Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Civil and Environmental Engineering)

Dedicated to the Cause of Students

FOREWORD Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering i s a long titl e befitting a major work. I a m please d t o introduc e thi s super b volum e destined fo r a readership o f students , professors, an d consultants . What make s thi s text differen t from othe r books o n these subjects that appear eac h year and why am I recommending i t to you? I have been workin g and teaching in the area o f geotechnical engineering for 2 5 years. I have rea d and use d score s o f textbook s i n m y classe s an d practice . Dr . Murthy' s tex t i s b y fa r th e mos t comprehensive tex t I have found. You will find tha t his organization of the subjec t matter follows a logical progression. Hi s example problems are numerous and, like the text, start from fundamenta l principles an d progressivel y develo p int o mor e challengin g material . The y ar e th e bes t se t o f example problems I have seen i n a textbook. Dr . Murthy has included ample homewor k problem s with a rang e o f difficult y mean t t o hel p th e studen t ne w t o th e subjec t t o develo p his/he r confidence an d t o assis t th e experience d enginee r i n his/he r revie w o f th e subjec t an d i n professional development . As the technical editor I have read the entire manuscript three times. I have been impressed by the coverage , th e clarit y o f the presentation, and the insight s into the hows an d why s of soil an d foundation behavior. Ofte n I have been astonished at Dr. Murthy's near-conversational approac h t o sharing helpfu l insights . You ge t th e impressio n he' s righ t ther e wit h yo u guidin g yo u along , anticipating your questions, and providing instruction and necessary informatio n as the next step s in the learning process. I believe you will enjoy this book an d that it will receive a warm welcom e wherever it is used. I thank Dr. Murthy for his commitment to write this textbook an d for sharing his professional experience wit h us. I thank him for his patience in making corrections and considering suggestions . I thank Mr. B. J. Clark, Senior Acquisitions Editor at Marcel Dekker Inc. , for the opportunity to be associated wit h such a good book. I likewise express my appreciation to Professor Pierr e Foray of 1'Ecole National e Superieur e d'Hydrauliqu e e t d e Mecaniqu e d e Grenoble , Institu t Nationa l Polytechnique de Grenoble, Franc e for his enthusiastic and unflagging support while I edited the manuscript. MarkT. Bowers, Ph.D., P. E. Associate Professo r o f Civil Engineerin g University o f Cincinnati

FOREWORD It give s m e grea t pleasur e t o writ e a forewor d fo r Geotechnical Engineering: Principles an d Practices o f Soil Mechanics an d Foundation Engineering. Thi s comprehensive, pertinen t an d upto-date volum e i s wel l suite d fo r us e a s a textboo k fo r undergraduat e student s a s wel l a s a reference boo k fo r consultin g geotechnica l engineer s an d contractors . Thi s book i s well writte n with numerous example s o n applications o f basic principles to solve practical problems. The earl y histor y o f geotechnical engineerin g and the pioneering wor k of Kar l Terzaghi in the beginning of the last century are described i n Chapter 1 . Chapters 2 and 3 discuss methods of classification o f soil and rock, the chemical and the mechanical weathering of rock, and soil phase relationships an d consistenc y limit s fo r clay s an d silts . Numerou s example s illustrat e th e relationship between th e differen t parameters . Soi l permeabilit y an d seepag e ar e investigate d in Chapter 4 . Th e constructio n o f flo w net s an d method s t o determin e th e permeabilit y i n th e laboratory an d in the field ar e also explained . The concep t o f effective stres s an d the effect o f pore wate r pressure o n effective stress ar e discussed i n Chapter 5. Chapter 6 is concerned with stress increas e i n soil caused b y surface loa d and methods to calculate stress increase caused by spread footings, rafts, an d pile groups. Several examples ar e give n in Chapter 6 . Consolidation o f soils an d the evaluation of compressibility in the laborator y b y oedomete r test s ar e investigate d i n Chapte r 7 . Determinatio n o f draine d an d undrained shea r strengt h b y unconfine d compression, direc t shea r o r triaxia l test s i s treate d i n Chapter 8. The importan t subjec t o f soi l exploratio n i s discusse d i n Chapter 9 , includin g the us e o f penetration tests such as SPT and CPT in different countries . The stability of slopes i s investigated in Chapte r 10 . Methods usin g plain an d circula r sli p surface s t o evaluat e stabilit y ar e describe d such a s th e method s propose d b y Bishop , Fellenius , Morgenstern , an d Spencer . Chapte r 1 1 discusses method s t o determine activ e an d passive eart h pressure s actin g o n retaining and shee t pile walls . Bearing capacity an d settlemen t o f foundation an d the evaluation of compressibilit y i n the laboratory b y oedometer test s are discussed i n Chapters 12 , 13 , and 14 . The effec t o f inclination and eccentricit y o f the loa d o n bearing capacit y is also examined . Chapte r 1 5 describes differen t pile types , th e concep t o f critica l depth , method s t o evaluat e th e bearin g capacit y o f pile s i n cohesive and cohesionless soils , an d pile-driving formulae. The behavior of laterally loade d pile s is investigated in Chapter 1 6 for piles in sand and in clay. The behavior of drilled pier foundation s

VII

viii Forewor

d

and th e effect of the installatio n method on bearing capacity and uplif t ar e analyzed in Chapter 17 . Foundations on swellin g and collapsible soils are treated i n Chapter 1 8 as are method s tha t can b e used t o reduc e heave . Thi s i s a n importan t subject , seldo m treate d i n textbooks . Th e desig n o f retaining wall s i s covere d i n Chapte r 19 , a s wel l a s th e differen t factor s tha t affec t activ e an d passive eart h pressures. Differen t applications of geotextiles are covered in this chapter a s well as the topi c o f reinforced earth . Cantilever, anchored, and strutte d sheet pil e wall s are investigate d in Chapter 20 , a s ar e method s t o evaluat e stabilit y an d th e momen t distribution . Differen t soi l improvement methods , suc h a s compactio n o f granula r soils , san d compactio n piles , vibroflotation, preloading , an d ston e columns , ar e describe d i n Chapte r 21 . Th e chapte r als o discusses lim e an d cemen t stabilization . Appendix A provide s a lis t o f S I units , an d Appendi x B compares method s tha t have been proposed . This textboo k b y Prof . V. N. S . Murth y i s highly recommended fo r student s specializin g i n geotechnical engineerin g an d fo r practicin g civil engineers i n th e Unite d State s an d Europe . Th e book include s recen t development s suc h a s soi l improvemen t an d stabilizatio n method s an d applications o f geotextiles t o control settlement s an d lateral eart h pressure . Numerou s graph s an d examples illustrat e th e mos t importan t concept s i n geotechnica l engineering . Thi s textboo k should serv e as a valuable reference book fo r many years t o come.

