MURTHY, B. R. (1986). GCotechnique 36, No.

I, 27-32
NAGARAJ,T. S. & SR~NIVASA

A critical reappraisal of compression index equations

T. S. NAGARAJ* and B. R. SRINIVASA MURTHY*

It is revealed that the ratio of the void ratio e to the state to which these equations can be used. For
void ratio at the liquid limit eL versus the net repulsive this the rationally generated compressibility equa-
pressure R - A relation is more general and fundamen- tion (Nagaraj & Srinivasa Murthy, 1983), which
tal than the half-space distance d versus R - A relation. is based on the Gouy-Chapman diffuse double-
With the possibility of two modes of linearization of
layer theory and is applicable to normally con-
e/eL versus the effective consolidation pressure p rela-
tion, two generalized compression index equations for
solidated saturated uncemented soils, has been
normally consolidated saturated fine-grained soils have used as the reference for comparison.
been derived. Most of the existing empirical compres-
sion index equations have been re-examined for their RE-EXAMINATION OF MICROMODEL
rationale and applicability by comparing them with the Nagaraj & Srinivasa Murthy (1983) have
generalized compression index equations. shown that the unique d-(R - A) relationship
(Sridharan & Jayadeva, 1982) derived from the
L’article montre que la relation entre le rapport de Gouy-Chapman diffuse double-layer theory pro-
I’indice des vides e et de l’indice des vides a la limite de
vides the basis to generalize the compressibility
liquidite e,_ et la pression repulsive totale R - A est
d’une nature plus g&t&ale et fondamentale que celle
behaviour of normally consolidated saturated
reliant la distance de semi-espace d g la relation R - A. uncemented fine-grained soils. On the basis of the
Avec la possibilitt de dew modes de linearisation de specific discussions of Bolt (Bolt & Bruggenwert,
e/e,_ en fonction de la pression de consolidation effective 1976) in the selection of physico-chemical
p, deux equations gtntralisees d’indice de compression environmental factors, an electrolyte concentra-
ont tte etablies pour les sols a grains fins normalement tion of n = 0.01 M and a valency of u = 1.5 were
consolidbs et sat&s. La plupart des equations empi- considered. To ensure the generality of the com-
riques contmes donnant l’indice de compression ont eti: pressibility equation, further investigations have
examintes de nouveau au point de vue de leur base
been carried out, by considering the variation in
theorique et de leur applicabilitt en les comparant avec
les equations d’indice de compression geniralisees.
the values of the physico-chemical environmental
factors. For this the value of n is varied from
KEYWORDS: clays; compressibility; consolidation; 0.007 to 0.013 and that of Y is chosen as 1 and 2.
soil properties. Using the Gouy-Chapman diffuse double-layer
theory and a method of computation proposed
INTRODUCTION by Sridharan & Jayadeva (1982), the d-(R - A)
The compressibility of soil is often represented by relationships have been computed for the three
the compression index C, which is the slope of clays (for properties of the clays see the inset table
the e-log,,p plot. To have an independent of Fig. 1) for the defined combinations of n and u.
method of estimation, many investigators in the Fig. 1 indicates the spatial shift of all the d-
past have empirically linked the compression log (R - A) plots.
index with the inferential and/or state parameters Wroth (1979), on the basis of results of earlier
of the soil (Skempton, 1944; Terzaghi & Peck, investigations and critical state concepts, has
1948; Nishida, 1956; Hough, 1957; Oswald, 1980; indicated that all fine-grained soils equilibrate to
Koppula, 1981). Since the state of soil in nature is their respective liquid limit under an effective
varying and complex, a unique C, equation for all consolidation pressure of about 6.3 kPa. Now
soil states is not tenable. Further the empirical C, assuming R - A at the liquid limit to be 6.3 kPa,
equations which have no scientific basis can be the values of the average half-space distance d, at
used only in specific soil states. the liquid limit can be obtained from Fig. 1 for all
In the present investigation the known empiri- the d-log (R - A) plots.
cal compression index equations have been criti- From the void ratio, specific surface and half-
cally examined to identify their possible scientific space distance relationship (Bolt, 1956; Nagaraj
basis. It is attempted further to define the soil 8~ Jayadeva, 1981) for saturated soils
e/eL = dJd, (1)
Discussion on this Paper closes on 1 July 1986. For
further details see inside back cover. Thus the d&(R - A) relationships of Fig. 1 can be
* Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. transformed into (e/e&R - A) relationships by
27
28 NAGARAJ AND SRINIVASA MURTHY

