2-2 Field condition simulation in laboratory consolidation test. ............................... 12
Fig. 2-3 Typical e – log σv relationship for overconsolidated clay. ................................ 13
Fig. 2-4 Constant Rate of Strain (CRS) Consolidation cell used at the University of
Houston (GEOTAC Company 2006)........................................................................ 17
Fig. 2-5 Schematic of CRS test frame used at the University of Houston (GEOTAC
Company 2006)......................................................................................................... 17
Fig. 2-6 Commercially available CRS test system (GEOTAC company 2006)............... 18
Fig. 2-7 2-to-1 method for vertical stress distribution with depth (Holtz 1981)............... 20
Fig. 2-8 Vertical stress due to a flexible strip load (Das 2006). ....................................... 21
Fig. 2-9 Embankment loading using Osterberg’s method (Das 2006). .......................... 22
Fig. 2-10 Beneficial aspects of the use of preloading after Nagaraj (2001). .................... 24
Fig. 2-11 Beneficial aspect of using vertical drains (Nagaraj 2001). ............................... 25
Fig. 2-12 Vacuum consolidation configurations: a.) Nagaraj (2001), b.) DGI-Menard, Inc
(2007)........................................................................................................................ 26
Fig. 2-13 Typical configuration of stone columns and compacted sand piles used for
ground improvement (Nagaraj 2001)........................................................................ 28
Fig. 2-14 World map of embankments case studies reviewed.......................................... 38
Fig. 3-1 Locations of soft clay soils used for the analyses. .............................................. 49
Fig. 3-2 Rate of sedimentation of different types of clay deposits (Leroueil, 1990)........ 50
Fig. 3-3 Probability distribution function for the undrained shear strength (a) marine clay
and (b) deltaic clay.................................................................................................... 55
x
Fig. 3-4 Liquid limit versus natural water content for the soft clays (a) Marine Clay , (b)
Deltaic Clay. ............................................................................................................. 56
Fig. 3-5 Plasticity chart of deltaic (42 data) and marine soft clay soils…………………57
Fig. 3-6 Predicted and measured relationships for marine and deltaic clays.................... 58
Fig. 3-7 Relationship between undrained shear strength (Su) and preconsolidation
pressure (σp).............................................................................................................. 60
Fig. 3-8 Houston area with the four reported embankments. ........................................... 62
Fig. 3-9 TCP blow counts vs. depth at boring 99-1a. ....................................................... 66
Fig. 3-10 a.) Moisture Content (MC) vs. depth (z) and b.) Change of Moisture content
with change in depth (ΔMC/Δz) vs. depth (z)........................................................... 67
Fig. 3-11 Undrained shear strength vs. depth at boring 99-1a.......................................... 68
Fig. 3-12 e – log σ’ of the two consolidation tests performed by TxDOT for 1A
embankment design and their respective compression and recompression index
versus log σ’ curves. ................................................................................................. 70
Fig. 3-13 Profile of the soil layers for settlement calculation........................................... 70
Fig. 3-14 Comparison of stress increase obtained using Osterberg, 2 to 1 method, and
TxDOT methods. ...................................................................................................... 71
Fig. 3-15 Comparison of the rate of settlement by various methods of estimation. ......... 76
Fig. 3-16 TCP blow counts vs. depth at boring 99-1a. ..................................................... 77
Fig. 3-18 Undrained shear strength vs. depth for the four borings. .................................. 81
xi
Fig. 3-20 Comparison of stress increase obtained using Osterberg and 2 to 1 and TxDOT
methods. .................................................................................................................... 83
Fig. 3-21 Comparative graph showing the effect of layering on the rate of settlement. .. 88
Fig. 3-22 Profile of the retaining wall No. 2E, not to scale (project drawing 22). ........... 90
Fig. 3-23 Location of the borings used on the field (Drawing 13 and 14). ...................... 90
Fig. 3-24 TCP blow counts vs. depth................................................................................ 91
Fig. 3-26 Undrained shear strength vs. depth in the 6 borings. ........................................ 95
Fig. 3-27 e – log σ’ of the three consolidation tests performed, on samples from boring
CCR-3, and their respective plot of compression index versus log σ’ curves.......... 97
Fig. 3-29 Stress increase vs. depth at the center and at the toe of the embankment using
Osterberg method..................................................................................................... 99
Fig. 3-30 Comparison of TxDOT rate of settlement estimation at the center of the
embankment with new estimation using the same data. ......................................... 102
Fig. 3-31 Comparative graph showing the effect of layering on the rate of settlement at
the center of the embankment. ................................................................................ 104
Fig. 3-32 Rate of settlement at the toe of the embankment using TxDOT method........ 106
Fig. 3-33 Comparative graph showing the effect of layering on the rate of settlement at
the toe of the embankment.................................................................................... 106
Fig. 3-34 Profile of the soil layers for settlement calculation......................................... 108
xii
Fig. 3-35 Comparison of rate of settlement estimated at the center of the embankment.
................................................................................................................................. 113
Fig. 3-36 Comparison of rate of settlement estimated and monitored data at the toe of the
embankment............................................................................................................ 114
Fig. 4-1 Location of the site investigated in Houston area. ............................................ 116
Fig. 4-2 a.) Variation of moisture content with depth; b.) change of moisture content with
change in depth (ΔMC/Δz) versus depth (z). .......................................................... 118
Fig. 4-3 a.) Compression index vs. depth; b.) Recompression index vs. depth (SH146).
................................................................................................................................. 119
Fig. 4-4 Correlation of recompression index with compression index........................... 119
Fig. 4-5 Overconsolidation ratio versus depth (SH146). ................................................ 120
Fig. 4-6 Variation of the consolidation of consolidation with depth (SH146). .............. 121
Fig. 4-7 Variation of moisture content with depth in all borings (SH3)......................... 122
Fig. 4-8 Variation of liquid limit with depth in boring B1 (SH3).................................. 122
Fig. 4-9 Variation of plastic limit with depth in boring B1 (SH3). ................................ 123
Fig. 4-10 Variation of Su with depth in borings B1, B2, B3, and B4 (SH3)................... 123
Fig. 4-11 Variation of overconsolidation ratio with depth in boring B1.(SH3). ............ 124
Fig. 4-12 Variation of compression index with depth in boring B1 (SH3). .................. 125
Fig. 4-13 Variation of coefficient of consolidation with depth in boring B1 (SH3). ..... 126
Fig. 4-14 Casagrande plasticity chart of compiled Houston/Beaumont clay from 1971 up
to 2007. ................................................................................................................... 128
Fig. 4-15 e – log σ’ curve showing Casagrande graphical method (method 1) of σp
determination (Clay sample from SH3 borehole 1, depth 18-20 ft, CH clay). ....... 130
xiii
Fig. 4-16 Direct determination methods. ....................................................................... 130
Fig. 4-17 Graphical determination methods. .................................................................. 131
Fig. 4-18 Correlation of compression index of Houston Beaumont clay soil with in situ
moisture content...................................................................................................... 134
Fig. 4-19 Correlation of compression index of Houston/Beaumont clay soil with in situ
unit weight. ............................................................................................................. 135
Fig. 4-20 e – log σ’ of different clay sample from SH3 at Clear Creek bridge and their
respective compression and recompression index versus log σ’ curves................ 140
Fig. 4-21 e – log σ’ of different clay samples performed by TxDOT for its embankment
designs in Houston cited in embankment case studies and their respective
compression and recompression indices versus log σ’ curves. ............................. 141
Fig. 4-22 e – log σ’ curve showing the three recompression indices (Cr1, Cr2, Cr3). Clay
sample from SH3 borehole 1, depth 18-20 ft, CH clay. ......................................... 143
Fig. 4-23 e – log σ’ curve of clay soil performed by TxDOT for Project IH10-SH90 I/C,
No 508-01-166, respectively a.) Boring No 3 -5 ft and b.) Boring I10A – 25 ft. The
reloading part was used to compute the recompression index Cr [Cr1 ]. ............. 144
Fig. 4-24 e – log σ’ curve of clay soil performed by TxDOT for Project IH10 at SH99,
No 508-02-101, respectively Boring No 99-8 (5ft) and 99-1 (25ft). The unloading
part was used to calculate the recompression index Cr [Cr3]. .............................. 145
Fig. 4-25 Correlation of the different type of recompression indexes with the compression
index a.) Cr1 vs. Cc, b.) Cr2 vs. Cc, c.) Cr3 vs. Cc. .................................................... 147
Fig. 4-26 Comparison of the different recompression indices of Houston SH3 samples
with New Orleans clay Cr/Cc range. ....................................................................... 147
xiv
Fig. 4-27 e – log σ’ curve of a Houston clay soil with three different cycles of unloading
and reloading for Cr determination. SH146-Sample FP1-BR2, depth: 2-3 ft (CH
clay)......................................................................................................................... 149
Fig. 4-28 e – log σ’ curve of a Houston clay soil with three different cycles of unloading
and reloading for Cr determination. SH146-Sample PR4-BW4, depth: 9-10 ft (CL
clay)......................................................................................................................... 150
Fig. 4-29 e – log σ’ curve of a Houston clay from SH3 and their respective Cv – σ’ curve.
................................................................................................................................. 153
Fig. 4-30 Deformation vs. time at log scale curve of Casagrande T50 a.) CH clay, b.) CL
clay.......................................................................................................................... 154
Fig. 4-31 Three ε- log σ’ of CRS tests performed on three specimen from the same
Shelby tube sample at different strain rate.............................................................. 155
.
Fig. 4-32 Comparison of CRS test ( ε = 0.025/hr) and IL test ε – log σ’ curve. Test
performed on two different specimens from the same Shelby tube sample recovered
form SH3 at Clear Creek, borehole 5 at 10 – 12 ft deep......................................... 156
Fig. 4-33 Three Cv- σ’ of CRS test performed on three specimen (CH clay) from the
same Shelby tube sample at different strain rate. ................................................... 157
.
Fig. 4-34 a.) Comparison of CRS test ( ε = 0.025/hr) and IL test Cv– σ’ curve. Test
performed on two different specimens from the same Shelby tube sample recovered
from SH3 at Clear Creek, borehole 5 at 10 – 12 ft deep; b.) Pressure ratio vs. vertical
effective stress corresponding to the CRS test........................................................ 158
Fig. 5-1 Location of the instrumented site on Houston map........................................... 161
xv
Fig. 5-2 Picture view of SH3 during site investigation (January 2007).......................... 162
Fig. 5-3 Cross section of NASA Road 1 roadway. ......................................................... 163
Fig. 5-4 Demec on the embankment retaining wall........................................................ 163
Fig. 5-5 a.) Inclinometer probe (Geokon Inc 2007) b.) Inclinometer casing................. 165
Fig. 5-6 Sondex settlement device setup........................................................................ 166
Fig. 5-7 University of Houston settlement measurement device.................................... 167
Fig. 5-8 Sketch of plan view of SH3 at Clear Creek with the new boring locations...... 169
Fig. 5-9 Inclinometer reading at boring B2 (SH3).......................................................... 170
Fig. 5-10 Inclinometer reading at boring B4 (SH3)........................................................ 170
Fig. 5-11 Measure relative displacement with tine at boring B1.................................... 171
Fig. 5-12 Water table variation with time with the bottom of the casing at 30 ft deep as
reference in boring B1. ........................................................................................... 171
Fig. 5-13 Pore pressure variation with time at boring B1............................................... 172
Fig. 5-14 Measurement of relative displacement with time at boring B3. ..................... 173
Fig. 5-16 Measure relative displacement with time at boring B5................................... 174
Fig. 5-17 Water table variation with time with the bottom of the casing at 20 ft deep as
reference in boring B5. ........................................................................................... 174
Fig. 5-19 Picture view of demec points on the wall: a.) for wall panel displacement
monitoring, b.) crack opening monitoring. ............................................................. 175
Fig. 5-20 Relative displacement of the wall panels along the embankment................... 176
Fig. 5-21 Change in the crack opening along the wall. .................................................. 176
xvi
Fig. 5-22 Picture view of L2 rotation monitoring mark line on the retaining wall......... 177
Fig. 5-23 Change in wall rotation monitoring mark readings along the retaining wall.. 177
Fig. 6-1 Finite element model of SH3 embankment....................................................... 179
Fig. 6-2 Position of nodes and stress points in soil elements.......................................... 180
Fig. 6-3 Comparison of FEM settlement prediction results and the project result. ........ 182
Fig. B-0-1 Variation of the moisture content with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.. 217
Fig. B-0-2 Variation of the liquid limit with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007........... 217
Fig. B-0-3 Variation of the plastic limit with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.......... 218
Fig. B-0-4 Variation of the undrained shear strength with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in
2007......................................................................................................................... 218
Fig. B-0-5 Variation of the preconsolidation pressure with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in
2007......................................................................................................................... 219
Fig. B-0-6 Variation of the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) with depth at SH3 in 1984 and
in 2007. ................................................................................................................... 219
Fig. B-0-7 Correlation of the compression index (Cc) with natural moisture content at
SH3 in 2007. ........................................................................................................... 220
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 TxDOT soil density and bedrock hardness classification................................... 5
Table 2.2 Recommended uH/σ values (Dobak 2003). ..................................................... 16
Table 2.3 Conditions for one-dimensional consolidation tests (Dobak 2003).................. 18
Table 2.4 Summary of ground improvement methods (Magnan 1994). ................ 31
Table 2.5 Parameters of Modified Cam Clay model. ....................................................... 33
Table 2.6 Parameters of Soft-Soil Model. ....................................................................... 34
Table 2.7 Parameters of Soft-Soil-Creep model. .............................................................. 34
Table 2.8 Parameters of Hardening-Soil Model. .............................................................. 35
Table 2.9 MIT-E3 parameters........................................................................................... 36
Table 2.10 Summary of embankment case studies throughout the world, ....................... 40
Table 3.1 Summary of soft soil data. ............................................................................... 49
Table 3.2 Summary of the four reported embankments in Houston................................ 63
Table 3.3 Laboratory test and field tests results (boring 99-1a). ...................................... 66
Table 3.4 Summary of consolidation parameters used for the settlement estimation. ..... 68
Table 3.5 Summary table of the stress increase in the soil mass. ..................................... 71
Table 3.6 Laboratory and field tests results (boring O-1)................................................. 78
Table 3.10 Summary table of consolidation parameters used for the settlement estimation.
................................................................................................................................... 81
Table 3.11 Summary table of the stress increase in the soil mass. ................................... 83
xviii
Table 3.12 Field test results (borings CCB-2, CCB-1, CCR-2, CCR-4 and CCR-3). ..... 92
Table 3.13 Summary of soil type in five borings.............................................................. 93
Table 3.14 Summary table of moisture content in the six borings. .................................. 93
Table 3.15 Summary table of undrained shear strength in the six borings....................... 94
Table 3.16 Summary of consolidation parameters used for the settlement estimation. ... 95
Table 3.17 Summary table of the stress increase in the soil mass. ................................... 98
Table 3.18 Summary of consolidation parameters of the five samples from boring B1. 107
Table 3.19 Summary of the stress in the soil mass. ........................................................ 107
Table 3.20 Summary table of settlement prediction from project 3 section................... 111
Table 4.1 Summary of the samples collected. ................................................................ 117
Table 4.2 Summary of SH146 laboratory test data......................................................... 121
Table 4.3 Summary of soil type parameters (SH3)........................................................ 126
Table 4.4 Summary of strength parameters (SH3). ....................................................... 127
Table 4.5 Summary of consolidation parameters (SH3)................................................. 127
Table 4.6 Estimated preconsolidation pressure. ............................................................. 131
Table 4.7 Summary compression indices of various clay soils (Holtz et al. 1981)........ 133
Table 4.8 Azzouz et al. (1976) summary table of Cc correlation after Holtz et al. (1981).
................................................................................................................................. 137
Table 4.9 Summary of compressibility parameters of clay soil of SH3 bridge at Clear
Creek. ...................................................................................................................... 146
Table 6.1 Summary table of available settlement parameters. ....................................... 181
Table 6.2 Yield condition parameters............................................................................ 181
xix
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
Embankments are among the most ancient forms of construction but also have the
most engineering challenges in design, construction and maintenance. Economic and
social development has brought a considerable increase in the construction of
embankments since the middle of the nineteenth century, particularly since the 1950s
(Leroueil 1990). Embankments are required in the construction of roads, motorways, and
railway networks (linear embankments, access embankments, and embankments across
valleys), in hydroelectric schemes (dams and retention dikes), in irrigations and flood
control work (regulation dams), harbor installations (seawalls, quays, and breakwaters),
and airports (runways) (Leroueil 1990).
Historically, embankments have been placed on sites of good geotechnical
properties in order to reduce the costs associated with their construction. However, during
the last two decades, the demand for expanding the civil infrastructure has forced the use
of sites with soft and compressible soils. It is often found that the regions of densest
population are in the coastal or delta regions covered with recent deposits of clays, mud
and compressible silts. Therefore, in the past two decades, embankments have been
constructed on compressible soils resulting in a number of problems.
The estimation of total and time rate of settlement of an embankment with good
serviceability is the main design concern of embankments on soft soils. The Terzaghi
(1925) one-dimensional classical method is widely used, but it has limitations. Several
two and three-dimensional numerical methods have been developed to predict
embankments behavior on soft soils. All the design methods require laboratory testing
1
and/or field testing to determine the parameters to be used. Each parameter can be
determined using different tests, resulting in different values for the consolidation
parameters (Wissa 1971).
Instrumenting the embankment with displacement sensors and piezometers to
monitor the field behavior of an embankment on soft soil and comparing the results with
the predicted behavior is the way to validate the accuracy and reliability of settlement and
rate of settlement estimation methods or models (Ladd 1994).
1.2. Objectives
The overall goal of this study is to investigate the methods used to predict the
total amount of and rate of settlement of embankments on soft clay soils. The specific
objectives are as follows:
1) Review of the existing methods of total amount and time rate of settlement
estimation and documentation of case studies of embankments on soft clay soils.
2) Investigation of the method used by Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT).
3) Field investigation and laboratory tests to determine the settlement and
consolidation parameters, respectively.
4) Analysis of field measurements and numerical modeling of the embankment for
settlement estimation.
2
1.3. Organization
Chapter 2 summarizes the background information on total and rate of settlement
estimation of embankment on soft clay soils. Also, techniques of ground improvement
and behavior modeling are summarized. Chapter 3 describes Houston and Galveston soft
soil behavior and investigates Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) highway
embankments total and rate of settlement estimation in the Houston area. Chapter 4
summarizes laboratory tests and settlement parameters determination with correlation and
analysis for Houston area clay. In Chapter 5, field monitoring results of an instrumented
embankment in soft soil are compared with the predicted behavior. In Chapter 6,
behavior of an embankment on soft soil was simulated using finite element method and
the result was compared to conventional prediction methods. Conclusions and
recommendations for future work are in Chapter 7.
3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. General
The decades-long challenge of estimating settlement of embankments on soft clay
soil has led to better prediction through its study and behavior modeling (Leroueil 1990).
Terzaghi (1925) introduced the first known complete solution of soft clay soil
consolidation. His one-dimensional consolidation theory for settlement calculation and its
incremental load (IL) consolidation test have been widely used because of their simplicity
in predicting the total and rate of settlement of embankments on soft clay soils. However,
due to the time factor imposed by IL consolidation test procedure, other consolidation
tests such as constant rate of strain (CRS) consolidation test and constant rate of loading
(CRL) test, which are much faster, were introduced later (Wissa et al. 1971).
Different techniques of soft soil improvement and methods of construction on soft
clay soils were developed to reduce the settlement before construction or to limit it to an
allowable value for good serviceability.
Following the increase in calculation capacity of computers, advanced
constitutive models using numerical solutions such as finite element and finite difference
methods were developed to predict soft clay soils’ behavior.
2.2. Soft clay soil definition
As defined by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), clays are fine-
grained soils, meaning they have more than 50% passing the No. 200 sieve, and they are
different from the silt soils based on their liquid limit and plasticity index (Holtz 1981).
4
Terzaghi & Peck (1967) established that the consistency of a clay can be
described by its compressive strength (qu) or by its undrained shear strength Su (= qu/2),
and is regarded as very soft if its unconfined compressive strength is less than 25 kPa and
as soft when the strength is in the range of 25 to 50 kPa.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) identified a clay soil as soft when
the number of Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) blows is less than or equal to 20 for one
foot penetration (NTCP ≤ 20) (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 TxDOT soil density and bedrock hardness classification.
5
2.3. Embankment settlement
An embankment increases the stress in the soil layers underneath (Fig. 2-1), and
the saturated soft clay soils, being a highly compressible soil, will consolidate (settlement).
Embankment GL
crust
saturated soft clay
sand layer
saturated soft clay
Fig. 2-1 Typical configuration of soil layers under an embankment.
(1) The primary consolidation settlement (Sp) of the clay is represented as follows:
For normally consolidated clay
Cc H ⎛ σ 0' + Δσ ' ⎞
Sp = log ⎜ ⎟ 2-1
1 + e0 ⎜ σ' ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠
and for overconsolidated clay
Cr H ⎛σ p ⎞ Cc H ⎛ σ ' + Δσ ' ⎞
Sp = log ⎜ ⎟+ log ⎜ 0 ⎟ 2-2
1 + e0 ⎜σ' ⎟ 1 + e0 ⎜ σp ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
where
6
Cc = compression index
Cr = recompression index
eo = initial void ratio
H = soil layer height
σ 'o = in situ vertical effective stress at rest
σp = preconsolidation pressure
Δσ' = stress increase in the soil mass due to embankment loading.
(2) Secondary consolidation settlement (Sc) of the clay soil is represented as
follows
Cα ⎛t ⎞
Ss = H log⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ 2-3
1 + ep ⎝ t1 ⎠
where
Cα = secondary compression index

ep = void ratio at the end of primary consolidation
t1 and t2 = time.
(3) The time rate of consolidation
From incremental load (IL) test
2
cv t Tv H dr
Tv = → cv = 2-4
2 t
H dr
from the Constant rate of strain (CRS) test (Wissa et al. 1971)
⎡σ ⎤
H 2 log ⎢ v 2 ⎥
cv = − ⎣ σ v1 ⎦ 2-5
⎡ u ⎤
2Δt log ⎢1 − h ⎥
⎣ σv ⎦
7
where
Cv = coefficient of consolidation
Hdr = longest drainage path
H = average specimen height between t1 and t2
Tv = time factor
uH = average excess pore pressure between t2 and t1
Δt = elapsed time between t1 and t2
σv1 = applied axial stress at time t1
σv2 = applied axial stress at time t2.
The following are the standard definitions and methods of determination for all
the parameters used in equations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3.
(4) One-dimensional Laboratory Consolidation Test
Based on Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation theory, in a compressible clay
layer subjected to a stress increase due to a construction (embankment, retaining wall,
foundation, piles), elastic settlement occurs immediately (undrained behavior), and
because of the significantly low hydraulic conductivity of clay, less than 10-8 m/s in most
cases (Leroueil 1990), the excess pore water pressure generated by the loading gradually
dissipates over a long period of time (drained behavior). Consequently, the associated
volume change (drained behavior) continues long after the elastic settlement and is
several times greater in magnitude, that is,
S = S elastic + S consolidation . 2-6
Predicting the time-dependent deformation of saturated clayey soils is a
challenge, and so is the total and rate settlement of embankment on soft clay soils.
8
2.3.1. Terzaghi classical One-dimensional Consolidation Model
Terzaghi’s complete solution for one-dimensional consolidation is stated as
follows (Leroueil 1990):
Hypotheses:
(1) The strains in the clay layer are one-dimensional and remain small (εz is
small).
(2) The soil is homogeneous and saturated.
(3) The particles of the soil and the pore fluid are incompressible.
(4) The flow of the pore fluid is one-dimensional and obeys Darcy’s law.
(5) The permeability is constant (k = constant).
(6) A linear relation exists between the effective vertical stress (σ’v) and the void
ratio
de = -avdσ’v . 2-7
(7) The soil has no structural viscosity.
The use of the first hypothesis permits the fundamental equation of consolidation
to be written in the form
∂e k (1 + eo ) ∂ 2 u
= 2-8
∂t γ w ∂z 2
where e is the void ratio, eo the initial void ratio, k the coefficient of permeability, γw the
unit weight of water, t the time, u the pore water pressure, and z the drainage path.
This equation expresses the fact that the rate of change in void ratio (and, as a
result, the rate of deformation) at a given instant depends on the permeability and the
9
form of the excess pore pressure isochrones, but not on the compressibility of the
material.
Using hypotheses (6) and (7), Equation 2-8 can be written
∂u ∂σ v k (1 + eo ) ∂ 2u
− = . 2-9
∂t ∂t γ wav ∂z 2
∂σ v
When the applied stress σ v' is constant ( = 0 ), Equation 2-9 takes the classical form
∂t
of Terzaghi equation
∂u k (1 + eo ) ∂ 2u
= . 2-10
∂t γ wav ∂z 2
The function k (1 + eo ) / γ w a w in the second term of this differential equation has
been called the coefficient of consolidation ( c v ) and is given by
k k
cv = = 2-11
⎛ a ⎞ γ w mv
γ w ⎜⎜ v ⎟⎟
⎝ 1 + eo ⎠
and
∂u ∂ 2u
= cv 2 . 2-12
∂t ∂z
This equation can also be written in terms of excess pore pressures (Schlosser and
Magnan 1984)
∂ (Δu ) ∂ 2 (Δu )
= cv . 2-13
∂t ∂z 2
Equation 2-12 is the basic differential equation of Terzaghi’s consolidation theory
and is solved with the following boundary conditions:
10
z = 0, u = 0
z = 2 H dr , u = 0
t = 0, u = u0
giving the time factor Tv as follows
cvt
Tv = . 2-14
2
H dr
For the given load increment on a specimen, Casagrande and Fadum (1940),
developed the graphical logarithm-of-time method to determine cv at 50% average degree
of consolidation with T50 = 0.197. Taylor (1942) developed the square-root-of-time
graphical method giving cv at 90% average of consolidation with T90 = 0.848. These two
graphical methods, commonly used to determine the coefficient of consolidation, are
described in ASTM D 2435 – 96.
0.197 H dr
Using the Casagrande method, cv = 2-15
t50
0.848 H dr
and using the Taylor method, cv = 2-16
t90
where Hdr is the maximum drainage path.
2.3.2. Incremental Load (IL) test (ASTM D 2435)
The one-dimensional consolidation test procedure, a simulation of the field
condition in the laboratory (Fig. 2-2), first suggested by Terzaghi, to determine the
compressibility parameters and rate of settlement of clayey soils, is performed in a
consolidometer, also called oedometer. Following the standard test method for one-
dimensional consolidation (American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM) D 2435 –
11
96), the soil specimen is placed inside a metal ring with two porous stones, one at the top
of the specimen and another at the bottom (Fig. 2-2) to comply with the plain strain
condition. Load increment ratios of unity are applied, and each increment is left on for 24
hours to obtain characteristic time-settlement relationships, from which consolidation
parameters are obtained. From the void ratio (e) versus logarithm of vertical stress (log
σv,) (Fig. 2-3) relationship, the preconsolidation pressure σp, the compression index Cc,
and recompression index Cr are determined. The specimen is kept under water during the
test. The test takes several days (typically from 5 to 15 days or more).
External load
Applied load
porous
stone
saturated soft soil specimen
clay metal ring
Φ = 2.5 in
sand layer Height = 0.71in (consolidometer)
GL – 1in
Saturated soft clay
Field Lab
Fig. 2-2 Field condition simulation in laboratory consolidation test.
12
1.10
e o = 1.10
1
σ p = 1.36 tsf
2 Slope of this line is C c
C c = 0.443
Cr = 0.117
1.00 the compression index
3
eVoid ratio 0.90
0.80
Slope of this line is C r

0.70 the recompression index 4
6
σ p : the preconsolidation
pressure
0.60
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Vertical effective stress σ' (tsf)
Fig. 2-3 Typical e – log σv relationship for overconsolidated clay.
The preconsolidation pressure, σp, is the highest stress the clay soil ever felt in its
history. There are several methods to determine σp, which are discussed in chapter 4, but
Casagrande graphical method was used in Fig. 2-3. The compression index, Cc, is the
slope of the virgin compression section of the curve (section 3 – 4 in Fig. 2-3)
− ( e4 − e3 )
Cc = .
σ
log 4
σ3
And the recompression index Cr is the average slope of the hysteretic loop, as shown in
Fig. 2-3, and it is assumed to be independent of the stress.
13
2.3.3. Constant Rate of Strain test
In 1969, after 40 years of use of the IL test without major modification for clay
soil compressibility and rate of settlement parameter determination, two new methods of
performing a consolidation test were introduced:
- the Controlled Gradient test (CG test) of Lowe, et al. (1969), and
- the Constant Rate of Strain test (CRS test) of Smith and Wahls (1969).
These tests were used to overcome some of the limitations of the conventional test
(IL test) in real-time monitoring of pore water pressure (u vs. t) and the total time needed
to complete a test.
Constant Rate of Strain (CRS) one-dimensional consolidation, also specified as
Controlled-Strain Loading by the ASTM D 4186-86, is the technique in which a saturated
clay sample is consolidated at constant volume under a back pressure and loaded, with no
lateral strain, by incremental load, at a constant rate of strain, or at a constant rate of
strain (Wissa et al. 1971). Terzaghi’s complete solution for one-dimensional
consolidation and its hypotheses are valid and applied.
The features of the CRS consolidation test are as follows:
- contrary to the oedometer cell, the sample is provided only one drainage
surface, the top porous stone, the bottom drainage surface is locked and used
to measure the excess pore water pressure at the sample base (uH) (Fig. 2-4),
.
- fully computerized because of the need for constant rate of strain ( d ε = 0 ),
which requires a control and update of the stress applied at all times (t) (Fig.
2-6),
14
- faster compared to the IL test. The CRS test can be completed in less than 24
hours.
The parameters governing the CRS consolidation test (Wissa et al. 1971) and
ASTM D 4186-86, are as follows:
.
- consolidation test results are strain rate ( ε ) dependent,
- selection of strain rate is based on the criteria developed by Wissa et al.
. −
(1971). The strain rate ( ε ) does not affect as much the e – log σ v curve as
the coefficient of consolidation cv. And consequently, the optimum rate of
strain for a given soil is a trade-off between the speeds best suited for
− −
determining the e – log σ v curve and the coefficient of consolidation cv ( σ v
is the average effective stress),
- because field strain rates cannot be accurately determined or predicted, it is
not feasible to relate the laboratory-test strain rates to the field strain rates.
However, it may be feasible to relate field pore pressure ratios (uH/σv) to
laboratory pore pressure ratios. After Wissa et al. (1971), all parameters can
be accurately determined with the strain rate giving uH/σv values of 2% to
5%, but the ASTM D 4186-86 established a preferable ranging from 3% to
30%.
As shown by the compiled data of Dobak (2003) (Table 2.2), the range of pore
pressure ratios for a representative test providing reliable coefficient of consolidation (cv)
depends on the type of the soil.
15
Table 2.2 Recommended uH/σ values (Dobak 2003).
Recommended
Soil type Reference
u H / σ values
kaolintes,
Smith and Wahls
0.5 Ca-montmorillonites, Messena
(1969)
clay
Boston blue clay Wissa et al.

0.05
(artificially sedimented) (1971)
Sällfors
0.1 - 0.15 Bakebol clay
(1975)
silts and clays from the coal
0.3 - 0.5
field of Mississipi Plains Gorman et al. (1978)
(u Hmin = 7 kPa)
(Kentucky)
Note: In the table uHmin is uH
- the coefficient of consolidation, the only parameter differently determined
from the IL parameters, is given by the following relationship:
⎡σ ⎤
H 2 log ⎢ v 2 ⎥
cv = − ⎣ σ v1 ⎦
⎡ u ⎤
2Δt log ⎢1 − H ⎥
⎣ σv ⎦
where
UH = average excess pore pressure between t2 and t1, and
σv = average total applied axial stress between t2 and t1.
16
Fig. 2-4 Constant Rate of Strain (CRS) Consolidation cell used at the University of Houston (GEOTAC
Company 2006).
Fig. 2-5 Schematic of CRS test frame used at the University of Houston (GEOTAC Company 2006).
17
Fig. 2-6 Commercially available CRS test system (GEOTAC company 2006).
Table 2.3 Conditions for one-dimensional consolidation tests (Dobak 2003).
Exponential model of
Types of tests Conditions of loading stress changes Governing physical processes
σ = a . tn
- creep of soil skeleton
IL σ = const n=0
- seepage
CRL Δσ/Δt = const n=1 - character and changes in stress

increase
CL
CRS - seepage
CG
Δσ/Δt increasing n>1 - creep of soil skeleton
CRL is the Constant Rate of Loading test.
CG is the Constant Gradient test, meaning that the pore water pressure at the base of the
specimen is kept constant throughout the test.
18
2.3.4. Two-dimensional consolidation
Consolidation under an embankment is actually two or three-dimensional. Several
theoretical solutions for the two-dimensional consolidation problem were developed as
early as 1978 (Leroueil 1990); these have certain deficiencies in their hypotheses upon
which they are based:
(1) Isotropic behavior of the clay skeleton.
(2) Constant coefficient of consolidation.
(3) Determination of consolidation parameters in the horizontal direction.
The effect of the second dimension is only important when the width of the base
(W) of the embankment is less than twice the thickness (W < 2d) of the clay layer
(Lerouiel 1990).
The use of these 2-D consolidation models was uncommon until the recent
development and popularization of finite element (FE) and finite difference (FD)
computer programs. In fact, the need to combine stability analysis with settlement
analysis resulted in 2-D and 3-D numerical modeling of the problem (FE and FD).
To truly understand and predict soils’ behavior, it is necessary to have a complete
knowledge of stresses and strains at all compatible loading levels right up to failure. And
constitutive relations or stress-strain laws embrace information on both shear stresses and
deformations at all stages of loading, from prefailure states to failure (Nagaraj 2001).
Consequently, several 2-D constitutive models for soft clay soil behavior have
been developed and implemented in FE and FD programs. For example, linearly elastic,
perfectly plastic, hyperbolic (Plaxis, FLAC), and several other academic models were
implemented in the existing FE frames. Most of the models are isotropic, but soft clay
19
soil is an anisotropic material. Models such as MIT-E3 (Whittle et al. 1995) and the
multi-laminate model (Cudny 2003) are two of the advanced models that considered the
anisotropic behavior of soft clay soil.
All these models require several parameters, leading to more laboratory testing.
2.3.5. Stress increase in the soil mass due to embankment loading (Δσ)
• 2-to-1 Method
The 2-to-1 method is the simplest method to calculate the stress increase with
depth, due to embankment loading, in the soil mass. It is an empirical method (Holtz
1981) based on the assumption that the area over which the load acts increases in a
systematic way with depth, Fig. 2-7.
σ o BL
Δσ z = 2-17
(B + z )(L + z )
Fig. 2-7 2-to-1 method for vertical stress distribution with depth (Holtz 1981).
20
• Modified Boussinessq method
The vertical stress caused by a vertical strip load (finite width and infinite length)
(Fig. 2-8) is given by Equation 2-18, which is derived from the Boussinessq (1883)
solution of stresses produced at any point in a homogeneous, elastic, and isotropic
medium as the result of a point load applied on the surface of an infinitely large half-
space.
Δσ z =
⎧
q ⎪ −1 ⎡
⎨
z ⎤
− −1 ⎡ z ⎤
−
[ ]
Bz x 2 − z 2 − ( B / 4 )
⎫
⎪
⎬
[ ]
tan ⎢ − ⎥ tan ⎢ ⎥
π⎪ ⎣ x ( B / 2 )⎦ ⎣ x + (B / 2 ) ⎦ x 2 + z 2 − ( B 2 / 4 ) + B 2 z 2 ⎪
2
⎩ ⎭
2-18
Fig. 2-8 Vertical stress due to a flexible strip load (Das 2006).
• Osterberg method
Based on Boussinessq’s expression, Osterberg derived the vertical stress increase
in a soil mass due to an embankment loading, considering its real geometry (crest) (Fig.
2-9), which is given by the following equations:
q o ⎡⎛ B1 + B2 ⎞ B ⎤
Δσ z = ⎢⎜ ⎟⎟(α 1 + α 2 ) − 1 (α 2 )⎥ 2-19
π ⎣⎜⎝ B2 ⎠ B2 ⎦
21
where q0 = γH
⎛ B1 + B2 ⎞ ⎛B ⎞
α 1 ( radian ) = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ − tan −1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ 2-20
⎝ z ⎠ ⎝ z ⎠
⎛ B1 ⎞
α 2 = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟.
⎝ z ⎠
Fig. 2-9 Embankment loading using Osterberg’s method (Das 2006).
2.3.6. Summary and discussion
Terzaghi’s (1925) one-dimensional consolidation theory is the basis for
consolidation settlement estimation tests. CRS, CRL, and CG tests have been created to
account for some of the limitations of the IL test.
2-D and 3-D consolidation models have been developed based on the real
behavior of soft soil under embankments. This has resulted in more advanced settlement
calculation and avoiding the oversimplification of the settlement problem.
Settlement issues such as effective stress increase, estimation of soil properties,
drainage conditions, and soil layering are considered as critical for more accurate
prediction of total amount of and rate of settlement.
22
2.4. Ground improvement methods
From the understanding of clay soil time dependency settlement behavior,
especially soft clay and silty clay soils, and their effect on the structures which are
inducing the increase of the stress in their layer, several methods have been developed to
reduce the settlement ( ΔH ) after construction or to accelerate the rate of settlement
.
( Δ H ) before construction.
The methods used to reduce the settlement after construction are as follows:
1- Replacement of the compressible soft clay layer
2- Preloading
3- Stone columns and sand compaction piles
4- Deep mixing
5- Rigid inclusion
6- Electro-osmosis and electro-injection
7- Piled rafts
8- Piled embankment
9- Lightweight and ultralightweight fill materials
10- Geotextiles.
These methods are used for the following reasons:
- to increase the stiffness of the compressible clay layer before construction:
methods 1 to 6,
- to reduce the stress increase in the soft soil mass: methods 7 to 9,
- to prevent the bearing soil failure: method 10.
23
The methods used to accelerate the settlement are:
1- Preloading combined with vertical drains
2- Preloading combined with vacuum consolidation.
2.4.1. Preloading
Preloading consists of placing a load (fill) on the soil during a relatively long
period of time, so that the maximum settlement occurs before construction of the final
structure or embankment.
The efficiency of preloading in reducing the amount and rate of long-term
settlements (Fig. 2-10) depends much more on soil properties than on any other factor
(Magnan 1994).
Fig. 2-10 Beneficial aspects of the use of preloading after Nagaraj (2001).
2.4.2. Preloading with Vertical Drains
Preloading combined with vertical drains is widely used in developed countries to
accelerate the settlement. It combines the effect of preloading and vertical drains which
increase the horizontal drainage. It was a successful method, which, in the 1980s, led to
the commercialization of the PVD (Prefabricated Vertical Drains) and too many
24
researchers and manufacturers, in Europe, the USA and other developed countries,
discussing the behavior of these drains and corresponding specifications. Most of these
discussions were based on laboratory tests and analytical or numerical modeling, but
nowadays many publications analyze and report experimental data from construction
sites (cases studies).
Fig. 2-11 Beneficial aspect of using vertical drains (Nagaraj 2001).
2.4.3. Vacuum preloading
The vacuum preloading method was introduced by Kjellman in 1952 as an
effective method of improving soft soil conditions. In order to achieve the best results
this method was applied in combination with geo-drains, which were installed before
vacuum preloading was done. An airtight plastic sheet was buried in the surrounding
separation walls. Water and air can be drawn out form the sand drains through the system
of perforated pipes by a pump (Fig. 2-12). The pressure difference between above and
below the separation surface is the surcharge pressure, which is referred to as the degree
of vacuum. When pore water and air are pumped and withdrawn from the ground, a
difference in pressure is formed at the separation surface, which induces compression in
the clay (Nagaraj 2001).
25
a.)
b.)
Fig. 2-12 Vacuum consolidation configurations: a.) Nagaraj (2001), b.) DGI-Menard, Inc (2007).
26
2.4.4. Replacement of the soft soil layer
If the thickness of the soft ground is shallow, 6 to 10 feet, its replacement by inert
coarse frictional material merits examination. Such methods using sand, gravel, or rock
fill have been used both for road embankments and buildings (Thorburn & Mac Vicat
1968, Nagaraj 2001).
No significant changes can be mentioned regarding soil replacement techniques;
these techniques are usually quite efficient, provided that they are done on the basis of
sound geotechnical data and no problem occurs during construction. As a rule, soil
replacement is restricted to very soft and compressible organic soils, peat, and mud, and
it is not to be used for “ordinary” soft clays. (Magnan 1994).
2.4.5. Stone columns and compacted sand piles
Stone columns also referred to as “vibro-replacement,” as well as compacted sand
piles, are particularly interesting for controlling settlements in complex foundation
conditions including irregular loose sand and soft clay layers. These techniques were
already used some centuries ago for the construction of fortresses and city walls in
Western Europe (discussions about the methods of controlling the settlements of soft
soils under these heavy structures can be found, for example, in the transactions of the
French army engineers in early 1800s). In the modern period, compacted sand piles are
more frequently used in Asia and stone columns in Europe and North America (Magnan
1994).
27
Fig. 2-13 Typical configuration of stone columns and compacted sand piles used for ground improvement
(Nagaraj 2001).
2.4.6. Piles rafts
It has been a common practice in some countries (e.g. Germany) to use bridges
for avoiding any post-constructional displacement of a road on soft clays. From a
technical point of view, bridge construction on soft clay reduces to pile design, where
negative skin friction and horizontal load must be considered. In general, bridge
construction is the most expensive construction technique for embankments on soft clays.
Piled rafts for soft clay sites (embankments on a piled raft) are expensive and are
therefore seldom used in practice.
28
2.4.7. Electro-osmosis and electro-injection
Under the influence of an applied electric field, water will migrate through porous
media. Clay-water interactions result in the formation of a “diffuse double layer.”
Applying an electrical potential to such a system causes the hydrated positive ions to
move towards the negative electrode, simultaneously dragging the water held in capillary
pores. The pore water flows towards the cathode. By continuous pumping of water
collected at the cathode, the ground water table can be temporally lowered, with a
consequent increase in effective stress, thus imparting the required shear strength to
handle practical construction problems (Nagaraj 2001).
Some twenty years ago, electro-osmosis and electro-injection were described as
promising techniques for the reduction of soft clay deformations in places where other
remedial construction methods could not be implemented. Many problems were
associated with these techniques, including difficulties in maintaining the performance of
the electric equipment in situ. These techniques were, therefore, almost completely
abandoned. Some new attempts are now being made to revive them, however.
2.4.8. Light-weight and ultralightweight fill materials
The weight of an embankment can be reduced by using light-weight or
ultralightweight materials, such as expanded polystyrene, expanded shale, slag or ponded
fly ash. Use of slag and fuel as embankment material was reported by Popovics (1978)
and Schwab & Pregl (1978) as early as 1978. The reduction in load was due to the low
dry unit weight of water-cooled slag, which was in the range of 11 to 12.5 kN/m3, and to
that of fuel ash which was in the range of 13.8 to 17 kN/m3. Humphrey and Manion
29
(1992) used tire chips, a non-biodegradable material, to realize compacted density of fills
as low as 6.5 kN/m3. It was found that these materials provided the necessary shearing
resistance to ensure slope stability.
Since the pioneering work of the Norwegian Road Research Laboratory in the
early 1970s on the use of expanded polystyrene as a lightweight fill material for road
construction, EPS ultralightweight embankments have gained popularity in many
countries. The number of such constructed fills is probably higher than one thousand
nowadays, with more development in countries such as Norway, Japan, France,
Germany, and the USA (Magnan 1994).
2.4.9. Rigid inclusions or pile embankments
The construction of embankments on top of pile caps was proposed in Sweden
and used mainly in Southeast Asia for some years. Oio et al. (1987) describe a
construction site where this technique was successfully used for the construction of the
Seremban-Air Hitam Toll Expressway in Malaysia. At this site, the foundation soils for
the road embankment consist of 6 m- to 14 m-thick soft alluvium deposits, underlain with
a hard bearing layer of sandstone/shale formation.
2.4.10. Jet-Grouted Columns
The use of jet grouting for stabilizing soft clays or organic soils has been
described by various authors. The best documented case is that of the Albate Railway
Embankment (Italy), which was described by Gallavresi (1992).
30
2.4.11. Geotextiles
Geotextiles are commonly used in road construction, mostly for constructing
embankment on soft clays and organic soils. They are considered useful for avoiding the
penetration of fill granular materials (used for embankment) into the natural ground, for
facilitating the traffic of the construction equipment and vehicles during the construction
works, and reinforcing the embankment itself, thus increasing its stability.
Table 2.4 Summary of ground improvement methods (Magnan 1994).
Methods Necessary data Constraints Reliability Comments
Compressibility Low if the desired Slow &

Preloading Time necessary
Permeability settlements are small cheap
Compressibility Fast
Preloading with Less time
Horizontal and More flexible Relatively
vertical drains necessary
vertical Permeability expensive
Compressibility Still have to be Fast
Vaccuum Equipment
Horizontal and documented (not Relatively
preloading Preliminary trials
vertical Permeability widely used) expensive
Disposal for
Replacement of Good in case of total Expensive
Layer thickness extracted soil new
soft clay replacement Rapid
fill
Stone columns,
Soil resistance and Equipment Good after analysing Expensive
compaction sand
moduli Preliminary trials a set of trial columns Rapid
piles
Piles rafts and Very
Soil resistance Cost Good
bridges expensive
Physico-chemical
Destructions of
Electro-osmosis properties Very
electrodes Uncertain
and injection compressibility expensive
Electricity needed
permeability
Protection of the
Lightweight Compressibility Low if the desired
lightweight Expensive
materials Permeability settlements are small
material
Soil resistance and Constructibility & Expensive
Pile embankments Good
moduli cost Rapid
Jet-grouted Soil resistance and Expensive
Cost Good
columns moduli Rapid
31
2.5. Modelling
Several constitutive models for soft soils have been developed for 1-D, 2-D and 3-
D analysis of embankment settlement in soft clays. Because of this, it is not necessary to
oversimplify the soil layering under an embankment or structure for settlement
calculation as it was done with manual calculation. The numerical modelling also allows
combined settlement analysis and stability analysis, giving a global idea of the soft soil
behavior under embankments. These constitutive models required 5 to 13 parameters to
model the behavior of soft clay soils.
Several stress-strain-time relationships have been used in very limited
documented cases to model the behavior of soft soils (Table 2-9). Some of the models
that have been used are as follows: (1) modified cam clay model with 5 soil parameters
(Plaxis manual 2004); (2) soft-soil model with 8 parameters (no time effect) (Plaxis
manual 2004); (3) soft-soil creep model with 9 parameters (Plaxis manual 2004); (4)
Hardening soil model (isotropic hardening) with 13 soil parameters (Plaxis manual
2004); (5) MIT E3 model with 13 parameters (Whittle and Kavvadas,1994); and (6)
kinematic hardening models (Rouainia and Muir Wood 2000). These models have been
used for very specific applications.
Following are some models extensively documented in the literatures.
32
2.5.1. Isotropic constitutive model for soft soil
• Modified Cam Clay model
The use of the Modified Cam-Clay model in practical applications is not
recommended because it may allow for extremely large shear stresses. This is particularly
the case for stress paths that cross the critical state line. Moreover, the Modified Cam-
Clay model may give softening behavior for particular stress paths. Without special
regularization techniques, softening behavior may lead to mesh dependency and
convergence problems of iterative procedures (Plaxis manual 2004).
Table 2.5 Parameters of Modified Cam Clay model.

