The analysis of some cohesive soils engineering characteristics in Croatia
Figure 1. ‘oc vs IP for overconsolidated undis-
turbed clays after Ortolan and Mihalinec 1998 (in-
cluded Gibson 1953, Nonveiller 1988, Skempton 1964,
Skempton and La Rochele 1965, Skempton and Petley
1967) and for this study.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between the
plastic limit over liquid limit ratio and the cosine
of peak angle of internal friction. Presented val-
ues are also obtained from the available literature
(Ortolan and Mihalinec 1998) and from this
study.
Figure 2. WP/WL vs cos‘ for overconsolidated un-
disturbed clays after Ortolan and Mihalinec 1998 (in-
cluded Gibson 1953, Nonveiller 1988, Skempton 1964,
Skempton and La Rochele 1965, Skempton and Petley
1967) and for this study.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between the
plasticity index over liquid limit ratio and the co-
sine of peak angle of internal friction. Presented
values are obtained from (Ortolan and Mihalinec
1998) and from this study.
IGS
Figure 3. IP/Wl vs cos‘oc for overconsolidated un-
disturbed clays after Ortolan and Mihalinec 1998 (in-
cluded Gibson 1953, Nonveiller 1988, Skempton 1964,
Skempton and La Rochele 1965, Skempton and Petley
1967) and for this study.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the
clay fraction and the peak angle of internal fric-
tion. Presented values are also obtained from the
(Ortolan and Mihalinec 1998) and from this
study.
Figure 4. CF[%] vs ‘oc for overconsolidated un-
disturbed clays after Ortolan and Mihalinec 1998 (in-
cluded Gibson 1953, Nonveiller 1988, Skempton 1964,
Skempton and La Rochele 1965, Skempton and Petley
1967) and for this study.
Figure 5 shows summarized correlations be-
tween the plasticity index and the peak angle of
internal friction, obtained from various authors.
3 ECSMGE-2019 - Proceedings