loo-
=uz
ti
a,SO-
?
J?
$SO-
8
LO-
L
m
I
20-

O- d/d, = e/e, = 1-21-0.3682 log,,,

(R -A)

5 10 20 50 100 200
osmotic repulsive
pressurep: kPa

Fig. 1. Analytical d-log,, p and (e/e&log,, p relationship

normalizing with their respective d, values. Fig. 1 aspect is further examined with additional data
also indicates this transformed form of rela- for eleven soils. The equation of the best-fit line of
tionship. It is interesting to note that the d- all the points in the working stress range can be
log (R - A) plots which are distinctly different for of the form (Fig. 2)
different combinations of the physico-chemical
environmental factors collapse into a very narrow e/e,_ = 1.122 - 0.2343 log,,p (3)
band in the (e/e&log (R - A) plot. The best-fit
where p is in kilopascals. The correlation coefft-
line of all the points in the narrow band can be
cient of this equation is 0.962. The possible
linearized within the working stress range of
reasons for deviations of equation (3) from equa-
25-800 kPa. The equation of the line can be
tion (2) have been discussed elsewhere (Nagaraj &
written as
Srinivasa Murthy, 1983).
e/e, = 1.21 - 0.3682 log,, (R - A) (2) Alternatively, the equation for the best-fit line
can be of the form (Fig. 3)
This has a correlation coefficient of 0.992 and a
standard error of estimate of 0.0225. This implies log (e/eL) = 0.1433 - 0.168 log p (4)
that the (e/e,)-@ - A) relationship is more
general, with eL accounting for the physico- where p is in kilopascals. The correlation coefft-
chemical environmental factors in addition to the cient of this equation is 0.975. From equations (3)
specific surface of the soil. and (4) it is clear that two compatible modes of
Sridharan & Jayadeva (1982) have indicated plotting the (e/e&p relationship are tenable to
that the d-(R - A) relationship can be linearized about the same degree of correlation. These two
in d-log (R - A) form for ion concentrations less equations define the compressibility of normally
than O+JOOl M and in log d-log (R - A) form for consolidated saturated uncemented soils.
ion concentrations greater than 0.1 M.
COMPRESSION INDEX EQUATIONS
EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION The equation for the compression index can be
Nagaraj & Srinivasa Murthy (1983) have derived from both equations (3) and (4). By defini-
shown that a similar form of equation (2) can be tion
obtained by normalizing the e-log p curves of
normally consolidated saturated uncemented fine- de
c, = -
grained soils with their respective eL values. This d(log,, P)
 29
REAPPRAISAL OF COMPRESSION INDEX EQUATIONS

SOII type 2L
Reference

1 SAiLscu 159.3 This work

2 Whangamarmo clay 136.0 Newland & Aliely (1958)
3 Llttle bell clay 126 0 Hvorslev (1937)
4 Black coilon soil 97.3 This work
78.0 Sowers (1964)
69.0 Wahls & Godoy (1964)
59.0 Leonards & Ramalah (19591
56.4 Jennings & Burland (1962)
46 .? Hvorslev (1937)
45.3 This work
36.2 Jennings & Burland (1962)