No Parameters Description
1 ν ur Poisson’s ratio
2 Κ Cam-Clay Swelling index
3 λ Cam-Clay compression index
4 M Tangent of the critical state line
5 e Void ratio
• Soft-Soil Model
The soft soil model doesn’t include time; the following are some of its features:
(1) Stress-dependent stiffness (logarithmic compression behavior)
(2) Distinction between primary loading and unloading-reloading
(3) Failure behavior according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Plaxis manual
2004).
33
Table 2.6 Parameters of Soft-Soil Model.
No Basic parameters
1 λ∗ Modified compression index
2 Κ∗ Modified swelling index
3 c Cohesion
4 ϕ Friction angle
5 ψ Dilatancy angle
Advanced parameters
6 ν ur Poisson’s ratio for unloading / reloading
Coefficient of lateral stress in the state of normal
7 Κ o NC
consolidation
8 M Κ o NC -parameter
• Soft-Soil-Creep model (time dependent behavior)
The basic features of the Soft-Soil-Creep model are the following:
(1) Stress dependent stiffness (logarithmic compression behavior)
(2) Distinction between primary loading and unloading-reloading
(3) Secondary (time-dependent) compression
(4) Memory of pre-consolidation stress
(5) Failure behavior according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Plaxis manual
2004).
Table 2.7 Parameters of Soft-Soil-Creep model.

No Failure parameters as in the Mohr-Coulomb model
1 C Cohesion
2 ϕ Friction angle
Basic stiffness parameters
4 λ∗ Modified compression index
5 Κ∗ Modified swelling index
6 μ∗ Modified creep index (time factor)
Advanced parameters
Coefficient of lateral stress in a state of normal
8 Κ o NC
consolidation
9 M Κ o NC -parameter
34
• Hardening-Soil model (isotropic hardening)
The following are the basic features of the Hardening-Soil model (isotropic
hardening):
(1) Stress-dependent stiffness, according to a power law
(2) Plastic straining due to primary deviatoric loading
(3) Plastic straining due to primary compression
(4) Elastic unloading/reloading
(5) Failure according to Mohr-Coulomb model (Plaxis manual 2004).
The concern is that none of these models considers fully the anisotropy behavior of
the soil and its structure, especially soft clay soils.
Table 2.8 Parameters of Hardening-Soil Model.

No Failure parameters as in the Mohr-Coulomb model
1 c Effective cohesion
2 ϕ Effective angle of internal friction
Basic parameters for soil stiffness
4 E 50 ref Secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test
5 E oed ref Tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading
6 m Power for stress-level dependency of stiffness
Advanced parameters
7 E ur ref Unloading / reloading stiffness
9 p ref Reference stress for stiffness
Coefficient of lateral stress in a state of normal
10 Κ o NC
consolidation
11 R f Failure ratio q f / q a
12 σ tension Tensile strength
13 c increment Cohesion increment
35
2.5.2. Anisotropic constitutive model for soft soil
MIT-E3 developed by Whittle and Kavvadas (1994) is the best known anisotropic
constitutive model for soft soil. It is based on the consideration of the changes in soil
strength and stiffness with the rotation of the principal stresses, which describes the
through behavior of soil.
Table 2.9 MIT-E3 parameters.

No Parameter Description
Specific volume for a Ko normally consolidated
1 υ 100
sample at p' = 100 kPa
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest in normal
2 Κ o NC
consolidation
Critical-state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial
3 Φ TC ’
compression
Critical-state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial
4 Φ TE ’
extension
5 c Ratio of semi-axes of the bounding surface ellipsoid
6 ψ Parameter affecting rotation of bounding surface

Slope of the virgin compression line in ν− ln p'
7 λ
space
8 Κo Initial slope of the swelling line in ν− ln p' space
9 μ Poisson’s ratio
10 S t Parameter affecting the degree of strain softening
11 C Parameter affecting the hysteretic elasticity
12 n Parameter affecting the hysteretic elasticity
13 ω Parameter affecting the hysteretic elasticity
2.5.3. Constitutive model for structured clays
Natural soils and weak rocks (soft clay soils) have characteristics due to bonded
structure which are similar to those of porous weak rock. While this structure can arise
from many causes, its effects follow a simple general pattern that involves stiff behavior
followed by yield. This yield can be described in a similar way to that occurring due to
overconsolidation, although it is a separate phenomenon (Leroueil and Vaughan, 1990).
36
To account for the structure of the clay soil in its modeling, Soil Kinematic Hardening
models were developed:
- Three-Surface Kinematic Hardening (S3-SKH) model of Bauded and
Stallebrass (2004). This model was originally developed by Stallebrass (1990)
to simulate the behavior of reconstituted clays and includes stiffness non-
linearity and recent stress history,
- Kinematic Hardening Structure Model (KHSM) of Rouainia and Muir Wood
(2000). This model has been developed to account for initial structures, small
strain stiffness, stiffness degradation with strain history, and hysteretic
response in cyclic loading.
Applications of these models in various soils to determine the stability and
settlement of embankments are summarized in Table 2.10. Although the use of these
models has been limited in the past, their use is expected to increase in the near future.
37
2.6. Embankments case studies review and analysis
Fig. 2-14 World map of embankments case studies reviewed.
In order to better understand the issues related to embankments on soft soils, a
number of case studies in the literature was reviewed (Fig. 2-14). A total of 25 case
studies have been documented (Table 2.10) and systematically characterized based upon
- the locations
- the soft clay layer thickness
- the type of soft clay soil
- the undrained shear strength of the soft clay soil
- the embankment size, height by base
- method of construction used
- the total settlement recorded in the reference
- the objective of the study.
38
2.6.1. Location
Out of the twenty-five embankments documented in this study, two are in the
United States (Boston and Salt Lake City), two in Canada (Berthierville and Saint-
Alban), nine in from Europe, ten in Asia, and two in Australia.
2.6.2. Soft clay layer characteristics
The soft clay soil of the 25 embankments case studies are invariably marine,
alluvial, alluvium, organic, and marshland soft clay soils. The thickness of the soft layers
varies between 3 and 45 m, with an undrained shear strength varying from 1.5 kPa
(Singapore case) to 70 kPa (Boston case). Different methods have been used to determine
the undrained shear strength, the ones mostly used are the field vane shear test (FVT) and
the laboratory unconfined compression test (UC).
2.6.3. Embankment dimensions
The embankment size is specified by the total height (H in meter) and the total
width of the base (B in meter). The highest height was 20 m with a width of 50 m for
width, an embankment built for land reclamation in the Hong Kong sea in China. The
smallest height was 1 meter, which was the case in Singapore and France. The ratio of the
H
height to width ( ) of the embankments ranged from 0.03 to 0.4.
W
39
Table 2.10 Summary of embankment case studies throughout the world,
Soft clay layer Embankment size Settl.

No References Location Type of clay Su (kPa) Method Instrumentation Objective Analysis
thickness (m) HxB (m x m) (cm)
Neher et al. Stage const. with

Settl. Platform - Settl. Rod - Assessment of constitutive SS and MCC model
1 (2004); Ladd et al. Boston , USA 41 Marine 20 to 70 11 x 48 peat layer 67
Piezometer - Inclinometer models (Plaxis), and MIT-E3
(1994) replacement
Anderson et al. Salt Lake City, 13.72 to 10.2 to12.2 x 36 to Field rate of settlement Model for settlement
2 Lacustrine NA NA Settl. Observation Platform 62
(1994) USA 16.77 66 determination magnitude prediction
Berthierville, Behavior prediction using 1-D FEM: elastic visco-

3 Yin et al. (2000) 4 Marine NA 2.5 x NA NA Piezometer - Settl. Gauge 32
CANADA constitutive model plasic model
Zdravkovic et al. Saint Alban, Settl. Gauges - Horizontal Assessment of anisotropic MIT-E3 anisotropic
4 12 Marine 8 to 45 4.6 x 28 Stage const. 14
(2002) CANADA markers nature of clay soil model
Abdul Aziz et al. University of Modified Cam-Clay

5 10 NA NA NA x 8 Stage const. - - 100% numerical analysis
(2005) Manchester, UK model
Settl. Cell - Inlinometer -
Stage const. + Elasto plastic model (Biot
Borges et al. Guiche, Piezometer - Differential strain Trial embank. use to predict
6 3 to 7 NA NA 4-8.75 x 23 Vertical Wick 75 theory and critical state
(2000) FRANCE mesurer - magnetic induction settl.
drain + Geogrid condition)
cell - Invar yarn
Controlled
Assessment of the Modeling using Plaxis FE-
7 Plomteux (2004) FRANCE 6 to 11 Alluvium 33 1 to7.5 x NA Modulus Columns - -
effectiveness of the CMC code
(CMC)
Assessment of constitutive
Bauduin et al. Streefkerk, Alluvial clay
8 NA 5 to 18 1.5 to 6.3 x NA Stage const. Piezometer - Settl. Gauge 115 model improvement through FE-code PLAXIS 7.1
(2004) NETHERLAND and peat
time
Barje, Marshland Assessment of settlement
9 Zvanut (2003) NA NA 9 x 180 Preloading - 43 -
SLOVENIA soft soil profiler
Sha Edeby, Assessment of constitutive
10 Neher et al. (2004) 15 NA NA 1.5 x 4 NA - - Soft Soil Creep model
SWEDEN models
Bergenstahl Askersund, Preloading with Horizontal hoses - Open Effect of preloading and
11 15 Silty clay NA NA 75 -
(1991) SWEDEN vertical drains system vertical drains
Assessment of a
Cudny et al. Haarajoki, Prefabricated Structural anisotropy and
12 18 to 20 Fat clay 14 to 30 3 x 100 - 46 multilaminate constitutive
(2003) FINLAND Vertical Drains destructuration model
model
Embank.: embankment
NA: Not Available ; Settl. : Settlement ; Const. : construction,
SS: Soft Soil,
MCC: Modified Cam-Clay
40
Table 2.10 Summary of embankment case studies throughout the world (Contd.).
Soft clay layer Embankment size Settleme

No References Location Type of clay Su (kPa) Method Instrumentation Objective Analysis
thickness (m) HxB (m x m) nt (cm)
MCC, S-CLAY1, S-
Wiltafsky et al Assessment of several
13 SCANDINAVIA NA NA NA 2 x 28 - - 100 - 240 CLAY1S, SS, SSC, MLC,
(2003) constitutive models
MLD and MMC model
Marine and Development of a new
14 Simmons (2000) Paradip, INDIA NA NA 5 to 8 x 44 Stage const. - - New developed model
alluvial settlement method prediction
Settl. plate - Inclinometer -
Rujikiatkamjorn Bangkok, PVD + Vacuum Trial embank. use to predict 2-D and 3-D FEM
15 10 Marine 5 to 18 2.5 to 4.25 x 40 Extensometer - Observation 74 - 96
et al. (2007) THAILAND preloading settl. Software (ABAQUS)
well - Piezometers
Bergado et al. Bangkok, PVD + Vacuum Trial embank. use to predict 1-D FEM Software (PVD-
16 10 Marine 5 to 18 2.5 to 4.25 x 40 Settl. Gauges - Piezometers 74 - 96
(2000) THAILAND preloading settl. SD)
Cao et al. Soil capacity investigation

17 SINGAPORE 22 - 1.5 to 7 1 to 4 x NA - Settl. Plates - Inclinometers 50 FE-code Sage Crisp
(2000) and Stability analysis
North-South Assessment of smear and

Indraratna et al. Stage const. +
18 Expressway 16.5 NA NA 4.74 x 86 - 120 well resistance effect on Modified Cam-clay model
(2000) Vertical drains
MALAYSIA PVD
Settl. plate - Inclinometer -
Hong Kong Marine & Effect of preloading and 3-D Elasto Visco Plastic
19 Zhu et al. (2000) 30 NA 20 x 50 PVD + preloading PVC settl. pipe - Sondex - 240
(CHINA) Alluvium vertical drains Model
Piezometers
Pusan Airport Stage const. +
Cancelli et al. Reducing differential settl.
20 road, SOUTH 10 to 20 NA 31 2 x 28 Vertical Wick - - Hardening soil model
(2000) by using geogrid
KOREA drain + Geogrid
Nakdong River, Classical method
Ihm and Masse Vacuum Accelerate the settlement
21 Pusan SOUTH 45 Alluvial clay NA NA - - considering the surcharge
(2000) preloading before construction
KOREA of the vacuum
New design methods:
Watanabe et al Stage const. +
22 JAPAN NA Alluvium 10 to 20 4 x NA - 5 - 10 normal-time and seismic Cam -Clay model
(2000) Preloading
cases
Low improvement
Assessment of the
23 Miki et al. (2004) JAPAN 20 Marine NA 8 x NA Ratio Deep - 60 - 250 Cam-clay model
effectiveness of the LiDM
Mixing (LiDM)
Constitutive model
Rouainia et al. Pacific Highway, Settlement prediction (MCC
24 8 Alluvial 22 to 58 3 to 5 x 54 NA NA 44 accounting for clay
(2005) AUSTRALIA model failure)
structure
Inclinometer - Piezometer -
Rankine et al. Queensland, Marine & Stage const. + Trial embank. : Performance (FLAC) coupled Biot
25 20 13.5 3.2 x 40 Profile gauge - Sondex settl. - 50 - 80
(2003) AUSTRALIA organic Vertical drains of vertical drains consolidation model
Earth cell - Strain gauge
SSC: Soft Soil Creep; MLC: Multilaminate Creep model; MLD: Multilaminate with Destructuration; MMC: Multilaminate Model for Clay; S-CLAY1: Plastic anisotropic model; S-CLAY1S: Plastic
anisotropic model with degradation of bonding; PVD: Prefabricated Vertical Drains.
41
2.6.4. Method of construction and instrumentation used
The following construction methods have been used and their effects have been
discussed in section 2.4:
- stage construction (for stability control)
- layer replacement
- preloading
- vertical drain, vertical wick drain, prefabricated vertical drains (PVD)
- vacuum preloading
- geogrid
- low improvement ratio deep mixing (LiDM)
- controlled modulus columns (CMC).
The preceding are the construction methods used individually or in combination
in the 25 reviewed cases. Some of the embankments were instrumented for monitoring
the behavior. The instruments used are as follows:
- Settlement observation platform, settlement rod, settlement gauge, profile
gauge and sondex settlement were used for vertical settlement measurement.
- Inclinometer was used for lateral displacement measurement.
- Piezometer and observation wells were used individually or in combination for
the excess pore water pressure evolution measurement.
- Earth cell is used for lateral pressure evolution monitoring.
From this instrumentation, the highest settlement reported was 250 cm (98.43 in)
in the case of Japan (case #23) without soil improvement; the lowest was 5 cm (1.97 in)
in the case of Japan (case #22) after combining stage construction and preloading.
42
2.6.5. Objective and analysis
In twenty-one out twenty-five case studies documented, the objectives were to
measure the settlement, to investigate the effectiveness of ground improvement, and to
validate the constitutive model with monitoring over time constitutive models, using
models ranging from the basic isotropic Cam-Clay model to the kinematics hardening
model (Rouainia et al. 2005).
A total of twenty-five embankment case studies have been documented. In
addition to the locations, type of soft clay soil and construction methods varied. Several
site instruments have been used to monitor the vertical settlement, the lateral
displacement, and the excess pore water pressure. In most of the case studies, the
measurements were modeled numerically.
43
3. SOFT SOILS & HIGHWAY EMBANKMENTS IN HOUSTON
3.1. Behavior of marine and deltaic soft clays
More and more construction projects are encountering soft clays, and, hence,
there is a need to better quantify the properties of soft clays. In this study, data from
many parts of the world are used to characterize the soft clays based on the type of
deposits. Physical, index, and strength properties for marine and deltaic soft clays were
determined using the soft soil database developed from the published data in the
literature. Physical, index, and strength properties for marine clay and deltaic clay were
investigated using the database developed for this study. Data were analyzed using
statistical methods (mean, standard deviation, variance, and probability density function),
and the undrained shear strength (Su) versus preconsolidation (σp) was verified. A new
strength relationship between undrained shear strength (Su) and in situ vertical stress (σv)
has been developed for the soft clays. Also, constitutive models used for soft soil
behavior prediction have been reviewed.
Soft clays are found in marine, lacustrine, deltaic, and coastal regions or as a
combination of deposits around the world. They are of relatively recent geological origin,
having been formed since the last phase of the Pleistocene, during the past 20,000 years.
In addition to the geological factors, salinity, temperature, and the type of clay have a
direct effect on the lithology of the soft clays. The behavior of soft soils has been studied
for well over four decades and there are several property relationships in the literature on
soft clays.
Bjerrum (1973) evaluated methods to determine the undrained shear strength of
soft clay soils. Based on the study, it was concluded that the laboratory triaxial tests on
44
undisturbed samples consolidated to in-situ effective stress better represented the strength
of the soft soil in different directions. It was also noted that the field vane test is the best
possible practical approach for determining the strength of undrained stability analysis. A
number of studies after Bjerrum (1973) have attempted to relate the undrained shear
strength of soil to the preconsolidation pressure (σp), in-situ vertical stress (σv), time-to-
failure, and plasticity index (PI). Since the early 1970s, a number of investigators have
studied the behavior of soft soils, and their properties have been documented in the
literature.
3.1.1. Soil correlations
Comprehensive characterization of soft soil at a particular site would require an
elaborate and costly testing program, generally limited by funding and time. Instead, the
design engineer must rely upon more limited soil information, and that is when
correlations become most useful. However, caution must always be exercised when using
broad, generalized correlations of index parameters or in-situ test results with soft soil
properties. The source, extent, and limitations of each correlation should be examined
carefully before use to ensure that extrapolation is not being done beyond the original
boundary conditions. In general, local calibrations, where available, are to be preferred
over broad, generalized correlations. In this study, information reported from various
locations around the world was used to develop statistical geotechnical properties and
correlations. In addition, some of the common correlations in the literature will be
verified with the data available. The correlations in the literature will be helpful in
identifying the important variable and in eliminating the others.
45
Soft soil is a complex engineering material which has been formed by a
combination of various geologic, environmental, and chemical processes. Because of
these natural processes, all soil properties in-situ will vary vertically and horizontally.
Recovering undisturbed soil samples is considered a challenge, and various methods are
being adopted around the world. Even under the most controlled laboratory test
conditions, soil properties will exhibit variability. The property variability is notable in
samples recovered from shallow depths, considered being the active zone. Although
property in situ condition correlations are important to better understanding the factors
influencing the behavior of soft clays, adequate precautions must be taken to verify the
relationships for more specific applications.
3.1.2. Objectives
The overall objective of this study was to investigate the general trends observed
in soft clay behavior from around the world. The specific objectives were as follows: (a)
to investigate the general property trends (signature features) observed for marine and
deltaic soft clay deposits; (b) to verify the relationships in the literature with additional
data; and (c) to identify the constitutive models used in modeling the stress-strain-time
behavior of soft soils.
3.1.3. Data base on soft soils
Soft clays are encountered around the world and the information in the literature
can be characterized based on the type of deposits. In general, the properties of the soft
soils will be influenced by the geology, mineralogy, geochemistry, and the lithology
46
(composition and soil texture) of the deposits. Although a number of physical and
chemical factors enter into the classifications of deposits, in the geotechnical literature,
classification is made according to the marine, lacustrine, coastal, or deltaic depositional
environments. Marine clays are the most investigated group of soft clays and are
generally characterized as homogenous deposits with flocculation of particles due to
salinity resulting in highly sensitive clays. Soft clay soils data from Japan (Ariake clay),
South Korea (Pusan clay), Norway (Drammen, Skoger Spare, Konnerud, and Scheitlies
clays), Canada (Eastern Canada clay), and the USA (Boston blue clay) are classified as
marine deposits. Properties of the soft soils collected from the literature are summarized
in Table 3.1. A total of 52 data has been collected on marine clays around the world. The
rate of deposition varied from 30 to 1600 cm/1,000 years and is compared to other
deposits in Fig. 3-2.
The soft soils from the Houston-Galveston area in Texas, U.S.A., are
characterized as deltaic deposits. The deltas of large rivers form a very active and very
complex sedimentation environment. Deltaic deposits are generally stratified in a random
manner with the interbedded coarse materials, organic debris, and shells. The
combination of a significant amount of solid material, topography, and current, along
with the interaction between fresh river water and salt seawater led to high rates of deltaic
deposits (Fig. 3-2).
Houston and Galveston, Texas, are on two Pleistocene terrace formations found
along the Gulf Coast, west of the Mississippi river and north of the Rio Grande, exposed
at the surface to about 100 km inland from the present coastline. The lower formation,
termed the upper Lissie formation, or the Montgomery formation (the latter designation
47
will be used here), was deposited on a gentle slope on an older Pleistocene formation
during the Sangamon Interglacial Stage by streams and rivers near the existing coast,
where numerous large and small rivers deltas developed. After deposition, the nearby sea
level was lowered during the first Wisconsin Glacial Stage, producing desiccation and
consolidation of the Montgomery soils, which consisted primarily of clays and silts. At
the beginning of the Peorian Interglacial Stage, as the glaciers were retreating, the sea
level returned to its previous level, producing a preconsolidation effect within the
Montgomery formation. At the same time, rivers and streams produced sedimentary
deposits on top of the slightly seaward-sloping Montgomery formation from the existing
coastline to about 60 km inland. The resulting new formation, primarily a fresh-water
deposit sloping toward the Gulf of Mexico, has characteristics typical of deltaic
environments, including point bar, natural levee, backswamp, and pro-delta deposits
within, beside, and at the termination of distributary channels. This formation is known as
the Beaumont formation in Texas. After deposition, the nearby Gulf of Mexico receded
by about 125 m once more during the late Wisconsin Glacial Stage, inducing desiccation
in the Beaumont and redesiccating the underlying Montgomery. Finally, with the
recession of the late Wisconsin glaciers, the sea level returned to its present level, leaving
both formations preconsolidated through desiccation. The rate of deposit was estimated to
be between 250-900 cm/1,000 years [Vipulanandan 2007]. A total of 97 data have been
collected from Houston and Galveston area deltaic soils, and the range of values are
summarized in Table 3.1.
48
Fig. 3-1 Locations of soft clay soils used for the analysis.
Table 3.1 Summary of soft soil data.

Wn WL PL PI Su σp eo
ANALYSIS References
(%) (%) (%) (%) (kPa) (kPa) (%)
MARINE CLAY (Number of data = 51)
RANGE 30 - 133 32 -121 19.4 - 33 12 - 50.5 1.8 - 25 7.5 - 248 80 -352
MEAN 73.6 64.2 24.3 35.2 17.5 74.5 195.2

Nagaraj & Miura (2001), Chung , Nagaraj &
Kwag (2002) , Shibuya & Tamrakar (1999),
STANDARD Nash, Sills, Davison, Powell & Lloyd (1992)
22.3 22.2 3.4 11.7 6.6 41.8 58.9
DEVIATION
COV (%) 30.3 34.6 13.8 33.2 37.9 56.1 30.2
DELTAIC CLAY : Houston_Galveston (Number of data = 97)
RANGE 13 - 59 24 - 93 8 - 35 8 - 61 7 - 25 - 34 - 156
MEAN 28.9 53.6 21.8 32.4 19.5 - 76.7

Vipulanandan et al (2006)
STANDARD
9.5 22.7 6.9 16.9 5.1 - 25.1
DEVIATION
COV (%) 32.8 42.4 31.6 52.2 26.2 - 32.7
49
4000
the deltaic deposition rate
Deposition rate (cm / 1000 years

Vipulanandan 2007 ends at 30000
Leroueil 1990
3000
2000
Houston &
Galveston
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4
MARINE COASTAL DELTAIC LACUSTRINE
TYPE OF CLAY
Fig. 3-2 Rate of sedimentation of different types of clay deposits (Leroueil 1990).
3.1.4. Statistical Properties
(a) Marine Clay
(i) Natural Moisture Content: The moisture content varied from 30% to 133% with a
mean of 73.6%, standard deviation of 22.3%, and coefficient of variation of 30.3%. This
coefficient of variation was the second lowest observed for the marine clay properties
being investigated in this study. This COV was in the typical range of value observed for
other marine clay properties. Of the probability distribution functions considered (Beta,
Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull),
Beta distribution has the least error based on 51 data.
(ii) Liquid Limit (LL): The liquid limit varied from 32% to 121% with a mean of 64.2%,
standard deviation of 22.2%, and coefficient of variation of 34.6%. The variability
observed in LL, based on COV, was similar to the moisture content. Of the probability
distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal,
50
Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Triangular distribution has the least error,
based on 50 data.
(iii) Plasticity Limit (PL): The plastic limit varied from 19.4% to 33% with a mean of
24.3% standard deviation of 3.4 and coefficient of variation of 13.8%. The variability
observed in PL, based on COV, was the lowest, indicating that it had the lowest
variability of all the other marine clay properties being investigated in this study. Of the
probability distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma,
Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Normal distribution has the least
error based on 13 data.
(iv) Plasticity Index (PI): The plasticity index varied from 12% to 50.5%, with a mean
of 35.2%, a standard deviation of 11.7%, and a coefficient of variation of 33.2%. Of the
Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Beta distribution has the least
error, based on 13 data.
(vi) Undrained Shear Strength (Su): The undrained shear strength varied from 1.8 kPa
to 25 kPa, with a mean of 17.5 kPa, a standard deviation of 6.6 kPa, and a coefficient of
variation of 37.7%. The COV was in the same range as the LL, typical for the marine
clay. Of the probability distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential,
Gamma, Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Beta distribution has
the least error, based on 51 data.
(ii) Undrained Shear Strength-to-In situ Stress Ratio (Su/σv): The undrained shear
strength-to-in situ stress ratio varied from 0.08 to 1.39, with a mean of 0.52, a standard
deviation of 0.27, and a coefficient of variation of 51.9%. Of the probability distribution
51
functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal, Normal,
Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), lognormal distribution has the least error, based on 49
data.
(vi) Preconsolidation Pressure (σp): The preconsolidaton pressure varied from 7.5 kPa
to 248 kPa with a mean of 74.5, a standard deviation of 41.8, and a coefficient of
variation of 1.78. Of the probability distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang,
Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Weibull
distribution has the least error, based on 51 data.
(vii) Undrained Shear Strength-to-Preconsolidation Pressure Ratio (Su/σp): The
Undrained Shear Strength-to-Preconsolidation Pressure Ratio varied from 0.06 to 0.47,
with a mean of 0.26, a standard deviation of 0.08, and a coefficient of variation of 30.8%.
Of the probability distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma,
(viii) Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR): The overconsolidation ratio varied from 1 to 4,
with a mean of 2.01, a standard deviation of 0.89, and a coefficient of variation of 44.3%.
Of the probability distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma,
(ix) Void ratio: The void ratio varied from 80% to 352%, with a mean of 195.2%, a
standard deviation of 58.9%, and a coefficient of variation of 30.2%. The COV was in the
same range of several other parameters for the marine clay. Of the probability distribution
52
Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Normal distribution has the least error, based on 51
data.
(x) Undrained Shear Strength-to-Void ratio (Su/eo): Undrained shear strength-to-void
ratio varied from 0.68 to 24.51, with a mean of 10.10, a standard deviation of 5.20, and a
coefficient of variation of 51.5%. Of the probability distribution functions considered
(Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and
Weibull), Normal distribution has the least error based on 51 data.
(b) Deltaic Clay
(i) Natural Moisture Content. The moisture content varied from 13% to 59%, with a
mean of 28.9%, a standard deviation of 9.5%, and a coefficient of variation of 32.8%.
The probability distribution function was normal based on 97 data. Based on the mean
and range of moisture contents, the moisture content in the deltaic soils were less than
half that of marine clays. Based on variance, the marine clay had a more than 600%
higher variance than did deltaic clay. This large variance could partly be due to the fact
that the marine clay data was gathered from three continents, as compared to the deltaic,
which was from one location. Of the probability distribution functions considered (Beta,
Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull),
Beta distribution has the least error, based on 97 data.
(ii) Liquid Limit. The liquid limit varied from 24% to 93%, with a mean of 53.6%, a
standard deviation of 22.7%, and a coefficient of variation of 2.36%. Of the probability
distribution functions considered, (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal,
53
Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Beta distribution has the least error based
on 97 data.
(iii) Plastic Limit. The plastic limit varied from 8 to 35, with a mean of 21.8, a standard
Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Weibull distribution has the least error, based on 97
data.
(iv) Plasticity Index. The plasticity index varied from 8 to 61, with a mean of 32.4, a
standard deviation of 16.9, and a coefficient of variation of 52.2%. Of the probability
distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal,
Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Beta distribution has the least error, based
on 97 data.
(vi) Undrained Shear Strength. The undrained shear strength varied from 7kPa to
25kPa, with a mean of 19.5, a standard deviation of 5.1, and a coefficient of variation of
326.2%. Of the probability distribution functions considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential,
Gamma, Lognormal, Normal, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull), Beta distribution has
the least error, based on 97 data.
(ii) Undrained Shear Strength-to-In situ Stress Ratio (Su/σv): The Undrained Shear
Strength-to-In situ Stress Ratio varied from 0.05 to 3.12, with a mean of 0.42, a standard
functions considered, (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal, Normal,
Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull). Beta distribution has the least error, based on 97 data.
54
(iii) Void ratio (eo): The moisture content varied from 34% to 156%, with a mean of
76.7, a standard deviation of 25.1, and a coefficient of variation of 32.7%. Of the
(iv) Undrained Shear Strength-to-Void ratio (Su/eo): The Undrained Shear Strength-to-
Void ratio varied from 4.41 to 56.91, with a mean of 28.63, a standard deviation of 11.80,
and a coefficient of variation of 41.2%. Of the probability distribution functions
considered (Beta, Erlang, Exponential, Gamma, Lognormal, Normal, Triangular,
Uniform, and Weibull), Beta distribution has the least error, based on 97 data.
a.) Marine: Beta distribution b.) Deltaic: Beta distribution

Fig. 3-3 Probability distribution function for the undrained shear strength (a) marine clay and (b) deltaic
clay.
Based on the variance, marine clay showed greater variation in natural moisture
content (wn), undrained shear strength (Su), and void ratio (eo), compared to the deltaic
deposit. Similarly, deltaic deposit showed greater variation in plasticity limit and
plasticity index, compared to the marine clay.
Based on COV, the deltaic clay properties had higher values than marine clay,
except for the undrained shear strength. It is of interest to note that the natural moisture
content and void ratio had similar values for marine and deltaic deposits.
55
3.1.5. Property Correlations
(i) LL versus Natural Moisture Content
Marine Clay: For 52.9% of the marine clays, the natural moisture content was higher
than the liquid limit, indicating the sensitive nature of the clay (Fig. 3-4 (a)). The mean of
the moisture content was 73.6%, compared to the mean of the liquid limit of 64.2%. The
coefficient of variations for the moisture content and liquid limits was 30.2% and 34.6%,
respectively, indicating similar variability in the two measured parameters.
Deltaic Clay: For 97.9% of the deltaic clays, the natural moisture content was lower than
the liquid limit, opposite of what was observed for the marine clay (Fig. 3-4 (b)). The
mean of the moisture content was 28.9%, compared to the mean of the liquid limit of
53.6%. The coefficient of variations for the moisture content and liquid limits was 32.8%
and 42.4%, respectively. Based on COV and standard deviation, the variability in the
liquid limit was higher than the moisture content.
140 100
Wn = LL N = 97
120 N = 51 Wn = LL
80
L iq u id L im it (% )
100
L iquid L im it (% )
80 60
60
40
40
20
20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100
Natural water content Wn (%) Natural water content Wn (%)
(a) Marine clay (b) Deltaic clay

Fig. 3-4 Liquid limit versus natural water content for the soft clays (a) Marine Clay , (b) Deltaic Clay.
56
(ii) Plasticity Index Chart
70
Bangkok (Sutthisan station)
60 Houston - Galveston
Plasticity Index (%)

50
40
30 Bothkennar (UK)
20
10 South Korea (Pusan at Gaduko)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Limit (%)
Fig. 3-5 Plasticity chart of deltaic (42 data) and marine soft clay soils.
Marine Clay: The Bangkok and Bothkennar (UK) clays were predominantly CH soils, as
shown in Fig. 3-5. Bangkok clay showed greater variation in the index properties than
Bothkennar (UK) clay. South Korean clay was CL.
Deltaic Clay: Both CH and CL clays are present in the deltaic deposits in the Houston-
Galveston area. Compared to the marine clay, the deltaic clays showed the greatest
variation in the in the index properties.
(iii) Undrained Shear Strength versus In-situ Stress
Based on the inspection of the undrained shear strength (Su) and in-situ vertical
stress (σv) relationships for the marine clays, the following conditions must be satisfied in
developing the mathematical relationship. When σv > 0
57
100
U n d ra in ed sh ea r stren g th , S u (k P a)
100
U ndra ined shea r streng th Su (kP a )

N = 49 N = 95
10 10
1 1
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
0 100 200 300 400 500
Vertical pressure σv (kPa) Vertical pressure σv (kPa)
(a) Marine clay σv (b) Deltaic clay log S = σv

log Su =
2.293+ 0.7677σ v 2 + 0.7153σ v
u
140
400
N = 49 N = 95
120 350
y = 0.7677x + 2.293
100 2
300
R = 0.9199
σ v / log S u
σ v / log Su
250
80
200
60
150
40
100
20
50
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Vertical pressure σ v (kPa) Vertical pressure σv (kPa)
(c) Marine clay (d) Deltaic clay
Fig. 3-6 Predicted and measured relationships for marine and deltaic clays.
d log S u d 2 log S u
>0 3-1, <0. 3-2
dσ v dσ v 2
In this study, the soft clay undrained shear strength was limited to 25 kPa even if the
vertical stress increased indefinitely.
d log S u
When σv ⎯
⎯→ ∞ , =0 . 3-3
dσ v
58
Also, when σ v ⎯
⎯→ ∞ , Su ⎯
⎯→ 25 kPa.
One mathematical relationship that will satisfy these conditions is the two-parameter
hyperbolic equation, which can be represented as follows
σv
log Su = . 3-4
A + Bσ v
When the vertical overburden stress (σv) tends to infinity, the undrained shear stress
reaches its theoretical maximum (logSu ult), and it will be related to parameter B as
follows:
logSu ult = 1/B with Su ult = 25 kPa.
One-way to verify the applicability of Equation 3-4 to the log Su-vertical stress
(σv) data is to rearrange the equation to represent a linear relationship as follows:
σv / logSu = A + B σv . 3-5
If the data can be represented by a linear relationship (Eqn. 3-5) within an
acceptable limit (high coefficient of correlation), then it can be stated that the load-
displacement relationship is hyperbolic. Parameters A and B can be obtained from the
linear relationship. Fig. 3-6 (c) and (d) show the typical plot of σv / logSu versus σv for
the marine and deltaic clays.
Marine Clay: Of the two types of deposits investigated, the hyperbolic relationship
better represented the marine clay. The parameters AM and BM for the marine clay were
2.293 and 0.7677, respectively, with a coefficient of correlation of 0.9199.
Deltaic Clay: The parameters AD and BD for the deltaic clay were 2 and 0.7153,
respectively.
59
(iii) Undrained Shear Strength versus Preconsolidation pressure (σp)
35
Undrained shear strength Su (kPa)

N = 47
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Preconsolidation pressure σp (kPa)
Fig. 3-7 Relationship between undrained shear strength (Su) and preconsolidation pressure (σp).
Marine Clay: Based on over 50 data collected from the literature the relation between Su
and σp was linear, as presented in the literature. The Su/σp ratio was 0.27, with a
coefficient of correlation (R) of 0.82. The Su/σp ratio proposed by Mesri (1988) was 0.22.
Based on the data available in the literature on soft marine and deltaic clays,
properties and correlations were investigated. Based on the data collected and analyses,
the following conclusions can be advanced:
1. Several mean properties of the marine and deltaic clays have been quantified.
Mean physical (moisture content, void ratio) and geotechnical properties (liquid
limit, plastic limit) of marine clays were higher than those of deltaic soft clays.
The mean undrained shear strength of the two deposits was comparable. The
natural moisture content of over 52% of the marine clays was higher than the
liquid limit, but the trend was reversed for the deltaic clays.
60
2. Based on the variance, marine clay showed greater variation in natural moisture
content (wo), undrained shear strength (Su), and void ratio (eo), compared to the
deltaic deposit. Similarly, deltaic deposit showed greater variation in plasticity
limit and plasticity index (limited data), compared to the marine clay.
3. Based on COV, the deltaic clay properties had higher values than marine clay,
except for the undrained shear strength. It is of interest to note that the natural
moisture content and void ratio had similar values for marine and deltaic deposits.
Variation in the properties of deltaic clays was higher than the marine clays. Also,
the probability distribution functions (pdf) for the various properties have been
determined. The pdf for the marine and deltaic clays were similar.
4. A hyperbolic relationship was used to represent the variation of in-situ vertical
stress and logarithmic undrained shear strength of the soft marine and deltaic
clays. This relationship better represented the marine clay as compared to the
deltaic clay.
61
3.2. Highway embankments
In the great Houston area, Texas, embankments are used in road construction.
And as a coastal city, Houston soil formation is deltaic (O’Neill et al. 1995): an
alternation of clay, silty clay (very soft, soft, medium, and stiff), silt, and sand layers in
the top 100 ft, leading to a big scatter in the soil parameters with depth (Vipulanandan et
al. 2007). The soft soil is especially the cause of settlement of heavy structures. Four
embankments have been documented in the Houston area and are object of this study.
Current practice used by TxDOT to estimate the consolidation settlement
magnitudes and settlement rates involves the following:
- subsurface investigations to recover undisturbed samples using Shelby tubes
- incremental load (IL) consolidation test in the laboratory
- estimation of the settlements, based on the consolidation tests.
3.2.1. Location and clay soil types
All four embankments documented are highway embankments located in the
Houston area, with its deltaic soil formation (Fig. 3-8 and Table 3.2).
2
1
3
4
Fig. 3-8 Houston area with the four reported embankments.
62
Table 3.2 Summary of the four reported embankments in Houston.
Ground
Average soft clay Type of Embankment size Settlement
No References Status Location Su (psi) Improvemen Instrumentation Objective Analysis
layer thickness (ft) deposit HxB (ft x ft) estimation (in)
t
IH 10 at SH99
TxDOT Project
Eastside 2.85 to Limit the settlement by using
1A No. 0508-02-101 NEW 20 to 35 Deltaic 12 x 120 Stone column NONE 3.69 Classical method
Boring s 99-1a & 15.15 stone column
(2002)
99-8a
TxDOT Project IH 10 at SH99
6.15 to Limit the settlement by using
1B No. 0508-02-101 NEW Westside 35 Deltaic 9 to 24 x 120 NA NONE 5.27 to 8.99 Classical method
9.05 stone column
(2002) Boring 99-1a
TxDOT Project
US 90 at Oates 27.5 to 28 x
2 No. 0028-02-081 NEW 47.5 to 58.25 Deltaic - NA NONE 7.37 to 9.42 NOT SPECIFIED Classical method
Rd. 220 to 234
(2006)
TxDOT Project Late instrumentation : Demec Assessment of the present
Completed in SH3
3 No. 0051-03-069 30 Deltaic 3 to 13.8 10.5 x 108 NA points, Inclinometer, 8.21 movement of the embank. Classical method
1993 Clear Creek
(1993) piezometer and extensometer and retaining wall.
TxDOT Project NASA Rd1: Late instrumentation :

