Influence of Specific Surface Area On Geotechnical Characteristics of Fine-Grained Soils

INFLUENCE OF SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA ON GEOTECHNICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
A Master of Science Project
By
AMY B. CERATO
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
May 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF SYMBOLS ...................................................................................................... xvii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

1.1 SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA............................................................................1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................2
1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH ...................................................................................3
1.4 ORGANIZATION .............................................................................................3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................5
2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................5
2.2 SURFACE AREA OF CLAY MINERALS ......................................................5
2.2.1 Mineralogy and Surface Area .............................................................6
2.2.2 Internal Surface Area versus External Surface Area ..........................9
2.2.3 Measurement of Surface Area ............................................................9
2.2.3.1 Surface Area Determination by Adsorption
of Polar Liquids..................................................................10
2.2.3.1.1 Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (EGME) .......11
2.2.3.1.2 Cetyl Pryidinium Bromide (CPB).......................14
2.2.3.1.3 p-Nitrophenol Adsorption (pNP) ........................14
2.2.3.1.4 Methylene Blue Test ...........................................15
2.2.3.2 Surface Area Determination by the BET Method..............15
2.2.4 Comparisons .....................................................................................16
2.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS....................................................................................17
2.3.1 Shrinkage Limits...............................................................................33
2.4 SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL .....................................................................37
2.5 DISPERSIVE CLAYS.....................................................................................41
2.6 CONSOLIDATION AND INTRINSIC COMPRESSIBILITY ......................41
2.7 INFLUENCE OF CLAY CONTENT ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
OF FINE-GRAINE SOILS ..............................................................................47
2.8 INFLUENCE OF CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY ON ENGINEERING
PROPERTIES FO FINE-GRAINED SOILS...................................................49
2.9 INFLUENCE OF CARBONATE CONTENT ON ENGINEERING
PROPERTIES OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS...................................................57
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH SITES....................................................................61
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................61
3.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................61
4.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................63
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................63
4.2 LABORATORY CHARACTERIZATION TESTS ........................................63
4.2.1 Grain-Size Distribution.....................................................................63
4.2.2 Atterberg Liquid and Plastic Limits..................................................64
4.2.3 Shrinkage Limit ................................................................................65
ii
4.2.4 Carbonate Content ............................................................................67
4.2.5 Specific Gravity ................................................................................68
4.2.6 Cation Exchange Capacity................................................................68
4.3 SURFACE AREA............................................................................................69
4.3.1 Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (EGME) Method........................69
4.3.1.1 Apparatus ...........................................................................70
4.3.1.2 Test Procedure ...................................................................71
4.3.2 BET Method......................................................................................72
4.4 INTRINSIC COMPRESSION.........................................................................73
4.5 DISPERSION ............................................................................................74
5.0 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ...............................................................................75
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................75
5.2 INTRINSIC COMPRESSIBILITY PROPERTIES.........................................76
5.2.1 Natural Clays ....................................................................................76
5.2.1.1 Composition.......................................................................76
5.2.1.2 Classification......................................................................76
5.2.1.3 Intrinsic Compressibility Correlations...............................81
5.2.1.4 Atterberg Limits...............................................................122
5.2.2 Artificial Clays................................................................................133
5.2.2.1 Composition.....................................................................133
5.2.2.2 Classification....................................................................133
5.2.2.3 Intrinsic Compressibility Correlations.............................136
5.2.2.4 Atterberg Limit Correlations............................................161
5.3 ACTIVITY AND RELATIVE ACTIVITY...................................................173
5.3.1 Marine Deposits ..............................................................................173
5.3.2 Alluvial, Lacustrine and Loess Deposits ........................................178
5.4 DISPERSION ..........................................................................................187
5.4.1 Marine Deposits ..............................................................................187
5.4.2 Alluvial Deposits ............................................................................191
5.4.3 Lacustrine Deposits.........................................................................196
5.4.3 Loess Deposits ................................................................................200
6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS....................................................................................205
6.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................205
6.2 INTRINSIC COMPRESSIBILITY PROPERTIES.......................................205
6.2.1 Natural and Artificial Clay Comparison .........................................205
6.2.2 Intrinsic Compressibility Correlations............................................207
6.2.3 Atterberg Limits..............................................................................232
6.3 ACTIVITY AND RELATIVE ACTIVITY...................................................234
6.4 DISPERSION ..........................................................................................237
7.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................238
7.1 SUMMARY ..........................................................................................238
7.2 CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................238
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................240
8.0 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................241
APPENDIX A ..........................................................................................261
APPENDIX B ..........................................................................................288
iii
APPENDIX C ..........................................................................................299
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Surface Areas of Montmorillonite, Illite and Kaolinite by the Oven
and P2O5 Drying Methods (after Ratner-Zohar et al. 1983) ......................10
Table 2.2 Comparison Between EGME and BET-N2 Surface Area

Determinations...........................................................................................18
Table 2.3 Correlations Between Plastic Limit and Clay Fraction..............................20
Table 2.4 Correlations Between Plasticity Index and Clay Fraction .........................20
Table 2.5 Correlations Between Liquid Limit and Surface Area ..............................21
Table 2.6 Correlations Between Shrinkage Limits and Clay Fraction ......................40
Table 2.7 Correlations Between COLE and Surface Area, Clay Fraction and CEC .42
Table 2.8 Correlation Equations from the Literature.................................................52
Table 2.9 Correlation Equations for the Relationship of Liquid Limit and Clay
Fraction ......................................................................................................53
Table 2.10 Correlation Equations for the Relationship of Surface Area and Clay
Fraction ......................................................................................................55
Table 2.11 Correlation Equations for Relationships Between CEC and Surface
Area, Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index ....................................................56
Table 2.12 Correlation Equations for Relationships Between Plastic Limit

and Surface Area........................................................................................57
Table 3.1 Site Location and Geology.........................................................................72
Table 5.1 Summary of Results for Natural Clays ......................................................91
Table 5.2 Summary of Results for Natural Clays Compiled from the Literature......95
Table 5.3 Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics

from This Study ......................................................................................113

from Both This Study and the Literature Review Combined ..................113
v
and Surface Area for Data from this Study..............................................114
Table 5.6 Summary for Results for Artificial Clays ................................................138
Table 5.7 Summary of Results for Artificial Clays Compiled from the Literature .140

from This Study ......................................................................................153

from Both This Study and the Literature Review Combined ..................153

and Surface Area from This Study...........................................................154
Table 5.11 Atterberg Limit Correlations with Surface Area .....................................168
Table 6.1 Natural and Artificial Clay Soil Property Ranges....................................206
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Relative Sizes, Thicknesses and Specific Surfaces of Common

Clay Minerals (from Holtz and Kovacs 1981, after Yong and
Warkentin 1975) ..........................................................................................7
Figure 2.2 Surface Area Determination by Method A vs. Method B.

(after Cihacek and Bremner 1979)...............................................................8
Figure 2.3 Atomic and Symbolic Structure. A. Kaolinite. B. Illite.

C. Montmorillonite (after Lambe and Whitman 1969)..............................13
Figure 2.4 Relationship Between the Specific Surface Area and Atterberg
Limits for Canadian Clays (after Locat et al. 1984) ..................................21
Figure 2.5 Liquid Limit versus Clay Fraction, Surface Area and CEC for
Montmorillonitic Soils (after Sridharan et al. 1975)..................................23
Figure 2.6 Relationship Between Surface Area and Clay Fraction for Sensitive
Canadian Clays (after Locat et al. 1984) ...................................................24
Figure 2.7 Liquid and Plastic Limit and Activity of Kaolinitic Soils as a Function
of their Percentage Clay Size Fractions (after Sridharan et al. 1988)........25
Figure 2.8 Variation of Liquid Limit with Mineral Composition (after Sahu 1991) ..26
Figure 2.9 Variation of Clay Fraction with Mineral Composition (after Sahu 1991).27
Figure 2.10 Skempton Activity Chart (after Skempton 1953) ......................................28
Figure 2.11 Activity Chart of Pure Clays (after Lambe and Whitman 1969) ...............29
Figure 2.12 Activity as a Function of Chloride Ion Concentration in the Pore

Water (after Ohtsubo et al. 1983) ..............................................................30
Figure 2.13 Activity versus Carbonate Content for Canadian Varved Clays
(after Quigley et al. 1985)..........................................................................31
Figure 2.14 Correlation Between Colloidal Activity and Specific Surface Area
(after Grabowska-Olszewska 1970)...........................................................32
Figure 2.15 Relative Activity versus Carbonate content for Canadian Varved
Clays (after Quigley et al. 1985)................................................................33
vii
Figure 2.16 Mechanics of the Shrinkage Limit (from Holtz and Kovacs 1981)...........34
Figure 2.17 Correlation Between Free Swell and Surface Area of Artificial Clays
(after Li 1963) ............................................................................................39
Figure 2.18 Correlation Between Swelling and Specific Surface Area

(after Grabowska-Olszewska 1970)...........................................................40
Figure 2.19 Intrinsic Compressibility versus eL ............................................................43
Figure 2.20 C*c versus SSA Results of Natural and Artificial Clays found in the
Literature....................................................................................................44
Figure 2.21 C*c versus A. Liquid Limit. B. Plasticity Index. C. Shrinkage Index
(after Sridharan et al. 2000) .......................................................................45
Figure 2.22 Correlation Between Liquid Limit and Clay Fraction for Different
Soils............................................................................................................48
Figure 2.23 Correlation Between CEC and SSA for Osaka Bay Clay
(after Tanaka 1999)....................................................................................51
Figure 2.24 Correlation Between CEC and SSA for Clay Soils of Israel
(after Banin and Amiel 1970) ....................................................................52
Figure 2.25 Cation Activity Chart (after Kolbuszewski et al. 1965) ............................53
Figure 2.26 Cation Exchange Capacity versus Plasticity Index

(after Kolbuszewski et al. 1965) ................................................................54
Figure 2.27 Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Liquid Limit
(after Davidson et al. 1952) .......................................................................55
Figure 2.28 Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Plastic Limit
Figure 2.29 Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Plasticity Index
Figure 2.30 Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Shrinkage Limit
Figure 2.31 Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Clay Fraction
Figure 2.32 Relationship of Calcite Content with Plasticity Index
viii
(after Hawkins et al. 1986).........................................................................60
Figure 3.1 Soil Sample Locations in the United States...............................................64
Figure 3.2 Soil Sample Locations in the Eastern Hemisphere ....................................65
Figure 4.1 Schematic of the Chittick Apparatus (from Jordan 1995) .........................70
Figure 4.2 Schematic of EGME Method Test Equipment ..........................................73
Figure 4.3 Laboratory Testing Set-up at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst .74
Figure 4.4 Quantachrome MONOSORB® Apparatus for Performing BET Analysis 76
Figure 5.1 Plasticity Chart for Natural Clays ..............................................................80
Figure 5.2 Activity Chart for Natural Clays................................................................81
Figure 5.3 Cation Exchange Capacity Activity Chart of Natural Clays .....................82
Figure 5.4 Surface Area Activity Chart of Natural Clays ...........................................84
Figure 5.5 Intrinsic Compressibility versus eL for Natural Clays .............................101
Figure 5.6 Intrinsic Compressibility versus LL for Natural Clays............................102
Figure 5.7 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Plasticity Index for Natural Clays........103
Figure 5.8 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Shrinkage Index for Natural Clays ......104
Figure 5.9 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity.....105
Figure 5.10 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Surface Area Activity ..........................105
Figure 5.11 C*c versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External. ..................106
Figure 5.12 e*100 versus eL for Natural Clays ..............................................................107
Figure 5.13 e*100 versus Liquid Limit for Natural Clays.............................................108
Figure 5.14 e*100 versus Plasticity Index for Natural Clays ........................................109
Figure 5.15 e*100 versus Shrinkage Index for Natural Clays .......................................110
Figure 5.16 e*100 versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External...................111
ix
Figure 5.17 e*100 versus CEC/CF ................................................................................112
Figure 5.18 e*100 versus SSA/CF.................................................................................112
Figure 5.19 eL versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for Natural Clays ............114
Figure 5.20 eL versus Surface Area Activity for Natural Clays ..................................115
Figure 5.21 eL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External ......................116
Figure 5.22 e*100/eL versus eL for Natural Clays..........................................................118
Figure 5.23 e*100/eL versus Liquid Limit for Natural Clays ........................................119
Figure 5.24 e*100/eL versus Plasticity Index for Natural Clays....................................119
Figure 5.25 e/eL versus Effective Stress for Natural Clays .........................................120
Figure 5.26 Legend for Figure 5.25 ............................................................................121
Figure 5.27 LL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.....................123
Figure 5.28 1/LL versus 1/SSA. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External. ..........................124
Figure 5.29 PL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External .....................125
Figure 5.30 PI versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External ......................126
Figure 5.31 Shrinkage Limit versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal.

C. External ...............................................................................................127
Figure 5.32 Shrinkage Index versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal.

C. External ...............................................................................................128
Figure 5.33 Atterberg Limits versus Clay Fraction for Natural Clays........................129
Figure 5.34 Shrinkage Properties versus Clay Fraction for Natural Clays .................130
Figure 5.35 Atterberg Limits versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for
Natural Clays ...........................................................................................131
Figure 5.36 Shrinkage Properties versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for
Natural Clays ...........................................................................................131
Figure 5.37 Liquid Limit versus Surface Area Activity for Natural Clays.................132
x
Figure 5.38 Shrinkage Limit versus Surface Area Activity for Natural Clays ...........132
Figure 5.39 Plasticity Chart for Artificial Clays .........................................................134
Figure 5.40 Activity Chart for Artificial Clays ...........................................................135
Figure 5.41 Cation Exchange Capacity Activity Chart of Artificial Clays.................135
Figure 5.42 Surface Area Activity Chart of Artificial Clays ......................................136
Figure 5.43 C*c versus eL for Artificial Clays .............................................................137
Figure 5.44 Intrinsic Compressibility versus LL for Artificial Clays .........................143
Figure 5.45 Intrinsic Compressibility versus PI for Artificial Clays ..........................144
Figure 5.46 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Is for Natural Clays ..............................144
Figure 5.47 Intrinsic Compressibility versus CECA for Artificial Clays ...................145
Figure 5.48 Intrinsic Compressibility versus SAA for Artificial Clays ......................145
Figure 5.49 C*c versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External. ..................146
Figure 5.50 e*100 versus eL for Artificial Clays ...........................................................147
Figure 5.51 e*100 versus Liquid Limit for Artificial Clays ..........................................148
Figure 5.52 e*100 versus Plasticity Index for Artificial Clays......................................148
Figure 5.53 e*100 versus Shrinkage Index for Natural Clays .......................................149
Figure 5.54 e*100 versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External...................150
Figure 5.55 e*100 versus CEC/CF ................................................................................151
Figure 5.56 e*100 versus SSA/CF.................................................................................152
Figure 5.57 eL versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for Artificial Clays..........155
Figure 5.58 eL versus Surface Area Activity for Artificial Clays ...............................156
Figure 5.59 eL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External ......................157
Figure 5.60 e*100/eL versus eL for Artificial Clays.......................................................158
xi
Figure 5.61 e*100/eL versus Liquid Limit for Artificial Clays......................................159
Figure 5.62 e*100/eL versus Plasticity Index for Artificial Clays .................................159
Figure 5.63 e/eL versus Effective Stress for Artificial Clays ......................................160
Figure 5.64 Legend for Figure 5.63 ............................................................................161
Figure 5.65 LL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.....................162
Figure 5.66 1/LL versus 1/SSA. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External. ..........................163
Figure 5.67 PL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External .....................164
Figure 5.68 PI versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External ......................165
Figure 5.69 Shrinkage Limit versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal.

C. External ...............................................................................................166
Figure 5.70 Shrinkage Index versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal.

C. External ...............................................................................................167
Figure 5.71 Atterberg Limits versus Clay Fraction for Natural Clays........................169
Figure 5.72 Shrinkage Properties versus Clay Fraction for Natural Clays .................170
Figure 5.73 Atterberg Limits versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for
Artificial Clays.........................................................................................170
Figure 5.74 Shrinkage Properties versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for
Artificial Clays.........................................................................................171
Figure 5.75 Liquid Limit versus Surface Area Activity for Activity Clays................171
Figure 5.76 Shrinkage Limit versus Surface Area Activity for Artificial Clays.........172
Figure 5.77 Plasticity Chart for Marine Clays ............................................................174
Figure 5.78 Surface Area versus Carbonates for Marine Clays ..................................175
Figure 5.79 Cation Exchange Capacity versus Surface Area for Marine Clays .........175
Figure 5.80 Activity versus Surface Charge for Marine Clays ...................................176
Figure 5.81 Activity versus Carbonate Content for Marine Clays..............................176
xii
Figure 5.82 Activity versus Surface Area for Marine Clays.......................................177
Figure 5.83 Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content for Marine Clays ...............178
Figure 5.84 Plasticity Chart for Three Geologic Deposits ..........................................179
Figure 5.85 Surface Area versus Carbonate Content for Alluvial Deposits ...............180
Figure 5.86 Surface Area versus Carbonate Content for Lacustrine Deposits............181
Figure 5.87 Surface Area versus Carbonate Content for Loess Deposits ...................182
Figure 5.88 CEC versus SSA for Alluvial Deposits ...................................................183
Figure 5.89 CEC versus SSA for Lacustrine Deposits................................................183
Figure 5.90 CEC versus SSA for Loess Deposits .......................................................184
Figure 5.91 Activity versus Surface Charge ...............................................................185
Figure 5.92 Activity versus Carbonate Content ..........................................................185
Figure 5.93 Activity versus SSA.................................................................................186
Figure 5.94 Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content............................................186
Figure 5.95 Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Marine Clays..........................187
Figure 5.96 Dispersion versus SSA for Marine Clays ................................................188
Figure 5.97 Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Marine Clays..................................188
Figure 5.98 Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Marine Clays...............................189
Figure 5.99 Dispersion versus Activity for Marine Clays...........................................189
Figure 5.100 Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Marine Clays ............................190
Figure 5.101 Dispersion versus SAA for Marine Clays................................................190
Figure 5.102 Dispersion versus CECA for Marine Clays .............................................191
Figure 5.103 Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Alluvial Deposits ...................192
Figure 5.104 Dispersion versus SSA for Alluvial Deposits..........................................192
xiii
Figure 5.105 Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Alluvial Deposits ...........................193
Figure 5.106 Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Alluvial Deposits ........................193
Figure 5.107 Dispersion versus Activity for Alluvial Deposits ....................................194
Figure 5.108 Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Alluvial Deposits......................194
Figure 5.109 Dispersion versus SAA for Alluvial Deposits .........................................195
Figure 5.110 Dispersion versus CECA for Alluvial Deposits.......................................195
Figure 5.111 Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Lacustrine Deposits ...............196
Figure 5.112 Dispersion versus SSA for Lacustrine Deposits ......................................197
Figure 5.113 Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Lacustrine Deposits........................197
Figure 5.114 Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Lacustrine Deposits.....................198
Figure 5.115 Dispersion versus Activity for Lacustrine Deposits ................................198
Figure 5.116 Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Lacustrine Deposits ..................199
Figure 5.117 Dispersion versus CECA for Lacustrine Deposits...................................199
Figure 5.118 Dispersion versus SAA for Lacustrine Deposits .....................................200
Figure 5.119 Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Loess Deposits.......................201
Figure 5.120 Dispersion versus SSA for Loess Deposits..............................................201
Figure 5.121 Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Loess Deposits ...............................202
Figure 5.122 Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Loess Deposits ............................202
Figure 5.123 Dispersion versus Activity for Loess Deposits........................................203
Figure 5.124 Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Loess Deposits..........................203
Figure 5.125 Dispersion versus CECA for Loess Deposits ..........................................204
Figure 5.126 Dispersion versus SAA for Loess Deposits .............................................204
Figure 6.1 C*c versus LL Grouped by Skempton (1953) Activity. A. Full Range
B. Low Range ..........................................................................................208
xiv
Figure 6.2 C*c versus SSA Grouped by Skempton (1953) Activity. A. Full Range
B. Low Range ..........................................................................................209
Figure 6.3 C*c versus SSA Grouped by Activity. A. Full Range. B. Low Range .....210
Figure 6.4 C*c versus LL Grouped by Relative Activity. A. Full Range.

B. Low Range ..........................................................................................212
Figure 6.5 C*c versus SSA Grouped by Relative Activity. A. Full Range.
B. Low Range ..........................................................................................214
Figure 6.6 C*c versus SSA Grouped by Surface Charge. A. Full Range.
B. Low Range ..........................................................................................215
Figure 6.7 C*c versus SSA Grouped by CECA. A. Full Range. B. Low Range .......216
Figure 6.8 C*c versus SSA Grouped by SAA. A. Full Range. B. Low Range ..........218
Figure 6.9 Combination of Artificial and Natural Clays from this Study
And the Literature in the C*c versus eL Relationship ...............................220
Figure 6.10 Combination of Artificial and Natural Clays from this Study
And the Literature in the C*c versus LL Relationship .............................221
Figure 6.11 Schematic of the Indices Is and PI and the Soil Shrinkage Process.........222
Figure 6.12 Combination of the Relationships Between C*c, Is and PI.......................223
Figure 6.13 C*c versus SSA. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External ..................................224
Figure 6.14 Normalized Void Ratio versus σ’v for Natural Clays ..............................227
Figure 6.15 Normalized Void Ratio versus Stress for Artificial Clays.......................228
Figure 6.16 Hypothetical Normalized Void Ratio versus Stress.................................229
Figure 6.17 Reexamination of the Normalized Void Ratio versus Stress

for Natural Clays......................................................................................230
Figure 6.18 Reexamination of the Normalized Void Ratio versus Stress

for Artificial Clays ...................................................................................231
Figure 6.19 Liquid Limit versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External .....233
xv
Figure 6.20 Relationship Between LL and SSA .........................................................235
Figure 6.21 Muhunthan (1991) Linear Relationship Between 1/LL and 1/SSA.........235
Figure 6.22 Specific Surface Area versus Carbonate Content ....................................236
Figure 6.23 Cation Exchange Capacity versus Surface Area......................................237
Figure 6.24 Relationship of Activity and Surface Area ..............................................238
Figure 6.25 Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content............................................239
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
ASTM = American Society of Testing and Materials

BET = Brunauer, Emmett and Teller (1938)
CO = Colorado
CPB = Cetyl Pyridium Bromide
CVVC = Connecticut Valley Varved Clay
EG = Ethylene Glycol
EGME = Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
Hg = Mercury
I = Illite
IA = Iowa
ICL = Intrinsic Compressibility Line
ID = Idaho
IDA = Industrial Development Agency
IL = Illinois
K = Kaolinite
LVDT = Linear Variable Differential Transformer
M = Montmorillonite
MA = Massachusetts
MBT = Methylene Blue Test
MO = Missouri
NE = Nebraska
NH = New Hampshire
NRL = National Research Laboratory
NY = New York
OGB = Ogdensburg
OK = Oklahoma
pNP = p-Nitrophenol Adsorption
TX = Texas
UT = Utah
UV = ultraviolet
WA = Washington
C = Clay Fraction (%)

CEC = Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100g)
CECA = Cation Exchange Capacity Activity (CEC/CF)
CF = Clay Fraction (%)
Cc = Compressibility Index
C*c = Intrinsic Compressibility Index
COLE = Coefficient of Linear Extensibility (%)
eL = Void Ratio at the Liquid Limit
e*100 = Void Ratio at a Stress of 100 kPa
e0 = in situ void ratio
ep = Void Ratio at the Plastic Limit
xvii
es = Void Ratio at the Shrinkage Limit
G = Specific Gravity (Mg/m3)
Ip = Plasticity Index (%)
K = Constant for Swelling Potential
LL = Liquid Limit (%)
M = initial wet soil mass (g)
M0 = dry soil mass (g)
PI = Plasticity Index (%)
PL = Plastic Limit (%)
r2 = Correlation Coefficient
SA = Surface Area (m2)
SAA = Surface Area Activity (SSA/CF)
SL = Shrinkage Limit (%)
SP = Swelling Potential (%)
SSA = Specific Surface Area (m2/g)
V = Volume of the wet soil pat (cm3)
V0 = Volume of the dry soil pat (cm3)
wL = Liquid Limit (%)
wn = Natural Water Content (%)
x = constant for Swelling Potential
γd = dry unit weight (Mg/m3)

σ = Surface Charge Density (meq/100m2)
ρw = density of water (g/cm3)
xviii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA

Physical and chemical properties of fine-grained soils, especially clays, may be greatly
influenced by the amount of its surface area. Fine-grained soils differ in surface area
predominantly as a result of differences in texture (grain-size distribution) and types and
amounts of different clay minerals. The term “Specific Surface Area” (SSA) refers to the area
per unit weight of soil and is usually expressed as m2/g. Clay minerals differ substantially in
Specific Surface Area. Nonswelling minerals, such as kaolinite, have only external surface,
whereas swelling minerals like montmorillonite have a great deal of internal as well as external
surface. Natural clay deposits can have a wide range of total surface area since the combination
of external and internal surface areas may vary simply because of the mixed layer minerals that
may exist and the variations in clay mineralogy. Additionally, the clay mineral fraction that is
part of the overall grain-size distribution can vary greatly.
It is postulated that the behavior of fine-grained soils may be explained by the
relationship between surface area and other geotechnical properties. Surface area measurements
of fine-grained soils have not been widely reported in the past because the varying methods used
to determine surface area produced inconsistent results. Currently, Atterberg Limits are the
primary test for classifying soils. However, the Atterberg Limits can only show a small picture of
how the soil is behaving. Surface area can explain why soil has a certain liquid limit, be it an
expansive soil with a high internal surface area, and correspondingly high plasticity index, or an
inactive soil, with a small internal surface area and a lower liquid limit. Surface area
measurements by both the Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (EGME) Method (Carter et al.
1986) and the Brunauer, Emmett and Teller (BET) Method (Brunauer et al. 1938) have been
shown to be accurate and efficient with high reproducibility rates. The importance of surface
area of fine-grained soils combined with other geotechnical properties is the focus of this
research.
1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this research project is to evaluate the influence of surface area
and soil composition on geotechnical properties of natural fine-grained soils of varying geologic
origins, and a number of different artificial clays. The soils used in these tests came from many
locations, including the United States, Thailand, Japan, Ireland, England, Scotland, Canada and
Norway. Most of the samples were collected by other investigators and sent to the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst for testing.
Specific objectives of the research project include the following:
1. Measure Specific Surface Area of natural and artificial fine-grained soils.
2. Investigate the influence of Specific Surface Area on Geotechnical properties
of fine-grained soils.
3. Investigate the influence of Specific Surface Area and Atterberg Limits on
intrinsic compressibility of selected natural and artificial clays.
4. Compare these results with available data in the literature.
5. Evaluate the differences in behavior of selected natural and artificial clays.
6. Investigate Atterberg Limit Relationships and Dispersion Characteristics with
Surface Area, Clay Fraction, Cation Exchange Capacity Activity and Surface
Area Activity of selected natural clays from various geologic deposits.
To fulfill these objectives, the following tasks were performed.
1. Investigate the accuracy and repeatability of surface area measurements.

2. Collect and prepare fine-grained soil samples from various geologic deposits from around
the world.
3. Complete grain-size analysis, Atterberg Limits, Shrinkage Limit, Carbonate Content,
Specific Gravity, Cation Exchange Capacity, Surface Area, intrinsic compressibility and
dispersion tests on selected natural and artificial clays.
4. Complete an extensive search of the literature to obtain previously published results,
which were used for comparison with results from this study.
2
1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH
Laboratory tests were conducted on thirty-three natural clays and eighteen artificial clays
from around the world. These tests included Surface Area determination by the Ethylene Glycol
Monoethyl Ether (EGME) method, Surface Area determination by the BET Method (Brunauer et
al. 1938), carbonate testing using the Chittick Apparatus (Dreimanis 1964), Atterberg liquid,
plastic and shrinkage limits, specific gravity, cation exchange capacity, grain-size distribution,
dispersion tests and intrinsic compressibility tests (Burland 1990). The natural clays included a
mix of marine, lacustrine, alluvial and loess deposits. The pure clays were purchased from
companies such as the Wilkinson Kaolin Associates LTD., Old Hickory Clay Company, Thiele
Kaolin Company and the source clay mineral repository at the University of Missouri, Columbia.
In addition to this selection of representative soils in which all tests were performed to try
and characterize the soil, extensive tests were also performed on specific sites within the marine,
alluvial, lacustrine and loess soil groups to determine dispersion, activity and relative activity
characteristics related to clay fraction, cation exchange capacity, Specific Surface Area and
carbonate content. Marine deposit sites were located in eastern Massachusetts, northern New
York, Ireland, England, Scotland, Norway, Japan and Thailand. Lacustrine deposits were
located in Utah, New York, Western Massachusetts, Chicago and New Hampshire. Alluvial
deposits tested were located in Houston and Dallas, Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Loess
deposits were located in Idaho, Washington, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.
1.4 ORGANIZATION
This report presents a summary of the laboratory tests performed in this study, which
were used to establish correlations between geotechnical properties of fine-grained soils. The
work conducted for this study is presented in the following manner:
Chapter 2 presents a literature review of laboratory tests used to classify fine-grained
soils, as well as tests used to determine soil behavior. This Chapter also presents a review of
surface area measurement methods. A compilation of some of the empirical correlations used to
determine various geotechnical properties are presented.
Chapter 3 presents a description of the locations of the soil samples, their geologic
origins and how the samples were obtained.
3
Chapter 4 presents the methods of investigation used in this research, including general
and special soil classification tests, surface area measurements and intrinsic compressibility tests.
Chapter 5 presents laboratory test results. Tabular summaries presenting the results of
the tests are provided with graphical summaries including a plasticity chart, an activity chart and
many other figures depicting known correlations between soil properties.
Chapter 6 presents the discussion of results. Conclusions are drawn from the test results
presented in this study.
Chapter 7 presents a summary of the research, conclusions and recommendations for
future work.
All data obtained from this study, which were not specifically presented in the main body
of the report, are provided in the Appendices.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
There is strong evidence in the literature that indicates that Specific Surface Area may be
one of the most important contributing factors influencing the engineering behavior of fine-
grained soils. For example, a number of studies have shown that there is a strong relationship
between Specific Surface Area and Liquid Limit of certain deposits (e.g., Farrar and Coleman,
1967; Kuzukami et al. 1971; Warkentin 1972; Ohtsubo et al. 1983; Locat et al. 1984; Smith et al.
1985; Morin and Dawe 1986; Churchman and Burke 1991). The swelling potential of clays has
also been related to Surface Area as shown by a number of studies (e.g., Dos Santos and Castro
1965; Low 1980; Morgenstern and Balasubramanian 1980; Ross 1978; Dasog et al. 1988).
Several studies have also shown that Surface Area is one of the most important parameters
influencing frost heave in soils (e.g., Anderson and Tice 1972; Reike et al. 1983; Nixon 1991).
The Segregation Potential (SP), which describes the velocity of water arriving at an advancing
frost front, has also been shown to be directly related to Specific Surface Area.
Knowledge of the Specific Surface Area is necessary in calculating certain basic soil
characteristics, such as the charge density and particle spacing, which in turn may be particularly
useful in prediction and rationalization of certain engineering properties. Specific Surface Area
may actually be a more fundamental and convenient basis than mechanical analysis for
describing the composition of fine-grained soils. This chapter describes previous research work
that has been performed to investigate the relationships between Specific Surface Area and other
geotechnical characteristics of fine-grained soils.
2.2 SURFACE AREA OF CLAY MINERALS

It has been suggested that the Surface Area of a soil may be the single parameter that
could correlate significantly with engineering index parameters (Locat et al. 1984). Soils vary
widely in their reactive surface because of differences in mineralogical and organic composition
and in their particle-size distribution (Carter et al. 1986) and the measured surface area is largely
dependent upon the amount of particle surface exposed (Mortland 1954). Investigations have
related various properties and reactions to the particle size or to the effect of grinding on soils
5
and clays rather than to Specific Surface Area measurements. For instance, Kelley et al. (1936)
observed that grinding increased the cation-exchange capacity of clays because of exposure of
more exchange positions and an accompanying increase in surface area. In natural soils,
properties such as cation-exchange capacity are related to the amount and kind of clay present
and to the amount of Specific Surface Area.
2.2.1 Mineralogy and Surface Area
The surface area of a soil is a function of the size, shape and mineralogy of the
constituent particles. The specific surface of a soil is defined as the area (in square meters) per
gram of soil particles. The shape of soil grains is of importance, as the surface area per unit
volume changes with the shape of the particles. A specific grain having a shape of a sphere has
the smallest surface area, but will exhibit the greatest surface area when deformed into an
extremely thin disc or sheet (Suess 1964). Surface area increases with decreasing size of particles
and this is particularly true for clay fractions containing smectite and vermiculite, which have
considerable internal surface area (De Kimpe 1979) (Figure 2.1)
The contributions of organic matter to Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and Specific
Surface Area (SSA) of soil materials are difficult to evaluate (Thompson et al. 1989). Both
organic and inorganic colloids possess CEC and SSA that contribute to the overall CEC and SSA
of the soil. The contribution of organic matter to SSA is not well established, partly because of
the variety of methods used to measure SSA. Specific Surface Area determined by ethylene
glycol monoethyl ether (EGME) was little changed by organic matter in the study of Cihacek
and Bremner (1979) (Figure 2.2).
6
Figure 2.1. Relative Sizes, Thicknesses and Specific Surfaces of Common Clay Minerals.
(from Holtz and Kovacs 1981, after Yong and Warkentin 1975)
7
350
300
250
Method A (m2/g)
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Method B (m2/g)
Figure 2.2. Surface Area Determination by Method A vs. Method B.
(after Cihacek and Bremner 1979)
Soils with organic carbon contents of 0.3 to 9.38% were used in this study. Method A denotes
soil pretreatment with H2O2 and 1N CaCl2 and in Method B, the pretreatment was omitted. In
both procedures, the pretreated or untreated soil sample was crushed to pass a #40 sieve and
dried over P2O5 before exposure to EGME. Ratner-Zohar et al. (1983) found similar results. In
their study, soils with organic contents of 0.2 to 2.1 % were used and the two different
procedures were: 1) desiccation under vacuum in the presence of P2O5 until constant weight was
reached (4 to 5 days); or 2) 24-hours oven drying at 110º C. The two drying procedures seemed
to be very highly correlated (Table 2.1), although oven drying resulted in a 15% decrease in
Surface Area of illite, which suggests that this procedure would not be recommended as a
pretreatment for measurements on soils rich in illites.
8
Table 2.1. Surface Areas of Montmorillonite, Illite and Kaolinite by the Oven and P2O5
Drying Methods (after Ratner-Zohar et al. 1983).
Surface Area (m2/g) Ratio

Clay Mineralogy Oven P2O5 Oven/P2O5
Montmorillonite 814+/-4.3 804+/-1.3 1.012
Illite 183+/-1.5 215+/-1.0 0.848
Kaolinite 67+/-1.0 68+/-0.4 0.979
Even though the EGME method seems to be unaffected by omitting the lengthy pretreatment,
Bower and Gschwend (1952) found that SSA measured by ethylene glycol retention decreased
after treatment to remove organic matter.
2.2.2 Internal Surface Area versus External Surface Area
SSA is normally measured by adsorbing N2 gas at –195°C and applying the BET theory.
Nitrogen is non-polar and does not penetrate the interlayers of swelling clays so the SSA values
obtained by this method only refer to external crystal surfaces. The retention of polar liquids,
such as water, ethylene glycol (EG) and ethylene glycol monoethyl ether (EGME) is then used to
estimate the interlayer area of expanding layer silicates (Quirk 1955; van Olphen 1970;
Greenland et al. 1978; Newman 1983). The amount retained, however, is very dependent on
experimental conditions and sample preparation (Theng 1993). A more serious drawback is that
no constant factor can be used to convert retention values to SSAs (Tiller et al. 1990; Churchman
et al. 1991). Adsorption of ionic compounds, notably cetylpyridium bromide, (CPB), from
solution can reliably measure both external and interlayer areas but greatly underestimate the
SSA of clays with a low surface density of charge (Greenland et al. 1962).
2.2.3 Measurement of Surface Area