Consolidation pressure p kPa

Fig. 2. Experimental e-log,, p and (e/e&log,, p Plots

Differentiating equation (3)

de
de - = 0.39e
- = -0.2343 d(log p) Cc = - d(log p)
eL
or Although equations (5) and (6) seem to be dif-
ferent, on substituting the term for e from equa-
de tion (4) in equation (6) and rearranging the terms
c,= - - = 0,2343e, (5)
d(log PI C, reduces to
c = 0.39~~ X 10(0~‘433-0.168 Io~P)
c
Differentiating equation (4)
or
0.434 $ = -0.168 d(log p) C c = 0.543e, x 10-“‘168’0gP (7)

78.0 Sowers (19641

69.0 Wahls & Godoy (1964)
59.0 Leonards & Fiamalah (1959)
8 Silty clay 56.4 Jennmgs & Burland (19621
9 Vienna clay 46.7 Hvorslev (1937)
10 Red solI 45.3 This work
11 Silty sand 36.2 Jennmgs & Burland (19621
0.2 1 J
20 50 100 200 500 1000

Consolldatvx pressure p. kPa

Fig. 3. Experimental log,, e-log,,p and logI (e/%)-k&~ P Plots

30 NAGARAJ AND SRINIVASA MURTHY

At p = 150 kPa, the middle value in the logarith- where the initial moisture contents were at their
mic scale of the pressure range considered, equa- liquid limit, C, can be linked with the liquid limit
tion (7) reduces to equation (5). This indicates by the equation
that the two modes of linearization of the e-p
relationship result in two C, equations in which c, = O.o07(w, - 10) (8)
one is independent of the effective stress and the Nagaraj & Srinivasa Murthy (1983) have shown
other is dependent on the effective stress. that equation (5) can be transformed to the form
of equation (8). It has been concluded that
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF EMPIRICAL Skempton’s equation follows the Gouy-Chapman
C, EQUATIONS diffuse double-layer theory and is applicable only
There are several empirical compression index to normally consolidated saturated uncemented
equations derived statistically, based on experi- soils.
mental results of local soils. In Table 1, these
empirical compression index equations have been
Terzaghi-Peck equation
listed with relevant information about their appli-
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) modified equation (8)
cability. A comparison of these empirical equa-
so that it could be applied to the normally loaded
tions with either of the equations (5) or (6)
indicates the possible scientific basis or otherwise clays of low to moderate sensitivity. The modified
equation is of the form
of the empirical equations.
c, = O.o09(w, - 10) (9)
Skempton’s equation
Skempton (1944) observed that for samples sel- Observing the e-log p curve of a moderately sen-
ected at random from different parts of the world sitive clay it is clear that up to the point of break-
and for both ordinary and extrasensitive clays, ing of the cementation bonds represented by the

Table 1. Compression index equations*

Equation Reference
T Regions and conditions of applicability

From reference From this work

c, = 0407(w, - 10) Skempton (1944) Remoulded Normally consolidated, S, < 1.5

clays
c, = 04309(w, - 10) Terzaghi & Normally Moderately sensitive, S, < 5
Peck (1948) consolidated,
moderately
sensitive,
c, = 0.01 W” Koppula (1981) Chicago and Normally consolidated, S, < 1.5
Alberta clays
c, = 0~0115w” Bowles (1979) Organic silt Normally consolidated, S, < 1.5
and clays
C, = 1,15(e - eo) Nishida (1956) All clays Normally consolidated, S, < 1.5
C, = 1,15(e - 0.35) Nishida (1956) All clays Normally consolidated, S, < 1.5
C, = 0.54(e, - 0.35) Nishida (1956) Natural soils Normally consolidated, S, < 1.5
c, = 0.75(e, - 0.50) Bowles (1979) Soils with low Moderately sensitive, S, < 5
plasticity
C, = OW46(w, - 9) Bowles (1979) Brazilian Moderately overconsolidated
clays
C, = 1.21 + l.O55(e, Bowles (1979) Motley clays Highly sensitive, S, > 5
- 1.87) from SBo
Paul0 city
C, = 0,3O(e, - 0.27) Hough.(1957) Inorganic
silty sand-
silty clay
C, = 0.208(e, + 0.0083) Bowles (1979) Chicago clays Moderately overconsolidated
c, = 0.15qe, + 0.0107) Bowles (1979) All clays Moderately overconsolidated
c, = 0.5(.J,/“JdZ)1’2 Oswald (1980) Soil systems Not applicable to any condition
of all complex-
ities and types