Completed in Assessment of the present
4 No. 0981-01-104 from Annapolis 65 Deltaic 20 x 60 NA piezometer, settl. Sondex and 37.87 Classical method
2005 movement of the embank.
(2005) to Taylor Lake extensometer
63
3.2.1. Embankment dimensions
The embankment size was specified by the total height (H in feet) and the total
width of the base (B in feet). The highest is 28 ft (8.5 m), with 280 ft (85.3 m) for the
width (case 2, US 90 at Oates Rd. – East embankment), and the smallest height is 9 ft
(2.7 m), with a width of 120 ft (36.6 m) (case 2, US 90 at Oates Rd. – West
H
embankment). The ratio of the height to width ( ) of the embankments ranges from
W
0.09 to 0.20. These embankments can be classified into two types:
- type 1: H ≤ 15 ft, and W is about 120 ft
- type 2: 15 ft ≤ H ≤ 30ft, and W about 240 ft.
The remaining are special cases, being a combination of embankment and bridge (case
No. 4 Table 3.2).
3.2.2. Methods of construction and Instrumentation used
Stone columns were the only special method of construction recorded. Their
purpose was to increase the stiffness of the soil, and, consequently, to reduce the
settlement to an allowable range to the structure.
Site instrumentation included the following:
- SH3 at Clear Creek embankment was recently instrumented with demec points,
inclinometers, piezometers, and extensometers to assess the embankment
settlement and the retaining wall movement. This was discussed in chapter 5.
- NASA Rd. 1 from Annapolis to the Taylor Lake embankment was also
instrumented with extensometers, piezometers, and settlement sondex for its
settlement monitoring and was also discussed in chapter 5.
64
3.2.3. Objective and analysis
The objective is to review Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) method
of embankments settlement and rate of settlement estimation.
3.2.4. Project No 1A
At the time of review of the data (August 2006), the project was still not under
construction. The designed embankment height was 12 ft, and the base width (W) was
H
120 ft. The ratio was 0.10. Several borings were done on site to collect the
W
geotechnical information. Two soil samples from one boring (99-1a) were used for the
consolidation tests.
• Field tests
The Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) test was performed at several locations, and
the information was used to determine the consistency of the soil. Since TCP tests are
performed at 5 feet intervals, the soil consistency thickness can be determined to an
accuracy of 5 feet. The variation of blow count in boring 99-1a up to 55 ft is shown in Fig
3-9. Based on boring 99-1a, the soft clay (CH) layer thickness was about 35 ft deep (NTCP
≤ 20). The water table was at a depth of 6.5 ft.
65
Blow counts / foot
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
10
Soft clay
20 (NT CP ≤ 20)
Depth (ft)
30
40
50
60
Fig. 3-9 TCP blow counts vs. depth at boring 99-1a.
Table 3.3 Laboratory test and field tests results (boring 99-1a).
Depth Su
TCP Soil type LL (%) PI (%) MC (%)
(ft) (psi)
5 CH 7.65 53 36 20
10 12 CH 6.15 58 38 25
15 18 CH 3.75 78 54 29
20 18 82 28
25 11 CH 5.35 71 50 27
30 12 9.05 76 26
35 13 CH 63 39 31
40 24 29 25
45 49 CL 44 26 25
50 11.7 54 21
55 21
• Laboratory tests
Consolidation (IL), moisture content, Atterberg’s limits, and triaxial unconfined
compression tests were performed with the soil samples from boring 99-1a. The test
results are summarized in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4.
66
Soil type: Based on the index property tests (Table 3.3), the top 5 to 35 ft was CH
clay soil, and below it was CL soil. Also, the moisture content varied from 20% to 30%,
as shown in Fig. 3-10 a.). The largest change in moisture content was observed at a depth
of 35 ft. The change of moisture content with change in depth (ΔMC/Δz) versus depth
(z) is shown in Fig. 3-10 b.), and the values varied from -1.2 to 1. The highest change
was observed between 35 and 40 ft (representing a change in moisture content of 6 %),
and also represented the transition from soft CH to CL clay soil.
The undrained shear strength obtained from the unconfined compression test
varied between 3.75 and 9.05 psi in the top 30 ft of soft CH clay, as shown in Fig. 3.11.
Moisture Content (%) ΔMC /Δz (%/ft)

0 10 20 30 40 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0 0
10 10
20 20
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
30 30
40 40
50 50
60
60
a.) b.)
Fig. 3-10 a.) Moisture Content (MC) vs. depth (z) and b.) Change of Moisture content with change in
depth (ΔMC/Δz) vs. depth (z).
67
Su (psi)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
10
20
Depth (ft)
30
40
50
60
Fig. 3-11 Undrained shear strength vs. depth at boring 99-1a.
• Consolidation properties
The consolidation parameters, summarized in Table 3.4, were obtained from the
standards incremental load consolidation test using samples from borings 99-1a. The two
consolidation tests were done on samples collected from depths of 5 ft and 25 ft.
Table 3.4 Summary of consolidation parameters used for the settlement estimation.
Settlement parameters
TxDOT
Layers
Depth Cv σp σo Δσ σo +Δσ
(ft)
height Cc Cr eo Av
( in2/day) (psf) (psf)
OCR
(psf) (psf)
(ft)
1.50 3 0.174 0.06 0.57 1.06 3800 200 19.0 1672 1872
6.50 7 0.174 0.06 0.57 1.06 3800 607 6.3 1650 2257
14.50 9 0.174 0.06 0.57 1.02 3800 1107 3.4 1613 2720
23.50 9 0.180 0.04 0.70 1.02 5000 1671 3.0 1562 3233
32.50 9 0.180 0.04 0.70 1.02 5000 2234 2.2 1597 3831
• Stress Dependency Phenomena (Cc, Cr)
The stress dependency of the compression and of recompression indices was
investigated based on the data available. The samples were loaded to 16 tsf and unloaded
to 0.25 tsf. The slope (-de /dlogσ’) was determined for each load increment (Fig. 3-12).
68
For the sample collected at 5 ft (above the ground water table), the compression
index, along the loading path, varied from 0.010 to 0.083 when the applied load was
increased from 0.25 tsf to 2 tsf and from 0.083 to 0.166 when the applied stress was
increased from 2 tsf to 16 tsf. When unloading, the recompression index (Cr) varied from
0.048 to 0.058 when the applied load varied from 4 tsf to 0.25 tsf. Cr increased with the
reduction of the stress (Fig. 3-12 a.).
For the sample collected at 25 ft (below the ground water table), the compression
index, along the loading path, varied from 0.0233 to 0.075 when the applied load was
increased from 0.25 tsf to 2.5 tsf and from 0.075 to 0.179 when the applied stress was
increased from 2.5 tsf to 16 tsf. When unloading, the recompression index (Cr) varied
from 0.0068 to 0.045 when the applied load varied from 4 tsf to 0.25 tsf. Cr decreased
with the reduction of the stress (Fig. 3-12 a.).
0.58 0.20
e o = 0.57
σ p = 1.9 tsf
0.54 C c = 0.174 0.16
C r = 0.058 Cc
Void ratio e
C r /C c = 0.333
0.50 0.12
Cc & Cr
Cr
0.46 0.08
0.42 0.04
σp
0.38 0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Vertical effective stress σ' (tsf) Vertical effective stress σ (tsf)
a.) IH10 at SH99 boring 99-1a at 5ft
69
0.7 0.20
e o = .694
σ p = 2.5 tsf
0.66 C c = 0.180 0.16 Cc
C r = 0.043
Void ratio e
C r /C c = 0.239
Cr
0.62 0.12
&
Cc
0.58 0.08 Cr
0.54 0.04
σp
0.5 0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Vertical effective stress σ' (tsf) Vertical effective stress σ' (tsf)
d.) IH10 at SH99 boring 99-1a at 25ft
Fig. 3-12 e – log σ’ of the two consolidation tests performed by TxDOT for 1A embankment design and
their respective compression and recompression index versus log σ’ curves.
• Stress Increase due to embankment loading
H (ft)
CH 3
W.T. 6.5 ft
CH 7
Δσ CH 9
CH 9
CH 9
CL
Fig. 3-13 Profile of the soil layers for settlement calculation.
70
The stress increase in the soil mass due to the embankment loading (Δσ), Fig.
3-13, calculated by TxDOT, is compared with values obtained using Osterberg and 2 to 1
methods, Table 3.5 and Fig. 3-14.
Table 3.5 Summary table of the stress increase in the soil mass.
TxDOT Osterberg method 2 to 1 method

Depth Layers σp σo Δσ σo +Δσ Δσ σo +Δσ Δσ σo +Δσ
OCR
(ft) height (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf)
1.50 3 3800 200 19.0 1672 1872 1680 1880 1659 1859
6.50 7 3800 607 6.3 1650 2257 1680 2287 1594 2201
14.50 9 3800 1107 3.4 1613 2720 1667 2774 1499 2606
23.50 9 5000 1671 3.0 1562 3233 1631 3302 1405 3076
32.50 9 5000 2234 2.2 1597 3831 1573 3807 1322 3556
As was observed in Fig. 3-14, the ratio of TxDOT stress increase values by the
Osterberg’s values ranged from 1 to 0.96, but the ratio obtained the with 2 to 1 method
ranged from 1.01 to 1.21. The TxDOT method, which was a specified Modified
Boussinessq method, is actually the Osterberg’s stress increase calculation method.
Stress increase Δσ (psf)

0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
TxDOT
10 Osterberg
2 to 1
Depth (ft)
20
30
40
Fig. 3-14 Comparison of stress increase obtained using Osterberg, 2 to 1 method, and TxDOT methods.
71
• Total settlement
Based on the information provided, the TxDOT settlement estimation was 6.10
inches for total primary settlement.
UH Check: In all the layers, the total stress (Δσ’ + σ’o) was less than the preconsolidation
pressure (σp). Therefore, the recompression index (Cr) was the governing parameter for
the total primary settlement Sp,
CrH ⎛ σ ' + Δσ ' ⎞

Sp = log ⎜ 0 ⎟.
1 + e0 ⎜ σ' ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠
Using Osterberg’s stress increase results (Table 3.5), the following result was obtained:
0.06 x3 ⎛ 1880 ⎞
Layer 1: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.1116 ft
1 + 0.57 ⎝ 200 ⎠
0.06 x7 ⎛ 2287 ⎞
Layer 2: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.1541 ft
1 + 0.57 ⎝ 607 ⎠
0.06 x9 ⎛ 2774 ⎞
Layer 3: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.1372 ft
1 + 0.57 ⎝ 1107 ⎠
0.04 x9 ⎛ 3302 ⎞
Layer 4: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0626 ft
1 + 0.70 ⎝ 1671 ⎠
0.04 x9 ⎛ 3807 ⎞
Layer 5: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0490 ft .
1 + 0.70 ⎝ 2234 ⎠
Hence the total primary settlement was
Sp = 0.1116 + 0.1541+ 0.1372 + 0.0626 + 0.0490 = 0.5145 ft = 6.17 inches.
The difference between UH and TxDOT estimations was 0.07 inch. It must be
noticed that for the consolidation parameters defined in Chapter 4 (Cr1, Cr2, and Cr3), C r3
was used in the calculation instead of Cr1 since no data were available.
72
• Rate of settlement
TxDOT
TxDOT rate of settlement estimation, using Cv values in Table 3.4, predicted a
settlement of 4.24 inches after 48 months, which represented 69.47 % of the total primary
settlement (6.10 inches). This result was obtained by considering the following drainage
condition for each layer:
- layer 1 had two drainage surfaces: top and bottom boundaries
- layer 2 had two drainage surfaces: top and bottom boundaries
- layer 3 had one drainage surface: top or bottom boundaries
- layer 4 had one drainage surface: top or bottom boundaries
- layer 5 had two drainage surfaces: top and bottom boundaries.
The rate of settlement was then calculated for each layer, and for a specific time
(48 months in this case) the total settlement was the sum of the settlements of all layers.
Calculation
48 months = 48 x 30 days
The time factor as defined in Chapter 2 is given by
cv t
Tv = .
2
H dr
The average degree of consolidation is given by the following equation (Das
2006)
U% (4Tv / π )0.5
=
[ ]
. 3-1
2.8 0.179
1 + (4Tv / π )
100
73
1.06 (48 x30 )
Layer 1 Tv = = 4.71 ⎯⎯→ U% = 99.67
(1.5 x12 )
2
1.06 (48 x30 )

Layer 2 Tv = = 0.865 ⎯⎯→ U% = 90.34
(3.5 x12 )2
1.02(48 x30 )
Layer 3 Tv = = 0.126 ⎯⎯→ U% = 40.01
(9 x12 )2
1.02(48 x30 )
Layer 4 Tv = = 0.126 ⎯⎯→ U% = 40.01
(9 x12 )2
1.02(48 x30 )
Layer 5 Tv = = 0.504 ⎯⎯→ U% = 76.55.
(4.5 x12 )2
Consequently the total settlement Sp48 after 48 months was
Sp48 = (0.9967 x 0.1116) + (0.9034 x 0.1541) + (0.1372 x 0.4001) + (0.0626 x
0.4001) + (0.0490 x 0.7655)
= 0.3677 ft
= 4.41 inches.
The difference of 0.17 inch with the TxDOT result (4.24 inches) is due to the
approximation of the average degree of consolidation (U%).
One layer consideration
Method 1
Considering 2 drainages surfaces (top and bottom), the primary settlement
reached after 48 months can be calculated using the following procedure:
Weighted average of the coefficient of consolidation
74
∑ Cvi H i (12 x10 x1.06 ) + (12 x 27 x1.02 )
Cv = = = 1.031 in 2 / day
∑ Hi 12 x37
cv t 1.031(48 x30 )
Tv = = = 0.0301 ⎯⎯→ U % = 19.58 .
2
H dr (18.5 x12 )2
Sp48 = 0.1958 x 6.17 = 1.21 inches.
Based on this approach, the settlement after 48 months will be 1.21 inches,
representing 20% of the total primary settlement.
Method 2
Considering 2 drainages surfaces (top and bottom), the necessary time to reach
69.47% of primary settlement can be calculated using the following procedure.
Cv =
∑ C vi H i = (12 x10 x1.06 ) + (12 x 27 x1.02 ) = 1.031 in 2 / day .
∑ Hi 12 x37
Tv =
(π / 4 )(U % / 100 )2 3-2
[ ]
.
0.357
1 − (U % / 100 )5.6
With U% = 69.47%, Tv = 0.398
T H2 0.398 (18.5 x12 )2

t = v dr = = 19 ,025 day = 634 months = 53 years.
Cv 1.031
This result of 634 months was more than 13 times the time (48 months) estimated
by the TxDOT method (Fig. 3-15).
75
Time ( years)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
1 layer
1 5 layers
Settlement (in)
2
1 layer
consideration
3
4 TxDOT
5
Fig. 3-15 Comparison of the rate of settlement by various methods of estimation.
Comments on the settlement prediction
- Since the applied load on the soft soil was less than the preconsolidation
pressure, the slope of the unloading section of the e –logσ’ curve(Cr) was used
for estimating the settlement. It must be noted that the recompression index
varied with the applied stress.
- The TxDOT method used layers of soft soils to estimate the time of
settlement. This underestimated the time of settlement.
76
3.2.5. Project No 2
At the time of review of the data (August 2006), the project was still not under
construction. The designed embankment height (H) was 22.7 ft and the base width (W)
H
was 220 ft. The ratio was 0.125. Four borings were done up to a depth of 80 ft to
W
collect the geotechnical information. Four samples were used for the consolidation tests.
• Field tests
The Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) test was performed at several locations to
determine the soil layers’ strength and to identify the soft soil (Table 3.6, Table 3.7,
Table 3.8, and Table 3.9). TCP tests are performed at 5 feet intervals; consequently, the
soil consistency thickness can be determined to an accuracy of 5 feet. Especially the TCP
tests of borings O-1, O-4, O5 and O-6 at 80 ft were used for this embankment. The
variations of blow counts in these borings are shown in Fig. 3-16. Based on this borings
TCP profile, the soft clay layer thickness was about 30 ft deep (TCP ≤ 20). The water
table was located at a depth of 15 ft.
Blow counts / foot

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
10 O-1
O-4
20
O-5
30 O-6
Depth (ft)
40
50
60
70
80
Fig. 3-16 TCP blow counts vs. depth at boring 99-1a.
77
Table 3.6 Laboratory and field tests results (boring O-1).
Depth Su
TCP Type LL (%) PI (%) MC (%)
(ft) (psi)
5 11 CH 12.30 60 42 18
10 17 CL 6.15 21
15 23 CL 3.75 32 22
20 16 CL 14.88 23
25 26 CL 18.95 45 31 17
30 29 CH 10.90 67 42 28
35 27 CH 12.30 26
40 27 CH 17.05 27
45 30 CH 9.75 35
50 27 CH 83 34
55 39 CL 11.00 33 21
60 66 CL 16
65 CL 34.10 16
70 SAND
75 70 SAND
80 100
Depth Su
(ft) (psi)
5 10 CH 6.90 69 51 20
10 9 CL 2.90
15 11 CL 27 19
20 16 CL 8.35 19
25 15 CL 8.20 27 17
30 15 CH 19.85 17
35 42 CH 14.75 25
40 27 CH 10.65 70 47 29
45 29 CH 27
50 16 CL 8.90 33 19
55 80 SC 21
60 90 CL 27.95 45 30 18
65 51 CL 22.90 38 17
70 46 CL 22 19
75 75 CL 19 22
80
78
Depth Su
(ft) (psi)
0 CL
5 9 CH 7.00 22
10 8 CH 4.10 26
15 12 CL 5.63 45 23
20 12 CL 6.65 19
25 8 CL 9.25 23 19
30 32 CL 14
35 22 CL 11.73 22
40 42 CH 25.70 18
45 30 CH 23.33 75 49 26
50 14 CH 81 31
55 29 CH 14.45 80 31
60 26 CH 18.85 81 54 33
65 46 SC 22 7 21
70 34 SC 18
75 57 CH 60 25
80
Depth Su
(ft) (psi)
5 21 CH 7.50 64 23
10 7 CH 2.85 28
15 8 CH 4.65 52 29
20 27 CL 13.30 39 24 24
25 26 CL 12.65 25 28
30 39 CL 40 26 21
35 29 CL 11.00 37 17
40 28 CH 13.30 64 23
79
Incremental load consolidation, moisture content, Atterberg’s limits and triaxial
unconfined compression tests were performed with the samples from the four borings.
The results are summarized in (Table 3.6, Table 3.7, Table 3.8 and Table 3.9).
Soil type: Based on the index property tests, the top 5 to 25 ft is mainly CL clay
over a 25 ft-deep layer of CH clay. Also, the moisture content variation shown in Fig.
3-17 a.) fluctuated between 15 and 35%. The largest change in moisture content was
observed at a depth of 55 ft in boring O-1. The change in moisture content with change in
depth (ΔMC/Δz) versus depth (z), Fig. 3-17 b.) values ranged from -2.7 to 2.1, with the
highest change between 50 and 55 ft in boring O-1, representing a change in moisture
content of -14 %, and is the transition point between CH and CL clay soil.
varied between 2.90 and 25.70 psi in the top 50 ft clay soil, as shown in Fig. 3-18.
Moisture Content (%) ΔMC / Δ z

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0
O-1
10 O-4 10
O-5
20 20
O-6
30 30 O-1
D e p th (ft)
Depth (ft)
O-4
40 40
O-5
50 50 O-6
60 60
70 70
80 80
a.) b.)
80
Su (psi)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
O-1
10 O-4
O-5
20 O-6
30
Depth (ft)
40
50
60
70
80
Fig. 3-18 Undrained shear strength vs. depth for the four borings.
Table 3.10 Summary table of consolidation parameters used for the settlement estimation.
TxDOT
Layers
Depth Cv σp σo Δσ σo +Δσ
(ft)
height Cc Cr eo 2
( in /day)
Av
(psf) (psf)
OCR
(psf) (psf)
(ft)
2.5 5.0 0.279 0.021 0.75 0.5 4600 313 14.7 3540 3853
7.5 5.0 0.202 0.021 0.68 1.6 3400 938 3.6 3540 4478
12.5 5.0 0.202 0.021 0.68 1.6 3400 1407 2.4 3538 4945
18.8 7.5 0.138 0.008 0.69 1.0 4400 1798 2.4 3533 5331
26.3 7.5 0.138 0.008 0.69 1.0 4400 2267 1.9 3521 5788
33.5 7.0 0.155 0.036 0.56 0.7 6600 2721 2.4 3502 6223
40.5 7.0 0.155 0.036 0.56 0.7 6600 3159 2.1 3476 6635
47.5 7.0 0.155 0.036 0.56 0.7 6600 3598 1.8 3442 7040
standards incremental load consolidation test using samples from the borings. A total of
four IL consolidation tests were performed.
81
The e – log σ’ of the four consolidation tests were not available to study the stress
dependency of compression and of recompression indices.
• Stress Increase due to embankment loading
The stress increase in the soil mass due to the embankment loading (Δσ),
calculated by TxDOT, Fig. 3-19, is compared with values obtained using Osterberg and 2
to 1 methods, Table 3.11 and Fig. 3-20.
H (ft)
CH 5
CH 5
W.T. 15 ft CH 5
Δσ CH 7.5
CH 7.5
CH 7.5
CL 7
CL 7
82
TxDOT Osterberg method 2 to 1 method

Depth Layers σp σo Δσ σo +Δσ Δσ σo +Δσ Δσ σo +Δσ
OCR
(ft) height (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf)
2.5 5.0 4600 313 14.7 3540 3853 3540 3853 3500 3813
7.5 5.0 3400 938 3.6 3540 4478 3538 4476 3423 4361
12.5 5.0 3400 1407 2.4 3538 4945 3526 4933 3350 4757
18.8 7.5 4400 1798 2.4 3533 5331 3493 5291 3262 5060
26.3 7.5 4400 2267 1.9 3521 5788 3429 5696 3163 5430
33.5 7.0 6600 2721 2.4 3502 6223 3347 6068 3072 5793
40.5 7.0 6600 3159 2.1 3476 6635 3256 6415 2990 6149
47.5 7.0 6600 3598 1.8 3442 7040 3162 6760 2911 6509
As was observed in Fig. 3-20, TxDOT stress increase values are higher than the
one obtained using Osterberg’s and 2 to 1 methods. The ratio of TxDOT values to the
Osterberg’s values ranged from 1 to 1.09, and the ratio obtained with the 2 to 1 method
ranged from 1.01 to 1.18. The TxDOT method, which was specified Modified
Boussinessq method, is closer to the Osterberg’s stress increase calculation method.

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
TxDOT
10
Osterberg
2 to 1
Depth (ft)
20
30
40
50
Fig. 3-20 Comparison of stress increase obtained using Osterberg and 2 to 1 and TxDOT methods.
83
• Total settlement
Based on the information provided, TxDOT settlement estimation was 7.13 inches
for total primary settlement.
UH Check: In four layers out of eight, the total effective stress (Δσ’ + σ’o) was
higher than the preconsolidation pressure (Table 3.11). Therefore, the compression (Cc)
and recompression index (Cr) were both the governing parameters of the total primary
settlement Sp,
Cr H ⎛ σ p ⎞ Cc H ⎛ σ ' + Δσ ' ⎞
Sp = log ⎜ ⎟+ log ⎜ 0 ⎟.
1 + e0 ⎜ σ ' ⎟ 1 + e0 ⎜ σp ⎟
⎝ 0⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Using Osterberg’s stress increase results (Table 3.5), we obtained the following results:
0.021x5 ⎛ 3853 ⎞
Layer 1: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0654 ft
1 + 0.75 ⎝ 313 ⎠
0.021x5 ⎛ 3400 ⎞ 0.202 x5 ⎛ 4476 ⎞

Layer 2: S p = log ⎜ ⎟+ log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.1067 ft
1 + 0.68 ⎝ 938 ⎠ 1 + 0.68 ⎝ 3400 ⎠
0.021x5 ⎛ 3400 ⎞ 0.202 x5 ⎛ 4933 ⎞

1 + 0.68 ⎝ 1407 ⎠ 1 + 0.68 ⎝ 3400 ⎠
0.008 x7.5 ⎛ 4400 ⎞ 0.138 x7.5 ⎛ 5291 ⎞

1 + 0.69 ⎝ 1798 ⎠ 1 + 0.69 ⎝ 4400 ⎠
0.008 x7.5 ⎛ 4400 ⎞ 0.138 x7.5 ⎛ 5696 ⎞

1 + 0.69 ⎝ 2267 ⎠ 1 + 0.69 ⎝ 4400 ⎠
0.036 x7 ⎛ 6068 ⎞
Layer 6: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0563 ft
1 + 0.56 ⎝ 2721 ⎠
0.036 x7 ⎛ 6415 ⎞
Layer 7: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0497 ft
1 + 0.56 ⎝ 3159 ⎠
84
0.036 x7 ⎛ 6760 ⎞
Layer 8: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0442 ft .
1 + 0.56 ⎝ 3598 ⎠
Hence the total primary settlement was
Sp = 0.0654 + 0.1067 + 0.1211 + .0628 + 0.0789 + 0.0563 + 0.0497 + 0.0442 = 0.5851 ft
= 7.02 inches.
The difference between UH and TxDOT estimations was 0.35 inch. It is due to
the difference between Osterberg’s stress increase value and the TxDOT values. It must
be noticed that since the e – log σ’ of the consolidation tests are not available, the types
of recompression indices used were not known.
TxDOT
settlement of 6.63 inches after 120 months, which represented 90% of the total primary
settlement (6.10 inches). This result was obtained considering two drainage surfaces (top
and bottom) for each layer.
The rate of settlement was then calculated for each layer, and for a specific time
(120 months in this case) the total settlement was the sum of the settlements of all layers.
Calculation
120 months = 120 x 30 = 3600 days
cv t
Tv = .
2
H dr
85
U%
=
(4Tv / π )0.5 .
100
[
1 + (4Tv / π ) ]
2.8 0.179
0.5(3600 )
Layer 1 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 98.64
= 2.000 ⎯
(2.5 x12 )2
1.6 (3600 )
Layer 2 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 99.70
= 6.400 ⎯
(2.5 x12 )2
1.6 (3600 )
Layer 3 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 99.70
= 6.400 ⎯
(2.5 x12 )2
1.0(3600 )
Layer 4 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 98.19
= 1.778 ⎯
(3.75 x12 )2
1.0 (3600 )
Layer 5 Tv = = 1.778 ⎯⎯→ U% = 98.19
(3.75 x12 )2
0.7 (3600 )
Layer 6 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 96.90
= 1.429 ⎯
(3.5 x12 )2
0.7 (3600 )
Layer 7 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 96.90
= 1.429 ⎯
(3.5 x12 )2
0.7 (3600 )
Layer 8 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 96.90.
= 1.429 ⎯
(3.5 x12 )2
Consequently the total settlement Sp48 after 48 months was
Sp48 = (0.9864 x 0.0654) + (0.997 x 0.1067) + (0.997 x 0.1211) + (0.9819 x 0.0628)
+ (0.9819 x 0.0789) + (0.969 x 0.0563) + (0.969 x 0.0497) + (0.969 x 0.0442)
= 0.5763 ft
= 6.92 inches.
86
There is a difference of 0.29 inch with the TxDOT result of 6.63 result, which is
due to the noted difference in the stress increase and to the approximation of the average
degree of consolidation U%.
One layer consideration
Method 1
Considering 2 drainage surfaces (top and bottom), the settlement primary
settlement reached after 120 months can be calculated using the following procedure:
Cv =
∑ C vi H i = (5 x0.5 ) + (10 x1.6 ) + (15 x1) + (21.5 x0.7 ) = 0.943 in 2 / day .
∑ Hi 51.5
cv t 0.953(3600 )
Tv = = = 0.0355 ⎯⎯→ U % = 21.28
2
H dr (25.75 x12 )2
Sp48 = 0.2128 x 7.02 = 1.49 inches.
Based on this approach, the settlement after 120 months will be 1.49 inches,
representing about 8.5 % of the total primary settlement.
Method 2
Considering two drainage surfaces (top and bottom), the necessary time to reach
69.47% of primary settlement can be calculated using the following procedure:
Cv = 0.943 in 2 / day .
Tv =
(π / 4 )(U % / 100 )2
[ ]
.
0.357
1 − (U % / 100 )5.6
87
With U% = 90 %, Tv = 0.848
T H2 0.848 (25.75 x12 )2

t = v dr = = 85862 day = 2862 months = 238 years.
Cv 0.943
This result of 2,862 months was about 24 times the necessary time (120 months)
predicted by TxDOT to reach 90% of the primary settlement (Fig. 3-8).
Time ( years)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
1 1 layer
2 8 layers
Settlement (in)
3
4
5
1 layer
6 consideration
TxDOT
7
8
Fig. 3-21 Comparative graph showing the effect of layering on the rate of settlement.
Comment on the settlement prediction
- The soft clay soil was overconsolidated, and in four layers out of eight the
total effective stress was higher than the preconsolidation pressure. Therefore,
both compression and recompression indices are governing parameters of the
total primary settlement. The e –logσ’ curves of the four consolidation tests
were not available. Consequently, the type of the three recompression indexes
used was not known.
- The TxDOT method used layers of soft soils to estimate the rate of settlement.
This underestimated the time of settlement.
88
3.2.6. Project No 3
At the time of review of the data (2007), it has been fourteen years since the
project was completed. The designed embankment height varied from 7.81 to 8.92 ft, and
H
the base width (W) was 108 ft (Fig. 3-22). The ratio varied then from 0.07 to 0.08.
W
Twenty borings were done on site to collect the geotechnical information for 1965
through 1991 for construction, widening, and modification of the road as follow:
- Through September and October 1965, seven borings (M-1, M-2, M-3, R-1,
R-2, M-12 and R-13) were completed at 100 ft deep to widen the roadway and
to construct the bridges over Clear Creek and Clear Creek Relief. The
construction work was completed in 1971.
- During February, March, and September of 1984, seven new borings (CCB-1,
CCB-2, CCB-3, CCR-1, CCR-2, CCR-3 and CCR-4) were completed at 60 ft
deep to widen and elevate the North Bridge (NB) roadway, to remove and
replace the NB bridges over Clear Creek and Clear Creek Relief, and to
construct the retaining walls at NB roadway and bridge approaches.
- One boring (CCR-5) was completed at 75 ft in November 1991 for the
removal and replacement of the South Bridge (SB) and construction of
retaining walls at SB Clear Creek Relief bridge approaches. The construction
work was completed in December 1993 ( Fig. 3-23).
- Finally, in January 2007, five borings (B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5) were done at
20 and 30 ft by the University of Houston to assess the embankment
settlement and the retaining wall movement.
89
N
Elev. 16.31’
Top of the wall. Elev. 17.92’
7. 8.
81 92
’ Finish grade. Elev. 9.00’ ’
Finish grade. Elev. 8.50’
Project station Wall bottom. Elev.7.50’

Sta. 18 + 60.93
Sta. 10+ 12.55
Bridge end RETAINING WALL No. 2E Bridge start
Fig. 3-22 Profile of the retaining wall No. 2E, not to scale (project drawing 22).
Retaining wall No. 2E

N
B2 B1
B3
CCB-1 CCR-2 CCR-4

840 ft
CCB-2
CCR-3
Clear creek relief
B4
Clear creek
B5
Fig. 3-23 Location of the borings used on the field (Drawing 13 and 14).
90
• Field tests
The Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) test was performed at the first fifteen boring
locations, and the information was used to determine the consistency of the soil. Only the
borings CCB-1, CCB-2, CCR-2, CCR-3 and CCR-4 (Fig. 3-23) data are used for the
design of the embankment. Since TCP tests are performed at 5 feet intervals (Table 3-12),
the soil consistency thickness can be determined to an accuracy of 5 feet consequently.
The variation of blow count in the four boring up 40 and 60 ft is shown in Fig. 3-24.
Based on borings, the soft soil layer thickness was about 45 ft deep (NTCP ≤ 20). In 2007
the average water table was at 6.5 ft deep and was used.
Blow counts / foot

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
CCB-2
10
CCB-1
CCR-2
20
CCR-4
CCR-3
Depth (ft)
30
40
50
60
Fig. 3-24TCP blow counts vs. depth.
91
Table 3.12 Field test results (borings CCB-2, CCB-1, CCR-2, CCR-4 and CCR-3).
TCP blow count

Elevation (ft) 12.3 12.2 12.7 11.9 11.8
Borings CCB-2 CCB-1 CCR-2 CCR-4 CCR-3
5 6 10 10 10 12
10 5 9 5 10 4
Boring depth (ft) 15 15 9 9 7 7
20 17 6 3 2 4
25 15 13 6 6 12
30 21 15 15 8 18
35 20 18 24 12 7
40 29 27 15 26 20
45 29 24
50 34 26
55 30 29
60 52 62
Consolidation (IL) test was performed on three samples from boring CCR-3 in
1984. The moisture content, Atterberg limits, and triaxial unconfined compression tests
were performed with the soil samples from the five borings.
Soil type: Based on the index property tests (Table 3.13), the top 5 to 25 ft was
CH clay soil, and below it was CL soil. Also, the moisture content varied between 18%
and 44%, as shown in Fig. 3-25 a.). The largest change in moisture content was observed
at a depth of 25 ft. The change of moisture content with change in depth (ΔMC/Δz)
versus depth (z) is shown in Fig. 3-25 b.), and the values varied from -11.5 to 6. The
highest change was observed between 25 and 30 ft in boring CCR-4 (representing a
change in moisture content of 23%), and is also represented by the transition from soft
CH to CL clay soil.
92
varied between 2 and 17.5 psi in the top 45 ft soft CH clay, as shown in Table 3-15 and
Fig. 3-26.
Table 3.13 Summary of soil type in five borings.

Soil type
Depth (ft) CCR-1 CCR-2 CCR-3 CCR-4
5 CH
10 CH
15 CH CH CH
20 CL CH CH
25 CH
30 CL CL CH
35 CL
40 CH CH SC
45 CH CL
50
55
60 CH
Table 3.14 Summary table of moisture content in the six borings.

Moisture content
Depth (ft) CCB-2 CCB-1 CCR-1 CCR-2 CCR-3 CCR-4
5 22 22 27 25 32
10 27 28 27 30 33
15 29 28.5 28 27 34 33
20 27 20 37 44 33
25 20 23 32 30 23 44
30 21 19 30 24 21 21
35 18 21.5 25 20 22 22
40 29 20 20 32
45 20 22 23
50 19 28 23
55 22.3 18 25
60 22 24
93
M oisture Content (%) Δ MC / Δ z
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
0 0
10 10
20 20
D ep th (ft)
Depth (ft)
30 30
CCB-2
40 40
CCB-1
CCB-2
CCB-1 CCR-1
50 CCR-1 50
CCR-2 CCR-2
CCR-3 CCR-3
CCR-4
60 60 CCR-4
a.) b.)
Table 3.15 Summary table of undrained shear strength in the six borings.
Undrained shear strength Su (psi)
Depth (ft) CCB-1 CCB-2 CCR-1 CCR-2 CCR-3 CCR-4
5 7 8.5
10 8.5 2 5
15 5.8 2.5 7.5 9 5
20 7 7 6 5
25 7.5 3 4
30 7.7 7.5 3 7 3
35 5.5 6.5 5
40 17.5 12 12 3
45 6.5 15 10
50 18
55
60 17
94
Su (psi)
0 5 10 15 20
0
CCB-1
CCB-2
10 CCR-1
CCR-2
20 CCR-3
Depth (ft)
CCR-4
30
40
50
60
Fig. 3-26 Undrained shear strength vs. depth in the 6 borings.
standards incremental load consolidation test using samples from borings CCR-3. Three
consolidation tests were done on samples collected from depth of 14 - 15 ft, 18 – 19 ft,
and 23 - 24 ft. The test results are summarized in Table 3.16.
Table 3.16 Summary of consolidation parameters used for the settlement estimation.
Layers
Depth Cv σp σo
(ft)
height Cc Cr eo Av
( in2/day) (psf) (psf)
OCR
(ft)
2.5 5.0 0.199 0.050 0.66 1.128 1500 300 5.0
7.5 5.0 0.199 0.050 0.66 1.128 1500 875 1.7
12.5 5.0 0.199 0.050 0.66 1.128 1500 1188 1.3
18.5 7.0 0.377 0.038 1.06 0.522 2600 1564 1.7
26.0 8.0 0.149 0.012 0.59 1.404 2200 2033 1.1
34.0 8.0 0.149 0.012 0.59 1.404 2534 2534 1.0
42.0 8.0 0.149 0.012 0.59 1.404 3035 3035 1.0
95
The sample from 14 - 15 ft deep had a void ratio of 0.66 and average compression
and recompression indices of 0.199 and 0.050, respectively, with a preconsolidation
pressure of 1500 psf and an average coefficient of consolidation of 1.128 in2/day. Its
settlement parameters were used for the top 15 ft divided into three layers of 5 ft each
(Table 3.16).
The 18 – 19 ft deep sample had a void ratio of 1.06 and average compression and
recompression indexes of 0.377 and 0.038, respectively, with a preconsolidation pressure
of 2,600 psf and an average coefficient of consolidation of 0.522 in2/day. Its settlement
parameters were used for the 7 ft layer underlying the top 15 ft (Table 3.16).
Finally, the sample from 23 – 24 ft deep had a void ratio of 0.59 and average
compression and recompression indices of 0.149 and 0.012, respectively, with an average
coefficient of consolidation of 1.404 in2/day. Its settlement parameters were used for the
bottom 24 ft divided into three layers of 8 ft each (Table 3.16).
The stress dependency of the compression index was investigated based on the
available data. The samples were loaded from 0.20 tsf to 0.11 tsf. The slope -de / dlogσ’
was determined for each load increment (Fig. 3-27 b.). The three samples showed the
same pattern: The incremental compression index (C’c) increased with the increasing
stress from 0.20 tsf to 2.50 tsf and then decreased despite the increased stress to 5.50 tsf
and then increased with the increased stress up to 11 tsf. The conventional compression
index Cc was determined and used in the settlement calculation (Table 3.16).
96
1.10 0.50
18'-19'
18'-19'
0.40
0.90
In c r e m e n ta l C c
V o id r a tio e
14'-15'
0.30
` 14'-15'
0.70
0.20
0.50
0.10
23'-24'
23'-24'
0.30 0.00
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
a.) b.)
Fig. 3-27 e – log σ’ of the three consolidation tests performed, on samples from boring CCR-3, and their
respective plot of compression index versus log σ’ curves.
• Stress Increase due to the embankment loading
The stress increase in the soil mass due to the embankment loading (Δσ) was
calculated at the center and the toe of the embankment using Osterberg method. A
surcharge of 240 psf was added to the total stress induced by the embankment, complying
with TxDOT design method (Table 3.17). The height of the embankment was taken to be
9 ft.
97
H (ft)
CH 5
W.T. 6.5 ft
CH 5
CH 5
Δσ CH 7
CH 7
CH 8
CL 8
CL 7
CH
Stress increase
Center of the Edge of the
Soil parameters
embankment embankment
Depth σp σo Center σo +Δσ Εdge σo +Δσ

OCR
(ft) (psf) (psf) Δσ (psf) (psf) Δσ (psf) (psf)
2.5 1500 300 5.0 1320 1620 0 300
7.5 1500 875 1.7 1319 2194 166 1041
12.5 1500 1188 1.3 1313 2501 292 1480
18.5 2600 1564 1.7 1297 2861 417 1981
26.0 2200 2033 1.1 1265 3298 475 2508
34.0 2534 2534 1.0 1216 3750 511 3045
42.0 3035 3035 1.0 1159 4194 531 3566
The variation of the stress increase with depth is shown in Fig. 3-29. The ratio of
the stress increase at the center to stress increase at the toe varied from infinite at the top
to 6.9 at the 26 ft depth.
98
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
0
10 Center
Edge
Depth (ft)
20
30
40
50
Fig. 3-29 Stress increase vs. depth at the center and at the toe of the embankment using Osterberg method.
• Total settlement at the center
Based on the information provided, the TxDOT settlement, the total primary
settlement was 8.50 inches.
UH estimation: In all the layers the total stress (Δσ’ + σ’o) was higher than the
preconsolidation pressure (σp). Therefore, both the compression and recompression
indices were the governing parameters for the total primary settlement Sp,
Cr H ⎛ σ p ⎞ Cc H ⎛ σ ' + Δσ ' ⎞
Sp = log ⎜ ⎟+ log ⎜ 0 ⎟.
1 + e0 ⎜ σ ' ⎟ 1 + e0 ⎜ σp ⎟
⎝ 0⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Using Osterberg stress increased results at the center of the embankment (Table
3.17), and the following results were obtained:
0.05 x5 ⎛ 1500 ⎞ 0.199 x5 ⎛ 1620 ⎞