BengtB.Broms, Ph.D. Nanyang Technical University , Singapore (retired) .

PREFACE This boo k ha s th e followin g objectives: 1. T o explain the fundamental s of the subjec t from theor y t o practice in a logical wa y 2. T o be comprehensiv e an d mee t th e requirements o f undergraduate student s 3. T o serve as a foundation course for graduate students pursuing advanced knowledge in the subject There ar e 21 chapters i n this book. The firs t chapte r trace s the historical backgroun d o f the subject and the second deal s wit h the formation and mineralogical compositio n o f soils. Chapter 3 covers th e inde x properties an d classificatio n of soil. Chapter s 4 and 5 explain soi l permeability , seepage, an d th e effec t o f wate r o n stres s condition s i n soil . Stresse s develope d i n soi l du e t o imposed surfac e loads , compressibilit y an d consolidatio n characteristics , an d shea r strengt h characteristics o f soi l ar e deal t wit h i n Chapter s 6,7 , an d 8 respectively. Th e firs t eigh t chapter s develop th e necessar y tool s fo r computing compressibility an d strengt h characteristics o f soils . Chapter 9 deals with methods fo r obtainig soil samples in the field for laboratory tests and for determining soi l parameter s directl y b y us e o f fiel d tests . Chapter s 1 0 to 2 0 dea l wit h stability problems pertaining to earth embankments , retaining walls, and foundations. Chapter 2 1 explains the various methods b y which soil in situ can be improved. Many geotechnical engineer s hav e not appreciated th e importanc e o f thi s subject . N o amoun t o f sophisticatio n i n th e developmen t o f theories will help the designers i f the soil parameters use d in the theory are not properly evaluated to simulate field conditions . Professors wh o teach thi s subject should stress thi s topic . The chapter s i n this book ar e arrange d i n a logical wa y fo r th e development o f th e subject matter. There is a smooth transitio n from on e chapter to the next and the continuity of the material is maintained. Each chapte r start s wit h an introduction to the subjec t matter, develops th e theory, and explain s it s applicatio n t o practica l problems . Sufficien t example s ar e wo r1:ed ou t t o hel p students understan d th e significanc e of the theories . Man y homewor k problem s ar e give n a t the end of each chapter . The subjec t matte r deal t wit h i n eac h chapte r i s restricte d t o th e requirement s o f undergraduate students. Half-baked theorie s an d unconfirmed test results are not developed in this book. Chapter s ar e up-to-dat e a s pe r engineerin g standards . Th e informatio n provide d i n Chapter 1 7 on drilled pier foundations is the latest available at the time of this writing. The desig n

Preface

of mechanicall y stabilized earth retaining walls is also current . A ne w method fo r predictin g the nonlinear behavior o f laterally loaded vertica l and batter piles i s described in Chapter 16. The boo k i s comprehensive , rational , an d pertinen t to th e requirement s o f undergraduate students. It serves as a foundation course for graduate students, and is useful a s a reference book for designers an d contractors i n the fiel d o f geotechnical engineering . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It i s m y pleasure t o than k Marce l Dekker, Inc. , fo r acceptin g m e a s a singl e author fo r th e publication of my book. The ma n who was responsible fo r this wa s Mr. B.J. Clark, the Executive Acquisition Editor . I t wa s m y pleasur e t o wor k unde r hi s guidance . Mr . Clar k i s a refine d gentleman personified , polished , an d clea r sighted . I than k hi m cordiall y fo r th e courtesie s an d help extended to me during the course of writing the manuscript. I remain ever grateful t o him. Writing a book fo r American Universities by a nonresident o f America i s not an easy task. I neede d a n America n professo r t o edi t m y manuscrip t an d guid e m e wit h regard s t o th e requirements of undergraduate students in America. Dr. Mark T. Bowers, Associate Professor o f Civil Engineering , Universit y o f Cincinnati , accepte d t o becom e m y consultant an d chie f editor . Dr. Bowers i s a man o f honest y an d integrity . He i s dedicated t o the cause o f his profession. H e worked hard fo r over a year in editing my book an d helped me to streamline t o make it acceptable to the undergraduate student s o f American Universities . I thank Dr . Bowers fo r the help extende d to me. There ar e man y i n Indi a wh o helpe d m e durin g th e cours e o f writin g thi s book . Som e provided m e usefu l suggestion s an d other s wit h references . I acknowledg e thei r service s wit h thanks. The members are : Mr. S. Pranesh Managin Dr. K.S.Subba Ra o Professo Dr. T.S. Nagaraj Professo

Dr. C. Subba Rao India

g Directo r Prism Books Pv t Ltd Bangalore r o f Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Science Bangalor e r of Civil Engineering (Emeritus), Indian Institute o f Science, Bangalore Professor o f Civil Engineering n Institute of Technology Kharagpur

Chaitanya Graphics , Bangalore , provide d th e artwor k fo r th e book . I than k M r S.K . Vijayasimha, th e designer, for the excellent job don e by him. My so n Prakas h wa s associate d wit h th e boo k sinc e it s inception . H e carrie d o n correspondence wit h th e publisher s o n m y behal f an d sen t referenc e book s a s needed. M y wif e Sharadamani wa s mainl y responsibl e fo r keepin g m y spiri t hig h durin g th e year s I spen t i n writing the book. I remain grateful t o my son and my wife fo r all they did. I sincerely than k Mr. Brian Black for his continuous effort s i n the production o f this book. I immensely than k Mr. Janardha n and Mr. Rajeshwar, compute r engineers o f Aicra Info Mate s Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad, for their excellent typesetting work on this book. V.N.S. Murthy

CONTENTS

Foreword Mar k T . Bower s v Foreword Beng t B . Broms vi

i

Preface i

x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO N 1 1.1 Genera l Remark s 1 1.2 A Brie f Historica l Developmen t 2 1.3 Soi l Mechanic s an d Foundatio n Engineerin g 3

CHAPTER 2 SOI L FORMATION AN D CHARACTERIZATION 5 2.1 Introductio n5 2.2 Roc k Classificatio n 5 2.3 Formatio n o f Soil s 7 2.4 Genera l Type s o f Soil s 7 2.5 Soi l Particl e Siz e an d Shap e 9 2.6 Compositio n o f Cla y Mineral s 1 2.7 Structur e of Cla y Mineral s 1 2.8 Cla y Particle-Wate r Relation s 1 2.9 Soi l Mas s Structur e 1