Churchman et al. (1991) suggested that, while absolute values of Surface Areas of soils
might be difficult to measure, the relative merits of the various methods proposed could be
assessed in terms of their different abilities to predict important soil properties. Many studies
9
have considered the relationships between Surface Area and soil properties of various kinds.
These include relationships of Surface Area to primary characteristics of soils such as texture and
mineralogical composition (De Kimpe 1979) and also those of Surface Area to soil chemical and
physical properties (Farrar et al. 1967).
In the past, two general approaches have predominantly been used to determine Specific
Surface Area of clays; (1) the measurement of external Surface Area by the adsorption of simple
molecules, such as nitrogen at low temperatures, with Surface Area being derived from
adsorption isotherm data and the application of BET theory (Brunauer et al. 1938); and (2) the
measurement of total Surface Area by the adsorption of polar liquids as a means of describing
the behavior of expanding clay minerals, whose inner surfaces are inaccessible to nitrogen (Tiller
1990). Other techniques for determining Surface Area have also been suggested, and include:
Water Sorption (Newman 1983), Cetyl Pyridinium Bromide (CPB) (Greenland et al. 1964), p-
Nitrophenol Adsorption (pNP) (Ristori et al. 1989), Internal Reflectance Spectroscopy (Mulla et.
al. 1985) and Methylene Blue Adsorption (Hang et al. 1970). Some of these methods produce
similar Surface Area values as those obtained with theoretical soil structure equations, but are
time-consuming or require expensive, specialized apparatus. Therefore, other more simple
methods were developed that are less accurate and reproducible but more time efficient and
economical.
2.2.3.1 Surface Area Determination by Adsorption of Polar Liquids
Dyal and Hendricks (1950) introduced a method for estimating Surface Areas of soil
specimens based on wetting a sample with ethylene glycol, equilibrating and then removing the
excess liquid by evacuation. Samples were removed periodically until a constant mass was
obtained. The Specific Surface Area was computed from the mass of the retained liquid under
the assumption that a monomolecular layer of ethylene glycol was adsorbed on the surface. This
method appeared to be very useful and successful and has been reported by a number of
investigators for a wide range of soils (e.g., Puri et al. 1963; Mortland et al. 1965; Sridharan
1972; Tiller 1990). However, for some soils, the use of ethylene glycol proved to be very time
consuming in some cases taking up to a week for equilibrium to occur depending on the clay
mineralogy.
10
To overcome this problem, Carter et al. (1965) suggested the use of a more volatile
liquid, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether (EGME). This polar liquid has a higher vapor pressure
at room temperature than ethylene glycol, which allows the evaporation to take place more
quickly. In addition, samples are handled fewer times using EGME, and therefore there are
potentially fewer errors since the chances of introducing water vapor and other sources of errors
are minimized (Carter et al. 1986). Another benefit to using EGME is that the maximum time to
reach equilibrium is generally on the order of 16 to 24 hours depending on the soil type,
desiccant age, desiccator size, and other factors. This means that the test is completed in less
time than when using ethylene glycol.
2.2.3.1.1 Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (EGME)
Molecular coverage for EGME is calculated with the same assumption applied earlier by
Dyal and Hendricks (1950) for ethylene glycol. 810 m2/g was used as the theoretical Specific
Surface Area for montmorillonite and a measured value of 23.7 mg EGME retained per gram of
clay was assumed by Dyal and Hendricks (1950). The calculated quantity of EGME to cover 1
m2 of clay surface with a monomolecular layer was thus 2.86 X 10-4 g. The convenient and rapid
EGME method for estimating Surface Area of soils and clays has been accepted as a standard
practice by Soil Science Society of America, and is described by Carter et al. (1986).
There are soils, which have “internal” surface, like montmorillonite clay minerals. The
ability of certain polar molecules to penetrate the montmorillonite layer structure and settle at the
interior layers surface causes a tremendous increase of the total Surface Area. Certain areas in a
particle between cracks and splits in pores can be regarded as internal surface too. The internal
Surface Area can be theoretically predicted from dimensions of the lattice structure and the
external Surface Area can be predicted by assuming that all particles are spherical. However,
these predictions will always be exceeded by the real Surface Area (Suess 1964). The “external”
surface of a particle is the entire surface surrounding the separate soil particles. If the soil
particle is built of an expandable lattice or has any penetration splits in its structure, and internal
Surface Area can be added to the external Surface Area of the particle, then this will be the
“total” Surface Area (Suess 1964). Figure 2.3 presents the atomic and symbolic structure of
kaolinite, illite and montmorillonite (Lambe and Whitman 1969). Kaolinite has only external
11
surface area, because the strong bonding between successive layers deters interlayer swelling,
and usually ranges from 10 to 20 m2/g. Illite is the most commonly found clay mineral in soils
encountered in engineering practice. The surface area of illite is about 65 to 100 m2/g. The
primary surface of illites is 40 to 80 m2/g and the secondary (interlayer) surface may be as high
as 870 m2/g, depending on the exchangeable interlayer cations. Montmorillonite has a very large
surface area on the order of 600 to 870 m2/g. The primary surface ranges from 50 to 120 m2/g.
The secondary specific surface that is exposed by expanding the lattice so that polar molecules
can penetrate between layers can be up to 840 m2/g (Mitchell 1993).
The fact that often much more EGME was retained than predicted from the combined
capacities of the minerals suggests that there is a considerably greater area of internal surface
available for the uptake of EGME than allowed for in the assignment of maximum retentions to
the various mineral types (Churchman et al. 1991). The various interlayered and interstratified
minerals have a high capacity for EGME.
12
Figure 2.3. Atomic and Symbolic Structure. A. Kaolinite. B. Illite. C. Montmorillonite.
(after Lambe and Whitman 1969)
13
2.2.3.1.2 Cetyl Pryidinium Bromide (CPB)
Cetyl Pryidinium Bromide (CPB) is used to determine the Specific Surface Areas of
soil clays by adsorption from solution. Small samples of soil or clay (0.1 to 0.5 g) are placed in
tubes and 10 to 40 mL of CPB is added. The tube is placed on a shaker overnight at a
temperature of 25 to 30 °C, because CPB is not easily soluble at lower temperatures. On
completion of the adsorption period, the tubes are centrifuged for 15 minutes. The concentration
of CPB in the supernatant can most easily be determined from the UV absorbency of 259mµ.
The Specific Surface Area is calculated from the amount of CPB adsorbed by the particles.
The CPB method has been found to give accurate results of Specific Surface Area in non-
expanding lattice clays (Greenland and Quirk 1964). However, some limitations of this method
are the failure of the CPB to form a complete monolayer on materials of unusually low surface
density of charge. Also, CPB does not provide an accurate measure of total Surface Area when
expanding lattice material is present because surface coverage per ion is different for adsorption
on internal and external surfaces. It is possible to assess the amount of external Surface Area by
the CPB method. However, the use of the low-temperature nitrogen adsorption (BET) provides
the most satisfactory measure of external surface (Greenland and Quirk 1964).
2.2.3.1.3 p-Nitrophenol Adsorption (pNP)
P-Nitrophenol (pNP) in a xylene, which is a hydrocarbon solvent, was tested for the
determination of the external and total Surface Area of pure smectite minerals. The values of
external surface were in agreement with those obtained by N2 sorption, (Ristori 1989), and were
calculated from samples which were saturated with Na-1 cations, heated at 160 °C and kept
dehydrated to avoid the penetration of the organic molecule in the interlayer spacings. Values of
total Surface Area were obtained from samples that were saturated with Ca+2 cations and
equilibrated at low values of relative humidity. Both determinations consisted of adding 10-ml
of the pNP solution to the 100 mg of Na–1 or Ca+2 saturated soil specimen. Each tube was heated
for 3 hours at either 160 °C or 90 °C and shaken overnight. The amount of pNP adsorbed was
calculated by weight difference.
14
The method for calculating the external and total Surface Area of soils by pNP adsorption
from the xylene solution seems to provide realistic and reproducible results as is shown in Ristori
(1989). These results were compared with theoretical values, deduced from structural formulas,
Ristori et al., (1985) and therefore appear to confirm the correctness of the data.
2.1.3.1.4 Methylene Blue Test
An alternative to EGME for determining the total Surface Area of clays is the Methylene
Blue Test (MBT). Successful use of the Methylene Blue test for determining both Cation
Exchange Capacity and Surface Area of clay soils has been reported by a number of
investigators (e.g., Kipling and Wilson 1960; Makitie Ervio 1966; Nevins and Weintritt 1967;
Phelps and Harris 1968; Brindley and Thompson 1970; Hang and Brindley 1970; Sweere and
Galjaard 1984; Kelly 1984; Taylor 1985; Soon 1988; Cokca and Birand 1993; Kahr and Madsen
1995; Wang et al. 1996). This test is attractive since it is easy to perform, requires no particular
special equipment, the results are obtained quickly, and it only uses a small amount of soil. Most
recently, the test procedure presented by Tran (1979) has been used for this test. The principle of
the test is the addition of elementary doses of a coloring agent (Methylene Blue) to a suspension
of soil particles. The adsorption capacity of the soil for Methylene Blue is then a measure for the
activity of the clay fraction in the soil. The test requires only simple equipment and takes about
twenty minutes to complete. Interestingly, the amount of adsorption of Methylene Blue has also
been correlated to Liquid Limit (Fairbairn and Robertson 1957), which is then an indirect
measurement of surface area.
2.2.3.2 Surface Area Determination by the BET Method
The adsorption of nitrogen and the application to the isotherms of the BET equation is
widely recognized method for determining the “external” Surface Area of soil particles
(Brunauer et al. 1938). Weakly adsorbed nitrogen does not penetrate the interlayer surfaces so
that the measurement obtained is only for external surfaces, whereas polar molecules such as
ethylene glycol monoethyl ether are strongly adsorbed and penetrate into the interlayer surfaces
producing total Surface Area measurements. Although “total area” of soils containing swelling
15
clay minerals cannot be determined, the method remains a useful means of comparing two
different soils.
The BET method works by measuring the quantity of adsorbate gas adsorbed on a solid
surface by sensing the change in thermal conductivity of a flowing mixture of adsorbate and an
inert carrier gas. Usually the adsorbate is nitrogen and the inert carrier gas is helium. A small
soil sample is placed in a sample tube and inserted into the cell holder. A Dewar Flask is filled
with liquid nitrogen and raised until the liquid nitrogen is close to the top of the cell. The flow of
gas begins and nitrogen is adsorbed. The liquid nitrogen is removed and the desorption of the
gas from the soil begins. When desorption is completed, the integrator will display a number
which is the sample Surface Area in square meters. Dividing by the sample weight gives the
external Specific Surface Area of the sample.
The advantages to this method are that it is fast and reproducible. In less than ten minutes,
the external Specific Surface Area can be determined. The BET method has been compared with
the CPB and EGME methods and is accurate within 1 to 2 m2/g (Greenland et al. 1964). One
disadvantage for the BET method is that it utilizes elaborate and expensive equipment. The cost
of the equipment prohibits many laboratories from performing Specific Surface Area
determinations. The final disadvantage to this method is that it provides a measure of only the
external Specific Surface Area. Another method, such as the EGME method, must be employed
to determine the total Surface Area.
2.2.4 Comparisons
It should not be expected that the EGME and the BET-N2 methods would give the same
results, since each measures a different property; total and external surface area, respectively.
These values will only be the same for soils that have no internal surface area. Gallez et al.
(1976) performed SSA tests on soils from Nigeria using both the BET-N2 adsorption and EGME
methods. The results are presented in Table 2.2. This table shows that the Surface Areas
measured by the EGME method were generally 2 to 3 times greater than the Surface Area
measured by the N2 adsorption. However, soil number 13 shows the same Surface Area for both
methods. This soil is a kaolinite, which does not have internal Surface Area. Therefore, the
external and the total (external + internal) Surface Area will be the same.
16
Table 2.2. Comparison Between EGME and BET-N2 Surface Area Determinations.
Surface Area (m2/g)
Soils EGME (Total) BET-N2 (external)
1 23 3
2 42 16
3 27 13
4 60 24
5 71 28
6 80 41
7 75 39
8 49 18
9 27 10
10 110 40
11 106 63
12 222 22
13 18 18
2.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS

Atterberg limits and grain-size distribution are indicators of the mineralogy of the soil
(Mitchell 1993). The relationship between surface characteristics and liquid limit for natural
clays is not a simple one and other variables such as grain-size distribution (specifically clay
content), mineral composition (e.g., clay mineralogy, carbonate mineralogy, Cation Exchange
Capacity and surface charge) may need to be considered. Another factor that influences
Atterberg limits is the role of pore water salinity (Torrance 1975; Locat 1982). For marine clays
in which the salts have been leached away, a substantial decrease in the liquid limit has occurred
(Locat et al. 1984). The leaching process will vary depending on factors such as grain size and
mineralogy. Although the measurement of Specific Surface Area is itself not sensitive to the
salinity of the pore fluid, the Atterberg limits are, and this alone may render the correlation less
17
significant but still very useful for a first approximation of the activity of the soil (Locat et al.
1984).
The explanation of the plastic properties of clay soils must be sought in the interaction of
the soil particles (Yong et al. 1966). The interparticle forces involved depend upon size, shape
and type of clay particles present. Interparticle forces have a more prominent role in determining
the liquid limit because the distance between particles is such that the forces of interaction
between the clay particles become sufficiently weak to allow easy movement of particles relative
to each other (Yong et al. 1966). When a soil is deformed plastically, particles move relative to
each other, taking up new equilibrium positions. The cohesion between particles must be
sufficiently low to allow this movement and yet high enough to allow the particles to maintain
the new molded position. The lower plastic limit is the lower water content at which these
properties are exhibited (Yong et al. 1966). Table 2.3 presents several correlations between
plastic limit and clay fraction and Surface Area from various studies.
Table 2.3. Correlations Between Plastic Limit and Clay Fraction.

Davidson et al.
PL=-0.31CF+22.48 Peorian Loess (1952)
PL=0.101CF+21.99 Illinois Soils Odell et al. (1960)
PL=0.36CF+7.20 Clays from Alberta Canada Hamilton (1966)
PL=0.44CF+13.50 Hong Kong Marine Deposits Yin (1999)
PL=0.43SAext.+16.95 South African/Georgia/Missouri Clays Hammel et al. (1983)
PL=0.064SA+16.60 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
Table 2.4 presents correlations between the plasticity index and clay fraction from studies found
in the literature.
18
Table 2.4. Correlations Between Plasticity Index and Clay Fraction.
Davidson et al.
PI = 1.21CF-11.50 Peorian Loess (1952)
PI=0.568CF+1.09 Illinois Soils Odell et al. (1960)
PI=0.51CF-0.1 Red Clay, Wisconsin Brown et al. (1983)
PI=1.26CF Hong Kong Marine Deposits Yin (1999)
The liquid limit depends only on the fine particles present. The liquid limit of a mixture
of clay and sand decreases as the percent clay in the mixture decreases, but the liquid limit per
unit weight of clay remains essentially constant. Yong et al. (1966) presented test results of soils
that show the plastic limit varies much less than the liquid limit. The plastic limit increases as
the surface area of the clay increases, but not in direct proportion. The surface area of
montmorillonite is 40 times as great as that of kaolinite, but the plastic limit is only 2 to 3 times
as large. Table 2.5 presents several correlations between the liquid limit and surface area from
various studies found in the literature.
19
Table 2.5. Correlations Between Liquid Limit and Surface Area.
LL=0.21SA+19 LL Range % 17-78 Gill and Reaves (1957)
LL=0.19SA+35.22 South African Soils De Bruyn et al. (1957)
LL=0.56SA+19 British Clay Soils Farrar and Coleman (1967)
LL=0.67SA+0.93 British Clay Soils Farrar and Coleman (1967)
LL=0.37SA+18 LL Range % 19-85 Warkentin (1968)
LL=1.2SAext. + 13.9 Japanese soils not containing Bentonite Kuzukami et al. (1971)
LL = 6.4SAext.-26 Japanese soils Mixed Kaolin and Bentonite Kuzukami et al. (1971)
LL=0.25SA+8.5 LL Range % 50-125 Zaki Ghazalli (1971)
LL = 108SAext.0.48 South African/Georgia/Missouri Clays Hammel et al. (1983)
LL = 0.14SA+19.805 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
LL=0.31SA+24.25 Indian Marine Clays Sridharan et al. (1988)
LL=1.01SA+46.5 Marine Sediments Wetzel (1990)
The above relationships indicate that Atterberg limits can be used to predict Surface
Area, however accurate prediction is provided only if the relationship is calibrated using soils
having similar physical and chemical character (Hammel et al. 1983).
Figure 2.4 presents a relationship between Specific Surface Area and Atterberg limits
(Locat et al. 1984) for Canadian Clays. The equation and correlation coefficient are presented on
Figure 2.4.
20
80
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
60
Water Content (%)
40
20
LL = 0.80SA+12:r2=0.81:(n=16)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Surface Area (m2/g)

Figure 2.4. Relationship Between the Specific Surface Area and Atterberg Limits for Canadian
Clays. (after Locat et al. 1984)
It has been shown that the clay mineral type has a strong influence on the liquid limit
values, and it increases according to the series, kaolinite < illite < attapulgite < montmorillonite
(Lambe 1969). A decrease in particle size or an increase in Surface Area is accompanied by an
increase in both plastic and liquid limit values (White 1949). Seed et al. (1964) obtained linear
correlations between liquid limit and percent clay sizes for bentonite + kaolinite and bentonite +
illite mixtures, with activity values ranging from 0.4 to 6.0. The results suggest, that for a given
clay mineral type, the amount of colloidal surface available regulates the liquid limit (Sridharan
et al. 1986). Also, for a given clay type, the nature of colloidal surface significantly influences
the liquid limit. This is reflected in the wide variations of liquid limit values of montmorillonite,
with the exchangeable cation type in the sequence, Na > K > Ca > Mg > Fe (White 1949).
The liquid limit of montmorillonite is recognized to be a function of diffuse double layer
thickness (Sridharan et al. 1956; Yong and Warkentin 1966; Sridharan et al. 1975). The
21
dominant interparticle force is one of repulsion. This force of repulsion determines the distances
between particles. Therefore, an increase in salt concentration or substitution of divalent for
monovalent exchangeable cations, which decreases the repulsion, decreases the liquid limit.
Sridharan et al. (1975) tested seven natural soils containing montmorillonite as the dominant clay
mineral and showed the relationship between the Atterberg limits and CF, SSA and CEC. The
Clay Fraction and Surface Area show poor relationships, however, the Liquid Limit versus CEC
shows somewhat of a linear trend, as indicated in Figure 2.5.
The diffuse double layer thickness is sensitive to variations in soil properties such as
Surface Area, CEC, cation valence, size and pore electrolyte concentration (Mitchell 1976).
A number of studies have shown that for some fine-grained soils there is a strong linear
relationship between SSA and liquid limit (e.g., Grabowska-Olszewska 1970; Kuzukami et al.
1971; Warkentin 1972; Ohtsubo et al. 1983; Locat et al. 1984; Smith et al. 1985; Morin and
Dawe 1986; Churchman and Burke 1991). Other studies (e.g., Sridharan et al. 1986) have shown
that for certain soils, especially some montmorillonites, there appears to be almost no
relationship between SSA and liquid limit. Muhunthan (1991) used results presented by
DeBruyn et al. (1957), Farrar et al. (1967), and Sridharan et al. (1988) to show that a linear
relationship should exist between 1/SSA and 1/LL.
Specific surface of sensitive marine clays in Canada have been reported by a number of
investigators (e.g., Penner 1963; 1965; Hendershot and Carson 1978; Yong et al. 1979; Locat et
al. 1984; Morin and Dawe 1987; Locat and Demers 1988; Locat et al. 1990; Locat et al. 1996).
Locat et al. (1984) showed strong relationships between SSA and Atterberg Liquid and Plastic
Limits (Figure 2.4) but also showed that SSA increased as clay content increased as presented in
Figure 2.6.
22
140
120
Liquid Limit (%)

100
80
60
0 20 40 60 80
Clay Fraction (<2µm)
140
120
Liquid Limit (%)
100
80
60
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Surface Area (m2/g)

140
120
Liquid Limit (%)
100
80
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CEC (meq/100 g)
Figure 2.5. Liquid Limit versus Clay Fraction, Surface Area and CEC for
Montmorillonitic Soils. (after Sridharan et al. 1975)
23
100
SSA=0.70CF-3.7:r2=0.47:(n=14)
80
Surface Area (m /g)
2
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 2.6: Relationship between Surface Area and Clay Fraction for Sensitive
Canadian Clays. (after Locat et al. 1984)
Investigations to find the relationship between the Atterberg Limits and the clay
mineralogy were conducted by Seed et al. (1964) and Sahu (1991). Their research dealt with
mixing two clay minerals in different proportions and determining if a mixture containing equal
proportions of montmorillonite and illite has higher or lower Atterberg limits and clay content
than one containing equal proportions of kaolinite and bentonite. While these results are
demonstrated for artificial soils prepared in the laboratory, it is suggested that the same
principles would apply to natural soils. However, Sridharan et al. (1988) presents a plot of
natural soils (Figure 2.7), which shows no systematic variation.
24
100 2
80
Plasticity Index/Liquid Limit (%)
Activity (PI/CF)
60
40
20 Liquid Limit
Plasticity Index
Activity Data
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Clay Fraction (<2µm %)
Figure 2.7. Liquid and Plastic Limit and Activity of Kaolinitic Soils as a Function of
their Percentage Clay Size Fractions. (after Sridharan et al. 1988).
Natural soils which have been subjected to physical and chemical weathering and other
depositional processes have a wide distribution of particle sizes and physico-chemical and
mechanical properties (Sridharan et al. 1988) and the results is that the different constituents of
soil may not influence properties directly as calculable as in the pure clay mixtures. Natural clay
very seldom behaves as a simple mixture of minerals acting independently of one another
(Lambe 1960).
Both Seed and Sahu found that there was no unique correlation between plasticity index
and liquid limit. The variation of liquid limit with mineral composition is shown in Figure 2.8
(Sahu 1991).
25
% Montmorillonite
100 80 60 40 20 0
350
I-M Mixture
300 K-M Mixture
250
Liquid Limit (%)
200
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Kaolinite and % Illite
I
Figure 2.8. Variation of Liquid Limit with Mineral Composition. (after Sahu 1991).
In the Kaolinite-Montmorillonite mixture, the liquid limit decreases gradually from 315
to 44, while in the Illite-Montmorillonite mixture, the decrease in liquid limit is rapid up to 60%
of illite, beyond which it is gradual. Similar trends were found by Seed et al. (1964) who
suggested that cementation and interstratification of particles takes place when montmorillonite
is low in I-M soil mixtures, which suppressed the increase in liquid limit and plasticity index.
However, the hydrometer analyses of the mineral mixtures do not suggest any cementation of the
clay particles. The percentage of clay fraction varies linearly with mineral composition (Sahu
1991) Figure 2.9.
26
% Montmorillonite
100 80 60 40 20 0
100
I-M Mixture
K-M Mixture
80
Clay Fraction (%)
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Kaolinite and % Illite
Figure 2.9. Variation of Clay Fraction with Mineral Composition. (after Sahu 1991).
Activity
Atterberg limits for a soil are related to the amount of water that is attracted to the
surfaces of the soil particles (Lambe and Whitman 1969). It may be expected that the amount of
attracted water will be largely influenced by the amount of clay that is present in the soil and
therefore surface area should by influenced as well. On the basis of this reasoning, Skempton
(1953) defined a quantity termed Activity:
PI
Activity = [2.1]
CF
where:
PI = Plasticity Index (LL-PL) (%)
CF = Clay Fraction (<2µm) (%)
27
The Skempton activity, which is commonly used, relates plasticity to the clay size
fraction of the soil. The activity is related to the mineralogy and geotechnical history of the
sediment and classifies clays into three groups; inactive, normal and active clays. It was shown
by Skempton (1953) that for four clay deposits, an approximately linear relationship existed
between the plasticity index and the percent clay sizes (Figure 2.10), which is defined as
Activity.
100
Figures in brackets are
Shellhaven
the "activities" of the clays
(1.33)
80
London Clay
Plasticity Index (%)
(0.95)
60
Weald Clay
(0.63)
40
Horten
20 (0.42)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 2.10. Skempton Activity Chart. (after Skempton 1953)
The Skempton (1953) activity lines for kaolinite, illite and Na montmorillonite are shown in
Figure 2.11 (Lambe and Whitman 1969). Most natural soils which are typically composed of
mixed layer minerals, would plot somewhere between these lines.
28
500
400
)
.2
=7
(A
ite
on
ill
300
or
m
t
on
aM
N
200
100
.9)
Illite (A=0
Kaolinite (A=0.38)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 2.11. Activity Chart of Pure Clays. (after Lambe and Whitman 1969)
Seed et al. (1964) presents data from artificial clays which show the Activity lines not
passing through the origin as in Skempton’s Activity definition. Seed et al. (1964) redefines the
Activity of artificial clays as:
∆PI
Activity = [2.2]
C −9
where:
C = % Clay Fraction (%)
The variation of plasticity index along the line is expected to reflect the effect of both the amount
and type of clay. The involvement of the clay fraction in the expression for activity is an
indication of the variation of the physicochemical potential of soil in terms of the plasticity index
as the clay fraction increases (Pandian et al. 1990). Ohtsubo et al. (1983) hypothesized that the
variation of activity is explained by the chloride ion concentration in the pore water in Ariake
Bay Clay, Figure 2.12.
29
2
Activity = 0.35LOG(Chloride Ion Conc.)+1.48
r2=0.81
Activity (PI/CF)
Lower Layer
Upper Layer
0
0.01 0.1 1
Chloride Ion Concentration (N)
Figure 2.12. Activity as a function of Chloride Ion Concentration in the Pore Water
(after Ohtsubo et al. 1983)
Youseff et al. (1965) presented data from a wide range of clayey soil that show no relationship
between activity and plasticity index, liquid limit and plastic limit probably because the soils are
not from the same geologic unit, but rather a mixed collection of clayey soils from around the
world.
Low activity clays by definition have a Cation Exchange Capacity of less than 24
milliequivalents per 100 grams clay. Such materials will generally have a ratio of plasticity
index to percent clay of one or less (Skempton 1953). The Cation Exchange Capacity is another
useful indicator of clay activity because it is the product of two fundamental properties of clay,
namely the Specific Surface Area per unit mass of clay, and the surface charge density or
number of charges (milliequivalents) per unit area:
30
CEC
σ = [2.3]
SSA
where:
σ = meq/100m2
CEC = Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 g)
The differences in the magnitude of specific surface and surface charge density indicate
why soils with different clay mineralogies behave differently (Uehara 1982). Low activity clays
have low specific surfaces, low surface charge densities, or both. The low Cation Exchange
Capacity of kaolinite is associated with this mineral’s low specific surface (Uehara 1982). This
is the main reason for the differences in behavior of kaolinitic and smectitic soils.
The relationship between Activity and Carbonate content for Canadian Varved Clay is
shown in Figure 2.13, (Quigley et al. 1985). This correlation shows a negative trend meaning
that the more carbonates that are present in a soil, the higher the clay fraction and the lower the
Plasticity Index.
1.0
Varved Clay
0.8
Activity (PI/CF)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Carbonate Content (%)
Figure 2.13. Activity versus Carbonate Content for Canadian Varved Clays.
(after Quigley et al. 1985)
31
The relationship between colloidal activity and Specific Surface Area of model soils of
kaolinite and bentonite mixtures is presented by Grabowska-Olszewska (1970) in Figure 2.14.
This correlation shows as there is an increase in total Surface Area, there is a decrease in the clay
fraction and an increase in the Plasticity Index.
3
Activity (PI/CF)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Specific Surface Area (m2/g)

Figure 2.14. Correlation Between Colloidal Activity and Specific Surface Area.
(after Grabowska-Olszewska 1970)
Relative Activity
Atterberg limits may also be related to the Surface Area of the soil. This phenomenon is
known as relative activity and was defined by Quigley et al. (1985) as:
PI
Re lative. Activity = [2.4]
SSA
where
Quigley et al. (1985) presented the relative activity versus carbonate results from varved
clays deposited in proglacial Lake Ojibway at Matagami, Quebec. The abrupt depressing effect
32
of carbonate on the relative activity in the range of 0 to 5% is clearly apparent but not easily
explained (Figure 2.15). This phenomenon has also been noted by Morin and Dawe (1987) for
Canadian Marine Clays.
1.0
Varved Clay
0.8
Relative Activity (PI/SSA)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 2.15. Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content for Canadian Varved Clays.
(after Quigley et al. 1985)
2.3.1 Shrinkage Limits
The shrinkage limit of a soil is defined as the point at which no further volume decrease
occurs, but where the degree of saturation is still essentially 100 % (Holtz and Kovacs 1981).
The water content at which this occurs is defined as the shrinkage limit, SL or ws, and it is one of
the Atterberg Limits (Figure 2.16).
33
Figure 2.16. Mechanics of the Shrinkage Limit. (from Holtz and Kovacs 1981)
Although the shrinkage limit was a popular classification test during the 1920’s, it is
subject to uncertainty as it has some undesirable features including danger of mercury poisoning
to the operator, errors resulting from entrapped air bubbles in the dry soil specimen, cracking
during drying and weighing and other measurement errors (Holtz and Kovacs 1981). The
standard, ASTM D 427, states to start with the water content near the liquid limit. However, this
often results in a shrinkage limit greater than the plastic limit, which is meaningless. Casagrande
suggested that the initial water content be slightly greater than the PL, if possible, but it is then
difficult to avoid entrapping air bubbles (Holtz and Kovacs 1981).
It has already been stated in the literature (Yong and Warkentin 1966; Perloff and Baron
1976; Sridharan and Rao 1971; Sridharan and Prakash 1998) that capillary forces initiate the
shrinkage process. The capillary forces depend upon the pore size: the smaller the pore size, the
higher the capillary forces. The shrinkage limit test is similar to a consolidation test with the
difference being that the capillary stresses induce the shrinkage (Sridharan et al. 2000).
Therefore, the void ratio, e, at the SL can be taken as a limiting void ratio beyond which
compression will be significantly less. The range of void ratio change from the liquid limit state
to the state of lowest void ratio is represented by the difference between the LL and the SL,
termed the shrinkage index, Is (Ranganatham et al. 1965; Snethen 1977; Sridharan et al. 2000).
The other hypothesis to explain the mechanism governing the shrinkage limit is the
distribution of clay, silt and sand fraction in natural fine-grained clay. If the distribution is such
that during shrinkage, larger void spaces between sand particles are filled with silt particles and
34
smaller void spaces between silt particles are filled with clay particles and voids created by
coarser clay particles get filled by finer clay particles so as to give the densest packing with the
least average pore size, the soil reaches the shrinkage limit (Sridharan 1998). Such an optimal
packing of soil particles gives the lowest shrinkage limit and the shrinkage limit is a result of the
“packing phenomenon” and the function of relative grain-size distribution. It was then
hypothesized that by mixing two soils with different shrinkage limits, the grain-size distribution
will be in between their individual grain-size distributions. The resulting shrinkage limit will
either be in between those of the soils used for the mixture or will be even less than that of the
original soil of lower shrinkage limit if the soil mixture exhibits more improved grain-size
distribution than the constituent soils so as to provide a denser packing (Sridharan 1998). In no
case will the resulting soil mixture have a shrinkage limit more than that of the original soil of
higher shrinkage limit. Sridharan (1998) presents 8 soil mixtures in which the above hypothesis
is proved.
The shrinkage of clay soils is often said to depend not only on the amount of clay, but
also on its nature (Greene-Kelly 1974). High-swelling clays containing the mineral
montmorillonite can absorb large amounts of water and hence are able to shrink considerably on
drying. It is common experience that the notable shrinking soils are often rich in
montmorillonite (Smith 1959) but there are exceptions (Wooltorton 1954).
If the shrinkage limit is primarily a function of soil plasticity, it is expected to decrease
with an increase in the liquid limit and plasticity index. However, Sridharan (1998) tested soils,
which showed that the shrinkage limit may either increase or decrease, in spite of an increase in
the soil plasticity. Higher shrinkage limits can result for a soil of high plasticity, if the soil is
relatively poorly proportioned, and a soil of lower plasticity with a well-graded grain-size
distribution, which results in an optimal packing, can have a lower shrinkage limit (Sridharan
1998).
If the total clay content is expressed as a percentage of the weight of the (sand + silt)
content, it can be seen in Sridharan (1998) that there is an optimum clay content that results in an
optimal dense packing which yields a minimum shrinkage limit for that soil. If clay content is
less than an optimal level, the shrinkage limit will be higher, however if higher clay content
results in poorly proportioned grain-size distribution of soil, optimal packing many not be
possible and may result in an increase shrinkage limit (Sridharan 1998). Sridharan (1998)
35
presents data which shows that there appears to be a definite trend of variation of shrinkage limit
with an increase in clay content up to about 40% clay content by beyond that, the correlation
becomes scattered, which can be attributed to the presence of an optimum clay content for each
soil at which the shrinkage limit is minimum. From the data of Sridharan (1998), it appears that
the optimum clay content for a soil to achieve minimum shrinkage limit is between 30 and 50 %.
Following along with the hypothesis that grain-size is the controlling factor in shrinkage
limits, Sridharan (1998) showed results of six different soils with very similar grain-size curves,
which also have almost the same shrinkage limits, irrespective of wide variations in the liquid
limits or plasticity indices. Sridharan (1998) also shows grain-size curves that are drastically
different in shape, with completely different shrinkage limits.
All of the above observations rule out the possibility of considering the shrinkage limit as
one of the plasticity characteristics of a soil or that it is primarily a function of soil plasticity,
however, the tests performed by Sridharan (1998) shows that the grain-size distribution may be
the main influence on shrinkage limit. Table 2.6 presents two correlations between Shrinkage
limits and clay fraction.
Table 2.6. Correlations Between Shrinkage Limits and Clay Fraction.

SL = -0.42CF+30.56 Peorian Loess Davidson et al. (1952)
SL=0.09CF+8.75 Clays from Alberta Canada Hamilton (1966)
It has been found that a soil with a lower shrinkage limit compresses more than a soil
with a higher shrinkage limit, even though their liquid limits are nearly the same. Soils with
lower shrinkage indices compress faster (Sridharan et al. 2000).
If an estimation of shrinkage limit becomes necessary due to lack of soil or mercury, one
can determine the shrinkage limit of soils using the plasticity chart, which has been found to be
just as accurate as the shrinkage limit test itself. When the Atterberg limits for a soil plot near
the A-line on the plasticity chart, the shrinkage limit should be close to 20. If the limits plot
above the A-line, then the SL is less than 20 by an amount approximately equal to how far the
limits are above the A-line. For ML, MH, OL and OH soils, the SL is greater than 20 by an
amount approximately equal to how far below the A-line the Atterberg Limits plot (Holtz and
Kovacs 1981). If the vertical distance above or below the A-line is ∆pi, then
36
SL = 20 ± ∆pi [2.5]
2.4 SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL
Shrinking, swelling and cracking are important considerations in soil classification.

Several methods have been used to measure swelling potential. The coefficient of linear
extensibility (COLE) is used by soil scientists because it is determined on undisturbed samples
and can be translated into a swelling index (Franzmeier and Ross 1968; Grossman et al. 1968).
However, the COLE test is not routinely performed because it is time consuming and properties
that can predict COLE are often preferred to actual determinations (Dasog et al. 1988).
Franzmeier and Ross (1968) and McCormack and Wilding (1975) found that total clay gave the
best correlation with COLE, while Anderson et al. (1973) found that fine clay gave the highest
correlation to the properties they investigated. Ross (1978) used Specific Surface Area to predict
shrink-swell potential, but his study included soils with predominantly mica mineralogy and he
made extensive use of remolded samples (Dasog et al. 1988). Table 2.7 presents the equations
from the results of two authors tests of the coefficient of linear extensibility versus Surface Area,
Clay Fraction and Cation Exchange Capacity.
Table 2.7. Correlations Between COLE and Surface Area, Clay Fraction and CEC.
COLE=0.0018CF-0.0047 Micaceous Soils from Canada Ross (1978)
COLE=0.0006SA+0.0259 Micaceous Soils from Canada Ross (1978)
COLE=0.0007SA+.0264 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
COLE=0.0034CEC+.0271 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
Apart from direct swelling and shrinkage tests in the laboratory, soil mechanics practice
for determining the engineering characteristics of expansive soils is usually based on the
Atterberg limits, sometimes in conjunction with grain-size analysis (De Bruyn et al. 1957).
Expansive soils usually fall above the A-Line to the right of the 30 % LL line and above the 12%
PI line. However, any conclusions drawn from the plasticity chart should be considered only as
37
reasonable trends and additional information must be supplied by determining the linear
shrinkage.
The potential expansiveness of the soil may be described as the ability of a soil to swell
with small increase of the moisture content (De Bruyn et al. 1957). Criteria for heaving to occur
have been quoted from De Bruyn et al. 1957 but defined by Kantey and Brink (1950); these are
1) the soil must be “active,” i.e., potentially expansive, and 2) the soil must exist in a desiccated
condition, i.e., the expansive layer has to be situated well above a permanent water table. Kantey
and Brink (1950) also suggested the following criteria for the recognition of expansive soils. 1)
Linear shrinkage above 8%; 2) Liquid limit over 30%; 3) Plasticity index over 12 %.
Along with all the above-mentioned criteria, soils must also be able to bind a certain
amount of water that does not drain away by the force of gravity (De Bruyn et al. 1957). Water
affinity is a necessary condition for potential expansiveness (De Bruyn 1955) and it is
determined by 1) the pore dimensions, 2) the amount of the specific surface and 3) the chemical
composition of that surface. The potential expansiveness of a soil also depends on the type and
amount of clay fraction of the soil. The shrinkage index is another important factor. Seed et al.
(1962) showed that the amount of swelling potential for any clay increases in accordance with
that of the clay fraction as:
SP = KC x [2.6]
where
SP = swelling potential
C = Flay fraction (%)
K = constant depending on the type of clay
x = constant depending on the type of clay
The values for K and x for various clay types are located in a table in Seed et al. (1962).
Seed et al. (1962) presented the classification of soils using the shrinkage index to spot expansive
soil, which might need further investigation regarding the swell characteristics under actual field
conditions. A non-expansive soil would have a shrinkage index of less than 20 and a highly
expansive soil would have a shrinkage limit between 30 and 60. Using these limits of shrinkage
index, 33 out of 38 soils agreed with the USBR classification (Seed et al. 1962).
38
De Bruyn et al. (1957) presented results and a classification of various soils using
Specific Surface Area and moisture contents. His criteria state that soils with total Specific
Surface Areas of less than 70 m2/g and equilibrium moisture contests of less than 3% may be
classified as non-expansive (good) and those with total Specific Surface Areas of more than 300
m2/g and equilibrium moisture contents of more than 10 % as expansive (bad).
Li (1963) presented similar data with non-mixed artificial clays (Figure 2.17).
60
50
40
Free Swell (%)
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Surface Area (m2/g)

Figure 2.17. Correlation Between Free Swell and Surface Area of Artificial Clays.
(after Li 1963)
Li (1963) used a free-swelling test procedure in which the soil was allowed to swell freely in the
vertical direction without any load and restraint. The surface areas in these tests were
determined by the glycerol retention method with pretreatment developed by the Bureau of
Public Roads, Washington, D.C. (Kinter et al. 1959).
Grabowska-Olszewska (1970) presented the results of Surface Area tests and swelling
potential from soil mixtures of kaolinite and bentonite from the Czech Republic (Figure 2.18).
39
50
40
30
Swelling (%)
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Figure 2.18. Correlation Between Swelling and Specific Surface Area.

(after Grabowska-Olszewska 1970)
As the surface area increases, the swelling potential increases; the more montmorillonite in the
mixture, the more internal surface and the higher both the swell potential and surface area. The
surface areas in these tests were determined using the calorimetric method. Parker et al. (1977)
found that the most practical correlations with swell potential were swell index (r2=0.92) and
with plasticity index (r2=0.79).
2.5 DISPERSIVE CLAYS
Surface area may also play a significant role in controlling the behavior of dispersive
clays through surface charge properties (e.g., Heinzen et al. 1977; Harmse et al. 1988; Sridharan
et al. 1992; Bell et al. 1994).
40
2.6 CONSOLIDATION AND INTRINSIC COMPRESSIBILITY
The oedometer test is used to determine the compressibility characteristics of soils, which
are typically described using the compression index, Cc, and the coefficient of consolidation, cv.
The compression index is used to predict how much settlement will take place and the coefficient
of consolidation is a rate parameter used to predict how long it will take for a given amount of
compression to take place (Sridharan et al. 2000). Results of consolidation tests performed on
remolded “pure” clays reported in the literature (e.g., Jimenez Salas et al. 1953; Bolt 1956; Olson
et al. 1970; Klausner et al. 1971; Kinsky et al. 1971; Sridharan et al. 1973; Sridharan et al. 1982;
Sridharan et al. 1986; Mathew et al. 1997) generally support the hypothesis that the compression
index should increase as the SSA increases. For example, Sonderman et al. (1965) noted that Cc
increased as the measured glycol retention (and therefore SSA) increased for several types of
clay minerals. The virgin compression of clays is no longer influenced by soil structure and
should be related to inherent soil properties and surface properties. This also supports
correlations reported in the literature between the intrinsic compression index C*c, and Atterberg
Limits for remolded clays (e.g., Burland 1990; Sridharan et al. 2000).
Burland (1990) introduced the concept of “Intrinsic Properties” to describe the strength
and compressibility characteristics of reconstituted clays, which may then be used as a basic
framework of reference for interpreting the corresponding characteristics of natural sedimentary
clays. The properties of reconstituted clays are termed “intrinsic” properties since they are
inherent to the soil and independent of the natural state. This means that the intrinsic properties
must be related only to the soil composition and constituents and are not influenced by soil
structure. The Intrinsic Compression Line (ICL) was obtained by Burland (1990) as the one-
dimensional consolidation slope (in e-log σ’v space) of a clay sample that has been reconstituted
from an initial water content equal to about 1.25 to 1.5 times the liquid limit. The slope of the
Intrinsic Compression Line was defined by Burland (1990) as C*c and represents a “soil
characteristic” that must be related to only the soil itself and not post-depositional changes that
have produced other influences on the compression of the natural soil, such as weathering,
unloading, desiccation, etc. This means that the degree of post-depositional alteration and
therefore natural soil behavior of the natural clay may be evaluated with respect to the intrinsic
behavior. Burland (1990) showed convincingly that the value of C*c is strongly related to the
value of eL, the void ratio at the liquid limit, which has the numerical equivalent of:
41
eL = G ∗ LL [2.7]
where:
G = Specific Gravity (Mg/m3)
LL = Liquid Limit (%)
The value of eL must be related to clay particle spacing, which in turn is related to SSA
and CEC, through double layer theory. It is of some interest to note that other researchers have
recently noted a strong, more direct correlation between intrinsic compression and Liquid Limit
(e.g., Matsui and Sakagami 1995; Hong and Onitsuka 1998). However, Burland (1990) presented
only the relationship between C*c and eL. Figure 2.19 presents the test results of intrinsic
compressibility versus the void ratio at the Liquid Limit. This figure includes data compiled
from an extensive literature search of different natural fine-grained soil deposits. Burland (1990)
compiled data from ten different researchers and one sample from his own study and these data
are presented as a regression line in Figure 2.19. All data is presented in Table 5.2.
42
1.5
2
Natural Clays from the Literature:r =0.91:(n=80)
Burland Regression:r2=0.97:(n=26)
1.0
c
*
C
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
eL
Figure 2.19. Intrinsic Compressibility versus eL.
It is suggested that a fundamental soil property, in this case, ICL, is related to a simple
soil characteristic property, i.e., eL and liquid limit. No explanation is given for this empirical
observation. It is postulated here that the ICL must be related in some way to the SSA of the
soil. As an initial check on this hypothesis, data from the literature in which both oedometer
tests on reconstituted clays and SSA are available have been reviewed. Unfortunately, there are
very limited data. Only the results presented by Low (1980), Sridharan and Jayadeva (1982) and
Meegoda and Arulunandan (1986) could be found. These data are shown in Figure 2.20, and
indicate that there is a strong correlation between SSA and C*c. This confirms that the ICL is
controlled and may be explained by double layer theory as suggested by several investigators
(e.g., Bolt 1956; Mitchell 1960; Mesri and Olson 1971).
43
8
* 2
C c = 0.009SSA-0.24:r =0.98:(n=18)
6
c
4
*
C
0
0 200 400 600 800
Total SSA (m2/g)

Figure
*
2.20. C c versus SSA Results of Natural and Artificial Clays found in the Literature.
Sridharan et al. (2000) presented the results of ten different soils of different plasticity
characteristics in correlations between intrinsic compressibility and 1) Liquid Limit, 2) Plasticity
Index and 3) Shrinkage Index, Figure 2.21.
44
0.8
2
r =0.60
Compression Index, C*c

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Liquid Limit (%)

A.
0.8
2
r =0.83
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Plasticity Index, Ip, (%)

B.
0.8
2
r =0.92
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Shrinkage Index (%)

C.
Figure 2.21. C*c versus A. Liquid Limit. B. Plasticity Index. C. Shrinkage Index.
(after Sridharan et al. 2000)
45
Although the term and concept of “Intrinsic Compressibility” was introduced by Burland
(1990), a number of investigations have related the one-dimensional compression behavior of
remolded fine-grained soils to index parameters. A number of these correlations are given in
Table 2.8.
Table 2.8. Correlation Equations of Remolded Clays from the Literature.