1 + 0.66 ⎝ 300 ⎠ 1 + 0.66 ⎝ 1500 ⎠
0.05 x5 ⎛ 1500 ⎞ 0.199 x5 ⎛ 2194 ⎞

1 + 0.66 ⎝ 875 ⎠ 1 + 0.66 ⎝ 1500 ⎠
0.05 x5 ⎛ 1500 ⎞ 0.199 x5 ⎛ 2501 ⎞

1 + 0.66 ⎝ 1188 ⎠ 1 + 0.66 ⎝ 1500 ⎠
99
0.038 x7 ⎛ 2600 ⎞ 0.377 x7 ⎛ 2861 ⎞
1 + 1.06 ⎝ 1564 ⎠ 1 + 1.06 ⎝ 2600 ⎠
0.012 x8 ⎛ 2200 ⎞ 0.149 x8 ⎛ 3298 ⎞

1 + 0.59 ⎝ 2033 ⎠ 1 + 0.59 ⎝ 2200 ⎠
0.149 x8 ⎛ 3750 ⎞
Layer 6: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.1276 ft
1 + 0.59 ⎝ 2534 ⎠
0.149 x7 ⎛ 4194 ⎞
Layer 6: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0921 ft .
1 + 0.59 ⎝ 3035 ⎠
Hence the total primary settlement at the center of the embankment was
Sp = 0.1253 + 0.1342 + 0.1483 + .0817 + 0.1339 + 0.1276 + 0.1053 = 0.8431 ft
= 10.11 inches.
It was noted that if only the top 30 ft of soft soil were considered, the total
settlement would be 7.48 inches.
The difference between the UH check result and TxDOT estimations is due to the
thickness of soft soil considered for the settlement estimation (Fig. 3-28).
• Rate of settlement at the center
TxDOT
settlement of 5.10 inches after 1 year, which represents 60% of the total primary
settlement (8.50 inches).
UH Check: Using the TxDOT method, as described in project 1A and 2, it was
considered that each clay layer had two drainage surfaces (top and bottom); the total
settlement reached in 2007, fourteen years after construction, was 8.50 inches.
100
Calculation
14 years = 14 x 365 = 5110 days
cv t
Tv = .
2
H dr
U% (4Tv / π )0.5
= (Das 2006).
100
[
1 + (4Tv / π )2.8 ]
0.179
1.128(5110 )
Layer 1 to 3 Tv = = 6.405 ⎯⎯→ U% = 99.7
(2.5 x12 )2
0.522(5110 )
Layer 4 Tv = = 1.512 ⎯⎯→ U% = 97.31
(3.5 x12 )
2
1.404(5110 )
Layer 5 to 7 Tv = ⎯→ U% = 99.46.
= 3.114 ⎯
(4 x12 )2
Consequently, the total settlement Sp14 after fourteen years was
Sp14 = (0.997 x 0.1253) + (0.997 x 0.1342) + (0.997 x 0.1483) + (0.973 x 0.0817) +
(0.994 x 0.1339) + (0.994 x 0.1276) + (0.994 x 0.0921)
= 0.8376 ft
= 10.05 inches.
When considered 30 ft of soft clay layer,
Sp14 = 7.43 inches.
Using the same calculation procedure, Fig. 3-30 was obtained.
101
Time ( years)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
2 Soft soil :45 ft
Settlement (in) Soft soil : 30 ft

4 T xDOT
6 2007
8
TxDOT
10
12
Fig. 3-30 Comparison of TxDOT rate of settlement estimation at the center of the embankment with new
estimation using the same data.
Based on this procedure, more than 90 % of the total settlement was completed in
1999, six years after construction in all three cases at the center of the embankment.
Consequently, the settlement of the embankment can be considered over in 2007,
fourteen years later.
One-layer consideration
Method 1
Considering 2 drainages surfaces (top and bottom), the primary settlement
reached after 14 years, in 2007, can be calculated using the following procedure:
∑ Cvi H i (15 x1.128 ) + (7 x0.522 ) + (23 x1.404 )

Cv = = = 1.175 in 2 / day
∑ H i 45
cvt 1.175(5110 )
Tv = = = ⎯
⎯→ U % = 32.37
2
H dr (22.5 x12 )2
Sp14 = 10.11 x 0.3237 = 3.27 inches.
102
Based on this approach, the settlement reached in 2007 would be 3.27 inches,
representing about 32% of the total primary settlement at the center of the embankment.
When 30 ft of soft soil layer was considered, total settlement 14 years later, Sp14 = 3.60
inches, which is 48 % of the total primary settlement.
Method 2
Considering two drainage surfaces (top and bottom), the necessary time to reach
90% of primary settlement can be calculated using the following procedure:
C v = 1.175 in 2 / day .
With U% = 90 %, Tv = 0.848 and the time necessary time t is given by
0.848(22.5 x12 )2
2
Tv H dr
t= = = 52612 day = 144 years.
Cv 1.175
This result of 144 years was about 24 times the necessary time (6 years) predicted
by TxDOT to reach 90% of the primary settlement at the center of the embankment
( Fig. 3-31 a.).
103
Time ( years)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
1 layer
Settlement (in)
4
consideration
6
8
T xDOT
10
12
Fig. 3-31 Comparative graph showing the effect of layering on the rate of settlement at the center of the
embankment.
• Total settlement at the toe
Using Osterberg stress increase results at the toe of the embankment (Table 3.17),
and considering 45 ft of soft soil layer, the following results were obtained:
0.05 x5 ⎛ 300 ⎞
Layer 1: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0 ft
1 + 0.66 ⎝ 300 ⎠
0.05 x5 ⎛ 1041 ⎞
Layer 2: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0114 ft
1 + 0.66 ⎝ 875 ⎠
0.05 x5 ⎛ 1480 ⎞
Layer 3: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0.0144 ft
1 + 0.66 ⎝ 1188 ⎠
0.038 x7 ⎛ 1981 ⎞
Layer 4: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0133 ft
1 + 1.06 ⎝ 1564 ⎠
0.012 x8 ⎛ 2200 ⎞ 0.149 x8 ⎛ 2508 ⎞

1 + 0.59 ⎝ 2033 ⎠ 1 + 0.59 ⎝ 2200 ⎠
0.149 x8 ⎛ 3045 ⎞
Layer 6: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0598 ft
1 + 0.59 ⎝ 2534 ⎠
104
0.149 x7 ⎛ 3566 ⎞
Layer 6: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0459 ft .
1 + 0.59 ⎝ 3035 ⎠
Hence the total primary settlement at the toe of the embankment was
Sp = 0 + 0.0114 + 0.0144 + 0.0133 + 0.0477 + 0.0598 + 0.0459 = 0.1895 ft
= 2.27 inches.
Considering 30 ft of soft clay layer, Sp (toe) = 1.01 inches.
• Rate of settlement at the toe
Using the same procedure used to calculate the rate of settlement at the center of
the embankment, Fig. 3-32 and Fig. 3-33 were obtained.
90% of the total settlement (2.04 inches) was reached at the toe of the
embankment four years after construction using TxDOT method. After fourteen years in
2007, 99.6 % (2.26 inches of the total settlement was reached. Therefore, based on this
method, the primary settlement is considered over (Fig. 3-32).
When one layer was assumed for the soft soil, the resulting rate of settlement
predicted 33% of the total settlement at the toe (0.75 inch), which was reached in 2007. It
was three times less than the one obtained by using TxDOT method (Fig. 3-33).
105
Time ( years)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0.0
0.5
Settlement (in)
1.0
Soft soil :45 ft
1.5 2007
2.0
2.5
Fig. 3-32 Rate of settlement at the toe of the embankment using TxDOT method.
Time ( year)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
0.5
1 layer
Settlement (in)
consideration
1.0
1.5
2007
2.0
2.5
TxDOT method
Fig. 3-33 Comparative graph showing the effect of layering on the rate of settlement at the toe of the
embankment.
106
3.2.7. Remaining settlement estimation at project 3 (SH3)
In 2007, the retaining wall No. 2E settlement, object of project 3, was
investigated. Ten consolidation tests were performed on a sample from boring B1 (Fig.
3-23), at the University of Houston to estimate the remaining of the settlement under the
embankment to occur. Five consolidation tests results were used for the settlement
estimation, and the data are summarized in Table 3.18.
The complete laboratory tests (consolidation, moisture content, Atterberg limits,
and unconfined compression) results are presented and analyzed in chapter 4.
Table 3.18 Summary of consolidation parameters of the five samples from boring B1.
Soil parameters
Layers
Depth Cv σp σo
(ft)
height Cc Cr1 Cr3 eo 2
Av
( in /day) (psf) (psf)
OCR
(ft)
2.5 5.0 0.144 0.018 0.062 0.620 2.210 3720 388 9.6
7.5 5.0 0.257 0.032 0.099 0.880 2.210 3820 967 4.0
12.5 5.0 0.306 0.041 0.111 1.110 2.990 3820 1253 3.0
17.5 5.0 0.446 0.025 0.190 1.320 1.655 2720 1448 1.9
22.5 5.0 0.101 0.014 0.016 0.540 23.150 1834 1834 1.0
27.5 5.0 0.131 0.024 0.017 0.510 23.150 2177 2177 1.0
Table 3.19 Summary of the stress in the soil mass.
Stress increase
Center of the Edge of the
Soil parameters
embankment embankment
Depth σp σo Center σo +Δσ Εdge σo +Δσ

OCR
(ft) (psf) (psf) Δσ (psf) (psf) Δσ (psf) (psf)
2.5 3720 388 9.6 1320 1708 0 388
7.5 3820 967 4.0 1319 2286 166 1133
12.5 3820 1253 3.0 1313 2566 292 1545
17.5 2720 1448 1.9 1301 2749 407 1855
22.5 1834 1834 1.0 1282 3116 452 2286
27.5 2177 2177 1.0 1257 3434 484 2661
107
H (ft)
CH 57
W.T. 6.5 ft
CH 5
Δσ CH 57
CH 7
CH 5
CL 5
CL 5
• Total settlement at the center
Based on the information provided by TxDOT, the total primary settlement was
8.50 inches.
UH estimation: In three out of six layers the total stress (Δσ’ + σ’o) was higher
than the preconsolidation pressure (σp). Therefore, both the compression and
recompression indices were the governing parameters for the total primary settlement Sp.
Considering the 14 years of the embankment in place, we have the following
consideration:
uo = initial excess pore water pressure at the construction of the embankment in 1993
ui = excess pore water pressure at a specific time t.
In section 3.2.6, by considering one layer of soft soil and two drainage surfaces and the
consolidation parameters of 1991, it was ascertained that 32.37% of the consolidation
was completed in 2007.
108
u
U = 1 − i = 0.324 ⎯
⎯→ ui = 0.676 uo .
uo
Assuming that uo = Δσ’ , the remaining excess pore water pressure ui is given by
ui = 0.676uo = 0.676Δσ’, and the settlement is given by
Cr H ⎛ σ p ⎞ Cc H ⎛ σ ' + 0.676 Δσ ' ⎞

Sp = log ⎜ ⎟+ log ⎜ 0 ⎟.
1 + e0 ⎜ σ ' ⎟ 1 + e0 ⎜ σp ⎟
⎝ 0⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Using Osterberg stress increase results at the center of the embankment and the
recompression index Cr1 (Table 3.18), the following results were obtained:
0.018 x5 ⎛ 1280 ⎞
Layer 1: S p = log⎜ ⎟ = 0.0288 ft
1 + 0.62 ⎝ 388 ⎠
0.032 x5 ⎛ 1859 ⎞
Layer 2: S p = log⎜ ⎟ = 0.0242 ft
1 + 0.88 ⎝ 967 ⎠
0.041x5 ⎛ 2141 ⎞
Layer 3: S p = log⎜ ⎟ = 0.0226 ft
1 + 1.11 ⎝ 1253 ⎠
0.026 x5 ⎛ 2327 ⎞
Layer 4: S p = log⎜ ⎟ = 0.0154 ft
1 + 1.32 ⎝ 1448 ⎠
0.101x5 ⎛ 2701 ⎞
Layer 5: S p = log⎜ ⎟ = 0.055 ft
1 + 0.54 ⎝ 1834 ⎠
0.131x5 ⎛ 3027 ⎞
Layer 6: S p = log⎜ ⎟ = 0.0621 ft .
1 + 0.51 ⎝ 2177 ⎠
Hence the total primary settlement at the center of the embankment was
Sp (Cr1) = 0.0288 + 0.0242 + 0.0226 + 0.0154 + 0.055 + 0.0621 = 0.2081ft
= 2.50 inches,
using Cr3, Sp (Cr3) = 5.57 inches.
109
Using Cr1, the total settlement remaining at the center of the embankment fourteen
years later in 2007 was 2.50 inches (34 % of Sp (total)), but using Cr3 the remaining
settlement estimated was 5.57 inches (75 % of Sp (total) ), twice Sp (Cr1).
• Total settlement at the toe
Using Osterberg stress increase results at the toe of the embankment (Table 3.19),
and considering the 32.4 % pore water pressure dissipated up to 2007, the following
results were obtained:
0.018 x5 ⎛ 388 ⎞
Layer 1: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0 ft
1 + 0.62 ⎝ 388 ⎠
0.032 x5 ⎛ 1079 ⎞
Layer 2: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0041 ft
1 + 0.88 ⎝ 967 ⎠
0.041x5 ⎛ 1450 ⎞
Layer 3: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0062 ft
1 + 1.11 ⎝ 1253 ⎠
0.025 x5 ⎛ 1723 ⎞
Layer 4: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0045 ft
1 + 1.32 ⎝ 1448 ⎠
0.101x5 ⎛ 2140 ⎞
Layer 5: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0220 ft
1 + 0.54 ⎝ 1834 ⎠
0.131x5 ⎛ 2504 ⎞
Layer 6: S p = log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.0264 ft .
1 + 0.51 ⎝ 2177 ⎠
Hence total primary settlement at the toe of the embankment was
Sp (Cr1) toe = 0 + 0.0041 + 0.0062 + 0.0045 + 0.0220 + 0.0264 = 0.0632 ft
= 0.76 inches,
using Cr3, Sp (Cr3) toe = 1.34 inches.
110
Using Cr1, the total settlement remaining at the toe of the embankment fourteen
years later in 2007 was 0.76 inches (75 % of Sp (total)), but using Cr3 the remaining
settlement estimated was 1.34 inches (133 % of Sp (total)), which was higher than the total
expected settlement.
Table 3.20 Summary table of settlement prediction from project 3 section.
1993 estimation Estimated remaining settlement in 2007 : Spr 14 (in)
Soft soil Total settl. Sp (total) (in) TxDOT method 1 layer method
height (ft) CENTER TOE CENTER TOE CENTER TOE
30 7.48 1.01 0.05 0 2.50 / 5.57 0.76 / 1.34
In 2007, a minimum of 0.76 and a maximum of 1.34 inches of settlement
remained at the toe of the embankment, and a minimum of 2.50 and a maximum of 5.57
inches of settlement at the center of the embankment. Based on the TxDOT settlement
estimation method, all the settlement was completed by 2007 (Table 3.20). It was noted
that the profile of the top 30 ft soft clay layers were all CH at the design of the
embankment (Fig. 3-28), but it was noted that in 2007 in boring B1 (Fig. 3-34) the top 20
ft layer was CH over 10 ft CL clay.
Considering one layer for the 30 ft soft soil with 2 drainages surfaces (top and
bottom), the rate of primary settlement was calculated using the weighted average of the
coefficient of consolidation at the center and the toe of the embankment and compared to
the prediction of 1993 using 1984 data. The results are shown in Table 3.20, Fig. 3-35
and Fig. 3-36.
111
∑ Cvi H i (10 x 2.21) + (5 x 2.99 ) + (5 x1.655 ) + (10 x 23.15 )
Cv( new ) = = = 9.228 in 2 / day
∑ Hi 30
Cv( old ) = 1.175 in 2 / day .
cv t
Using the time factor equation, Tv = and
2
H dr
( ) c H dr
2
t − tn = Tv − Tv( n ) 3-6
v( new )
where Tv (n) is equal to the time factor in 2007 obtained using Cv(old), and tn is equal to 14
years, Fig. 3-35 and Fig. 3-36 were obtained.
The prediction of the settlement at the center of the embankment using 2007
consolidation tests C r1 values followed the trend of 1992 prediction using 1984 tests data,
but the result obtained using Cr3 was too high (Fig. 3-35). At the toe of embankment, the
predicted settlements obtained using 2007 consolidation tests were both higher compared
to 1992 predictions (Fig. 3-36).
The concern about this result was that the samples used for this analysis are from
a boring that is at the toe of the embankment.
There is a differential settlement between the toe and center of an embankment
due to the difference in the stress increase.
112
Time ( years)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
1984 data
2.0
Settlement (in) 4.0

1984 Cv and 2007 Cr1
6.0
2007 data (Cr1)
8.0
10.0
a.)
Time ( years)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
2.0
2007 data (Cr1 )
Settlement (in)
4.0
6.0
8.0
TxDOT
10.0 1984 data
12.0
b.)
Fig. 3-35 Comparison of rate of settlement estimated at the center of the embankment.
113
Time ( years)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
Monitored data
1984 data
0.5
Settlement (in)
1.0
1984 Cv and 2007 Cr1

1.5 2007 data (Cr1 )
2.0 2007 data (Cr3 )
Fig. 3-36 Comparison of rate of settlement estimated and monitored data at the toe of the embankment.
Comment on the settlement prediction
- The soil clay soil was overconsolidated in the top 25 ft. Therefore, both
compression and recompression indexes were governing parameters of the
total primary settlement. The recompression index Cr1 was the one used in this
case.
- TxDOT method used layers of soft soils to estimate the time of settlement.
This underestimated the time of settlement.
3.3. Summary and discussion
Houston clay soil formation is deltaic. Consequently, it is an alternation of soil
layers with consistence parametric differences, which was noted in the big scatter
presented in the statistical analysis and modeling compared to marine clay formation.
114
The highway embankments constructed in the Houston area were facing the
problem of keeping their settlement after construction in the allowable range of Smax =
0.01xH. The classical method of total settlement estimation used was reliable, but an
assessment of the compressibility parameters used needs to be done. The rate of
settlement was the main concern, the difference between different methods used are too
large, up to 24 times.
Stone columns were the principal ground improvement method used to reduce the
settlement. Its embankments can be classified into two types.
115
4. LABORATORY TESTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Introduction
The samples were collected from SH146, SH3 at Clear Creek (CSJ 0051-03-069)
and NASA Road 1 at Taylor Lake (CSJ 0981-01-104) (Fig. 4-1) for the laboratory study.
Shelby tubes of 30 inches in length and an average area ratio of 9.5% were used to collect
the samples. While some samples were extruded, wrapped in aluminium foil, put in
transparent plastic bag and stored in 3’’ by 6’’ or 3’’ by 12’’ containers for index tests,
others remained in the Shelby tubes for mainly consolidation and strength tests. Samples
were stored vertically in plastic bucket and transported to the University of Houston
Geotechnical Laboratory for testing. Information on the collected samples is summarized
in Table 4.1. Houston clay soil type was studied, and the consolidation parameters were
analyzed individually. The incremental load (IL) consolidation parameters were
compared to the constant rate of consolidation (CRS) test parameters.
SH 146
SH 3 NASA Rd. 1
Fig. 4-1 Location of the site investigated in Houston area.
116
Table 4.1 Summary of the samples collected.
Details SH146 SH3 NASA Rd 1

Depth of samples (ft) 80 to 100 20 to 30 30 to 50
Number of samples
6 56 20
collected
Total number of borehole - 5 4
Total length of samples

36 876 282
(in)
4.2. Tests results

Series of tests, including index, consolidation strength, hydrometer, and specific
gravity tests, were performed on the samples.
4.2.1. SH146 site
• Moisture content: A total of six moisture content (MC) tests were performed to
determine the variation of MC with depth (Fig. 4-2 a.). The highest MC was
27.15% in CH soil at depths of 2-3 ft and 25 ft. The lowest MC was 20.1 % in CL
soil at a depth of 13-14 ft. The change of moisture content with change in depth
(ΔMC/Δz) versus depth (z) (Fig. 4-2) values varied from -0.75 to 7. The highest
change was observed between 13 and 15 ft (representing a change in moisture
content of 7 %) and is represented by the transition from CH to CL clay soil.
117
Moisture Content (%) ΔMC / Δ z
15 20 25 30 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.0 0.0
5.0 5.0
10.0 10.0
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
15.0 15.0
20.0 20.0
25.0 25.0
30.0 30.0
a.) b.)
Fig. 4-2 a.) Variation of moisture content with depth; b.) change of moisture content with change in depth
(ΔMC/Δz) versus depth (z).
• Liquid limit: Total of six liquid limit (LL) tests were performed to determine the
type of soil for correlation with compression index. The highest LL was 79.5% in
CH soil at a depth 25 ft. The lowest LL was 23.9% in CL soil at a depth of 23 ft.
• Compression index (Cc): Total of six compression indices were determined from
six consolidation tests to quantify the soil compressibility with depth (Fig. 4-3 a.).
The highest Cc was 0.192 in CH soil at a depth 13-14 ft. The lowest Cc was 0.100
in CH soil at a depth of 25 ft.
118
Compression index (Cc) Reompression index (Cr)
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0.0 0.0
5.0 5.0
10.0 10.0
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
15.0 15.0
20.0 20.0
25.0 25.0
30.0 30.0
a.) b.)
Fig. 4-3 a.) Compression index vs. depth; b.) Recompression index vs. depth (SH146).
• Recompression index (Cr): Total of six recompression indices (Cr2) were
determined from six consolidation tests to quantify the soil compressibility with
depth (Fig. 4-3 b.). The highest Cr was 0.049 in CH soil at a depth 13-14 ft. The
lowest Cr was 0.012 in CL soil at a depth of 23 ft. The correlation of Cr with Cc
gave Cr / Cc = 0.204 with R2 = 0.3342 (Fig. 4-4).
0.05 Cr / Cc = 0.2036
2
R = 0.3342
Compression index (Cr)
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Compression index (Cc)

Fig. 4-4 Correlation of recompression index with compression index.
119
• Overconsolidation ratio (OCR): Total of six OCR were determined from six
consolidation test results and plotted with depth (Fig. 4-5). The top 25 ft of the
soil, based on the OCR values (OCR > 1) was overconsolidated. The highest
OCR was 9.4 at the top 2-3 ft. The lowest OCR was 1.19 in CH soil at 25 ft deep.
Overconsolidation ratio (OCR)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25 OCR = 1
30
Fig. 4-5 Overconsolidation ratio versus depth (SH146).
• Coefficient of consolidation (Cv): A total of six coefficients of consolidation
were determined from six consolidation tests to quantify the soil permeability
with depth (Fig. 4-6). The highest Cv was 70.42 in2/day in CL soil at a depth 23 ft.
The lowest Cv was 0.49 in2/day in CH soil at a depth of 13-14 ft.
120
2
Cv (in /day)
0 15 30 45 60 75
0
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-6 Variation of the consolidation of consolidation with depth (SH146).
Table 4.2 Summary of SH146 laboratory test data.

Consolidation parameters (SH 146) ID TEST
Depth
No SAMPLE σp γt σv SR Cv
(ft) eo
MC
Cc Cr Cr/Cc OCR LL (%)
% of
-1 2
(%) (tsf) (pcf) (tsf) (s ) (in /day) Clay
1 FP1-BR2 2-3 0.716 27.1 0.168 0.025 0.149 1.41 123 0.15 9.40 2.3E-07 4.84 70.3 > 50
2 PR4-RW4 9-10 0.596 22.6 0.101 0.004 0.040 1.50 127 0.60 2.50 1.6E-07 36.58 29.5 20
3 SB2-EM6 13-14 0.530 20.1 0.134 0.032 0.239 1.25 130 0.88 1.42 2.2E-07 24.48 35.4 15
4 W2-BR7 14-15 0.716 27.1 0.192 0.049 0.255 2.07 122 0.82 2.52 1.9E-07 0.49 73.7 > 50
5 TB1-BR10 23 0.663 25.1 0.111 0.012 0.108 2.80 124 1.86 1.51 1.7E-07 70.42 23.9 9
6 PR11-RW9 25 0.702 26.6 0.100 0.039 0.390 1.83 123 1.54 1.19 2.1E-07 6.31 79.5 > 50
SR: average strain rate of the IL consolidation test.
4.2.2. SH3 at Clear Creek site
• Natural moisture content: Total of fifty moisture content (MC) tests were
performed to determine the variation of MC with depth in all five borings ( Fig.
4-7.). The highest MC was 60.8 % in CH soil at a depth of 17 ft in boring B4. The
lowest MC was 18.7% in CH soil at a depth of 3 ft in boring B2. The change of
moisture content with change in depth (ΔMC/Δz) versus depth (z) (Fig. 4-2)
values varied from -0.75 to 7. The highest change was observed between 13 and
121
15 ft (representing a change in moisture content of 7 %) and is also represented by
the transition from CH to CL clay soil.
Moisture Content (%)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
B1
B2
5
B3
B4
Depth (ft) 10
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-7 Variation of moisture content with depth in all borings (SH3).
• Liquid limit: Total of twelve liquid limit (LL) tests were performed to determine
the type of clay soil and its variation with depth (Fig. 4-8). The highest LL was
73.5% in CH soil at a depth of 17 ft. The lowest LL was 29.5% in CL soil at a
depth of 23 ft.
Lquid limit (%)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-8 Variation of liquid limit with depth in boring B1 (SH3).
122
• Plasticity limit: Total of eleven plastic limit (PL) tests were performed to
determine the type of clay soil and its variation with depth in boring (Fig. 4-9).
The highest PL was 23.2% in CH soil at a depth of 13 ft. The lowest PL was
15.3% in CL soil at a depth of 27 ft.
Plastic limit (%)

10 15 20 25
0
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-9 Variation of plastic limit with depth in boring B1 (SH3).
• Undrained shear strength (Su): Total of twenty-six undrained shear strength
tests were performed to determine the strength of the soil and its variation with
depth in four borings (Table 4.4 and Fig.4-10). The highest Su was 17.7 psi in CH
soil at a depth of 7 ft in boring B3. The lowest Su was 2.14 psi in CH soil at a
depth of 17 ft in boring B4.
Undrained shear strength (psi)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
B1
5 B2
B3
B4
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-10 Variation of Su with depth in borings B1, B2, B3, and B4 (SH3).
123
• Overconsolidation ratio (OCR): Total of ten incremental load (IL) consolidation
tests were performed, and the overconsolidation ratio variation with depth in
boring B1, shown in Table 4.5, was plotted (Fig. 4-11). The highest OCR was 9.6
in CH soil at a depth of 3 ft in boring. The lowest OCR was 1 in CL soil at a depth
of 25 and 29 ft. The clay soil was overconsolidated (OCR > 1) up to 23 ft in CH
clay soil.
Overconsolidation ratio (OCR)

0 2 4 6 8 10
0
5 OCR = 1
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-11 Variation of overconsolidation ratio with depth in boring B1.(SH3).
• Compression index (Cc): Total of ten compression indices were determined from
ten IL consolidation tests on samples from boring B1 (Table 4.5), and their
variation with depth was plotted (Fig. 4-12). The highest Cc was 0.446 in CH soil
at a depth of 17 ft. The lowest Cc was 0.086 in CL soil at a depth of 23.
124
Compression Index Cc
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-12 Variation of compression index with depth in boring B1 (SH3).
• Recompression index (Cr): Total of 28 recompression indices of three types (Cr1,
Cr2, and Cr3) were determined from ten IL consolidation tests on samples from
boring B1 (Table 4.5). The different types of recompression indices were
introduced and discussed in section 4.6.
• Coefficient of consolidation (Cv): Total of seven coefficients of consolidation
were determined from seven IL consolidation tests on samples from boring B1
(Table 4.5), and their variation with depth was plotted (Fig. 4-13). The highest Cv
was 24.90 in2/day in CL soil at a depth of 29 ft. The lowest Cv was 1.37 in2/day in
CH soil at a depth of 19 ft.
125
Coefficient of consolidation (Cv)
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 4-13 Variation of coefficient of consolidation with depth in boring B1 (SH3).
Table 4.3 Summary of soil type parameters (SH3).
Depth Moisture content (%) LL (%) PL (%)

Soil type
(ft) B1 B1
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
1 19.7 20.8 25.2 34.6 30.2 - - -
3 23.3 18.7 21.9 29.7 32.5 58.2 18.3 CH
5 22.4 23.4 23.7 31.8 34.0 50.7 19.9 CH
7 26.3 24.5 23.0 27.0 22.2 71.5 19.6 CH
9 24.8 - - - - 49.5 - -
11 33.3 33.9 - 35.7 - 67.5 22.6 CH
13 35.3 28.9 19.4 52.9 55.5 64.8 23.2 CH
15 44.9 42.0 - - 74.7 19.8 CH
17 58.2 49.7 22.4 60.8 33.5 73.5 22.0 CH
19 41.0 36.0 - - - - - -
21 30.0 21.6 - 22.3 - 33.5 16.4 CL
23 19.9 22.7 - - - 29.5 19.1 CL
25 20.4 23.2 - 21.5 - 30.3 17.5 CL
27 20.3 23.5 - 23.3 - 46.1 15.3 CL
29 19.2 - - - - - - -
126
Table 4.4 Summary of strength parameters (SH3).
Depth Unit weight (pcf) Undrained Shear strength (psi)

(ft)
B1 B2 B3 B4 B1 B2 B3 B4
1 131.0 127.2 125.0 114.8 - 7.60 8.50 3.70
3 128.7 125.1 126.1 121.1 - - 10.00 6.45
5 132.6 133.7 133.4 115.4 - - 11.50 4.63
7 126.4 134.7 131.6 - - 17.70 14.00 -
9 123.0 128.7 116.0 - 8.25 - 4.30 -
11 120.5 122.7 - 121.9 - 7.32 - 4.89
13 116.8 124.4 138.8 - - - 10.08 -
15 116.0 115.0 - - - 4.60 9.04 -
17 106.3 110.1 - 100.7 - 4.00 - 2.14
19 119.0 112.7 - - - - - -
21 131.7 127.7 - 130.6 - 6.60 - 10.03
23 129.8 125.8 - 132.6 - 8.00 - 13.61
25 134.8 129.3 - 131.6 - 12.30 - 9.52
27 128.4 132.2 - 128.6 - 8.00 - 7.42
29 128.4 132.2 - - - - - -
Table 4.5 Summary of consolidation parameters (SH3).
IL TEST
Depth Gs Void ratio σ'v (psf) σp (psf) OCR

Compressibility parameters of B1
2
Cv
(ft) (B1) (B1) (B1) in /day
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Cc Cr1 Cr2 Cr3
1 - 0.52 0.55 0.67 0.92 0.80 131 - - - - - - -
3 - 0.62 0.50 0.58 0.79 0.86 388 3720 9.6 0.144 0.018 0.049 0.062 -
5 - 0.59 0.62 0.63 0.84 0.90 654 - - - - - - -
7 - 0.70 0.65 0.61 0.72 0.59 906 - - - - - - -
9 - 0.66 - - - - 1028 1950 1.9 0.185 0.018 0.057 0.068 2.21
11 - 0.88 0.90 - 0.95 1144 3820 3.3 0.257 0.032 0.081 0.099 2.99
13 2.67 0.94 0.77 0.51 1.40 1.47 1253 3800 3.0 0.244 0.022 0.065 0.080 -
15 - 1.19 1.11 - - - 1360 3800 2.8 0.306 0.041 0.099 0.111 2.43
17 - 1.54 1.32 0.59 1.61 0.89 1448 2720 1.9 0.446 0.025 0.162 0.190 1.94
19 - 1.10 0.95 - - - 1561 2720 1.7 0.443 0.026 0.117 0.136 1.37
21 - 0.80 0.57 - 0.59 - 1699 - - - - - - -
23 2.69 0.53 0.60 - - - 1834 1934 1.1 0.086 0.014 0.018 0.016 -
25 2.68 0.54 0.61 - 0.57 - 1979 1979 1.0 0.101 - 0.015 0.017 23.15
27 - 0.54 0.62 - 0.62 - 2111 - - 0.185 - - - -
29 - 0.51 ` - - - 2243 2243 1.0 0.131 - 0.024 0.017 24.90
127
4.3. Houston clay soil characterization
Without considering of the strength of the clay soil, based on Casagrande chart
(Fig. 4-14), Houston clay soils have all the types (mainly CL and CH in all the range) of
clays justifying its deltaic origin as presented in chapter 4.
100
80
Plastic Index (%)
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Liquid Limit (%)
Fig. 4-14 Casagrande plasticity chart of compiled Houston/Beaumont clay from 1971 up to 2007.
The data used in this chart was compiled data from:
- Ganstine (1971) compiled data of Houston Beaumont
- Vipulanandan et al. (2007) compiled data of Houston
- SH3 at Clear Creek bridge clay soil data
4.4. Preconsolidation pressure (σp)
The preconsolidation pressure of a clay soil is defined as the highest stress the
clay soil ever felt in its history. It is also defined as the yield stress of the soil. Several
methods were developed to determine the preconsolidation pressure, σp, and they are as
follows (Şenol 2000):
128
1. Casagrande method (e - log σ’)
2. Schmertmann method (e - log σ’)
3. Janbu methods (ΔH/H - σ’ and Mc - σ’)
4. Butterfield method (ln(1 + e) – log P’)
5. Tavenas method (ΔH/H - σ’)
6. Burmister method (ΔH/H – log σ’)
7. Old method (ΔH/H – log σ’)
8. Van Zelst method (ΔH/H – log σ’)
They are classified into two main groups:
- the direct determination methods: Janbu and Tavenas methods (Fig. 4-16)
- the graphical methods: the six remaining (Fig. 4-17).
The Casagrande graphical method (e - log σ’) is the most widely used and the one
used by TxDOT (Fig. 4-15).
Data obtained from the standard incremental load consolidation performed on a
clay sample obtained from SH3 borehole 1, depth 18-20 ft, were used to determine the
preconsolidation pressure using the difference existing methods. It was a high plasticity
clay with LL = 73.5% and PI = 51.5% and classified as CH clay, according to USCS
system.
129
1.10
e o = 1.10
1
σ ' O = 0.78 tsf
2 σ p = 1.36 tsf
Slope of this line is C c
1.00 the compression index Cc = 0.443
3 Cr = 0.117
eVoid ratio
0.90
0.80
Slope of this line is C r

0.70 the recompression index 4
6
pressure
0.60
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Fig. 4-15 e – log σ’ curve showing Casagrande graphical method (method 1) of σp determination (Clay
sample from SH3 borehole 1, depth 18-20 ft, CH clay).
Burmister method cannot be used due to the shape of the ε – log σ’ curve.
70 1.60
60 1.40
e o = 1.10
e o = 1.10 1.20
50 σ p = 2 tsf
σ p = 2 tsf C c = 0.443
dσ '/dε (tsf)
1.00
σ'dε (tsf)
C c = 0.443
40
0.80
30
0.60
20 0.40
10 pressure 0.20 σ p : the preconsolidation
pressure
0.00
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Vertical effective stress σ' (tsf) Vertical applied stress σ' (tsf)
Janbu method Tavenas method
Fig. 4-16 Direct determination methods.
130
0.75
1.10 e o = 1.10
e o = 1.10 σo=1.15 tsf σ p = 1.15tsf
σ p = 1.4 tsf
C c = 0.443
0.70 Cc = 0.443 1.00
e
0.90
Void Ratio
ln(1+e)
0.65
0.80
0.60 0.70
0.60
0.55 σ p : the preconsolidation
pressure
0.50 pressure
0.50 0.40
0.1 1.0 10.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Butterfield method Schmertmann method

0.1 1.0 10.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
0
0
e o = 1.10 e o = 1.10
2 σ p = 1.76 tsf
σ p = 1. sf 2
4 C c = 0.443 C c = 0.443
4
6
ε (%)
ε (%)
8 8
Strain
Strain
10 10
12 12
14 14
16 σ p : the preconsolidation 16 σ p : the preconsolidation

pressure pressure
18 18
20 20
Old method Van Zelst method
Fig. 4-17 Graphical determination methods.
Table 4.6 Estimated preconsolidation pressure.
No. Methods σ p (tsf) OCR

1 Casagrande 1.36 1.74
2 Janbu 2.00 2.56
3 Tavenas 2.00 2.56
4 Schmertmann 1.15 1.47
5 Buttterfield 1.40 1.79
6 Burmister - -
7 Old 1.00 1.28
8 Van Zelst 1.76 2.26
131
The direct determination methods give the highest preconsolidation value (2 tsf),
and it was noted that their accuracies depended on the load increment, meaning that the
error is higher with higher value of preconsolidation pressure. For the record, the Tavenas
method is the strain energy method.
The graphical methods preconsolidation values vary from 1 tsf using Old method
to 1.76 tsf using Van Zelst method. The preconsolidation pressure being the yield stress
of the clay soil, and assuming the reliability of the consolidation test, the Casagrande
method, which consists of determining the yield point on the consolidation curve, is quite
reliable. The remaining of the graphical methods, Schmertmann, Butterfield, Old, and
Van Zelst methods, are all based on approximate linearization of the real consolidation
curve. In particular, the Butterfield method is based on critical state theory. It is useful in
cases of considerable disturbance of the clay soil sample. Consequently, the Casagrande
method is the most widely used and is the one used in this study.
4.5. Compression index (Cc)

The compression index (Cc) is the slope of the virgin compression part of the e –
log σ’ curve
Δe
Cc = . 4-1
σ
log 2
σ1
This represents the slope of section 3-4 in Fig. 4-15 and is represented as
− ( e4 − e3 )
Cc = . 4-2
σ
log 4
σ3
132
The compression index (Cc) for various soils are summarized in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Summary compression indices of various clay soils (Holtz et al. 1981).
Deposition
Soil Cc
type
Normally consolidated medium sensitive clays - 0.2 to 0.5
Chicago silty clay (CL) glacial 0.15 to 0.3
Boston blue clay (CH) marine 0.3 to 0.5
Vicksburg Buckshot clay (CH) - 0.5 to 0.6
Swedish medium sensitive clays (CL-CH) marine 1 to 3
Canadian Leda clays (MH) marine 1 to 4
Mexico City clay (MH) volcanic 7 to 10
Organic clays (OH) - 4 and up
Peats (Pt) - 10 to 15
Organic silt and clayey silts (ML-MH) - 1.5 to 4.0
San Francisco Bay Mud (CL) - 0.4 to 1.2
San Francisco Old Bay clays (CH) - 0.7 to 0.9
Bangkok clay (CH) marine 0.4
4.5.1. Compression index correlation
Several correlations have been developed to determine the compression index
from the natural moisture content (Wn) or liquid limit (LL) for some specific clay soils
(Table 4.8).
Ganstine (1971) proposed several linear correlations for Houston Beaumont clay.
His data has been reviewed and completed, and one second degree polynomial
correlation with in situ moisture content and another one with unit weight have been
proposed (Fig. 4-18 and Fig. 4-19, respectively).
133
193 data points
1.4
Ganstine (1971) Polynomial fit
SH3 (2007) (Houston)
1.2 SH 146 (2006)
Riverside (2006) Linear fit
Polynomial fit (Houston)
1.0 Linear fit Chicago
Compresssion index
Chicago clay polyno. fit Clay soil

Chicago clay linear fit
0.8
Chicago
0.6
Clay soil
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Moisture content (%)
Fig. 4-18 Correlation of compression index of Houston Beaumont clay soil with in situ moisture content.
One hundred ninety-three compressed indices of Houston clay, obtained from the
standard incremental load consolidation test, have been recorded, respectively, with their
in situ moisture content for this correlation development.
The second order polynomial fitting provided
Cc = 2.298 .10 −4 Wn2 + 1.297 .10 −3Wn + 1.756 .10 −2
with a coefficient of correlation R2 = 0.6856.
The linear fitting gave
Cc = 1.65 .10 −2Wn − 0.2108
with R2 = 0.6632.
Based on Fig. 4-18, it is recommended using the linear fitting correlation equation
for natural moisture content within the range of 20% and 40% for a good estimation of
134
the recompression index. The second order polynomial fitting correlation equation is the
better one and can be used for any value of in situ moisture content.
These correlations established independently of the type of clay (CL or CH) are
quite useful for estimating the compression index, knowing only the in situ moisture
content and without performing any consolidation or even an Atterberg’s limit tests. This
is at the same time characteristic for Houston deltaic clays.
Houston clay soil has higher compressibility, when having the same in situ
moisture content, compared to Chicago clay soil correlation equation on Fig. 4-18.
Chicago clay soil correlation is summarized in Table 4.8.
1.4
Ganstine (1971)
180 data points
SH146 (2006)
1.2 Third order

SH3 (2007)
linear fit
polynomial fit 2nd order polynomial fit
1.0 3rd order polynomial fit

Compresssion index
0.8
0.6 Second order

polynomial fit
Linear fit
0.4
0.2
0.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Unit weight (pcf)
Fig. 4-19 Correlation of compression index of Houston/Beaumont clay soil with in situ unit weight.
The linear fitting curve equation is
135
Cc = −1.01 .10 −2Wn + 1.245 with R2 = 0.5014.
The second order polynomial fitting curve equation is
Cc = 3.10 −4 γ 2 − 6.87 .10 −2 γ + 4.0458
with R2 = 0.6432.
The third order polynomial fitting curve equation is
Cc = −3 .10 −6 γ 3 + 1.3 .10 −3 γ 2 − 0.1626 γ + 7.0264
with R2 = 0.6506.
Based on Fig. 4-19, it is recommended using the linear fitting correlation equation
when the unit weight is within the range of 80 and 110 pcf for a good estimation of the
recompression index. The second order polynomial fitting correlation equation is as good
as the third order one up to the unit weight of 120 pcf; over 120 pcf, it is better to use the
third order polynomial fitting curve for a good estimation of the recompression index.
These correlations of the recompression index with the in situ unit weight are
useful in providing an idea about the compressibility of the clay soil right away on the
field with the use of a scale. It is at the same time characteristic of Houston deltaic clays.
Houston clay soil has higher compressibility, when having the same in situ
moisture content, compared to Chicago clay soil correlation equation on Fig. 4-18.
136
Table 4.8 Azzouz et al. (1976) summary table of Cc correlation after Holtz et al. (1981).
Equations Regions of Applicability