* c,, compression index; e, , initial or in situ void ratio; wL, liquid limit water content; w, , natural water content;
yd , dry density of soil at which C, is required; y,, unit weight of water; S,, sensitivity of the clay.
 REAPPRAISAL OF COMPRESSION INDEX EQUATIONS 31

pseudo-preconsolidation pressure the non- is applicable to normally consolidated saturated

particulate behaviour results in a low compress-
ibility. On breaking the cementation bonds, from
this pseudo-equilibrium state the soil collapses on
to the normally consolidated state resulting in a
steeper slope than that given by Skempton’s
equation. This is correctly reflected in the higher
value of C, in equation (9).
Compression index equations involving
natural water contents
There are empirical C, equations which involve
the natural water content as a parameter. Table 1
indicates two such equations, one valid for
Chicago clays (Koppula, 1981) and the other for
organic silt and clay (Bowles, 1979).
For a saturated soil with a specific gravity of
soil solids of 2.62.8, equation (6) can be written
as
c, = 0.01 W” (10)
This clearly indicates that the two equations for
the compression index in terms of natural water
content are of the same form as equation (6).
These equations are applicable to normally con-
solidated saturated uncemented soil states only
and have the same rational basis as that of equa-
tion (6).
Nishida’s compression index equation
Nishida (1956), on the basis of stress-strain
considerations and the slope of the consolidation
curves, developed a C, equation in the form
C, = 1.15(e - ee)
(11)
where e, is the void ratio before the pressure is
applied and e is the void ratio on the virgin curve
where C, is computed. Using equation (3) for nor-
mally consolidated saturated conditions the
change in void ratio, e - e,, can be computed in
terms of the effective stress ratio as
e - e, = -0.2343e, log c
(3P
where p’ and p are the effective pressures corre-
sponding to the void ratios e and e, respectively.
Then equation (11) can be written as
uncemented soils.
Nishida has also shown that
C, = O.%(e, - 0.35) (13)
where e, is the natural void ratio. Another equa-
tion, similar to equation (13) proposed for low
plastic soils is
C, = 0.75(e, - 0.5) (14)
where e, is the in situ void ratio.
Hough (1957), on the basis of experiments on
precompressed soils, has presented a C, equation
in the general form
C, = a(e, - b) (15)
where a = 0.3 and b = 0.27 for precompressed
soil and e, is the in situ void ratio.
A comparison of equations (13H15) with equa-
tion (6) indicates that equation (13) is applicable
to normally consolidated saturated uncemented
fine-grained soils, equation (14) is applicable to
moderately sensitive soils and equation (15) is
applicable to lightly overconsolidated soils.
There are a few other forms of C, equations
presented in Table 1 which are statistically
derived on the basis of test results of some local
soils. Comparing these equations with equations
(5) and (6), the relative soil states of the local soils
have been identified (Table 1). Table 1 also
defines their conditions of applicability.
Universal compression index equation
On the basis of a statistical analysis of exten-
sive data, Oswald (1980) has suggested a universal
compression index equation, with a correlation
coefftcient of 0.9, of the form
C, = O~5(Lv/LJ2’4 (16)
where yd (g/cm3) is the dry density of the soil at
which C, is required. The only logical basis for
this formulation is the parallel nature of the zero
air voids curve to the e-log p curve. No scientific
basis has been cited for this logical behaviour.
To obtain equation (16) in the form of either
equation (5) or (6), y,, is replaced in terms of the
void ratio. Then equation (16) reduces to the form