1 1 4 7 XI

xii Content

s

CHAPTER 3 SOI L PHASE RELATIONSHIPS, INDEX PROPERTIES AND CLASSIFICATION 1

9

3.1 Soi l Phas e Relationship s 1 3.2 Mass-Volum e Relationships 2 3.3 Weight-Volum e Relationship s 2 3.4 Comment s o n Soi l Phas e Relationship s 2 3.5 Inde x Propertie s o f Soil s 3 3.6 Th e Shap e an d Siz e o f Particle s 3 3.7 Siev e Analysi s 3 3.8 Th e Hydromete r Metho d o f Analysis 3 3.9 Grai n Siz e Distributio n Curves 4 3.10 Relativ e Densit y o f Cohesionles s Soil s 4 3.11 Consistenc y o f Cla y Soi l 4 3.12 Determinatio n o f Atterber g Limit s 4 3.13 Discussio n o n Limit s an d Indice s 5 3.14 Plasticit y Char t 5 3.15 Genera l Consideration s fo r Classificatio n o f Soil s 6 3.16 Fiel d Identificatio n o f Soil s 6 3.17 Classificatio n o f Soil s 6 3.18 Textura l Soi l Classificatio n 6 3.19 AASHT O Soi l Classificatio n Syste m 7 3.20 Unifie d Soi l Classificatio n Syste m (USCS ) 7 3.21 Comment s o n th e System s o f Soi l Classificatio n 7 3.22 Problem s 8

CHAPTER 4 SOI L PERMEABILITY AN D SEEPAGE 8 4.1 Soi l Permeabilit y 8 4.2 Darcy' s La w 8 4.3 Discharg e an d Seepag e Velocitie s 9 4.4 Method s o f Determinatio n of Hydrauli c Conductivit y of Soil s 9 4.5 Constan t Hea d Permeabilit y Tes t 92 4.6 Fallin g Hea d Permeabilit y Tes t 9 4.7 Direc t Determinatio n o f k o f Soil s i n Plac e b y Pumpin g Tes t 9 4.8 Borehol e Permeabilit y Test s 10 4.9 Approximat e Value s o f th e Hydrauli c Conductivit y of Soil s 10 4.10 Hydrauli c Conductivit y in Stratifie d Layer s o f Soil s 10 4.11 Empirica l Correlation s fo r Hydrauli c Conductivity 10 4.12 Hydrauli c Conductivit y of Rock s b y Packe r Metho d 11 4.13 Seepag e 11 4.14 Laplac e Equatio n 11

9 0 4 5 1 2 3 5 3 4 5 7 2 9 7 8 9 9 0 3 6 0

7 7 9 0 1 3 7 1 2 2 3 2 4 4

Contents xii

4.15 Flo w Ne t Constructio n 11 4.16 Determinatio n o f Quantit y o f Seepag e 12 4.17 Determinatio n o f Seepag e Pressur e 12 4.18 Determinatio n o f Uplif t Pressure s 12 4.19 Seepag e Flo w Throug h Homogeneou s Eart h Dam s 12 4.20 Flo w Ne t Consistin g o f Conjugat e Confoca l Parabola s 12 4.21 Pipin g Failur e 13 4.22 Problem s 13

CHAPTER 5 EFFECTIV E STRESS AN D PORE WATER PRESSUR E 14 5.1 Introductio n 14 5.2 Stresse s whe n N o Flo w Take s Plac e Throug h th e Saturated Soi l Mas s 14 5.3 Stresse s Whe n Flo w Take s Plac e Throug h th e Soi l from To p t o Botto m 14 5.4 Stresse s Whe n Flo w Take s Plac e Throug h th e Soi l from Botto m t o To p 14 5.5 Effectiv e Pressur e Du e t o Capillar y Wate r Ris e i n Soi l 14 5.6 Problem s 17

CHAPTER 6 STRES S DISTRIBUTIO N IN SOILS DUE TO SURFACE LOADS 17 6.1 Introductio n 17 6.2 Boussinesq' s Formul a fo r Poin t Load s 17 6.3 Westergaard' s Formul a fo r Poin t Load s 17 6.4 Lin e Load s 17 6.5 Stri p Load s 17 6.6 Stresse s Beneat h th e Corne r o f a Rectangula r Foundatio n 18 6.7 Stresse s Unde r Uniforml y Loade d Circula r Footin g 18 6.8 Vertica l Stres s Beneat h Loade d Area s o f Irregula r Shap e 18 6.9 Embankmen t Loading s 19 6.10 Approximat e Method s fo r Computin g c r 19 6.11 Pressur e Isobar s 19 6.12 Problem s 20

CHAPTER 7 COMPRESSIBILIT Y AN D CONSOLIDATION 20 7.1 Introductio n 20 7.2 Consolidatio n 20 7.3 Consolidomete r 21

i

6 0 2 3 6 7 1 8

3 3 5 6 7 9 0

3 3 4 5 8 9 1 6 8 1 7 8 3

7 7 8 2

xiv Content

7.4 Th e Standar d One-Dimensiona l Consolidatio n Tes t 21 7.5 Pressure-Voi d Rati o Curve s 21 7.6 Determinatio n of Preconsolidatio n Pressur e 21 7.7 e-logp Fiel d Curves for Normally Consolidate d and Overconsolidated Clay s of Low to Medium Sensitivit y 21 7.8 Computatio n of Consolidatio n Settlemen t 21 7.9 Settlemen t Du e t o Secondar y Compressio n 22 7.10 Rat e o f One-dimensiona l Consolidation Theor y o f Terzagh i 23 7.11 Determinatio n of th e Coefficien t o f Consolidatio n 24 7.12 Rat e o f Settlemen t Du e t o Consolidatio n 24 7.13 Two - and Three-dimensional Consolidatio n Problem s 24 7.14 Problem s 24

CHAPTERS SHEA R STRENGTH O F SOIL 25 8.1 Introductio n 25 8.2 Basi c Concep t o f Shearin g Resistanc e an d Shearin g Strengt h 25 8.3 Th e Coulom b Equatio n 25 8.4 Method s o f Determinin g Shea r Strengt h Parameter s 25 8.5 Shea r Tes t Apparatu s 25 8.6 Stres s Conditio n a t a Point i n a Soi l Mas s 26 8.7 Stres s Condition s i n Soi l Durin g Triaxial Compressio n Tes t 26 8.8 Relationshi p Betwee n th e Principa l Stresse s an d Cohesio n c 26 8.9 Moh r Circl e o f Stres s 26 8.10 Moh r Circl e o f Stres s Whe n a Prismati c Elemen t i s Subjecte d t o Normal an d Shea r Stresse s 26 8.11 Moh r Circl e o f Stres s fo r a Cylindrica l Specime n Compression Tes t 26 8.12 Mohr-Coulom b Failur e Theor y 26 8.13 Moh r Diagra m fo r Triaxia l Compressio n Tes t a t Failur e 26 8.14 Moh r Diagra m fo r a Direc t Shea r Tes t a t Failure 27 8.15 Effectiv e Stresse s 27 8.16 Shea r Strengt h Equatio n i n Terms o f Effectiv e Principa l Stresse s 27 8.17 Stress-Controlle d an d Strain-Controlled Test s 27 8.18 Type s o f Laborator y Test s 27 8.19 Shearin g Strengt h Test s o n San d 27 8.20 Unconsolidated-Undraine d Tes t 28 8.21 Unconfine d Compressio n Test s 28 8.22 Consolidated-Undraine d Tes t o n Saturate d Cla y 29 8.23 Consolidated-Draine d Shea r Strengt h Tes t 29 8.24 Por e Pressur e Parameter s Unde r Undraine d Loadin g 29 8.25 Van e Shea r Test s 30

s

3 4 8 9 9 4 3 0 2 3 7

3 3 3 4 5 6 0 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 0 4 5 6 6 8 4 6 4 6 8 0