Equation Soil Reference
C*c = 0.007(LL-10) Miscellaneous Clays Skempton (1944)
C*c = 0.009(LL-10) Miscellaneous Clays Terzaghi & Peck (1967)
C*c = 0.5(PI)(Gs) Miscellaneous Clays Wroth & Wood (1978)
C*c = 0.2237eL Miscellaneous Clays Nagaraj & Srinivasa (1983)
C*c = 0.2343eL Miscellaneous Clays Nagaraj & Srinivasa (1986)
C*c = 0.256eL-0.04 Miscellaneous Clays Burland (1990)
C*c = 0.274eL Miscellaneous Clays Nagaraj et al. (1995)
C*c = 0.332LL-0.390 Miscellaneous Clays Hong & Onitsuka (1998)
C*c = 0.256eL-0.04 Miscellaneous Clays Hong & Tsuchida (1999)
C*c = 0.007(Is+18) Miscellaneous Clays Sridharan & Nagaraj (2000)
C*c = 0.008(LL-12) Miscellaneous Clays Sridharan & Nagaraj (2000)
C*c = 0.014(PI+3.6) Miscellaneous Clays Sridharan & Nagaraj (2000)
A search of the literature revealed a large number of test results for both natural and
artificial soils including intrinsic compressibility data and soil index parameters. These data are
tabulated in Tables 5.2 and 5.5 in Chapter 5 and will be used in comparison with data found in
this report.
Other correlations use various parameters, including liquid limit (wL), natural moisture
content (wn), initial in situ void ratio (e0), dry unit weight (γd), plasticity index (Ip), and void ratio
46
at liquid limit (eL). The availability of so many equations suggests that none completely
generalize and correlate compressibility with the index properties or other soil properties
(Sridharan et al. 2000).
2.7 INFLUENCE OF CLAY CONTENT OF ENGINEERING PROPERTIES ON
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
One of the most important variables affecting engineering properties of soil is the amount
of clay present in the soil. The following table presents reported correlations between Clay
Fraction and Atterberg Limits for a wide range of soils (Table 2.9)
Table 2.9. Correlation Equations for the Relationship of Liquid Limit and Clay Fraction.
LL=0.88CF+18.3 Iowa Loess Davidson et al. (1952)
LL=0.67CF+23.1 Illinois Loess Odell et al. (1960)
LL=1.25CF+2.75 Clays from Alberta Canada Hamilton (1966)
LL=1.79CF-15.18 CF Range % 10-69 Farrar and Coleman (1967)
LL = 1.15CF-6.75 Black Cotton (Angola) Novais-Ferreira (1967)
LL=0.85CF+2.22 CF Range % 12-87 Warkentin (1968)
LL=1.08CF-5.05 Basal McMurray Formation Clay Shales Dusseault et al. (1979)
LL=0.54CF+4.4 Basal McMurray Formation Clay Shales Dusseault et al. (1979)
LL=0.79CF+6.19 Basal McMurray Formation Clay Shales Dusseault et al. (1979)
LL=0.78CF+10 Red Clay, Wisconsin Brown et al. (1983)
LL=0.575CF+15.345 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
LL=1.7CF+13.50 Hong Kong Marine Deposits Yin (1999)
LL=2.39(CF%+3.1) Indian Marine Clays Sridharan et al. (1999)
47
Previously in this Chapter, Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 were presented, which show correlation
equations between Plastic Limit and Clay Fraction and Plasticity Index and Clay Fraction.
A study performed by Davidson et al. (1952) showed that for the fine-grained soil, loess,
there is a strong linear relationship between CF and Atterberg limits. Only in soils with similar
clay mineralogy can clay percentage be used as an accurate tool in predicting liquid limit (Odell
et al. 1960). At a given clay content, two soils may show much different liquid limits due to
their differing mineralogies with their consequent effects on Specific Surface Area (Smith et al.
1985). To illustrate this, Figure 2.22 presents four reported correlations between Liquid Limit
and Clay Fraction for four different soils.
120
Illinois Loess-Odell et al. 1960
Iowa Loess-Davidson et al. 1952
100 Black Cotton:(Angola):Novais-Ferreira 1967
Red Clay:(Wisconsin):Brown & Mengel 1983
80
Liquid Limit (%)
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clay Fraction (%)
Figure 2.22. Correlation Between Liquid Limit and Clay Fraction for Different Soils.
Mortland (1954) presented results which show a linear relationship between SSA and CF,
with a r2 = 0.98. These twenty-four soil samples were natural clays from Michigan. Banin et al.
(1970) presented results from tests performed on 42 soil samples from Israel that show a linear
correlation between SSA and CF with a r2=0.90. Each percent of clay contributes about 5.8 m2/g
48
to the Specific Surface Area of the soil. This high contribution is explained by the fact that
montmorillonite is the prevailing mineral in these soils. Rabitti et al. (1982) presented data from
96 surface sediment samples from the Northern Adriatic that provide a strong linear relationship
between clay fraction and Specific Surface Area. The equation that fitted the data in this study is
located in Table 2.10 along with other authors’ correlations. All samples contained 10 to 80
percent of a carbonate component, either calcite or dolomite.
Table 2.10. Correlation Equations for the Relationship of Surface Area and Clay Fraction.
SA=2.7CF-14.86 Michigan Soils with CF Range % 5-69 Mortland (1954)

SA=6.67CF+16.67 CF Range % 18-44 Morin and Jacobs (1964)
SA=2.17CF-36.96 CF Range % 12-87 Warkentin (1968)
SA=5.88CF-15.29 Israel soils Banin and Amiel (1970)
SA=2.08CF-8.54 British Columbia Soils Warkentin (1972)
SA=0.59CF+1.44 Northern Adriatic Clays Rabitti et. al. (1982)
A study by Lebuis and Rissmann (1979) indicated a good correlation between the amount
of phyllosilicates and clay fraction in clays from the center of the Champlain Sea Basin (r2=0.70)
(in Locat et al. 1984). The samples used in this study were all from the same region having a
uniform mineralogy, however, when soils from different sedimentary basins are compared, this
relationship deteriorates (Locat et al. 1984).
2.8 INFLUENCE OF CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY ON ENGINEERING
PROPERTIES OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
The surface charge density, σ, in units of milliequivalents of charge per cm2 of surface
may be calculated as:
CEC
σ= [2.8]
SSA
Many researchers (e.g., Farrar and Coleman 1967; De Kimpe et al. 1979; Cihacek and
Bremner 1979; Newman 1983; Tiller and Smith 1990) have found Surface Area to relate closely
49
to Cation Exchange Capacity of soils. The surface activity of a clayey soil can be described in
part by its CEC or by its Specific Surface Area (Locat et al. 1984).
Gill and Reaves (1957) presented SSA versus CEC with a correlation coefficient of r2 =
0.95, which is similar to Mortland’s (1954) and Reeve’s et al. (1954) findings. Farrar and
Coleman (1967) presented results for 19 British Clays, which show a relatively linear correlation
between CEC and SSA as well as LL and CEC. All of these equations can be found in Table
2.11.
Table 2.11. Correlation Equations for Relationships Between CEC and Surface
Area, Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index.
CEC=0.15SA-1.99 Southestern US Clay Gill and Reaves (1957)

CEC=0.28SA+2 British Clay Soils Farrar and Coleman (1967)
CEC=0.12SA+3.23 Israel soils Banin and Amiel (1970)
CEC=0.14SA+3.6 Osaka Bay Clay Tanaka (1999)
CEC=0.55LL-12.2 British Clay Soils Farrar and Coleman (1967)
CEC=1.74LL-38.15 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
CEC=3.57PL-61.3 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
The Plastic limit has also been highly correlated with CEC and Specific Surface Area
(Smith et al. 1985; Gill and Reaves 1957; Farrar and Coleman 1967; Odell et al. 1960), as seen
in Table 2.11 and 2.12.
Table 2.12. Correlation Equations for Relationships Between Plastic Limit and Surface
Area.
PL=0.43SAext.+16.95 South African/Georgia/Missouri Clays Hammel et al. (1983)

PL=0.064SA+16.60 Clays from Israel Smith et al. (1985)
50
Tanaka (1999) found that the Specific Surface Area of Osaka Bay clay, as measured by
the methylene blue method, increases as a function of both the plasticity index and the grain size.
The same is true for the Cation Exchange Capacity. The surface area and cation exchange show
a linear relationship (Tanaka 1999) (Figure 2.23). Banin et al. (1970) also shows that for soils
from Israel, there is a strong linear correlation between CEC and SSA (Figure 2.24).
50
Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 g)
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 2.23. Correlation Between CEC and SSA for Osaka Bay Clay.
(after Tanaka 1999)
51
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Figure 2.24. Correlation Between CEC and SSA for Clay Soils of Israel.
(after Banin and Amiel 1970)
A linear relationship between CEC and SSA has been proposed by Fripiat (1964), in
which the measurement of SSA was determined using the ethylene glycol method. Saint-Gelais
(1990) and Locat (1996) have shown that the methylene blue method systematically gives a SSA
value 40% higher than that obtained using the ethylene glycol method.
Curtin et al. (1976) hypothesized that Cation Exchange Capacity was highly correlated
with organic matter content and Specific Surface Area but not with clay content. Curtin et al.
(1976) performed multiple regression analyses that showed that organic matter in combination
with Specific Surface Area accounted for 97% of the variation in CEC whereas organic matter
and clay content only accounted for 58% of the variation. The better correlation between CEC
and Specific Surface Area than between CEC and clay content is attributed to the ability of
Surface Area measurements to reflect the presence of phyllosilicates in silt and sand fractions of
soils and to the fact that these minerals have less variable surface charge densities than cation
exchange capacities. Curtin et al. (1976) proposed that Specific Surface Area provided a better
estimate than clay content of the mineral component of CEC for soils of varying mineralogy.
52
Kolbuszewski et al. (1965) performed tests on Keuper Marl, a particular series of rocks
laid down in the British Isles during the late Triassic period in an environment believed to be that
of a great semi-arid plain. The minerals observed in these samples were illite and chlorite. A
cation activity chart was presented (Figure 2.25) and shows that the Keuper Marl may contain
more active silicates than its Atterberg limit values and its grain size distribution would suggest.
Keuper marl is more active than the Iowa loess, which is known to be predominantly illitic, but
slightly less active than Ca-montmorillonite. Figure 2.26 illustrates the relationship between
plasticity index and exchange capacity of Keuper Marl compared with Iowa loess. Because of
the cementation effects in some of the marls, high exchange capacity values do not necessarily
result in corresponding high plasticity indices (Kolbuszewski et al. 1965).
70
Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 grams)
.0)
60 Iowa Loess =1
(A
Keuper Marl n ite
r illo
50 o
ntm
- Mo
40 Ca
30
A= 0 .3 )
20 Illite (
10
Kaolinite (A=0.1)
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 2.25. Cation Activity Chart. (after Kolbuszewski et al. 1965)
53
70
Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 grams) Keuper Marl
60
Iowa Loess
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 2.26. Cation Exchange Capacity versus Plasticity Index.

(after Kolbuszewski et al. 1965)
Sheerer and Davidson (1952) performed tests on Wisconsin Loess in southwestern Iowa.
They show the relationship between CEC and Plasticity Index, Liquid Limit and Clay Fraction to
have a linear to curvilinear positive correlation, whereas the relationship between CEC and
Plastic Limit and Shrinkage Limit show a negative linear correlation, Figures 2.27 through 2.31.
54
70
60
Liquid Limit (%)
50
40
30
20
0 10 20 30
Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100g)
Figure 2.27. Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Liquid Limit.
(after Davidson et al. 1952)
30
25
Plastic Limit (%)
20
15
10
0 10 20 30
Figure 2.28. Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Plastic Limit.
55
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
Figure 2.29. Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Plasticity Index
30
Shrinkage Limit (%)
25
20
15
0 10 20 30
Figure 2.30. Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Shrinkage Limit.
56
50
40
Clay Fraction (%)
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
Figure 2.31. Relationship Between Cation Exchange Capacity and Clay Fraction.
2.9 INFLUENCE OF CARBONATE CONTENT ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF

FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Carbonates are a natural constituent of many soils, occurring as soluble, alkaline-earth

carbonates, chiefly as CaCO3, (Calcite) or as CaCO3·MgCO3 (dolomite). Calcium carbonate
plays an important role as a cementing agent of soils. The presence of carbonate material in fine-
grained soils affects their engineering behavior significantly. Nacci et al. (1975) and Demars et
al. (1976) observed that high carbonate soils tend to behave like granular material. They also
noted that the strength of soils increased with carbonate content as the plasticity reduces.
The vane shear strength and unconfined compressive strength of sedimentary soils are
shown to vary with depth and can be strongly dependent on the calcium carbonate content
(Fukue et al. 1999). The addition of carbonates has the effect of creating an open, stronger
sediment skeleton (Buchan et al. 1999). Burghignoli et al. (1991) reports that for Fucino
57
lacustrine clay, the amount of carbonates present is directly correlated to shear stiffness. An
increase in carbonate content means an increase in shear stiffness.
Natural cementation in cohesive soils can have a significant effect on the apparent
maximum past pressure estimated from one-dimensional consolidation tests (McKown et al.
1982). Calcium carbonate above a threshold value of about 2% by weight appear to cement
Nebraska Pierre Shale, however calcium carbonate contents in excess of the threshold value
produce little further increase in the maximum past pressure. Leaching out relatively small
amounts of CaCO3 can increase its compressibility and produce a lower measured apparent
maximum past pressure. In areas where there is constant dewatering and the soil is known to be
rich in carbonates, it is of interest to note whether the leaching of the carbonates from the soil
will decrease the soil strength. Salih (1989) and Trenter (1989) have shown evidence from many
case histories that show that leaching of the carbonates results in settlements of structures. Al-
Sanad et al. (1989) presents cone-penetration resistance curves showing the decrease in
resistance as a result of leaching. In a two-week period of leaching there was a 50 % loss in the
penetration resistance.
Numerous authors have published results of tests using soils from various geologic
origins that show that as the carbonate content increases, the undrained shear strength increases.
The in situ undrained shear strength of soils is known to be influenced by cementation (Kenney
et al. 1967). In some deep-ocean sediments, carbonate cementation controls the strength of that
soil. Kelley et al. (1974) showed results from deep-sea cores in the Labrador Basin, which
shows that as carbonate content increases, undrained strength and the Liquidity Index increases.
Russell et al. (1979) provided data from tests performed on Oxford Clays, which show that with
increasing carbonates (range 5 to 30%), the undrained shear strength increases (range 30-150
kPa).
Analysis of soil samples from Bath, England in the Fuller's Earth Clay show that the
calcareous component of the soil is shown to have a major influence on the ultimate residual
shear angle with a threshold of 28% calcite content dividing the soils that behave solely in the
sliding mode of shear from the remaining soils that shear predominantly in the transitional mode
(Hawkins et al. 1992). The Fuller's Earth Formation is an over consolidated, jointed, and
randomly fissured calcareous mudstone. Comparing the particle size distribution data with the
calcite content reveals two trends, one for the fraction finer than the clay content and the other
58
for particles classified as silt and coarser. In this geologic deposit the calcite content correlates
well with both particle size fractions but the trends are opposite: negative for the finer than clay
fraction but positive for the silt and coarser fractions, demonstrating that calcite is indeed present
in the coarser fractions.
In light of the literature which finds that as carbonate content increases, strength
increases, Datta et al. (1982) found that in fine-grained calcareous soils found at two sites off the
west coast of India, the carbonate material does not cause any cementation and as a consequence
one does not observe any significant increase in the strength values with increase in carbonate
content. Datta et al. (1982) found that the influence of presence of carbonate material on the
engineering behavior of any soil is dependent on the form of existence of carbonates in the soil
and carbonate content alone cannot be used as an index property for studying its influence on
engineering properties.
Along with soil strength correlations, there are also documented correlations between
carbonate content and other geotechnical properties such as the Atterberg limits (Hawkins et al.
1986; 1988; 1992). The British soils in this paper were shown to have a negative correlation
between the plasticity index and calcite content, the higher plasticity equating with the lower
calcite content (Figure 2.32).
59
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Calcite (%)
Figure 2.32. Relationship of Calcite Content with Plasticity Index.

(after Hawkins et al. 1986)
Tonnisen et al. (1985) presents results of soil from Saudi Arabia that show a negative linear trend
of clay fraction and the carbonates with plasticity index. As the carbonate content increases, the
plasticity decreases and as the clay content increases, the plasticity increases. Therefore, the
more carbonate content, the lower the clay content. This data indicates that silt sizes and larger
consist mainly of carbonate. Results from tests using Gault Clays show a decreasing curvilinear
trend between liquid limit and calcite content (Samuels 1975). The soils tests had a calcite
content range from 17 to 46% and as the calcite content increased the liquid limit decreased from
86% to 64%. Beringen et al. (1982) found similar results with offshore calcareous soils ranging
from 15 to 95% carbonate content. As the carbonate content increased, the liquid limit and
plasticity index decreased curvilinearly.
60
CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH SITES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The research described in this report was conducted on fine-grained soil samples from
around the world. These samples were collected by different individuals and organizations using
a variety of sampling techniques including, Shelby tubes, split spoon samplers, hand augers and
hand cut block samples. Most samples were sent with enough soil to perform all necessary tests,
however, when there was an insufficient amount of soil, test results from the donating individual
or organization were used. The soil samples from the United States were classified into four
geologic depositional groups: alluvial, lacustrine, loess and marine. All of the fine-grained soils
used in the research from Europe and Asia were classified as marine Clays.
This chapter presents background information on the sample sites including location and
geology.
3.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Soil samples were collected from fifty-six (56) sites around the world. These samples
were divided according to their geological depositional type. All sites tested in this study are
grouped by geology in Table 3.1. Alluvial deposits were from Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska.
Each of these sites had samples taken at varying depths from one specific borehole. Lacustrine
deposits were from New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Hampshire and Utah. Samples from
Massachusetts were classified as a Connecticut Valley Varved Clay (CVVC), with alternating
layers of silt and clay from the seasons of Glacial Lake Hitchcock. Samples from New York
were from two deep boreholes in the old Port of Albany along the Hudson River in an old lake
bed and the samples from Utah were from two boreholes near the Great Salt Lake. Samples
taken near Chicago were from Lake Michigan deposits. Like the alluvial samples, the lacustrine
samples were taken at varying depths from one or more boreholes.
Loess samples were obtained from Idaho and Washington, representing Northwest U.S.
loess deposits and Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Iowa representing mid-continent loess
deposits. The Idaho and Washington samples were dug with a shovel from along the Snake
61
River and sent to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The samples from the eastern
border of Nebraska and the western border of Iowa were taken along the banks of the Missouri
River and the samples from eastern Iowa and eastern Missouri were taken along the Mississippi
River. Only one sample from each site was obtained.
The Marine samples consisted of Boston Blue Clay, from Massachusetts, sensitive clays
from upstate New York and Canada, clays from England, Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Thailand,
Japan, Delaware and the Gulf of Mexico. The clays from the United States, England, Ireland and
Norway were taken from one borehole at varying depths. The samples from Scotland, Thailand,
Japan, Delaware and the Gulf of Mexico were samples from varying locations and depths within
the site. All samples in the above four geologic units were provided to the University of
Massachusetts, usually shipped in the original Shelby Tubes, however samples were sometimes
obtained in bulk samples sent in plastic bags. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 present the locations of the
sites and the geology.
All test results from these locations are presented in tables in Appendix D.
62
Table 3.1. Site Location and Geology.
AlluvialDeposits Lacustrine Deposits Loess Deposits Marine Deposits
Houston, TX Port of Albany, NY Genesse, ID Madingly, England
Dallas, TX Salt Lake City, UT Dusty Middle, ID Canon's Park, England
North Base, OK NGES, UMASS, MA Lind, ID Japan
Storz, NE Chicago, IL Walla Walla, WA Bangkok, Thailand
Allenstown, NH Palouse, WA Bothkennar, Scotland
Colfax, WA Athlone, Ireland
Rt. 63 Moberly Gley, MO Kennegar, Ireland
Rt. 87 Glasgow, MO Lierstranda, Norway
Easley, MO Daneksviksgate, Norway
Rt. 159 Mound City, MO Gloucester, Ontario
Wyeth Park, MO Newburyport, Massachusetts
James Street, MO Boston, Massachusetts
Gladstone, MO Delaware
Berry Road, MO OGB, New York
Highland Avenue, MO IDA, New York
Palmyra-MO NRL, Gulf of Mexico
Hollenberg Road-MO
Bowling Green South-MO
Bowling Green North-MO
South Service Road-MO
O'Fallon-MO
Beecher Island-P, CO
Beecher Island-B, CO
Bignell Hill-P, NE
Bignell Hill-B, NE
Omaha, NE
Westside, NE
Menards-IA
Keokuk South-IA
Old Eagles-IA
Muscatine North-IA
New London West-IA
County Line-IA
63
Lacustrine Deposits
Alluvial Deposits
Loess Deposits
Marine Deposits
Figure 3.1. Soil Sample Locations in the United States.
64
Marine Deposits
Figure 3.2. Soil Sample Locations in the Eastern Hemisphere.
65
CHAPTER 4
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the methods of investigation used to determine soil characteristics
of various soil samples. The laboratory testing program consisted of general classification tests,
dispersion tests and one-dimensional oedometer tests. The classification tests included: specific
surface area, carbonate content, Atterberg Limits (Liquid, Plastic and Shrinkage), grain-size
distribution, specific gravity and cation exchange capacity. All laboratory tests were performed
at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory unless
otherwise noted. Except as noted, samples were air-dried, crushed with a rubber tipped pestle
and mortar, passed through the #40 sieve and oven dried for twenty-four (24) hours prior to
performing the tests. The samples used in the remolded oedometer tests were prepared from
samples at a natural water content.
4.2 LABORATORY CHARACTERIZATION TESTS
4.2.1 Grain-Size Distribution

The grain-size distribution was determined using the hydrometer analysis performed in
general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 422-63
Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM 1998).
The hydrometer test was conducted in a 1000-mL sedimentation cylinder with
approximately 50 grams of soil. The known mass of the oven-dried soil was mixed in a 40g/liter
solution of sodium hexametaphosphate and distilled water and allowed to soak overnight. The
solution was agitated for one minute in an electric mixer and then transferred to the 1000-mL
sedimentation cylinder and filled with distilled water to the 1000-mL line. The solution was
mixed for one minute by hand by placing a rubber stopper at the top of the cylinder and turning it
upside down and back. Immediately after setting the cylinder down, the stopwatch was started.
Hydrometer readings were taken at various elapsed times. Between readings, the hydrometer
was removed from the soil suspension, rinsed and placed in the reference solution. The
66
temperature and control fluid reading at each time interval was recorded. After the hydrometer
readings were complete, the soil suspension was passed through a #200 sieve. The soil retained
on the #200 sieve was saved and oven dried to determine the percentage of sand.
4.2.2 Atterberg Liquid and Plastic Limits

The Atterberg Limits Determination was performed in general accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 4318-95a Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit,
Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (ASTM 1998).
Approximately 150 grams of soil are needed to complete the Atterberg Limits test.
Distilled water was added to the soil samples to bring the water content to a point where the blow
count equaled 15 or less. The soil sample was covered and placed in the humid room to temper
overnight.
Once the soil tempered, it was allowed to dry slowly on a glass plate. The sample was
split into two areas. Approximately 20 grams was set aside for the Plastic Limit Determination
and the rest was used for determining the Liquid Limit. Four separate water content
determinations between 15 and 35 blows using the Casagrande cup were required to accurately
determine the Liquid Limit of the particular soil sample. Once these data were plotted, the
Liquid Limit was determined by locating the water content at 25 blows.
For Plastic Limit determination, 1/3 of the 20 grams was taken and rolled into a 3.17 mm
(1/8”) strand on the glass plate. This step was repeated until the soil crumbled when the soil
reached 3.17-mm diameter. A water content determination was then performed. Two more
strands were rolled and the water content determinations were conducted. The average of the
three water contents was taken as the Plastic Limit.
4.2.3 Shrinkage Limit

The Shrinkage Limits determination was performed in general accordance with American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 427-93 Standard Test Method for Shrinkage
Factors of Soils by the Mercury Method (ASTM 1998).
Approximately 60 grams of soil was needed to complete this test. Two samples of 30
grams each were used to determine the average value of the shrinkage limit. Distilled water was
added to dry soil samples which passed the #40 sieve until a consistency somewhat above the
Liquid Limit was reached. An aluminum shrinkage dish was coated with petroleum jelly to
67
prevent the soil from sticking to the dish and forming cracks when drying. The dish was filled in
three layers by placing approximately one-third of the amount of wet soil to fill the dish and
tapping the dish on a firm base until no apparent air bubbles remained. This step was repeated
with the second and third layers and the soil was smoothed across the top of the dish with a
spatula. The mass of the soil and dish was recorded.
The dish and soil were air dried for a few hours until the soil turned a lighter color and
then oven dry the soil at 110° C to constant mass. The dried dish was removed from the oven
and weighed.
The volume of the shrinkage dish was found by filling the dish to slightly overflowing
with mercury and pressing the glass plate down on the mercury surface to remove the excess.
The mass of the dish and the mercury was obtained and the volume of the “wet soil” pat was
computed by divided the mass of the mercury by the unit weight of mercury, which is 13.55
g/cm3. The volume of the “dry soil” pat was found by filling a glass cup with mercury, using the
glass plate with three prongs to remove any excess. The glass cup was placed in an evaporating
dish of known mass and the dried soil from the shrinkage dish was removed and placed on the
mercury surface (it floats). Using the glass plate with the three prongs, the soil pat was
immersed in the mercury until the glass plate rested firmly on the glass cup with no air trapped
between the mercury and the plate. The dispersed mercury was measured and the volume of the
dry pat was recorded. The shrinkage limit was determined by the following equation:
 (V − V0 ) 
SL = w −  ρ w  × 100 } [4.1]
 M 0 
where:
w = Initial water content of the soil as a percentage of the dry mass (%)
 (M − M 0 ) 
w=  × 100 [4.2]
 M0 
where:
68
M = initial wet soil mass (g)
M0 = dry soil mass (g)
ρw = approximate density of water equal to 1.0 g/cm3
V = volume of the wet soil pat (cm3)
V0 = volume of the dry soil pat (cm3)
4.2.4 Carbonate Content

The carbonate content determination test was determined using the Chittick Apparatus
and the procedure presented by Dreimanis (1962). The Chittick Apparatus measures the amount
of carbonates in the soil by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide that evolves from
carbonates reacting with dilute hydrochloric acid. All soil samples were sieved through the
number 40 sieve and placed in the oven overnight. 1.70 grams of oven-dried soil were placed in
a 250-ml Erlenmeyer flask along with a plastic coated stirring magnet and fit onto the apparatus
(Figure 4.1). The pipette was filled with 20-mL of a 6 N hydrochloric acid solution, which is
made by mixing 109.4 mL of hydrochloric acid in 1000 mL of distilled water. The reservoir was
raised until the level in the annulus and the reservoir was even at the top. Once this beginning
value was noted, the reservoir was lowered to keep a slight vacuum in the system. The clock
was started and the acid pipette valve was opened so that 20 mL of acid flowed into the
erlenmeyer flask over a period of approximately 45 seconds. When one minute was reached, the
reservoir was brought up even with the level of the annulus and a reading was taken, R1. The
temperature in the beaker and the barometric pressure were recorded. When twenty minutes was
reached, the reservoir was again brought up and leveled with the annulus and a second reading,
R2, was recorded.
69
Figure 4.1. Schematic of the Chittick Apparatus. (from Jordan 1995).
70
The temperature and barometric pressure were recorded again. Using these
measurements and a table of correction factors, the calcite and dolomite contents were
determined using the calculation procedure described by Dremanis (1962). The test is able to
distinguish between calcite, which is digested in about 30 seconds, and dolomite, which takes
about 20 minutes to digest. The total carbonate content was taken as the sum of the calcite and
dolomite contents.
If the carbonate content of a soil is high, it may be necessary to reduce the amount of soil
placed in the flask. Initially, reduce the amount of soil by 50%. If the carbon dioxide gas still
displaces all of the annulus fluid, the amount of soil is reduced to 25 % of the original soil mass.
This allows the test enough room in the annulus to accommodate the carbon dioxide from the
hydrochloric acid reacting with the carbonate. Once the measurements are taken, the amounts of
gas evolved must be multiplied by the fraction of the measured amount and 1.7 grams. This
calculation will ensure that the proper carbonate content is recorded for the particular specimen.
4.2.5 Specific Gravity

The Specific Gravity of selected samples was measured in general accordance with
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 854-92 Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity of Soils (ASTM 1998). The mass of a clean dry pycnometer was obtained. The
pycnometer was filled with distilled water, weighed, and the temperature was measured. The
distilled water was then poured out until the flask was half-full and oven-dried soil of a known
mass was carefully placed in the pycnometer. The contents were boiled on a hot plate for 10
minutes to rid the water and soil of any trapped air. After the flask returned to room temperature,
distilled water was carefully added making sure that no air was reintroduced to the contents. The
temperature was taken and the flask was weighed. Specific Gravity tests were performed to
determine the void ratio of the soils that were tested as remolded oedometer specimens.
4.2.6 Cation Exchange Capacity

The cation exchange capacity was determined by Harris Laboratory, Inc., Lincoln,
Nebraska using a 1 N ammonium acetate extraction method (Rhoades 1982).
71
4.3 SURFACE AREA
Two general approaches have been used to determine specific surface area of clays; (1)
the measurement of total surface area by the adsorption of polar liquids as a means of describing
the behavior of expanding clay minerals, whose inner surfaces are inaccessible to nitrogen; and
(2) the measurement of external surface areas by the adsorption of simple molecules, such as
nitrogen at low temperatures, with surface areas being derived from adsorption isotherm data and
the application of BET theory (Brunauer et al. 1938). The measurement of total surface area was
conducted using the polar liquid Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (EGME) Method and the
measurement of external surface area was performed using the BET method.
4.3.1 Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (EGME) Method

The test procedure described follows the general methodology presented by the Soil
Science Society of America Methods of Soil Analysis, Physical and Mineralogical Methods,
Standard Test Method for Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether Method (EGME) for Determination
of Specific Surface Area given by Carter et al. (1986). Since the present applications of SSA
being considered are related to the field of soil mechanics, rather than agronomy, a number of
variations in this test procedure were evaluated in order to determine the reliability of the
measurements.
4.3.1.1 Apparatus
Specific Surface Area tests were conducted in four vacuum dessicators: two having a 210
mm inside diameter and two with a 250 mm inside diameter measurement. Four aluminum tares
were used in the smaller dessicators and six aluminum tares were used in the two larger
dessicators. Aluminum tares were used since the mass remains constant during the evacuation
and handling while weighing. A shallow tare was used since it is essential that the soil be spread
thinly in the bottom of the tare to ensure that there is complete coverage of the EGME over all
soil particles. Aluminum tares with dimensions of 76 mm in diameter by 25 mm in height were
used. This size tare allowed the soil to be spread adequately over the bottom and efficiently fit
into the dessicators.
A Calcium Chloride and EGME dessicant was mixed and placed in a glass dish at the
bottom of the dessicator. Approximately 110 grams of 40-Mesh Anhydrous Calcium Chloride is
placed in an oven for one hour. The Calcium Chloride was then taken out of the oven and 100
72
grams is poured into a beaker. 20 mL of EGME was added to the beaker and mixed thoroughly.
The dessicant was then spread evenly into a glass dish and placed in the bottom of the dessicator.
The dessicant should always be stored in a sealed dessicator when not in use.
Plexiglass lids were placed on top of each aluminum tare to prevent the soil from being
pulled out of the tare during the evacuation process. Lids were fabricated from 1 mm thick
plexiglass and a 2 mm gap was created between the tare and the plexiglass lid using a thin piece
of plexiglass. A vacuum pump was attached to the top of the dessicator. Figure 3.2 shows a
schematic of the test equipment and Figure 3.3 shows the actual equipment in use.
Vacuum Pump
635 mm Hg
Glass Desiccator
Aluminum Tares with Plexiglas Lids
Calcium Chloride and EGME Desiccant
Figure 4.2. Schematic of EGME Method Test Equipment.
73
Figure 4.3. Laboratory Testing Set-up at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
4.3.1.2 Test procedure

The procedure used to determine SSA was conducted on oven-dried soil. All soil
samples were first air-dried and pulverized using a rubber tipped pestle to pass a #40 sieve. A
small amount of this sample was then placed in the oven overnight to remove water. After oven
drying, approximately one gram of soil was spread into the bottom of the aluminum tare. The
mass of the soil was determined using an electronic analytical balance with 0.001 gm accuracy.
Approximately 3 mL of laboratory grade EGME was added to the soil with a pipette and gently
mixed by hand with a swirling motion to create a slurry. The tare was then placed inside of a
standard laboratory glass sealed vacuum dessicator and was allowed to equilibrate for twenty
minutes. The dessicators were evacuated using a vacuum pump providing a vacuum of 762 mm
Hg (30 in). A perfect vacuum never occurred and therefore 635 mm Hg was adequate in
evacuating the sample within 24 hours.
Initially, the tares were removed from the dessicators and weighed every 6 to 8 hours
using an analytical balance. However, it was soon discovered that the samples equilibrated after
a period of between 18 and 24 hours, and therefore one measurement was taken 12 to 16 hours
after the initial evacuation and again after a period of 24 hours. This method was considered
sufficiently accurate since the mass did not vary more than 0.001 grams.
74
If the mass of the sample varied by more than 0.001 grams, it was placed back in the
dessicator and evacuated again for an additional 2 hours. This process was continued until the
sample mass did not vary by more than 0.001 grams. Weighing the samples twice instead of
every 6 hours reduced the amount of molecular displacement that could occur between H2O
molecules in the atmosphere and EGME. A routine procedure of weighing the samples between
12 and 16 hours and again at a final time of 24 hours was adopted and found adequate for
samples with the highest SSA.
4.3.2 BET Method

The BET Method of determining surface area is based on the work by Brunauer et al.
(1938). The adsorption of nitrogen and the application to the isotherms of the BET equation is
widely recognized method for calculating the “external” surface area of soil particles. Weakly
adsorbed nitrogen does not penetrate the interlayer surfaces so that the measurement obtained is
only for external surfaces, whereas polar molecules such as ethylene glycol monoethyl ether are
strongly adsorbed and penetrate into the interlayer surfaces producing total surface area
measurements. Although “total area” of soils containing swelling clay minerals cannot be
determined, the method remains a useful means of comparing two different soils.
The BET method works by measuring the quantity of adsorbate gas adsorbed on a solid surface
by sensing the change in thermal conductivity of a flowing mixture of adsorbate and an inert
carrier gas. Usually the adsorbate is nitrogen and the inert carrier gas is helium (Figure 3.4).
The Quantachrome Corporation’s MONOSORB, a direct-reading dynamic flow surface area
analyzer, was used for these tests.
A small soil sample was placed in a sample tube and inserted into the cell holder. A Dewar
Flask was filled with liquid nitrogen and raised until the liquid nitrogen was 0.5 inches from the
top of the cell. The flow of gas began and nitrogen was adsorbed. The liquid nitrogen was
removed and the desorption of the gas from the soil began. When desorption was completed, the
integrator displayed a number which was the sample surface area in square meters. Dividing by
the sample mass gave the external specific surface area of the sample.
75
Figure 4.4. Quantachrome MONOSORB® Apparatus for performing BET Analysis.
4.4 INTRINSIC COMPRESSION

One-dimensional consolidation tests were performed in general accordance with
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 2435 Standard Test Method for One-
Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils (ASTM 1998). Tests were conducted at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst Geotechnical Engineering Laboratories using rear-loading
Wykeham Farrance oedometers equipped with linear variable differential transformers (LVDT)
connected to a data acquisition system. The Intrinsic Compressibility of selected samples was
determined from the slope of the compression curve between the stresses of 100 and 1000 kPa,
which is the compression index, C*c.
The soil samples were prepared in a remolded state by mixing each specimen with
distilled water until the blow counts in the Casagrande Atterberg Limits cup equaled 8 to 10.
The natural soils were at the natural water content before remolding and the artificial clays were
oven-dried. The samples were allowed to temper overnight in the humid room. Three water
contents were taken from the sample in order to ensure repeatability. The oedometer ring, with a
diameter of 6.35 cm and height of 1.91 cm, and bottom stone were weighed. The specimen was
76
spread into the fixed ring, making sure that no air pockets were left in the specimen. After the
specimen was placed in the oedometer ring, it was weighed to determine the total density and
then placed in the consolidation cell. The consolidation cell was assembled and placed in the
Wykeham Farrance oedometer. A seating load of 20 grams (2.2 kPa) was applied to the
specimen in order to assure proper cell alignment and the computer controlled data acquisition
program was started. A load increment ratio (LIR) of 0.5 was followed throughout the test until
a target stress (σ’) of 1140 kPa was reached. Each load was left on for approximately twenty-
four (24) hours. At the end of each test, the sample was removed from the ring and dried in the
oven overnight to obtain a final water content and void ratio.
4.5 DISPERSION
Dispersion was determined using the Double Hydrometer Test performed in general
accordance with American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM) D 4221-90 Standard Test
Method for Dispersive Characteristics of Clay Soil by Double Hydrometer (ASTM 1998). This
test method, when used in conjunction with a standard hydrometer test performed by Method D
422-63 on a duplicate soil sample, provides an indication of the natural dispersive characteristics
of clay soils.
This test method is similar to Method D 422-63, except that this method covers the
determination of percent of soil particles smaller than 5-µm in diameter in a soil-water
suspension without mechanical agitation and to which no dispersing agent has been added.
Dispersion is defined as:
% finer than 5µm ( Method D − 4221)

% Dispersion = X 100% [4.3]
% finer than 5µm ( Method D − 422)
77
CHAPTER 5
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results obtained from a laboratory-testing program of natural
and artificial clays. Thirty-three (33) natural clays and eighteen (18) artificial clays were tested
to determine intrinsic compressibility characteristics as well as total, internal and external surface
area, carbonate content, clay fraction, cation exchange capacity, specific gravity and Atterberg
Limits. All tests were performed according to the procedures described in Chapter 4. In
addition, some index properties were calculated such as the shrinkage index (LL-SL), the void
ratio corresponding to the liquid limit (LL*Gs=eL), void ratio corresponding to the plastic limit
(PL*Gs=eP) and the void ratio corresponding to the shrinkage limit (SL*Gs=eS). Charge
(CEC/SSA), Activity (PI/CF), Cation Exchange Capacity Activity (CEC/CF), Surface Area
Activity (SSA/CF) and Relative Activity (PI/SSA) were calculated and used to determine if the
combination of these geotechnical properties could be used to help explain behavior. The natural
clays used in this study encompass marine, alluvial, lacustrine and loess deposits from around the
world, and the artificial clays range from kaolinite to illite to montmorillonite and were obtained
from repositories in the United States. Correlations between the various geotechnical properties
are examined and related to results found in the literature.
In addition to the intrinsic compressibility data, natural fine-grained soil deposits were
tested for their dispersiveness, activity and relative activity properties. These included marine,
alluvial, lacustrine and loess deposits from around the world. Each site contains numerous soil
samples from various depths. Each soil sample was tested to determine clay fraction, dispersion,
total surface area, cation exchange capacity and carbonate content. Charge, (CEC/SSA), Cation
Exchange Capacity Activity (CEC/CF) and Surface Area Activity (SSA/CF) were studied to
determine if these combined properties showed any trends with other geotechnical properties.
Representative plots are presented for clarity, however, all test results are tabulated in Appendix
A.
78
The significance of the test results and their correlations presented in this chapter are
discussed in Chapter 6.
5.2 INTRINSIC COMPRESSIBILITY PROPERTIES
5.2.1 Natural Clays
5.2.1.1 Composition
The thirty-three (33) natural clays chosen for this study had a wide range of soil property
values. The calcite content ranged from 0.4 %, in sensitive clay from Canada to 45.0 %, in
marine clay from Ireland. The dolomite content ranged from 1.1%, in a number of clays to
20.5%, in marine clay from Ireland and the total carbonate content ranged from 2.0 to 62.8 %.
The soil in the data set also had a wide range of clay fractions, ranging from 10.2% in
marine clay from Ireland, to 71.1 % in an alluvial deposit in Houston. This wide range of clay
fractions encompass almost the complete range of clay fractions found naturally, however, few
trends within the data set have been determined. The clay fraction was used in the four activity
correlations, Activity, Surface Area Activity, Cation Exchange Capacity Activity and Relative
Activity. These categories allowed three properties to be related instead of two.
The total surface area ranged from 11 to 255 m2/g, which generally correlated with the
liquid limit of the soil. The measured external surface area ranged from 9 to 80 m2/g and was
determined using the N2 adsorption technique. One would expect a direct correlation to total
surface area, however, that was not the case. Generally, the external surface area measurements
followed the total surface area, but in some cases where there was a high total surface area, there
was an extremely low external surface area measurement, which would indicate that the soil
structure of that particle was more open-lattice shaped. By subtraction, the internal surface area
was determined and ranged from 2 to 175 m2/g. The CEC ranged from 5.9 to 71.1 meq/100 g.
5.2.1.2 Classification
A summary of the laboratory test results for the natural clay samples are presented in
Table 5.1. These soils are arranged in order of increasing total surface area. Total Surface area
ranges from 11 to 255 m2/g with a range of Liquid Limits of 24 to 155 %. Figure 5.1 presents
the Casagrande Plasticity Chart for these natural clays.
79
This plasticity chart shows that all but four samples fall within the A-Line/U-Line space,
divided almost equally between low to medium plastic inorganic clays, CL, and high plastic
inorganic clays, CH. Only one of the four outside of this A-Line/U-Line space is significantly
below the A-Line (sample #8).
160
140
120
ne
-Li
U
100
Plasticity Index
ne
-Li
80 A
CH
60
CL
40
OH or MH
20
ML or OL
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Liquid Limit
Figure 5.1. Plasticity Chart for Natural Clays.
The Activity Chart is presented as Figure 5.2 and shows an activity range of 0.25 to 4.0.
The clay fraction (< 2µm) for the natural clays ranged from 10.2 to 71.1 %. Most of the samples
fall below A = 1.0. Sample #18 falls on the A = 4.0 line.
80
80
60
4.0
2.0
A=
1.0
A=
A=
40
20
.50
A=0
A=0.25
0
0 20 40 60 80
Clay Fraction (%)
Figure 5.2. Activity Chart for Natural Clays.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Activity was defined by Skempton (1953) as the slope of the < 2mm
% Clay versus Plasticity Index plot.
PI
A= [5.2]
CF
where:
A = Activity
PI = Plasticity Index (%)
CF = Clay Fraction (% finer relating to having a particle size finer than 2µm)
Figure 5.3 presents the Cation Exchange Capacity Activity chart, which shows a range of
CECA of 0.12 to 4.0.
81
140
120
.0
=4
2.0
CA
100 =
CA
CE
CE
80
A=1.0
CE C
60
40
=0.50
CECA
20
0
0 20 40 60 80
Clay Fraction (%)
Figure 5.3. Cation Exchange Capacity Activity Chart of Natural Clays.
Cation Exchange Capacity Activity is defined as:
CEC
CECA = [5.3]
CF
where:
CECA = Cation Exchange Capacity Activity (meq/%*100 gms)
CEC = Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 gms)
82
It can be seen from Figure 5.3 that most of the samples have CECA less than 1.0. For a
constant mineralogy, it would be expected that as CF increases, CEC would also increase and
therefore CECA would be a constant (Davidson and Sheerer 1952).
Surface Area Activity is defined as:
SSA
SAA = [5.4]
CF
where:
SAA = Surface Area Activity (m2/%g)
The Surface Area Activity chart is presented in Figure 5.4 and shows a SAA range of 0.5
to 8.0.
83
300
250
4.0
8.0
=
A=
A
200 SA
SA
Total SSA (m /g)
2
150
A=2.0
100 S A
.0
SAA=1
50
SAA=0.50
0
0 20 40 60 80
Clay Fraction (%)
Figure 5.4. Surface Area Activity Chart of Natural Clays.
The data shown in Figure 5.4 indicate that there are four groupings of surface area activity. One
grouping shows a SAA of 8.0, which would indicate that these soils are Montmorillonitic, the
other group shows a SAA of approximately 3.0, and another group shows SAA’s of 1.0 and 0.5,
which would indicate the soils have mineralogy similar to that of Kaolinite.
5.2.1.3 Intrinsic Compressibility Correlations