C, = -0.269e, log 1 + e 2’4

(12)
( >
!!
0P c, = 0.5 -
G
For an effective stress ratio of 7.43, equation
(12) reduces to equation (5). This indicates that and for G = 2.7
equation (11) takes into account the change in C, = 0.461(1 + e)2’4 (17)
effective stress, similarly to equation (6). Thus
equation (11) is the combined form of equations A comparison of this equation with equation (6)
(5) and (6). Further, equation (11) also follows the indicates a wide variation in C, values at the cor-
Gouy-Chapman diffuse double-layer theory and responding void ratios. The reason for this varia-
32 NAGARAJ AND SRINIVASA MURTHY

tion is that in the analysis of the data no the use of effective stresses in partly saturated soils.
distinction has been made regarding the state of Gtotechnique 12, No. 2, 125-145.
the soil. Thus it can be said that equation (16) Koppula, S. D. (1981). Statistical estimation of compres-
does not follow the Gouy-Chapman diffuse sion index. ASTM Georech. Test. J. 4, No. 2,68-73.
double-layer theory, and its applicability cannot Leonards, G. A. & Ramaiah, B. K. (1959). Time effects
in consolidation of clays. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ.
be defined for any particular state.
254, 116130.
Nagaraj, T. S. & Jayadeva, M. S. (1981), Re-
CONCLUSIONS examination of one-point methods of liquid limit
A re-examination of the micromodel to define determination. GCotechnique 31, No. 3,4131425.
Naearai. T. S. & Srinivasa Murthv, B. R. (1983). Ration-
the compressibility of normally consolidated satu- -. -
ahzation of Skempton’s compressibility equation.
rated uncemented fine-grained soils has indicated GPotechnique 33, No. 4,433443.
that the (e/e,HR - A) relationship is more Newland, P. L. & Allely, B. H. (1958). A study of the
general and unique than the d4R - A) relation- sensitivity resulting from consolidation of a
ship. The parameter eL inherently accounts for remoulded clay. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Fdn
the variation in physico-chemical environment in Engng, Budapest I, 83-86.
addition to the specific surface of the soil. Nishida, Y. (1956). A brief note on the compression
Two compatible compression index equations, index of soil. J. Soil Mech. Fdns Div. Am. Sot. Cit.
i.e. C, = 0.2343~~~ and C, = 0,39e, have been Engrs 82, SM3, I-14.
Oswald, R. H. (1980). Universal compression index
rationally derived and are applicable to normally
equation. J. Geotech. EmJny Die. Am. Sot. Cir. Engrs
consolidated saturated uncemented fine-grained 106, 1179-1199.
soils. Skempton, A. W. (1944). Notes on the compressibility of
The critical reappraisal of current empirical clays. Q. J. Geol. Sot. Lond. 100, 119-135.
compression index equations has indicated their Sowers, G. F. (1964). Fill settlement despite vertical
possible scientific basis and the soil state to which sand drains. Proc. Am. Sot. Cit. Engrs ConJ Design
they are applicable. of Foundations for Control of Settlemenfs, North
Western Unil;ersity, pp. 363-376.
Sridharan, A. & Jayadeva, M. S. (1982). Double layer
REFERENCES theory and compressibility of clays. Ghotechniqur 32,
Bolt, G. H. & Bruggenwert, M. G. M. (1976). Soil chem- No. 2, 133-144.
istry: A, basic elements. New York: Elsevier. Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in
Bowles, J. W. (1979). Physical and geotechnical proper- engineering practice, p. 729. New York: Wiley.
ties ofsoils. New York: McGraw Hill. Wahls, H. E. & Godoy, N. S. (1964). Discussion on
Hough, B. K. (1957). Basic soil engineering. New York: Interpretation of consolidation test. Proc. Am. Sot.
Ronald. Civ. Engrs Conf Design of Foundations for Control of
Hvorslev, J. M. (1937). Physical properties of remoulded Settlements, North Western University, pp. 116-l2 1.
cohesive soils. Translation 69-5, USAEWES, Vicks- Wroth, C. P. (1979). Correlation of some engineering
burg. properties of soil.lProc. 2nd Inc. Conf: Behaviour of
Jennings, J. E. B. & Burland, J. B. (1962). Limitations to OfShore Structures, London, pp. 121-132.