Contents x

8.26 Othe

r Method s fo r Determinin g Undraine d Shea r Strengt h of Cohesiv e Soil s 30 8.27 Th e Relationshi p Between Undraine d Shea r Strengt h an d Effective Overburde n Pressure 30 8.28 Genera l Comment s 31 8.29 Question s an d Problem s 31

CHAPTERS SOI L EXPLORATION 31 9.1 Introductio n 31 9.2 Borin g o f Hole s 31 9.3 Samplin g i n Soi l 32 9.4 Roc k Cor e Samplin g 32 9.5 Standar d Penetratio n Tes t 32 9.6 SP T Value s Relate d t o Relativ e Densit y o f Cohesionles s Soil s 33 9.7 SP T Values Related t o Consistenc y o f Cla y Soi l 33 9.8 Stati c Con e Penetratio n Tes t (CPT ) 33 9.9 Pressuremete r 34 9.10 Th e Fla t Dilatomete r Tes t 34 9.11 Fiel d Van e Shear Tes t (VST ) 35 9.12 Fiel d Plat e Loa d Tes t (PUT ) 3 9.13 Geophysica l Exploratio n 35 9.14 Plannin g o f Soi l Exploratio n 35 9.15 Executio n o f Soi l Exploratio n Progra m 35 9.16 Repor t 36 9.17 Problem s 36

CHAPTER 1 0 STABILIT Y O F SLOPES 36 10.1 Introductio n 36 10.2 Genera l Consideration s an d Assumptions in th e Analysis 36 10.3 Facto r o f Safet y 36 10.4 Stabilit y Analysi s of Infinit e Slope s i n San d 37 10.5 Stabilit y Analysis of Infinit e Slope s i n Cla y 37 10.6 Method s o f Stabilit y Analysis of Slope s o f Finit e Heigh t 37 10.7 Plan e Surfac e o f Failur e 37 10.8 Circula r Surface s of Failur e 37 10.9 Failur e Unde r Undraine d Condition s ((f> u = 0 ) 38 10.10 Friction-Circl e Metho d 38 10.11 Taylor' s Stabilit y Numbe r 38 10.12 Tensio n Crack s 39 10.13 Stabilit y Analysis b y Metho d o f Slice s fo r Stead y Seepag e 39

v

2 4 0 1

7 7 8 2 5 7 0 0 2 3 9 1 51 2 8 9 1 2

5 5 7 8 1 2 6 6 8 0 2 9 3 3

xvi Content

10.14 Bishop' s Simplifie d Metho d o f Slice s 40 10.15 Bisho p an d Morgenster n Metho d fo r Slop e Analysi s 40 10.16 Morgenster n Metho d o f Analysi s fo r Rapi d Drawdow n Conditio n 40 10.17 Spence r Metho d o f Analysi s 40 10.18 Problem s 41

CHAPTER 1 1 LATERA L EARTH PRESSURE 41

s

0 3 5 8 1

9

11.1 Introductio n 41 9 11.2 Latera l Eart h Pressur e Theor y 42 0 11.3 Latera l Eart h Pressur e fo r a t Res t Conditio n 42 1 11.4 Rankine' s State s o f Plasti c Equilibriu m for Cohesionles s Soil s 42 5 11.5 Rankine' s Eart h Pressur e Agains t Smoot h Vertica l Wall wit h Cohesionless Backfil l 42 8 11.6 Rankine' s Activ e Eart h Pressur e wit h Cohesiv e Backfil l 44 0 11.7 Rankine' s Passiv e Eart h Pressur e wit h Cohesiv e Backfil l 44 9 11.8 Coulomb' s Eart h Pressur e Theor y fo r San d fo r Activ e Stat e 45 2 11.9 Coulomb' s Eart h Pressur e Theor y fo r San d fo r Passiv e Stat e 45 5 11.10 Activ e Pressur e b y Culmann' s Metho d fo r Cohesionles s Soil s 45 6 11.11 Latera l Pressure s b y Theor y o f Elasticit y fo r Surcharg e Load s on th e Surfac e o f Backfil l 45 8 11.12 Curve d Surface s o f Failur e fo r Computin g Passiv e Eart h Pressur e 46 2 11.13 Coefficient s o f Passiv e Eart h Pressur e Table s an d Graph s 46 4 11.14 Latera l Eart h Pressur e o n Retainin g Walls Durin g Earthquake s 46 7 11.15 Problem s 47 6

CHAPTER 1 2 SHALLO W FOUNDATION I: ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY 48 12.1 Introductio n 48 12.2 Th e Ultimat e Bearin g Capacit y o f Soi l 48 12.3 Som e o f th e Term s Define d 48 12.4 Type s o f Failur e i n Soi l 48 12.5 A n Overvie w o f Bearin g Capacit y Theorie s 48 12.6 Terzaghi' s Bearin g Capacit y Theor y 48 12.7 Skempton' s Bearin g Capacit y Facto r N C 49 12.8 Effec t o f Wate r Tabl e o n Bearin g Capacit y 49 12.9 Th e Genera l Bearin g Capacit y Equatio n 50 12.10 Effec t o f Soi l Compressibilit y o n Bearin g Capacit y o f Soi l 50 12.11 Bearin g Capacit y o f Foundation s Subjecte d t o Eccentri c Load s 51 12.12 Ultimat e Bearin g Capacit y o f Footing s Base d o n SP T Value s (N) 51 12.13 Th e CP T Metho d o f Determinin g Ultimat e Bearin g Capacit y 51

1 1 3 3 5 7 8 3 4 3 9 5 8 8

Contents xvi

i

12.14 Ultimat e Bearin g Capacit y o f Footing s Restin g o n Stratifie d Deposits o f Soi l 52 12.15 Bearin g Capacit y o f Foundation s o n To p o f a Slop e 52 12.16 Foundation s o n Roc k 53 12.17 Cas e Histor y o f Failur e o f th e Transcon a Grai n Elevato r 53 12.18 Problem s 53

