Introduction

Due to the increase in the population growth rate,

urbanisation and development, land scarcity pushes
structures to be constructed on Problematic Soils.

49119

Five main types of problematic soils are soft clay,
expansive soil, loose sand, collapsible soil, and
erodible soil.

Embankment failure due to liquefaction on

the Pan-American Highway near the
Pacific Ocean about 190 km south of
Lima, Peru.

1 4

Soft Clay

Soft clay: soft soils which exhibit the high degree of
University of Technology, Sydney compressibility, low strength bearing capacity and
Faculty of Engineering large settlement occuring in extremely long period.

Clay:
49119 – Problematic Soils and  Fine-grained soil
Fine-
Exhibit plasticity with a range of water content
Ground Improvement Techniques 
 Clay particles: <0.002mm
 Compose of three common clay minerals: kaolinite,
kaolinite, illite
illite,,
Part 1 - Problematic Soils (Soft Clay and Loose Sand) montmorillonite
Behzad Fatahi
(PhD, MEng
MEng,, BEng (Hons), CPEng
CPEng,, NPER)
Room 507, BLD 2
Behzad.Fatahi@uts.edu.au
5

Contents Structures of Clay Minerals

Introduction
Two Basic

SoftClay Building Blocks

Associated Problems of Soft Clay

Loose Sand
Silica Tetrahedron Alumina Octahedron

Associated Problems of Loose Sand (Si4+ surrounded by O2-) (Al3+ surrounded by OH-)
SiO4

Bearing Capacity of Foundations

Si Al

Silica Sheet Alumina Sheet

3 6

1
 Clay Minerals

Clays are constructed of two major structural
components: oxygen

 Sheets of SiO44- tetrahedral sharing

three oxygens with neighbors.
silicon

hydroxyl or
oxygen

Sheets of Al, Fe and/or Mg in


octahedral coordination with O2- and/or
OH-.
Al/Fe/Mg

7 10

Clay Minerals Clay

Different combinations of tetrahedral and
Clay minerals:
octahedral sheets form different clay minerals:  Complex aluminium silicates:
 Two basic units:
Al Silica tetrahedron (SiO4)
Kaolinite: Alumina octahedron (Al (OH)3)
Si  Three main minerals:
Kaolinite (weathered tropical soil)
Al
Strong joints by Illite (moderate rainfall areas)
oxygen sharing Si Montmorillonite (arid area)
 Engineering properties:
Strong hydrogen bond Al
Specific
Less affiliation with water Si Minerals
surface area
Plasticity Shrink / swell Friction Permeability

Al Kaolinite 10-20 m2/g

10- Lowest Lowest Highest Highest
Illite 65-100 m2/g
65- ⇓ ⇓ ⇑ ⇓
Si 800--1000 m2/g
Montmorillonite 800 Highest Highest Lowest Lowest
8 11

Clay Minerals Soft Clay

Different combinations of tetrahedral and
Characteristics of clay depend on:
octahedral sheets form different clay minerals:  Specific Surface: typical surface area per unit mass
 Atterberg Limits:
Si  LL: Liquid limit
Montmorillonite : Al
W-
 PL: Plastic limit
 SL: Shrinkage limit
Si
Plasticity Index PI = LL – PL
Weak van der Waals bond Si Liquidity Index LI = (w – PL)/PI

Strong affiliation with water Al  Activity A = PI/(Clay fraction%)

Si

ILLITE is similar but Si

has potassium ions Al
between blocks
Si 9 12

2
 Atterberg Limits
 Depends on the water content, a fine grained soil may be
in different states: solid, semi-
semi-solid, plastic, liquid.
SL: Shrinkage Limit
SL: The water content PL: Plastic Limit
Volume

at which the soil volume LL: Liquid Limit

ceases to change.
PI: Plasticity Index, IP
PI = LL - PL
Liquid
Plastic
Semi-
Solid solid

SL PL LL
Moisture content, m (%)
Soil Classification 13 Soil Classification 16

Casagrande bowl

PL: Moisture content at which a ~3 mm

diameter soil thread just crumbles.

Soil Classification 14 Soil Classification 17

LL: Moisture content required to close

CASAGRANDE LIQUID LIMIT DEVICE a distance of 0.5 in (12.7mm) along the
bottom of the groove after 25 blows.