The intrinsic compressibility testing program was designed with the primary objective of
determining the intrinsic compressibility parameters C*c and e*100, the slope of the compression
curve and the void ratio at a stress of 100 kPa, respectively. These two values were used in
correlations with other properties as well as in comparison with values found in the literature.
C*c and e*100 were determined by reducing data from one-dimensional consolidation tests as
described in Chapter 4. These values are given in Table 5.1, and in the following figures relating
to various geotechnical properties. Data compiled from the Literature are presented in Table 5.2.
84
Table 5.1. Summary of Results for Natural Clays.
Total SSA External SSA Internal SSA Carbonate CEC (meq/100

# Soil Description 2 2 2
Calcite (%) Dolomite (%) CF (%)
(m /g) (m /g) (m /g) Content (%) g)
1 POA, M-1, 31u 11 9 2 6.6 11.3 17.9 22.2 15.5

2 Athlone 14.3 m 13 - - 45.0 17.8 62.8 - 17.4
3 B104A, 10.9 m 25 11 14 11.8 7.8 19.6 19.9 18.5
4 POA, M-1, 15u 29 15 14 9.1 18.0 27.1 56.2 18.5
5 Newburyport, 7.3 m 31 23 8 1.4 1.1 2.5 37.0 6.7
6 Gloucester, 4.3 m 36 27 9 0.4 2.2 2.6 69.0 15
7 BBC, 45.4 m 44 25 19 2.1 1.5 3.6 53.0 9.6
8 Athlone 5.0 m 50 - - 9.7 20.5 30.2 - 19.4
9 CVVC, 5.3 m 52 28 24 2.1 1.3 3.4 48.2 5.9
10 CVVC, 9.1 m 53 33 20 2.6 1.1 3.7 56.9 7.4
11 BBC, 12.5 m 53 20 33 0.9 8.4 9.3 42.2 9.2
12 BBC, 39.3 m 54 20 34 1.7 1.4 3.1 49.8 8.9
13 CVVC, 6.9 m 65 22 43 2.3 1.4 3.7 50.0 13.4
14 BBC, 19.2 m 70 28 42 1.0 15.1 16.1 57.9 9.0
15 Scotland, 6.6 m 71 15 56 2.3 12.6 14.9 - 42.1
16 Houston, NGES, 10.9 m 75 18 57 1.0 1.4 2.4 21.3 13.9
86
Table 5.1. (Continued)
Total SSA External SSA Internal SSA Carbonate CEC (meq/100

Calcite (%) Dolomite (%) CF (%)
(m /g) (m /g) (m /g) Content (%) g)
17 Delaware, 19.2m 78 21 57 2.0 14.8 16.8 31.0 17.9

18 Kennegar 6.5 m 83 - - 7.3 17.6 24.9 10.2 43.3
19 Crescent, Iowa, 4.3 m 95 17 78 3.7 6.4 10.1 12.2 25.8
20 B104A, 20.1 m 101 30 71 10.3 5.2 15.5 25.1 28.4
21 Crescent, Iowa, 7.6 m 103 21 82 3.2 4.6 7.8 12.9 26.9
22 Bangkok 8.5 m 117 - - 2.4 4.4 6.8 - 30.5
23 Westside, Nebraska, 11.5 m 120 41 79 1.2 1.3 2.5 12.4 22.2
24 Westside, Nebraska, 4.5 m 122 31 91 1.1 4.2 5.3 16.4 18.3
25 Dallas, 1.5 m 137 51 86 12.8 1.9 14.7 59.7 120.9
26 Paleosol 149 41 108 1.9 1.2 3.1 44.5 28.1
27 Madingly, 2m 153 38 115 26.8 2.9 29.7 58.3 27.5
28 North Base 1.1 m 160 - - 1.3 2.4 3.7 38.0 31.6
29 Canon's Park, 6m 169 47 122 0.9 1.1 2.0 60.4 42.6
30 Japan 2 171 44 127 3.0 9.4 12.4 - 21.1
31 Bangkok 4.5 m 186 - - 1.1 7.1 8.2 - 38.9
32 Dallas, 7.5 m 186 27 159 1.9 1.0 2.9 57.1 116.2
33 Japan 1 205 44 161 4.2 15.5 19.7 - 24.4
34 Houston, NGES, 6.1 m 255 80 175 18.1 2.6 20.7 71.1 44.9
87
CEC SSA Relative
Activity Charge
# Soil Description G LL PL PI SL Is C*c eL eP eP/eL eS e100 e100/eL Activity Activity Activity
PI/CF CEC/SSA
CEC/CF SSA/CF PI/SSA
1 POA, M-1, 31u 2.74 24 19 5 20 4 0.09 0.66 0.52 0.79 0.55 0.55 0.84 0.70 0.50 0.23 0.45 1.41
2 Athlone 14.3 m 2.83 27 13 14 - - 0.11 0.76 0.37 0.48 - 0.70 0.92 - - - 1.08 1.34
3 B104A, 10.9 m 2.71 25 17 8 22 3 0.10 0.68 0.46 0.68 0.60 0.62 0.92 0.93 1.26 0.40 0.32 0.74
4 POA, M-1, 15u 2.79 42 22 20 18 24 0.28 1.17 0.61 0.52 0.50 0.90 0.77 0.33 0.52 0.36 0.69 0.64
5 Newburyport, 7.3 m 2.74 37 24 13 25 12 0.22 1.01 0.66 0.65 0.69 0.84 0.83 0.18 0.84 0.35 0.42 0.22
6 Gloucester, 4.3 m 2.83 48 27 21 21 27 0.31 1.36 0.76 0.56 0.59 1.09 0.80 0.22 0.52 0.30 0.58 0.42
7 BBC, 45.4 m 2.73 39 20 19 20 19 0.16 1.06 0.55 0.51 0.55 0.45 0.42 0.18 0.83 0.36 0.43 0.22
8 Athlone 5.0 m 2.90 75 38 32 - - 0.36 2.18 1.10 0.51 - 1.59 0.73 - - - 0.64 0.39
9 CVVC, 5.3 m 2.88 48 29 19 24 24 0.31 1.38 0.84 0.60 0.69 1.19 0.86 0.12 1.08 0.39 0.37 0.11
10 CVVC, 9.1 m 2.88 53 32 21 24 29 0.36 1.53 0.92 0.60 0.69 1.28 0.84 0.13 0.92 0.37 0.40 0.14
11 BBC, 12.5 m 2.69 38 21 17 18 20 0.25 1.02 0.56 0.55 0.48 0.83 0.81 0.22 1.26 0.40 0.32 0.17
12 BBC, 39.3 m 2.84 46 26 20 21 25 0.29 1.31 0.74 0.57 0.60 1.15 0.88 0.18 1.08 0.40 0.37 0.16
13 CVVC, 6.9 m 2.88 74 32 42 34 40 0.32 2.13 0.92 0.43 0.98 1.20 0.56 0.27 1.31 0.84 0.64 0.20
14 BBC, 9.2 2.76 45 25 20 23 22 0.29 1.24 0.69 0.56 0.63 0.93 0.75 0.16 1.21 0.35 0.29 0.13
15 Scotland, 6.6 m 2.67 76 36 40 35 41 0.56 2.03 0.96 0.47 0.93 1.47 0.72 - - - 0.56 0.59
16 Houston, 10.9 m 2.60 32 12 20 14 18 0.19 0.83 0.31 0.38 0.36 0.56 0.67 0.65 3.52 0.94 0.27 0.19
88
CEC SSA Relative
Activity Charge
# Soil Description G LL PL PI SL Is C*c eL eP eP/eL eS e100 e100/eL Activity Activity Activity
PI/CF CEC/SSA
17 Delaware, 19.2m 2.72 64 25 39 40 24 0.65 1.74 0.68 0.39 1.09 1.78 1.02 0.58 2.52 1.26 0.50 0.23
18 Kennegar 6.5 m 2.89 56 17 39 - - 0.42 1.62 0.49 0.30 - 0.87 0.54 4.25 8.14 3.82 0.47 0.52
19 Crescent, 4.3 m 2.65 29 NP - 23 6 0.09 0.77 - - 0.61 0.83 1.08 2.11 7.79 - - 0.27
20 B104A, 20.1 m 2.57 42 14 28 17 25 0.22 1.08 0.36 0.33 0.44 0.88 0.82 1.13 4.02 1.12 0.28 0.28
21 Crescent, 7.6 m 2.71 25 NP - 18 7 0.09 0.68 - - 0.49 0.62 0.92 2.09 7.98 - - 0.26
22 Bangkok 8.5 m 2.82 55 23 32 - - 0.49 1.55 0.65 0.42 - 1.38 0.89 - - - 0.27 0.26
23 Westside, 11.5 m 2.93 42 17 25 15 27 0.30 1.23 0.50 0.40 0.44 0.96 0.78 1.79 9.68 2.02 0.21 0.19
24 Westside, 4.5 m 2.83 35 20 15 18 17 0.14 0.99 0.57 0.58 0.51 0.98 0.99 1.12 7.44 0.90 0.12 0.15
25 Dallas, 1.5 m 2.92 66 30 36 8 58 0.46 1.93 0.88 0.45 0.23 1.39 0.72 2.03 2.29 0.60 0.26 0.88
26 Paleosol 2.67 47 20 27 4 43 0.32 1.25 0.53 0.43 0.11 0.79 0.63 0.63 3.35 0.61 0.18 0.19
27 Madingly, 2m 2.76 74 19 55 15 59 0.5 2.04 0.52 0.26 0.41 1.29 0.63 0.47 2.62 0.94 0.36 0.18
28 North Base 1.1 m 2.63 54 20 34 - - 0.41 1.42 0.53 0.37 - 0.60 0.42 0.83 4.21 0.89 0.21 0.20
29 Canon's Park, 6m 2.85 60 27 33 14 46 0.56 1.71 0.77 0.45 0.40 1.24 0.73 0.71 2.80 0.55 0.20 0.25
30 Japan 2 2.61 105 40 65 - - 0.79 2.74 1.04 0.38 - 2.04 0.74 - - - 0.38 0.12
31 Bangkok 4.5 m 2.84 45 23 23 - - 0.73 1.28 0.64 0.50 - 1.63 1.28 - - - 0.12 0.21
32 Dallas, 7.5 m 2.88 74 30 44 11 63 0.41 2.13 0.86 0.41 0.32 1.37 0.64 2.04 3.26 0.77 0.24 0.62
33 Japan 1 2.75 155 61 94 - - 1.19 4.26 1.68 0.39 - 3.12 0.73 - - - 0.46 0.12
34 Houston, 6.1 m 2.73 61 28 33 14 47 0.45 1.67 0.76 0.46 0.38 1.07 0.64 0.63 3.59 0.46 0.13 0.18
89
Table 5.2. Summary of Results for Natural Clays Compiled from the Literature.
Soil LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) Gs CF (%) C*c eL eP e*100 Reference
Vallericca 54 28 26 2.73 42 0.28 1.47 0.76 1.00 Onofrio et al. (1998)

Bisaccia 143 44 99 2.76 61 0.85 3.95 1.21 1.70 Onofrio et al. (1998)
Tripoli 76 15 61 2.51 27 0.38 1.91 0.38 2.05 Valore et al. (1993)
Ariake-A1 112 42 70 2.67 - 0.76 2.99 1.12 2.14 Yamadera et al. (1999)
Ariake-A2 142 46 96 2.56 - 1.19 3.64 1.18 2.03 Yamadera et al. (1999)
Cairo 69 33 37 - 14 0.48 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
Tanta 86 25 61 - 11 0.66 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
CairoWest 72 27 45 - 17 0.54 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
Qalyvob 67 26 41 - 5 0.57 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
Qalyvob 70 25 45 - 8 0.49 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
Alexandria 77 37 40 - 11 0.50 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
Talkha 80 39 41 - 13 0.45 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
Abvzenema 33 21 13 - 5 0.16 - - - Youssef et al. (1965)
Leda 56 29 27 2.78 86 0.45 1.56 0.81 1.42 Quigley et al. (1966)
Haneda 104 41 63 2.65 - 0.67 2.76 1.09 - Akagi et al. (1995)
Pliocenic 42 23 19 2.81 45 0.26 1.18 0.65 0.81 Gori et al. (1995)
Colombacci 46 20 26 2.72 43 0.28 1.25 0.54 0.85 Gori et al. (1995)
Caotic-a 88 32 56 2.61 80 0.55 2.30 0.84 1.39 Gori et al. (1995)
Caotic-b 105 28 77 2.86 72 0.73 3.00 0.80 1.77 Gori et al. (1995)
Bisaccia 146 42 104 2.76 52 1.18 4.03 1.16 - Olivares et al. (1995)
Haneda 116 33 83 2.70 17 0.85 3.13 0.89 - Yagi et al. (1995)
Itsukaichi 82 40 42 2.40 8 0.77 1.97 0.96 - Yagi et al. (1995)
Gault 77 31 46 - - 0.49 - - - Ng et al. (1995)
Yokohama 136 64 72 - - 1.05 - - - Tang et al. (1995)
90

Grayish Sandy Clay 27 13 14 - - 0.18 - - 0.562 Samarasinghe et al. (1982)
Don Valley 41 19 22 - 48 0.26 - - 0.98 Raymond (1966)
Leda 33 16 17 - 28 0.29 - - 0.75 Raymond (1966)
New Liskeard 69 29 40 - 83 0.41 - - 1.12 Raymond (1966)
Whangamarino 136 61 75 2.78 - 0.91 3.78 1.70 2.44 Newland et al. (1960)
Sensitive Clay 50 28 22 2.80 82 0.50 1.4 0.784 1.31 Yong et al. (1977)
Grangemouth 35 21 14 2.78 0.23 0.97 0.58 0.659 Burland (1990)
London 68 27 41 2.71 0.49 1.83 0.72 1.227 Som (1968)
Red 45 22 23 2.67 0.27 1.21 0.59 0.785 Nagaraj et al. (1986)
Black Cotton 97 32 65 2.73 0.69 2.66 0.87 1.744 Nagaraj et al. (1986)
Sail 159 46 113 2.83 1.05 4.51 1.30 2.769 Nagaraj et al. (1986)
AHPC 90 30 60 0.89 1.7 Smith (1992)
Montemesulo Yellow 49 22 27 2.72 0.30 1.33 0.60 0.87 Cafaro (1998)
Montemesulo Grey 51 23 28 2.71 0.30 1.38 0.62 0.95 Cafaro (1998)
Boom Clay 67 20 47 2.71 0.48 1.82 0.54 1.35 Coop et al. (1995)
Bothkennar 67 29 38 2.68 0.42 1.80 0.78 1.135 Allman et al. (1992)
Winnipeg 82 0.79 1.56 Graham et al. (1985)
Pappadai 63 28 35 2.75 0.49 1.73 0.77 1.27 Cottecchei (1996)
Thames 95 42 53 2.66 0.66 2.53 1.12 1.66 Pickles (1989)
Silty Clay 69 35 34 2.78 0.39 1.92 0.97 Wahls et al. (1964)
Soft Clay 78 29 49 2.75 0.55 2.15 0.80 Sowers (1964)
Lagunillas 79 2.75 0.74 2.17 Lambe (1964)
91

Vienna 47 22 25 2.76 0.30 1.30 0.61 Hvorslev (1960)
Silty Clay 56 21 35 2.75 0.32 1.55 0.58 Jennings et al. (1962)
Silty Sand 36 23 13 2.65 0.16 0.96 0.61 Jennings et al. (1962)
Bedford 87 2.74 0.54 2.38 Attschaeffl (1960)
Chicago 34 18 16 2.67 0.16 0.91 0.48 0.46 Schmertmann (1955)
Milwaukee 71 41 30 2.67 0.43 1.90 1.09 0.77 Schmertmann (1955)
Minnesota 60 25 35 2.73 0.29 1.64 0.68 0.64 Schmertmann (1955)
North Michigan 22 13 10 2.67 0.08 0.59 0.33 Schmertmann (1955)
Marine Organic 62 31 31 2.68 0.28 1.66 0.83 1.09 Schmertmann (1955)
New York 85 32 53 2.66 0.54 2.26 0.85 1.41 Schmertmann (1955)
1 34 21 13 58 0.26 Locat et al. (1982)
2 48 23 25 60 0.44 Locat et al. (1982)
Red Soil 50 27 23 2.65 0.30 0.8 Nagaraj et al. (1993)
Brown Soil 62 31 31 2.65 0.50 1.1 Nagaraj et al. (1993)
Black Cotton 84 47 37 2.65 0.80 1.6 Nagaraj et al. (1993)
92
Soil LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) SL (%) Is Gs CF (%) C*c eL eP eS e*100 Reference

Red Earth I 37 18 19 15 22 2.70 26 0.23 1.00 0.49 0.40 0.68 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Silty Soil 39 30 10 27 12 2.65 5 0.20 1.03 0.78 0.73 0.79 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Kaolinite I 48 36 12 39 9 2.65 10 0.24 1.27 0.94 1.03 1.07 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Red Earth II 48 23 25 16 33 2.70 35 0.40 1.30 0.63 0.42 0.8 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Kaolinite II 55 31 24 33 22 2.64 32 0.30 1.45 0.83 0.87 1.13 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Cochin Clay 56 38 18 21 35 2.61 18 0.37 1.47 0.99 0.55 1.07 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Brown Soil I 59 32 26 14 45 2.66 35 0.43 1.56 0.85 0.36 1.03 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Kaolinite III 59 45 14 46 12 2.65 12 0.25 1.56 1.20 1.23 1.24 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Illitic Soil 73 52 22 39 34 2.58 28 0.42 1.89 1.34 1.01 1.55 Sridharan et al. (2000)
BC Soil 74 36 38 12 62 2.70 52 0.62 1.98 0.96 0.32 1.4 Sridharan et al. (2000)
Black Cotton 78 31 47 2.56 0.53 2.00 0.79 Akinlabi (1978)
202 51 21 30 2.59 42 0.30 1.32 0.54 Meriggi et al. (2000)
203 41 20 21 2.59 44 0.23 1.06 0.52 Meriggi et al. (2000)
205 38 17 21 2.68 42 0.22 1.02 0.46 Meriggi et al. (2000)
206 27 17 10 2.72 25 0.23 0.73 0.46 Meriggi et al. (2000)
209 65 30 35 2.57 28 0.39 1.67 0.77 Meriggi et al. (2000)
93
Soil LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) SL (%) Is Gs CF (%) C*c eL eP e*100 Reference

Yolo Loam 35 22 13 22 0.39 Meegoda et al. (1986)
Marysville 52 44 8 9 0.39 Meegoda et al. (1986)
Boston Blue 41 20 21 52 0.21 Mitchell (1956)
Boston Blue 49 26 23 56 0.21 Mitchell (1956)
Fore River 49 21 28 43 0.26 Mitchell (1956)
Chicago 58 21 37 64 0.22 Mitchell (1956)
Beaularnois 56 22 34 56 0.41 Mitchell (1956)
St. Lawrence 55 22 33 77 0.40 Mitchell (1956)
Cincinatti 30 12 18 20 0.15 Mitchell (1956)
New Orleans 79 26 53 - 0.25 Mitchell (1956)
Louisiana 74 26 48 40 0.28 Mitchell (1956)
Pumpsite 32 19 14 18 0.13 Mitchell (1956)
Sandy Ton V 36 18 18 2.71 13 0.25 0.98 0.49 0.74 Skempton (1944)
Boston Ton IV 58 26 32 2.85 42 0.32 1.65 0.74 0.97 Skempton (1944)
Boston Blue 39 23 16 2.78 0.21 1.08 0.64 0.8 Skempton (1944)
Flushing 116 51 65 2.66 0.74 3.09 1.36 Freeman (1936)
Silty Clay 28 20 8 2.72 0.13 0.76 0.54 0.603 Ramiah (1959)
Residual 58 27 31 2.74 0.36 1.59 0.74 1.024 Ramiah (1959)
Black Cotton 57 23 34 16 42 0.34 Ranganatham (1961)
Lower Cromer 25 13 12 2.65 0.15 0.66 0.34 0.503 Gens (1982)
Magnus 35 17 18 2.73 0.27 0.96 0.47 0.76 Jardine (1985)
London 62 24 38 2.73 0.45 1.70 0.66 1.2 Jardine (1985)
94

Boulder Clay 28 14 14 2.69 29 0.12 0.75 0.38 0.52 Skempton (1944)
Weald Clay 39 19 20 2.73 28 0.24 1.06 0.52 0.77 Skempton (1944)
R. Severn 46 25 21 2.59 20 0.21 1.19 0.65 0.8 Skempton (1944)
Kaolin 50 32 18 2.64 45 0.23 1.32 0.84 Skempton (1944)
Oxford 53 27 26 2.57 36 0.30 1.36 0.69 0.96 Skempton (1944)
Belfast 67 30 37 2.66 25 0.32 1.78 0.80 1 Skempton (1944)
Ganges 69 28 41 2.77 48 0.42 1.91 0.78 1.22 Skempton (1944)
Gospurt 75 29 46 2.67 43 0.46 2.00 0.77 1.2 Skempton (1944)
London Blue 77 28 49 2.71 46 0.49 2.09 0.76 1.28 Skempton (1944)
London Brown 88 32 56 2.65 62 0.56 2.33 0.85 1.32 Skempton (1944)
Argile Plastique 128 31 97 2.58 79 0.81 3.30 0.80 1.82 Skempton (1944)
Wiener Tegel 47 22 25 2.76 23 0.30 1.30 0.61 0.859 Hvorslev (1937)
Kleinbelt 127 36 91 2.77 77 0.91 3.52 1.00 2.18 Hvorslev (1937)
Farina 24 0.08 Terzaghi (1927)
Arlington 32 0.16 Terzaghi (1927)
Spartansburg 40 2.78 0.21 1.11 Terzaghi (1927)
Gumbo 53 0.34 Terzaghi (1927)
Columbia 58 0.37 Terzaghi (1927)
Yaguajay 110 37 73 0.90 Terzaghi (1927)
Mississippi 90 0.64 Terzaghi (1927)
95
C*c
Figure 5.5 presents the relationship of C*c and eL, the void ratio at the Liquid Limit. This
is similar in form to the correlation previously presented by Burland (1990). Burland’s
correlation equation is shown on Figure 5.5 for comparison.
1.5
Natural Clays from the Literature
Natural Clays from this Study
Burland: C*c = 0.256eL-0.04:(n=26)
1.0
C*c
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
eL
Figure 5.5. Intrinsic Compressibility versus eL for Natural Clays
96
Figure 5.6 presents the variation of the intrinsic compression line, C*c, with the Liquid
Limit. Both data tested in this study and data found throughout the literature show a very good
linear correlation, with high correlation coefficients of 0.88 and 0.86, respectively.
1.5
1.0
C*c
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
LL (%)
Figure 5.6. Intrinsic Compressibility versus LL for Natural Clays.
97
The relationship of C*c to the Plasticity Index is shown in Figure 5.7. This figure also
shows a strong linear correlation, although indicates more scatter than either eL or LL.
1.5
1.0
C*c
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PI (%)
Figure 5.7. Intrinsic Compressibility versus Plasticity Index for Natural Clays.
98
Figure 5.8 presents the linear relationship between C*c and Is, the shrinkage index. The
literature values show an almost perfectly linear correlation, however, it must be noted that there
are only 11 data points from the literature, whereas in the above data sets there were close to 100
data points.
1.0
C*c
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Is
Figure 5.8. Intrinsic Compressibility versus Shrinkage Index for Natural Clays.
The combination of CEC and CF in Cation Exchange Capacity Activity is plotted with
C*c, Figure 5.9. There is no discernible correlation. No CEC data were found in the literature
search with corresponding C*c data.
The surface area activity (SSA/CF) was presented with the C*c data with no apparent
correlation (Figure 5.10). Again, no surface area data were found in the literature search that
contained corresponding C*c data.
99
1.0
c Natural Clays
0.5
*
C
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CEC/CF
Figure 5.9. Intrinsic Compressibility versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity.
1.0
Natural Clays
c
0.5
*
C
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SSA/CF
Figure 5.10. Intrinsic Compressibility versus Surface Area Activity.
100
1.5
Total SSA
1.0
C*c
0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
1.5
Internal SSA
1.0
C* c
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
1.5
External SSA
1.0
C*c
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.11. C*c versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
101
Figures 5.11A, B and C present C*c versus total, internal and external surface area,
respectively. The figures generally show a linear trend, however there are some outlying points,
which do not fit on the line. The external surface area appears to show the best linear correlation
excluding Samples #15, #17, #32 and #33.
e*100
The following set of figures present relationships between e*100, the void ratio at an
effective stress of 100 kPa with void ratio at the Liquid Limit, eL, Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index,
Shrinkage Index and Surface Area. Figure 5.12 presents the relationship between e*100 and eL.
Burland (1990) suggested a cubic parabola correlation between e*100 and eL, which is shown in
Figure 5.12 for comparison. The natural clays from this study show a very good linear
correlation between these two parameters with a correlation coefficient of 0.95. The natural
clays found in the literature show more scatter, however, appear to display a linear correlation.
3.5
3.0 Natural Clays from this Study
Burland:e*100=0.016eL3-0.089eL2+0.679eL+0.109:(n=26)
2.5
2.0
e*100
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
eL
Figure 5.12. e*100 versus eL for Natural Clays.
102
As there is a linear correlation between e*100 and eL, it would be expected that there
would also be a linear correlation between e*100 and LL. Figure 5.13 presents these results.
3.5
3.0 Natural Clays from this Study
2.5
2.0
e*100
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
LL (%)
Figure 5.13. e*100 versus Liquid Limit for Natural Clays.
Figure 5.14 presents the relationship between e*100 and Plasticity Index. While this correlation
appears to be more or less linear, it does show more scatter than previous correlations.
103
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
e*100
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PI (%)
Figure 5.14. e*100 versus Plasticity Index for Natural Clays.
Figure 5.15 presents the relationship between e*100 and the Shrinkage Index. This
relationship does not show any strong trends, with coefficients of correlation of only 0.14 and
0.55, therefore, not much confidence can be placed on this correlation.
104
2.0
1.5
e*100
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Is
Figure 5.15. e*100 versus Shrinkage Index for Natural Clays.
Figures 5.16A, B and C present the comparison of e*100 with the Total, Internal and
External Surface Area. All three show linear trends with some outlying points.
Figure 5.17 presents the relationship of e*100 and the cation exchange capacity activity,
CEC/CF. Figure 5.18 presents the relationship between e*100 and surface area activity, SSA/CF.
There is not a visible relationship between e*100 and either CECA and SAA. Table 5.3 presents
correlation equations for C*c and e*100 relationships for the Literature data and data from this
study combined. Table 5.4 presents surface area correlations with C*c and e*100.
105
3.5
Total SSA
3.0
2.5
2.0
e*100
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
3.5
Internal SSA
3.0
2.5
2.0
e*100
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
3.5
External SSA
3.0
2.5
2.0
e*100
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.16. e*100 versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
106
2.0
Natural Clays
1.5
100
1.0
*
e
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CEC/CF
Figure 5.17. e*100 versus CEC/CF.
2.0
Natural Clays
1.5
100
1.0
*
e
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SSA/CF
Figure 5.18. e*100 versus SSA/CF
107
Table 5.3. Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics from This Study.
Natural Clays
Equation n r2 Std. Error
C*c = 0.295eL-0.09 33 0.87 0.085
C*c = 0.008LL-0.09 33 0.88 0.079
C*c = 0.01PI+0.02 31 0.86 0.086
C*c = 0.007Is+0.09 26 0.77 0.106
e*100 = 0.67eL+0.11 33 0.93 0.198
e*100 = 0.018LL+0.12 33 0.93 0.200
e*100 = 0.025PI+0.40 31 0.71 0.282
e*100 = 0.012Is+0.67 26 0.41 0.261
Table 5.4. Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics from Both This
Study and the Literature Review Combined.

C*c = 0.28eL-0.07 113 0.86 0.093
C*c = 0.00785LL-0.07 147 0.83 0.093
C*c = 0.01PI+0.06 138 0.79 0.085
C*c = 0.007Is+0.13 37 0.85 0.183
e*100 = 0.60eL+0.16 61 0.9 0.225
e*100 = 0.02LL+0.16 70 0.9 0.229
e*100 = 0.02PI+0.47 64 0.78 0.241
e*100 = 0.008Is+0.77 10 0.35 0.398
108
Table 5.5. Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics and Surface Area
for Data From This Study.

C*c = 0.0023SSAT+0.14 33 0.38 0.130
C*c = 0.0027SSAI+0.17 28 0.33 0.130
C*c = 00.0076SSAE+0.13 28 0.22 0.140
e*100 = 0.0039SSAT+0.74 33 0.21 0.310
e*100 = 0.0055SSAI+0.75 28 0.26 0.320
e*100 = 0.01SSAE+0.74 28 0.13 0.310
eL
Because eL = GsLL, anything that affects either Gs or LL with automatically affect eL.
Figure 5.19 presents the relationship between eL and the combination of CEC and CF as the
cation exchange capacity activity CEC/CF. There is not a discernible relationship between eL and
CEC/CF.
109
2.5
Natural Clays
2.0
1.5
eL
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CEC/CF
Figure 5.19. eL versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for Natural Clays.
Figure 5.20 presents the relationship between eL and Surface Area Activity. Again, there
is no visible correlation between the two.
110
2.5
Natural Clays
2.0
1.5
eL
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SSA/CF
Figure 5.20. eL versus Surface Area Activity for Natural Clays.
The relationship between eL and total, internal and external surface area is presented in
Figure 5.21 A, B and C. All three relationships show a linear trend, however, there is not one
particular relationship that portrays a significant correlation.
111
4.5
4.0 Total SSA
3.5
3.0
2.5
eL
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
4.5
4.0 Internal SSA
3.5
3.0
2.5
eL
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
4.5
4.0 External SSA
3.5
3.0
2.5
eL
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.21. eL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
112
e*100/eL
By normalizing e*100 by eL and relating this ratio to eL, LL and PI, it can be determined if
the LL embedded in the eL term is a governing factor in the void ratio at a stress of 100 kPa. The
relationship of this ratio to eL is presented in Figure 5.22. The slope from Figure 5.13 is plotted
as the constant K = 0.68. This slope constant is the same as the calculated mean for the data.
1.5
K = 0.68 from Figure 5.13
1.0
e*100/eL
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
eL
Figure 5.22. e*100/eL versus eL for Natural Clays.
The same is true for the e*100/eL ratio in relation with LL and PI. Figures 5.23 and 5.24
present the results of e*100/eL and LL and PI respectively.
113
1.5
K = 0.68 from Figure 5.13.
1.0
100/eL
*
e
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
LL (%)
Figure 5.23. e*100/eL versus Liquid Limit for Natural Clays.
1.5
1.0
100/eL
*
e
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PI (%)
Figure 5.24. e*100/eL versus Plasticity Index for Natural Clays.
114
Normalized e-log p curves
The last relationship to be presented in the intrinsic compressibility section is the ratio of
e/eL to the effective stress during the one-dimensional consolidation test. The twenty-eight (28)
samples shown in Figure 5.25 show similar slopes, however, there are a few samples that do not
follow the overall trend. Separating the tests into common geologies and soil types did not help
to explain the trends within the data, and therefore the test results are presented as one figure.
The legend is presented as a separate Figure 5.26 and notates the test number of the one-
dimensional oedometer test performed, as well as the soil sample location.
2
e/eL
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Effective Stress (kPa)
Figure 5.25. e/eL versus Effective Stress for Natural Clays.
115
227-Bangkok 8.5 m
228-Athlone 5.0 m
229-Athlone 14.3 m
231- Kennegar 6.5 m
232-North Base 1.1 m
233- Houston 6.1 m
234-Houston 10.9 m
235-Salt Lake City 10.9 m
236-Salt Lake City 20.1 m
239-Westside, Nebraska 11.5 m
240-Westside, Nebraska 4.5 m
242- BBC 12.5 m (IC12-03)
243-BBC 19.2 m (IC18-07)
244-POA 31u
245-POA 15u
259-Japan 2
260-Japan 1
263-Scotland
264-Madingly 2 m
266- Canon's Park 6m
267-Delaware 19.2 m
285-Dallas 7.5 m
287-BBC-BB3-UP7
289-Paleosol
290-Dallas 1.5 m
291-Crescent, Iowa 7.6 m
292- Crescent, Iowa 4.3 m
293-BBC-BB3-UP9
Figure 5.26. Legend for Figure 5.25.
116
5.2.1.4 Atterberg Limits
The Atterberg Limit testing program was designed with the purpose of investigating how
surface area, mineralogy and soil constituents influence Atterberg Limits. Determining these
properties was also a way to establish a basis for classification and conclude that other index
tests were within the realm of reasonability. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index,
Shrinkage Limit and Shrinkage Index were used in relationships with surface area, clay fraction,
cation exchange capacity activity and surface area activity in order to delineate possible links to
understanding soil behavior.
Figures 5.27 A, B and C present the correlations between Liquid Limit and total, internal
and external surface area. The relationship is very similar to that of eL and surface area, which is
expected since eL=LL*Gs and Gs only varies from approximately 2.37 to 2.90.
As stated in Chapter 2, Muhunthan (1991) hypothesized that there should be a linear
correlation between the inverse of Liquid Limit and total surface area. Muhunthan used three
different soil data sets reported in the literature from various authors. Each soil data set was
from a specific geologic unit and each soil data set was tested for surface area using various
methods including water vapor and water molecule adsorption and the glycol method. Figures
5.28 A, B and C presents Muhunthan’s relationship for soils tested in this study. The linear
relationship is not very strong for the soils tested, except for in the external surface area plot.
Figures 5.29 A, B and C present the relationship between Plastic Limit and total, internal and
external surface area. Figures 5.30 A, B and C present the relationship between Plasticity Index
and total, internal and external surface area. Figures 5.31 A, B and C present the correlation
between Shrinkage Limit and total, internal and external surface area. In this figure, there are
five (5) outlying points. Sample #13, #15 and #17, all marine clays, are high, and #25 and #26, a
Loess and an Alluvial deposit, are low. Without these outlying points, the correlation coefficient
would increase to r2=0.51. Figures 5.32 A, B and C present the correlation between Shrinkage
Index and total, internal and external surface area.
117
180
160 Total SSA
140
120
LL (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
180
160 Internal SSA
140
120
LL (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
180
160 External SSA
140
120
LL (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.27. LL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External
118
0.0500
0.0375
1/LL
0.0250
0.0125
Total SSA
0.0000
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0.0500
0.0375
1/LL
0.0250
0.0125
Internal SSA
0.0000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.0500
0.0375
1/LL
0.0250
0.0125
External SSA
0.0000
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
1/SSA
Figure 5.28. 1/LL versus 1/SSA. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
119
80
Total SSA
60
PL (%)
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
80
Internal SSA
60
PL (%)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
80
External SSA
60
PL (%)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.29. PL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
120
80
Total SSA
60
PI (%)
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
80
Internal SSA
60
PI (%)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
80
External SSA
60
PI (%)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.30. Plasticity Index versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
121
60
Total SSA
40
SL (%)
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
60
Internal SSA
40
SL (%)
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
60
External SSA
40
SL (%)
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.31. Shrinkage Limit versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
122
80
60
Is (%)
40
20
Total SSA
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
80
60
Is (%)
40
20
Internal SSA
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
80
60
Is (%)
40
20
External SSA
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.32. Shrinkage Index versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
123
Figures 5.33 and 5.34 present the results of Atterberg Limits and Clay Fraction. The
relationship between Atterberg Limits and clay fraction of the natural clays is relatively
scattered, showing the same trends as Atterberg Limits versus surface area. As clay fraction
increases, the liquid limit increases although in a very loose linear pattern. The plastic limit
relationship with clay fraction shows a much tighter linear relationship, again, as a dually
increasing linear function. Plasticity Index versus clay fraction is extremely scattered as well as
the Shrinkage Index versus clay fraction relationship. The Shrinkage Limit versus clay fraction
shows no trend.
80
LL
PL
PI
60
Atterberg Limits (%)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80
CF (%)
Figure 5.33. Atterberg Limits versus Clay Fraction for Natural Clays.
124
80
SL
Is
60
Shrinkage Properties (%)
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80
CF (%)
Figure 5.34. Shrinkage Properties versus Clay Fraction for Natural Clays.
The Atterberg Limit results were also compared with the Cation Exchange Capacity
Activity (CEC/CF) and Surface Area Activity (SSA/CF) to determine if these combinations of
properties showed any apparent trends. In all of the relationship combinations, there did not
seem to be any trends. Figures 5.35 and 5.36 show the Atterberg Limits versus Cation Exchange
Capacity Activity and Figures 5.37 and 5.38 show the Atterberg Limits versus Surface Area
Activity.
125
80
LL
PL
PI
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CEC/CF
Figure 5.35. Atterberg Limits versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for Natural Clays.
80
SL
Is
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3
CEC/CF
Figure 5.36. Shrinkage Properties versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity for Natural Clays.
126
80
LL
PL
PI
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SSA/CF
Figure 5.37. Liquid Limit versus Surface Area Activity for Natural Clays.
80
SL
Is
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SSA/CF
Figure 5.38. Shrinkage Limit versus Surface Area Activity for Natural Clays.
127
5.2.2 Artificial Clays
5.2.2.1 Composition
The eighteen (18) artificial clays chosen for this study had a wide range of soil property
values. The total surface area ranged from 15 to 767 m2/g, which is very similar to the range of
recorded surface area values found in the literature. There were three main divisions within the
data set: Kaolinite, Illite and Montmorillonite. The kaolinite surface areas ranged from 15 to 41
m2/g, the illite surface areas ranged from 61 to 341 m2/g, and the montmorillonite surface areas
ranged from 381 to 767 m2/g. The internal and external surface areas range from 3 to 691 m2/g
and 12 to 204 m2/g respectively. The internal surface area generally increased with total surface
area except for sample #9, which did not follow the trend. The external surface area generally
ranged from 12 to 76 m2/g, with one outlying point at 204 m2/g, sample #9.
The clay fraction of these artificial clays ranged from 36.2% to 95.8%, which meant that
none of these soil samples was composed of 100% clay. This may explain why some of the soils
in this study did not follow surface area and liquid limit trends. There must have been other
constituents that were added to these artificial clays in the manufacturing process.
5.2.2.2 Classification
A summary of the laboratory test results for the eighteen (18) artificial clay samples are
presented in Table 5.6. These soils are arranged in order of increasing total surface area. Total
surface area ranged from 15 to 767 m2/g with a range of Liquid Limits of 33 to 560 %. Figure
5.39 presents the Casagrande Plasticity Chart for these artificial clays.
The plasticity chart shows that most of the kaolinitic-illitic soils fall within or slightly
below the A-Line, however the montomorillinitic soils fall directly on the U-Line or slightly
above the U-Line. Unfortunately, there were no soils tested with a Liquid Limit between 200
and 400 %. The vast differences in Liquid Limit makes the presentation of the artificial clays
difficult, in that the five montmorillinitic soils tested do not seem to follow the trends of the other
artificial clays.
The Activity Chart is presented in Figure 5.40 and shows an activity range of 0.21 to
8.01. The clay fraction ranged from 36.2 to 95.8 %. Figure 5.41 presents the Cation Exchange
Capacity Activity chart, which shows a range of CECA of 0.01 to 3.18. The Surface Area
128
Activity chart is presented in Figure 5.42 and shows a SAA range of 0.30 to 20.34. In
comparison with the natural clays tested, the three Activity values for artificial clays are much
higher.
600
500
400
Plasticity Index
ne
-Li
300 U
ne
-Li
A
200
100
CL CH
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Liquid Limit
Figure 5.39. Plasticity Chart for Artificial Clays.
600
500
8.0 6.0
A= A=
400
.0
300 A=4
200
A=2.0
100 A=1.0
A=0.50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clay Fraction (%)
Figure 5.40. Activity Chart for Artificial Clays.
129
200
150
.0
=4
.0
=2
CA
C A
CE
100 CE .0
EC A=1
C
50
0.50
CECA=
CECA=0.25
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clay Fraction (%)
Figure 5.41. Cation Exchange Capacity Activity Chart of Artificial Clays.
800
.0
A=8
.0
SA
16
A=
Total Surface Area (m /g)
600
SA
2
400
AA=4.0
S
200
SAA=2.0
SAA=1.0
SAA=0.50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clay Fraction (%)
Figure 5.42. Surface Area Activity Chart of Artificial Clays.
130
5.2.2.3 Intrinsic Compressibility Correlations
As noted in the natural clay section, C*c and e*100 were obtained from the one-
dimensional consolidation test and used in correlations with other properties as well as in
comparison with values found in the literature. Data compiled from the literature are given in
Table 5.7 and all correlation data are presented in Table 5.8.
C*c
Figure 5.43 presents the relationship of C*c and eL, the void ratio at the Liquid Limit. A
cubic polynomial correlation was found with a correlation coefficient of 0.99 for the literature
data and the data in this study. Burland’s (1990) linear regression correlates with the data from
this study up to an eL of approximately 6, however, after that, there is no correlation because he
did not use artificial clays in his regression. His regression equation is shown on Figure 5.43 to
an eL = 6, and after that it is projected with a dashed line to show that it does not represent the
artificial clays in this study.
10
Artificial Clays from the Literature
Artificial Clays from This Study
8 Burland Regression:C*c = 0256eL-0.04:(n=26)
6
C*c = 0.0029eL3-0.02eL2+0.3eL+0.0086
C*c
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
eL
Figure 5.43. C*c versus eL for Artificial Clays.
131
Table 5.6. Summary of Results for Artificial Clays.
Total SSA External Internal CEC