1 9 2 3 6

CHAPTER 13 SHALLO W FOUNDATION II: SAFE BEARING PRESSURE AND SETTLEMENT CALCULATION 54

5

13.1 Introductio n 54 13.2 Fiel d Plat e Loa d Test s 54 13.3 Effec t o f Siz e o f Footing s o n Settlemen t 55 13.4 Desig n Chart s fro m SP T Values for Footing s o n San d 55 13.5 Empirica l Equation s Base d o n SP T Values for Footing s o n Cohesionless Soil s 55 13.6 Saf e Bearin g Pressur e fro m Empirica l Equation s Based o n CPT Value s fo r Footing s o n Cohesionles s Soi l 55 13.7 Foundatio n Settlemen t 56 13.8 Evaluatio n o f Modulu s of Elasticit y 56 13.9 Method s o f Computin g Settlement s 56 13.10 Elasti c Settlemen t Beneat h th e Corne r o f a Uniforml y Loade d Flexible Are a Base d o n th e Theor y o f Elasticit y 56 13.11 Janbu , Bjerru m an d Kjaernsli' s Metho d o f Determinin g Elastic Settlemen t Unde r Undraine d Condition s 56 13.12 Schmertmann' s Metho d o f Calculatin g Settlemen t i n Granula r Soils b y Usin g CPT Value s 56 13.13 Estimatio n o f Consolidatio n Settlemen t b y Usin g Oedometer Test Dat a 57 13.14 Skempton-Bjerru m Metho d o f Calculatin g Consolidatio n Settlement (1957 ) 57 13.15 Problem s 58

CHAPTER 14 SHALLO W FOUNDATION III : COMBINED FOOTINGS AND MAT FOUNDATION S 58 14.1 Introductio n 58 14.2 Saf e Bearin g Pressure s fo r Ma t Foundation s o n San d an d Clay 58 14.3 Eccentri c Loadin g 58 14.4 Th e Coefficien t o f Subgrad e Reactio n 58 14.5 Proportionin g o f Cantileve r Footin g 59

5 8 4 5 8 9 1 2 4 5 8 9 5 6 0

5 5 7 8 8 1

xviii Content

14.6 Desig n o f Combine d Footing s b y Rigi d Metho d (Conventiona l Method) 59 14.7 Desig n o f Ma t Foundatio n b y Rigi d Metho d 59 14.8 Desig n o f Combine d Footing s b y Elasti c Lin e Metho d 59 14.9 Desig n o f Ma t Foundation s b y Elasti c Plat e Metho d 59 14.10 Floatin g Foundatio n 59 14.11 Problem s 60

CHAPTER 1 5 DEE P FOUNDATION I : PILE FOUNDATION 60 15.1 Introductio n 60 15.2 Classificatio n of Pile s 605 15.3 Type s o f Pile s Accordin g t o th e Metho d o f Installatio n 60 15.4 Use s o f Pile s 60 15.5 Selectio n o f Pil e 60 15.6 Installatio n of Pile s 61

PART A-VERTICAL LOAD BEARING CAPACITY OF A SINGLE VERTICAL PILE 61 15.7 Genera l Consideration s 61 15.8 Method s o f Determinin g Ultimat e Loa d Bearin g Capacit y o f a Single Vertica l Pile 61 15.9 Genera l Theor y fo r Ultimat e Bearin g Capacit y 61 15.10 Ultimat e Bearin g Capacit y i n Cohesionles s Soil s 62 15.11 Critica l Dept h 62 15.12 Tomlinson' s Solutio n fo r Q bin San d 62 15.13 Meyerhof' s Metho d o f Determinin g Q bfor Pile s i n San d 62 15.14 Vesic' s Metho d o f Determinin g Q b 62 15.15 Janbu' s Metho d o f Determinin g Q b 62 15.16 Coyl e an d Castello' s Metho d o f Estimatin g Q bin San d 62 15.17 Th e Ultimat e Skin Resistanc e of a Singl e Pil e i n Cohesionles s Soi l 62 15.18 Ski n Resistanc e Q fby Coyl e an d Castell o Metho d (1981 ) 63 15.19 Stati c Bearin g Capacit y o f Pile s i n Cla y Soi l 63 15.20 Bearin g Capacit y o f Pile s i n Granula r Soil s Base d o n SP T Value 63 15.21 Bearin g Capacit y o f Pile s Base d o n Stati c Con e Penetratio n Tests (CPT ) 65 15.22 Bearin g Capacit y o f a Singl e Pil e b y Loa d Tes t 66 15.23 Pil e Bearing Capacity fro m Dynamic Pile Driving Formulas 66 15.24 Bearin g Capacit y o f Pile s Founde d o n a Rock y Be d 67 15.25 Uplif t Resistanc e o f Pile s 67

s

2 3 4 5 5 3

5 5 6 8 9 0

3 3 7 8 0 1 2 4 5 8 8 9 1 1 5 2 3 6 0 1

Contents xi

x

PART B-PILE GROUP 67

4

15.26 Numbe r an d Spacin g o f Pile s i n a Grou p 67 15.27 Pil e Grou p Efficienc y 67 15.28 Vertica l Bearin g Capacit y o f Pil e Group s Embedde d i n Sands an d Gravel s 67 15.29 Settlemen t o f Pile s an d Pil e Group s i n Sand s an d Gravel s 68 15.30 Settlemen t o f Pil e Group s i n Cohesiv e Soil s 68 15.31 Allowabl e Load s o n Group s o f Pile s 69 15.32 Negativ e Frictio n 69 15.33 Uplif t Capacit y o f a Pil e Grou p 69 15.34 Problem s 69

CHAPTER 1 6 DEE P FOUNDATION II : BEHAVIOR OF LATERALLY LOADED VERTICAL AND BATTER PILES 69 16.1 Introductio n 69 16.2 Winkler' s Hypothesi s 70 16.3 Th e Differentia l Equatio n 70 16.4 Non-dimensiona l Solution s fo r Vertical Pile s Subjecte d t o Lateral Load s 70 16.5 p- y Curve s fo r th e Solutio n o f Laterall y Loade d Pile s 70 16.6 Broms ' Solution s fo r Laterall y Loade d Pile s 70 16.7 A Direc t Metho d fo r Solvin g th e Non-linea r Behavio r o f Laterally Loade d Flexibl e Pil e Problem s 71 16.8 Cas e Studie s fo r Laterall y Loade d Vertical Pile s i n San d 72 16.9 Cas e Studie s fo r Laterall y Loade d Vertica l Pile s i n Cla y 72 16.10 Behavio r o f Laterall y Loade d Batte r Pile s i n San d 73 16.11 Problem s 73