Cc = 0.007(LL - 7) Remolded clays
Cce = 0.208eo + 0.0083 Chicago clays
-5 2 -3
Cc = 17.66x10 wn + 5.93x10 wn - 0.135 Chicago clays
Cc = 1.15(eo - 0.35) All clays
Cc = 0.3(eo - 0.27) Inorganic, cohesive soil; silt, some
clay; silty clay;clay
Cc = 1.15x10-2wn Organic soils-meadow mats, peats, and
organic silt and clay
Cc = 0.75(eo - 0.50) Soils of very low plasticity
Cc = 0.156eo + 0.0107 All clays
Cc = 0.01wn Chicago clays
4.5.2. Stress dependency of incremental compression index (C’c)
From laboratory consolidation tests on Houston clay soil, it was noticed that the
recompression index, in fact, is stress dependent as can be seen on Fig. 4-20 (a, b, c, d, e,
f, g and h) and Fig. 4-21 (a, b, c, and d). This dependence of the compression on the
stress level is indifferent to the type of clay (CL or CH).
The stress dependency of the compression index was mentioned by Leroueil et al.
(1991), who stated that a representative value of the field condition is to be chosen for
settlement calculation and that the current practice usually takes the slope of the secant
drawn across the experimental curve from σ 'p to σ 'v0 + Δσ vi (Fig. 4-15). All the
compressions presented in this thesis are determined that way.
137
0.58 0.16
e o = 0.55
0.56 σ p = 1.86 tsf 0.14
C c = 0.144
0.54 C r1 = 0.018 0.12
C r2 = 0.049
C'
e
0.52 C r3 = 0.062 0.10

Void ratio
C' & Cr
C r1 /C c = 0.125
0.50 Cr 2 /C c = 0.340 0.08
Cr 3 /C c = 0.431 Cr
0.48 LL = 58.2 % 0.06
PL = 18.3 %
0.46 0.04
0.44 0.02
0.42 0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 1 10
a.) SH3 B1_2 – 4 ft (CH)
0.85 0.30
e o = 0.84
σ p = 1.91 tsf C'
0.80 C c = 0.257 0.25
C r1 = 0.032
0.75 C r2 = 0.081
e
C r3 = 0.099 0.20
Void ratio
C r1 /C c =0.125
C' & Cr
0.70 C r2 /C c =0.315
C r3 /C c =0.385 0.15 Cr
0.65 LL = 67.5 %
PL = 22.6 %
0.10
0.60
0.55 0.05
0.50 0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 1 10 100
b.) SH3 B1_10 – 12 ft (CH)
0.75
e o = 0.73 0.30
σ p = 1.9 tsf
C c = 0.244
0.70 C r1 = 0.022
0.25
C r2 = 0.065
e
C r3 = 0.080 0.20
Void ratio
0.65 C r1 /C c = 0.090
C'
C '& C r
C r2 /C c = 0.266
C r3 /C c = 0.328 0.15
0.60 LL = 64.8 %
PL = 23.2 %
Cr
0.10
0.55
0.05
0.50
0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Vertical effective stress σ' (tsf) 0 1 10
Vertical effective stress σ'(tsf)
c.) SH3 B1_12 – 14 ft (CH)
138
0.85 0.35
e o = 0.86
0.80 σ p = 2 tsf
C c = 0.306 0.30
0.75 C r1 = 0.0414
e C r2 = 0.099 0.25
Void ratio
0.70 C r3 = 0.111 C'
C r1 /C c = 0.135
C' & Cr
0.20
0.65 C r2 /Cc = 0.324
C r3 /Cc = 0.363 Cr
0.60 LL = 75 % 0.15
PL = 19.8 %
0.55 0.10
0.50 0.05
0.45
0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
d.) SH3 B1_14 – 16 ft (CH)

0.50
1.10
e o = 1.10
Swelling potential:
0.25tsf 0.40
1.00
σ p = 1.36 tsf C'
C c = 0.443
e
C r1 = 0.026
0.30
Void ratio
0.90
C' & Cr
C r2 = 0.117
C r3 = 0.136
C r1 /C c = 0.059
0.80 C r2 /C c = 0.264 0.20 Cr
C r3 /C c = 0.307
LL = 73.5 %
0.70 PL = 22 %
0.10
0.60
0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 1 10
Vertical applied stress σv (tsf)
e.) SH3 B1_18 – 20 ft (CH)
0.44 0.10
e o = 0.43
σ p = 1.76 tsf
C c = 0.086
0.42 C r1 = 0.08
C r2 = 0.018
e
C r3 = 0.016 C'
Void ratio
0.40 C r2 /C c = 0.186 0.06

C' & Cr
C r3/ C c = 0.209
LL = 29.5 %
0.38 PL = 19.1 %
0.04 Cr
0.36
0.02
0.34
0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 1 10
Vertical effective stress σ'(tsf)
f.) SH3 B1_22 – 24 ft (CL)
139
0.46 0.12
e o = 0.47
0.44 σp= σo
C c = 0.101 0.10
0.42 C r1 =
C r2 = 0.015
C'
e
0.40 C r3 = 0.017 0.08
Void ratio
C r2 /C c = 0.149
Cr
0.38 C r2 /C c = 0.168
0.06
&
LL = 30.3 %
C'
0.36 PL = 17.5 %
0.04
0.34 Cr
0.32 0.02
0.30
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.00
Vertival effective stress σ' (tsf)
g.) SH3 B1_24 – 26 ft (CL)
0.51 0.20
e o = 0.51
σ p= σ o
0.47 C c1 = 0.131
C c1 = 0.16
C r2 = 0.024
C r3 = 0.017
C'
e
0.43 C r2 /C c = 0.183
Void ratio
C r3 /C c = 0.130 0.12
C' & Cr
LL = 46.1%
0.39 PL = 15.3%
0.08 Cr
0.35
0.31 0.04
0.27
0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0 1 10
h.) SH3 B1_28 – 30 ft (CL)
Fig. 4-20 e – log σ’ of different clay sample from SH3 at Clear Creek bridge and their respective
compression and recompression index versus log σ’ curves
0.30
0.85 e o = 0.850
C'
σ p = 2.5tsf
0.25
C c = 0.284
C r = 0.027
0.77 0.20
C r /C c = 0.0951
Void ratio e
Strain rate
C' & C r
0.15 Cr
0.69
0.10
0.61
0.05
0.00
0.53
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.
a.) IH10 at SH99 Westside Embankment: borehole 99-8a 5ft
140
0.57 0.20
e o = 0.57
σ p = 2.5 tsf Cc
0.53 C c = 0.168
0.16
C r = 0.011
Void ratio e
C r /C c =
0.49 0.12
Cc & Cr
0.065
Cr
0.45 0.08
0.41 0.04
0.37 0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.1 1 10 100
b.) IH10 at SH99 Eastside Embankment: borehole 99-1 5ft,
0.58 0.20
e o = 0.57
σ p = 1.9 tsf
0.54 C c = 0.174 0.16
C r = 0.058 C'
Void ratio e
C r /C c = 0.333
0.50 C' & C r 0.12
Cr
0.46 0.08
0.42 0.04
σp
0.38 0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Vertical effective stress σ' (tsf) Vertical effective stress σ (tsf)
c.) IH10 at SH99 Westside Embankment: borehole 99-1a 5ft

0.7 0.20
e o = .694
σ p = 2.5 tsf
0.66 0.16 C'
C c = 0.180
C r = 0.043
Void ratio e
C r /C c = 0.239
C' & C r
0.62 0.12
0.58 0.08 Cr
0.04
0.54 σp
0.5 0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
d.) IH10 at SH99 Westside Embankment: borehole 99-1a 25ft
Fig. 4-21 e – log σ’ of different clay samples performed by TxDOT for its embankment designs in
Houston cited in embankment case studies and their respective compression and recompression indices
versus log σ’ curves.
141
4.6. Recompression index (Cr)
The recompression index (Cr) is the compressibility of the clay soil up to the
preconsolidation pressure (σp), meaning the slope of section 1-2 in Fig. 4-22 for an
undisturbed sample, but since there is no real undisturbed sample, the unloading and
reloading section of the consolidation curve is used to determine the recompression
index.
The interest in the recompression index determination is due to the fact that
Houston clay is mostly overconsolidated, and the stress increase due to the embankment
and the retaining walls, constructed by Texas Department of transportation (TxDOT), are
mainly around the preconsolidation pressures. Consequently, the determination of the
recompression is highly critical for settlement estimation.
The objective of this study is to investigate the different methods used to
determine the recompression index and to quantify its variation for Houston
overconsolidated clay.
4.6.1. Different types of recompression indices
A recent observations is that the recompression index Cr is being determined by 3
different methods, (Fig. 4-22 ), giving 3 different values that are named in this study by
Cr1 (Fig. 4-23), Cr2, and Cr3 (Fig. 4-24). This fact needs to be investigated and is due to
the stress dependency of the recompression index during the unloading and reloading
process in a consolidation test (Fig. 4-20 and Fig. 4-21).
142
1.10
1 e o = 1.10
2 Swelling potential: 0.25tsf
σ p = 1.36 tsf
1.00 C c = 0.443
3 Slope of this line is Cc C r1 = 0.026
the compression index C r2 = 0.117
C r1
Void ratio e
C r3 = 0.136
C r1 /C c = 0.056
0.90
C r2 /C c = 0.264
5 6 C r3 /C c = 0.307
LL = 73.5 %
0.80 PL = 22 %
C r2
0.70 4
σp 7
C r3
0.60
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Fig. 4-22 e – log σ’ curve showing the three recompression indices (Cr1, Cr2, Cr3). Clay sample from SH3
borehole 1, depth 18-20 ft, CH clay.
(1) Cr1 is the slope of the line joining the end of the unloading part (point 5) and the
intersection of the preconsolidation line and the reloading part of the
recompression curve (point 6).
(2) Cr2 is the average slope of the hysteretic loop (all the unloading and reloading) as
shown in Fig. 4-22 (Holtz 1981)
(3) Cr3 is the slope of the unloading section of the recompression curve (Das 2006).
Even if the value of the recompression index is really small, this ratio leads
definitely to significant differences in settlement predictions in case of
overconsolidated clay soil.
143
a.)
b.)
Fig. 4-23 e – log σ’ curve of clay soil performed by TxDOT for Project IH10-SH90 I/C, No 508-01-166,
respectively a.) Boring No 3 -5 ft and b.) Boring I10A – 25 ft. The reloading part was used to compute the
recompression index Cr [Cr1 ].
144
a.)
b.)
Fig. 4-24 e – log σ’ curve of clay soil performed by TxDOT for Project IH10 at SH99, No 508-02-101,
respectively Boring No 99-8 (5ft) and 99-1 (25ft). The unloading part was used to calculate the
recompression index Cr [Cr3].
145
Table 4.9 Summary of compressibility parameters of clay soil of SH3 bridge at Clear Creek.
IL TEST
Depth Compressibility parameters of B1
Type OCR Cr3/Cr1 Cr3/Cr2 Cr1/Cc Cr2/Cc Cr3/Cc
(ft)
Cc Cr1 Cr2 Cr3
1 CH
3 CH 9.6 0.144 0.018 0.049 0.062 3.44 1.27 0.125 0.340 0.431
5 CH
7 CH
9 CH 1.7 0.185 0.018 0.057 0.068 3.78 1.19 0.097 0.308 0.368
11 CH 2.7 0.257 0.032 0.081 0.099 3.09 1.22 0.125 0.315 0.385
13 CH 2.3 0.244 0.022 0.065 0.080 3.64 1.23 0.090 0.266 0.328
15 CH 2.0 0.306 0.041 0.099 0.111 2.71 1.12 0.134 0.324 0.363
17 CH 1.1 0.446 0.025 0.162 0.190 7.60 1.17 0.056 0.363 0.426
19 CH 1.2 0.443 0.026 0.117 0.136 5.23 1.16 0.059 0.264 0.307
21
23 CL 1.2 0.086 0.014 0.018 0.016 1.14 0.89 0.163 0.210 0.187
25 CL 1.0 0.101 - 0.015 0.017 1.13 - 0.149 0.168
27 CL
29 CL 1.0 0.131 - 0.024 0.017 0.71 - 0.183 0.130
From Table 4.9, it was observed that for CH clay soils Cr3 was equal to 2.71 to
7.60 times the values of Cr1. This variation will be the same for the magnitude of
settlement estimated using Cr1 and Cr3, in case of overconsolidated clay, when the total
primary settlement Sp is
Cr ⎛ σ + Δσ ⎞
Sp = H log⎜⎜ o ⎟⎟ . 4-3
1 + e0 ⎝ σo ⎠
Based on the analysis of the data there was no direct correlation between Cr1 and
C’c. But there was a correlation between Cc and recompression indices: Cr2 = 0.305 C’c
and Cr3 = 0.356 C’c.
As shown on Fig. 4-26, the ratio of recompression indices and the compression of
Houston SH3 at Clear Creek clay soil are, in general, higher than New Orleans clay
ratios, except the ratio obtained using Cr1.
146
0.05 0.20
0.04 0.16
0.03 0.12
Cr1
Cr2
0.02 0.08
0.01 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Cc Cc
a.) b.)
0.20
0.16
0.12
Cr3
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Cc
c.)
Fig. 4-25 Correlation of the different type of recompression indexes with the compression index a.) Cr1 vs.
Cc, b.) Cr2 vs. Cc, c.) Cr3 vs. Cc.
0.20
New Orleans Boundary
New Orleans Boundary
0.16 Cr1 (Houston)
Recmpression index Cr
Cr2 (Houston)
Cr3 (Houston)
0.12
New Orleans clay range

0.08 after Das (2004)
0.04
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Compression index Cc
Fig. 4-26 Comparison of the different recompression indices of Houston SH3 samples with New Orleans
clay Cr/Cc range.
147
4.6.2. Representative consolidation test for Cr determination
It was noticed that convenient unloading and reloading steps during the
consolidation test of a clay soil are necessary to determine a representative recompression
index, as is shown in Fig. 4-27 and Fig. 4-28. This matter was discussed by Leonards
(1976). The testing procedure is also to be decided considering the type of clay, CH or
CL.
In the following notation Crxy
- x indicates the type of recompression index , type 1, 2, or 3, and
- y means order of the cycle, 1, 2, or 3.
• Analysis of CH clay samples from SH146
Three cycles of unloading and reloading were performed on the clay sample of
Fig. 4-27, a CH clay sample recovered on SH146. The second cycle done in one step
doesn’t describe the behavior of the clay soil during the recompression by comparing it to
the two others cycles, meaning that the recompression index of a CH clay sample cannot
be determined accurately in one step of loading and unloading and there remain the
possibility of calculating the three types of recompression indexes (Cr1, Cr2 and Cr3).
Cr1 was determined for each hysteretic loop, except for loop 2 done in one step
and does not allow for this type of Cr calculation:
Cr11= 0.017; Cr13 = 0.023.
The average is 0.02, with a standard deviation (STDEV) of 0.004, an acceptable
change when compare to Cr2 analysis which gave a STDEV of 0.020.
148
0.72
e o = 0.72
1
σ p = 1.41 tsf
0.68
Cr21 C c = 0.168
C r21 = 0.030
0.64
2 C r22 = 0.057
Void ratio e
3 Cr22 C r23 = 0.068
0.60
Cr23 C r21 /C c = 0.179
C r22 /C c = 0.339
0.56 C r23/ C c = 0.405
LL = 70.3%
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Fig. 4-27 e – log σ’ curve of a Houston clay soil with three different cycles of unloading and reloading for
Cr determination. SH146-Sample FP1-BR2, depth: 2-3 ft (CH clay).
Cr2 values were determined using the Holtz method, the average slope of the loop
for each cycle, and the following were obtained:
Cr21= 0.030; Cr22 = 0.057; Cr23= 0.068.
Cr21, Cr22 and Cr23 are three completely different values with an average of 0.052 and
standard deviation of 0.020, quite a high standard deviation compared to 0.004 obtained
from Cr1 analysis.
The unloading and reloading at high stress, cycle 3 (16 tsf), does not yield a
representative type recompression index either, a fact which can be justified by the
development of the swelling potential of the clay soil under higher compression pressure,
a situation not existing on the field.
Cr3 analysis follows the same trend of C r2 analysis.
149
• Analysis of CL clay samples from SH146
Three cycles of unloading and reloading were performed on the silty CL clay
sample of Fig. 4-28, a sample recovered on SH146.
Cr1 type of recompression index cannot be determined on most of the CL clay
soils (Table 4.9 and Fig. 4-28), and the value of Cr2 and Cr3 are practically the same.
All the cycles provide approximately the same recompression index (Cr2 = 0.004). Even
cycle 2 is done in one step of unloading, except the noise at the third cycle, which may be
explained by the dilatancy of the silt at that stress level (16 tsf).
We don’t have the problem of calculating three types of recompression indices
(Cr1, Cr2 and Cr3) because the unloading and reloading steps during the recompression of
the sample follows the same path. Moreover, the recompression index was 0.004,
considered very low, which is the case with the silty soils as summarized in Table 4.9 and
shown in Fig. 4-20 and Fig. 4-21.
0.60
σο =0.60 tsf e o = 0.60
σ p = 1.5 tsf
C c = 0.101
0.56 1
C r21 = 0.010
Cr21 = 0.010 C r22 = 0.014
C r23 = 0.014
Void ratio e
0.52 LL = 29.5%
Cr22 = 0.014
2
0.48
3
Cr23 = 0.014
0.44
0.40
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Fig. 4-28 e – log σ’ curve of a Houston clay soil with three different cycles of unloading and reloading for
Cr determination. SH146-Sample PR4-BW4, depth: 9-10 ft (CL clay).
150
4.7. Coefficient of consolidation (Cv)
The coefficient of consolidation derived from Terzaghi (1925) 1-dimensional
consolidation theory is the parameter used to determine the percent of the total primary
settlement completed at any time, and is given by the following equation
2
Tv H dr
cv =
t
where Hdr is the maximum drainage path.
There are two commonly used methods to calculate the coefficient of
consolidation Cv:
- Casagrande’s log time method giving
0.197 H dr
cv = .
t50
- Taylor’s square root of time method giving
0.848 H dr
cv = .
t90
As reported in the literature, Taylor’s square root of time method Cv values are
generally higher than Casagrande’s logarithm of time method values, as was observed in
our tests.
For CH clay soils, the coefficient of consolidation was very high before the
preconsolidation pressure and then decreased rapidly after (Fig. 4-29).
In case of CL clay soils (silty clay), even if the preconsolidation pressure is not a
clearly defined parameter for this type of clay, the coefficient of consolidation does drop
visibly with the stress increase. The Casagrande log of time method is not convenient for
151
CL soils for the determination of Cv; the standard shape of the deformation versus log
time was not obtained (Fig. 4-30).
0.85 e o = 0.84 90
σ p = 1.91 tsf
80 Taylor method
0.80 C c = 0.257
C r1 = 0.032 70
0.75 C r2 = 0.081
e
C r3 = 0.099 60
Void ratio
C v (ft2/yr)
C r1 /C c =0.125
0.70 C r2 /C c =0.315 50
Casagrande method
C r3 /C c =0.385
0.65 LL = 67.5 % 40
PL = 22.6 %
30
0.60
20
0.55
10
0.50 0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
a.) SH3 B1 10 – 12 ft (CH)
0.85 250
e o = 0.86
0.80 σ p = 2 tsf Taylor method
C c = 0.306
C r1 = 0.0414
200
0.75
C r2 = 0.099
e
0.70 C r3 = 0.111
Void ratio
C v (ft2/yr)
C r1 /C c = 0.135 150
0.65 C r2 /Cc = 0.324
C r3 /Cc = 0.363
0.60 LL = 75 % 100
PL = 19.8 % Casagrande method
0.55
50
0.50
0.45 0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
b.) SH3 B1 14 – 16 ft (CH)
1.20 90
e o = 1.22
σ p = 1 tsf 80
1.10 C c = 0.446 Taylor method
C r1 = 0.025 70
1.00 C r2 = 0.162
C r3 = 0.190 60
Void ratio e
C v (ft2/yr)
C r1 /C c = 0.056
0.90 50
C r2 /C c = 0.363
C r3 /C c = 0.426
0.80 40 Casagrande method
LL = 73.5 %
PL = 22%
30
0.70
20
0.60
10
0.50 0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
c.) SH3 B2 16 – 18 ft (CH)
152
1.00
e o = 0.97 18
σ p = 1.2 tsf
16
0.90 C c = 0.347
C r1 = 0.057 14
C r2 = 0.169 Taylor method
Void ratio e 0.80 C r3 = 0.153 12
C v (ft2/yr)
C r1 /C c = 0.164
C r2 /C c = 0.487 10
0.70
C r3 /C c = 0.441
8 Casagrande method
0.60 6
4
0.50
2
0.40 0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
d.) SH3 B2 18 – 20 ft (CH)
0.46 140
e o = 0.47
0.44 σp= σo 120 Taylor method
C c = 0.101
0.42 C r1 =
100
C r2 = 0.015
e
0.40 C r3 = 0.017
C v (ft2/yr)
Void ratio
C r2 /C c = 0.149 80
0.38 C r2 /C c = 0.168
LL = 30.3 % 60
0.36 PL = 17.5 %
40
0.34
Casagrande method
20
0.32
0.30 0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
e.) SH3 B1 24 – 26 ft (CL)
0.51 200
e o = 0.51
σ p= σ o 180
0.47 C c1 = 0.131
C c1 = 160
C r2 = 0.024
C r3 = 0.017 140
e
0.43 C r2 /C c = 0.183
120
Void ratio
C v (ft2/yr)
C r3 /C c = 0.130
LL = 46.1%
0.39 PL = 15.3% 100
80
0.35
60
40
0.31
20
0.27 0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
f.) SH3 B1 28 – 30 ft (CL)
Fig. 4-29 e – log σ’ curve of a Houston clay from SH3 and their respective Cv – σ’ curve.
153
2 tsf_SH3 B1_16-18ft 4 tsf_SH3 B1_16-18ft
Time (min) Time (min)
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

0.05 0.11
0.06 0.12
0.07 0.13
Deformation (in)
Deformation (in)
0.08 0.14
0.09 0.15
0.10 0.16
0.11 0.17
0.12 0.18
a.) Casagrande method with CH clay
2 tsf_SH3 B1_28-30ft
4 tsf_SH3 B1_28-30 ft
Time (min) Time (min)

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.035 0.055
0.060
0.040
Deformation (in)
Deformation (in)
0.065
0.045
0.070
0.050
0.075
0.055
0.080
0.060 0.085
b.) Casagrande method with CL clay
Fig. 4-30 Deformation vs. time at log scale curve of Casagrande T50 a.) CH clay, b.) CL clay.
4.8. Constant Rate of Strain consolidation test results
As mentioned in chapter 2, Constant Rate of Strain (CRS) consolidation test is a
faster test to determine the consolidation properties than the standard incremental load
(IL) consolidation test. The test can completed, in some case, in less than 24 hours, and it
provides the same e - log σ’ since it is not a function of the applied strain rate (Wissa et
al. 71), as proven using the Houston CH clay (Fig. 4-31).
154
4.8.1. Strain rate consideration for ε- log σ’ curve
.
CRS tests at different strain rate ( ε ) were performed on three specimens from the
same Shelby tube sample, recovered from SH3 bridge at Clear Creek city borehole 2 at a
depth of 18 – 20 ft. The average strain rate was 0.16 % / hr during the IL test.
Vertical effective stress σ' (psf)

10 100 1000 10000
0
1
SR = 2 % / h
2
Axial strain ε (%)
SR = 0.16 % / h
3
SR = 2 % / h
4
Fig. 4-31 Three ε- log σ’ of CRS tests performed on three specimen from the same Shelby tube sample at
different strain rate.
The strain rate was increased from 0.016%/hr to 0.02%/hr (Fig. 4-31), 12.5 times
increase. There was no change in the ε- log σ’ relationship.
Consequently, the CRS test can be used for an accurate determination of the
preconsolidation pressure σp- compression index Cc- recompression index Cr - from the
obtained ε –log σ’ or e –log σ’ curve (Fig. 4-32). At the strain rate of 0.025/ hr, the CRS
test was completed in less than 24 hrs, but the IL test was completed within eighteen
days. Fitting the exact shape of the CRS test curve can be done in fourteen days.
155
100 1000 10000 100000
0
CRS
5
Axial strain ε (%)
10
15
IL
20
25
.
Fig. 4-32 Comparison of CRS test ( ε = 0.025/hr) and IL test ε – log σ’ curve. Test performed on two
different specimens from the same Shelby tube sample recovered form SH3 at Clear Creek, borehole 5 at
10 – 12 ft deep.
4.8.2. Strain rate consideration for Cv determination
The concern with the CRS consolidation test is the determination of a reliable
coefficient of consolidation Cv since it depends on the strain rate of the test (Fig. 4-33). The
approach of Wissa et al. (1971) and of the ASTM D 4186-86 is the specification of the
range of the pore water pressure ratio with the effective stress so that the obtained values
can complied with the ones obtained from the IL test. As was observed on Fig. 4-34 a.)
even if the ε – log σ’ curve from the CRS and IL test matched, their respective Cv – σ’
didn’t match, and the pressure ratio (Fig. 4-34 a.) didn’t comply with the ASTM preferable
values of 3% to 30%.
156
The coefficient of consolidation is defined as follows (Chapter 2)
⎡σ ⎤
H 2 log ⎢ v 2 ⎥
cv = − ⎣ σ v1 ⎦ 4-4
⎡ u ⎤
2Δt log ⎢1 − h ⎥
⎣ σv ⎦
where:
ub = average excess pore pressure between t2 and t1, and
σv = average total applied axial stress between t2 and t1.
2000
1800
SR = 0.02/hr
1600
SR = 0.0016/hr
1400
SR = 0.02/hr
1200
Cv (ft2/yr)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fig. 4-33 Three Cv- σ’ of CRS test performed on three specimen (CH clay) from the same Shelby tube
sample at different strain rate.
Since the strain rate cannot be modified during the CRS consolidation test to fit
the required pressure ratio, a correlation needs to be developed for each type of soft clay
157
.
to define the convenient ε as presented by Dobak (2003). This needs to be done for
Houston clay.
1600 0.40
1400 0.35 CRS (0.025/hr)

IL T90
1200 0.30
IL T50
Pressure ratio
1000 0.25
Cv (ft2/yr)
CRS (0.025/hr)
800 0.20
600 0.15
400 0.10
200 0.05
0 0.00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Vertical effective stress σ' (psf) Vertical effective stress σ' (psf)
a.) b.)
.
Fig. 4-34 a.) Comparison of CRS test ( ε = 0.025/hr) and IL test Cv– σ’ curve. Test performed on two
different specimens from the same Shelby tube sample recovered from SH3 at Clear Creek, borehole 5 at
10 – 12 ft deep; b.) Pressure ratio vs. vertical effective stress corresponding to the CRS test.

The compression index Cc is stress dependent, and the ones determined by the
conventional method can be correlated with the in situ natural moisture and the unit
weight.
In overconsolidated clay, as is found in Houston, the methods of recompression
index determination need to be precisely assessed to determine which one of Cr1, Cr2, and
Cr3 is the most reliable for settlement prediction, or to consider its stress dependency,
which showed substantial variation resulting in the three types of Cr.
The coefficient of consolidation, Cv, is also stress dependent, and the
Casagrande’s T50 gives a lower value than T90. It is high before the preconsolidation
pressure and substantially drops just afterwards. This fact means that the average of the
158
most representative values of the field condition (stress-wise) will provide a more reliable
prediction.
The CRS consolidation is a fast and reliable test for ε –log σ’ or e –log σ’ curve
determination and for all the parameters related to it. The only concern is the
determination of the test strain rate to get a reliable coefficient of consolidation.
159
5. FIELD STUDY
5.1. Introduction
During the study, two existing embankments were investigated and instrumented:
- SH3 bridge embankment at Clear Creek city
- NASA Rd. 1 embankment at Clear Lake between Annapolis and Taylor Lake St.
These two embankments’ construction was completed years ago and having
noticeable failure due to differential settlement and/or retaining wall failure. These are
the reasons for their investigation, which includes the following:
- site investigation
- field instrument and monitoring
It should to be mentioned that in both cases there were no previous reference
points set at the construction of the structure for any displacement monitoring. Therefore,
all the reported displacements (settlement and lateral displacement) here from our
monitoring are relative to new set references at the starting date of the monitoring.
As monitoring devices, the following instruments were used:
- demec points for retaining walls movement
- retaining wall rotation monitoring mark
- inclinometer for lateral displacement
- piezometers for pore water pressure
- University of Houston home made settlement device
- sondex settlement for settlement.
160
NASA Rd. 1
SH3
Fig. 5-1 Location of the instrumented site on Houston map.
5.2. Site history and previous site investigation
5.2.1. SH3 at Clear Creek Bridge and Clear Creek Relief Bridge
For the widening of the roadway and of the bridges over Clear Creek and Clear
Creek Relief scheduled for 1971, seven borings were completed between September and
October 1965. In February, March, and September of 1984, seven new borings were
completed for the widening and elevating of North Bridge (NB) roadway, for the removal
and replacement of NB bridges over Clear Creek and Clear Creek Relief, and for the
construction of retaining walls at NB roadway and bridge approaches. Finally, one boring
was completed in November 1991 for the removal and replacement of the South Bridge
(SB) and for the construction of retaining walls at SB Clear Creek Relief bridge
approaches in December 1993.
161
Retaining
wall 2E of the
Drilling machine embankment
Shelby tube
Fig. 5-2 Picture view of SH3 during site investigation (January 2007).
5.2.2. NASA Road 1 embankment at Clear Lake
NASA Road 1 between Annapolis and Taylor Lake St. is a combination of side
by side, a bridge on piles, and an embankment (Fig. 5-3). Both the bridge and roadway
were built in 2000, and from the report of TxDOT, the roadway has settled down more
than 12 inches since then.
162
Fig. 5-3 Cross section of NASA Road 1 roadway.
5.3. Instrumentation
5.3.1. Principles of the demec points
Demec points are fixed metallic discs glued on any surface in different
configurations around a crack to monitor its movement. In this study, demec points were
placed around the cracks on the retaining walls on SH3 to monitor their evolution.
Demec point
Crack on the
retaining wall
Fig. 5-4 Demec on the embankment retaining wall.
163
5.3.2. Operating principles of the inclinometer
Inclinometers are used to measure ground movement in unstable slopes and the
lateral movement of ground around ongoing excavations. Inclinometers also monitor the
stability of embankments, slurry walls, the disposition and deviation of driven piles or
drilled boreholes, and the settlement of ground in fills, embankments, and beneath
storage tanks.
In this case, an inclinometer was used to monitor the deviation of the drilled
boreholes B2 and B4, the movements of which are a reflection of the embankment
movements.
An inclinometer casing is installed in the ground and grouted. The inclinometer
casing has four orthogonal grooves (Fig. 5-5 b) designed to fit the wheels of a portable
inclinometer probe (Fig. 5-5 a.). This probe, suspended on the end of a cable connected to
a readout device, is used to survey the inclination of the casing with respect to vertical (or
horizontal), and in this way to detect any changes in inclination caused by ground
movements.
The inclinometer probe was composed of two accelerometers with their axes
oriented at 90° to each other. The A axis is in line with the wheels, with the B axis
orthogonal to it. Thus, during the survey, as the A+, A- readings were obtained, the B+,
B- readings were also recorded.
The inclinometer probe used in this study is manufactured by GEOKON
company. The readout box from the same company was used to collect the data.
164
a.) b.)
Fig. 5-5 a.) Inclinometer probe (Geokon Inc 2007) b.) Inclinometer casing.
5.3.3. Operating principles of the Sondex Settlement system
The Sondex settlement system is used with the inclinometer casing to measure
settlement and heave associated with excavation, construction, backfill, or tunnelling
operations. It has been used in two embankment case studies around the world out of 25
that are presented in chapter 2.
The Sondex Settlement system consists of a portable readout probe, sensing rings,
corrugated Sondex pipe, and inclinometer casing (Fig. 5-6).
165
The Sondex readout consists of a reel with a built-in voltmeter, a cable, and a
probe. The reel also includes a battery test button, a buzzer adjustment, and a sensitivity
adjustment.
Sensing rings are attached to the corrugated pipe at the factory or out in the field.
For installation procedure the corrugated pipe is grouted in place in the same way
as the inclinometer.
Fig. 5-6 Sondex settlement device setup.
166
5.3.4. University of Houston relative settlement measurement device
This settlement measurement device was developed and built at University of
Houston. It measures the settlement in the layer of height H, assuming that the underlying
layer is static.
When Δδ = δ 1final − δ 1initial < 0 (-) the soft soil layer is settling.
When Δδ = δ 1final − δ 1initial > 0 (+) the soft soil layer is expanding.
δ1
Casing
Steel rod
Soft soil layer

of height H
δ2
Fig. 5-7 University of Houston settlement measurement device.
5.4. NASA Road 1 embankment instrumentation
The NASA Road 1 roadway between Annapolis and Taylor Lake St embankment
was instrumented in April 2007. A total of four borings were performed (UH1, UH2,
UH3, and UH4) and instrumented:
- UH1 and UH3 were instrumented with sondex settlement devices.
167
- UH2 and UH4 were each instrumented with one piezometer and one UH
settlement device.
5.5. SH3 embankment instrumentation and results
SH3 Embankment at Clear Creek was instrumented through 2007 and has been
monitored for six months.
5.5.1. Site instrumentation
In January 2007, the field was (Fig. 5-8) instrumented as follows:
- Borings B2 and B4 were instrumented with inclinometer casing, up to 30 ft deep
each, to monitor any lateral displacement of the embankment. Borings B2 and B4
were, respectively, 5’4’’ and 5’6’’ from the embankment retaining wall.
- Borings B1, B3, and B5 were instrumented with settlement measurement devices
made at University of Houston and piezometers, up to, respectively 30, 20, and 20
ft deep. Borings B1, B3, and B5 were respectively at 5’1’’, 5’3’’, and 5’9’’from
the retaining wall.
- Section 1 to 2 of 80 ft on the retaining (Fig. 5-8) wall had a lot of cracks and was
the main section instrumented with demec points.
168
2 80 ft 1 N
B2 B1
B3
Clear creek relief

840 ft
Clear creek B4 B5
Fig. 5-8 Sketch of plan view of SH3 at Clear Creek with the new boring locations.
5.5.2. Monitoring results
• Inclinometer
In the presentation of the embankment lateral movement from the inclinometers
reading (Fig. 5-9), the Y-axis is the origin (day 0 reading). The inclinometer reading has
accuracy of 6x10-4 in.
From boring B2 reading, the inclinometer casing had lateral displacement from
day 0 (installation day) to day 24 due to the installation and the cement grout setting.
(The cement grout reaches its optimum setting in 28 days). Four months after the setting
of the grout, a total lateral displacement of 0.10 inch away from the embankment was
recorded at the ground surface and 0.025 inch towards the wall at 15 ft deep. No
displacement was recorded at 28 ft deep (Fig. 5-9).
169
Change in deflection (in)
-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
0
83 days 1 days
113 days 6 days
14 days
5 24 days
47 days
139 days 83 days
113 days
10 139 days
1 days
14 days
Depth (ft)
15
24 days
20
25 Initial reading day 1/25/2007
30
Fig. 5-9 Inclinometer reading at boring B2 (SH3).
From the boring B4 reading, the inclinometer casing had lateral displacement
from day 0 (installation day) to day 23 due to the installation and the cement grout setting
(the cement grout reaches its optimum setting in 28 days). Three months (92 days) after
the setting of the grout, a total lateral displacement of 0.09 inches away from the
embankment was recorded at the ground surface and at 15 ft deep. The bottom of the
casing, at 28 ft deep, can be considered static (Fig. 5-10).
Change in deflection (in)

-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0
23 days
5
59 days
89 days
115 days 89 days
59 days
10 115 days
Depth (ft)
15 23 days
20
Initial reading day:
2/18/2007
25
30
Fig. 5-10 Inclinometer reading at boring B4 (SH3).
170
• Settlement devices
- At boring B1, 30 ft deep, the soil expanded up to 0.10 inch between the
installation day and three months thereafter. It then started settling up to 0.57 inch
(Fig. 5-11). This result was compared to the predicted settlement in chapter 3 in
project 3. However, since the boring was at 5 ft from the retaining wall of the
embankment, not under the embankment, and its top (at the ground) was a free
boundary, the water table fluctuation (Fig. 5-12) changing the vertical effective
stress in the soil may account for the measured displacement. The accuracy of the
caliper used for measurement was 0.01 mm.
-0.7
Initial day: 1/23/2007
-0.6
-0.5
Reading
Relative settlement (in)
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2 δ(-) : settlement Trend

-0.1
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
0.0
0.1 Time (days)

δ(+) : expansion
0.2
Fig. 5-11 Measure relative displacement with tine at boring B1.