CF (%) Gs C*c e*100
(m /g) SSA (m /g) SSA (m /g) (meq/100 g)
1 KGa-1b-Kaolin, well-crystallized 15 12 3 36.2 2.0 2.68 0.32 1.25

2 Peerless Clay-MGK 23 15 8 76.0 0.9 2.46 0.33 1.00
3 KGa-2-Kaolin-poorly crystallized 26 19 7 67.6 3.3 2.61 0.65 1.43
4 Thiele Kaolin-RC-32 38 21 17 36.2 2.1 2.52 0.52 1.50
5 Wilklay Kaolin RP-2 41 22 19 69.5 2.1 2.37 0.35 1.11
6 Old Hickory Clay 54-S 61 25 36 63.8 6.1 2.52 0.44 1.60
7 Illite, Green Shale 158 35 123 48.0 17.6 2.70 0.29 0.80
8 Old Hickory Clay-F-2 224 25 199 42.8 24.4 2.80 0.60 1.60
9 PF1-1-Attapulgite 341 204 137 67.3 19.5 2.83 1.41 3.82
10 NaCa Montmorillonite, 49E 5107 381 29 352 47.4 60.8 2.75 0.63 1.55
11 SHCa-1-Hectorite 387 53 334 53.4 43.9 2.74 5.32 4.29
12 Barakade 90 525 30 495 75.5 17.5 2.54 6.22 4.90
13 STx-1-Ca-Montmorillonite 534 74 460 73.3 84.4 2.70 1.60 3.18
14 Pure Gold Gel 593 24 569 71.2 23.8 2.78 6.00 5.70
15 Swy-2-Na-Montmorillonite 637 29 608 60.4 76.4 2.75 8.59 7.10
16 Panther Creek 675 51 624 49.5 67.0 2.75 0.78 2.10
17 Montmorillonite, API #26 704 27 677 95.8 47.2 2.51 9.35 5.99
18 Saz-1-Ca-Montmorillonite 767 76 691 37.7 120.0 2.81 1.00 2.94
132
CEC SSA Relative
Activity Charge
# Soil Description LL PL PI SL Is eL eP eS Activity Activity Activity
PI/CF CEC/SSA
1 KGa-1b-Kaolin, well-crystallized 42 26 16 26 16 1.13 0.70 0.70 0.06 0.41 0.44 1.07 0.13
2 Peerless Clay-MGK 60 32 28 30 30 1.48 0.79 0.74 0.01 0.30 0.37 1.22 0.04
3 KGa-2-Kaolin-poorly crystallized 70 40 30 38 32 1.83 1.04 0.99 0.05 0.38 0.44 1.15 0.13
4 Thiele Kaolin-RC-32 65 38 27 35 30 1.64 0.96 0.88 0.06 1.05 0.75 0.71 0.06
5 Wilklay Kaolin RP-2 66 37 29 31 35 1.56 0.88 0.73 0.03 0.59 0.42 0.05
6 Old Hickory Clay 54-S 58 28 30 12 46 1.46 0.71 0.30 0.10 0.96 0.47 0.10
7 Illite, Green Shale 33 23 10 17 16 0.89 0.62 0.46 0.37 3.29 0.21 0.06 0.11
8 Old Hickory Clay-F-2 69 37 32 16 53 1.93 1.04 0.45 0.57 5.23 0.75 0.14 0.11
9 PF1-1-Attapulgite 202 108 94 51 151 5.72 3.06 1.44 0.29 5.07 1.40 0.28 0.06
10 NaCa Montmorillonite, 49E 5107 64 39 25 22 42 1.76 1.07 0.61 1.28 8.04 0.53 0.07 0.16
11 SHCa-1-Hectorite 400 48 353 4 396 10.96 1.30 0.11 0.82 7.25 6.60 0.91 0.11
12 Barakade 90 479 52 427 1 478 12.17 1.32 0.03 0.23 6.95 5.66 0.03
13 STx-1-Ca-Montmorillonite 142 44 98 15 127 3.83 1.19 0.41 1.15 7.29 1.34 0.18 0.16
14 Pure Gold Gel 434 50 384 28 406 12.07 1.39 0.78 0.33 8.33 5.39 0.65 0.04
15 Swy-2-Na-Montmorillonite 519 35 484 14 505 14.27 0.96 0.39 1.26 10.55 8.01 0.76 0.12
16 Panther Creek 97 47 50 17 80 2.67 1.30 0.47 1.35 13.64 1.00 0.07 0.10
17 Montmorillonite, API #26 560 52 508 14 546 14.06 1.31 0.35 0.49 7.35 5.30 0.72 0.07
18 Saz-1-Ca-Montmorillonite 130 58 72 12 118 3.65 1.63 0.34 3.18 20.34 1.91 0.09 0.16
133
Table 5.7. Summary of Results for Artificial Clays Compiled from the Literature.
LL PL PI CF
Soil Gs C*c eL eP e*100 Reference
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Kaolin 48 36 12 84 0.33 Meegoda et al. (1994)
Mixed Soil 73 35 38 88 0.55 Meegoda et al. (1994)
Kaolinite 64 38 26 0.67 Ganapadhyay et al. (1970)
Bentonite 118 46 72 55 0.64 1.82 Raymond (1966)
Ca-Mont 220 33 187 2.80 1.75 6.16 0.92 2.75 Mesri et al. (1971)
Ca-Mont 207 35 172 2.80 1.75 5.80 0.98 2.75 Mesri et al. (1971)
Na-Mont 1140 - 2.7 12.00 30.21 12.50 Mesri et al. (1971)
1 101 2.7 0.72 2.68 1.92 Nagaraj et al. (1995)
2 79 0.66 1.52 Nagaraj et al. (1995)
3 65 0.53 1.20 Nagaraj et al. (1995)
4 49 0.38 0.99 Nagaraj et al. (1995)
5 55 0.32 0.90 Nagaraj et al. (1995)
6 46 0.29 0.79 Nagaraj et al. (1995)
7 40 0.26 0.72 Nagaraj et al. (1995)
134
Soil LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) Gs CF (%) C*c Reference

Bentonite 300 70 230 2.8 3.10 Nagaraj et al. (1993)
1 82 28 54 36 0.32 Meegoda et al. (1986)
4 56 28 28 41 0.48 Meegoda et al. (1986)
5 39 36 3 11 0.25 Meegoda et al. (1986)
6 75 22 53 37 0.37 Meegoda et al. (1986)
7 100 46 54 44 0.90 Meegoda et al. (1986)
8 277 66 211 53 1.34 Meegoda et al. (1986)
9 64 33 31 41 0.57 Meegoda et al. (1986)
1 65 16 49 0.61 Mathew et al. (1997)
2 59 21 38 0.45 Mathew et al. (1997)
3 57 22 35 0.40 Mathew et al. (1997)
4 49 23 26 0.38 Mathew et al. (1997)
5 48 23 25 0.33 Mathew et al. (1997)
6 45 24 21 0.28 Mathew et al. (1997)
135
Soil LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) SL (%) Is C*c Reference

A 65 36 29 29 36 0.64 Genevois (1977)
B 73 44 29 28 45 0.87 Genevois (1977)
C 70 42 28 27 43 0.80 Genevois (1977)
D 69 39 30 29 40 0.71 Genevois (1977)
E 60 38 22 30 30 0.54 Genevois (1977)
F 61 39 22 30 31 0.57 Genevois (1977)
G 58 38 20 29 29 0.58 Genevois (1977)
H 64 44 20 28 36 0.61 Genevois (1977)
I 63 38 25 28 35 0.60 Genevois (1977)
L 58 37 21 29 29 0.56 Genevois (1977)
M 72 42 30 35 37 0.79 Genevois (1977)
O 122 63 59 - 0.60 Genevois (1977)
Bentonite 1 576 7.72 Jimenez-Salas et al. (1953)
Kaolin 98 0.60 Jimenez-Salas et al. (1953)
Bentonite 500 40 460 6.20 Kenney et al. (1992)
Bentonite 430 68 362 82 348 7.80 Kinsky et al. (1971)
136
Figure 5.44 presents the results of C*c in relation to the Liquid Limit. Both data tested in this
study and data found throughout the literature show a curvilinear relationship modeled with the
quadratic polynomial equation shown on Figure 5.44.
10
Artificial Clays from this Study
8
C*c=2.7x10-5LL2+0.002LL+0.278
6
C*c
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
LL (%)
Figure 5.44. Intrinsic Compressibility versus Liquid Limit for Artificial Clays.
137
The relationship of C*c and the Plasticity Index is presented in Figure 5.45. Again, the
relationship is nearly linear.
10
6
c
*
C
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
PI (%)
Figure 5.45. Intrinsic Compressibility versus PI for Artificial Clays.
Figure 5.46 presents the linear correlation between C*c and the shrinkage index. As in the
natural clays data set, there are a limited number of data points, which make the correlation
coefficient extremely high.
The Cation Exchange Capacity Activity (CEC/CF) and the Surface Area Activity
(SSA/CF) in relation with C*c are presented in Figures 5.47 and 5.48. There is no discernible
138
correlation in either case. No CEC or SSA data were found in the literature search with
corresponding C*c data.
10
8
6
c
*
C
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Is
Figure 5.46. Intrinsic Compressibility versus Is for Artificial Clays.
Figures 5.49 A, B and C present C*c versus total, internal and external surface area
respectively. The figures show two distinct linear paths. One, which encompasses the five
montmorillonites with high intrinsic compressibility’s and the other, which includes three
samples with high surface areas and low intrinsic compressibility indexes. The soil samples with
high surface areas were expected to have corresponding high values of C*c, however, this was
not the case. A linear regression is shown on Figure 5.49 excluding the three low points,
Sample’s # 13, 16 and 18. Figure 5.49 C shows soil Sample #9 having an external surface area
of 204 m2/g. This soil did not behave in the same way as other artificial clays with similar
surface areas and Liquid Limits.
139
10
Artificial Clays
6
c
*
C
0
0 1 2 3 4
CEC/CF
Figure 5.47. Intrinsic Compressibility versus CECA for Artificial Clays.
10
Artificial Clays
6
c
*
C
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
SSA/CF
Figure 5.48. Intrinsic Compressibility versus SAA for Artificial Clays.
140
10
9 Total SSA
8
7
6
c
5
*
C
4
3 #13
2 #9
#16 #18
#8 #10
1 #7
0
0 200 400 600 800
10
9 Internal SSA
8
7
6
c
5
*
C
4
3
#13
2 #10 #16 #18
1 #9 #8
#7
0
0 200 400 600 800
10
9 External SSA
8
7
6
c
5
*
C
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.49. C*c versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
141
e*100
The following set of figures describe the relationship of e*100 with Liquid Limit, void
ratio at the Liquid Limit, eL, Plasticity Index and surface area. Figure 5.50 presents the linear
relationship between e*100 and eL. Both the literature data and data from this study plot linearly,
with high correlation coefficients. Burland’s (1990) regression for natural clays is shown on the
figure. The extent of eL of the natural soils in Burland’s study was 3.5. His cubic parabola
correlation seems to work well when eL < 6, but does not model these artificial clays for eL > 6.
10
Burland 1990
8
6
100
*
e
2
e*100 = 0.016eL3 - 0.089eL2 + 0.679eL + 0.109
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
eL
Figure 5.50. e*100 versus eL for Artificial Clays.
The relationship between e*100 and LL also indicates a good linear relationship between
e*100 and eL. Figure 5.51 presents these results.
142
14
12 Artificial Clays from this Study
10
8
100
*
e
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
LL (%)
Figure 5.51. e*100 versus Liquid Limit for Artificial Clays.
6
100
4
*
e
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
PI (%)
Figure 5.52. e*100 versus Plasticity Index for Artificial Clays.
143
Figure 5.52 presents the relationship between e*100 and PI. The linear correlation has a
high correlation coefficient of 0.86 for the data from this study. There are only four data points
from the Literature, which shows in the scatter of the data.
Figure 5.53 presents the relationship between e*100 and the Shrinkage Index. The
relationship is nearly linear, with a high coefficient of correlation.
8
6
100
4
*
e
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Is
Figure 5.53. e*100 versus Shrinkage Index for Artificial Clays.
144
8
Total SSA
6
e*100
4
#13 #18
#16
2
#7 #8 #10
0
0 200 400 600 800
8
Internal SSA
6
e*100
4
#13 #18
#16
2
#7 #8 #10
0
0 200 400 600 800
8
External SSA
#9
e*100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.54. e*100 versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
145
Figures 5.55 and 5.56 present the relationship between e*100 and Cation Exchange Capacity
Activity and Surface Area Activity, respectively. Figure 5.56 presents two distinct linear trends,
one encompassing the higher Surface Area Activity’s and the other the lower.
8
Artificial Clays
6
100
4
*
e
0
0 1 2 3 4
CEC/CF
Figure 5.55. e*100 versus CECA.
146
8
Artificial Clays
6
100
4
*
e
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
SSA/CF
Figure 5.56. e*100 versus SAA.
Table 5.8 presents correlation equations for C*c and e*100 relationships for the data from this
study. Table 5.9 presents correlation equations for C*c and e*100 relationships for the Literature
data and data from this study combined. Table 5.10 presents surface area correlations with C*c
and e*100.
147
Table 5.8. Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics from This
Study.
Artificial Clays
C*c = 0.61eL-0.68 18 0.96 0.63
C*c = 0.02LL-0.67 18 0.97 0.55
C*c = 0.07PI+0.04 18 0.98 0.39
C*c = 0.02Is-0.25 18 0.97 0.55
e*100 = 0.39eL+0.92 18 0.92 0.51
e*100 = 0.01LL+0.95 18 0.90 0.58
e*100 = 0.01PI+1.44 18 0.86 0.69
e*100 = 0.009Is+1.24 18 0.88 0.63
Table 5.9. Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics from Both This
Study and the Literature Review Combined.
Artificial Clays
C*c = 0.50eL-0.60 22 0.98 1.03
C*c = 0.02LL-0.6 66 0.95 0.71
C*c = 0.01PI+0.04 50 0.92 0.59
C*c = 0.02Is-0.18 30 0.98 0.64
e*100 = 0.38eL+1.00 22 0.93 0.47
e*100 = 0.01LL+0.67 30 0.92 0.48
e*100 = 0.02PI+1.43 21 0.75 0.64
e*100 = 0.009Is+1.24 18 0.88 0.63
148
Table 5.10. Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics and Surface Area
from This Study.
Artificial Clays
C*c = 0.01SSAT + 0.012 11 0.98 2.50
C*c = 0.01SSAI + 0.27 11 0.97 2.41
e*100 = 0.008SSAT+0.98 12 0.97 1.37
e*100 = 0.008SSAI+1.32 12 0.93 1.39
eL
Figure 5.57 presents the relationship between eL and Cation Exchange Capacity Activity.
There is no visible correlation between the two.
149
16
Artificial Clays
14
12
10
8
eL
0
0 1 2 3 4
CEC/CF
Figure 5.57. eL versus CEC/CF for Artificial Clays.
Figure 5.58 presents the relationship between eL and Surface Area Activity. Again, there
is no visible correlation between the two.
150
16
Artificial Clays
14
12
10
8
eL
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
SSA/CF
Figure 5.58. eL versus SAA for Artificial Clays.
Figure 5.59 A, B and C present the relationship between eL and total, internal and
external surface area. The total and internal surface area figures show two distinct linear
correlations. One of the linear relationships includes samples with high surface areas but low eL
values, which includes samples #10, #13, #16 and #18. The other linear relationship includes the
traditional artificial clays with high surface areas and correspondingly high Liquid Limits, which
would therefore create high eL values. This linear correlation was plotted and is shown on the
figure.
151
16
14 Total SSA
12
10
8
eL
6
#13 #18
4
#8 #10 #16
2 #7
0
0 200 400 600 800
16
14 Internal SSA
12
10
8
eL
6
#13 #18
4
#8 #10 #16
2 #7
0
0 200 400 600 800
16
14 External SSA
12
10
8
eL
#9
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.59. eL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
152
e*100/eL
The relationship of the ratio e*100/eL and eL is presented in Figure 5.60. The slope of the
data from Figure 5.50 is plotted as the constant K = 0.48. This value should show as the mean
value of the data, however, in this case, it plots below the mean value of K = 0.66. The same
ratio is plotted with LL and PI. Figures 5.61 and 5.62 present the results of e*100/eL and LL and
PI respectively.
1.5
Artificial Clays from the Literature:(n=5)
Artificial Clays from this Study:(n=18)
K=0.48 from Figure 5.50
1.0
100/eL
*
e
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30
eL
Figure 5.60. e*100/eL versus eL for Artificial Clays.
153
1.5
1.0
100/eL
*
e
0.5
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
LL (%)
Figure 5.61. e*100/eL versus LL for Artificial Clays.
1.5
1.0
100/eL
*
e
0.5
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
PI (%)
Figure 5.62. e*100/eL versus PI for Artificial Clays.
154
The eighteen (18) samples shown in Figure 5.63 do not show completely linear slopes as
was presented by Nagaraj (1983). The samples show curvilinear characteristics with the linear
portions not following the same slope. The legend is presented as a separate Figure (5.64).
2
e/eL
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Stress (kPa)
Figure 5.63. e/eL versus Stress for Artificial Clays.
155
Thiele Kaolin RC-32
217-Thiele Kaolin
218-Panther Creek
219-Panther Creek
220 Peerless Clay
221 Peerless Clay
Old Hickory Clay F-2
Pure Gold Gel
SHCa
KGa-1
KGa-2
STx-1
PF1-1
257 SWy-2
258 Saz-1
284-Illite
288-Barakade 90
Figure 5.64. Legend for Figure 5.63.
5.2.2.4 Atterberg Limit Correlations

The Atterberg Limits of the Artificial Clays in this study show a wide range of values,
indicative of Kaolinite, Illite and Montmorillonite. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index,
Shrinkage Limit and Shrinkage Index were used in relationships with surface area, clay fraction,
cation exchange capacity activity and surface area activity.
Figures 5.65 A, B and C present the correlations between Liquid Limit and total, internal
and external surface area. There are several artificial clays in this data set which do no follow
traditional relationships, #8, 10, 13,16 and 18. These clays have a high surface area, however a
low liquid limit. These five samples also have an extremely low Activity values and a high
Surface Area Activity Values. These five samples were excluded from the linear regression
performed on the other thirteen samples. Figures 5.66 A, B and C show the relationship between
the inverse Liquid Limit and inverse surface area which Muhunthan (1991) hypothesized would
show a linear correlation.
156
600
500 Total SSA
400
LL (%)
300
200
#13 #18
#8 #10 #16
100 #7
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
Internal SSA
500
400
LL (%)
300
200
#13 #16 #18
#8
100
#7 #10
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
500 External SSA
400
LL (%)
300
#9
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.65. LL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
157
0.0375
Total SSA
0.0250
1/LL
0.0125
0.0000
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0.0375
Internal SSA
0.0250
1/LL
0.0125
0.0000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
0.0375
External SSA
0.0250
1/LL
0.0125
0.0000
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
1/SSA
Figure 5.66. 1/LL versus 1/SSA. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
158
150
Total SSA
#9
100
PL (%)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800
100
Internal SSA
PL (%)
50
0
0 200 400 600 800
150
External SSA
100
PL (%)
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.67. PL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
159
600
Total SSA
500
400
PI (%)
300
200
#9 #13 #18
100 #8 #16
#7 #10
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
Internal SSA
500
400
PI (%)
300
200
#13 #16 #18
100
#8 #10
#7
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
External SSA
500
400
PI (%)
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.68. PI versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
160
600
Total SSA
500
400
SL (%)
300
200
#9 #13
#16 #18
100 #8
#7 #10
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
Internal SSA
500
400
SL (%)
300
200
#13
#16 #18
100 #9 #10
#7 #8
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
External SSA
500
400
SL (%)
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.69. SL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
161
600
Total SSA
500
400
Is (%)
300
200 #13 #18
#9 #16
#10
100
#7 #8
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
Internal SSA
500
400
Is (%)
300
200 #13 #18
#10 #16
100
#7 #8
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
External SSA
500
400
Is (%)
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 5.70. Is versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
162
The external surface area is the only plot, which shows a linear trend, excluding the five
montmorillonites. Figures 6.67 A, B and C show a linear relationship with PL and surface area
with one outlying sample, #9.
Figures 5.68 A, B and C again show two linear trends within the data. The five
montmorillinitic soils with high plasticity and a corresponding high surface area are shown in the
linear regression. Four samples with low plasticity index and high surface areas were left out of
the regression because they do not follow the expected trend for montmorillinitic soil. These
four soils have low Activity values (< 2) for artificial clays and high Surface Area Activity
values (>7.25). Figures 5.69 A, B and C show the same two linear trends with SL and surface
area. The same four samples are left out of the regression analysis. Figures 5.70 A, B and C
present shrinkage index versus surface area and the two linear trends are apparent here also.
Sample #10, 13, 16 and 18 are again left out of the regression analysis. Correlations found
between Atterberg Limits and surface area are presented in Table 5.11.
Table 5.11. Atterberg Limit Correlations with Surface Area.

Artificial Clays
eL = 0.02SSAT+0.88 14 0.96 2.27
eL = 0.02SSAI+1.62 14 0.96 2.32
LL = 0.77SSAT+20.3 13 0.94 34.1
LL = 0.78SSAI+47.9 13 0.95 39.9
PL = 0.027SSAT+31.2 17 0.58 6.58
PL = 0.027SSAI+31.8 17 0.58 6.65
PL = 0.28SSAE+30.9 18 0.29 8.59
PI = 0.74SSAT-15 13 0.92 32.3
PI = 0.76SSAI-8.2 13 0.95 37.7
SL = 0.74SSAT-25 14 0.89 10.8
SL = 0.77SSAI-2.02 14 0.93 10.9
Is = 0.79SSAT-18.81 14 0.91 41.3
Is = 0.81SSAI-8.17 14 0.92 47.4
163
The relationship between Atterberg Limits and clay fraction of the Artificial Clays is
relatively scattered, showing the five montmorillinitic samples as the high points. Figures 5.71
and 5.72 present the results of Atterberg Limits and Clay Fraction. The Atterberg Limit results
were compared with the cation exchange capacity activity (CEC/CF) and surface area activity
(SSA/CF). In all of the relationship combinations, there did not seem to be any trends. Figures
5.73 and 5.74 show the Atterberg Limits versus cation exchange capacity activity and Figures
7.75 and 5.76 present the Atterberg Limits versus surface area activity.
600
LL
500 PL
PI
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CF (%)
Figure 5.71. LL versus Clay Fraction for Artificial Clays.
164
600
SL
500 Is
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CF (%)
Figure 5.72. Shrinkage Properties versus Clay Fraction for Artificial Clays.
600
LL
PL
500
PI
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4
CEC/CF
Figure 5.73. Atterberg Limits versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity.
165
600
SL
Is
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4
CEC/CF
Figure 5.74. Shrinkage Properties versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity.
166
600
LL
PL
500 PI
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
SSA/CF
Figure 5.75. Atterberg Limits versus Surface Area Activity for Artificial Clays.
600
SL
Is
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
SSA/CF
Figure 5.76. Shrinkage Properties versus Surface Area Activity for Artificial Clays.
167
5.3 ACTIVITY AND RELATIVE ACTIVITY
Soils from four geologic deposits were tested to evaluate the influence of Surface Area on
Activity, Relative Activity and Dispersive characteristics. A summary of the laboratory test
results for the four geologic deposits is presented by geology and site in Appendix A. The
results from the laboratory tests are shown in graphical form to show the relationships of
geotechnical properties more clearly. It was attempted to show that correlations lie not only
within the same geologic origin, but within a specific site in the geologic deposit, however, at
this time, there are some sites where not all laboratory tests were performed. It is difficult in
these instances to prove beyond any doubt that correlations do indeed exist.
5.3.1 Marine Deposits
Figure 5.77 presents the Casagrande Plasticity Chart for the Marine Clays tested. The
range of LL for these soils was approximately 18 to 110%. This plasticity chart shows that most
of the soils in this group fall within the A-Line/U-Line space, with most of the soil samples
classifying as low to medium plasticity, inorganic clays, CL. There are a few samples from
Athlone, Ireland, which fall below the A-Line and on and above the U-Line. The Atterberg
Limits of these samples were not tested at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, but rather
the information was provided from a university in Ireland.
168
120
OGB
IDA
Newburyport, BBC
100 NRL
BBC
I-95
Delaware
Kennegar, Ireland
80 Athlone, Ireland e
in
Bangkok, Thailand
-L
Japan U
Bothkennar, Scotland
60 England
Norway ne
-Li
A
40 OH or MH
CH
CL
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Liquid Limit (%)
Figure 5.77. Plasticity Chart for Marine Clays.
The legend shown on Figure 5.77 is the same for Figure 5.78 through Figure 5.83. Figure
5.78 presents the relationship between total surface area and carbonate content. There is no
relationship between the two, except to note that the individual sites are shown in relatively tight
groups. Figure 5.79 presents the relationship between cation exchange capacity and total surface
area. This relationship shows a general linear trend with a lot of scatter. It is interesting to note
that this linear relationship is made up of individual sites grouped one after the other, with a few
outlying points.
169
260
240
220
200
180
Surface Area (m2/g)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 5.78. Surface Area versus Carbonates for Marine Clays.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Figure 5.79. Cation Exchange Capacity versus Surface Area for Marine Clays.
170
Figures 5.80, 5.81 and 5.82 present Activity versus surface charge, carbonate content and
surface area, respectively. There is no discernible trend between these relationships.
4
Activity (PI/CF)
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Surface Charge (CEC/SSA)
Figure 5.80. Activity versus Surface Charge for Marine Clays.
171
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
Activity (PI/CF)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 5.81. Activity versus Carbonate Content for Marine Clays.
4
Activity (PI/CF)
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Figure 5.82. Activity versus Surface Area for Marine Clays.
172
Figure 5.83 presents the relationship between relative activity and carbonate content.
Quigley et al. (1985) demonstrated a curvilinear relationship between these two properties with
Canadian Varved Clays as shown in Chapter 2. The Canadian Varved Clay in that study had a
relative activity range of 0 to 1 and a carbonate content range of 0 to 25 %. The same
relationship was demonstrated with marine clays from this study, with a few stray samples from
Delaware, Norway and Kennegar, Ireland. The ranges for the data in this study are 0 to 1.6 and
0 to 30% for relative activity and carbonate content, respectively.
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30
Figure 5.83. Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content for Marine Clays.
5.3.2 Alluvial, Lacustrine and Loess Deposits

Figure 5.84 presents the Casagrande Plasticity Chart for Alluvial, Lacustrine and Loess
Deposit Clays together. The data is presented in this way because there is limited Atterberg
173
Limit data for these three geologic groups. There are three sites within the alluvial geologic
deposit, North Base, Oklahoma, Storz, Nebraska, and Houston, Texas. North Base and Storz
have had Atterberg Limits performed, however there is no Atterberg Limit information on the
Houston site. The plasticity chart shows that most of the soils fall within the A-Line/U-Line
space, classified between a low to medium plasticity, inorganic clay, CL, and high plasticity,
inorganic clay, CH.
Five lacustrine site deposits from around the United States were tested to determine the
Activity, Relative Activity and Dispersive Properties. The sites encompass a wide range of lake
deposits, including Glacial Lake Hitchcock (NGES, UMASS), Port of Albany, New York, Salt
Lake City, Utah, Chicago and New Hampshire. The NGES, UMASS site was the only one
tested for Atterberg Limits. The NGES, UMASS soils fall slightly below the A-Line, and are
divided evenly between medium and high plasticity silty clays.
Loess deposits were collected from different sites in the mid-west United States. Loess
samples from numerous sites in Idaho, Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska were tested. For example,
there are four different sites within Nebraska. These sites do not necessarily have the same soil
properties, however, for these purposes, four delineations by state are adequate. Unfortunately,
at this time, there are no Atterberg Limit data for the majority of the samples collected. The
available soil data was classified as a low plasticity, silty clay.
174
120
Alluvial Deposit
Lacustrine Deposit
Loess Deposit
100
80
ne
-Li
U
Plasticity Index
ne
-Li
60 A
40
CH
CL
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Liquid Limit
Figure 5.84. Plasticity Chart for Three Geologic Deposits.
Figure 5.85 presents the relationship between total surface area and carbonate content for
alluvial deposits. The relationship between the two properties shows an exponential trend, as
surface area rapidly increases, carbonate content increases slowly, and then at a surface area of
200 m2/g, the rapid increase in surface area slows and a rapid increase in carbonate content
begins, as the surface area remains relatively constant. This trend is not seen in any other
geology.
Figure 5.86 presents the relationship between surface area and carbonate content for
lacustrine deposits. There is no overall trend between these two properties, however, there are
trends seen within specific sites. For example, in both the UMASS and New Hampshire sites, as
the carbonate content remains constant around 2 and 7% respectively, surface area varies from
10 to 60 m2/g.
175
260
240
220
200
180
Surface Area (m2/g)
160
140
120
100
80
60
NB, Oklahoma
40
Storz, Nebraska
20 Houston
0
0 10 20 30
Figure 5.85. Surface Area versus Carbonate Content for Alluvial Deposits.
176
120
POA, New York
Salt Lake City, Utah
100 NGES, UMASS
Chicago
New Hampshire
80
Surface Area (m2/g)
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 5.86. Surface Area versus Carbonate Content for Lacustrine Deposits.
Figure 5.87 presents the relationship between surface area and carbonate content for loess
deposits. There is a wide range of surface areas, from approximately 40% to 240% and a
carbonate content range from 2 to 20%. There is no obvious correlation between the two soil
properties for loess deposits.
177
260
240 Idaho
Missouri
220 Iowa
200 Nebraska
180
Surface Area (m2/g)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30
Figure 5.87. Surface Area versus Carbonate Content for Loess Deposits.
Figure 5.88 presents the relationship between CEC and Surface Area for alluvial deposits.
There is a strong linear correlation shown. The equation and regression coefficient are on Figure
5.88.
Figure 5.89 presents the relationship between cation exchange capacity and total surface
area for lacustrine deposits. The POA and Utah data plot in a linear fashion, with the NGES,
UMASS site results showing as a linear trend but 10 meq/100 grams lower. The equations are
presented on Figure 5.89.
Figure 5.90 presents the relationship between cation exchange capacity and surface area.
Like the alluvial and lacustrine deposits, there seems to be a linear trend between these two
properties. The regression equation is shown on Figure 5.90.
178
50
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
Houston
40
30
20
10
CEC=0.17SSA+3.67:r2=0.96:(n=30)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Figure 5.88. CEC versus SSA for Alluvial Deposits.
40
POA, New York
NGES, UMASS
Utah
30
=4 1 )
2
=0 . 55:(n
.9:r
A+15
=0 .14SS
20 CEC
10
:r =0.35:(n=6)
2
+4.1
CEC=0.04SSA
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 5.89. CEC versus SSA for Lacustrine Deposits.
179
50
Idaho
Missouri
Iowa
40 Nebraska
83)
:(n=
2 0.52
30 7 . 7 5:r =
A+
0 SS
= 0.1
CEC
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Figure 5.90. CEC versus SSA for Loess Deposits.
Figures 5.91 through 5.93 present Activity versus surface charge, carbonate content and
surface area, respectively for all three geologic deposits.
Figure 5.92 presents the relationship between Relative Activity and surface area. The
compilation of the three geologic deposits shows a curvilinear relationship like Quigley et al.
(1985) presented for Canadian Varved Clays and the marine deposits from this study.
180
1.5
Alluvial Deposits
Lacustrine Deposits
Loess Deposits
1.0
Activity (PI/CF)
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Figure 5.91. Activity versus Surface Charge.
1.5
Alluvial Deposits
Lacustrine Deposits
Loess Deposits
1.0
Activity (PI/CF)
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 5.92. Activity versus Carbonate Content.
181
1.5
Alluvial Deposits
Lacustrine Deposits
Loess Deposits
1.0
Activity (PI/CF)
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Figure 5.93. Activity versus Surface Area for Alluvial Deposits.
1.5
Alluvial Deposits
Lacustrine Deposits
Loess Deposits
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 5.94. Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content.
182
5.4 DISPERSION
5.4.1 Marine Deposits
Figures 5.95 through 5.102 present the relationship between Dispersion and Carbonate
Content, Surface Area, Clay Fraction, Surface Charge, Activity, Relative Activity, Surface Area
Activity and Cation Exchange Capacity Activity, respectively. For many of the marine samples,
the soil was non-dispersive, (dispersion value (D.005) of zero). In all eight figures portraying
dispersion, there are no strong trends or relationships between dispersion and the soil property
shown. It seems that dispersion can vary from 0 to 60% while the correlating property remains
constant. For example, in Figure 5.95, as the dispersion varies between 0 and 60%, the
carbonate content remains relatively constant at 2%, with a few sites scattered throughout the
remainder of the figure.
70
OGB
60 IDA
BBC
I-95
50
Athlone, Ireland
England
Dispersion (%)
40 Norway
T1-BBC
30 78328-BBC
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 5.95. Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Marine Clays.
183
70
OGB
60 IDA
BBC
I-95
50
Athlone, Ireland
England
Dispersion (%)
40 Norway
T1-BBC
78238-BBC
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Figure 5.96. Dispersion versus SSA for Marine Clays.
70
60
50
OGB
Dispersion (%)
IDA
40 BBC
I-95
30 Athlone, Ireland
England
Norway
20
T1-BBC
78238-BBC
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 5.97. Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Marine Clays.
184
70
OGB
60 IDA
BBC
I-95
50
Athlone, Ireland
England
Dispersion (%)
40 Norway
T1-BBC
78328-BBC
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Figure 5.98. Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Marine Clays.
70
OGB
60 IDA
BBC
I-95
50
Athlone, Ireland
England
Dispersion (%)
40 Norway
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Activity (PI/CF)
Figure 5.99. Dispersion versus Activity for Marine Clays.
185
70
OGB
60
IDA
BBC
50 I-95
Athlone, Ireland
Dispersion (%)
England
40
Norway
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 5.100. Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Marine Clays.
70
OGB
IDA
60 NRL
BBC
I-95
50 Athlone, Ireland
England
Dispersion (%)
Norway
40
T1-BBC
78238- BBC
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Surface Area Activity (SSA/CF)
Figure 5.101. Dispersion versus SSA for Marine Clays.
186
70
OGB
IDA
60 NRL
BBC
I-95
50 Athlone, Ireland
England
Dispersion (%)
Norway
40
T1-BBC
78238- BBC
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Cation Exchange Capacity Activity (CEC/CF)
Figure 5.102. Dispersion versus CECA for Marine Clays.
5.4.2 Alluvial Deposits
Activity and Cation Exchange Capacity Activity, respectively. The alluvial soils portray
different relationships with dispersion than did the marine clay. There was only one sample that
was completely non-dispersive, D.005 equal to zero, and there was more scatter in the
relationships. In all eight figures portraying dispersion, there are no strong trends or
relationships between dispersion and soil property shown. For example, in Figure 5.99, there
was no apparent trend between Dispersion and Clay Fraction. The clay fraction ranged from 10
and 70 %, and the dispersion ranged from 0 to 30 %, whereas in the marine clay deposits, there
was a much smaller range of clay fractions.
187
30
20
Dispersion (%)
10
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
Houston
0
0 10 20 30
Figure 5.103. Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Alluvial Deposits.
30
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
Houston
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Figure 5.104. Dispersion versus SSA for Alluvial Deposits.
188
30
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
Houston
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 5.105. Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Alluvial Deposits.
30
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
Houston
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
Figure 5.106. Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Alluvial Deposits.
189
30
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Activity (PI/CF)
Figure 5.107. Dispersion versus Activity for Alluvial Deposits.
30
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375
Figure 5.108. Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Alluvial Deposits.
190
30
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Figure 5.109. Dispersion versus SAA for Alluvial Deposits.
30
NB, Oklahoma
Storz, Nebraska
Houston
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Figure 5.110. Dispersion versus CECA for Alluvial Deposits.
191
5.4.3 Lacustrine Deposits
Activity and Cation Exchange Capacity Activity, respectively. The NGES site test results do not
seem to vary with depth, and plot in a tight group in every figure. This group is very different
from the POA and Utah samples, which are more variable with depth and plot in a scattered
manner. In all eight plots, there are no strong relationships between dispersion and the specific
soil property.
50
POA, New York
NGES, UMASS
Utah
40
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 5.111. Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Lacustrine Deposits.
192
50
POA, New York
NGES, UMASS
Utah
40
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0 25 50 75 100 125
Figure 5.112. Dispersion versus SSA for Lacustrine Deposits.
50
POA, New York
NGES, UMASS
Utah
40
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 5.113. Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Lacustrine Deposits.
193
40
Utah
NGES, UMASS
POA, New York
30
Dispersion (%)
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Figure 5.114. Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Lacustrine Deposits.
50
NGES, UMASS
40
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
Activity (PI/CF)
Figure 5.115. Dispersion versus Activity for Lacustrine Deposits.
194
50
40
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
NGES, UMASS
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Figure 5.116. Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Lacustrine Deposits.
40
30
Dispersion (%)
20
NGES, UMASS
POA, New York
Utah
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Figure 5.117. Dispersion versus CECA for Lacustrine Deposits.
195
50
NGES, UMASS
POA, New York
Utah
40
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Figure 5.118. Dispersion versus SAA for Lacustrine Deposits.
5.4.4 Loess Deposits
Activity and Cation Exchange Capacity Activity, respectively. Again, many of the loess samples
were non-dispersive with a dispersion value of zero. These relationships do not clearly show any
correlations.
196
50
Idaho
Missouri
Iowa
40 Nebraska
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
Figure 5.119. Dispersion versus Carbonate Content for Loess Deposits.
50
Idaho
Missouri
Iowa
40 Nebraska
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
Figure 5.120. Dispersion versus SSA for Loess Deposits.
197
50
Idaho
Missouri
Iowa
40 Nebraska
Dispersion (%)
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 5.121. Dispersion versus Clay Fraction for Loess Deposits.
30
Iowa
Missouri
Idaho
Nebraska
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.00 0.25 0.50
Figure 5.122. Dispersion versus Surface Charge for Loess Deposits.
198
30
Idaho
Missouri
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Activity (PI/CF)
Figure 5.123. Dispersion versus Activity for Loess Deposits.
30
Idaho
Missouri
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.000 0.125 0.250
Figure 5.124. Dispersion versus Relative Activity for Loess Deposits.
199
30
Idaho
Missouri
Iowa
Nebraska
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 5.125. Dispersion versus CECA for Loess Deposits.
30
Idaho
Missouri
Iowa
Nebraska
20
Dispersion (%)
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Figure 5.126. Dispersion versus SAA for Loess Deposits.
200
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a discussion of the test results presented in the previous chapter.
Intrinsic compressibility properties measured in the current research for selected fine-grained
natural and artificial soils are examined to investigate soil property relationships and compared
with previous results published in the literature. The activity, relative activity and dispersion
properties of selected natural marine, alluvial, lacustrine and loess deposits are analyzed and
compared to results previously published in the literature.
6.2 INTRINSIC COMPRESSIBILITY PROPERTIES
6.2.1 Natural and Artificial Clay Comparison
In Chapter 5, the thirty-three (33) selected fine-grained natural soils and eighteen (18)
artificial clays were presented separately since the range of a number of individual soil properties
was so great, it was easier to interpret the results as two separate groups. In addition, the use of
artificial clays gives values for soils composed of more or less single clay minerals. The
artificial clays were also oven-dried during processing. The natural fine-grained soils were most
likely composed of several different minerals that reflect facets of the soil composition, geologic
deposition, history, present state and environment. In this chapter the natural and artificial clay
samples will be combined to attempt to address the significant similarities and differences in soil
behavior. Table 6.1 presents the ranges of measured soil properties for both natural and artificial
clays.
It is interesting to note that in the following figures there is a strong similarity between
the kaolinites, illites and the natural clays. The montmorillonitic soils tend to create separate
trends, which vary from the other soil samples.
201
Table 6.1. Natural and Artificial Clay Soil Property Ranges.
Soil Property Natural Clays Artificial Clays