Soil Classification 15 Soil Classification 18

3
 LIQUID LIMIT
CONE PENETROMETER
Plasticity Chart
1. Sieve at least 200 g of soil through a
425 µm sieve.
2. Make a paste by mixing the soil with
distilled water.
3. Fill a metal cup (55 mm in diameter &
40 mm deep with the paste.
4. Release the cone at the centre of the
smoothed soil surface and level with it.
5. Read the penetration after 5 seconds.
6. Repeat the test 4 times with increasing
water.
7. Draw a line (in log-scale axes) and
take the M.C. corresponding to a cone
penetration of 20 mm as LL.
http://www.tecnotest.it/pdf/ING/chap_2_eng_page
s/pg3-5_eng.pdf 19
Soil Classification Soil Classification 22

Soft Clay

LINEAR SHRINKAGE MOULD Atterberg Limits of different clay minerals are presented in the below table.
Clay minerals Specific LL (%) PL(%) SL (%) Activity
Surface
(m3/g)
Kaoline 10 - 20 30 – 100 25 – 40 25 – 29 0.5 (Inactive)
Illite 65 – 100 60 – 120 35 – 60 15 – 17 0.75 – 1.25
(Normal)
Montmorillonite 800-1000 100 – 900 50 – 100 8.5 – 15 1.5 – 7
(Active)

Soil Classification 20 23

Fine Soils Example – Soil Activity

Classification is purely based on LL and PI (or IP)
60
Comparing soils at equal LL: C: Clay
toughness and dry strength increase with

Clay
increasing plasticity index.
50 M: Silt
O: Organic
Plasticity Index

40 High
CH

30` Low Plasticity L: Low plasticity

H: High plasticity
20 Plasticity CL OH

Silt
OL or
10 or MH
CL-ML
ML
ML
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Soil Classification 21 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 24

4
 In
In--situ Testing

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 25 Autumn 2005 Site Investigation 28

Soft Clay In
In--situ Testing

Clay consistency varies from “very
“very soft”
soft” to “hard
“hard””
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Clay consistency is determined based on the  Advantages:
 Fast and continuos profiling
undrained shear strength.
 Economical and productive

Cone penetration test (CPT) is the most feasible  Results not operator-
operator-dependent
method to determine the consistency of clay.  Strong theoretical basis in interpretation
 Particularly suitable for soft soils
qc = Nkcu+σvo
 Disadvantages
with qc: cone resistance (MPa
(MPa))
 High Capital investment
Nk: Cone factor  Requires skilled operator
 No soil sample are obtained
cu: undrained shear strength (kPa
(kPa))
 Unsuitable for gravel or boulder deposits
σvo: total vertical stress  May need calibrations to exclude drift and “noise”

26 Autumn 2005 Site Investigation 29

In-
In-situ Testing
CPT Interpretation of Stratigraphy

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Autumn 2005 Site Investigation 27 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 30

5
 Soft Clay
Categorising soft clay based on undrained shear strength,
bearing capacity and cone factor
Soil Undrained shear Approximate qc Cone factor Nk
Consistency strength cu (kPa) (MPa) (with σvo = 0)
Very soft 0 – 12 <0.2 17 (normally
consolidated)
Soft 12 – 25 0.2 – 0.4 17 (normally
consolidated)
Firm 25 – 50 0.4 – 0.9 18 (lightly
overconsolidated)
Stiff 50 – 100 0.9 – 2.0 18 (lightly
overconsolidated)
Very stiff 100 – 200 2.0 – 4.2 19
(overconsolidated)
Hard >200 >0.4 20
(overconsolidated)

31 34

Soft Clay

32 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 35

Associated Problem

Large Settlement

Poor Drainage – Low Permeability

Low Bearing Capacity

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 33 36

6
37

Overlap of
stress bulbs

Large Ground
Movement

Y2C

7
 Construction
Access

Australia

Embankment CKE

Failure

Vietnam Y2C

Some Railway Problems

Excessive and continuous ballast maintenance.

maintenance.
Ballast pocket formation
Poor drainage of the track

Differential
Settlement
Raleigh Deviation

Differential Some Railway Problems

Settlement

Sunshine Motorway

8
 Some Railway Problems Loose Sand

Relative Density can be
Relative Density
measured by the SPT estimated by Standard
No of blows, N60 Relative Density load tests
0–4 Very loose
4 – 10 Loose
10 – 30 Medium
30 – 50 Dense
Over 50 Very dense

Issues: Track stability

Waterlogging
Fire and weed management
Adjacent land use
52

Loose Sand In
In--situ Testing

Sand:
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
 coarse-grained soil
coarse-
 >50% of fractions retaining on a No.200 sieve (0.075mm)
 >50% of fractions smaller than 4.75mm SI sieve size

50 Autumn 2005 Site Investigation 53

Loose Sand In
In--situ Testing

Sand is categorised based on the relative density Dr
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

e,emax,emin: void ratio (natural,maximum,minimum)

: dry unit weight (natural state, maximum/minimum)

Dr (%) Description
0 – 20 Very loose
20 – 40 Loose
40 – 70 Medium dense or firm
70 – 85 Dense
85 – 100 Very dense Loose packing Dense packing

51 Autumn 2005 Site Investigation 54

9
 In-
In-situ Testing

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
 Advantages:
 Obtain sample and SPT number
 Simple and cost effective
 Suitable for many soil types
 Can be used in weak weathered rocks
 Extensive correlations

 Disadvantage:
 Disturbed sample
 Crude number for analysis
 Not applicable in soft clays and silts
 High variability and uncertainty

Autumn 2005 Site Investigation 55 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 58

Loose Sand

Relative Density also can be obtained by the CPT.