330
Initial day : 1/26/2007
Ground water head (in)
320
310
300
290
280
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (days)
Fig. 5-12 Water table variation with time with the bottom of the casing at 30 ft deep as reference
in boring B1.
171
The pore water pressure increased up to 10 psi due to installation effect and
stabilized around this value (Fig. 5-13). The hydrostatic pressure was also monitored and
its variation followed the piezometer reading. The accuracy of the piezometers was more
than 0.002 psi.
14
12
Pore pressure (psi)
10
8
Piezometer
6 Hydrostatic pressure
4
2
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (day)
Fig. 5-13 Pore pressure variation with time at boring B1.
- At boring B3, 20 ft deep, the soil expanded up to 0.07 inch between the
installation day and two-and-a-half months after. It started settling up to 0.51 inch
(Fig. 5-14). However, since the boring was at 5 ft from the retaining wall of the
embankment, and its top (at the ground) was a free boundary, the water table
fluctuation changing the vertical effective stress in the soil may account for the
measured displacement.
172
-0.6
Initial day: 1/26/2007
-0.5
-0.4

-0.3
-0.2
δ(-) : settlement
-0.1
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
0.0
Time (days)
0.1
δ(+) : expansion
0.2
Fig. 5-14 Measurement of relative displacement with time at boring B3.
The pore water pressure increased up to 10 psi due to installation effect and
stabilized around this value (Fig. 5-15). The hydrostatic pressure was also monitored and
its variation followed the piezometer reading.
8
Initial day : 1/262007
Pore pressure (psi)
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (day)
- At boring B5, 20 ft deep, the soil settled up to 0.30 inch three months after
installation (Fig. 5-16) and then expanded to less than 0.025 inch two months
later. However, since the boring was at 5 ft from the retaining wall of the
173
embankment, not under the embankment, and its top (at the ground) was a free
boundary, the water table fluctuation (Fig. 5-17) changing the vertical effective
stress in the soil may account for the measured displacement.
-0.35
Initial day:2/8/2007
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15 Trend
-0.10 δ(-) : settlement
-0.05
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
0.00
Time (day)
Fig. 5-16 Measure relative displacement with time at boring B5.
205
Initial day : 1/31 2007
Ground water head (in)
200
195
190
185
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (day)
Fig. 5-17 Water table variation with time with the bottom of the casing at 20 ft deep as reference
in boring B5.
The pore water pressure, measured with the piezometer, increased up to 8.0 psi
due to installation effect and stabilized at 6.7 psi (Fig. 5-18). The hydrostatic pressure
was also monitored and its variation followed the piezometer reading.
174
10
Initial day : 1/31 2007
Pore pressure (psi)

8
6
Piezometer
4 Hydrostatic pressure
2
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Days
• Demec points
Four of the configurations a.) and eleven configurations b.) in Fig. 5-19 were
installed. Six months after the installation of the demec points on the retaining wall,
particularly in the section 1-2 (Fig. 5-8), the measured changes in distance between the
cracks and the retaining wall panels were between -1 and 1 mm (Fig. 5.20 and Fig. 5-21).
The accuracy of the caliper used for measurement was 0.01 mm.
a.) b.)
Fig. 5-19 Picture view of demec points on the wall: a.) for wall panel displacement monitoring, b.) crack
opening monitoring.
175
4
1 2
3 185 days later
4 3
2
Change (mm)
0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60
-1
INTERVALS
-2
-3
-4
Fig. 5-20 Relative displacement of the wall panels along the embankment.
4
3 2
185 days later
2
Change (mm)
1
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
-1
-2 INTERVALS
-3
-4
Fig. 5-21 Change in the crack opening along the wall.
• Wall rotation monitoring mark
Eleven of the wall rotation monitoring marks were placed along the retaining wall
(Fig. 5-22). The wall rotation at all eleven marks within 175 days varied between -0.50o
and 0.50°, and the accuracy of the leveler was 0.1 °.
176
Fig. 5-22 Picture view of L2 rotation monitoring mark line on the retaining wall.
1.5
175 days later
1.0
Change ( )
o
0.5
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
-0.5
INTERVALS
-1.0
Fig. 5-23 Change in wall rotation monitoring mark readings along the retaining wall.
SH3 field instrumentation results were reported, but NASA Road 1 was a recent
project and the data collection is still ongoing. The maximum lateral movement recorded
177
by the inclinometers was 0.10 inch at the free head in boring B2 within four months of
monitoring and a reading accuracy of 6x10-4.
The maximum recorded settlement was 0.57 inch in boring B1 and where a
variation of the water table of 40 inches in four months was recorded.
The maximum displacement recorded by the demec points on the wall was within
1 mm within 6 six months with a reading accuracy of 0.01 mm.
Finally the maximum rotation of the retaining wall recorded was within 0.5o with
an accuracy of 0.1o.
178
6. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
6.1. General
The embankment at SH3 bridge in Clear Creek city was modeled as a plain strain
model using Plaxis 2-D program. The parameters obtained from diverse lab tests (IL and
CRS consolidation test, unconfined compression test) on the samples recovered from
recent soil investigation are use for the modeling.
The Soft Soil Model was used, since the stress increase due to the embankment
was close to the preconsolidation pressures.
6.2. Plain strain Finite Element Modeling
The embankment was 9 ft in height with a width of 108 ft and a length of 840 ft.
Although the embankment was sloping, for simplicity, it was assumed to be symmetric,
and half of the cross section was modeled as a plain strain finite model in the software
Plaxis. A surcharge load of 240 psf, used by TxDOT, was added to the embankment load.
Fig. 6-1 Finite element model of SH3 embankment.
179
6.3. Elements
The 15-node triangle is the default element for a problem in Plaxis and was used
because of its accuracy. The 15-node triangle element, very accurate with fourth order
interpolation for displacements and a numerical integration involving twelve Gauss
points (stress points), was used instead of the 6-node triangle element. A total of 843
elements were used in the model.
Fig. 6-2 Position of nodes and stress points in soil elements.
6.4. Constitutive Model
The software Plaxis soft soil constitutive model was used to simulate the behavior
of SH3 embankments. The parameters used for Plaxis soft soil model are summarized in
Table 6.1. This model doesn’t include secondary consolidation (creep). It requires the
compressibility parameters of the clay soil and Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria.
180
6.5. Parameters
Based on the data provided by the project, the following soft soil model
parameters were determined.
Table 6.1 Summary table of available settlement parameters.
Layers
Depth Cv
(ft)
height Cc Cr eo 2
Av
( in /day)
k (ft/day) OCR
(ft)
2.5 5.0 0.199 0.050 0.66 1.128 1.52E-03 5.0
7.5 5.0 0.199 0.050 0.66 1.128 1.52E-03 1.7
12.5 5.0 0.199 0.050 0.66 1.128 1.52E-03 1.3
18.5 7.0 0.377 0.038 1.06 0.522 9.16E-04 1.7
26.0 8.0 0.149 0.012 0.59 1.404 1.21E-03 1.1
The modified compression index (λ*) and recompression index κ * are defined as
follows:
Cc Cr
λ* = and κ* = .
1 + eo 1 + eo
The parameters in Table 6.2 were for all the layers the same.
Table 6.2 Yield condition parameters.
1 c Effective cohesion 20 psf

2 ϕ Friction angle 30o
3 ψ Dilatancy angle 0o
5 ν ur Poisson’s ratio for unloading / reloading 0.15
Coefficient of lateral stress in the state of normal
6 Κ o NC 0.6
consolidation
181
6.6. Results
The total settlement at the center of the embankment after 14 years (2007),
predicted with the model, was 22 inches with 7 inches at the toe.
Time ( years)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
4
Settlement (in)
12 2007
Center
16 (TxDOT)
Center (FEM )
20 To e (FEM )
24
Fig. 6-3 Comparison of FEM settlement prediction results and the project result.
This is 2.5 time higher than the 1992 estimate for total settlement of 8.5 inches.
6.7. Summary
• The 2-D plain strain FE – modeling results of 22 inches in the center and 7 inches
at the toe, making a differential settlement of 15 inches, were not accurate. This
condition was not observed in the field.
• The difference between the FE – modeling results and the estimated results can be
due to the soils layers characterization for modeling. The bottom layer which is a
clayey silt was model as soft soil and the same yield parameters considered for
the clay soil layers were used. It was model as soft soil because the only
parameters available were the compressibility parameters. Therefore, the clayey
silt modeling need to be assessed for a reliable result settlement results.
182
7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Based on a literature review, twenty-five embankment cases studies, were
documented. In addition to the locations and the different type of soft clay soils,
construction methods used also varied. Several onsite instruments were used to monitor
the vertical settlement, lateral displacement, and the excess pore water pressure. Some of
the case studies predicted the measurements using numerical models.
Based on the data available in the literature on soft marine (different parts of the
world) and deltaic clays (Houston, Texas), geotechnical properties and correlations
were investigated. Based on the data collected and analyses performed, the following
conclusions can be advanced:
1. Several mean properties of the marine and deltaic clays have been quantified.
Mean physical (moisture content, void ratio) and geotechnical properties (liquid
limit, plastic limit) of marine clays were higher than those of deltaic soft clays.
The mean undrained shear strength of the two deposits was comparable. The
natural moisture content of 52% of the marine clays was higher than the liquid
limit but the trend was reversed for the deltaic clays.
2. Based on the variance, marine clays showed greater variation in the natural
moisture content, undrained shear strength (Su) and void ratio (eo) compared to
the deltaic deposit. Similarly, deltaic deposit showed greater variation in
plasticity limit and plasticity index (limited data) compared to the marine clay.
183
3. Based on coefficient of variation (COV), the deltaic clay properties had higher
values than marine clay except for the undrained shear strength. It is of interest
to note that the natural moisture content and void ratio had similar values for
marine and deltaic deposits. Variation in the properties of deltaic clays was
higher than the marine clays. Also the probability distribution functions (pdf)
for the various properties have been determined. The pdf for the marine and
deltaic clays were similar.
4. A hyperbolic relationship was used to represent the variation of in-situ vertical
stress and logarithmic undrained shear strength of the soft marine and deltaic
clays. This relationship better represented the marine clay as compared to the
deltaic clay.
Determining the recompression index was important in predicting the settlement
of soft soils. Based on the literature review and consolidation tests performed on the
soft clays in the Houston area, the following conclusions are advanced:
5. Of the consolidation test parameters, the recompression index was the least
investigated in the literature.
6. For the CH soils with hysteretic loop (unloading and reloading), the
recompression index depended on the stress path and the stress level at which
unloading is done.
184
7. Three methods of quantifying the recompression index are proposed. Based on the
soil, substantial variation in the recompression index was observed based on the
methods used.
Two embankments were instrumented with extensometers and inclinometers to monitor
the vertical and horizontal displacement at the SH3 embankment at the Clear Creek and
NASA Road 1 embankments at Taylor Lake. The retaining wall at SH3 was also
instrumented with Demec points to monitor the crack movements on the wall. So far, all
the instrumentations have worked well. Notable variation in the water table was observed
over the past three months. The settlement in SH3 embankment was predicted using the
2-D finite element program (PLAXIS), using the soft soil constitutive model.
Recommendation:
At least one more embankment should be monitored to measure the total amount
of and rate of settlement from the start. This will further help to verify the applicability of
1-d consolidation theory to the field condition in the soft clay soils.
185
REFERENCES
Anderson, L.R., Sampaco, C.L., Gilani, S.H., Keane, E. and Rausher, L. (1994)
“Settlements of Highway Embankments on Soft Lacustrine Deposits.” ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Conference on Vertical and Horizontal
Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Proc. of Settlement ‘94,
College Station, Texas, June, 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 376-397.
ASTM International (2002) "Annual Book of ASTM Standards”, Edition 4, 2002,
Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock (I).
Bauduin, C.M., De Vos, M. and Vermeer, P.A. (2004) “Back analysis of staged
embankment failure: The case study Streefkerk”. Proceedings, Beyond 2000 in
Computational Geotechnics - 10 Years of Plaxis International 1999 Balkema,
Rotterdam, ISBN: 90 5809 040 X. [http://www.uni-
stuttgart.de/igs/content/publications/38.pdf].
Bergado, D.T. and Patawaran, M.A.B. (2000) “Recent developments of ground with pvd
on soft Bangkok clay.” Proc. Intl. Seminar on Geotechnics in Kochi 200, Kochi,
Japan, October, 2000.
Bergenstahl, L. (1991) “Preloading of an embankment on deep soft clay.” Proceedings of
the international Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, v 1,
Deformation of Soils and Displacements of Structures X ECSMFE, 1991, pp.
307-310.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., and Broere, W. (2004) “Plaxis reference manual (Plaxis Finite
Element Code for Soil and Rock Analysis)”. Printed in the Netherlands, ISBN 90-
808079-6-6. [http://www.plaxis.nl].
186
Borges, J.L., Cardoso, A.S. and Lopes, M.G. (2000) “Numerical simulation of a
reinforced embankment on soft ground constructed up to failure.” Proceedings,
International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
Melbourne, Australia. [http://lib.jzit.edu.cn/geoeng/PAPERS/DE/DE0285.PDF].
Brand, E.W. and Brenner, R.P. (1981), “Soft Clay Engineering.” Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company,1981, Amsterdam, TA705.S583, ISBN 0-444-41784-2,
779 p.
Cancelli, P., Recalcati, P. and Doh, S.R. (2000) “Reducing differential settlements under
a road embankment in Korea by use of Geosynthetics: A finite elements
analysis.” Proc. 2nd Asian Geosyntethics Conference, 2000 - tenax.net.
[http://www.tenax.net/geosynthetics/tech_doc/tds003.pdf].
Cao, L., The, C.I., Chang, M-F, Choa, V., Na, Y.M. and Win, B.M. (2000) “Case studies
of fill stability in land reclamation.” Proceedings, International Conference on
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia.
Chang, K.H.. Kovacs, W.D. and Wu, M.J. (1994) “Comparison of Predicted and
Measured Settlement of a Test Embankment Over Soft Soil.” ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 40, Conference on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations
of Foundations and Embankments, Proc. of Settlement ‘94, College
Station,Texas, June, 1994, Vol. 2, pp. 1164-1175.
Chung, S.G., Giao, P.H, Nagaraj, T.S. and Kwag, J.M. (2002) “Characterization of
Estuarine Marine Clays for Coastall Reclamation in Pusan, Korea.” Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology, 2000, Vol. 20, pp. 237-254.
187
Cudny, M. (2003) “Simple multi-laminate model for soils incorporating structural
anisotropy and destructuration.” Int. Workshop on Geotechnics of soft soils-
Theory and Practice. Vermeer, Schweiger, Karstunen & Cudny (eds) 2003 VGE.
Dobak, P. (2003) “Loading Velocity in Consolidation Analysis.” Geotechnical Quarterly,
2003, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Ewers, B. and Allman, M. A. (2000) “Secondary compression of soft clay from
Ballina.” Proceedings, International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Melbourne, Australia.
[http://lib.jzit.edu.cn/geoeng/PAPERS/DE/DE0451.PDF].
Finno, R.J., Bryson, S. and Calvello, M. (2002) ”Performance of a Stiff Support System
in Soft Clay”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
128, No. 8, August 1, 2002. ASCE, pp. 660-671.
Ganstine, D. (1971) “Statistical Correlations of the Engineering Properties of the
Beaumont Clays.” University of Houston, Thesis 1971.G36, 183 p.
Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981) “An introduction to geotechnical engineering.”
Prentice-Hall Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics series, Editors: N.
M. Newmark and W.J. Hall, 733 p.
Humphrey, D.N. and Manion, W.P. (1992) “Properties of tire chips for lightweight fill,
Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics.” Eds Borden, R.H., Holtz, R.D. and Juran,
I. Geotechnical Special Publication 30, ASCE, New Orleans, Louisiana, Vol. 2,
pp. 1344-1355.
Indraratna, B.N., Redana, I.W. and Salim, W. (2000) “Predicted and observed behaviour
of soft clay foundations stabilized with vertical drains.” Proceedings,
188
Melbourne, Australia.
Koutsoftas, D. C. and Cheung, R. K. H. (1994) “Consolidation Settlement and Pore
Pressure Dissipation.” ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40,
Conference on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and
Embankments, Proc. of Settlement ‘94, College Station,Texas June, 1994, Vol. 2,
pp. 1100-1110.
Kjellman, W. (1952) “Consolidation of clay by means of atmospheric pressure.” Proc.
Conf. Soil Stabilization, Cambridge, Mass.: pp. 258-265.
Kukal, Z. (1971) “ Geology of Recent Sediments.” Academic Press, London, ISBN 0-
12-428750-6, 490 p.
Ladd, C.C., Whittle, A.J. and Legaspi , D.E. Jr. (1994) “Stress-Deformation Behavior
of an Embankment on Boston Blue Clay.” ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 40, Conference on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of
Foundations and Embankments, Proc. of Settlement ‘94, College Station, Texas
June, 1994, Vol. 2, pp. 1730-1759.
Ladd, C.C. and DeGroot, D.J. (2003) “Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site
Characterization: Arthur Casagrande Lecture.” 12th Panamerican Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA USA,
June 22-25, 2003.
Leonards, G.A. (1976) “Estimating Consolidation Settlements of Shallow Foundations
on Overconsolidated Clays.” Special Report 163, Transportation Research
Board, pp. 13 – 16.
189
Leroueil, S., Magnan, J. and Tevenas, F. (1990) “Embankments on soft clays.” New York,
Ellis Horwood, 360 p.
Leroueil, S. and Vaughn, P. R. (1990) “The general and congruent effects of structure in
natural soils and weak rocks”. Géotechnique 40, No. 3, pp. 467-488.
Leroueil, S. (1994) “Compressibility of Clays: Fundamental and Practical Aspects.”
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Conference on Vertical and
Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Proc. of Settlement
‘94, College Station, Texas, June, 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 57-76.
Magnan, J.P. (1994) “Methods to Reduce the Settlement of Embankment on Soft Clay:
A Review.” ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Conference on
Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Proc. of
Settlement ‘94, College Station, Texas, June, 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 77-91.
Meschyan, S.R. (1995) “Experimental Rheology of Clayey Soils.” A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 177 6, 448 p.
Mesri, G. (1988) “A Reevaluation of Su(mob)=0.22σp’ using Laboratory Shear Tests”. Can.
Geotech. J., Vol.26, pp.162-164.
Mesri, G., Lo, D. O. K. and Feng, T. (1994) “ Settlement on Embankment on Soft Clays”.
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, Conference on Vertical and
Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Proc. of Settlement
‘94, College Station,Texas, June, 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 8-56.
Miki, H. abd Nozu, M. (2004) “Design and numerical analysis of road embankment with
low improvement ratio deep mixing method.” Geotechnical engineering for
transportation projects; Proceedings of Geo-Trans 2004, July 27-31, 2004, Los
190
Angeles, California.
Nagaraj, T.S. and Miura, N. (2001) “Soft Clay Behaviour Analysis and Assessment.”
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9058093298.
Nash, D.F.T., Powell, J.J.M. and Lloyd, I.M. (1992) “Initial investigations of the soft
clay test site at Bothkennar.” Géotechnique 42, No. 2, pp. 163-181.
Nash, D.F.T., Sills, G.C. and Davison, L.R. (1992) “One-dimensional consolidation
testing of soft clay from Bothkennar.” Géotechnique 42, No. 2, pp. 241-256.
Neher, H.P., Wehnert, M. and Bonnier, P.G. (2004) “An evaluation of soft soil models
based on trial embankments.” Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, University of
Stuttgart, Germany, PLAXIS B.V., Delft, The Netherlands. [http://www.uni-
stuttgart.de/igs/content/publications/60.pdf].
O'Neill, M.W. and Yoon, G. (1995) “Engineering Properties of Overconsolidated
Pleistocene Soils of Texas Gulf Coast.” Transportation Research Record 1479,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., pp. 8-88.
Peck, R.B. (1994) “Use and Abuse of Settlement Analysis.” ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 40, Conference on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of
Foundations and Embankments, Proc. of Settlement ‘94, College Station,Texas
June, 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 1-7.
Plomteux, C. and Porbaha, A. (2004) “CMC Foundation System for Embankment
Support - A Case History.” Geo-Support 2004.
Popovics, H. (1978) “Slag as embankment material.” Int. Conf. on the use of By-products
and Wastes in Civil Engineering 2, pp. 319-324.
191
Rankine, B., Sivakugan, N. and Wijeyakulasuriya, V. (2003) “Observed and Predicted
Behavior of Clay Foundation Response under the Sunshine Motorway Trial
Embankment.” School of Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville,
Australia.
Robinson, R.G. and Allam, M.M. (1998) “Effect of clay mineralogy on coefficient of
consolidation.” Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 46, No. 5, 1998, pp. 596-600.
Rouainia, M., and Muir Wood, D. (2000) “A kinematic hardening constitutive model for
natural clays with loss of structure”. Géotechnique 50(2), pp. 152-164.
Rujikiatkamjorn, C. and Indraratna, B. (2007) “Analysis of Radial Vacuum-Assisted
Consolidation Using 3D Finite Element Method.” Proceedings, Geo Denver 2007,
Denver, CO.
Schwab, E.F. and Pregl, O. (1978) “Incinerator refuse as fill material.” Int. Conf. on Use
of By-products and Waste in Civil Engg. 2, pp. 429-436.
Şenol, A. and Sağlamer, A. (2000) “Determination of Pre-consolidation Pressure with a
New, “Strain Energy-Log Stress” Method” EJGE Paper 0015.
[http://www.ejge.com/2000/Ppr0015/Ppr0015.htm].
Shibuya, S. and Tamrakar, S.B. (1999) "In-situ and laboratory investigations into
engineering properties of Bangkok clay.” In Characterization of Soft Marine
Clays, Tsuchida & Nakase (1999) Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 104 X, pp.
107-132.
Simmons, J.V. (2000) “ Approximation and reliability: A reclamation and preload design
case history from Paradip. India.” 2000 International Conference on Geotechnical
192
and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia.
[http://lib.jzit.edu.cn/geoeng/PAPERS/DE/DE0451.PDF].
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967) “Soil Mechanics in Engineering practice.” 2nd
Edition, Wiley, New York, 729 p.
Terzaghi, K. (1925) “Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikkalischer Grundlager.”
Deuticke, Vienna, 399 p.
Thorburn, S. and Mac Vicat, R.S.L. (1968) “Soil stabilization employing surface and
deep vibrators.” Structural Engineer, Vol. 46, No. 10, pp. 309-316.
Vipulanandan, C., Ahossin Guezo, Y.J., and Bilgin, Ö (2007) “Geotechnical Properties of
Marine and Deltaic Soft Clays.” ASCE Proceedings, Geo Denver 2007, Denver,
CO.
Vipulanandan, C., Kim, M. and Sivram, H. (2007) “Microstructure and Geotechnical
Properties of Houston-Galveston Soft Soils.” Proceedings, Geo Denver 2007,
Denver, CO.
Watanabe, M., Nishikawa, K., Hara, T., Yu, Y. and Tomita, S. (2000) “FEM Analysis of
a test construction of abutment and embankment on soft ground.” 2000
Melbourne, Australia.
[http://lib.jzit.edu.cn/geoeng/PAPERS/GIGS/GIGS0301.PDF].
Wihittle, A.J. and Kavvadas, M.J. (1994) “Formulation of MIT-E3 constitutive model
for overconsolidated clays’. ASCE J. Geotech. Engng 120, No. 1, pp. 173-198.
Wiltafsky, C.,Scharinger, F. Schweiger, H.F., Krenn, H., Zentar, R. Karstunen, M.,
Cudny, M., Neher, H. and Vermeer, P.A. (2003) “Results from a geotechnical
193
benchmark exercise of an embankment on soft clay.” Int. Workshop on
Geotechnics of soft soils-Theory and Practice. Vermeer, Schweiger, Karstunen &
Cudny, Noordwijkerhoud, The Netherlands, 2003, pp. 381-388.
Wissa, A.E.Z., Christian, J.T., Davis, E.H. and Heiberg, S. (1971) “Consolidation at
Constant Rate of Strain”. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM10, Proc. Paper 8447, Oct.,1971, pp.1383-1413.
Wood, D.M. (2004) “Geotechnical Modelling.” Taylor & Francis, London and New
York, ISBN: 0-415-34304-6, 488 p.
Yin, J., Zhu, G. and Zhu, J. (2000) “Porewater pressure and deformation responses in
clays underneath Tarsiut island and Berthierville test embankment”. 2000
Melbourne, Australia [http://lib.jzit.edu.cn/geoeng/PAPERS/DE/DE0366.PDF].
Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D.M. and Hight, D.W. (2002) “The effect of anisotropy on the
behavior of embankments on soft ground.” Géotechnique 52, No. 6, pp. 447-457.
Zhu, J-G. and Yin, J-H. (2000) “Elastic Viscoplastic Modelling of Consolidation
Behaviour of a Test Embankment Treated with PVD.”
[http://www.geosynthetica.net/tech_docs/GeoAsia04Zhu.pdf].
194
APPENDIX A
Summary tables of the incremental load (IL) consolidation tests raw data and analysis. In these tables, any unspecified
weights is in gram(g) and the unspecified length is in inch (in).
SH146-PASADENA Sample: FP1-BR2_2.5_ Depth: 2-3ft
R weight R + wet soil R + dry soil water content eo
0 102.40 80.6 0.270 0.716
R + P + wet
Ring heigh (m) Ring area (m2) Ring mass Paper mass γsat (g/m3) Ms (g) Hs (mm)
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.2 0.70 357.9 1961818.712 124.26 14.81
w
0.270
Hs (in) eo
0.5829 0.716
Change in
Final dial Final specimen Void Height
Applied Pressure specimen Void Ratio Strain rate Cv
reading height Hv Eeod (tsf) Cc
(tsf ) height e (per sec) (in2 /mn)
(in) (in) (in)
(in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.4171 0.7156 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0002 0.0002 0.9998 0.4169 0.7152 2.315E-09 1072.19
0.50 0.0026 0.0026 0.9974 0.4145 0.7111 2.785E-08 104.6 8.650E-03 0.0136
1.00 0.0117 0.0117 0.9883 0.4054 0.6955 1.066E-07 54.98 7.754E-04 0.0518
2.00 0.0327 0.0327 0.9673 0.3844 0.6595 2.513E-07 47.65 6.391E-04 0.1196
1.00 0.0298 0.0298 0.9702 0.3873 0.6644 -3.460E-08 350.1 0.0163
0.25 0.0186 0.0186 0.9814 0.3985 0.6837 -1.321E-07 66.66 0.0321
1.00 0.0245 0.0245 0.9755 0.3926 0.6735 7.000E-08 126.14 0.0169
2.00 0.0357 0.0357 0.9643 0.3814 0.6543 1.344E-07 89.35 0.0638
4.00 0.0621 0.0621 0.9379 0.3550 0.609 3.258E-07 75.74 0.1505
8.00 0.0971 0.0971 0.9029 0.3200 0.549 4.487E-07 114.37 0.1993
1.00 0.0696 0.0696 0.9304 0.3475 0.5962 -3.421E-07 254.42 0.0523
8.00 0.1023 0.1023 0.8977 0.3148 0.5401 4.216E-07 214.06 0.0621
16.00 0.1366 0.1366 0.8634 0.2805 0.4812 4.598E-07 233.01 0.1957
8.00 0.1294 0.1294 0.8706 0.2877 0.4936 -9.572E-08 645.16 0.0412
2.00 0.1024 0.1024 0.8976 0.3147 0.5399 -3.482E-07 0.0769
0.50 0.0793 0.0793 0.9207 0.3378 0.5795 -2.904E-07 37.88 0.0658
2.00 0.0873 0.0873 0.9127 0.3298 0.5658 1.014E-07 109.51 0.0228
8.00 0.1192 0.1192 0.8808 0.2979 0.5111 4.192E-07 109.97 0.0909
16.00 0.1410 0.1410 0.8590 0.2761 0.4737 2.937E-07 216.41 0.1242
APPLIED STRESSES (tsf)

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 1.00 0.25 1.00 2 4 8.00 1 8 16 8 2 0.5 2 8 16
0 0 0.0004 0.0001 0.0114 0.0323 0.0298 0.0187 0.0261 0.0355 0.0619 0.0979 0.0694 0.1021
0.32 0 0.001 0.005 0.0168 0.0322 0.0289 0.0203 0.0269 0.0401 0.0665 0.0967 0.0746 0.1049
0.5 -0.0001 0.0011 0.0055 0.0175 0.0322 0.0281 0.0205 0.0272 0.0406 0.0669 0.0953 0.0753 0.1052
0.71 -0.0002 0.0012 0.0058 0.0181 0.0321 0.0278 0.0207 0.0274 0.0411 0.0674 0.0929 0.0758 0.1057
1 -0.0002 0.0013 0.0062 0.0187 0.032 0.0276 0.0209 0.0277 0.0418 0.0681 0.0922 0.0763 0.1062
1.41 -0.0004 0.0013 0.0066 0.0194 0.0319 0.0274 0.0211 0.0281 0.0425 0.0688 0.0917 0.0771 0.1069
2 -0.0006 0.0015 0.007 0.0202 0.0317 0.0271 0.0213 0.0285 0.0433 0.0697 0.091 0.0782 0.1078
2.83 -0.0009 0.0017 0.0074 0.0211 0.0316 0.0267 0.0217 0.0291 0.0443 0.071 0.09 0.0796 0.1091
3.87 -0.0013 0.0017 0.0079 0.0221 0.0314 0.0263 0.0219 0.0298 0.0457 0.0726 0.0889 0.0814 0.1108
5.48 -0.002 0.0018 0.0084 0.0234 0.0312 0.0257 0.0224 0.0306 0.0474 0.0751 0.0871 0.0842 0.1133
7.75 0.0018 0.0019 0.009 0.025 0.0308 0.0246 0.0228 0.0315 0.0499 0.0785 0.0846 0.088 0.1169
10.95 0.0017 0.002 0.0097 0.0269 0.0305 0.0234 0.0234 0.0327 0.0531 0.0831 0.0812 0.0929 0.1218
15.49 0.0012 0.0022 0.0104 0.0292 0.0302 0.0218 0.0239 0.0338 0.0566 0.0886 0.0771 0.0978 0.1275
21.91 0.0008 0.0024 0.011 0.0311 0.03 0.0202 0.0243 0.0347 0.0597 0.0935 0.0731 0.1007 0.1328
37.95 0.0002 0.0026 0.0117 0.0327 0.0298 0.0186 0.0245 0.0357 0.0621 0.0971 0.0696 0.1023 0.1366 0.1294 0.1024 0.0793 0.0873 0.1192 0.141
Time 90 (min) 24.5 272 324
Time 50 (min)
195
SH146-PASADENA Sample: PR11_RW_9_ Depth: 25ft
0 39.12 30.93 0.265 0.702
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.29 0.70 355.2 1969305.331 125.22 14.92
w
0.265
Hs (in) eo
0.5875 0.702
Final
Final dial Void Height
Applied Pressure ΔH specimen Void Ratio Strain rate Eeod Cv
reading Hv Cc
(tsf ) (in) height e (per sec) (tsf) (in2 /mn)
(in) (in)
(in)
0.25 -0.0166 -0.0166 1.0166 0.4291 0.7304
0.5 -0.0144 -0.0144 1.0144 0.4269 0.7266 2.510E-08 111.99 8.764E-03 0.0126
1.00 -0.0093 -0.0093 1.0093 0.4218 0.718 5.848E-08 98.97 3.878E-03 0.0286
2.00 -0.0005 -0.0005 1.0005 0.4130 0.703 1.018E-07 113.48 3.212E-03 0.0498
4.00 0.0135 0.0135 0.9865 0.3990 0.6791 1.643E-07 142.45 3.488E-03 0.0794
8.00 0.0312 0.0312 0.9688 0.3813 0.649 2.115E-07 226.21 2.547E-03 0.1000
16.00 0.0510 0.0510 0.9490 0.3615 0.6153 2.415E-07 404.09 1.706E-03 0.1119
8.00 0.0435 0.0435 0.9565 0.3690 0.6281 -9.075E-08 1063.91 0.0425
4.00 0.0300 0.0300 0.9700 0.3825 0.6511 -1.611E-07 296.04 0.0764
1.00 0.0046 0.0046 0.9954 0.4079 0.6943 -2.953E-07 118.21 0.0718
0.50 -0.0047 -0.0047 1.0047 0.4172 0.7101 -1.071E-07 53.87 0.0525
0.25 -0.0125 -0.0125 1.0125 0.4250 0.7234 -8.916E-08 32 0.0442
0.50 -0.0107 -0.0107 1.0107 0.4232 0.7203 2.061E-08 80.65 0.0103
1.00 -0.0061 -0.0061 1.0061 0.4186 0.7125 5.292E-08 0.0259
2.00 0.0031 0.0031 0.9969 0.4094 0.6969 1.068E-07 63.04 0.0518
4.00 0.0177 0.0177 0.9823 0.3948 0.672 1.720E-07 79.16 0.0827
8.00 0.0347 0.0347 0.9653 0.3778 0.6431 2.038E-07 137.12 0.0960
16.00 0.0526 0.0526 0.9474 0.3599 0.6126 2.187E-07 262.16 0.1013
32.00 0.0842 0.0842 0.9158 0.3283 0.5588 3.994E-07 301.41 0.1787

Time (min)
0.25 0.5 1 2.00 4 8.00 16 8 4.00 1 0.5 0.25 0.50 1 2 4 8 16 32
0 0.0001 -0.0169 -0.0143 -0.009 -0.0004 0.0137 0.0312 0.0503 0.0435 0.0297 0.0045 -0.0049 -0.0127 -0.0107 -0.0061 0.0031 0.0178 0.035 0.0518
0.10 0.0001 -0.0158 -0.0116 -0.0098 0.0003 0.0137 0.0312 0.0495 0.0416 0.0296 0.0037 -0.0055 -0.0121 -0.01 -0.0061 0.0032 0.018 0.035 0.0518
0.25 0.0001 -0.0157 -0.0121 -0.0062 0.0024 0.0175 0.0332 0.0489 0.0413 0.0285 0.0036 -0.0055 -0.0121 -0.0098 -0.0048 0.0051 0.0204 0.0364 0.0532
0.5 0.0001 -0.0156 -0.0119 -0.0061 0.0029 0.0181 0.0359 0.0487 0.0411 0.0262 0.0035 -0.0056 -0.0121 -0.0097 -0.0046 0.0054 0.0206 0.0382 0.0565
1 0.0001 -0.0155 -0.0118 -0.0058 0.0033 0.0186 0.0366 0.0485 0.0408 0.0254 0.0034 -0.0057 -0.012 -0.0096 -0.0043 0.0056 0.0209 0.0387 0.0576
2 0.0001 -0.0154 -0.0116 -0.0055 0.0039 0.0192 0.0363 0.0482 0.0405 0.0248 0.0032 -0.0058 -0.0119 -0.0094 -0.0041 0.006 0.0214 0.0392 0.0586
4 0.0001 -0.0153 -0.0114 -0.0051 0.0046 0.0199 0.0372 0.0478 0.0399 0.0241 0.003 -0.0059 -0.0118 -0.0092 -0.0038 0.0065 0.022 0.0399 0.0598
8 -0.0001 -0.0152 -0.0112 -0.0047 0.0055 0.021 0.0383 0.0474 0.0393 0.0231 0.0027 -0.0061 -0.0117 -0.009 -0.0034 0.0071 0.0228 0.0409 0.0613
15 -0.0004 -0.015 -0.011 -0.0041 0.0067 0.0223 0.0397 0.0469 0.0386 0.0221 0.0024 -0.0064 -0.0115 -0.0087 -0.0028 0.0078 0.0237 0.0421 0.0632
30 -0.0012 -0.0149 -0.0106 -0.0034 0.0083 0.024 0.0416 0.0462 0.0375 0.0204 0.0019 -0.0067 -0.0114 -0.0083 -0.0021 0.009 0.0252 0.0439 0.066
60 -0.0027 -0.0147 -0.0103 -0.0025 0.01 0.0262 0.0441 0.0453 0.036 0.0182 0.0012 -0.0073 -0.0112 -0.0078 -0.001 0.0107 0.0273 0.0462 0.0698
120 -0.0051 -0.0146 -0.0099 -0.0017 0.0115 0.0283 0.0467 0.0445 0.0342 0.0152 0.0002 -0.0081 -0.011 -0.0072 0.0002 0.0128 0.03 0.0488 0.0744
240 -0.0083 -0.0145 -0.0097 -0.0012 0.0125 0.0299 0.0488 0.0439 0.0322 0.0114 -0.0011 -0.0091 -0.0109 -0.0067 0.0015 0.0152 0.0326 0.0509 0.0788
480 -0.0119 -0.0145 -0.0095 -0.0009 0.013 0.0306 0.0499 0.0437 0.0308 0.0077 -0.0027 -0.0104 -0.0108 -0.0065 0.0024 0.0168 0.034 0.0519 0.0818
1440 -0.0166 -0.0144 -0.0093 -0.0005 0.0135 0.0312 0.051 0.0435 0.03 0.0046 -0.0047 -0.0125 -0.0107 -0.0061 0.0031 0.0177 0.0347 0.0526 0.0842
Time 90 (min) 25.00 56.25 67.24 60.84 81.00 116.64
Time 50 (min)
196
SH146-PASADENA Sample: TB1_BR_10 Depth: 30ft
0 39.61 31.7 0.250 0.663
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.6 0.75 352.4 1992481.203 128.22 15.28
w
0.250
Hs (in) eo
0.6015 0.663
Final
Applied Pressure ΔH specimen Void Ratio Strain rate Cv
reading Hv Eeod (tsf) Cc
(tsf ) (in) height e (per sec) (in2 /min)
(in) (in)
(in)
0.25 0.0002 0.0002 0.9998 0.3983 0.6622 0.000E+00
0.5 0.0063 0.0063 0.9937 0.3922 0.652 7.105E-08 40.75 5.298E-02 0.0339
1.00 0.0153 0.0153 0.9847 0.3832 0.6371 1.058E-07 55.79 5.233E-02 0.0495
2.00 0.0285 0.0285 0.9715 0.3700 0.6151 1.573E-07 75.57 2.719E-02 0.0731
4.00 0.0445 0.0445 0.9555 0.3540 0.5885 1.938E-07 125 3.201E-02 0.0884
8.00 0.0652 0.0652 0.9348 0.3333 0.5541 2.563E-07 193.31 3.097E-02 0.1143
16.00 0.0956 0.0956 0.9044 0.3029 0.5036 3.890E-07 263.37 0.1678
8.00 0.0930 0.0930 0.9070 0.3055 0.5079 -3.318E-08 3093.02 0.0143
4.00 0.0882 0.0882 0.9118 0.3103 0.5159 -6.093E-08 831.25 0.0266
1.00 0.0743 0.0743 0.9257 0.3242 0.539 -1.738E-07 215.91 0.0384
0.50 0.0667 0.0667 0.9333 0.3318 0.5516 -9.425E-08 65.97 0.0419
0.25 0.0584 0.0584 0.9416 0.3401 0.5654 -1.020E-07 30.12 0.0458
0.50 0.0595 0.0595 0.9405 0.3390 0.5636 1.354E-08 138.89 0.0060
1.00 0.0628 0.0628 0.9372 0.3357 0.5581 4.075E-08 0.0183
2.00 0.0700 0.0700 0.9300 0.3285 0.5461 8.961E-08 83.35 0.0399
4.00 0.0781 0.0781 0.9219 0.3204 0.5327 1.017E-07 150.19 0.0445
8.00 0.0879 0.0879 0.9121 0.3106 0.5164 1.244E-07 249.15 0.0541
16.00 0.1021 0.1021 0.8979 0.2964 0.4928 1.830E-07 348.64 0.0784
32.00 0.1195 0.1195 0.8805 0.2790 0.4638 2.287E-07 576.28 0.0963

Time (min)
0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 8 4 1 0.5 0.25 0.50 1 2 4 8 16 32
0 0 0.0002 0.0064 0.0153 0.0394 0.0448 0.0653 0.0957 0.093 0.0881 0.074 0.0666 0.0583 0.0595 0.0628 0.07 0.0782 0.0881 0.1022
0.10 0 0.0033 0.0065 0.0249 0.0395 0.045 0.0653 0.0951 0.0913 0.0849 0.072 0.0643 0.0592 0.0608 0.0659 0.07 0.0786 0.0881 0.1023
0.25 0 0.0034 0.0108 0.0248 0.0397 0.053 0.0701 0.0936 0.0901 0.0833 0.0718 0.0645 0.0592 0.061 0.0659 0.073 0.0826 0.0907 0.1058
0.5 0.0001 0.0036 0.0114 0.025 0.0401 0.0545 0.0767 0.0934 0.0899 0.0824 0.0717 0.0645 0.0593 0.0611 0.0664 0.0738 0.0833 0.0941 0.1069
1 0.0001 0.0038 0.0119 0.0252 0.0404 0.0557 0.0793 0.0933 0.0897 0.0815 0.0715 0.0644 0.0593 0.0613 0.0668 0.0745 0.0842 0.0955 0.108
2 0.0001 0.0041 0.0123 0.0257 0.041 0.0571 0.082 0.0932 0.0893 0.0803 0.0712 0.0642 0.0593 0.0617 0.0674 0.0753 0.0851 0.0968 0.1091
4 0.0001 0.0043 0.0129 0.0261 0.0417 0.0586 0.0849 0.0932 0.089 0.079 0.0706 0.0637 0.0594 0.0619 0.0682 0.0762 0.0859 0.0978 0.1106
8 0.0001 0.0045 0.0133 0.0266 0.0421 0.06 0.0873 0.0931 0.0889 0.0776 0.0699 0.0632 0.0594 0.0621 0.0688 0.0768 0.0864 0.0986 0.1119
15 0.0001 0.0048 0.0138 0.0268 0.0425 0.061 0.089 0.0931 0.0887 0.0764 0.0693 0.0625 0.0594 0.0623 0.0691 0.0771 0.0867 0.0991 0.113
30 0.0001 0.005 0.0141 0.0272 0.0428 0.0618 0.0904 0.0931 0.0886 0.0757 0.0687 0.0615 0.0594 0.0624 0.0693 0.0773 0.0869 0.0995 0.1142
60 0.0001 0.0051 0.0144 0.0274 0.0432 0.0626 0.0915 0.0931 0.0885 0.0753 0.0682 0.0606 0.0594 0.0625 0.0695 0.0775 0.0871 0.1001 0.1153
120 0.0001 0.0053 0.0146 0.0276 0.0434 0.0632 0.0926 0.093 0.0884 0.0749 0.0678 0.06 0.0594 0.0626 0.0697 0.0776 0.0873 0.1004 0.1162
240 0.0001 0.0059 0.0147 0.0279 0.0437 0.0638 0.0936 0.093 0.0883 0.0747 0.0674 0.0594 0.0594 0.0626 0.0698 0.0778 0.0874 0.1009 0.1172
480 0.0002 0.006 0.015 0.0281 0.0441 0.0644 0.0944 0.093 0.0883 0.0745 0.0671 0.0589 0.0594 0.0627 0.0699 0.0779 0.0875 0.1013 0.1181
1440 0.0002 0.0063 0.0153 0.0285 0.0445 0.0652 0.0956 0.093 0.0882 0.0743 0.0667 0.0584 0.0595 0.0628 0.07 0.0781 0.0879 0.1021 0.1195
Time 90 (min) 4 4 7.56 6.25 6.250
Time 50 (min)
197
SH146-PASADENA Sample: PR4_RW4_ Depth: 9-10ft
0 207.00 169 0.225 0.596
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.6 0.70 352.4 2033672.67 133.54 15.91
w
0.225
Hs (in) eo
0.6265 0.596
Change in
Applied Pressure specimen Void ratio Strain rate (per Cv
reading height Hv Eeod (tsf) Cc
(tsf ) height e sec) (in2 /min)
(in) (in) (in)
(in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.3735 0.5962 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0028 0.0028 0.9972 0.3707 0.5917 3.250E-08 88.68
0.50 0.0083 0.0083 0.9917 0.3652 0.5829 6.419E-08 45.35 3.373E-02 0.0292
1.00 0.0165 0.0165 0.9835 0.3570 0.5698 9.650E-08 60.93 1.702E-02 0.0435
2.00 0.0299 0.0299 0.9701 0.3436 0.5484 1.599E-07 74.59 0.0711
1.00 0.0306 0.0306 0.9694 0.3429 0.5473 8.358E-09 -1451.14 -0.0037
0.25 0.0271 0.0271 0.9729 0.3464 0.5529 -4.164E-08 213.78 0.0093
1.00 0.0297 0.0297 0.9703 0.3438 0.5488 3.101E-08 292 0.0068
2.00 0.0336 0.0336 0.9664 0.3399 0.5425 4.671E-08 253.37 0.0209
4.00 0.0490 0.0490 0.9510 0.3245 0.518 1.874E-07 130.31 0.0814
8.00 0.0753 0.0753 0.9247 0.2982 0.476 3.292E-07 152.02 0.1395
1.00 0.0690 0.0690 0.9310 0.3045 0.486 -7.832E-08 1117.38 0.0111
8.00 0.0787 0.0787 0.9213 0.2948 0.4706 1.219E-07 725.57 0.0171
16.00 0.0985 0.0985 0.9015 0.2750 0.4389 2.542E-07 402.84 0.1053
8.00 0.0942 0.0942 0.9058 0.2793 0.4458 -5.494E-08 1159.42 0.0229
2.00 0.0900 0.0900 0.9100 0.2835 0.4525 -5.342E-08 0.0111
0.25 0.0848 0.0848 0.9152 0.2887 0.4608 -6.576E-08 210.84 0.0092
2.00 0.0879 0.0879 0.9121 0.2856 0.4559 3.934E-08 358.14 0.0054
8.00 0.0952 0.0952 0.9048 0.2783 0.4442 9.338E-08 517.08 0.0194
16.00 0.1026 0.1026 0.8974 0.2709 0.4324 9.544E-08 689.15 0.0392

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 1.00 0.25 1.00 2 4 8.00 1 8 16 8 2 0.25 2 8 16
0 0.002 0.0029 0.0083 0.0165 0.03 0.0306 0.0271 0.0302 0.0336 0.0491 0.0727 0.0703 0.0787
0.10 0.002 0.005 0.0109 0.0259 0.031 0.0306 0.0291 0.0324 0.0361 0.0491 0.0702 0.0716 0.0787
0.25 0.002 0.0055 0.012 0.029 0.0307 0.0279 0.0294 0.0325 0.0404 0.0634 0.0699 0.0756 0.084
0.5 0.002 0.0059 0.0127 0.0291 0.0306 0.0278 0.0294 0.0326 0.0419 0.0662 0.0698 0.0764 0.0905
1 0.002 0.0061 0.0132 0.0291 0.0306 0.0277 0.0294 0.0327 0.0429 0.068 0.0696 0.0767 0.0921
2 0.002 0.0063 0.0138 0.0291 0.0306 0.0277 0.0295 0.0327 0.0438 0.0694 0.0695 0.077 0.0932
4 0.0021 0.0066 0.0142 0.0292 0.0306 0.0276 0.0295 0.0328 0.0447 0.0706 0.0694 0.0771 0.0941
8 0.0021 0.0068 0.0146 0.0292 0.0306 0.0276 0.0295 0.0329 0.0454 0.0714 0.0693 0.0773 0.0948
15 0.0022 0.007 0.0148 0.0292 0.0306 0.0275 0.0295 0.033 0.046 0.0721 0.0693 0.0774 0.0955
30 0.0023 0.0072 0.0151 0.0293 0.0306 0.0275 0.0295 0.0331 0.0466 0.0726 0.0692 0.0776 0.0959
60 0.0024 0.0074 0.0155 0.0293 0.0306 0.0274 0.0295 0.0331 0.047 0.0732 0.0692 0.0778 0.0965
120 0.0025 0.0076 0.0157 0.0294 0.0306 0.0273 0.0296 0.0332 0.0476 0.0737 0.0691 0.0779 0.097
240 0.0026 0.0077 0.0159 0.0295 0.0306 0.0272 0.0296 0.0333 0.048 0.0741 0.0691 0.0781 0.0974
480 0.0027 0.0079 0.0162 0.0296 0.0306 0.0272 0.0296 0.0334 0.0484 0.0747 0.069 0.0783 0.0979
1440 0.0028 0.0083 0.0165 0.0299 0.0306 0.0271 0.0297 0.0336 0.049 0.0753 0.069 0.0787 0.0985 0.0942 0.09 0.0848 0.0879 0.0952 0.1026
Time 90 (min) 6.25 12.25
Time 50 (min)
198
SH146-PASADENA Sample: SB2-EM6_ Depth: 13-14ft
0 67.70 56.4 0.200 0.530
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.3 0.50 357.9 2078431.373 139.32 16.60
w
0.200
Hs (in) eo
0.6536 0.530
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void Ratio Strain rate Cv
(tsf ) height height e (per sec) (in2/min)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 -0.0102 -0.0102 1.0102 0.3566 0.5456 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0001 0.0001 0.9999 0.3463 0.5298 1.192E-07 24.21
0.50 0.0075 0.0075 0.9925 0.3389 0.5185 8.630E-08 33.85 4.734E-04 0.0375
1.00 0.0208 0.0208 0.9792 0.3256 0.4982 1.572E-07 37.68 5.346E-03 0.0674
2.00 0.0404 0.0404 0.9596 0.3060 0.4682 2.364E-07 51 9.606E-03 0.0997
4.00 0.0609 0.0609 0.9391 0.2855 0.4368 2.527E-07 97.45 1.220E-02 0.1043
8.00 0.0877 0.0877 0.9123 0.2587 0.3958 3.400E-07 149.27 2.308E-03 0.1362
16.00 0.1137 0.1137 0.8863 0.2327 0.356 3.395E-07 307.54 2.178E-03 0.1322
4.00 0.1061 0.1061 0.8939 0.2403 0.3677 -9.840E-08 1569.23 0.0194
1.00 0.0932 0.0932 0.9068 0.2532 0.3874 -1.647E-07 232.99 0.0327
0.25 0.0790 0.0790 0.9210 0.2674 0.4091 -1.784E-07 52.88 0.0360
1.00 0.0838 0.0838 0.9162 0.2626 0.4018 6.064E-08 157.19 0.0121
4.00 0.0989 0.0989 0.9011 0.2475 0.3787 1.940E-07 198.7 0.0384
16.00 0.1188 0.1188 0.8812 0.2276 0.3482 2.614E-07 601.97 0.0507
32.00 0.1421 0.1421 0.8579 0.2043 0.3126 3.143E-07 449.44 0.1183