Total SSA (m2/g) 11-255 15-767
External SSA (m2/g) 9.0-80 12-204
Internal SSA (m2/g) 2-175 3-691
Calcite (%) 0.4-45.0 -
Dolomite (%) 1.0-20.5 -
Carbonate Content (%) 2.0-62.8 -
Clay Fraction (%) 10.2-71.1 36.2-95.8
CEC (meq/100 g) 5.9-120.9 0.9-120.0
Gs 2.57-2.93 2.37-2.83
LL (%) 24-155 33-560
PL (%) NP-61 23-108
PI (%) NA-94 10-508
SL (%) 4.0-40 1.0-51
Is (%) 3.0-63 16-546
eL 0.66-4.26 0.89-14.27
eP 0.31-1.68 0.70-3.06
eS 0.11-1.09 0.03-1.44
C*c 0.09-1.19 0.29-9.35
e*100 0.45-3.12 0.80-7.10
Activity 0.23-3.82 0.21-8.01
Relative Activity 0.12-1.08 0.06-1.22
Surface Charge 0.11-1.41 0.03-0.16
CECA 0.12-4.25 0.01-3.18
SAA 0.52-9.68 0.30-20.34
202
The ranges of most of the soil properties are so different for the natural clays and artificial clays
that it is necessary to present the relationships giving the full range for an individual property and
then to present a similar figure again with a reduced scale to show the scatter over a more typical
range for real soil deposits. This makes it possible to interpret individual data points, while still
seeing the combined effect.
6.2.2 Intrinsic Compressibility Correlations
C*c
Presented in Chapter 5 are the Activity, Surface Area Activity and Cation Exchange
Capacity Activity Charts for natural and artificial clays. When Activity lines were placed on
these figures, it became clear that there were certain delineations within the data that should be
further investigated. The data were divided using Activity groups proposed by Skempton (1953)
of Inactive Clays (< 0.75), Normal Clays (0.75 to 1.25) and Active Clays (> 1.25). These
Activity groups were plotted in the intrinsic compressibility and Liquid Limit relationship as
well as the intrinsic compressibility and Total Surface Area relationship to determine if Activity
was related to Liquid Limit or Surface Area and had any control over the intrinsic
compressibility of a soil.
Even though the Liquid Limit produces a linear correlation with C*c, there seems to be no
apparent groupings of Activity within this relationship. Figure 6.1 presents the same trend as
seen in Chapter 5, a linear relationship between C*c and LL, without any delineations for
Activity. However, when Activity groups were used in Figure 6.2 with the relationship of C*c
and total Surface Area, three groups can be delineated. The Inactive Clays have two distinct
groups: one group which has a range of Specific Surface Areas from 0 to 70 m2/g and a C*c range
of 0 to 0.65; and the second group with a range of Specific Surface Areas from 140 to 160 m2/g
and a C*c range of 0.3 to 0.55. The Normal clays remain between the Surface Areas of 65 to 190
m2/g and a C*c range of 0.15 to 0.50, with one outlying artificial clay. The Active Clays have
two distinct groups as well: one group with a relatively low Specific Surface Area range of 80 to
120 m2/g and C*c range of 0.30 to 0.65 and the other group with Specific Surface Areas greater
203
than 350 m2/g but with two ranges of C*c values. The first trend is the upper C*c values of 5.5 to
9.35 and the second has much lower C*c values of 1 to 2. These lower values of C*c do not fit
within the expected trend of montomorillonitic soils and for all of the regressions performed in
Chapter 5, they were left out. Only total Surface Area was used in these relationships because as
presented in Chapter 5, the relationship between C*c and total Surface Area was seen to be the
best out of the three relationships shown: Total, Internal and External.
It is interesting to note that if Skempton’s Activity groupings were slightly altered, a
clearer relationship between C*c, total Surface Area and Activity was seen. These modified
Activity Groups are presented in Figure 6.3 and seem to model the data from this study better
than Skempton’s Activity groups.
204
10
Inactive Natural Clays < 0.75
Normal Natural Clays = 0.75 to 1.25
8 Active Natural Clays > 1.25
Inactive Artificial Clays < 0.75
Normal Artificial Clays = 0.75 to 1.25
Active Artificial Clays > 1.25
6
c
*
C
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A.
1.00
0.75
c
0.50
*
C
0.25
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Limit (%)
B.
Figure 6.1. C*c versus LL Grouped by Skempton (1953) Activity. A. Full Range. B. Low Range.
205
10
Inactive Natural Clays < 0.75
Normal Natural Clays = 0.75 to 1.25
8 Active Natural Clays > 1.25
Inactive Artificial Clays < 0.75
Normal Artificial Clays = 0.75 to 1.25
Active Artificial Clays > 1.25
6
c
*
C
0
0 200 400 600 800
A.
1.00
0.75
c
0.50
*
C
0.25
0.00
0 50 100 150 200
Total Surface Area (m2/g)

B.
Figure 6.2. C*c versus SSA Grouped by Skempton (1953) Activity. A. Full Range. B.
Low Range.
206
10
Natural Clays < 0.40
Natural Clays = 0.4 to 1.0
8 Natural Clays > 1.0
Artificial Clays < 0.40
Artificial Clays = 0.4 to 1.0
6 Artificial Clays >1.0
c
*
C
0
0 200 400 600 800
A.
1.00
0.75
c
0.50
*
C
0.25
0.00
0 50 100 150 200

B.
Figure 6.3. C*c versus SSA Grouped by Activity. A. Full Range. B. Low Range.
207
After Skempton’s Activity grouping was investigated, it was thought that there might be
a relationship if Relative Activity (PI/SSA) groupings were used. Delineations of Relative
Activity groupings have not been published so the range of Relative Activity for both the Natural
and Artificial Clays were evaluated and three groupings were established: < 0.25, 0.25 to 0.50,
and > 0.50 (low, medium and high, respectively). These groupings were arbitrarily chosen by
the number of data points that fell into one particular group. It was the intent to keep each group
relatively equal in number. Figures 6.4 and 6.5 present the results of these Relative Activity
Groupings. Figure 6.4 presents the relationship between C*c and Liquid Limit with respect to
Relative Activity, and like the Activity groupings, is randomly dispersed within the correlation.
However, the Relative Activity plot presents distinct groupings as Surface Area increases shown
in Figure 6.5. These groupings are clearer than the ones shown previously for Activity.
In Figure 6.5 A, there are two groupings of both the low and high delineations. This can
be explained by the unusually low C*c relative to the high surface areas. The low relative
activities of these clays is explained by the high Liquid Limits, high Plasticity Indices and high
surface areas. With this combination of soil properties, it could be hypothesized that there would
be a correspondingly high C*c, which does not occur in four cases of the artificial clays. One
explanation for this behavior, which is different from the typical values found in the literature,
may be that these artificial clays are not pure. Results of hydrometer analyses on all the clays in
this study indicated that none of the artificial clays was composed of 100% clay size particles.
They may contain impurities such as carbonates and other miscellaneous trace minerals.
Carbonate testing was not performed on the artificial clays used in this study, however, the
manufacturer specification sheet on some of the artificial clays make note of a range of 1 to 10 %
miscellaneous trace minerals. It is possible that calcium carbonate is part of that grouping.
Some of the artificial clays were mined from natural deposits in Georgia (Kaolinite), Florida
(Attapulgite), Arizona (Ca-Montmorillonite) and Wyoming, (Na-Montmorillonite) and some, i.e.
the Old Hickory and Thiele Kaolin Clays, were manufactured in a laboratory.
208
10
6 Artificial Clays > 0.50
C*c
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
A.
1.00
0.75
C*c
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Limit (%)
B.
Figure 6.4. C*c versus LL Grouped by Relative Activity. A. Full Range. B. Low Range.
209
Figure 6.5 B. presents the low scale plot of C*c versus Total Surface Area. In this figure,
it is apparent that the combination of Plasticity Index and Surface Area has some control over the
behavior of C*c. Within each grouping of low, medium and high Relative Activity, there appears
to be an increasing trend with Surface Area and C*c: as Surface Area increases, C*c increases.
Similar groupings were performed with Surface Area Activity, Cation Exchange
Capacity Activity and Surface Charge. The relationship with C*c and LL was not affected by
these groupings, just as the Activity and Relative Activity groupings did not affect the
relationship, so those figures are not presented.
The Surface Charge, (CEC/SSA), groupings did not show any relationship with Total
Surface Area, Figure 6.5. This may be because a given clay mineral does not have a fixed,
single value of exchange capacity because the amount of exchange capacity contributed by each
of the three sources (isomorphous substitution, broken bonds, and replacement) depends on
various environmental and compositional factors (Mitchell 1993). It may also be because all
soils in this data set are from various geologic depositions, with varying cations and anions. The
common cations in residual and nonmarine sedimentary soils are calcium, magnesium, sodium
and potassium, usually in that decreasing order of abundance (Mitchell 1993). Marine clays and
most saline soils contain sodium as the dominant cation. As the intricacies of cation exchange
capacity are beyond the scope of this research, the type of cation present in the soil particle
bonds controls the exchange capacity, so when various geologic deposits are used together in a
relationship, no trend is expected.
210
10
Artificial Clays > 0.50
6
C* c
0
0 200 400 600 800
A.
1.00
0.75
High Medium
C*c
0.50
0.25
Low
0.00
0 50 100 150 200

B.
Figure 6.5. C*c versus SSA Grouped by Relative Activity A. Full Range. B. Low Range.
211
10
Artificial Clays > 0.5
6
c
*
C
0
0 200 400 600 800
A.
1.00
0.75
c
0.50
*
C
0.25
0.00
0 50 100 150 200

B.
Figure 6.6. C*c versus SSA Grouped by Surface Charge. A. Full Range. B. Low Range.
212
10
Natural Clays < 0.5
Natural Clays = 0.5 to 1
8 Natural Clays > 1
Artificial Clays = 0.5 to 1
Artificial Clays > 1
6
C*c
0
0 200 400 600 800
A.
1.00
0.75
C*c
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 50 100 150 200
B.
Figure 6.7. C*c versus SSA Grouped by CECA. A. Full Range. B. Low Range.
213
The Cation Exchange Capacity Activity (CEC/CF) groupings show no apparent trends
with C*c and SSA for probably the same reasons as mentioned above. It can be seen from Figure
5.3 that most of the samples have CECA less than 1.0. For a constant mineralogy, it would be
expected that as CF increases, CEC would also increase and therefore CECA would be a
constant (Davidson and Sheerer 1952), which is not the case with all soils from this study.
Surface Area Activity (SSA/CF) groupings were created on a larger scale because the
range was so extensive, Figure 6.8. Three groupings were established: < 2, 2 to 4, > 4, (low,
medium and high). These delineations generally show groupings, with a few random points
interspersed. These random data points could be a function of how the groupings were
arbitrarily chosen, as there are no published results for guidance in the literature. The low (< 2)
delineation shows up well and the medium and low groups are mixed together. As clay content,
by definition, cannot exceed 100%, and usually ranges from 10 to 70 % (in natural clays), and
Surface Area can range from 0 to approximately 850 m2/g, Surface Area variation will be the
more dominating component of this ratio, as can be seen by the amount of “high” soils. It is
unclear if clay fraction is that much of a controlling factor in the relationship between intrinsic
compressibility and total surface area.
214
10
Natural Clays < 2
Natural Clays = 2 to 4
8 Natural Clays > 4
Artificial Clays < 2
Artificial Clays = 2 to 4
Artificial Clays > 4
6
C*c
0
0 200 400 600 800
A.
1.00
0.75
C*c
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 50 100 150 200

B.
Figure 6.8. C*c versus SSA Grouped by SAA. A. Full Range. B. Low Range.
215
For saturated, normally consolidated clays the compression index, Cc, is the slope of the
straight-line portion of the e-log10p curve. This value for different soils has been found to
increase consistently with liquid limit water contents. Correlations from Skempton (1944),
Terzaghi and Peck (1948), Nishida (1956), Hough (1957) and others, are available in the
published literature relating compression index to liquid limit water contents. Among the
various approaches, Skempton’s (1944) relationship is the most used (Nagaraj et al. 1983).
Burland (1990) suggested that a similar correlation existed between the intrinsic compression
index, C*c, the slope of the straight-line portion of the e-log10p curve of a remolded soil, and eL,
the void ratio at the Liquid Limit. This correlation between C*c and eL was presented in Chapter
5.
Burland’s regression equation fit well with the data from this study and the literature,
however did not correlate well with artificial clays with an eL greater than 6. This is
understandable, as Burland did not use artificial clays in his analysis. Figure 6.9 presents the
correlation of both the natural and artificial clays from this study and the literature. A cubic
parabola regression equation was fitted to data from this study and the literature and is defined
as:
3 2
C * c = 0.0029e L − 0.02e L + 0.3e L + 0.0086 [6.1]
This equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.999 and can be applied to the full range of natural
and artificial clays found in this study and in the literature.
216
10
Artificial Clays from This Study
8 Burland Regression:C*c = 0256eL-0.04:(n=26)
Natural Clays from This Study
6
c
*
C
C*c = 0.0029eL3-0.02eL2+0.3eL+0.0086
4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
eL
Figure 6.9. Combination of Artificial and Natural Clays from This Study and the Literature in
the C*c versus eL Relationship.
It is interesting to note that Burland did not choose to use Liquid Limit in his correlations,
but instead used eL, which requires the measurement of two parameters, Gs and LL, both of
which may be difficult. There is sufficient uncertainty in the determination of LL, that the
addition of another parameter may increase the error of the correlation. The Liquid Limit has
been proven in this study and throughout the literature to have just as good a correlation with C*c
as with eL. The standard deviations of the regression equations between C*c and eL and C*c and
LL are approximately equal as seen in Tables 5.3 and 5.8. Figure 6.10 presents the combined
correlation of artificial and natural clays from this Study and the literature. The equation that
models the Liquid Limit correlation with C*c from both artificial and natural clays from this
study and the literature is defined as:
C * c = 2.7 x10 −5 LL2 + 0.002 LL + 0.278 [6.2]
217
This equation gives a correlation coefficient of 0.999.
10
8 Natural Clays from the Literature
Natural Clays from This Study
6
c
C*c=2.7x10-5LL2+0.002LL+0.278
*
C
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
LL (%)
Figure 6.10. Combination of Artificial and Natural Clays from This Study and the Literature in
the C*c versus LL Relationship.
The relationship between C*c and PI and Is were previously shown to be linear. Because
the PI is the difference between LL and PL and Is is the difference between LL and SL, their
ratios should be similar for any soil since the SL and PL are close. The ratio of Is to PI fluctuates
between 1 and 1.6 for both the natural and artificial clays in this study and was found to also
fluctuate within this same range for soils from Sridharan et al. (1988) test results. Figure 6.11
shows the relative differences between LL, PL and SL and the volume change as the soil passes
from the higher water content at the Liquid Limit to the lower water content at the Shrinkage
Limit, still at 100% saturation, where no additional volume change occurs. Since the ratio of
Is/PI is generally found to be approximately 1, the correlation between C*c and Is and PI should
be about the same and therefore there may be no advantage to perform shrinkage limit tests to
calculate Is. Figure 6.12 presents the relationship of C*c and Is and PI combined for artificial and
218
natural clays from this Study and the literature. There is no apparent difference between these
two correlations.
Is
PI
SL PL LL
Volume
SL PL LL
Water Content
Figure 6.11. Schematic of the Indices Is and PI and the Soil Shrinkage Process.
219
10
8 Natural Clays from this Study
Is Artificial Clay Data from the Literature
Is Artificial Clay Data from This Study
6 Is Natural Clay Data from the Literature

Is Natural Clay Data from This Study
c
*
C
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Is and PI (%)
Figure 6.12. Combination of the Relationships Between C*c, Is and PI.
Figure 6.13 presents the relationship of C*c and total, internal and external Surface Area
for both the natural and artificial clays from this study. These relationships show considerable
scatter with the relationship of C*c and total surface area showing the best results.
220
10
Natural Clays
8 Artificial Clays
6
C*c
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
A.
10
Natural Clays
8 Artificial Clays
6
C*c
0
0 200 400 600 800
B.
10
8 Natural Clays
Artificial Clays
6
C*c
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
C.
Figure 6.13. C*c versus SSA. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
221
The data shown with squares are Samples #13, 16 and #18. These test results have been
left out of all of the regression analyses because they do not fit the trend of typical
montmorillonitic samples. These samples are considered Normal to Active Clays, according to
the Skempton (1953) Activity definition. They have extremely high Surface Area Activities and
extremely low Relative Activity values. The fact that Surface Area alone does not control the
intrinsic compressibility of a soil is an important discovery, because it is understood that the
greater the specific surface, the greater the total amount of water required to satisfy the
conditions at the liquid limit and it has been reported in the literature and in this study (i.e.,
Figures 5.6 and 5.46) that there is an increasing curvilinear correlation between Cc and Liquid
Limit on remolded soils (e.g. Skempton 1944). From this alone it would be hypothesized that
there should be an increasing correlation between C*c and Surface Area if LL is indeed related to
Surface Area.
The intrinsic compressibility index was used in relationships with the Cation Exchange
Capacity Activity and Surface Area Activity. The combination of cation exchange capacity,
surface area and clay fraction had no apparent affect on the intrinsic compressibility index.
e*100
Burland (1990) suggested a cubic parabola for the equation to fit the relationship between
e*100 and eL for natural clays. Even though Burland’s regression did fit the natural soil data from
this study and the literature, it did not represent the range of artificial clays well, as Burland
created his correlation with strictly natural clays. A linear regression worked well for both the
natural and artificial clays from this study and the literature. The same trends between C*c and
soil properties are seen with e*100 and soil properties for both natural and artificial clays.
eL
The void ratio at the liquid limit, eL, was used in relationships with the Cation Exchange
Capacity Activity and Surface Area Activity. The combination of cation exchange capacity,
surface area and clay fraction had no apparent affect on eL. The void ratio at the liquid limit was
also presented in a relationship with surface area. The correlation is very similar to both the C*c
and e*100 relationships.
e*100/eL
222
It was postulated that if the e*100 versus eL curve were a linear correlation, and e*100 was
then normalized by eL and plotted versus eL, the result would be a constant. This did not occur
and the data were scattered above and below the mean value, which was taken as the slope of the
e*100 versus eL line in Figure 5.13. After reviewing the data, it became apparent that the e*100 of a
particular soil may be dependent on the initial water content of a reconstituted soil sample. This
subject is revisited in more detail with corroborating evidence in the following section of this
Chapter.
Nagaraj et al. (1983) attempted to explain the fundamental basis for the empirical
relationship of C*c and Liquid Limit. Nagaraj et al. (1983) used six remolded natural soil
samples, with Liquid Limit values varying from 36 to 156 %. When the void ratio of each
sample was normalized by eL, the plots compressed into a narrow band. These six soils are
shown in Figure 6.14 along with the natural soil data from this study. Four regression lines are
shown on Figure 6.14 as well. Figure 6.15 presents the results of the artificial clays.
Burland (1990) defined intrinsic properties as being related to clays that have been
reconstituted at a water content of between LL and 1.5 LL (preferably 1.25LL) without air
drying or oven drying. Not all of the tests in this study were mixed to exactly the same amount
past the Liquid Limit, and therefore the closer the mixture was to the LL, the closer the e0 of the
soil was to the eL, and the closer the ratio of e0/eL was to 1. Also, all of the artificial clays were
obtained in an air-dried state and then mixed to a water content of 1.25 to 1.5 times the Liquid
Limit.
All of Nagaraj’s remolded samples were assumed to be “close” to the Liquid Limit at
initial states, and with only six samples, they probably had a very narrow range of initial water
contents above the liquid limit. If the soil was mixed to 1.25 times the LL, the ratio of e/eL
would be 1.25 and if the soil was mixed to 1.5 times the LL, the ratio of e/eL would be 1.50.
Therefore, the scatter in the data may be due to the variation in the initial water content of a
particular soil sample.
223
1.4
Nagaraj et al. 1995
Nagaraj et al. 1993
1.2
1.0
0.8
e/eL
0.6
0.4
Nagaraj and Murthy 1983

0.2
Nagaraj and Murthy 1986
0.0
10 100 1000
Stress (kPa)
Figure 6.14. Normalized Void Ratio Versus Stress for Natural Clays.
From these data and observations it is postulated that the e/eL relationship may be
affected by the initial water content in a reconstituted sample. For example, if the sample were
mixed to a water content lower than the Liquid Limit, the e0 would be less than eL, producing a
ratio of less than 1. Figure 6.16 presents the possible relationship between e/eL and Log σ’v with
hypothetical initial e0/eL values to show that the initial water content may have a significant
influence on the position of the line for a single clay sample. The slopes of all lines should be
parallel since C*c is related to Liquid Limit and therefore eL, and eL is constant for a given clay
sample.
224
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
e/eL
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10 100 1000
Stress (kPa)
Figure 6.15. Normalized Void Ratio Versus Stress for Artificial Clays.
225
e/eL
1
e0/eL=1.4
e0/eL=1.3
e0/eL=1.2
e0/eL=1.1
e0/eL=1.0
Log Stress (kPa)
Figure 6.16. Hypothetical Normalized Void Ratio Versus Stress.
It is suggested that the point related to e/eL = 1 may be different for the same clay,
depending on the initial water content. Following along this course, it would be expected that
the initial water content would in turn affect the value of e*100, as discussed above.
Therefore, Figures 6.14 and 6.15 were replotted with only those remolded tests that were
mixed to a consistency between 1.25 and 1.5 times the LL. Figures 6.17 and 6.18 present this
data. There is much less scatter in these plots as compared with Figures 6.14 and 6.15. There
would be even less scatter if a narrower range of e/eL were selected. The red dashed lines on
Figures 6.17 and 6.18 indicate the range of values for tests performed in this study. The legends
for these figures are presented in Chapter 5.
226
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
e/eL
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10 100 1000
Stress (kPa)
Figure 6.17. Reexamination of the Normalized Void Ratio versus Stress for Natural Clays.
Now that the positioning of the samples in these figures has been discussed, the varying
slopes of these soil samples must be addressed. The differing slopes of each soil sample can be
explained by the differing parallel plate orientation of each sample (Nagaraj et al. 1983).
Because the samples presented in Figures 6.14 and 6.17 are from four varying geologic deposits,
227
and the artificial clays in Figures 6.15 and 6.18 each are composed of different single minerals, it
is expected that the soils will deform at varying strains and at different rates.
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
e/eL
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10 100 1000
Stress (kPa)
Figure 6.18. Reexamination of the Normalized Void Ratio versus Stress for Artificial Clays.
Nagaraj et al. (1983) presented results of only six natural soils, three of which were taken
from the literature, and showed a range of behavior for each sample. The best-fit straight line
through the data was presented as:
e
= 1.099 − 0.2237 Log10 p [6.3]
eL
228
The best-fit line for twenty-five (25) natural soils tested in the initial water content range of 1.25
to 1.5 LL from the current study gives the equation:
e
= 1.075 − 0.275Log 10 p [6.4]
eL
This correlation is very similar to previously published results in the literature. The correlation
equation for the artificial clay results has a very similar slope to the natural clays from this data.
The best-fit line for the (9) artificial clays tested in the initial water content range of 1.25 to 1.5
LL from the current study gives the equation:
e
= 1.280 − 0.249 Log10 p [6.5]
eL
This equation closely resembles the correlation that was presented by Nagaraj et al. (1993).
6.2.3 Atterberg Limits
Relationships were presented between Atterberg Limits and total, internal and external
Surface Area for the selected natural and artificial clay samples. The relationship of surface area
and these properties do not show very significant trends, which is counter to some observations
that the greater the specific surface, the greater the total amount of water that is required to
satisfy the conditions at the liquid limit. This is readily seen in Figure 6.19.
The total Surface Area relationship with LL provides the best linear correlation of the
three presented. It would be expected that the six artificial samples shown with white squares
would have high liquid limits to correspond with high surface area. Conversely, these samples
have very low liquid limits and do not fit the expected trend. However, these six samples do fit
in the external surface area relationship, whereas, another five samples have very high liquid
229
limits, but low external surface area. This relationship is expected, however, as soils with higher
liquid limits are expected to have more internal surface area and less external surface area.
230
600
500 Artificial Clays
Natural Clays
400
LL (%)
300
200
#13 #18
#7 #8 #10 #16
100
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
Artificial Clays
500
Natural Clays
400
LL (%)
300
200
#13 #16 #18
100 #8
#10
#7
0
0 200 400 600 800
600
Artificial Clays
500 Natural Clays
400
LL (%)
300
#9
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 6.19. Liquid Limit versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.
231
As noted in Chapter 5, Muhunthan (1991) hypothesized that there should be a
relationship between the inverse of Liquid Limit and the inverse of total Surface Area. He used
data from three authors where each data set was from a different geologic deposit and the surface
areas of each data set were determined using different methods. Each of the three soil sets
showed varying slopes. No trend was shown with the data from this study and can be explained
because there were four different geologic deposits represented within the data and multiple
classifications of artificial clays. It is hypothesized that this relationship only works for soil from
the same site within a specific geologic deposit. It can be seen in Figure 6.20 that the postulated
trend does not necessarily hold for an entire geologic group but rather for a specific site within
the geologic deposit. Each geologic deposit shown only contains one specific site. Because this
relationship is linear, then the inverse, as Muhunthan (1991) hypothesized, would also be linear
as presented in Figure 6.21.
Figure 6.21 presents the relationship between the inverse of Liquid Limit and Surface
Area for three of the four geologic groups. Each geologic deposit shows a different slope, as did
the data from the literature used by Muhunthan. The Marine Deposit Clays from the current
study were obtained from fourteen (14) various sites from around the world and when combined
did not show a linear correlation.
232
80
70
60
50
40
LL
30
20
Alluvial Deposits
10 Lacustrine Deposits
Loess Deposits
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
SSA
Figure 6.20. Relationship Between LL and SSA.
0.0500
Alluvial Deposits
Lacustrine Deposits
0.0375 Loess Deposits
1/LL
0.0250
0.0125
0.0000
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
1/SSA
Figure 6.21. Muhunthan (1991) Linear Relationship Between 1/LL and 1/SSA.
233
The Atterberg Limits were then shown in relationships with the Clay Fraction. In
general, the greater the quantity of clay mineral in a soil the higher the plasticity, the greater the
potential shrinkage and the higher the compressibility (Mitchell 1993). If this were the case,
then as the clay fraction of the soils increased, the Atterberg Limits should increase. There is a
general trend shown, although not a strong one. The Atterberg Limits were shown in
relationships with the Cation Exchange Capacity Activity and the Surface Area Activity. These
combinations of soil properties showed no particular trend.
6.3 ACTIVITY AND RELATIVE ACTIVITY
The soils from four geologic deposits were tested to evaluate the influence of Surface
Area on Activity, Relative Activity and Dispersive characteristics. The first relationship that was
investigated was the influence of carbonates on Surface Area. There is not an apparent trend
within a geologic deposit, specific site or overall. Figure 6.22 presents these results. The role of
carbonates and its influence on surface area must be investigated.
260
240 Marine Deposits
Alluvial Deposits
220
Lacustrine Deposits
200 Loess Deposits
180
Surface Area (m2/g)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 6.22. Specific Surface Area versus Carbonate Content.
234
50
40
30
20
Marine Deposits
10 Alluvial Deposits
Lacustrine Deposits
Loess Deposits
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Figure 6.23. Cation Exchange Capacity versus Surface Area.
Figure 6.23 presents the combined results for all natural samples tested of the relationship
between Cation Exchange Capacity and Surface Area. There is an overall trend of increasing
Surface Area and Cation Exchange Capacity, however the better correlations lie within the
individual soil deposits. This is understandable as each geologic deposit has varying cations and
anions, which are exchanged depending on various environmental and compositional factors
(Mitchell 1993). Marine clays and most saline soils contain sodium as the dominant cation,
however the common cations in non-marine sedimentary soils are calcium, magnesium, sodium
and potassium.
CEC of sensitive marine clays in Drammen, Norway have been presented by Moum et al.
(1971). Reported values are very low and range from about 3.3 to 7.0 meq/100 g. CEC of
Champlain Sea Clays have been reported by Yong et al. 1979; Dascal et al. 1977; Hendershot
235
and Carson 1978; Locat et al. 1990; Locat et al. 1996, and typically vary from about 11 to 25
meq/100 g. The soils from this study fell within reported ranges of cation exchange capacity.
There were no real relationships seen between the Activity (PI/CF) and Surface Charge
(CEC/SSA) and Activity and Carbonate content. In the relationship of Activity (PI/CF) and
Surface Area there seems to be a linear correlation with a few outlying marine deposit soil
samples (Figure 6.24). Each of the six samples that are outliers were tested by other laboratories
and sent to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. These outliers are also from three
different sites, which, as discussed above, could affect the relationship. Without these points,
there is a better linear trend, however contains much scatter.
2.5
Marine Deposits
Alluvial Deposits
2.0 Lacustrine Deposits
Loess Deposits
Activity (PI/CF)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Figure 6.24. Relationship of Activity and Surface Area.
Figure 6.25 presents the results of Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content. The soil
tested in this study generally follows Quigley et al. (1985) relationship for results of Canadian
Varved Clay. There are a few outlying points in the Marine Clay Deposit data set, however,
overall, the trend is rather close to published results. The Carbonate Content of the soils seems
to act as a suppressant for the combination of Plasticity Index and Surface Area once a carbonate
236
content of approximately 6% is reached. After this point, as the carbonate content increases, the
Relative Activity remains relatively constant.
2.0
Marine Deposits
Alluvial Deposits
Lacustrine Deposits
1.5 Loess Deposits
Quigley et al. (1985)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30
Figure 6.25. Relative Activity versus Carbonate Content.
6.4 DISPERSION
The dispersion properties of the fine-grained soils did not show any apparent
relationships with any soil property that it was paired with. Many of the samples were
completely non-dispersive, having a D0.005 of zero (0), which made it difficult to come to any
conclusions on what controlled dispersion in natural deposits. In the deposits where the soil was
at least somewhat dispersive, it was still difficult to see any correlations. The dispersion of the
soil seemed to vary randomly regardless of pairings. For instance, when clay fraction was used
in a relationship with dispersion, as the clay fraction stayed at 60%, the dispersion varied from 0
to 60 %. No definitive statement can be made on what soil property or properties controls
dispersion, if any.
237
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 SUMMARY
A lab investigation was performed to investigate the influence of surface area and soil
composition on geotechnical properties of natural fine-grained soils of varying geologic origins,
and a number of different pure clays. The soils used in these tests came from many locations,
including the United States, Thailand, Japan, Ireland, England, Scotland, Canada and Norway.
The research project included several other investigations such as measuring the Surface Area of
natural and artificial fine-grained soil and evaluating the influence of Surface Area and Atterberg
Limits on intrinsic compressibility of selected natural and artificial clays, comparing the intrinsic
compressibility results of selected natural and artificial clays from this study with data found in
the literature, evaluating the differences in behavior of selected natural and artificial clays and
investigating Atterberg Limit Relationships and Dispersion Characteristics with Surface Area,
Clay Fraction, Cation Exchange Capacity Activity and Surface Area Activity of selected natural
clays from various geologic deposits.
7.2 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the research work conducted, the following conclusions may be
made:
1. Surface Area measurements of natural and artificial fine-grained soils were completed.
The EGME method provides a rapid method for determining total Surface Area. The
values of SSA determined in this study were consistent with values reported in the
literature.
2. No strong global trend between the SSA and LL was found for the data from this study.
It is expected that this occurred because a wide range of sites and geologic deposits were
represented in this study. Data from a specific site within a geologic group did show a
more linear trend, which is consistent with results previously presented in the literature.
A distinct linear trend was noted within each geologic deposit between Cation Exchange
238
Capacity and Surface Area. Based on the limited data available, the Activity and Surface
Area showed a linear correlation.
3. The investigation of the influence of Surface Area and Atterberg Limits on intrinsic
compressibility of selected natural and artificial clays presented the following
relationships. The relationships between the intrinsic compressibility indices, C*c and
e*100, and total, internal and external surface areas were found to be very similar, but C*c
could not be explained solely by SSA. Burland’s cubic parabolic correlation between
e*100 and eL fit the results of natural and artificial clays from this study and the literature
very well for an eL less than 6. A linear regression equation modeled both the natural and
artificial clays very well, with a correlation coefficient of 0.95.
Based on the intrinsic compressibility tests from this study, it appears that the e*100 of
a soil may be dependent on the initial water content of a reconstituted soil sample.
Results from this study and from the literature suggest that the initial water content of a
particular sample affects the positioning of the e/eL plot in semi-Log space. Even though
the e/eL line of a given soil sample may move according to initial water content, the slope
of the line should be parallel since C*c is related to Liquid Limit and eL, which are both
constant for a given clay sample. The scatter within the data is attributed to the
composition and structure of a given soil sample. The soil samples were from differing
geologic deposits and various single mineral artificial clays.
4. Comparing the results of this study with those found in the literature was successful.
5. Both the natural and artificial soil results from this study and the literature were
combined and evaluated. The intrinsic compressibility indices (C*c and e*100) from this
study correlated extremely well with data found in the literature and a number of
mathematical correlations were presented combining the two data sets into one.
6. It was hypothesized in the literature by Quigley et al. (1985) that there should be a
correlation between the Relative Activity and Carbonate Content. Except for a few
outlying Marine Deposit samples, the data from this study showed a good correlation
with Quigley’s data. Results of the dispersion testing of the four geologic deposits did
not show any correlations with the eight properties and combination of properties
investigated. This was disappointing as it was expected that at least one geotechnical soil
239
property or combination of properties would help explain dispersion characteristics of
natural fine-grained soils.
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
This research provides an in depth analysis of Surface Area measurement, intrinsic
compressibility and supporting Geotechnical Properties of natural fine-grained soils and artificial
clays from around the world. Further research is recommended to support the conclusions made
on this project. Recommended future research topics are as follows:
1. Obtain additional samples from the Alluvial and Lacustrine Geologic Deposits to
enhance the Activity and Relative Activity Relationships.
2. Obtain Artificial Clays within a Liquid Limit Range of 200 to 400 % so the
relationships fully span published results.
3. Perform Atterberg Limit Tests on the remaining marine, alluvial, lacustrine and loess
geologic deposits so the existing Activity and Relative Activity relationships can be
investigated further.
4. Investigate the e/eL hypothesis of the level of initial water contents of reconstituted
clays above the liquid limit. Perform tests on the same soil at various initial water
contents to determine if the e/eL relationship is dependent on initial water content.
240
CHAPTER 8
REFERENCES
Akagi, H. and Komiya, K. 1995. Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation Properties of Clayey
Soil at High Temperature. Compression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils, pp. 3-8.
Akinlabi Ola, S. 1978. The Geology and Geotechnical Properties of the Black Cotton Soils of
Northeastern Nigeria. Engineering Geology, Vol. 12, pp. 375-391.
Allman, M.A. and Atkinson, J.H. 1992. Mechanical Properties of Reconstituted Bothkennar
Soil. Geotechnique, Vol. 42, pp. 289-301.
Al-Sanad, H. and Al-Bader, B. 1989. Laboratory Study on Leaching of Calcareous Soil From
Kuwait. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 12, pp. 1797-1809.
Altschaeffl, A.G. 1960. Compressibility of Artificially Sedimented Clays. PhD Thesis, Purdue
University.
Anderson, D.M. and Tice, A.R., 1972. Predicting Unfrozen Water Contents in Frozen Soils from
Surface Area Measurements. Highway Research Record No. 393, pp. 12-18.
Anderson, J.U., Fadul, K.E. and O’Connor, G.A. 1973. Factors Affecting the Coefficient of
Linear Extensibility in Vertisols. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 37, pp.
296-299.
Banin, A., and Amiel, A. 1970. A Correlative Study of The Chemical and Physical Properties of
a Group of Natural Soils of Israel. Geoderma, Vol. 3, pp. 185-197.
Bell, F.G. and Maud, R.R., 1994. Dispersive Soils: A Review from a South African Perspective.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology. Vol. 27, pp. 195-210.
Beringen, F.L., Kolk, H.J. and Windle, D. 1982. Cone Penetration and Laboratory Testing in
Marine Calcareous Sediments. Geotechnical Properties, Behavior and Performance of
Calcareous Soils. ASTM STP 777. pp. 179-209.
Bolt, G.H., 1956. Physico-Chemical Analysis of the Compressibility of Pure Clays.

Geotechnique, Vol. 6, pp. 86-93.
Bower, C.A. and Gschwend, F.B., 1952. Ethylene Glycol Retention by Soils as a Measure of
Surface Area and Interlayer Swelling. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 16, pp.
342-345.
241
Brindley, G.W. and Thompson, T.D., 1970. Methylene Blue Adsorption by Montmorillonites -
Determinations of Surface Areas and Exchange Capacities with Different Initial Cation
Saturations. Israel Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 8, pp. 409-415.
Brown, B.E. and Mengel, J.T. 1983. Characteristics of Red Clay of Douglas County, Wisconsin.
Transportation Research Record No. 945, pp. 22-29.
Brunauer, S., Emmett, P.H., and Teller, E., 1938. Adsorption of Gases in Multi-Molecular
Layers. Journal of the American Chemical Society, Vol. 60, pp. 309-319.
Buchan, S. and Smith, D.T. 1999. Deep-Sea Sediment Compression Curves: Some Controlling
Factors, Spurious Overconsolidation, Predictions and Geophysical Reproduction. Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology. Vol. 17. pp. 65-81.
Burghignoli, A., Cavalera, L., Chieppa, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Mancuso, C., Marchetti, S., Pane,
V., Paoliani, P., Silvestri, F., Vinale, F. and Vittori, E. 1991. Geotechnical Characterization of
Fucino Clay. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 27-39.
Burland. J.B., 1990. On the Compressibility and Shear Strength of Natural Clays. Geotechnique,
Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 329-378.
Cafaro, F. 1998. Infuenza Dell’Alerazione de Origine Climatica Sulla Proprieta Geotecniche di

Un’Argille Grisio-Azzirra Pleistocenica. PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Bari.
Carter, D.L., Heilman, M.D., and Gonzalez, C.L., 1965. Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether for
Determining Surface Area of Silicate Minerals. Soil Science, Vol. 100, No. 5, pp. 356-360.
Carter, D.L., Mortland, M.M., and Kemper, W.D., 1986. Specific Surface. Methods of Soil
Analysis. Chapter 16, Agronomy No. 9, Part 1, 2nd Ed., American Society of Agronomy.
Churchman, G.J. and Burke, C.M., 1991. Properties of Subsoils in Relation to Various Measures
of Surface Area and Water Content. Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 42, pp. 463-478.
Cihacek, L.J., and Bremner, J.M. 1979. A Simplified Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
Procedure for Assessment of Soil Surface Area. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.
43, pp. 821-822.
Cokca, E. and Birand, A., 1993. Determination of Cation Exchange Capacity of Clayey Soils by
the Methylene Blue Test. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 518-524.
Coop, M.R., Atkinson, J.H. and Taylor, R.N. 1995. Strength and Stiffness of Structured and
Unstructured Soils. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 55-62.
242
Cottecchia, F. 1996. The Effects of Structure on the Properties of an Italian Pleistocene Clay.
PhD Thesis, University of London.
Curtin, D. and Smillie, G.W. 1976. Estimation of Components of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity
From Measurements of Specific Surface and Organic Matter. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 461-462.
Dascal, O., Pouliot, G. and Hurtubise, J. 1977. Erodibility Tests On Sensitive, Cemented Marine
Clay (Champlain Clay). ASTM STP 623, pp. 74-93.
Dasog, G.S., Acton, D.F., Mermut, A.R., and DeJong, E., 1988. Shrink-Swell Potential and
Cracking in Clay Soils of Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 68, pp. 251-260.
Datta, M. and Sutania, S.N.K. 1982. Nature and Engineering Properties of Fine Grained
Calcareous Soils Found at Two Sites on the Western Continental Shelf of India. Proceedings of
the 2nd Canadian Conference on Marine Geotechnical Engineering, Nova Scotia.
Davidson, D.T. and Sheeler, J.B., 1952. Clay Fraction in Engineering Soils: Influence of Amount
on Properties. Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, Vol. 31, pp. 558-563.
DeBruyn, C.M.A. 1955. Transactions of the South African Institute of Civil Engineers. Vol. 5,
pp. 273-278.
DeBruyn, C., Collins, L. and Williams, A., 1957. The Specific Surface, Water Affinity, and
Potential Expansiveness of Clays. Clay Minerals Bulletin 3, pp. 120-128.
Demars, K.R., Nacci, V.A., Kelly, W.C. and Wang, M.C. 1976. Carbonate Content: An Index
Property for Ocean Sediments. Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. 3, pp. 97-
106.
De Kimpe, C.R., Laverdiere, M.R. and Martel, Y.A. 1979. Surface Area and Exchange Capacity
of Clay in Relation to the Mineralogical Composition of Gleysolic Soils. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 341-347.
Dos Santos, M.P.P. and DeCastro, E., 1965. Soil Erosion in Roads. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 116-118.
Dreimanis, A. 1962. Quantitative Gasometric Determination of Calcite and Dolomite by Using

Chittick Apparatus. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Vol. 32. No. 3. pp. 520-529.
Dusseault, M.B. and Scafe, D. 1979. Mineralogical and Engineering Index Properties of the
Basal McMurray Formation Clay Shales. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 16. pp. 285-294.
Dyal, R.S. and Hendricks, S.B., 1950. Total Surface of Clays in Polar Liquids as a Characteristic
Index. Soil Science, Vol. 69, pp. 421-432.
243
Fairbairn, P.E. and Robertson, R.H.S., 1957. Liquid Limit and Dye Adsorption. Clay Minerals
Bulletin, Vol. 3, pp. 129-135.
Farrar, D. and Coleman, J., 1967. The Correlation of Surface Area with Other Properties of
Nineteen British Clay Soils. Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 18, pp. 118-124.
Freeman, G.L. 1936. Soil Survey of the Flushing Meadow Park Site, Long Island, New York.
Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on Soil Mechanics, Vol. 1, p. 25.
Franzmeier, D.P. and Ross, S.J. 1968. Soil Swelling: Laboratory Measurement and Relation to
Other Soil Properties. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 32, pp. 573-577.
Fripiat, J.J. 1964. Surface Properties of Alumino-Silicates. Clays and Clay Minerals. Proceedings
of the 12th National Conference, pp. 327-358.
Fukue, M., Nakamura, R. and Kato, Y. 1999. Cementation of Soils Due to Calcium Carbonate.
Soils and Foundations. Vol. 39. No. 6. pp. 55-64.
Gallez, A., Juo, A.S.R., and Herbillon, A.J. 1976. Surface and Charge Characteristics of
Selected Soils in the Tropics. Soil Science Society of America Journal. Vol. 40. pp. 601-605.
Ganapadhyay, C.R. and Bhattacharya, U. 1970. Consolidation of a Sedimented Kaolinite Under

Linear Loading. Proceedings of the 2nd Southeast Asian Conference, pp. 322-331.
Gens, 1982. Stress-Strain and Strength Characteristics of a Low Plasticity Clay. PhD Thesis,
University of London.
Genevois, R. 1977. Chemical Interactions on the Compressibility of Remoulded Kaolin.