CHAPTER 1 7 DEE P FOUNDATION III : DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS 74 17.1 Introductio n 74 17.2 Type s o f Drille d Pier s 7 17.3 Advantage s an d Disadvantage s o f Drille d Pie r Foundation s 74 17.4 Method s o f Constructio n 74 17.5 Desig n Consideration s 75 17.6 Loa d Transfe r Mechanis m 75 17.7 Vertica l Bearin g Capacit y o f Drille d Pier s 75 17.8 Th e Genera l Bearin g Capacit y Equatio n fo r th e Bas e Resistanc e

= 75 "

4 6 8 1 9 0 2 4 6

9 9 0 1 4 6 9 6 2 5 1 9

1 1 41 3 3 1 2 4 5

xx Content

s

17.9 Bearin g Capacit y Equation s fo r th e Bas e i n Cohesiv e Soi l 75 17.10 Bearin g Capacit y Equatio n fo r th e Bas e i n Granula r Soi l 75 17.11 Bearin g Capacit y Equation s fo r th e Bas e i n Cohesiv e IG M o r Roc k 75 17.12 Th e Ultimat e Ski n Resistanc e o f Cohesiv e an d Intermediate Material s 76 17.13 Ultimat e Ski n Resistanc e i n Cohesionles s Soi l an d Gravell y Sand s 76 17.14 Ultimat e Sid e an d Tota l Resistanc e i n Roc k 76 17.15 Estimatio n o f Settlement s o f Drille d Pier s a t Workin g Load s 76 17.16 Uplif t Capacit y o f Drille d Pier s 77 17.17 Latera l Bearin g Capacit y o f Drille d Pier s 77 17.18 Cas e Stud y o f a Drille d Pie r Subjecte d t o Latera l Load s 78 17.19 Problem s 78

CHAPTER 18 FOUNDATION S ON COLLAPSIBLE AND EXPANSIVE SOIL S 79 18.1 Genera

l Consideration s 79

PART A-COLLAPSIBLE SOILS 79 18.2 Genera l Observation s 79 18.3 Collaps e Potentia l an d Settlemen t 79 18.4 Computatio n o f Collaps e Settlemen t 79 18.5 Foundatio n Desig n 79 18.6 Treatmen t Method s fo r Collapsibl e Soil s 80

PART B-EXPANSIVE SOILS 80 18.7 Distributio n of Expansiv e Soil s 80 18.8 Genera l Characteristic s o f Swellin g Soil s 80 18.9 Cla y Mineralog y an d Mechanis m o f Swellin g 80 18.10 Definitio n o f Som e Parameter s 80 18.11 Evaluatio n o f th e Swellin g Potentia l o f Expansiv e Soil s b y Singl e Index Metho d 80 18.12 Classificatio n o f Swellin g Soil s b y Indirec t Measuremen t 80 18.13 Swellin g Pressur e b y Direc t Measuremen t 81 18.14 Effec t o f Initia l Moistur e Conten t an d Initia l Dr y Densit y o n Swelling Pressur e 81 18.15 Estimatin g the Magnitud e o f Swellin g 81 18.16 Desig n o f Foundation s i n Swellin g Soil s 81 18.17 Drille d Pie r Foundation s 81 18.18 Eliminatio n o f Swellin g 82 18.19 Problem s 82

6 6 9 0 3 4 5 7 9 7 7

1 1

3 3 5 6 9 0

0 0 1 3 4 4 6 2 3 4 7 7 7 8

Contents xx

i

CHAPTER 19 CONCRET E AND MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH RETAINING WALLS 83

3

PART A-CONCRETE RETAINING WALL S 83

3

19.1 Introductio n 83 19.2 Condition s Unde r Whic h Rankin e an d Coulom b Formula s Ar e Applicable t o Retainin g Wall s Unde r th e Activ e Stat e 83 19.3 Proportionin g o f Retainin g Wall s 83 19.4 Eart h Pressur e Chart s fo r Retainin g Wall s 83 19.5 Stabilit y o f Retainin g Wall s 83 PART B-MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EART H RETAINING WALL S 84 19.6 Genera l Consideration s 84 19.7 Backfil l an d Reinforcin g Material s 85 19.8 Constructio n Detail s 85 19.9 Desig n Consideration s fo r a Mechanicall y Stabilize d Eart h Wal l 85 19.10 Desig n Metho d 85 19.11 Externa l Stabilit y 86 19.12 Example s o f Measure d Latera l Eart h Pressure s 87 19.13 Problem s 87

CHAPTER 20 SHEE T PILE WALLS AND BRACED CUTS 88 20.1 Introductio n 88 20.2 Shee t Pil e Structure s 88 20.3 Fre e Cantileve r Shee t Pil e Wall s 88 20.4 Dept h o f Embedmen t o f Cantileve r Wall s i n Sand y Soil s 88 20.5 Dept h o f Embedmen t o f Cantileve r Wall s i n Cohesiv e Soil s 89 20.6 Anchore d Bulkhead : Free-Eart h Suppor t Method—Dept h o f Embedment o f Anchored Shee t Pile s i n Granula r Soil s 90 20.7 Desig n Chart s fo r Anchored Bulkhead s i n San d 91 20.8 Momen t Reductio n fo r Anchored Shee t Pil e Wall s 91 20.9 Anchorag e o f Bulkhead s 92 20.10 Brace d Cut s 93 20.11 Latera l Eart h Pressur e Distributio n o n Braced-Cut s 93 20.12 Stabilit y o f Brace d Cut s i n Saturate d Cla y 93 20.13 Bjerru m an d Eid e Metho d o f Analysi s 94 20.14 Pipin g Failure s i n San d Cut s 94 20.15 Problem s 94

3 3 5 6 9 9 9 1 5 7 9 3 5 7

1 1 3 3 5 6 8 3 6 5 1 5 8 0 5 5

Contents

XXII

L IMPROVEMENT

951

21.1 Introductio n 21.2 Mechanica l Compactio n 21.3 Laborator y Test s o n Compactio n 21.4 Effec t o f Compactio n o n Engineerin g Behavio r 21.5 Fiel d Compactio n an d Contro l 21.6 Compactio n fo r Deepe r Layer s o f Soi l 21.7 Preloadin g 21.8 San d Compactio n Pile s an d Ston e Column s 21.9 Soi l Stabilizatio n b y th e Us e o f Admixtures 21.10 Soi l Stabilizatio n by Injectio n o f Suitabl e Grout s 21.11 Problem s