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4 8 16 4 1 0.25 1 4 16 32
0 -0.0051 -0.0105 0.0001 0.0075 0.0208 0.0409 0.061 0.0877 0.1138 0.1062 0.0929 0.0779 0.0839 0.099 0.1188
0.10 -0.0051 -0.0019 0.0024 0.0108 0.0273 0.0447 0.0676 0.0893 0.1135 0.1053 0.0915 0.0782 0.0845 0.1011 0.1199
0.25 -0.0051 -0.0022 0.0026 0.0115 0.0295 0.0464 0.0692 0.0932 0.1099 0.1023 0.0913 0.0785 0.088 0.1039 0.1224
0.5 -0.0051 -0.0021 0.0028 0.0119 0.03 0.0473 0.0703 0.0949 0.1091 0.1019 0.091 0.0791 0.0887 0.1065 0.1249
1 -0.0052 -0.0019 0.003 0.0126 0.0306 0.0483 0.0716 0.0964 0.1086 0.1014 0.0908 0.0795 0.0896 0.1081 0.1263
2 -0.0053 -0.0018 0.0035 0.0134 0.0315 0.0495 0.0733 0.0983 0.1083 0.1008 0.0904 0.0799 0.0908 0.1098 0.128
4 -0.0055 -0.0015 0.0039 0.0144 0.0326 0.051 0.0755 0.1005 0.1078 0.0999 0.0899 0.0804 0.0922 0.1116 0.1301
8 -0.0058 -0.0012 0.0045 0.0155 0.034 0.0528 0.078 0.1032 0.1074 0.099 0.0892 0.081 0.0939 0.1135 0.1324
15 -0.0063 -0.001 0.0052 0.0166 0.0354 0.0545 0.0804 0.1059 0.107 0.098 0.0883 0.0816 0.0956 0.1151 0.1347
30 -0.0071 -0.0007 0.0058 0.0179 0.037 0.0563 0.0828 0.1084 0.1068 0.0967 0.0869 0.0823 0.0972 0.1164 0.1369
60 -0.0081 -0.0005 0.0062 0.0188 0.0381 0.0578 0.0845 0.1101 0.1066 0.0955 0.0854 0.0829 0.0981 0.117 0.1385
120 -0.009 -0.0004 0.0066 0.0195 0.0388 0.0588 0.0856 0.1113 0.1064 0.0945 0.0835 0.0832 0.0984 0.1174 0.1396
240 -0.0096 -0.0003 0.0068 0.0199 0.0394 0.0595 0.0863 0.1122 0.1063 0.0939 0.0816 0.0835 0.0986 0.118 0.1404
480 -0.01 -0.0002 0.007 0.0204 0.0398 0.0601 0.0869 0.1128 0.1063 0.0936 0.0802 0.0836 0.0988 0.1183 0.1411
1440 -0.0102 0.0001 0.0075 0.0208 0.0404 0.0609 0.0877 0.1137 0.1061 0.0932 0.079 0.0838 0.0989 0.1188 0.1421
Time 90 (min) 21.16 6.25 21.16 16.00 81.00 81.00
Time 50 (min)
199
SH146-PASADENA Sample: W2-BR-7_ Depth: 14-15ft
0 96.90 76.3 0.270 0.716
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.5 0.50 354.5 1961818.712 124.26 14.81
w
0.270
Hs (in) eo
0.5829 0.716
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void Ratio Strain rate Cv
( tsf) height height e (per sec) (in2/min)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 -0.0245 -0.0245 1.0245 0.4416 0.7576 0.000E+00
0.25 -0.0183 -0.0183 1.0183 0.4354 0.747 7.047E-08 40.46
0.50 -0.0125 -0.0125 1.0125 0.4296 0.737 6.630E-08 42.89 0.0332
1.00 -0.0022 -0.0022 1.0022 0.4193 0.7193 1.190E-07 48.46 0.0588
2.00 0.0159 0.0159 0.9841 0.4012 0.6883 2.129E-07 55.34 4.701E-04 0.1030
4.00 0.0386 0.0386 0.9614 0.3785 0.6493 2.733E-07 87.97 5.133E-04 0.1296
8.00 0.0723 0.0723 0.9277 0.3448 0.5915 4.204E-07 118.72 3.704E-04 0.1920
16.00 0.1132 0.1132 0.8868 0.3039 0.5214 5.338E-07 195.78 3.168E-04 0.2329
4.00 0.0891 0.0891 0.9109 0.3280 0.5627 -3.062E-07 498.45 0.0686
1.00 0.0588 0.0588 0.9412 0.3583 0.6147 -3.726E-07 98.97 0.0864
0.25 0.0382 0.0382 0.9618 0.3789 0.65 -2.479E-07 36.45 0.0586
1.00 0.0522 0.0522 0.9478 0.3649 0.626 1.710E-07 53.61 0.0399
4.00 0.0797 0.0797 0.9203 0.3374 0.5788 3.459E-07 109.04 0.0784
16.00 0.1324 0.1324 0.8676 0.2847 0.4884 7.030E-07 227.72 0.1502
32.00 0.1723 0.1723 0.8277 0.2448 0.42 5.579E-07 401.29 0.2272

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4 8 16 4 1 0.25 1 4 16 32
0 0 -0.0253 -0.0182 -0.0148 -0.0022 0.0168 0.0387 0.0724 0.1106 0.0889 0.0546 0.0474 0.0521 0.0806 0.1325
0.10 0 -0.0219 -0.0169 -0.0106 0.0001 0.0192 0.0418 0.0755 0.1105 0.0877 0.0539 0.0483 0.0546 0.0851 0.1352
0.25 -0.0001 -0.0215 -0.0167 -0.0103 0.0004 0.0195 0.0422 0.0758 0.1103 0.0867 0.0539 0.0485 0.0548 0.0857 0.1355
0.5 -0.0001 -0.0214 -0.0166 -0.0102 0.0007 0.0199 0.0426 0.0763 0.1101 0.0865 0.0538 0.0485 0.055 0.0861 0.1359
1 -0.0001 -0.0211 -0.0164 -0.0099 0.0011 0.0203 0.043 0.0768 0.1099 0.0862 0.0538 0.0487 0.0554 0.0868 0.1364
2 -0.0001 -0.0208 -0.0162 -0.0095 0.0015 0.0208 0.0436 0.0774 0.1094 0.0858 0.0537 0.0489 0.0558 0.0877 0.1371
4 -0.0003 -0.0206 -0.0159 -0.0092 0.0021 0.0214 0.0444 0.0783 0.1089 0.0853 0.0534 0.049 0.0565 0.089 0.1379
8 -0.0006 -0.0203 -0.0157 -0.0087 0.0027 0.0223 0.0455 0.0795 0.108 0.0846 0.0531 0.0492 0.0573 0.0907 0.1393
15 -0.0013 -0.02 -0.0153 -0.0082 0.0036 0.0234 0.0469 0.0811 0.1069 0.0837 0.0528 0.0495 0.0584 0.0929 0.1408
30 -0.0023 -0.0197 -0.0149 -0.0074 0.0049 0.0249 0.049 0.0836 0.1053 0.0823 0.0522 0.0498 0.0599 0.0962 0.1432
60 -0.0041 -0.0194 -0.0143 -0.0064 0.0065 0.0269 0.0521 0.087 0.1032 0.0803 0.0513 0.0503 0.0621 0.1009 0.1466
120 -0.0067 -0.019 -0.0139 -0.0053 0.0086 0.0298 0.0562 0.0919 0.1002 0.0775 0.0499 0.0508 0.0651 0.1074 0.1514
240 -0.0106 -0.0189 -0.0133 -0.004 0.0113 0.0331 0.0615 0.0984 0.0965 0.0734 0.048 0.0514 0.0691 0.1162 0.1578
480 -0.0158 -0.0187 -0.0129 -0.003 0.0138 0.0362 0.0673 0.1058 0.0928 0.0679 0.045 0.0518 0.0741 0.1255 0.165
1440 -0.0245 -0.0183 -0.0125 -0.0022 0.0159 0.0386 0.0723 0.1132 0.0891 0.0588 0.0382 0.0522 0.0797 0.1324 0.1723
Time 90 (min) 453.0 400.0 529.0 576.0
Time 50 (min)
200
SH3 B1_2-4ft
0 47.50 39.3 0.209 0.554
R + P + wet
soil
0.020066 0.00316690 64.4 0.50 195.1 2061878.56 108.38 12.91
w
0.209
Hs (in) eo
0.5084 0.554
Change in
Applied Pressure specimen Void Ratio Strain rate Eeod Cv
reading height Hv Cc
( tsf ) height e (per sec) (tsf) (in2/mn)
(in) (in) (in)
(in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.7900 0.2816 0.5539 0.000E+00
0.25 -0.0049 -0.0049 0.7949 0.2865 0.5635 -7.135E-08 -40.46
0.50 -0.0028 -0.0028 0.7928 0.2844 0.5594 3.066E-08 94.75 0.0136
1.00 0.0033 0.0033 0.7867 0.2783 0.5474 8.974E-08 64.74 0.0399
2.00 0.0142 0.0142 0.7758 0.2674 0.526 1.626E-07 72.61 0.0711
4.00 0.0313 0.0313 0.7587 0.2503 0.4923 2.609E-07 92.22 0.1119
8.00 0.0534 0.0534 0.7366 0.2282 0.4489 3.473E-07 143.21 0.1442
4.00 0.0491 0.0491 0.7409 0.2325 0.4573 -6.717E-08 739.93 0.0279
2.00 0.0412 0.0412 0.7488 0.2404 0.4729 -1.221E-07 199.21 0.0518
1.00 0.0311 0.0311 0.7589 0.2505 0.4927 -1.540E-07 78.48 0.0658
0.50 0.0223 0.0223 0.7677 0.2593 0.51 -1.327E-07 44.91 0.0575
0.25 0.0164 0.0164 0.7736 0.2652 0.5216 -8.827E-08 33.49 0.0385
0.50 0.0180 0.0180 0.7720 0.2636 0.5185 2.399E-08 125.31 0.0103
1.00 0.0219 0.0219 0.7681 0.2597 0.5108 5.877E-08 100.9 0.0256
2.00 0.0298 0.0298 0.7602 0.2518 0.4953 1.203E-07 100.25 0.0515
4.00 0.0412 0.0412 0.7488 0.2404 0.4729 1.762E-07 138.74 0.0744
8.00 0.0546 0.0546 0.7354 0.2270 0.4465 2.109E-07 235.43 0.0877

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8
0
0.10
0.25
0.5
1
2
4
8
15
30
60
120
240
480
1440 -0.0049 -0.0028 0.0033 0.0142 0.0313 0.0534 0.0491 0.0412 0.0311 0.0223 0.0164 0.018 0.0219 0.0298 0.0412 0.0546
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
201
B1S_8-10ft

0 41.20 33.9 0.215 0.570
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.2 0.40 355.5 2051122.79 135.79 16.18
w
0.215
Hs (in) eo
0.637 0.570
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void ratio Strain rate Eeod T90 Cv T50 Cv
reading Hv Cc
( tsf ) height height e (per sec) (tsf) (ft2 /yf) (ft2 /yf)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 -0.0001 -0.0001 1.0001 0.3631 0.57 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0008 0.0008 0.9992 0.3622 0.5686 1.043E-08 280.31
0.50 0.0091 0.0091 0.9909 0.3539 0.5556 9.695E-08 30.19 63.07 19.94 0.0432
1.00 0.0263 0.0263 0.9737 0.3367 0.5286 2.045E-07 29.07 7.60 13.58 0.0897
2.00 0.0532 0.0532 0.9468 0.3098 0.4863 3.288E-07 37.11 3.05 4.87 0.1405
4.00 0.0864 0.0864 0.9136 0.2766 0.4342 4.206E-07 60.26 3.08 3.22 0.1731
8.00 0.1240 0.1240 0.8760 0.2390 0.3752 4.968E-07 106.42 0.1960
4.00 0.1215 0.1215 0.8785 0.2415 0.3791 -3.294E-08 1610 0.0130
2.00 0.1142 0.1142 0.8858 0.2488 0.3906 -9.538E-08 273 0.0382
1.00 0.1024 0.1024 0.8976 0.2606 0.4091 -1.522E-07 84.85 0.0615
0.50 0.0880 0.0880 0.9120 0.2750 0.4317 -1.827E-07 34.73 0.0751
0.25 0.0724 0.0724 0.9276 0.2906 0.4562 -1.946E-07 16.02 0.0814
0.50 0.0707 0.0707 0.9293 0.2923 0.4589 -2.117E-08 -145.35 -0.0090
1.00 0.0794 0.0794 0.9206 0.2836 0.4452 1.094E-07 57.29 0.0455
2.00 0.0942 0.0942 0.9058 0.2688 0.422 1.891E-07 67.66 0.0771
4.00 0.1113 0.1113 0.8887 0.2517 0.3951 2.227E-07 116.71 0.0894
8.00 0.1307 0.1307 0.8693 0.2323 0.3647 2.583E-07 206.55 0.1010
16.00 0.1625 0.1625 0.8375 0.2005 0.3148 4.395E-07 251.66 0.1658

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16.00
0 0 0 0.0009 0.0093 0.0268 0.0532 0.0868 0.1251 0.1213 0.1141 0.1023 0.088 0.0678 0.0708 0.0796 0.0947 0.1116 0.1309
0.10 0 0 0.0016 0.0093 0.0268 0.0532 0.0868 0.1238 0.1203 0.1132 0.1016 0.0875 0.0678 0.0708 0.0796 0.0947 0.1116 0.1309
0.25 0 0.0002 0.003 0.013 0.0311 0.058 0.0916 0.1237 0.1202 0.1131 0.1015 0.0874 0.0684 0.0717 0.0809 0.0963 0.114 0.1325
0.5 0 0.0003 0.0033 0.0136 0.0318 0.0588 0.0924 0.1236 0.12 0.113 0.1015 0.0874 0.0684 0.0719 0.0811 0.0966 0.1144 0.1347
1 0 0.0003 0.0035 0.0142 0.0325 0.0596 0.0932 0.1235 0.1199 0.1128 0.1013 0.0873 0.0685 0.072 0.0814 0.097 0.1148 0.1356
2 0 0.0003 0.0039 0.0148 0.0333 0.0604 0.0941 0.1233 0.1197 0.1126 0.1012 0.0872 0.0686 0.0722 0.0817 0.0973 0.1153 0.1364
4 0 0.0004 0.0044 0.0155 0.0342 0.0615 0.0953 0.1232 0.1194 0.1124 0.101 0.087 0.0687 0.0725 0.0821 0.0979 0.116 0.1376
8 0 0.0004 0.0049 0.0164 0.0354 0.0628 0.0969 0.1229 0.1191 0.112 0.1007 0.0867 0.0689 0.0729 0.0826 0.0986 0.1169 0.139
15 0 0.0005 0.0054 0.0174 0.0367 0.0644 0.0988 0.1227 0.1187 0.1116 0.1003 0.0864 0.069 0.0733 0.0834 0.0995 0.1181 0.1409
30 0 0.0005 0.006 0.0187 0.0386 0.0669 0.1018 0.1224 0.1181 0.1109 0.0996 0.0859 0.0693 0.0739 0.0844 0.101 0.1199 0.1436
60 0 0.0006 0.0067 0.0203 0.0411 0.0702 0.1059 0.122 0.1172 0.1099 0.0987 0.085 0.0696 0.0748 0.0859 0.1028 0.1223 0.1474
120 0 0.0007 0.0075 0.022 0.0443 0.0746 0.1112 0.1218 0.1163 0.1084 0.0972 0.0836 0.0699 0.0759 0.0878 0.1055 0.1252 0.1522
240 0 0.0008 0.0081 0.0238 0.0479 0.0795 0.117 0.1217 0.1154 0.1066 0.0951 0.0815 0.0703 0.0772 0.0903 0.1082 0.1279 0.157
480 0 0.0008 0.0086 0.0251 0.0509 0.0837 0.1212 0.1216 0.1147 0.1046 0.0924 0.0786 0.0705 0.0784 0.0926 0.1102 0.1296 0.1603
1440 -0.0001 0.0008 0.0091 0.0263 0.0532 0.0864 0.124 0.1215 0.1142 0.1024 0.088 0.0724 0.0707 0.0794 0.0942 0.1113 0.1307 0.1625
Time 90 (min) 12.25 12.25 100 240.25 225.000
Time 50 (min) 9 13 35 50
202
SH3 B1_10-12ft
0 40.70 30.9 0.317 0.840
2 R + P + wet
Ring heigh (m) Ring area (m ) Ring mass Paper mass γsat (g/m3) Ms (g) Hs (mm)
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.6 0.70 337.2 1896714.763 115.85 13.80
w
0.317
Hs (in) eo
0.5435 0.840
Change in
Final dial Final specimen Void Height STRAIN
Applied Pressure specimen Void Ratio T90 Cv T50 Cv
reading height Hv Strain RATE (per Eeod (tsf) Cc
( tsf ) height e (in2 /min) 2
(in /min)
(in) (in) (in) sec)
(in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.4565 0.8399 0.000000 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.4565 0.8399 0.000000 0.000E+00
0.50 0.0033 0.0033 0.9967 0.4532 0.8339 0.330000 3.832E-08 76.67 0.0199
1.00 0.0080 0.0080 0.9920 0.4485 0.8252 0.800000 5.484E-08 105.75 8.541E+01 2.976E+01 0.0289
2.00 0.0252 0.0252 0.9748 0.4313 0.7936 2.520000 2.042E-07 58.23 1.190E+01 1.179E+01 0.1050
4.00 0.0609 0.0609 0.9391 0.3956 0.7279 6.090000 4.400E-07 56.01 3.268E+00 3.416E+00 0.2183
8.00 0.1029 0.1029 0.8971 0.3536 0.6506 10.290000 5.419E-07 95.22 0.2568
4.00 0.0986 0.0986 0.9014 0.3579 0.6585 9.860000 -5.521E-08 931.67 0.0262
2.00 0.0846 0.0846 0.9154 0.3719 0.6843 8.460000 -1.770E-07 142.64 0.0857
1.00 0.0684 0.0684 0.9316 0.3881 0.7141 6.840000 -2.013E-07 61.75 0.0990
0.50 0.0521 0.0521 0.9479 0.4044 0.7441 5.210000 -1.990E-07 30.67 0.0997
1.00 0.0525 0.0525 0.9475 0.4040 0.7433 5.250000 4.886E-09 1150.03 0.0027
2.00 0.0624 0.0624 0.9376 0.3941 0.7251 6.240000 1.222E-07 101.1 0.0605
4.00 0.0797 0.0797 0.9203 0.3768 0.6933 7.970000 2.176E-07 115.73 0.1056
8.00 0.1067 0.1067 0.8933 0.3498 0.6436 10.670000 3.498E-07 148.09 0.1651
16.00 0.1525 0.1525 0.8475 0.3040 0.5593 15.250000 6.255E-07 174.62 0.2800

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 1 2 4 8 16
0 -0.0004 0.0033 0.008 0.0252 0.0615 0.1043 0.0983 0.0845 0.0684 0.0497 0.0524 0.0627 0.0797 0.1068
0.10 0.0041 0.0046 0.0112 0.0342 0.0615 0.1031 0.0972 0.0835 0.0677 0.05 0.0533 0.064 0.0815 0.1079
0.25 0.0041 0.0049 0.013 0.0356 0.0672 0.103 0.0969 0.0833 0.0675 0.0501 0.0535 0.0646 0.0822 0.1087
0.5 0.0043 0.0052 0.0138 0.0362 0.068 0.1029 0.0967 0.0831 0.0674 0.0502 0.0537 0.0649 0.0825 0.1111
1 0.0044 0.0054 0.0145 0.037 0.0688 0.1027 0.0966 0.083 0.0673 0.0502 0.054 0.0653 0.083 0.1118
2 0.0045 0.0056 0.0152 0.0379 0.0696 0.1025 0.0963 0.0828 0.0671 0.0503 0.0543 0.0657 0.0834 0.1125
4 0.0046 0.006 0.016 0.0389 0.0707 0.1023 0.0959 0.0825 0.067 0.0504 0.0548 0.0662 0.0841 0.1134
8 0.0046 0.0062 0.0168 0.0402 0.0719 0.1021 0.0955 0.0822 0.0666 0.0506 0.0552 0.067 0.085 0.1148
15 0.0046 0.0065 0.0176 0.0418 0.0735 0.1017 0.095 0.0816 0.0662 0.0509 0.0558 0.0678 0.0862 0.1164
30 0.0046 0.0069 0.0186 0.044 0.0761 0.1013 0.0941 0.0808 0.0656 0.051 0.0566 0.0691 0.088 0.119
60 0.0045 0.007 0.0198 0.0471 0.0798 0.1006 0.0928 0.0797 0.0646 0.0513 0.0575 0.0709 0.0908 0.1229
120 0.0042 0.0073 0.0212 0.0512 0.0847 0.0999 0.0911 0.0781 0.0631 0.0517 0.0588 0.0734 0.0946 0.1283
240 0.004 0.0076 0.0228 0.055 0.0909 0.0992 0.0889 0.0756 0.0608 0.0519 0.0602 0.076 0.0994 0.1358
480 0.0038 0.0078 0.024 0.058 0.097 0.099 0.0866 0.0726 0.058 0.0521 0.0615 0.0782 0.1036 0.144
1440 0.0033 0.008 0.0252 0.0609 0.1029 0.0986 0.0846 0.0684 0.0521 0.0525 0.0624 0.0797 0.1067 0.1525
Time 90 (min) 9 64 225
Time 50 (min) 6 15 50
203
SH3 B1_12-14ft
0 61.30 48 0.277 0.734
2 R + P + wet
Ring heigh (m) Ring area (m ) Ring mass Paper mass γsat (g/m3) Ms (g) Hs (mm)
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.08 0.47 352.5 1951529.656 122.93 14.65
w
0.277
Hs (in) eo
0.5767 0.734
Change in Final
Final dial Void Height STRAIN
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void Ratio Cv
reading Hv RATE (per Eeod (tsf) Cc
( tsf) height height e (in2 /mn)
(in) (in) sec)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.4233 0.734 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0030 0.0030 0.9970 0.4203 0.7288 3.483E-08 83.37
0.50 0.0063 0.0063 0.9937 0.4170 0.7231 3.844E-08 76.05 0.0189
1.00 0.0154 0.0154 0.9846 0.4079 0.7073 1.070E-07 54.88 0.0525
2.00 0.0356 0.0356 0.9644 0.3877 0.6723 2.424E-07 49.54 0.1163
4.00 0.0665 0.0665 0.9335 0.3568 0.6187 3.831E-07 64.7 0.1781
8.00 0.1088 0.1088 0.8912 0.3145 0.5453 5.494E-07 94.5 0.2438
4.00 0.1041 0.1041 0.8959 0.3192 0.5535 -6.072E-08 845.88 0.0272
2.00 0.0938 0.0938 0.9062 0.3295 0.5714 -1.316E-07 193.75 0.0595
1.00 0.0801 0.0801 0.9199 0.3432 0.5951 -1.724E-07 73.17 0.0787
0.50 0.0659 0.0659 0.9341 0.3574 0.6197 -1.759E-07 35.24 0.0817
0.25 0.0549 0.0549 0.9451 0.3684 0.6388 -1.347E-07 22.7 0.0634
0.50 0.0564 0.0564 0.9436 0.3669 0.6362 1.840E-08 166.74 0.0086
1.00 0.0627 0.0627 0.9373 0.3606 0.6253 7.779E-08 79.54 0.0362
2.00 0.0761 0.0761 0.9239 0.3472 0.602 1.679E-07 74.42 0.0774
4.00 0.0934 0.0934 0.9066 0.3299 0.572 2.209E-07 115.6 0.0997
8.00 0.1139 0.1139 0.8861 0.3094 0.5365 2.678E-07 195.39 0.1179

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8
0
0.10
0.25
0.5
1
2
4
8
15
30
60
120
240
480
1440 0.003 0.0063 0.0154 0.0356 0.0665 0.1088 0.1041 0.0938 0.0801 0.0659 0.0549 0.0564 0.0627 0.0761 0.0934 0.1139
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
204
B1_14-16ft
0 34.40 26 0.323 0.856
R + P + wet
soil
0.02 0.00316690 66.2 0.50 185.8 1889032.571 90.44 10.78
w
0.323
Hs (in) eo
0.4243 0.856
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void ratio Strain Strain rate Eeod T90 Cv T50 Cv
reading Hv Cc
( tsf ) height height e (%) (per sec) (tsf) (ft2 /yr) (ft2 /yr)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.7900 0.3657 0.8619 0.00 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0098 0.0098 0.7802 0.3559 0.8388 0.98 1.454E-07 20.09 196.23 223.24
0.50 0.0130 0.0130 0.7770 0.3527 0.8313 1.30 4.767E-08 61.87 18.41 16.90 0.0249
1.00 0.0209 0.0209 0.7691 0.3448 0.8126 2.09 1.189E-07 49.62 32.72 13.24 0.0621
2.00 0.0386 0.0386 0.7514 0.3271 0.7709 3.86 2.726E-07 44.51 10.33 8.07 0.1385
4.00 0.0772 0.0772 0.7128 0.2885 0.6799 7.72 6.268E-07 40.79 3.34 2.91 0.3023
8.00 0.1169 0.1169 0.6731 0.2488 0.5864 11.69 6.826E-07 79.4 2.69 2.37 0.3106
4.00 0.1106 0.1106 0.6794 0.2551 0.6012 11.06 -1.073E-07 501.61 0.0492
2.00 0.0996 0.0996 0.6904 0.2661 0.6272 9.96 -1.844E-07 142.77 0.0864
1.00 0.0858 0.0858 0.7042 0.2799 0.6597 8.58 -2.268E-07 57.11 0.1080 `
0.50 0.0713 0.0713 0.7187 0.2944 0.6938 7.13 -2.335E-07 27.21 0.1133
0.25 0.0559 0.0559 0.7341 0.3098 0.7301 5.59 -2.428E-07 12.78 0.1206
0.50 0.0583 0.0583 0.7317 0.3074 0.7245 5.83 3.796E-08 82.85 0.0186
1.00 0.0665 0.0665 0.7235 0.2992 0.7052 6.65 1.312E-07 48.08 0.0641
2.00 0.0827 0.0827 0.7073 0.2830 0.667 8.27 2.651E-07 48.59 0.1269
4.00 0.1024 0.1024 0.6876 0.2633 0.6206 10.24 3.316E-07 80 0.1541
8.00 0.1220 0.1220 0.6680 0.2437 0.5744 12.20 3.396E-07 160.69 0.1535
16.00 0.1571 0.1571 0.6329 0.2086 0.4916 15.71 6.419E-07 179.32 0.2751

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16.00
0
0.10
0.25
0.5
1
2
4
8
15
30
60
120
240
480
1440 0.0098 0.013 0.0209 0.0386 0.0772 0.1169 0.1106 0.0996 0.0858 0.0713 0.0559 0.0583 0.0665 0.0827 0.1024 0.122 0.1571
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
205
SH3 B1_18-20ft
0 73.90 52.21 0.415 1.100
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.3 0.50 341.1 1785807.834 101.52 12.10
w
0.415
Hs (in) eo
0.4762 1.100
Change in Final
Final dial Void Height Void ratio
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Strain Strain rate Eeod Cv
reading Hv e Cc
( tsf ) height height (%) (per sec) (tsf) (in2 /min)
(in) (in) ( %)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.5238 1.1 0.00 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.5238 1.1 0.00 0.000E+00
0.50 0.0057 0.0057 0.9943 0.5181 1.088 0.57 6.635E-08 43.74 3.095E+01 0.0399
1.00 0.0214 0.0214 0.9786 0.5024 1.055 2.14 1.857E-07 31.81 3.385E+01 0.1096
2.00 0.0631 0.0631 0.9369 0.4607 0.9675 6.31 5.151E-07 24 1.754E+01 0.2907
4.00 0.1300 0.1300 0.8700 0.3938 0.827 13.00 8.900E-07 29.89 1.061E+01 0.4667
8.00 0.1901 0.1901 0.8099 0.3337 0.7008 19.01 8.589E-07 66.55 0.4192
4.00 0.1825 0.1825 0.8175 0.3413 0.7167 18.25 -1.076E-07 528.24 0.0528
2.00 0.1673 0.1673 0.8327 0.3565 0.7486 16.73 -2.113E-07 131.65 0.1060
1.00 0.1481 0.1481 0.8519 0.3757 0.789 14.81 -2.609E-07 51.97 0.1342
0.50 0.1284 0.1284 0.8716 0.3954 0.8303 12.84 -2.616E-07 25.42 0.1372
0.25 0.1101 0.1101 0.8899 0.4137 0.8688 11.01 -2.380E-07 13.63 0.1279
0.50 0.1083 0.1083 0.8917 0.4155 0.8725 10.83 -2.336E-08 -141.87 0.0123
1.00 0.1175 0.1175 0.8825 0.4063 0.8532 11.75 1.207E-07 54.4 0.0641
2.00 0.1399 0.1399 0.8601 0.3839 0.8062 13.99 3.014E-07 44.68 0.1561
4.00 0.1676 0.1676 0.8324 0.3562 0.748 16.76 3.852E-07 72.16 0.1933
8.00 0.1975 0.1975 0.8025 0.3263 0.6852 19.75 4.312E-07 133.74 0.2086
16.00 0.2350 0.2350 0.7650 0.2888 0.6065 23.50 5.674E-07 213.44 0.2614

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16.00
0 0.0001 -0.0009 0.0058 0.0218 0.0639 0.1304 0.1851 0.1823 0.1672 0.148 0.1279 0.1075 0.1084 0.1176 0.14 0.1677 0.1977
0.10 0 -0.0008 0.0059 0.0218 0.0639 0.1304 0.1851 0.1815 0.1663 0.1472 0.1275 0.1078 0.1089 0.1176 0.1401 0.1677 0.1977
0.25 0.0002 0.0012 0.0091 0.0271 0.0687 0.1348 0.1851 0.1809 0.1662 0.1471 0.1275 0.1078 0.1091 0.1189 0.1419 0.1703 0.1992
0.5 0.0006 0.0016 0.0098 0.0282 0.0697 0.1358 0.1851 0.1807 0.166 0.147 0.1274 0.1078 0.1093 0.1191 0.1423 0.1709 0.2015
1 0.0008 0.002 0.0106 0.0295 0.071 0.1369 0.185 0.1805 0.1658 0.1469 0.1273 0.1079 0.1095 0.1195 0.1428 0.1715 0.2024
2 0.001 0.0023 0.0115 0.0311 0.0725 0.1384 0.185 0.18 0.1655 0.1467 0.1271 0.1079 0.1097 0.12 0.1434 0.1724 0.2035
4 0.0011 0.0028 0.0125 0.0331 0.0748 0.1406 0.1849 0.1795 0.165 0.1463 0.1269 0.1079 0.1101 0.1207 0.1444 0.1736 0.205
8 0.0011 0.0033 0.0138 0.036 0.0782 0.1437 0.1847 0.1787 0.1644 0.1459 0.1266 0.1079 0.1105 0.1216 0.1457 0.1754 0.2071
15 0.0009 0.0038 0.0151 0.0394 0.0824 0.1477 0.1845 0.1777 0.1635 0.1452 0.1262 0.108 0.1111 0.1229 0.1475 0.1776 0.2097
30 0.0006 0.0043 0.0167 0.0438 0.0889 0.1537 0.1841 0.1763 0.1622 0.1442 0.1254 0.108 0.112 0.1249 0.1502 0.181 0.2136
60 0.0002 0.0047 0.018 0.0482 0.0974 0.1619 0.1836 0.1743 0.1602 0.1426 0.1243 0.1081 0.1132 0.1276 0.154 0.1854 0.2184
120 0 0.005 0.0191 0.0525 0.1076 0.1716 0.1832 0.1719 0.1575 0.1403 0.1226 0.1082 0.1145 0.1312 0.1589 0.1903 0.2239
240 -0.0002 0.0052 0.0198 0.0562 0.1174 0.1806 0.1829 0.1698 0.1543 0.1371 0.1198 0.1082 0.1159 0.1352 0.1635 0.1943 0.2287
480 -0.0004 0.0055 0.0205 0.0594 0.1242 0.186 0.1827 0.1684 0.1511 0.1334 0.1161 0.1083 0.1168 0.1382 0.1661 0.1962 0.232
1440 0 0.0057 0.0214 0.0631 0.13 0.1901 0.1825 0.1673 0.1481 0.1284 0.1101 0.1083 0.1175 0.1399 0.1676 0.1975 0.235
Time 90 (min) 25 22.6 42.25 64.000
Time 50 (min)
206
SH3 B1_22-24ft
0 66.10 57 0.160 0.431
Ring heigh (m) Ring area (m2) Ring mass Paper mass R + P + wet soil γsat (g/m3) Ms (g) Hs (mm)
0.020066 0.00316690 66.2 0.50 199.6 2153136.531 117.95 14.05
w
0.160
Hs (in) eo
0.5533 0.431
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void ratio Strain rate Eeod Cv
reading Hv Cc
( tsf ) height height e (per sec) (tsf) (in2 /min)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.7900 0.2367 0.4278 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0010 0.0010 0.7890 0.2357 0.426 1.467E-08 198.73
0.50 0.0036 0.0036 0.7864 0.2331 0.4213 3.827E-08 76.11 0.0156
1.00 0.0081 0.0081 0.7819 0.2286 0.4132 6.661E-08 88.33 0.0269
2.00 0.0160 0.0160 0.7740 0.2207 0.3989 1.181E-07 100.06 0.0475
4.00 0.0259 0.0259 0.7641 0.2108 0.381 1.500E-07 159.87 0.0595
8.00 0.0402 0.0402 0.7498 0.1965 0.3551 2.207E-07 220.99 0.0860
4.00 0.0386 0.0386 0.7514 0.1981 0.358 -2.465E-08 1973.63 0.0096
2.00 0.0362 0.0362 0.7538 0.2005 0.3624 -3.685E-08 650.4 0.0146
1.00 0.0339 0.0339 0.7561 0.2028 0.3665 -3.521E-08 349 0.0136
0.50 0.0308 0.0308 0.7592 0.2059 0.3721 -4.726E-08 127.76 0.0186
0.25 0.0264 0.0264 0.7636 0.2103 0.3801 -6.669E-08 44.72 0.0266
0.50 0.0284 0.0284 0.7616 0.2083 0.3765 3.039E-08 99.37 0.0120
1.00 0.0311 0.0311 0.7589 0.2056 0.3716 4.118E-08 146.01 0.0163
2.00 0.0339 0.0339 0.7561 0.2028 0.3665 4.286E-08 280.56 0.0169
4.00 0.0371 0.0371 0.7529 0.1996 0.3607 4.919E-08 493.41 0.0193
8.00 0.0418 0.0418 0.7482 0.1949 0.3523 7.271E-08 681.37 0.0279

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8
0
0.10
0.25
0.5
1
2
4
8
15
30
60
120
240
480
1440 0.001 0.0036 0.0081 0.016 0.0259 0.0402 0.0386 0.0362 0.0339 0.0308 0.0264 0.0284 0.0311 0.0339 0.0371 0.0418
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
207
B1_24-26ft
0 23.00 19.5 0.179 0.474
R + P + wet
soil
0.02 0.00316690 54.3 0.50 195.5 2119137.247 113.84 13.57
w
0.179
Hs (in) eo
0.5341 0.474
Change in Final
reading Hv 2 Cc
( tsf ) height height e (%) (per sec) (tsf) (ft /yr) (ft2 /yr)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.7800 0.2459 0.4604 0.00 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0102 0.0102 0.7698 0.2357 0.4413 1.02 1.534E-07 19.3 6.060E+01 4.338E+01
0.50 0.0146 0.0146 0.7654 0.2313 0.4331 1.46 6.654E-08 44.95 6.448E+01 4.241E+01 0.0272
1.00 0.0217 0.0217 0.7583 0.2242 0.4198 2.17 1.084E-07 55.43 1.259E+02 7.287E+01 0.0442
2.00 0.0316 0.0316 0.7484 0.2143 0.4012 3.16 1.531E-07 79.27 7.944E+01 5.134E+01 0.0618
4.00 0.0465 0.0465 0.7335 0.1994 0.3733 4.65 2.351E-07 105.69 6.426E+01 3.972E+01 0.0927
8.00 0.0642 0.0642 0.7158 0.1817 0.3402 6.42 2.862E-07 178.17 3.434E+01 4.704E+01 0.1100
4.00 0.0626 0.0626 0.7174 0.1833 0.3432 6.26 -2.581E-08 1965.8 0.0100
2.00 0.0606 0.0606 0.7194 0.1853 0.3469 6.06 -3.218E-08 796.95 0.0123
1.00 0.0579 0.0579 0.7221 0.1880 0.352 5.79 -4.328E-08 289.09 0.0169
0.50 0.0551 0.0551 0.7249 0.1908 0.3572 5.51 -4.471E-08 141.76 0.0173
0.25 0.0524 0.0524 0.7276 0.1935 0.3623 5.24 -4.295E-08 72.27 0.0169
0.50 0.0528 0.0528 0.7272 0.1931 0.3615 5.28 6.366E-09 460.73 0.0027
1.00 0.0551 0.0551 0.7249 0.1908 0.3572 5.51 3.672E-08 171.44 0.0143
2.00 0.0579 0.0579 0.7221 0.1880 0.352 5.79 4.488E-08 283.53 0.0173
4.00 0.0610 0.0610 0.7190 0.1849 0.3462 6.10 4.990E-08 508.4 0.0193
8.00 0.0654 0.0654 0.7146 0.1805 0.338 6.54 7.126E-08 719.2 0.0272
16.00 0.0732 0.0732 0.7068 0.1727 0.3233 7.32 1.277E-07 802.37 0.0488

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 12.00
0
0.10
0.25
0.5
1
2
4
8
15
30
60
120
240
480
1440 0.0102 0.0146 0.0217 0.0316 0.0465 0.0642 0.0626 0.0606 0.0579 0.0551 0.0524 0.0528 0.0551 0.0579 0.061 0.0654 0.0732
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
208
SH3 B1S_28-30ft
0 45.40 38.1 0.192 0.509
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.6 0.50 357.8 2093584.305 141.28 16.83
w
0.192
Hs (in) eo
0.6628 0.509
Change in Final
reading Hv Strain Cc
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.3372 0.5088 0.000000 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0026 0.0026 0.9974 0.3346 0.5048 0.002651 3.017E-08 94.3
0.50 0.0199 0.0199 0.9801 0.3173 0.4787 0.019950 2.043E-07 14.45 8.553E+01 0.0867
1.00 0.0365 0.0365 0.9635 0.3007 0.4537 0.036519 1.994E-07 30.18 1.858E+02 0.0830
2.00 0.0575 0.0575 0.9425 0.2797 0.422 0.057529 2.579E-07 47.6 1.796E+02 0.1053
4.00 0.0836 0.0836 0.9164 0.2536 0.3826 0.083643 3.296E-07 76.59 6.312E+01 0.1309
8.00 0.1147 0.1147 0.8853 0.2225 0.3357 0.114727 4.066E-07 128.68 0.1558
4.00 0.1135 0.1135 0.8865 0.2237 0.3375 0.113534 -1.567E-08 3352.89 0.0060
2.00 0.1109 0.1109 0.8891 0.2263 0.3414 0.110949 -3.385E-08 773.74 0.0130
1.00 0.1072 0.1072 0.8928 0.2300 0.347 0.107238 -4.797E-08 269.43 0.0186
0.50 0.1033 0.1033 0.8967 0.2339 0.3529 0.103327 -5.034E-08 127.86 0.0196
0.25 0.0932 0.0932 0.9068 0.2440 0.3681 0.093253 -1.289E-07 24.82 0.0505
0.50 0.0940 0.0940 0.9060 0.2432 0.3669 0.094048 1.022E-08 314.33 0.0040
1.00 0.0979 0.0979 0.9021 0.2393 0.361 0.097959 5.004E-08 127.86 0.0196
2.00 0.1047 0.1047 0.8953 0.2325 0.3508 0.104719 8.791E-08 147.92 0.0339
4.00 0.1105 0.1105 0.8895 0.2267 0.342 0.110551 7.547E-08 342.91 0.0292
8.00 0.1199 0.1199 0.8801 0.2173 0.3279 0.119897 1.236E-07 428.03 0.0468
16.00 0.1459 0.1459 0.8541 0.1913 0.2886 0.145944 3.523E-07 307.13 0.1306