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 1, pp. 109-116.
Gill, W.R. and Reaves, C.A. 1951. Relationship of Atterberg Limits and Cation Exchange
Capacity to Some Physical Properties of Soil. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol.
21, pp. 491-497.
Gori, U., Polidori, E. and Tonelli, G. 1995. The One-Dimensional Consolidation Effect on the
Slightly Sensitive Soils. Compression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils. pp. 49-55.
Grabowska-Olszewska, B. 1970. Physical Properties of Clay Soils as a Function of Their

Specific Surface. Proceedings of the 1st International Congress of the International Association
of Engineering Geology, No. 1, pp. 405-410.
Graham, J. and Li, E.C. 1985. Comparison of Natural and Remoulded Plastic Clay. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 3, pp. 865-881.
244
Greene-Kelly, R. 1974. Shrinkage of Clay Soils: A Statistical Correlation with Other Soil
Properties. Geoderma. Vol. 11. pp. 243-257.
Greenland, D.J. and Quirk, J.P. 1962. Surface Areas of Soil Colloids. Transactions of the
International Soil Conference, pp. 3-11.
Greenland, D.J. and Quirk, J.P. 1964. Determination of the Total Specific Surface Areas of Soils
By Adsorption of Cetyl Pyridium Bromide. Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 15, pp. 178-191.
Greenland, D.J. and Mott, C.J.B. 1978. Surfaces of Soil Particles. The Chemistry of Soil
Constituents, Greenland, D.J and Hayes, M.H.B. eds. New York. Wiley.
Grossman, R.B., Brasher, B.R., Franzmeier, D.P. and Walker, J.L. 1968. Linear Extensibility
from Natural-Clod Bulk Density Measurements. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings,
Vol. 32, pp. 570-573.
Hamilton, A.B. 1966. Freezing Shrinkage in Compacted Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Hammel, J.E., Sumner, M.E., and Burema, J. 1983. Atterberg Limits as Indices of External
Surface Areas of Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 1054-1056.
Hang, P.T. and Brindley, G.W., 1970. Methylene Blue Absorption by Clay Minerals.
Determination of Surface Areas and Cation Exchange Capacities. Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol.
18, pp. 203-212.
Hawkins, A.B., Lawrence, M.S. and Privett, K.D. 1986. Clay Mineralogy and Plasticity of the
Fuller’s Earth Formation Bath, UK. Clay Minerals, Vol. 21, pp. 293-310.
Hawkins, A.B., Lawrence, M.S. and Privett, K.D. 1988. Implication of Weathering on the
Engineering Properties of the Fuller’s Earth Formation. Geotechnique, Vol. 38, pp. 517-532.
Hawkins, A.B. and McDonald, C. 1992. Decalcification and Residual Shear Strength Reduction
in Fuller’s Earth Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 453-464.
Harmse, H.J. and Gerber, F.A., 1988. A Proposed Procedure for the Identification of Dispersive
Soils. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Heinzen, R.T. and Arulanandan, K., 1977. Factors Influencing Dispersive Clays and Methods of
Identification. ASTM STP No. 623, pp. 202-217.
Hendershot, W.H. and Carson, M.A., 1978. Changes in the Plasticity of a Sample of Champlain
Clay After Selective Chemical Dissolution to Remove Amorphous Material. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 609-616.
245
Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Hong, Z. and Onitsuka, K. 1998. A Method of Correcting Yield Stress and Compression Index of
Ariake Clays for Sample Disturbance. Soils and Foundations. Vol. 38. No. 2. pp. 211-222.
Hong, Z., and Tsuchida, T. 1999. On Compression Characteristics of Ariake Clays. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 36. pp. 807-814.
Hough, B.K. 1957. Basic Soils Engineering. 1st Ed. The Ronald Press Company, New York.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1937. Űber die Festigkeitseigenschaften gestörter bindiger Böden.

Ingeniorridenskabelige Skrifter A, Nr. 45, Danmark Naturvid. Samfund.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1960. Physical Components of Shear Strength of Saturated Clays. Proceedings of
the Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. ASCE. pp. 169-273.
Jardine, R. 1985. Investigation of Pile-Soil Behaviour with Special Reference to the Foundations
of Offshore Structures. PhD Thesis, University of London.
Jennings, J.E.B. and Burland, J.B., 1962, Limitations to the Use of Effective Stresses in Partly
Saturated Soils. Geotechnique, Vol. 12, pp. 125-145.
Jimenez Salas, J.A. and Serratosa, J.M., 1953. Compressibility of Clays. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 192-198.
Jordan, J.A. 1995. A Comparison of Groundwater Sampling Devices at the National

Geotechnical Experimentation Test Site Amherst, Massachusetts. Thesis presented to the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, MA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science. Project No. AAR95-430P.
Kahr, G. and Madsen, F.T., 1995. Determination of the Cation Exchange Capacity and the
Surface Area of Bentonite, Illite, and Kaolinite by Methylene Blue Adsorption. Applied Clay
Science, Vol. 9, pp. 327-336.
Kelley, W. P., Jenny, H. 1936. The Relation of Crystal Structure to Base Exchange and its
Bearing on Base Exchange in Soils. Soil Science. Vol. 41, pp. 367-381.
Kelly, W.E., Nacci, V.A., Wang, M.C. and Demars, K.R. 1974. Carbonate Cementation in Deep
Ocean Sediments. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No. GT3, pp. 383-386.
Kelly, W.J., 1984. Review of the Methylene Blue Test. Ceramic Engineering and Science
Proceedings, pp. 886-894.
246
Kenney, T.C., Moum, J. and Berre, T. 1967. An Experimental Study of Bonds in Natural Clay.
Proceedings of the Oslo Geotechnical Conference on Shear Strength of Natural Soils and Rocks.
Vol. 1. pp. 65-69.
Kenney, T.C., vanWeen, W.A., Swallow, M.A. and Sungaila, M.A. 1992. Hydraulic
Conductivity of Compacted Bentonite-Sand Mixtures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 29.
pp.364-374.
Kinsky, J., Frydman, S., and Zaslavsky, D., 1971. The Effect of Different Dielectric Liquids on
the Engineering Properties of Clay. Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 367-372.
Kinter and Diamond. 1959. Pretreatment of Soils and Clays for Measuring External Surface Area
by Glycerol Retention. Public Roads. June. pp. 187-190.
Kipling, J.J. and Wilson, R.B., 1960. Adsorption of Methylene Blue in the Determination of
Surface Area. Journal of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 10, pp. 109-113.
Klausner, Y. and Shainberg, I., 1971. Consolidation Properties of Na+ and Ca++ Adsorbed
Montmorillonites. Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 373-378.
Kolbuszewski, J., Birch, N., and Shojobi, J.O. (1965) Keuper Marl Research. Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 57-63.
Kuzukami, H., Ozaki, E., and Nakaya, M., 1971. Relationships Between Specific Surface and
Liquid Limit. Transactions of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Reclamation
Lambe, T.W. 1960. A Mechanistic Picture of Shear Strength in Clay. Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers Research Conference Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, pp.
437.
Lambe, T.W. 1964. Methods of Estimating Settlement. Design of Foundations for Control of
Settlement. ASCE. pp. 47-72.
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V. 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York.
Lebuis, J. and Rissmann, P. 1979. Les coulees argileuses dans les regions de Quebec et
Shawinigan. In Argiles sensibles, pentes instables, measures correctives et coulees des regions de
Quebec et Shawinigan. Geological Association of Canada, pp. 19-40.
Leonards, G.A. and Ramiah, B.K. 1959. Time Effects in the Consolidation of Clays. ASTM
STP 254, pp. 116-130.
247
Li, M.C. 1963. Effect of Heat on Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil as Related to Engineering
Behavior. Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. pp. 117-120.
Locat, J. 1982. Etude de la structuration des argiles sensibles de l’Est du Canada. PhD. Thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, p. 512.
Locat, J. and Lefebure, G. 1982. The Compressibility and Sensitivity of an Artificially

Sedimented Clay Soil: The Grande-Baleine Marine Clay, Québec. Proceedings of the 2nd
Canadian Conference on Marine Geotechnical Engineering.
Locat, J. Lefebvre, G., and Ballivy, G., 1984. Mineralogy, Chemistry, and Physical Property
Interrelationships of Some Sensitive Clays from Eastern Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 21, pp. 530-540.
Locat, J. and Demers, D., 1988. Viscosity, Yield Stress, Remolded Strength and Liquidity Index
Relationships for Sensitive Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 799-806.
Locat, J., Berube, M.A., and Choquette, M. 1990. Laboratory Investigations on the Lime
Stabilization of Sensitive Clays: Shear Strength Development. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 27, pp. 294-304.
Locat, J. 1996. On the Development of Microstructure in Collapsible Soils: Lessons from the
Study of Recent Sediments and Artificial Cementation. In Genesis and Properties of Collapsible
Soils. Edited by E. Derbyshire, T. Dijstra, and I.J. Smalley. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 93-128.
Locat, J., Tremblay, H., and Leroueil, S. 1996. Mechanical and Hydraulic Behavior of a Soft
Inorganic Clay Treated with Lime. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 654-669.
Low, P.F., 1980. The Swelling of Clay: II. Montmorillonite. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 667-676.
Makitie, O. and Ervio, R., 1966. Comparative Studies on the Cation Exchange Properties of
Mineral Soils by the Methylene Blue Adsorption Method and the Ammonium Acetate Method.
Annales Agriculturae Fenniae, Vol. 5, pp. 260-266.
Matsui, T., and Sakagami, T. 1995. Fundamental Consolidation Behaviour of Aged Clays in
Relation to Geological History. In Compression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils, pp. 531-536.
Mathew, P.K. and Rao, N.S., 1997. Influence of Cations on Compressibility Behavior of a
Marine Clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 11, pp.
1071-1073.
McCormack, D.E. and Wilding, L.P. 1975. Soil Properties Influencing Swelling. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 496-502.
248
McKown, A.F. and Ladd, C.C. 1982. Effects of Cementation on the Compressibility of Pierre
Shale. Geotechnical Properties, Behavior and Performance of Calcareous Soils. ASTM STP 777,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 320-339.
Meegoda, N.J. and Arulanandan, K., 1986. Electrical Method of Predicting In Situ Stress State of
Normally Consolidated Clays. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, pp. 794-
808.
Meegoda, N.J. and Ratnaweera, P. 1994. Compressibility of Contaminated Fine-Grained Soils.

Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 101-112.
Meriggi, R., Paronuzzi, P. and Simeoni, L. 2000. Engineering Geology Characterization of

Lacustrine Overconsolidated Clays in an Alpine Area of Italy. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 37. pp. 1241-1251.
Mesri. G. and Olson, R.E., 1971. Consolidation Characteristics of Montmorillonite.

Geotechnique, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 341-352.
Mitchell, J. K. 1956. The Fabric of Natural Clays and its Relation to Engineering Properties,
Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, Vol. 35, pp. 693-711.
Mitchell, J.K., 1960. The Application of Colloidal Theory to the Compressibility of Clays.
Proceedings of the Seminar on Interparticle Forces in Clay-Water-Electrolytes Systems, pp.
2.92-2.97.
Mitchell, J.K., 1993. Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Moore, J.C. and Jones, R.L., 1971. Effect of Soil Surface Area and Extractable Silica, Alumina,
and Iron on Lime Stabilization Characteristics of Illinois Soils. Highway Research Record No.
351, pp. 97-92.
Morgenstern, N.R. and Balasubramanian, B.I., 1980. Effects of Pore Fluid on the Swelling of
Clay-Shale. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. 1, pp. 190-
205.
Morgenstern, N.R. and Balasubramanian, B.I., 1980. Effects of Pore Fluid on the Swelling of
Clay-Shale. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. 1, pp. 190-
205.
Morin, R.E. and Jacobs, H.S. 1964. Surface Area Determination of Soils by Adsorption of
Ethylene Glycol Vapor. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 28, pp. 190-194.
Mortland, M.M., 1954. Specific Surface and its Relationship to Some Physical and Chemical
Properties of Soil. Soil Science, Vol. 78, pp. 343-347.
249
Mortland, M.M. and Kemper, W.D., 1965. Specific Surface. Methods of Soil Analysis. Chapter
42, Agronomy No. 9, Part 1, American Society of Agronomy.
Moum, J. and Rosenquist, I.T., 1965. The Mechanical Properties of Montmorillonitic and Illitic
Clays Related to the Electrolytes of the Pore Fluid. Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 263-267.
Moum, J., Loken, T. and Torrance, J.K., 1971. A Geochemical Investigation of the Sensitivity of
a Normally Consolidated Clay from Drammen, Norway. Geotechnique. Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 329-
340.
Muhunthan, B., 1991. Liquid Limit and Surface Area of Clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.
135-138.
Mulla, D.J., Low, P.F. and Roth, C.B. 1985. Measurement of the Specific Surface Area
of Clays by Internal Reflectance Spectroscopy. Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 33, No. 5, 391-
396.
Nacci, V.A., Wang, M.C. and Demars, K.R. 1975. Engineering Behaviour of Calcareous Soils.
Proceedings Civil Engineering in the Oceans III, University of Delaware. pp. 380-400.
Nagaraj, T.S. and Srinivasa Murthy, B. R. 1983. Rationalization of Skempton’s Compressibility

Equation. Geotechnique, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 413-425.
Nagaraj, T.S. and Srinivasa Murthy, B.R. 1986. A Critical Reappraisal of Compression Index
Equations. Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp 135-138.
Nagaraj, T.S., Pandian, N.S., and Narasimha Raju, P.S.R. 1993. Stress State-Permeability
Relationships for Fine-Grained Soils. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 333-336.
Nagaraj, T.S., Pandian, N. S., Narashimha Raju, P.S.R., and Vishnu Bhushan, T. 1995. Stress-
State-Time-Permeability Relationships for Saturated Soils. Compression and Consolidation of
Clayey Soils, Vol. 1, pp. 537-542.
Nevins, M.J. and Weintritt, D.J., 1967. Determination of Cation Exchange Capacity by
Methylene Blue Adsorption. Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 587-592.
Newland, P.L. and Allely, B.H. 1960. A Study of the Consolidation Characteristics of a Clay.
Geotechnique. Vol. 10. No. 2. pp. 62-65.
Newman, A.C., 1983. The Specific Surface of Soils Determined by Water Sorption. Journal of
Soil Science, Vol. 34, pp. 23-32.
Ng, C.W.W. and Nash, D.F.T. 1995. The Compressibility of a Carbonate Clay. Compression and
Consolidation of Clayey Soils, pp. 281-286.
250
Nishida, Y. 1956. A Brief Note on Compression Index of Soil. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE. Vol. 82. No. 3. pp. 1-14.
Nixon, J.F., 1991. Discrete Ice Lens Theory for Frost Heave in Soils. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 843-859.
Novais-Ferreira, H. 1967. Influence of the Clay Content on the Plasticity of Soils. Proceedings of
the 4th Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, South
Africa, pp. 261-265.
Odell, R.T., Thornburn, T.H. and McKenzie, L.J. 1960. Relationships of Atterberg Limits to
Some Other Properties of Illinois Soils. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 24,
pp. 297-300.
Ohtsubo, M., Takayama, M., and Egashira, K., 1983. Relationships of Consistency Limits and
Activity to Some Physical and Chemical Properties of Ariake Marine Clays. Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Olivares, L. and Silvestri, F. 1995. Observations on the Pre- and Post-Cyclic Compression and
Stiffness Properties of a Reconstituted High Plasticity Clay. Compression and Consolidation of
Clayey Soils, pp. 155-160.
Olson, R.E. and Mesri, G., 1970. Mechanisms Controlling Compressibility of Clays. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM6, pp. 1863-1878.
Onofrio, A., Santucci de Magistris, F. and Olivares, L. 1998. Influence of Soil Structure on the
Behavior of Two Natural Stiff Clays in the Pre-Failure Range. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on the Geotechnics of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Vol. 1, pp. 497-505.
Pandian, N.S. and Nagaraj, T.S. 1990. Critical Reappraisal of Colloidal Activity of Clays.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 2, pp. 285-296.
Parker, J.C., Amos, D.F. and Kaster, D.L. 1977. An Evaluation of Several Methods of
Estimating Soil Volume Change. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 41, pp.1059-
1064.
Penner, E. 1963. Sensitivity in Leda Clay. Nature, Vol. 197, pp. 347-348.
Penner, E. 1965. A Study of Sensitivity in Leda Clays. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. Vol.
2, No. 5, pp. 425-441.
Perloff, W.H. and Baron, W. 1976. Soil Mechanics-Principles and Applications. The Ronald
Press Company, New York.
Phelps, G.W. and Harris, D.L., 1968. Specific Surface and Dry Strength by Methylene Blue
Adsorption. Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 47, No. 12, pp. 1146-1150.
251
Pickles, A.R. 1989. The Application of Critical State Soil Mechanics to Predict Ground
Deformations Below an Embankment Constructed on Soft Alluvium. PhD Thesis, City
University.
Puri, B. R., and Murari, K. 1963. Studies in Surface Area Measurements of Soils:
1. Comparison of Different Methods. Soil Science, Vol. 96, pp. 331-335.
Quigley, R.M. and Thompson, C.D. 1966. The Fabric of Anisotropically Consolidated Sensitive
Marine Clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 61-73.
Quigley, R.M., Sethis, A.J., Boonsinsuk, P., Sheeren, D.E., and Yong, R.N., 1985. Geologic
Controls on Soil Composition and Properties, Lake Ojibway Clay Plain, Matagami, Quebec.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 491-500.
Quirk, J.P. 1955. Significance of Surface Areas Calculated From Water Vapour Sorption
Isotherms by Use of the B.E.T. Equation. Soil Science, Vol. 80, pp. 423-30.
Rabitti, S., Boldrin, A. and Vitturi, L.M. 1982. Relationships Between Surface Area and Grain
Size in Bottom Sediments. Research-Methods Papers, pp. 665-667.
Ramiah, B.K. 1959. Time Effects in the Consolidation Properties of Clays. PhD Thesis, Purdue
University.
Ranganatham, B.V. 1961. Soil Structure and Consolidation Characteristics of Black Cotton Clay.
Geotechnique, Vol. 11, No. 4. pp. 333-338.
Ranganatham, B.V. and Satyanarayana, B. 1965. A Rational Method of Predicting Swelling

Potential for Compacted Expansive Clays. Vol. 1, Divisions 1-2, pp. 92-96.
Ratner-Zohar, Y., Banin, A. and Chen, Y. 1983. Oven Drying as a Pretreatment for Surface-
Area Determinations of Soils and Clays. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 47, pp.
1056-1058.
Raymond, G.P. 1966. Laboratory Consolidation of Some Normally Consolidated Soils.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 217-234.
Reeves, R.C., Bower, C.A., Brooks, R.H. and Gschwend, F.B.A. 1954. A Comparison of the
Effects of Exchangeable Sodium and Potassium Upon the Physical Condition of Soils. Soil
Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 18, pp. 130-132.
Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Cation Exchange Capacity. In AL. Page (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part
2, Second Edition. Agronomy Monograph 9, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
252
Rieke, R.D., Vinson, T.S., and Mageau, D.W., 1983. The Role of Specific Surface Area and
Related Index Properties in the Frost Heave Susceptibility of Soils. Proceedings of the 4th
International Permafrost Conference, pp. 1066-1071.
Ristori, G.G., Sparvoli, E., Fusi, P., Quirk, J.P. and Martelloni, C., 1985. Measurement of Total
and External Surface Area of Homoionic Smectites by p-Nitrophenol Adsorption. Miner.
Petrogr. Acta, Vol. 29-A, pp. 137-143.
Ristori, G.G., Sparvoli, E., Landi, L. and Martelloni, C., 1989. Measurement of Specific Surface
Areas of Soils by p-Nitrophenol Adsorption. Applied Clay Science, Vol. 4, pp. 521-532.
Rocchi, G.F., Albert, L.F., Bacca, O. and Totani, G. 1991. Instrumented Loading Tests to
Failure on a Very Long, Steel, Driven, Cast In Situ, Multi-ton Pile. Proceedings of the 4th
International DFI Conference, pp. 307-310.
Ross, G.J., 1978. Relationships of Specific Surface Area and Clay Content to Shrink-Swell
Potential of Soils Having Different Clay Mineralogic Compositions. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science, Vol. 58, pp. 159-166.
Russell, D.J. and Parker, A. 1979. Geotechnical, Mineralogical and Chemical Interrelationships
in Weathering Profiles of an Overconsolidated Clay. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology,
Vol. 12, pp. 107-116.
Sahu, B.K. 1991. Atterberg Limits of Soil Mixtures. Proceedings of the 9th Asian Regional
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Thailand, Vol. 1, pp. 163-166.
Salih, A. 1989. Geotechnical Problems Associated with the Rising Groundwater in Arriyadh.
Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Geotechnical Problems in Saudi Arabia, Vol. 1, pp. 235-
258.
Samarasinghe, A.M., Huang, Y.H., and Drnevich, V.P. 1982. Permeability and Consolidation of
Normally Consolidated Soils. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
108, No. GT6, pp. 835-847.
Samuels, S.G. 1975. Some Properties of the Gault Clay from the Ely-Ouse Essex Water Tunnel.
Geotechnique, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 239-264.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1955. The Undisturbed Consolidation of Clay. Transactions of the ASCE,
Vol. 120, pp. 1201-1227.
Seed, H. B., Woodward, R. J., and Lundgren, R. 1962. Prediction of Swelling Potential for
Compacted Clays. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, No.
SM3, Proceedings Paper 3169, pp. 53.
253
Seed, H.B., Woodward, R.J., and Lundgren, R., 1964. Clay Mineralogical Aspects of the
Atterberg Limits. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No.
Sm4, pp. 107-131.
Skempton, A.W. 1944. Notes on Compressibility of Clays. Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 119-135.
Skempton, A. W. 1953. The Colloidal “Activity” of Clays. Proceeding of the 3rd International
Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Switzerland, Vol. 1, pp. 57-60.
Smith R.M. 1959. Some Structural Relationships of Texas Blackland Soils with Special
Attention to Shrinkage and Swelling. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., ARS-
41-28.
Smith, C.W., Hadas, A., Dan, J., and Koyumdjisky, H., 1985. Shrinkage and Atterberg Limits
Relation to Other Properties of Principle Soil Types in Israel. Geoderma, Vol. 35, pp. 47-65.
Smith, P.R. 1992. The Behaviour of Natural High Compressibility Clay with Special Reference
to Construction on Soft Ground. PhD Thesis, University of London.
Snethen, D.R., Johnson, L.D., and Patrick, D.M. 1977. An Investigation of the Natural
Microscale Mechanisms that Cause Volume Changes in Expansive Clays, FHWA-RD-77-75,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
Som, N.N. 1968. The Effects of Stress Path on the Deformation and Consolidation of London
Clay. PhD Thesis, University of London.
Soon, Y.K., 1988. A Rapid Method for Cation Exchange Capacity Estimation of Mineral Soils
Using Methylene Blue Adsorption. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 68, pp. 165-169.
Sonderman, L.G. and Quigley, R.M., 1965. Geotechnical Properties of Three Ontario Clays.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 167-189.
Sowers, G.F. 1964. Fill Settlement Despite Vertical Sand Drains. Design of Foundations for
Control of Settlement, ASCE, pp. 363-376.
Sridharan, A. and Rao, G.V. 1971. Effective Stress Theory of Shrinkage Phenomena. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 503-513
Sridharan, A. and Rao, G.V. 1972. Surface Area Determination of Clays. Geotechnical
Sridharan, A. and Rao, G., 1973. Mechanisms Controlling Volume Change of Saturated Clays
and the Role of the Effective Stress Concept. Geotechnique, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 359-382.
254
Sridharan, A. and Rao, G.V. 1975. Mechanisms Controlling the Liquid Limits of Clays.
Proceedings of Istanbul Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp.
75-84.
Sridharan, A. and Jayadeva, M.S., 1982. Discussion of Universal Compression Index Equation.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT6, pp. 895-899.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S.M., and Murthy, N.S., 1986. Compressibility Behavior of Homoionized
Bentonites. Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 551-564.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S., and Murthy, N., 1986. Liquid Limit of Montmorillonite Soils.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S., and Murthy, N., 1988. Liquid Limit of Kaolinitic Soils. Geotechnique,
Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 191-198.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S.M., and Dwarkanath, H.N., 1992. Dispersive Behavior of Nonswelling
Clays. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 380-387.
Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K. 1998. Mechanism Controlling the Shrinkage Limit of Soils.
Sridharan, A. 1999. Engineering Behaviour of Marine Clays. Proceedings of the International

Conference on Offshore and Nearshore Geotechnical Engineering, Keynote Lecture 3, pp. 49-64.
Sridharan, A., Nagaraj, H.B. 2000. Liquid Limit of Soils from Equilibrium Water Content in
One-Dimensional Normal Compression. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 143, pp. 165-169.
Sridharan, A., and Nagaraj, H.B. 2000. Compressibility Behaviour of Remoulded, Fine-Grained
Soils and Correlation With Index Properties. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 712-
722.
St-Gelais, D. 1990. La surface spécifique et l’eau de constitution comme indicateurs de la

composition minéralogique des sols argileux du Québec. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Geology
and Geological Engineering. Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Suess, M.J. 1964. Surface Area Measurements and Adsorption of Soils. Journal of the Irrigation
and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. IR-1, pp. 87-
108.
Sweere, G.T.H. and Galjaard, 1984. The Methylene Blue Test as a Rapid Means of Estimating
the Cation Exchange Capacity of Soils. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Mass and Material Transportation, pp. 47-52.
255
Tanaka, H. and Locat J. 1999. A Microstructural Investigation of Osaka Bay Clay: The Impact of
Microfossils on its Mechanical Behaviour. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 493-508.
Tang, Y.X. and Imai, G. 1995. A Constitutive Relation with Creep and its Application to
Numerical Analysis of One-Dimensional Consolidation. Compression and Consolidation of
Clayey Soils, pp. 465-472.
Taylor, D.W. 1942. Research on Consolidation of Clays. Department of Civil Engineering.

Publication Sr. Vol. 82. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Taylor, R.K., 1985. Cation Exchange in Clays and Mudrocks by Methylene Blue. Journal of
Chemical and Technical Biotechnology, Vol. 35A, pp. 195-207.
Terzaghi, K. 1923. Die Berechnung der Durchlassigkeitsziffler des Tones aus dem Verlauf der
Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen. Sitz. Akad. Wissen. Wien Math-naturw. Kl. Vol.
132, pp. 105-124.
Terzaghi, K. 1927. Principles of Final Soil Classification. Public Roads, Vol. 8, No. 3, May.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, P.B. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 2nd Edition. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Tiller, K.G. and Smith, L.H., 1990. Limitations of EGME Retention to Estimate Surface Area of
Soils. Australian Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 28, pp. 1-26.
Theng, B.K.G. 1993. On Measuring the Specific Surface Area of Clays and Soils by Adsorption
of Para-Nitrophenol: Use and Limitations. Proceedings of the 10th International Clays
Conference, Australia, pp. 304-310.
Thompson, M.L., Zhang, H., Kazemi, M, and Sandor, J.A. 1989. Contribution of Organic
Matter to Cation Exchange Capacity and Specific Surface Area of Fractionated Soil Materials.
Soil Science, Vol. 148, No. 4, pp. 250-257.
Tonnisen, J.Y., Den Haan, E.J., Luger, H.J. and Dobie, M.J.D. 1985. Pier Foundations of the
Saudi Arabia-Bahrain Causeway. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. 3, pp. 1575-1578.
Torrance, J.K. 1975. On the Role of Chemistry in the Development and Behavior of the
Sensitive Marine Clays of Canada and Scandinavia. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 12, pp.
326-335.
Tran Ngoc Lan, 1979. A New Test for the Identification of Soils - Methylene Blue Test. Bulletin
Liaison Laboratoire Ponts et Chaussee, Vol. 88, pp. 136-137.
Trenter, N.A. 1989. Some Geotechnical Problems in the Middle East. Keynote Address, 1st
Regional Conference of Civil Engineering. University of Bahrain, Bahrain. Vol. 1. pp. 1-22.
256
Uehara, G. 1982. Soil Science for the Tropics. Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical
Engineering Division Specialty Conference. Engineering and Construction in Tropical and
Residual Soils, Hawaii, pp. 13-26.
Valore, C. and Tedesco, A.M. 1993. One-Dimensional Compression of Tripoli. Proceedings of

the 1st International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Vol. 1,
pp. 833-840.
van Olphen, H. 1970. Determination of Surface Areas of Clays-Evaluation of Methods.

Proceedings International Symposium, IUPAC, pp. 255-271.
Wahls, H.E. and Godog, N.S. 1964. Discussion of Interpretation of Consolidation Test. Design
of Foundations for Control of Settlement, ASCE, pp. 116-121.
Wang, M.K., Wang, S.L., and Wang, W.M., 1996. Rapid Estimation of Cation Exchange
Capacities of Soils and Clays with Methylene Blue Exchange. Soil Science Society of America,
Vol. 60, pp. 138-141.
Warkentin, B.P. 1968. Properties of Clay and Silt Soils of the Eastern Abitibi Area in Quebec.
Soil Res. Bulletin. Department of Soil Science. Macdonald College of McGill University
Quebec. 20 p.
Warkentin, B.P., 1972. Use of Liquid Limit in Characterizing Clay Soils. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science, Vol. 52, pp. 457-464.
Wetzel, A. 1990. Interrelationships Between Porosity and Other Geotechnical Properties of

Slowly Deposited, Fine-Grained Marine Surface Sediments. Marine Geology, Vol. 92, pp. 105-
113.
White, W.A. 1949. Atterberg Limits of Clay Minerals. American Mineralogist, Vol. 34, pp. 508.
Wooltorton, F.L.D. 1954. The Scientific Basis of Road Design. Arnold, London. 364 pp.
Wroth, C.P. and Wood, D.M. 1978. The Correlation of Index Properties with Some Basic
Engineering Properties of Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 137-145.
Yagi, N., Yatabe, R. and Mukaitani, M. 1995. Compressive Characteristics of Cohesive Soils.
Compression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils, pp. 221-226.
Yamadera, A., Miura, N., and Hino, T. 1999. Microscopic Consideration on Compression and
Rebound Behaviors of Ariake Clay. Characterization of Soft Marine Clays, pp. 175-184
Yin, J-H. 1999. Properties and Behaviour of Hong Kong Marine Deposits with Different Clay
Contents. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1085-1095.
257
Yong, R.N., Sethi, A.J, and La Rochelle, P. 1979. Significance of Amorphous Material Relative
to Sensitivity in Some Champlain Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 511-520.
Yong, R. N., and Warkentin, B. P. 1966. Introduction to Soil Behavior. Macmillan, New York.
Yong, R.N., and Warkentin, B.P. 1975. Soil Properties and Behaviour, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Co., New York, pp. 449.
Yong, R.N. and Nagaraj, T.S. 1977. Investigation of Fabric and Compressibility of Sensitive
Clay. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Soft Clay, pp. 327-334.
Yong, R.N., Sethi, A.J., and LaRochelle, P., 1979. Significance of Amorphous Material Relative
to Sensitivity in Some Champlain Clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 511-520.
Youssef, M.S., Ramli, A.H.EL, and Demery, M. EL. 1965. Relationships Between Shear
Strength, Consolidation, Liquid Limit, and Plastic Limit for Remoulded Clays. Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
Divisions 1-2, pp. 126-129.
Zaki, G. 1971. Unpublished Report. McGill University, Quebec. (In Warkentin 1972).
258
Appendix A:
1. Marine Deposit Results

2. Alluvial Deposit Results
3. Lacustrine Deposit Results
4. Loess Deposit Results
259
Table A.1. Marine Deposit Results.
Clay
Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge
Boring Depth Fraction
Location CEC/CF SSA/CF
# (m) Carbonates
%< 2µm D .005 % (m2/g) (meq/100 g) CEC/SSA
%
U1 4.6 59.8 24.9 85 15.5 3.1 0.18 0.26 1.42
U3 6.1 53.5 0.4 75 16.1 1.9 0.22 0.3 1.39
U4 7.6 50.8 0 44 15.5 2.5 0.36 0.31 0.86
U6 10.7 37 0.4 58 13.4 2.3 0.23 0.36 1.55

T1- Boston
U8 12.2 54.9 6.3 34 15.4 2.1 0.45 0.28 0.62
U10 15.2 55.7 10.9 31 13 2.3 0.42 0.23 0.55
U12 18.3 56 21.9 40 11.1 3.1 0.28 0.2 0.72
U14 21.3 56.2 23.8 48 13.5 2.4 0.28 0.24 0.85
U1 6.4 50.5 28.9 41 14.3 2.5 0.35 0.28 0.82
U2 9.4 50.9 3.6 39 13.3 2.1 0.34 0.26 0.77
U3 12.5 48.9 0.3 30 12.1 2.2 0.4 0.25 0.61

78238- Boston
U4 15.5 56.3 0.1 46 15.9 2.1 0.34 0.28 0.82
U5 18.6 78.4 7.8 64 15.6 2.6 0.24 0.2 0.81
U6 21.6 49.1 26.1 78 14.2 3 0.18 0.29 1.59
U7 24.7 45.6 26 33 12.7 2 0.39 0.28 0.72
260
Clay
Boring Depth Fraction Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge
# (m) Carbonates
2
% < 2µm D .005 % (m /g) (meq/100 g) CEC/SSA
%
U6* 13.8 50.6 23.8 17 18 2.6 1.03 0.36 0.34
U7 15.0 57.2 15.3 43 18.1 2.4 0.42 0.32 0.76
U8 16.5 58.4 - 24 15.7 2.7 0.65 0.27 0.41
U9 18.1 56.8 25.4 56 16.3 2.1 0.29 0.29 0.98
U10 19.0 - - 77 15.6 3.6 0.20 - -
U11 19.9 - - 47 20.1 3.1 0.43 - -
U12 21.1 - - 71 15.6 2.7 0.22 - -
I-95, Massachusetts
U13 22.6 56.3 19.1 62 15.5 2.7 0.25 0.28 1.09

U14 24.1 - - 60 20 2.4 0.33 - -
U15 25.7 55.6 16.1 64 13.6 2.5 0.21 0.24 1.14
U16 27.2 55.2 27.5 22 16.8 2.1 0.76 0.30 0.40
U17 28.7 - - 57 16.8 3.5 0.29 - -
U18 30.4 55.2 59.7 66 13.7 2.4 0.21 0.25 1.19
U19 31.7 - - 58 16.1 2.5 0.28 - -
U20 33.3 64.5 - 73 14.7 1.9 0.20 0.23 1.14
U21 34.8 64.3 25.1 83 14.7 2.3 0.18 0.23 1.29
U22 36.3 63.3 20.8 52 14.2 2.6 0.27 0.22 0.83
U23 37.8 56.8 36.3 60 11.7 2.8 0.20 0.21 1.05
261
Depth Clay Fraction % Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge

(m) < 2µm D .005 % (m2/g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates % CEC/SSA
1.5 13.6 65.1 - - 13.5 - - -
3.0 45.9 44.7 42 18.8 15.9 0.44 0.41 0.92
4.6 55.5 40.8 - 6.1 15.1 - 0.11 -
6.1 66.5 39.6 56 19.9 16.9 0.35 0.30 0.85
7.6 68.3 42.8 62 23.6 10.4 0.38 0.35 0.91
IDA, New York
9.1 61.5 47.7 43 22.3 18.6 0.52 0.36 0.70

10.7 70.3 38.4 65 - 16.0 - - 0.92
12.2 63.4 40.4 - 22.8 15.7 - 0.36 -
13.7 65.7 29.7 49 21.9 16.3 0.45 0.33 0.74
15.2 72.6 36.5 64 21 15.4 0.33 0.29 0.87
16.8 71.3 36.7 78 - 12.4 - - 1.10
18.3 85.0 37.4 - - - - - -
Clay
Depth Fraction
(m) Carbonates
2
% < 2µm D .005 % (m /g) (meq/100 g) CEC/SSA
%
3.0 61.4 38.6 77 20.7 25.7 0.27 0.34 1.25
4.6 60.9 40.2 76 21.6 21.5 0.29 0.35 1.24
6.1 62.2 38.8 85 22.7 24.3 0.27 0.36 1.37
7.6 61.2 34.4 56 24.3 23.8 0.44 0.40 0.91
OGB, New York
9.1 66.4 30.9 73 24.3 21.9 0.33 0.37 1.10

10.7 67.4 37.3 120 25.1 20.3 0.21 0.37 1.78
12.2 66.3 33.7 66 23.2 14.5 0.35 0.35 0.99
13.7 70.3 32.8 87 21.3 16.1 0.24 0.30 1.24
16.8 72.2 31.6 - 21.5 17.0 - 0.30 -
18.3 89.1 16.6 - 23.6 10.8 - 0.26 -
19.8 26.0 54.7 30 19.6 37.2 0.65 0.75 1.15
262
Depth Clay Fraction Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge

(m) % < 2µm D .005 % (m2/g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates % CEC/SSA
6.7 47.8 40.9 51 10.1 1.07
12.5 46.7 26.0 56 12.7 1.20
12.5 42.2 27.5 38 9.3 0.90
12.8 53 7.9 -
12.8 45.1 13.6 40 10.5 0.89

Boston Blue Clay Shelby Tube Samples
13.4 29.9 0.0 22 12.2 0.74
14.9 52.2 0.0 60 10.5 1.15
15.2 39.3 41.2 43 8.9 1.09
15.2 32.4 0.0 40 12.2 1.23
15.5 43.8 21.4 58 10.2 1.32
17.7 23.6 0.0 22 13.0 0.93
18.3 54.0 0.0 42 13.1 0.78
19.2 57.9 0.0 70 16.1 1.21
263
Clay
Depth
Location Fraction Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge CEC/CF SSA/CF
(m)
% < 2µm D .005 % 2
(m /g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates % CEC/SSA
19.5 49.2 52.5 50 8.6 1.02
20.1 41.0 0.0 34 8.1 0.83
22.9 40.3 0.0 50 11.5 1.24
23.5 56.3 0.0 44 13.7 0.78

Boston Blue Clay Shelby Tube Samples
26.2 43.3 0.0 37 9.3 0.85
27.4 42.4 27.5 29 14.8 0.68
29.0 47.9 21.7 55 13.3 1.15
29.9 40.4 46.0 46 10.3 1.14
30.8 59.7 15.6 54 12.7 0.90
30.8 59.6 32.2 54 12.6 0.91
31.7 53.9 0.0 50 9.0 0.93
34.7 48.0 35.3 54 13.0 1.13
264
Clay
Fraction
Depth
Location Boring # % Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge CEC/CF SSA/CF
(m)
2
< 2µm D .005 % (m /g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates CEC/SSA
%
BB-3, UP-2 12.2 40.6 59.9 38 11.2 1.5 0.29 0.28 0.94
BB-3, UP-3 15.2 59.7 22.5 59 18.2 3.1 0.31 0.30 0.98
BB-3, UP-4 21.0 62.9 - 55 - - - - 0.87
BB-3, UP-6 33.5 47.8 - 26 - - - - 0.55
BB-3, UP-7 39.6 49.8 - 54 8.9 - 0.17 0.18 1.08
BB-5, UP-2 13.7 55.0 - 51 18.9 2.5 0.37 0.34 0.93