951 952 953 959 962 973 974 980 981 983 983

APPENDIX A S I UNITS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

987

APPENDIX B SLOP E STABILITY CHART S AND TABLES

993

CHAPTER 21 SOI

REFERENCES

1007

INDEX

1025

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERA L REMARK S Karl Terzaghi writing in 1951 (Bjerrum, et. al., 1960), on 'The Influence of Modern Soil Studies on the Design an d Construction o f Foundations' commente d o n foundations as follows: Foundations can appropriately be described as a necessary evil. If a building is to be constructed on an outcrop of sound rock, no foundation is required. Hence, in contrast to the building itself which satisfies specific needs, appeals to the aesthetic sense, and fills its matters with pride, the foundations merely serve as a remedy for the deficiencies of whatever whimsical nature has provided for the support of the structure at the site which has been selected. On account of the fact that there is no glory attached to the foundations, and that the sources of success or failures are hidden deep in the ground, building foundations have always been treated as step children; and their acts of revenge for the lack of attention can be very embarrassing. The comment s mad e b y Terzagh i ar e ver y significan t an d shoul d b e take n not e o f b y al l practicing Architects an d Engineers. Architects or Engineers wh o do not wish to make use of the growing knowledge of foundation design are not rendering true service t o their profession. Sinc e substructures ar e as important as superstructures, persons wh o are well qualified in the design of substructures shoul d alway s b e consulte d an d th e old proverb tha t a 'stitc h i n tim e save s nine ' should always be kept in mind. The design of foundations i s a branch of Civil Engineering. Experience ha s shown that most of these branches hav e passed i n succession throug h two stages, th e empirical an d the scientific , before the y reached th e present one which may be called th e stage of maturity. The stag e of scientific reasoning in the design of foundations started with the publication of the book Erdbaumechanik (means Soil Mechanics) by Karl Terzaghi in 1925. This book represents the first attemp t to treat Soil Mechanics o n the basis of the physical properties o f soils. Terzaghi' s

Chapter 1

contribution for the development o f Soil Mechanics an d Foundation Engineering i s so vast that he may trul y be called th e Father o f Soil Mechanics, Hi s activit y extended over a period o f about 5 0 years starting from th e year 1913 . H e was born on October 2 , 188 3 in Prague and died on Octobe r 25, 196 3 i n Winchester, Massachusetts, USA. His amazing career i s well documented i n the boo k 'From Theory t o Practice in Soil Mechanics' (Bjerrum , L., et. al., 1960) . Many investigator s in th e fiel d o f Soi l Mechanic s wer e inspire d b y Terzaghi . Som e o f th e notable personalitie s wh o followe d hi s footstep s ar e Ralp h B . Peck , Arthu r Casagrande , A. W. Skempton, etc. Because of the unceasing efforts o f these and other innumerable investigators, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineerin g ha s come to stay as a very important par t of the Civil Engineering profession. The transitio n o f foundatio n engineering fro m th e empirica l stag e t o tha t o f th e scientifi c stage started almos t a t the commencement o f the 20t h century . The design o f foundations durin g the empirical stag e wa s based mostl y on intuition and experience. There use d t o be man y failures since the procedure o f design was only by trial and error . However, in the present scientific age, the design o f foundations based on scientific analysis has receive d a much impetus. Theories hav e been develope d base d o n fundamenta l properties o f soils. Still one can witness unsatisfactory performance o f structures constructed even on scientific principles. The reasons fo r such poor performance are many. The soil mass on which a structure is to be buil t i s heterogeneou s i n characte r an d n o theor y ca n simulat e fiel d conditions . Th e fundamental propertie s o f soi l whic h w e determin e i n laboratorie s ma y no t reflec t trul y th e properties o f th e soi l in-situ. A judicia l combinatio n o f theor y an d experienc e i s essentia l fo r successful performance o f any structure built on earth. Another method tha t is gaining popularity is the observational approach. Thi s procedur e consist s i n makin g appropriat e observation s soo n enough during construction to detect sign s of departure of the real conditions from those assume d by th e designe r an d i n modifyin g either th e desig n o r th e metho d o f constructio n i n accordanc e with th e findings.

1.2 A

BRIE F HISTORICA L DEVELOPMEN T

Many structure s tha t wer e buil t centurie s ago ar e monument s o f curiosit y eve n today . Egyptia n temples buil t three o r four thousand years ago still exist though the design o f the foundations were not based o n any presently known principles. Romans built notable engineering structures such as harbors, breakwaters , aqueducts , bridges, large public buildings and a vast network of durable and excellent roads . Th e leaning tower o f Pisa i n Ital y complete d durin g th e 14t h centur y i s stil l a center o f tourist attraction. Many bridges wer e also built during the 15t h to 17t h centuries. Timber piles wer e used fo r many of the foundations. Another marve l o f engineering achievemen t i s the construction o f the famed mausoleu m Taj Mahal outsid e th e city of Agra. This was constructed in the 17t h century by the Mogul Empero r of Delhi, Shahjahan, to commemorate hi s favorite wife Mumtaz Mahal. The mausoleum i s built on the bank of the river Jamuna. The proximity of the river required special attention in the building of the foundations. I t i s reporte d tha t masonry cylindrica l wells hav e bee n use d fo r th e foundations . It goes t o the credit of the engineers who designed and constructed this grand structure which is still quite soun d even afte r a lapse o f about three centuries. The firs t rationa l approac h fo r th e computatio n o f eart h pressure s o n retainin g wall s wa s formulated by Coulomb (1776), a famous French scientist. He proposed a theory in 177 6 called the "Classical Eart h Pressur e Theory" . Poncele t (1840 ) extende d Coulomb' s theor y b y givin g a n elegant graphica l metho d fo r findin g th e magnitud e of eart h pressur e o n walls . Later , Culman n (1875) gav e th e Coulomb-Poncele t theor y a geometrical formulation , thus supplying the metho d with a broad scientifi c basis. Rankin e (1857) a Professor o f Civil Engineering in the University of

Introduction

Glasgow, propose d a new earth pressur e theory , whic h is also called a Classical Earth Pressure Theory. Darcy (1856), on the basis of his experiments on filter sands, proposed a law for the flow of water in permeable material s and in the same year Stokes (1856) gave an equation for determining the terminal velocity of solid particles fallin g i n liquids. The rupture theory of Mohr (1900) Stres s Circles ar e extensivel y use d i n th e stud y o f shea r strengt h o f soils . On e o f th e mos t importan t contributions to engineering scienc e wa s made by Boussinesq (1885 ) wh o proposed a theory for determining stres s distributio n under loaded area s i n a semi-infinite , elastic, homogeneous , an d isotropic medium . Atterberg (1911), a Swedish scientist, proposed simpl e tests for determining the consistency limits o f cohesiv e soils . Felleniu s (1927 ) heade d a Swedis h Geotechnica l Commissio n fo r determining the causes of failure of many railway and canal embankments. The so-called Swedish Circle method or otherwise terme d as the Slip Circle method was the outcome of his investigation which wa s publishe d i n 1927 . The developmen t o f th e scienc e o f Soi l Mechanic s an d Foundatio n Engineerin g fro m th e year 192 5 onwards was phenomenal. Terzaghi laid down definite procedures in his book published in 192 5 for determinin g propertie s and the strengt h characteristic s of soils . The moder n soi l mechanics wa s bor n i n 1925 . Th e presen t stag e o f knowledge i n Soi l Mechanic s an d the desig n procedures o f foundation s ar e mostl y du e t o th e work s o f Terzagh i an d hi s ban d o f devote d collaborators.