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 56 59

Loose Sand

Correlation of SPT (N-
(N-value) and CPT (qc)
qc: cone resistance (MN/m2)
(Meyerhof,1956) N: number of blows for 0.3m penetration

Relationship between cone

penetration test and
standard penetration test
(Burland & Burbidge,
1985)

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 57 60

10
 Loose Sand Behaviour of Sand under Shear
Typical N value and sand properties (after Curtin et al., 2006)
10
Very loose Loose Medium Dense Very dense
8

Vertical displacement (mm)

SPT N value
(blow/0.3m)a
<4 4 – 10 10 – 30 30 – 50 >50 Dense (Dilation)
CPT cone resistance 6
<5 5 – 10 10 – 15 15 – 20 >20
(MN/mm2)b
Equivalent relative
<15 15 – 35 35 – 65 65 – 85 85 – 100 4
density (%)c
Dry unit weight (kN/m3) <14 14 – 16 16 – 18 18 – 20 >20 2

Friction angle (degrees) <30 30 – 32 32 – 35 35 – 38 >38 0

Loose (Compression)
Note – a: At an effective vertical overburden pressure of 100kN/m 2 -2
b: There is no unique relationship between CPT and SPT values – it should be reassessed at
each site -4
c: Freshly deposited, normally consolidated sand 0 10 20 30 40
Shear displacement (mm)
61 Shear Strength of Cohesionless Soils 64

Behaviour of Sand under Shear Behaviour of Sand under Shear

350 0.45

300
Dense 0.40
250 Loose
Shear Force (N)

0.35
Void ratio

200
Loose Critical
Dense
Void Ratio
150 0.30

100
0.25
50

0 0.20
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Shear displacement (mm) Shear displacement (mm)

Shear Strength of Cohesionless Soils 62 Shear Strength of Cohesionless Soils 65

Behaviour of Sand under Shear

350

300
Dense Mineral frictions
Interlocking
250
Shear Force (N)

200
Loose
150

100

50
Mineral frictions
0
0 10 20 30 40
Shear displacement (mm)

Shear Strength of Cohesionless Soils 63 66

11
 Associated Problems Associated Problems (Cont.)

Main problem caused by loose sand: Liquefaction
Along with liquefaction, ground settlement and
movement are the serious problems associated with
loose sands

67 70

Liquefaction Road failure due to liquefaction

When saturated sandy soils are subjected to
earthquake shaking or strong vibration, they will
transform from solid state to liquefied state.

Liquefaction: “the sudden drop of shear strength

under undrained conditions from the yield strength to
the substantially smaller critical state strength”
(Terzaghi et. al, 1996)

The process of liquefaction is defined by the ratio of

pore water pressure and the effective stress because
the number of lost contacts between the soil particles
is proportional to the generation of excess pore water
pressure. 68 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 71

Process of Liquefaction Liquefaction Prediction

Under shaking effect, the soils such as loose sands The Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

compress under shear stress.

The compression causes the increase of pore water
pressure.

Factor of Safety against Liquefaction

69 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 72

12
τ a .v τ a σ
= 0.65 max' = 0.65 max rd v'
σ v' σv g σv
Liquefaction Prediction Example – Liquefaction Assessment

SPT correlation On June 16,
16, 1964
1964,, a violent earthquake rocked the
Niigata prefecture in Japan, inflicting considerable
damage in the city area of Niigata
Niigata.. In the area along
the Shinano and Agano rivers where sand deposits
were widespread, the damage was primarily
associated with the liquefaction of loose sand
deposits.. Buildings not embedded deeply on firm
deposits
strata sank or tilted towards the centre of gravity
gravity..
Underground installations such as septic tanks,
Cyclic resistance ratio causing
sewage conduits, and manholes floated up a metre
liquefaction and (N1)60 values for or two above the ground surface
surface..
magnitude 7.5 earthquake for
clean sands and silty sands
(Seed et al., 1985)

73 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 76

Liquefaction Prediction Example – Liquefaction Assessment

Where the buildings sank and overturned, in situ
exploration disclosed the soil profile as shown in
Figure 1.46 where it is seen that loose sand deposits
with an N value less than 15 exist down to a depth of
about 10 m. The time histories of the recovered
accelerations are shown in Figure 1.47 where it is
noted that the peak acceleration was 159 gal and
155 gal in EW and NS directions, respectively (1 gal
is defined as 1 centimeter per second squared,
1 cm/s²).
cm/s²).

74 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 77

Liquefaction Prediction Example – Liquefaction Assessment

CPT correlation Soil Profile

Earthquake Record

Summary chart for evaluation

of the cyclic strength of sands
based on normalised CPT qc
value (Roberson and
Campenalla, 1985)

75 78

13
 Example – Liquefaction Assessment

Conduct the liquefaction analysis and report the
results in terms of the factor of safety against
liquefaction plotted versus the depth.

Determine the depth of the liquefied soil.

79

14