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16.00
0 0 0.0026 0.0199 0.0367 0.058 0.0841 0.1152 0.1135 0.1108 0.1105 0.1199
0.32 0.0906 0.0029 0.0199 0.0369 0.058 0.0841 0.1139 0.112 0.1096 0.1106 0.1199
0.5 0.0001 0.0174 0.029 0.0479 0.0672 0.0937 0.1138 0.1119 0.1094 0.1141 0.1228
0.71 0.0001 0.0175 0.0302 0.0495 0.0695 0.0956 0.1137 0.1118 0.1092 0.1147 0.1274
1 0.0002 0.0176 0.0313 0.0506 0.0711 0.0975 0.1137 0.1116 0.109 0.1152 0.1292
1.41 0.0002 0.0181 0.0325 0.0519 0.0727 0.0999 0.1136 0.1114 0.1087 0.1159 0.1312
2 0.0002 0.0184 0.0334 0.0529 0.0747 0.1027 0.1136 0.1113 0.1085 0.1165 0.1338
2.83 0.0002 0.0188 0.0342 0.0537 0.0768 0.1057 0.1136 0.1112 0.1082 0.117 0.1367
3.87 0.0025 0.019 0.0346 0.0544 0.0784 0.108 0.1136 0.1112 0.108 0.1175 0.1392
5.48 0.0025 0.0191 0.035 0.0551 0.0798 0.11 0.1136 0.1111 0.1079 0.118 0.1413
7.75 0.0025 0.0192 0.0353 0.0556 0.0808 0.1112 0.1136 0.1111 0.1077 0.1183 0.1426
10.95 0.0025 0.0193 0.0357 0.056 0.0815 0.1122 0.1135 0.1111 0.1075 0.1187 0.1437
15.49 0.0025 0.0195 0.0359 0.0565 0.0823 0.113 0.1135 0.1111 0.1074 0.1191 0.1444
21.91 0.0025 0.0197 0.0361 0.0569 0.0829 0.1137 0.1135 0.111 0.1074 0.1193 0.1451
37.95 0.0026 0.0199 0.0365 0.0575 0.0836 0.1147 0.1135 0.1109 0.1072 0.1033 0.0932 0.094 0.0979 0.1047 0.1105 0.1199 0.1459
Time 90 (min) 9 4 4 10.890
Time 50 (min)
209
SH3 B2_16-18ft
0 44.20 30.3 0.459 1.216
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.2 0.40 329.6 1744467.255 96.18 11.46
w
0.459
Hs (in) eo
0.4512 1.216
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void ratio Strain rate Eeod T90 Cv T50 Cv
reading Hv Cc
( tsf ) height height e (per sec) (tsf) (ft2 /yf) (ft2 /yf)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.5488 1.2163 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0220 0.0220 0.9780 0.5268 1.1676 2.604E-07 11.38 #DIV/0!
0.50 0.0302 0.0302 0.9698 0.5186 1.1494 9.786E-08 30.44 82.24 38.21 0.0605
1.00 0.0562 0.0562 0.9438 0.4926 1.0918 3.188E-07 19.24 29.11 14.09 0.1913
2.00 0.1103 0.1103 0.8897 0.4385 0.9719 7.038E-07 18.48 5.70 5.34 0.3983
4.00 0.1708 0.1708 0.8292 0.3780 0.8378 8.445E-07 33.06 5.06 3.56 0.4455
8.00 0.2369 0.2369 0.7631 0.3119 0.6913 1.003E-06 60.51 0.4867
4.00 0.2309 0.2309 0.7691 0.3179 0.7046 -9.029E-08 666.57 0.0442
2.00 0.2118 0.2118 0.7882 0.3370 0.7469 -2.805E-07 104.79 0.1405
1.00 0.1858 0.1858 0.8142 0.3630 0.8045 -3.696E-07 38.48 0.1913
0.50 0.1601 0.1601 0.8399 0.3887 0.8615 -3.542E-07 19.44 0.1893
0.25 0.1320 0.1320 0.8680 0.4168 0.9238 -3.747E-07 8.89 0.2070
0.50 0.1344 0.1344 0.8656 0.4144 0.9184 3.209E-08 102.61 0.0179
1.00 0.1387 0.1387 0.8613 0.4101 0.9089 5.778E-08 116.65 0.0316
2.00 0.1732 0.1732 0.8268 0.3756 0.8324 4.830E-07 28.97 0.2541
4.00 0.2065 0.2065 0.7935 0.3423 0.7586 4.857E-07 60.06 0.2452
8.00 0.2472 0.2472 0.7528 0.3016 0.6684 6.258E-07 98.29 0.2996
16.00 0.3051 0.3051 0.6949 0.2437 0.5401 9.644E-07 138.2 0.4262

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16.00
0 0.0106 0.0219 0.0303 0.0564 0.1112 0.1712 0.2385 0.2306 0.2112 0.1846 0.1598 0.1305
0.10 0.0208 0.0239 0.0328 0.0564 0.1113 0.1712 0.2373 0.2306 0.2102 0.1839 0.1593 0.1309
0.25 0.0213 0.0245 0.0352 0.0613 0.1153 0.1744 0.237 0.2293 0.2101 0.1839 0.1592 0.131
0.5 0.0216 0.0249 0.0363 0.0624 0.1164 0.1753 0.2368 0.229 0.2099 0.1838 0.1591 0.1311
1 0.022 0.0253 0.0373 0.0638 0.1176 0.1764 0.2366 0.2287 0.2097 0.1836 0.159 0.1312
2 ` 0.0223 0.0257 0.0385 0.0653 0.1193 0.1779 0.2362 0.2282 0.2092 0.1833 0.1587 0.1313
4 0.0225 0.0263 0.0402 0.0675 0.1217 0.18 0.2358 0.2276 0.2087 0.1829 0.1584 0.1316
8 0.0226 0.0268 0.0424 0.0705 0.1249 0.1829 0.2352 0.2267 0.2079 0.1823 0.158 0.1318
15 0.0226 0.0274 0.0447 0.0745 0.1291 0.1867 0.2346 0.2255 0.2069 0.1815 0.1573 0.1321
30 0.0226 0.0281 0.0474 0.0802 0.1354 0.1924 0.2336 0.2237 0.2052 0.1801 0.1562 0.1325
60 0.0225 0.0287 0.0501 0.0874 0.1438 0.2003 0.2327 0.2213 0.2028 0.178 0.1546 0.133
120 0.0224 0.0291 0.0523 0.0944 0.1523 0.2105 0.2319 0.2183 0.1994 0.1752 0.152 0.1336
240 0.0222 0.0294 0.054 0.101 0.1611 0.2216 0.2314 0.2153 0.195 0.1711 0.1481 0.134
480 0.0222 0.0297 0.0551 0.1058 0.1672 0.2303 0.2311 0.2132 0.1904 0.1665 0.1428 0.1343
1440 0.022 0.0302 0.0562 0.1103 0.1708 0.2369 0.2309 0.2118 0.1858 0.1601 0.132 0.1344 0.1387 0.1732 0.2065 0.2472 0.3051
Time 90 (min) 9 25 121 121
Time 50 (min) 5 12 30 40
210
SH3 B2S_18-20ft
0 46.10 33.8 0.364 0.965
R + P + wet
soil
0.018 0.00316690 75 0.40 188.9 1839865.622 76.89 9.16
w
0.364
Hs (in) eo
0.3607 0.965
Change in Final
reading Hv Cc
( tsf ) height height e (%) (per sec) (tsf) (in2 /min) (in2 /min)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 -0.0002 -0.0002 0.7102 0.3495 0.9689 -0.03 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0010 0.0010 0.7090 0.3483 0.9656 0.14 1.959E-08 148.83
0.50 0.0090 0.0090 0.7010 0.3403 0.9434 1.27 1.321E-07 22.12 16 10 0.0737
0.75 0.0171 0.0171 0.6929 0.3322 0.921 2.41 1.353E-07 21.93 13 6 0.1272
1.00 0.0256 0.0256 0.6844 0.3237 0.8974 3.61 1.437E-07 20.81 9 3 0.1889
1.25 0.0340 0.0340 0.6760 0.3153 0.8741 4.79 1.438E-07 21.08 6 2 0.2404
1.50 0.0418 0.0418 0.6682 0.3075 0.8525 5.89 1.351E-07 22.74 4 2 0.2728
2.00 0.0570 0.0570 0.6530 0.2923 0.8104 8.03 2.694E-07 23.33 3 2 0.3370
2.50 0.0692 0.0692 0.6408 0.2801 0.7765 2.204E-07 28.98 2 1 0.3498
3.00 0.0800 0.0800 0.6300 0.2693 0.7466 1.984E-07 32.85 1 1 0.3776
3.50 0.0891 0.0891 0.6209 0.2602 0.7214 1.696E-07 38.98 1 1 0.3764
4.00 0.0972 0.0972 0.6128 0.2521 0.6989 1.530E-07 43.66 1 0 0.3880
6.00 0.1181 0.1181 0.5919 0.2312 0.641 4.087E-07 67.86 0.3288
8.00 0.1328 0.1328 0.5772 0.2165 0.6002 2.948E-07 96.3 0.3266
4.00 0.1296 0.1296 0.5804 0.2197 0.6091 -6.381E-08 882.97 0.0296
2.00 0.1203 0.1203 0.5897 0.2290 0.6349 -1.825E-07 152.29 0.0857
1.00 0.1075 0.1075 0.6025 0.2418 0.6704 -2.459E-07 55.34 0.1179
0.50 0.0917 0.0917 0.6183 0.2576 0.7142 -2.958E-07 22.43 0.1455
0.25 0.0743 0.0743 0.6357 0.2750 0.7624 -3.168E-07 10.19 0.1601
0.50 0.0753 0.0753 0.6347 0.2740 0.7596 1.824E-08 175.41 0.0093
1.00 0.0864 0.0864 0.6236 0.2629 0.7289 2.060E-07 32 0.1020
2.00 0.1025 0.1025 0.6075 0.2468 0.6842 3.067E-07 43.95 0.1485
4.00 0.1187 0.1187 0.5913 0.2306 0.6393 3.171E-07 87.51 0.1492
8.00 0.1401 0.1401 0.5699 0.2092 0.58 4.346E-07 132.52 0.1970
16.00 0.1746 0.1746 0.5354 0.1747 0.4843 7.458E-07 164.23 0.3179

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 2.00 2.5 3 3.50 4 6 8 4 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 16.00
0 -0.0001 0.0009 0.001 0.009 0.0171 0.0257 0.0346 0.0418 0.057 0.0693 0.0804 0.0892 0.0974 0.1186 0.1337 0.1295 0.1202 0.1075 0.0913 0.0712 0.0754 0.0864 0.1026 0.1187 0.1409
0.10 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0017 0.0094 0.0176 0.0257 0.0348 0.0422 0.057 0.0697 0.0804 0.0896 0.0974 0.1186 0.1337 0.1285 0.1202 0.1069 0.0908 0.0714 0.0755 0.0865 0.1026 0.1187 0.1409
0.25 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0026 0.0098 0.0178 0.026 0.0349 0.0425 0.0575 0.0698 0.0805 0.0897 0.0987 0.1194 0.1326 0.1283 0.1194 0.1068 0.0907 0.0715 0.0761 0.0875 0.1041 0.121 0.142
0.5 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0028 0.0101 0.0179 0.0262 0.035 0.0427 0.0577 0.0698 0.0805 0.0897 0.0991 0.1196 0.1324 0.1281 0.1193 0.1067 0.0907 0.0716 0.0763 0.0879 0.1044 0.1214 0.1441
1 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0033 0.0104 0.0181 0.0264 0.0351 0.0429 0.0578 0.0699 0.0807 0.0898 0.0995 0.1199 0.1322 0.1279 0.1191 0.1065 0.0906 0.0717 0.0765 0.0882 0.105 0.1219 0.1452
2 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0037 0.0107 0.0184 0.0266 0.0353 0.0434 0.058 0.0701 0.0809 0.0899 0.1002 0.1202 0.132 0.1275 0.1188 0.1063 0.0904 0.0719 0.0769 0.0887 0.1056 0.1227 0.1464
4 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0043 0.0113 0.0188 0.0269 0.0355 0.044 0.0585 0.0705 0.081 0.09 0.101 0.1207 0.1317 0.1272 0.1185 0.1059 0.0901 0.0721 0.0772 0.0893 0.1064 0.1237 0.1478
8 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0051 0.0121 0.0194 0.0274 0.0359 0.0448 0.059 0.0709 0.0813 0.0904 0.1021 0.1214 0.1313 0.1265 0.1178 0.1055 0.0897 0.0723 0.0778 0.0902 0.1074 0.1251 0.1499
15 -0.0001 0.0009 0.006 0.0129 0.0202 0.0281 0.0363 0.0459 0.0597 0.0715 0.0818 0.0907 0.1035 0.1224 0.1309 0.1258 0.1171 0.1049 0.0892 0.0726 0.0785 0.0913 0.1089 0.1268 0.1523
30 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0069 0.0138 0.0211 0.0289 0.037 0.0475 0.0608 0.0723 0.0825 0.0913 0.1057 0.1236 0.1305 0.1247 0.1161 0.1039 0.0884 0.073 0.0794 0.093 0.1108 0.1293 0.156
60 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0076 0.0147 0.0221 0.0299 0.0377 0.0494 0.0621 0.0735 0.0834 0.092 0.1085 0.1253 0.13 0.1234 0.1145 0.1025 0.0872 0.0736 0.0809 0.0954 0.1133 0.1325 0.1607
120 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0081 0.0155 0.0231 0.0308 0.0385 0.0516 0.0638 0.0748 0.0845 0.093 0.1117 0.1273 0.1299 0.1221 0.1125 0.1003 0.0853 0.0742 0.0826 0.0983 0.116 0.1356 0.1659
240 -0.0002 0.0009 0.0083 0.0161 0.024 0.0318 0.0394 0.0537 0.0655 0.0764 0.0858 0.094 0.1145 0.1291 0.1297 0.1213 0.1105 0.0977 0.0827 0.0747 0.0842 0.1009 0.1175 0.1378 0.17
480 -0.0002 0.0009 0.0086 0.0165 0.0247 0.0328 0.0403 0.0553 0.0671 0.078 0.0873 0.0953 0.1164 0.1308 0.1296 0.1209 0.1088 0.0948 0.0795 0.075 0.0854 0.1019 0.1182 0.139 0.1724
1440 -0.0002 0.001 0.009 0.0171 0.0256 0.034 0.0418 0.057 0.0692 0.08 0.0891 0.0972 0.1181 0.1328 0.1296 0.1203 0.1075 0.0917 0.0743 0.0753 0.0864 0.1025 0.1187 0.1401 0.1746
Time 90 (min) 25.00 30.25 42.25 64.00 81.00 121.00 182.25 272.25 420.25 361.00
Time 50 (min) 9.00 14.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 43.00 60.00 100.00 120.00 160.00
211
SH3 B5_10-12ft
0 34.70 26.6 0.305 0.808
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.2 0.40 346.1 1912484.446 117.88 14.05
w
0.305
Hs (in) eo
0.553 0.808
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void ratio Strain rate T90 Cv T50 Cv
reading Hv Strain (%) Eeod (tsf) Cc
( tsf ) height height e (per sec) (ft2 /yr) (ft2 /yr)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.4470 0.8083 0.00 0.000E+00
0.25 0.0098 0.0098 0.9902 0.4372 0.7906 0.98 1.145E-07 25.54 3.200E+02 1.138E+02
0.50 0.0157 0.0157 0.9843 0.4313 0.7799 1.57 6.938E-08 42.25 1.595E+02 4.144E+01 0.0355
1.00 0.0299 0.0299 0.9701 0.4171 0.7542 2.99 1.694E-07 35.18 3.487E+01 2.626E+01 0.0854
2.00 0.0610 0.0610 0.9390 0.3860 0.698 6.10 3.833E-07 32.18 1.345E+01 1.335E+01 0.1867
4.00 0.1055 0.1055 0.8945 0.3415 0.6175 10.55 5.758E-07 44.93 7.860E+00 5.274E+00 0.2674
8.00 0.1579 0.1579 0.8421 0.2891 0.5228 15.79 7.202E-07 76.38 3.120E+00 2.799E+00 0.3146
4.00 0.1535 0.1535 0.8465 0.2935 0.5307 15.35 -6.016E-08 915.57 0.0262
2.00 0.1445 0.1445 0.8555 0.3025 0.547 14.45 -1.218E-07 221.87 0.0541
1.00 0.1327 0.1327 0.8673 0.3143 0.5684 13.27 -1.575E-07 84.5 0.0711
0.50 0.1201 0.1201 0.8799 0.3269 0.5911 12.01 -1.657E-07 39.83 0.0754
0.25 0.1094 0.1094 0.8906 0.3376 0.6105 10.94 -1.391E-07 23.3 0.0644
0.50 0.1098 0.1098 0.8902 0.3372 0.6098 10.98 5.201E-09 645.8 0.0023
1.00 0.1154 0.1154 0.8846 0.3316 0.5996 11.54 7.327E-08 88.64 0.0339
2.00 0.1280 0.1280 0.8720 0.3190 0.5769 12.80 1.672E-07 79.66 0.0754
4.00 0.1442 0.1442 0.8558 0.3028 0.5476 14.42 2.191E-07 123.43 0.0973
8.00 0.1680 0.1680 0.8320 0.2790 0.5045 16.80 3.311E-07 167.82 0.1432
16.00 0.2051 0.2051 0.7949 0.2419 0.4374 20.51 5.402E-07 215.59 0.2229

Time (min)
0.00 0.25 0.50 1 2 4.00 8 4.00 2 1 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16.00
0
0.10
0.25
0.5
1
2
4
8
15
30
60
120
240
480
1440 0.0098 0.0157 0.0299 0.061 0.1055 0.1579 0.1535 0.1445 0.1327 0.1201 0.1094 0.1098 0.1154 0.128 0.1442 0.168 0.2051
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
212
RIVERSIDE Sample: BS4_10 Depth: 23ft
0 38.70 24 0.613 1.624
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.3 0.80 323.6 1628703.157 81.22 9.68
w
0.613
Hs (in) eo
0.381 1.624
Change in Final
Applied Pressure specimen specimen Void ratio Strain rate (per Eeod Cv
reading Hv Cc
(tsf ) height height e sec) (tsf) (in2/mn)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.25 -0.0113 -0.0113 1.0113 0.6303 1.6543 0.000E+00
0.5 -0.0098 -0.0098 1.0098 0.6288 1.6504 1.719E-08 168.23 0.0130
1.00 0.0012 0.0012 0.9988 0.6178 1.6215 1.275E-07 45.41 0.0960
2.00 0.0285 0.0285 0.9715 0.5905 1.5499 3.252E-07 36.65 0.2379
4.00 0.1272 0.1272 0.8728 0.4918 1.2908 1.309E-06 20.26 0.8607
2.00 0.1210 0.1210 0.8790 0.4980 1.3071 -8.164E-08 322.02 0.0541
0.25 0.0616 0.0616 0.9384 0.5574 1.463 -7.326E-07 29.46 0.1726
2.00 0.0950 0.0950 0.9050 0.5240 1.3753 4.272E-07 52.37 0.0971
4.00 0.1427 0.1427 0.8573 0.4763 1.2501 6.440E-07 41.92 0.4159
8.00 0.2394 0.2394 0.7606 0.3796 0.9963 1.471E-06 41.36 0.8431
2.00 0.2111 0.2111 0.7889 0.4079 1.0706 -4.152E-07 211.93 0.1234
1.00 0.1897 0.1897 0.8103 0.4293 1.1268 -3.057E-07 46.7 0.1867
0.50 0.1679 0.1679 0.8321 0.4511 1.184 -3.032E-07 22.94 0.1900
0.25 0.1473 0.1473 0.8527 0.4717 1.2381 -2.796E-07 12.13 0.1797
0.50 0.1452 0.1452 0.8548 0.4738 1.2436 -2.843E-08 -119.29 -0.0183
1.00 0.1498 0.1498 0.8502 0.4692 1.2315 6.262E-08 108.45 0.0402
2.00 0.1712 0.1712 0.8288 0.4478 1.1753 2.988E-07 46.7 0.1867
4.00 0.2055 0.2055 0.7945 0.4135 1.0853 4.997E-07 22.86 0.2990
8.00 0.2507 0.2507 0.7493 0.3683 0.9667 6.982E-07 88.51 0.3940
16.00 0.3234 0.3234 0.6766 0.2956 0.7759 1.244E-06 110.04 0.6338

Time (min)
0.25 0.5 1 2.00 4 2.00 0.25 2 4.00 8 2 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16
0 0.0001 -0.0108 -0.0089 0.0051 0.0287 0.1273 0.1211 0.0589 0.0951 0.1428 0.2395 0.2108 0.1896 0.1676 0.1447 0.1453 0.1502 0.1717 0.2057 0.252
0.10 0.0366 -0.0108 -0.0074 0.0053 0.0299 0.126 0.1183 0.0589 0.0951 0.1428 0.2383 0.2108 0.1888 0.1676 0.1451 0.1461 0.1515 0.1717 0.206 0.252
0.25 0 -0.0108 -0.0069 0.0058 0.0322 0.1264 0.1175 0.0627 0.0974 0.1466 0.237 0.2098 0.1887 0.167 0.1451 0.1461 0.1517 0.174 0.2085 0.2538
0.5 -0.0001 -0.0107 -0.0066 0.0061 0.0332 0.1261 0.1168 0.0635 0.0982 0.148 0.2362 0.2095 0.1886 0.1669 0.1451 0.1461 0.1519 0.1744 0.2092 0.257
1 -0.0002 -0.0106 -0.0061 0.0068 0.0348 0.1259 0.1158 0.0645 0.0993 0.1496 0.2354 0.2092 0.1884 0.1668 0.1451 0.1462 0.1523 0.175 0.2101 0.2585
2 -0.0004 -0.0105 -0.0055 0.0079 0.037 0.1255 0.1145 0.066 0.1007 0.1518 0.2342 0.2089 0.1881 0.1667 0.1452 0.1464 0.1529 0.1759 0.2114 0.2603
4 -0.0007 -0.0104 -0.0048 0.0095 0.0402 0.1251 0.1126 0.0679 0.1028 0.155 0.2329 0.2083 0.1877 0.1664 0.1452 0.1466 0.1536 0.1771 0.2131 0.2626
8 -0.0013 -0.0102 -0.0038 0.0117 0.0448 0.1245 0.1099 0.0705 0.1058 0.1596 0.231 0.2075 0.1871 0.166 0.1452 0.1469 0.1547 0.1789 0.2154 0.2658
15 -0.0024 -0.0101 -0.0027 0.0143 0.0506 0.1239 0.1065 0.0737 0.1095 0.1654 0.2287 0.2064 0.1863 0.1654 0.1452 0.1472 0.1561 0.1812 0.2185 0.2697
30 -0.0038 -0.01 -0.0014 0.0179 0.0592 0.1233 0.1013 0.0781 0.1151 0.1742 0.2253 0.2046 0.185 0.1644 0.1452 0.1477 0.158 0.1846 0.2231 0.2756
60 -0.0057 -0.01 -0.0004 0.0213 0.0702 0.1227 0.0944 0.0837 0.1225 0.1862 0.2211 0.2021 0.183 0.163 0.1452 0.1483 0.1609 0.1894 0.2294 0.2839
120 -0.0075 -0.0099 0.0002 0.0238 0.0843 0.1224 0.0856 0.0891 0.1301 0.2018 0.2168 0.1988 0.1802 0.1607 0.1452 0.1488 0.1643 0.1955 0.2369 0.2946
240 -0.0089 -0.0099 0.0006 0.0254 0.1018 0.1222 0.0764 0.0924 0.1358 0.2188 0.2137 0.1951 0.1764 0.1575 0.1452 0.1492 0.1676 0.2008 0.2434 0.3067
480 -0.01 -0.0098 0.0009 0.0267 0.1166 0.122 0.0689 0.0939 0.1394 0.2312 0.212 0.1921 0.1724 0.1533 0.1452 0.1495 0.1697 0.2036 0.2474 0.3164
1440 -0.0113 -0.0098 0.0012 0.0285 0.1272 0.121 0.0616 0.095 0.1427 0.2394 0.2111 0.1897 0.1679 0.1473 0.1452 0.1498 0.1712 0.2055 0.2507 0.3234
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
213
0 45.10 28.8 0.566 1.500
R + P + wet
soil
0.0254 0.00316690 194.4 0.80 330.4 1660026.401 85.27 10.16
w
0.566
Hs (in) eo
0.4 1.500
Change in Final
reading Hv Cc
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.25 -0.0199 -0.0199 1.0199 0.6199 1.5498 0.000E+00
0.5 -0.0150 -0.0150 1.0150 0.6150 1.5375 5.587E-08 50.81 0.0409
1.00 -0.0017 -0.0017 1.0017 0.6017 1.5043 1.537E-07 37.65 0.1103
2.00 0.0256 0.0256 0.9744 0.5744 1.436 3.243E-07 36.6 0.2269
4.00 0.0951 0.0951 0.9049 0.5049 1.2623 8.889E-07 28.78 0.5770
2.00 0.0869 0.0869 0.9131 0.5131 1.2828 -1.039E-07 243.89 0.0681
0.25 0.0305 0.0305 0.9695 0.5695 1.4238 -6.733E-07 31.03 0.1561
2.00 0.0664 0.0664 0.9336 0.5336 1.334 4.451E-07 48.72 0.0994
4.00 0.1083 0.1083 0.8917 0.4917 1.2293 5.439E-07 47.75 0.3478
8.00 0.1968 0.1968 0.8032 0.4032 1.008 1.275E-06 45.19 0.7351
2.00 0.1642 0.1642 0.8358 0.4358 1.0895 -4.514E-07 184.04 0.1354
1.00 0.1440 0.1440 0.8560 0.4560 1.14 -2.731E-07 49.5 0.1678
0.50 0.1259 0.1259 0.8741 0.4741 1.1853 -2.397E-07 27.59 0.1505
0.25 0.1131 0.1131 0.8869 0.4869 1.2173 -1.670E-07 19.53 0.1063
0.50 0.1119 0.1119 0.8881 0.4881 1.2203 -1.564E-08 -208.33 -0.0100
1.00 0.1139 0.1139 0.8861 0.4861 1.2153 2.612E-08 249.99 0.0166
2.00 0.1332 0.1332 0.8668 0.4668 1.167 2.577E-07 51.76 0.1604
4.00 0.1652 0.1652 0.8348 0.4348 1.087 4.437E-07 62.5 0.2658
8.00 0.2012 0.2012 0.7988 0.3988 0.997 5.216E-07 111.11 0.2990
16.00 0.2626 0.2626 0.7374 0.3374 0.8435 9.637E-07 130.29 0.5099

Time (min)
0.25 0.5 1 2.00 4 2.00 0.25 2 4.00 8 2 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16
0 0.0008 -0.0189 -0.0149 -0.0017 0.0258 0.0953 0.087 0.0295 0.0666 0.1086 0.1973 0.1638 0.1437 0.1259 0.1115 0.1119 0.1141 0.1336 0.1657 0.2023
0.10 0 -0.0188 -0.0129 0.001 0.0271 0.0963 0.0842 0.0297 0.0667 0.1089 0.1974 0.1632 0.1433 0.1251 0.1117 0.1119 0.1138 0.1364 0.1658 0.2034
0.25 0 -0.0187 -0.0117 0.0029 0.0301 0.0941 0.0836 0.0331 0.0694 0.1117 0.1958 0.1629 0.1432 0.1251 0.1117 0.1122 0.1155 0.1362 0.1679 0.2064
0.5 -0.0001 -0.0186 -0.0114 0.0034 0.0309 0.094 0.083 0.0339 0.07 0.113 0.1937 0.1627 0.1431 0.1251 0.1117 0.1123 0.1158 0.1365 0.1685 0.2076
1 -0.0003 -0.0184 -0.011 0.004 0.0321 0.0937 0.0822 0.0349 0.0708 0.1146 0.1927 0.1624 0.1429 0.1251 0.1117 0.1124 0.1162 0.1371 0.1693 0.2089
2 -0.0005 -0.0181 -0.0104 0.005 0.0338 0.0932 0.0812 0.0363 0.0721 0.1166 0.1914 0.162 0.1427 0.125 0.1117 0.1125 0.1168 0.1379 0.1704 0.2105
4 -0.0011 -0.0178 -0.0096 0.0064 0.0363 0.0926 0.0796 0.0384 0.0739 0.1196 0.1898 0.1616 0.1424 0.1248 0.1117 0.1126 0.1176 0.1391 0.1718 0.2125
8 -0.0021 -0.0173 -0.0085 0.0084 0.0401 0.0917 0.0771 0.0411 0.0766 0.1239 0.1875 0.1609 0.1419 0.1245 0.1117 0.1128 0.1186 0.1408 0.1739 0.2156
15 -0.0035 -0.0168 -0.0072 0.011 0.0449 0.0908 0.0735 0.0446 0.0801 0.1294 0.1849 0.1599 0.1412 0.1242 0.1117 0.113 0.12 0.143 0.1765 0.2194
30 -0.0059 -0.0163 -0.0055 0.0147 0.0516 0.0897 0.0674 0.0498 0.0852 0.138 0.181 0.1584 0.1402 0.1235 0.1117 0.1131 0.1219 0.1465 0.1806 0.2252
60 -0.0092 -0.0159 -0.004 0.0187 0.0597 0.0886 0.0589 0.056 0.0915 0.15 0.1763 0.156 0.1385 0.1226 0.1118 0.1134 0.1246 0.1513 0.1859 0.2332
120 -0.0127 -0.0156 -0.0031 0.0217 0.0709 0.088 0.049 0.0616 0.0979 0.1653 0.1714 0.1529 0.1362 0.1211 0.1118 0.1137 0.1277 0.157 0.1919 0.2435
240 -0.0158 -0.0154 -0.0025 0.0234 0.0818 0.0876 0.0401 0.0644 0.1026 0.1805 0.1674 0.1494 0.133 0.1192 0.1118 0.1138 0.1304 0.1616 0.1965 0.253
480 -0.0179 -0.0152 -0.0021 0.0243 0.0888 0.0874 0.0345 0.0656 0.1056 0.1905 0.1653 0.1465 0.1298 0.1166 0.1118 0.1139 0.132 0.1637 0.199 0.2586
1440 -0.0199 -0.015 -0.0017 0.0256 0.0951 0.0869 0.0305 0.0664 0.1083 0.1968 0.1642 0.144 0.1259 0.1131 0.1119 0.1139 0.1332 0.1652 0.2012 0.2626
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
214
0 47.30 32.4 0.460 1.219
R + P + wet
soil
0.02 0.00316690 64.4 0.70 171.3 1743578.188 75.64 9.01
w
0.460
Hs (in) eo
0.3548 1.219
Change in Final
reading Hv Cc
(tsf) height height e (per sec) (tsf) (in2 /min)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 -0.0062 -0.0062 0.7936 0.4388 1.2368 0.000E+00
0.125 -0.0056 -0.0056 0.7930 0.4382 1.2351 8.757E-09 163.16
0.25 -0.0023 -0.0023 0.7897 0.4349 1.2258 4.837E-08 29.83 0.0309
0.75 0.0088 0.0088 0.7786 0.4238 1.1945 1.650E-07 35.45 0.0656
1.00 0.0146 0.0146 0.7728 0.4180 1.1781 8.687E-08 33.83 0.1313
2.00 0.0434 0.0434 0.7440 0.3892 1.097 4.480E-07 27.36 0.2694
4.00 0.0971 0.0971 0.6903 0.3355 0.9456 9.004E-07 29.31 0.5029
1.00 0.0843 0.0843 0.7031 0.3483 0.9817 -2.107E-07 184.4 0.0600
0.25 0.0713 0.0713 0.7161 0.3613 1.0183 -2.101E-07 45.47 0.0608
1.00 0.0767 0.0767 0.7107 0.3559 1.0031 8.794E-08 109.49 0.0252
4.00 0.1077 0.1077 0.6797 0.3249 0.9157 5.279E-07 76.17 0.1452
8.00 0.1520 0.1520 0.6354 0.2806 0.7909 8.069E-07 71.12 0.4146

Time (min)
0.00 0.125 0.25 0.75 1 2.00 4 1.00 0.25 1 4.00 8
0 0 -0.0068 -0.0055 -0.0025 0.0084 0.0143 0.0437 0.097 0.084 0.0709 0.0764 0.1077
0.10 -0.0005 -0.0062 -0.0051 0.0013 0.0094 0.0197 0.0498 0.0951 0.0826 0.0725 0.0812 0.1115
0.25 -0.0008 -0.0061 -0.005 0.0022 0.0099 0.0213 0.0508 0.0947 0.0824 0.0728 0.082 0.1123
0.5 -0.0009 -0.0061 -0.0048 0.0029 0.0101 0.0225 0.0517 0.0943 0.0822 0.073 0.0828 0.1131
1 -0.0011 -0.006 -0.0048 0.0037 0.0104 0.0237 0.0531 0.0938 0.0819 0.0732 0.0839 0.1142
2 -0.0016 -0.006 -0.0047 0.0044 0.0107 0.0253 0.055 0.0932 0.0815 0.0735 0.0855 0.1158
4 -0.0022 -0.0059 -0.0046 0.0051 0.011 0.0273 0.0579 0.0923 0.081 0.074 0.0877 0.1183
8 -0.0029 -0.0059 -0.0045 0.0058 0.0115 0.0296 0.0621 0.0911 0.0801 0.0744 0.0909 0.1219
15 -0.0036 -0.0059 -0.0045 0.0063 0.0118 0.032 0.0673 0.0898 0.0789 0.0749 0.0946 0.1265
30 -0.0047 -0.0059 -0.0044 0.0069 0.0123 0.0346 0.0746 0.0882 0.0772 0.0755 0.0989 0.1334
60 -0.0053 -0.0058 -0.0043 0.0073 0.0128 0.037 0.0824 0.0868 0.075 0.0759 0.1023 0.1416
120 -0.0057 -0.0058 -0.0043 0.0076 0.0132 0.039 0.0887 0.0858 0.0729 0.0762 0.1044 0.1493
240 -0.006 -0.0057 -0.0042 0.008 0.0136 0.0405 0.0925 0.0852 0.0713 0.0764 0.1056 0.1498
480 -0.0062 -0.0057 -0.0041 0.0083 0.014 0.0417 0.095 0.0847 0.0701 0.0765 0.1065 0.1499
1440 -0.0062 -0.0056 -0.0023 0.0088 0.0146 0.0434 0.0971 0.0843 0.0713 0.0767 0.1077 0.152
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
215
0 99.40 83.4 0.192 0.509
R + P + wet
soil
0.02 0.00316690 66.2 0.70 184.4 2093584.305 111.24 13.26
w
0.192
Hs (in) eo
0.5219 0.509
Change in Final
reading Hv Cc
(tsf) height height e (per sec) (tsf) (in2 /min)
(in) (in)
(in) (in)
0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.7874 0.2655 0.5087 0.000E+00
0.125 0.0097 0.0097 0.7777 0.2558 0.4901 1.444E-07 10.14
0.25 0.0166 0.0166 0.7708 0.2489 0.4769 1.036E-07 14.29 0.0438
0.50 0.0263 0.0263 0.7611 0.2392 0.4583 1.475E-07 20.28 0.0618
1.00 0.0412 0.0412 0.7462 0.2243 0.4298 2.311E-07 26.47 0.0947
2.00 0.0650 0.0650 0.7224 0.2005 0.3842 3.813E-07 33.09 0.1515
4.00 0.0893 0.0893 0.6981 0.1762 0.3376 4.029E-07 64.76 0.1548
1.00 0.0860 0.0860 0.7014 0.1795 0.3439 -5.445E-08 718.48 0.0105
0.25 0.0812 0.0812 0.7062 0.1843 0.3531 -7.867E-08 123 0.0153
1.00 0.0844 0.0844 0.7030 0.1811 0.347 5.268E-08 185.51 0.0101
4.00 0.0935 0.0935 0.6939 0.1720 0.3296 1.518E-07 260.14 0.0289
8.00 0.1131 0.1131 0.6743 0.1524 0.292 3.364E-07 160.51 0.1249

Time (min)
0.00 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2.00 4 1.00 0.25 1 4.00 8
0 -0.0003 -0.0014 0.0097 0.0166 0.0261 0.0415 0.0662 0.0813 0.0841 0.0935
0.10 -0.0003 0.0067 0.0132 0.022 0.0352 0.0547 0.0792 0.0839 0.0906 0.1044
0.25 -0.0005 0.0071 0.0138 0.0227 0.0364 0.0566 0.0813 0.084 0.0909 0.106
0.5 -0.0006 0.0073 0.0141 0.0231 0.037 0.0577 0.0825 0.084 0.0912 0.107
1 -0.0007 0.0074 0.0144 0.0235 0.0376 0.0586 0.0834 0.0841 0.0914 0.1078
2 -0.0008 0.0076 0.0146 0.0239 0.0381 0.0595 0.0842 0.0841 0.0916 0.1086
4 -0.0008 0.0078 0.0149 0.0242 0.0385 0.0603 0.085 0.0842 0.0918 0.1092
8 -0.0008 0.008 0.0151 0.0245 0.0389 0.061 0.0857 0.0842 0.092 0.1098
15 -0.0008 0.0081 0.0153 0.0248 0.0393 0.0617 0.0863 0.0842 0.0922 0.1103
30 -0.0008 0.0082 0.0154 0.0251 0.0396 0.0624 0.0869 0.0842 0.0924 0.1108
60 -0.0009 0.0083 0.0156 0.0253 0.04 0.063 0.0874 0.0843 0.0926 0.1113
120 -0.0008 0.0085 0.0158 0.0256 0.0402 0.0635 0.0879 0.0843 0.0928 0.1118
240 -0.0008 0.0094 0.0159 0.0258 0.0405 0.064 0.0883 0.0843 0.093 0.1122
480 -0.0008 0.0095 0.0161 0.026 0.0408 0.0644 0.0887 0.0843 0.0932 0.1126
1440 0.0097 0.0166 0.0263 0.0412 0.065 0.0893 0.086 0.0812 0.0844 0.0935 0.1131
Time 90 (min)
Time 50 (min)
216
APPENDIX B
Moisture Content (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
B1
B2
5 B3
B4
1984 average
1984 R2
10
1984 R3
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. B-0-1 Variation of the moisture content with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.
Lquid Limit (%)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
10
15
Depth (ft)
20
25 B1
1984 R2
30
1984 average
35
40
Fig. B-0-2 Variation of the liquid limit with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.
217
Plastic Limit (%)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
B1
5
1984 average
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. B-0-3 Variation of the plastic limit with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.
Undrained shear strength Su (psi)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
Actual data trend
10
Depth (ft)
15
1984 data
B1
20
B2
B3
25
B4
1984 data
30
Fig. B-0-4 Variation of the undrained shear strength with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.
218
Preconsolidation pressure σp (psf)
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
B1
5 1984 data
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
25
30
Fig. B-0-5 Variation of the preconsolidation pressure with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.
OCR
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
10
Depth (ft)
15
20
B1
25
1984 data
30
Fig. B-0-6 Variation of the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) with depth at SH3 in 1984 and in 2007.
219
0.5
Cc = 0.0087Wn - 0.0576
0.4 R2 = 0.9764
Compression index Cc
0.3
0.2
2007 test (B1)
0.1 1984 data
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Moisture content (%)
Fig. B-0-7 Correlation of the compression index (Cc) with natural moisture content at SH3 in
2007.
220

Yanhouide Jeannot Ahossin Guezo Masterthesis 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yanhouide Jeannot Ahossin Guezo Masterthesis 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS FOR EMBANKMENT

SETTLEMENT ON SOFT CLAY SOILS IN HOUSTON

Committee Members: ______________________________

personally and professionally.

I want to acknowledge my research advisor, Dr. Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan for giving

Dr. Ken W. White for serving in my committee.

I want to gratefully acknowledge my fellow graduate students Hector Gonzalez,

support throughout my graduate studies.

guidance I have received from my family throughout my life. I want to specifically

express my deepest appreciation to my parents Christine Akuegninou and Eugene Guezo,

my uncles Albert T. Ahossin and Bernard Akpo Amoussouga, my siblings Japhet

Senamin, Jocelyne Bidossessi, Prisca Gueguede and Judicael.

Overestimation of settlement on overconsolidated soft clays may require ground

the preconsolidation pressure. Hence there is a need to investigate methods to better

determined from a consolidation test is needed to estimate the settlement. Although

parameters of clays as well as instrumentation of two embankments to measure the

settlements. Conventional methods of predicting the settlement of embankments was

recompression index of overconsolidated soft CH clay soils which exhibited hysteretic

element model was used to predict the measured settlement.

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... xviii

1.2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 4

2.2. Soft clay soil definition....................................................................................... 4

2.3. Embankment settlement...................................................................................... 6

2.4. Ground improvement methods ......................................................................... 23

2.6. Embankments case studies review and analysis ............................................... 38

3. SOFT SOILS & HIGHWAY EMBANKMENTS IN HOUSTON........................... 44

3.1. Behavior of marine and deltaic soft clays......................................................... 44

3.2. Highway embankments..................................................................................... 62

3.3. Summary and discussion................................................................................. 114

4. LABORATORY TESTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................................... 116

4.1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 116

4.2. Tests results..................................................................................................... 117

4.4. Preconsolidation pressure (σp)........................................................................ 128

4.5. Compression index (Cc) .................................................................................. 132

4.6. Recompression index (Cr)............................................................................... 142

4.7. Coefficient of consolidation (Cv) .................................................................... 151

4.8. Constant Rate of Strain consolidation test results........................................... 154

4.9. Summary and discussion................................................................................. 158

5. FIELD STUDY....................................................................................................... 160

5.1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 160

5.2. Site history and previous site investigation .................................................... 161

5.3. Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 163

5.4. NASA Road 1 embankment instrumentation ................................................. 167

5.5. SH3 embankment instrumentation and results ............................................... 168

5.6. Summary and discussion................................................................................. 177

6. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 179

6.1. General............................................................................................................ 179

6.2. Plain strain Finite Element Modeling ............................................................. 179

6.3. Elements.......................................................................................................... 180

6.4. Constitutive Model.......................................................................................... 180

6.5. Parameters....................................................................................................... 181

6.6. Results............................................................................................................. 182

6.7. Summary ......................................................................................................... 182

7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ......................................................... 183

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 195

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 217

Fig. 2-1 Typical configuration of soil layers under an embankment.................................. 6

Fig. 2-2 Field condition simulation in laboratory consolidation test. ............................... 12

Fig. 2-3 Typical e – log σv relationship for overconsolidated clay. ................................ 13

Houston (GEOTAC Company 2006)........................................................................ 17