Boston Blue Clay
BB-5, UP-3 19.8 61.8 3.4 15 21.7 1.9 1.41 0.35 0.25
BB-5, UP-4 25.9 61.8 - - 18.6 1.8 - 0.30 -
BB-5, UP-5 32.0 57.5 31.3 13 11.0 2.4 0.83 0.19 0.23
BB-5, UP-6 38.1 51.9 1.8 40 10.5 1.8 0.27 0.20 0.76
BB-5, UP-7 44.2 61.1 35.5 51 15.2 2.1 0.30 0.25 0.84
BB-5, UP-8 50.3 47.1 35.6 36 8.9 1.8 0.25 0.19 0.77
BB-9, UP-6 44.2 59.4 0.3 30 13.5 1.8 - 0.23 0.50
BB-9, UP-7 50.3 57.2 46.3 43 13.2 2.2 - 0.23 0.74
265
Clay
Depth
Location Fraction % Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge CEC/CF SSA/CF
(m)
< 2µm D .005 % 2
(m /g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates % CEC/SSA
1 52.1 10.5 188 20.8 2.9 0.11 0.40 3.61
2 55.5 16.6 230 25.9 2.9 0.11 0.47 4.14

Canon's Park, England
3 63.8 12.8 168 22.1 2.4 0.13 0.35 2.63
4 55.1 23.2 171 21.7 5.1 0.13 0.39 3.10
5 48.0 0.0 142 39.1 5.4 0.28 0.81 2.96
6 60.4 0.0 169 42.6 2.0 0.25 0.71 2.79
7 57.6 1.3 152 25.1 6.1 0.17 0.44 2.64
1 58.7 7.6 160 27.9 37.3 0.17 0.48 2.72

Madingly, England
2 58.3 17.6 153 27.5 29.7 0.18 0.47 2.63
6 54.0 0.0 137 45.9 29.1 0.34 0.85 2.54
8 63.4 0.0 136 29.7 35.1 0.22 0.47 2.15
7.6 40.0 - 55 25.5 10.4 0.46 0.64 1.39

Danevikst, Norway
9.2 77.7 19.6 31 8.5 12.8 0.27 0.11 0.40
14.9 36.0 - 28 26.1 12.9 0.93 0.73 0.78
18.3 40.3 6.1 35 24.8 14.6 0.70 0.62 0.88
266
Table A. 9. Marine Deposit Results.
Clay
Fraction
Depth
Location % Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge CEC/CF SSA/CF
(m)
< 2µm D .005 % (m2/g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates CEC/SSA
%
4.7 14.9 - 32 17.5 32.7 0.54 1.17 2.17
5.0 - - 48 19.4 30.2 0.41 - -
5.3 18.0 6.8 26 20 46.7 0.78 1.11 1.43
5.6 6.5 0.0 31 22.3 71.9 0.73 3.43 4.71
10.6 26.5 0.0 22 16.4 73.7 0.76 0.62 0.81
11.1 20.3 0.0 25 15.6 70.5 0.62 0.77 1.23
Athlone, Ireland
11.6 35.6 0.0 35 17 61.6 0.49 0.48 0.97

12.1 27.6 0.0 26 16.7 62.0 0.64 0.61 0.95
12.6 34.2 0.0 40 16.9 62.1 0.42 0.49 1.16
12.8 28.3 0.0 25 17.4 77.7 0.70 0.61 0.88
13.3 41.1 0.0 28 17.3 56.9 0.63 0.42 0.67
13.8 28.9 0.0 29 16.5 75.1 0.58 0.57 0.99
14.3 - - 13 17.4 62.8 1.34
14.8 - - 11 15.1 57.1 1.32
267
Table A.10. Alluvial Deposit Results.
Clay
Depth Fraction % Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge
(m) < 2µm D .005 % 2
(m /g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates CEC/SSA
%
0.8 45.7 12.4 153 23.4 2.5 0.15 0.51 3.34
1.8 49.5 14.4 170 34.2 4.8 0.20 0.69 3.44
2.7 29.0 6.8 97 20.3 3.7 0.21 0.70 3.35
3.2 19.7 6.3 99 17.1 2.8 0.17 0.87 5.05
4.0 62.5 25.6 224 41.8 20.4 0.19 0.67 3.58
4.8 68.1 18.6 221 42.4 23.4 0.19 0.62 3.25
5.6 63.2 22.6 229 40.9 22.4 0.18 0.65 3.63
6.3 71.1 12.4 222 44 20.7 0.20 0.62 3.12

Houston, NGES
7.2 60.5 15.8 181 36 25.2 0.20 0.60 2.99
7.8 69.4 12.6 216 38.6 21.5 0.18 0.56 3.12
8.6 21.3 15.9 83 19.9 2.4 0.24 0.93 3.87
9.4 22.8 19.9 75 16.8 2.2 0.22 0.74 3.30
10.1 23.5 15.1 83 15.9 3.1 0.19 0.68 3.55
10.9 21.3 15.7 82 13.4 2.4 0.16 0.63 3.85
11.7 17.5 1.0 59 15.5 2.8 0.26 0.89 3.38
12.4 13.9 1.9 41 10.2 2.1 0.25 0.73 2.96
13.2 18.2 11.9 60 13.5 2.3 0.22 0.74 3.31
13.9 12.7 0.0 28 12.4 2.6 0.44 0.98 2.20
268
Clay
Depth Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge
Location Fraction CEC/CF SSA/CF
(m)
2
% < 2µm D .005 % (m /g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates % CEC/SSA
0.15 22.0 7.6 - 17.1 3.1 - 0.78 -
0.46 36.0 14.7 196 25 3.4 0.13 0.69 5.44
0.76 32.0 13.5 105 26.9 4.9 0.26 0.84 3.28
1.07 38.0 10.9 171 29.4 3.7 0.17 0.77 4.51

North Base, Oklahoma
1.37 46.0 12.2 164 27.4 3.0 0.17 0.60 3.55
1.68 53.0 3.2 193 30.5 3.2 0.16 0.58 3.63
1.98 46.0 - - - 9.1 - - -
2.29 36.2 28.3 113 27.9 15.1 0.25 0.77 3.12
2.59 42.0 20.9 140 28.5 12.4 0.20 0.68 3.33
2.9 49.0 23.7 180 30 8.8 0.17 0.61 3.68
269
Clay
Depth
Location Fraction Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge CEC/CF SSA/CF
(m)
% < 2µm D .005 % (m2/g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates % CEC/SSA
1.5 54.80 18.0 - 44.9 7.9 - 0.82 -
3.0 54.00 24.7 - 39.1 9.2 - 0.72 -
4.6 55.90 24.6 217 38.9 9.1 0.18 0.70 3.87

Storz, Nebraska
6.1 64.10 9.0 - 40 8.3 - 0.62 -
7.6 68.20 17.5 - - - - - -
9.1 59.80 22.5 155 30.7 9.2 0.20 0.51 2.60
10.7 42.90 25.9 161 28.1 10.1 0.17 0.66 3.75
12.2 43.50 18.8 158 27.8 10.2 0.18 0.64 3.63
270
Table A. 13. Lacustrine Deposit Results.
Clay
Fraction
Sample Depth
# (m)
%
2D 0.91 37.3 17.8 52 - 15.1 - - 1.39
3D 1.52 46.9 15.7 79 - 19.5 - - 1.68
4D 2.13 46.1 29.0 47 - 14.3 - - 1.02
5U 3.35 48.3 0.6 40 20.3 19.6 0.51 0.42 0.83
6D 3.96 66.8 - 37 22.2 22.6 0.60 0.33 0.55
8D 5.49 59.9 0.0 47 - 18.3 - - 0.78
9U 6.40 39.3 0.4 46 17.1 18.5 0.37 0.44 1.17
10D 7.24 - - 71 - 20.2 - - -

Port of Albany, M-1
12D 8.76 64.6 0.0 24 - 18.3 - - 0.37
13U 9.45 53.4 0.7 39 19.0 17.3 0.49 0.36 0.73
14D 10.29 - - 35 - 24.8 - - -
15U 10.97 56.2 0.2 29 21.9 27.1 0.76 0.39 0.52
16D 11.81 54.6 - 47 21.9 13.7 0.47 0.40 0.86
17U 12.50 31.4 26.6 29 18.0 17.4 0.62 0.57 0.92
18D 13.34 46.9 - 44 25.4 22.6 0.58 0.54 0.94
19U 14.02 20.9 0.0 20 16.9 15.2 0.85 0.81 0.96
20D 14.86 41.1 0.0 40 - 21.0 - - 0.97
21U 15.54 16.4 0.0 18 19.9 17.7 1.11 1.21 1.10
271
Table A.14. Lacustrine Deposit Results.
Clay
Fraction
Sample Depth
# (m)
%
22D 16.38 32.9 0.0 34 - 23.3 - - 1.03
23U 17.07 27.0 2.5 22 18.9 21.2 0.86 0.70 0.81
24D 17.91 33.0 - 26 - 23.9 - - 0.79
25U 18.59 30.5 0.0 31 18.2 25.5 0.59 0.60 1.02
26D 19.43 41.4 - 40 24.1 17.2 0.60 0.58 0.97
28D 20.96 43.4 - 55 22.3 10.6 0.41 0.51 1.27
29U 21.64 22.1 0.0 19 19.3 21.0 1.02 0.87 0.86

Port of Albany, M-1
30D 22.48 28.4 0.0 25 - 20.4 - - 0.88
31U 23.16 22.2 0.0 11 18.7 17.8 1.70 0.84 0.50
32D 24.00 - - 14 - 21.6 - - -
33U 24.69 61.0 0.0 65 19.5 22.0 0.30 0.32 1.07
34D 25.30 - - 11 19.1 24.5 1.74 - -
35S 26.21 14.4 0.0 14 17.1 21.3 1.22 1.19 0.97
36D 26.67 - - 23 - 15.1 - - -
37D 27.74 - - 22 - 21.5 - - -
38D 29.26 - - 22 - 14.4 - - -
39D 30.64 - - 11 - 18.0 - - -
272
Clay
Sample Depth Fraction % Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge
# (m) < 2µm D .005 % (m2/g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates CEC/SSA
%
1D 0.30 - - 62 - 14.3 - - -
2D 0.91 - - 30 - 9.9 - - -
4D 2.13 - - 15 - 10.1 - - -
5D 3.35 9.6 0.0 4 - 12.6 - - 0.42
6D Top 3.81 8.0 0.0 8 - 10.3 - - 1.00
6D
4.11 16.5 0.0 22 - 16.0 - - 1.33
Bottom
7D 4.88 21.5 0.0 34 - 15.2 - - 1.58

Port of Albany, M-2
8UD 5.49 - - 31 - 14.3 - - -
9D 20.30 76.5 0.0 52 - 19.4 - - 0.68
10D 7.62 64.3 0.0 71 - 15.9 - - 1.10
11U 8.53 52.6 0.0 57 - 20.5 - - 1.08
12D 9.37 54.5 0.0 60 - 16.6 - - 1.10
13U 10.06 52.3 - 66 - 20.8 - - 1.26
14D 10.90 40.8 0.0 37 - 21.0 - - 0.91
15U 11.58 23.1 - 34 - 16.8 - - 1.47
273
Clay
Sample Depth
Location Fraction % Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge CEC/CF SSA/CF
# (m)
< 2µm D .005 % (m2/g) (meq/100 g) Carbonates % CEC/SSA
16D 12.27 - - 52 - 18.9 - - -
17U 13.11 32.4 - 33 - 25.8 - - 1.02
18D 13.94 26.2 0.0 20 - 20.7 - - 0.76
19U 14.63 49.0 - 54 - 21.9 - - 1.10
20D 15.47 54.8 0.0 60 - 18.6 - - 1.09
21U 16.15 15.4 - 20 - 22.5 - - 1.30
22D 16.99 47.5 0.0 37 - 15.7 - - 0.78

Port of Albany, M-2
23D 17.60 18.4 0.0 14 - 15.1 - - 0.76
25D 19.13 15.3 0.0 18 - 19.4 - - 1.18
26U 19.81 29.8 - 36 - 21.1 - - 1.21
27D 20.50 31.7 0.0 32 - 18.9 - - 1.01
28U 21.34 17.1 - 19 - 18.0 - - 1.11
29U 22.86 14.2 - 17 - 17.6 - - 1.20
30D 23.47 7.4 - 7 - 18.5 - - 0.95
31D 24.31 - - 33 - 14.6 - - -
32D 25.63 - - 36 - 13.2 - - -
33D 27.16 - - 24 - 9.7 - - -
274
Clay
Fraction
Sample Depth
# (m)
2
%
10.10 2.82 42.8 38.9 54 - 2.9 - - 1.27
10.2 2.97 32.3 36.1 30 4.1 2.9 0.14 0.13 0.93
15.1 4.34 42.7 29.5 29 - 3.8 - - 0.68
15.2 4.49 45.3 25.7 32 - 3.1 - - 0.70

NGES UMASS
20.1 5.87 62.5 30.0 41 - 2.4 - - 0.66
20.2 6.01 57.2 24.9 54 6.6 2.4 0.12 0.12 0.95
20.3 6.17 55.0 25.9 54 - 2.8 - - 0.97
25.1 7.36 63.8 27.3 40 - 3.1 - - 0.63
25.2 7.54 55.5 26.8 28 - 3.2 - - 0.50
30.1 8.91 64.0 - 32 - 2.3 - - 0.50
275
Clay
Fraction
Sample Depth
# (m)
%
30.2 9.07 45.8 31.8 42 5.6 3.0 0.13 0.12 0.91
35.1 10.44 51.8 30.9 35 - 2.6 - - 0.67
35.2 10.59 56.4 29.7 54 - 3.2 - - 0.96
40.1 11.96 59.6 27.1 24 - 2.2 - - 0.41
40.2 12.12 54.7 31.1 44 6.7 2.6 0.15 0.12 0.80
45.1 13.49 63.8 28.6 44 - 2.5 - - 0.69

NGES UMASS
45.2 13.64 55.5 30.6 48 - 2.4 - - 0.86
50.1 15.01 50.0 25.5 53 - 2.8 - - 1.06
50.2 15.16 46.9 34.7 47 5.9 2.8 0.13 0.13 0.99
60.1 18.06 59.1 30.4 43 - 2.4 - - 0.73
60.2 18.21 40.7 31.4 18 5.6 2.8 0.32 0.14 0.43
65.1 19.58 57.6 - - - 2.7 - - -
65.2 19.74 54.0 30.3 34 - 2.7 - - 0.63
276
Clay
Fraction
Sample Depth
# (m)
%
B-104 1.68 28.0 10.9 48 19.8 34.4 0.41 0.71 1.73
B-104 1.98 21.5 26.7 45 19.6 22.7 0.43 0.91 2.11
B-104 3.20 17.3 31.7 52 20.5 19.1 0.39 1.18 3.02
B-104 3.51 18.9 32.3 59 19 20.7 0.32 1.01 3.12
B-104 4.72 23.3 36.2 49 19.7 19.5 0.40 0.85 2.11

B-104 5.03 23.0 0.6 44 27.3 23.2 0.62 1.19 1.93
B-104 9.30 17.2 32.6 35 22.1 23.3 0.63 1.28 2.04
B-104 9.60 9.5 0.0 28 22.7 19.1 0.82 2.39 2.91
B-104 12.34 18.4 31.1 29 20.2 17.1 0.70 1.10 1.57
B-104 12.65 30.1 6.7 23 19.9 21.0 0.85 0.66 0.77
B-104 13.87 21.7 33.1 26 18.9 19.8 0.74 0.87 1.18
277
Clay
Fraction
Sample Depth
# (m)
Carbonates
< 2µm D .005 % 2
(m /g) (meq/100 g) % CEC/SSA
B-104 14.17 13.8 15.8 16 17.7 19.0 1.09 1.28 1.17
B-104 15.39 24.9 12.3 50 22.5 18.0 0.45 0.90 2.01
B-104 15.70 19.1 0.7 22 19.5 16.8 0.91 1.02 1.13
B-104 16.92 31.9 6.2 89 28.3 18.4 0.32 0.89 2.80
B-104 17.22 16.3 1.6 48 25.1 19.8 0.52 1.54 2.95

B-104 18.44 36.6 6.7 83 29.7 23.4 0.36 0.81 2.26
B-104 18.74 41.1 2.5 96 30.4 18.9 0.32 0.74 2.33
B-104 19.96 29.9 1.3 67 29.9 22.0 0.44 1.00 2.25
B-104 20.27 30.5 17.0 72 24.3 19.8 0.34 0.80 2.36
B-104 21.49 23.5 8.5 72 23.3 24.9 0.32 0.99 3.06
B-104 23.01 23.5 24.1 46 18.5 13.6 0.40 0.79 1.97
278
Clay
Fraction
Sample Depth
# (m)
2
%
B-104A 4.72 16.4 16.9 51 - 19.9 - - 3.10
B-104A 5.03 23.7 20.3 62 - 23.9 - - 2.60
B-104A 7.77 25.2 15.4 80 - 24.8 - - 3.17
B-104A 9.91 24.9 29.5 57 - 20.6 - - 2.28
B-104A 10.21 19.9 6.0 25 - 19.5 - - 1.26
B-104A 12.95 20.2 30.3 24 - 20.8 - - 1.19

B-104A 13.26 17.9 11.5 20 - 21.1 - - 1.12
B-104A 13.87 26.7 33.6 39 - 19.5 - - 1.48
B-104A 14.17 21.1 38.2 30 - 19.7 - - 1.42
B-104A 14.78 37.2 28.6 51 - 16.9 - - 1.37
B-104A 16.92 15.7 5.5 61 - 20.6 - - 3.91
B-104A 17.22 25.1 1.2 57 - 23.0 - - 2.29
B-104A 23.01 25.1 34.2 65 - 15.5 - - 2.58
B-104A 23.32 15.9 37.5 45 - 20.8 - - 2.81
279
Table A.22. Loess Deposit Results.
Clay
Fraction
Location Soil Sample CEC/CF SSA/CF
2
Carbonates
% < 2 µm D 0.005 (m /g) (meq/100 g) CEC/SSA
%
Wyeth Park 12.2 0.0 63 17.3 15.8 0.27 1.42 5.19
James Street 18.9 10.1 57 12.5 11.5 0.22 0.66 3.02
Gladstone 22.9 11.0 116 16.7 13.5 0.14 0.73 5.08
Berry Road 33.6 7.9 145 19.0 13.2 0.13 0.57 4.30
Missouri
Palouse
Loess 21.0 13.8 94 20.9 11.5 0.22 1.00 4.48
Highland
Avenue 21.5 1.2 101 15.1 10.3 0.15 0.70 4.70
Beecher
Island-P,
CO 10.9 0.0 90 25.6 15.5 0.29 2.35 8.24
Bignell Hill-
Colorado
P, NE 13.5 0.0 86 20.9 12.8 0.24 1.55 6.36
and
Bignell Hill-
Nebraska
B, NE 15.3 0.0 67 22.9 13.8 0.34 1.50 4.35
Beecher
Island-B,
CO 15.1 2.0 93 25.4 13.1 0.27 1.68 6.18
280
Clay
Fraction
Carbonates
% < 2 µm D 0.005 (m2/g) (meq/100 g) CEC/SSA
%
Palmyra-
MO 30.9 1.1 119 17.3 14.9 0.15 0.56 3.85
Hollenberg
Road-MO 26.2 0.7 94 15.2 13.3 0.16 0.58 3.59
Bowling
Green
South-MO 23.0 6.1 84 10.4 10.8 0.12 0.45 3.66
Bowling
Green
North-MO 43.0 3.7 208 21.8 12.0 0.10 0.51 4.84
South
Service
Road-MO 22.1 7.6 74 13.3 14.4 0.18 0.60 3.34
O'Fallon-
MO 28.5 7.3 75 12.6 10.2 0.17 0.44 2.62
Missouri
Menards-IA 39.2 10.3 152 21.3 14.4 0.14 0.54 3.88
and Iowa
Keokuk
South-IA 63.5 2.6 201 25.0 11.4 0.12 0.39 3.17
Old Eagles-
IA 25.2 9.0 130 17.4 14.6 0.13 0.69 5.17
Muscatine
North-IA 35.1 1.4 157 19.5 12.3 0.12 0.56 4.47
New
London
West-IA 31.0 6.2 163 18.4 12.8 0.11 0.59 5.26
County
Line-IA 26.9 12.7 130 17.3 7.2 0.13 0.64 4.83
Deerwood-
IA 31.1 11.2 111 14.2 11.9 0.13 0.46 3.57
Stockton
Road-IA 19.8 9.0 74 13.0 14.3 0.18 0.66 3.73
281
Clay
Depth Fraction
(m) Carbonates
%
1.8 25.4 0.06 150 21.4 15.6 0.14 0.84 5.91

County Carroll
3.7 21.4 0.11 150 17.3 14.3 0.12 0.81 7.01
5.4 24.0 0.09 130 19.9 13.9 0.15 0.83 5.42
1.5 22.9 11.28 93 18.1 1.8 3.76 0.79 4.05
3.0 30.7 6.42 57 15.8 1.2 2.93 0.51 1.87
4.5 16.4 10.21 122 18.3 5.3 4.66 1.12 7.43

Westside, Nebraska
5.7 18.9 8.87 119 18 4.8 4.03 0.95 6.31
7.2 17 10.43 109 17 4.0 4.74 1.00 6.40
8.2 17.1 10.05 106 19.4 1.7 4.57 1.13 6.20
11.5 12.4 22.91 120 22.2 2.5 5.59 1.79 9.65
282
Clay
Depth Fraction
(m) Carbonates
%
2.1 19.8 8.40 136 17.4 12.8 0.13 0.88 6.87
12.0 25.9 13.96 139 17.4 11.6 0.13 0.67 5.37
16.5 32.8 0.00 138 21.2 13.2 0.15 0.65 4.21
4.3 31.8 8.63 159 20.5 14.0 0.13 0.64 5.00
5.9 26.1 7.91 133 18.4 12.3 0.14 0.70 5.10
7.4 24.4 14.39 103 17.0 13.5 0.17 0.70 4.22
8.9 19.0 19.17 127 17.3 14.6 0.14 0.91 6.68
7.4 19.8 20.77 123 24.2 20.0 0.20 1.22 6.21
12.0 29.4 0.60 125 17.9 12.1 0.14 0.61 4.25
13.5 24.2 24.48 126 18.0 15.7 0.14 0.74 5.21
Omaha Loess
15.0 30.5 23.14 147 22.2 17.8 0.15 0.73 4.82

19.6 29.9 18.41 155 20.8 15.5 0.13 0.70 5.18
0.5 24.4 20.88 134 17.3 14.7 0.13 0.71 5.50
1.3 19.9 14.13 143 17.8 14.3 0.12 0.89 7.19
2.1 17.0 18.99 135 16.6 14.7 0.12 0.98 7.91
2.8 15.5 10.41 131 17.4 13.3 0.13 1.12 8.45
4.3 21.4 12.19 146 17.9 13.1 0.12 0.84 6.82
5.9 20.2 12.55 142 16.4 14.5 0.12 0.81 7.03
7.4 27.7 13.68 117 19.8 13.3 0.17 0.71 4.21
8.9 36.8 11.69 183 24.2 13.7 0.13 0.66 4.98
10.4 33.2 15.16 166 19.6 13.3 0.12 0.59 5.00
15.0 35.3 15.16 180 21.2 16.9 0.12 0.60 5.10
3.7 48.0 14.31 130 28.5 13.7 0.22 0.59 2.71
283
Clay
Depth Fraction
(m) Carbonates
2
%
1.3 13.1 0.7 61 23.8 12.0 0.39 1.82 4.66
2.8 27.4 0.0 78 25.3 9.1 0.32 0.92 2.85
4.3 12.2 0.0 95 25.8 10.1 0.27 2.11 7.79
5.9 16.2 28.3 101 26.4 8.2 0.26 1.63 6.23
7.4 12.9 15.9 103 26.9 7.8 0.26 2.09 7.98
9.0 19.5 6.5 74 24.6 7.2 0.33 1.26 3.79
10.5 19.3 9.6 81 28.0 9.5 0.35 1.45 4.20

Crescent, Iowa
12.0 16.7 19.2 94 26.7 6.3 0.28 1.60 5.63
13.6 19.7 20.6 108 28.1 5.8 0.26 1.43 5.48
15.1 19.4 18.2 88 28.8 5.0 0.33 1.48 4.54
18.1 24.5 22.1 106 27.5 10.3 0.26 1.12 4.33
21.2 17.4 10.5 109 25.6 2.8 0.23 1.47 6.26
24.2 15.9 13.2 102 22.4 2.8 0.22 1.41 6.42
27.3 18.5 21.3 103 29.7 3.1 0.29 1.61 5.57
30.3 10.0 27.9 100 24.4 2.4 0.24 2.44 10.00
284
Clay
Fraction Dispersion SSA CEC Total Charge
2
Carbonates
%
Genesse 15.9 23.1 112 14.9 15.2 0.13 0.94 7.04
Dusty
Idaho Middle 9.3 1.9 66 14.9 14.0 0.22 1.60 7.13
Loess Walla Walla 6.8 1.2 71 14.8 14.0 0.21 2.18 10.46
Lind 3.6 15.2 46 20 14.8 0.44 5.56 12.75
Colfax 15.0 11.5 120 17.9 14.7 0.15 1.19 8.03
Rt. 63
Moberly
Gley 53.8 11.5 242 40.9 15.4 0.17 0.76 4.50
UM- Rt. 87
Loess Glasgow 9.3 0.0 70 16.1 15.7 0.23 1.73 7.47
Easley 21.9 0.0 81 13.2 12.6 0.16 0.60 3.70
Rt. 159
Mound City 11.8 0.0 74 20.1 15.9 0.27 1.70 6.25
285
APPENDIX B
1. EGME Method of Determining Surface Area
286
METHODS OF DETERMINING SURFACE AREA
EGME Method
Typical Results
Artificial Clays
In order to illustrate the range of SSA determined using the EGME procedures, samples
were tested representing different clay mineralogies. Reference clay mineral samples were
obtained from the Source Clay Mineral Repository at the University of Missouri at Columbia,
Missouri. Table 1 presents specific surface area results obtained using the EGME method and
other measured geotechnical properties.
Table 1. Properties of Reference Clays Tested.

Clay
LL PL PI
Soil Location SSA CEC* Fraction Activity
% % %
m2/g (meq/100 g) % < 2 µm PI/CF
KGa-1b Kaolinite Georgia 15 2.0 42 26 16 36.2 0.44
KGa-2 Kaolinite Georgia 26 3.3 70 30 40 67.6 0.59
PF1-1 Palygorskite Florida 341 19.5 202 108 94 67.3 1.40
SHCa-1 Hectorite California 387 43.9 400 48 352 53.4 6.59
STx-1 Ca-Mont. Texas 534 84.4 142 44 98 73.3 1.34
SWy-2 Na-Mont. Wyoming 637 76.4 519 35 484 60.4 8.01
SAz-1 Ca-Mont. Arizona 767 120.0 130 58 72 37.7 1.91
* Provided by Source Clays Project, University of Missouri
Natural Clays
SSA tests were also performed on a number of samples of natural fine-grained soils
obtained from around the world. These soils represent a wide range of geologies and include
marine clays, alluvial clays, lacustrine clays, glacial tills, loess and residual clays. Table 2
287
presents results from these soils. Comparing Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that the range of SSA
measured in the natural clays tested is much less than in the reference clays. This should be
expected since most natural clays represent mixed mineralogy as a result of variations in
geologic origin.
Table 2. Properties of Natural Clays Tested.

Clay
LL PL PI
Geology Soil SSA CEC Fraction Activity
(m2/g) (meq/100 g) % % % % < 2 µm PI/CF
Lacustrine Salt Lake Clay, Utah 25 22.7 25 17 8 9.5 0.84
Marine BBC, Massachusetts 30 11.4 40 22 18 48.4 0.37
Lacustrine CVVC, NGES, Amherst, MA 49 8.3 55 31 24 53.3 0.45
Marine Leda Clay, Massena, New York 56 19.9 37 21 16 66.5 0.24
Loess Westside Reservoir, Nebraska 122 18.3 35 20 15 16.4 0.91
Marine San Francisco Bay Mud, California 135 - 92 38 54 54.1 1.00
Loess Barry Road, Kansas City Missouri 145 19.0 40 20 20 33.6 0.60
Alluvial Storz Lake Clay, Omaha, Nebraska 161 28.1 53 18 35 42.9 0.82
Alluvial North Base, Oklahoma 171 29.4 51 25 26 38.0 0.68
Alluvial Bangkok Clay, Bangkok, Thailand 186 38.9 45 23 22 48.1 0.46
Marine NRL, Gulf of Mexico 204 70.2 100 38 62 35.2 1.76
Alluvial Buckshot Clay, Mississippi 245 29.5 57 24 33 50.8 0.65
Marine Beaumont Clay, Houston, Texas 255 44.0 61 28 33 77.9 0.42
Factors Affecting Results

The test procedure described previously presents a potentially fast and reliable way to
determine SSA. However, there are a number of factors that may affect the reliability and
repeatability of the tests. A series of tests were performed to evaluate the relative influence of a
number of variables on the test results.
Amount of EGME
The standard amount of EGME added to the soil to create a slurry is 3 mL (Carter et. al.
1986). To evaluate if the amount of EGME added to the soil affected the test results, a single soil
288
sample was tested using varying amount of EGME. Figure 1 presents the results of this test. It
can be seen that all amounts of EGME provided similar Specific Surface Area measurements,
however the time to equilibrium varied greatly. The more EGME that was placed in the
aluminum tare, the longer the time required for complete equilibrium. Use of lesser amounts of
EGME is not recommend since there is a chance that not all of the soil particles will be covered
with the EGME. 3 mL of EGME was found to be adequate both in accuracy and time efficiency.
7
1.0-mL
6 1.5-mL
2.0-mL
5 2.5-mL
3.0-mL
Mass (grams)
4 3.5-mL
4.0-mL
3 4.5-mL
5.0-mL
2 5.5-mL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hours)
Figure 1. Influence of Amount of EGME on Time to Reach Equilibrium.
Age of Dessicant
It was thought that the age of the dessicant may have an impact on specific surface area
results. Tests were performed over a period of four weeks in the same dessicator, with six
control soil samples. Table 3 presents the results of this study. There is variation between SSA
results from week to week, but it appears that this variation is not systematic and maybe is due to
other factors, such as soil variability. Changing the Calcium Chloride and EGME slurry depends
289
on how many tests are performed and how airtight the dessicators are when not in use. It is
recommended that the dessicant be changed within a regular schedule so that laboratory results
can become more accurate, i.e., every 4 weeks.
Table 3. Effects of Desiccant Age on SSA Results.
SSA (m2/g)
Soil
1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week
Vermont 64 59 59 55
Houston NGES, 10.0 m 67 87 86 89
Houston NGES,5.5 m 237 215 263 218
Westside, Nebraska 131 137 134 138
Canons Park, England 185 175 198 169
St. Herblain, France 212 188 243 230
Amount of Soil Tested

Carter et. al. (1986) recommended that the standard amount of soil used in the SSA test is
approximately one gram. This value was used while testing the control sample, Storz, Nebraska,
for a period of four months and the amount of soil was also varied on this control soil sample to
determine if the amount of soil used in the test significantly affected the results. Table 4 presents
the results of this test. 3-mL of EGME was added to each sample. It was determined that all
amounts provided accurate Specific Surface Area measurements. Again, time to equilibrium was
affected by the amount of soil used. If less than 1 gram of soil is used, the time to equilibrium
increases. It is not recommended to use soil amounts less than 1 gram. As presented in Table 4,
a nominal variation in the reported SSA is seen for amounts greater than 1 gram of soil.
However, if too much soil is added, the EGME will not cover all of the soil and an accurate
measure of SSA can not be attained. It appears that the ratio of EGME to soil should be on the
order of 3mL/gm.
290
Table 4. Effect of Differing Soil Amounts on SSA.
Soil* Mass (g)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
SSA (m2/g) 181 180 174 169 172 165
* Storz, Nebraska, Control Sample
Size Fraction of Soil

It was not stated in the standard practice by Soil Science Society of America, which is
described by Carter et al. (1986), what size fraction should be tested and whether the size
fraction of soil used would affect the specific surface area results. For the tests presented in this
paper, the standard soil particle size that was used was soil passing the #40 sieve. This was done
for uniformity since all other laboratory tests were performed with soil passing the #40 sieve,
(i.e., Atterberg Limits, Grain-Size Analysis and Specific Gravity). However, it was speculated
that the various size soil particles would carry different surface areas. Therefore three soil
samples from the Houston NGES site were mechanically sieved through the #40, #80, #100,
#140, #200, #325 and #400 sieves to determine if there was a significant difference in results.
Table 5 presents the results of the tests. These results indicate that there is no systematic trend in
the measurements, however, it is recommended that all SSA tests be performed on soil which has
passed the #40 sieve. This would allow for data collaboration among various laboratories and a
common media for which to discuss results.
Table 5. SSA for Different Soil Size Fractions.

Soil Sieve # and SSA in m2/g
Houston NGES # 40 # 80 # 100 # 140 # 200 # 325 # 400
5.5 m 229 208 215 214 212 187 199
8.5 m 83 64 71 58 83 105 104
10.0 m 83 55 71 67 91 118 108
291
Size of Desiccator
It was speculated by Tiller (1990), that desiccator size might have an affect of results of
specific surface area results. Tests were performed over a four-week period in both the 210 mm
and 250 mm diameter desiccator. Test results are presented in Table 6 and indicate that within
the sizes used, desiccator size is not an issue. However, the bigger the desiccator, the longer it
takes for the samples to reach equilibrium. It is recommended that the specific surface area tests
be performed in desiccators of the same size to regulate the results.
Table 6. Influence of Desiccator Size on SSA Results.

Dessicator Diameter (mm)
Sample
210 250
Vermont 53 +/- 8 60 +/- 4
Houston, NGES 88 +/- 1 82 +/- 10
Westside, Nebraska 129 +/- 12 135 +/- 3
St. Herblain, France 225+/-30 218 +/- 24
Values are means (m2/g) of duplicates +/- s.d.
Rate of Equilibrium
The rate at which the soil sample reaches equilibrium can be influenced by many factors
including temperature, barometric pressure and humidity, geometry of equipment and the
interaction between EGME and the particular sample. It was attempted to limit the effect of
these factors on results, however the humidity, pressure and interaction between EGME and the
sample were not studied. Two factors were controlled during testing: maintaining a fairly
constant temperature within 1 to 2 degrees Celcius and using same-geometry dessicators.
Experiments were performed in which eight samples were tested to determine when
equilibrium was reached. Samples were weighed at varying intervals over a period of 70 hours
and the results are presented in Figure 2. It can be seen that the main weight-loss occurred
within the first 24 hours and that after 24 hours, there is no additional change in mass.
292
5
I-95
Peerless Clay
NGES, Houston
4 NGES, Houston
NGES, Houston
NGES, Houston
Mass (grams)
3 St. Herblain
St. Herblain
Canons Park, England
Canons Park, England
2 Westside, Nebraska
Vermont
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time (hours)
Figure 2. Typical Time to Reach Equilibrium.
Repeatability of Measurements
In order to determine the repeatability of the test procedure, tests were performed
periodically on the same soil over a period of 8 months. Two soils were selected for the
“controls;” one with high SSA and one with low SSA. Table 7 gives a summary of the
properties of these two soils.
293
Table 7. Properties of Control Samples.
Storz, I-95,
Nebraska Massachusetts
LL % 53 69
PL % 18 49
PI % 35 20
Clay Fraction % 42.9 25.2
Activity 0.82 0.80
CEC (meq/100 g) 28.1 15.6
Total Calcite % 4.8 1.2
Total Dolomite % 5.3 1.0
Total Carbonates % 10.1 2.1
Results of repeatability tests are summarized in Table 8.
Figure 3 presents histograms of the measured values of SSA for both soils. These results
indicate that the determination of SSA by the procedure described produces a coefficient of
variation of less than 10%.
294
Table 8. Repeatability of Controls.
Storz I95
Trial #
SSA (m2/g) SSA (m2/g)
1 161 71
2 188 29
3 186 49
4 135 20
5 138 60
6 173 54
7 132 55
8 191 43
9 184 43
10 189 58
11 172 48
12 186 25
13 161 35
14 180 70
15 148 70
16 142 -
17 152 -
18 145 -
19 144 -
20 154 -
21 190 -
22 215 -
23 174 -
24 172 -
25 166 -
n 25 15
Mean 167 49
Std. Dev. 21.7 16.3
C.O.V % 7.7 3.0
295
7
Storz
6
I-95
Number of Observations
5
Average
4 Values
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
SSA (m2/g)
Figure 3. Histogram of Control Sample SSA Results.
296
APPENDIX C
1. BET Method of Determining Surface Area
297
METHODS OF DETERMINING SURFACE AREA
BET Method
Controls
In order to demonstrate the accuracy and precision of the Quantachrome Monosorb®

Apparatus, five control samples were tested periodically on the same soil for a period of four
months. One soil was selected for the control; Connecticut Valley Varved Clay. Table B-1
shows the external surface area results for this control sample.
Table B-1. Repeatability of Control Sample.
11/30/00 12/5/00 12/6/00 12/7/00 3/15/01

CVVC:s-11 CVVC:s-11 CVVC:s-11 CVVC:s-11 CVVC:s-11
External SSA (m2/g) 32 33 32 33 33
Total SSA (m2/g) -
EGME Method 53 53 53 53 53
Internal SSA (m2/g) -
EGME-N2 21 20 21 20 20
298

Influence of Specific Surface Area On Geotechnical Characteristics of Fine-Grained Soils

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Influence of Specific Surface Area On Geotechnical Characteristics of Fine-Grained Soils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFLUENCE OF SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA ON GEOTECHNICAL

CHARACTERISTICS OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

A Master of Science Project

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

Table 2.2 Comparison Between EGME and BET-N2 Surface Area

Table 2.3 Correlations Between Plastic Limit and Clay Fraction..............................20

Table 2.8 Correlation Equations from the Literature.................................................52

Table 2.12 Correlation Equations for Relationships Between Plastic Limit

Table 3.1 Site Location and Geology.........................................................................72

Table 5.1 Summary of Results for Natural Clays ......................................................91

Table 5.3 Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics

Table 5.4 Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics

Table 5.6 Summary for Results for Artificial Clays ................................................138

Table 5.8 Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics

Table 5.9 Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics

Table 5.10 Correlation Equations of Intrinsic Compressibility Characteristics

Table 5.11 Atterberg Limit Correlations with Surface Area .....................................168

Table 6.1 Natural and Artificial Clay Soil Property Ranges....................................206

Figure 2.1 Relative Sizes, Thicknesses and Specific Surfaces of Common

Figure 2.2 Surface Area Determination by Method A vs. Method B.

Figure 2.3 Atomic and Symbolic Structure. A. Kaolinite. B. Illite.

Figure 2.10 Skempton Activity Chart (after Skempton 1953) ......................................28

Figure 2.12 Activity as a Function of Chloride Ion Concentration in the Pore

Figure 2.18 Correlation Between Swelling and Specific Surface Area

Figure 2.19 Intrinsic Compressibility versus eL ............................................................43

Figure 2.26 Cation Exchange Capacity versus Plasticity Index

Figure 2.32 Relationship of Calcite Content with Plasticity Index

Figure 3.1 Soil Sample Locations in the United States...............................................64

Figure 3.2 Soil Sample Locations in the Eastern Hemisphere ....................................65

Figure 4.2 Schematic of EGME Method Test Equipment ..........................................73

Figure 4.4 Quantachrome MONOSORB® Apparatus for Performing BET Analysis 76

Figure 5.1 Plasticity Chart for Natural Clays ..............................................................80

Figure 5.2 Activity Chart for Natural Clays................................................................81

Figure 5.4 Surface Area Activity Chart of Natural Clays ...........................................84

Figure 5.5 Intrinsic Compressibility versus eL for Natural Clays .............................101

Figure 5.6 Intrinsic Compressibility versus LL for Natural Clays............................102

Figure 5.9 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Cation Exchange Capacity Activity.....105

Figure 5.10 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Surface Area Activity ..........................105

Figure 5.12 e*100 versus eL for Natural Clays ..............................................................107

Figure 5.13 e*100 versus Liquid Limit for Natural Clays.............................................108

Figure 5.16 e*100 versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External...................111

Figure 5.18 e*100 versus SSA/CF.................................................................................112

Figure 5.21 eL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External ......................116

Figure 5.22 e*100/eL versus eL for Natural Clays..........................................................118

Figure 5.24 e*100/eL versus Plasticity Index for Natural Clays....................................119

Figure 5.26 Legend for Figure 5.25 ............................................................................121

Figure 5.27 LL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External.....................123

Figure 5.28 1/LL versus 1/SSA. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External. ..........................124

Figure 5.29 PL versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External .....................125

Figure 5.30 PI versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal. C. External ......................126

Figure 5.31 Shrinkage Limit versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal.

Figure 5.32 Shrinkage Index versus Surface Area. A. Total. B. Internal.

Figure 5.39 Plasticity Chart for Artificial Clays .........................................................134

Figure 5.40 Activity Chart for Artificial Clays ...........................................................135

Figure 5.41 Cation Exchange Capacity Activity Chart of Artificial Clays.................135

Figure 5.42 Surface Area Activity Chart of Artificial Clays ......................................136

Figure 5.43 C*c versus eL for Artificial Clays .............................................................137

Figure 5.44 Intrinsic Compressibility versus LL for Artificial Clays .........................143

Figure 5.45 Intrinsic Compressibility versus PI for Artificial Clays ..........................144

Figure 5.46 Intrinsic Compressibility versus Is for Natural Clays ..............................144

Figure 5.50 e*100 versus eL for Artificial Clays ...........................................................147