1.3 SOI L MECHANIC S AN D FOUNDATIO N ENGINEERIN G Terzaghi define d Soil Mechanics a s follows: Soil Mechanics is the application of the laws of mechanics and hydraulics to engineering problems dealing with sediments and other unconsolidated accumulations of solid particles produced by the mechanical and chemical disintegration of rocks regardless of whether or not they contain an admixture of organic constituents. The ter m Soil Mechanics i s no w accepte d quit e generall y t o designat e tha t disciplin e of engineering scienc e whic h deals with the properties an d behavior of soil as a structural material. All structures have to be built on soils. Our main objective in the study of soil mechanics is to lay down certain principles, theories and procedures fo r the design of a safe and sound structure. The subjec t of Foundation Engineering deal s wit h th e desig n o f variou s type s o f substructures under differen t soi l an d environmenta l conditions. During th e design , th e designe r ha s t o mak e us e o f th e propertie s o f soils , th e theorie s pertaining t o th e desig n an d hi s ow n practica l experienc e t o adjus t th e desig n t o sui t fiel d conditions. H e ha s t o dea l wit h natura l soi l deposit s whic h perfor m th e engineerin g functio n o f supporting th e foundatio n an d th e superstructur e abov e it . Soi l deposit s i n natur e exis t i n a n extremely errati c manne r producin g thereb y a n infinit e variet y o f possibl e combination s whic h would affect th e choice and design o f foundations. The foundation engineer mus t have the ability to interpret the principles of soil mechanics to suit the field conditions. The success or failure of his design depends upo n how muc h in tune he is with Nature.

CHAPTER 2 SOIL FORMATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 INTRODUCTIO N The word 'soil' has different meaning s for different professions . To the agriculturist, soil is the top thin laye r of earth withi n whic h organic force s ar e predominant an d whic h is responsible fo r the support of plant life. T o the geologist , soi l is the material i n the top thin zone within which roots occur. Fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f a n engineer , soi l include s al l eart h materials , organi c an d inorganic, occurring in the zone overlying the rock crust. The behavio r o f a structure depends upo n the properties o f the soi l materials o n which the structure rests. Th e properties o f the soi l materials depen d upon the properties o f the rocks fro m which they are derived. A brief discussion of the parent rocks is, therefore, quite essential in order to understand the properties o f soil materials .

2.2 ROC K CLASSIFICATIO N Rock can be defined as a compact, semi-hard t o hard mass of natural material composed of one or more minerals. The rocks that are encountered at the surface of the earth or beneath, are commonly classified int o three groups according to their modes of origin. They are igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Igneous rock s ar e considere d t o b e th e primar y rock s forme d b y th e coolin g o f molte n magmas, or by the recrystallization of older rocks under heat and pressure grea t enough to render them fluid. They have been forme d on or at various depths below the earth surface . There are two main classes of igneous rocks. They are: 1. Extrusiv e (poured out a t the surface) , and 2. Intrusiv e (large rock masses whic h have not been formed in contact with the atmosphere) .

6 Chapte

r2

Initially both classes o f rocks were in a molten state. Their presen t state results directly fro m the way in which they solidified. Due to violent volcanic eruptions in the past, some o f the molten materials wer e emitte d int o th e atmospher e wit h gaseou s extrusions . Thes e coole d quickl y and eventually fell o n the earth's surfac e as volcanic ash and dust. Extrusive rocks are distinguished, in general, by their glass-lik e structure . Intrusive rocks , coolin g an d solidifyin g a t grea t depth s an d unde r pressur e containin g entrapped gases, are wholly crystalline in texture. Such rocks occu r in masses of great extent, often going to unknown depths. Some of the important rocks tha t belong to the igneous group are granite and basalt. Granite i s primarily composed o f feldspar, quart z and mic a an d possesse s a massiv e structure. Basal t i s a dark-colore d fine-graine d rock. I t i s characterize d b y th e predominanc e o f plagioclase, th e presence o f considerable amounts of pyroxene and some olivine and the absence of quartz. Th e colo r varie s fro m dark-gre y t o black . Bot h granit e an d basal t ar e use d a s buildin g stones. When th e product s o f th e disintegratio n an d decompositio n o f an y roc k typ e ar e transported, redeposited , an d partly or full y consolidate d o r cemented int o a new rock type , th e resulting materia l i s classifie d a s a sedimentary rock. Th e sedimentar y rock s generall y ar e formed i n quite definitely arrange d beds , o r strata, whic h can be see n t o have been horizonta l at one time although sometime s displace d throug h angles u p to 90 degrees. Sedimentary rock s ar e generally classifie d on the basis of grain size, texture and structure. From a n engineering point of view, the most important rock s tha t belong t o the group are sandstones, limestones, and shales. Rocks forme d b y th e complet e o r incomplet e recrystallizatio n o f igneou s o r sedimentar y rocks b y high temperatures, hig h pressures, and/o r hig h shearin g stresse s ar e metamorphic rocks. The rock s s o produce d ma y displa y feature s varyin g fro m complet e an d distinc t foliatio n o f a crystalline structur e t o a fine fragmentary partiall y crystallin e stat e cause d b y direc t compressiv e stress, including also the cementation of sediment particles by siliceous matter. Metamorphic rock s formed withou t intense shea r actio n hav e a massiv e structure . Som e o f th e importan t rock s tha t belong t o this group ar e gneiss, schist, slate an d marble. Th e characteristi c featur e of gneiss is its structure, th e minera l grain s ar e elongated, o r platy , an d bandin g prevails . Generall y gneis s i s a good engineerin g material . Schist i s a finel y foliate d roc k containin g a high percentag e o f mica . Depending upo n the amount of pressure applie d b y the metamorphic forces , schis t ma y be a very good buildin g material. Slat e i s a dar k colored , plat y roc k wit h extremely fin e textur e an d eas y cleavage. Becaus e o f thi s easy cleavage , slat e i s split int o ver y thi n sheet s an d use d a s a roofing material. Marble is the end product of the metamorphism o f limestone and other sedimentary rock s composed o f calciu m o r magnesiu m carbonate . I t i s ver y dens e an d exhibit s a wid e variet y o f colors. I n construction , marble i s used fo r facing concrete o r masonr y exterio r an d interio r walls and floors . Rock Mineral s It i s essentia l t o examin e th e propertie s o f th e roc k formin g mineral s sinc e al l soil s ar e derive d through the disintegration or decomposition o f some parent rock. A 'mineral' i s a natural inorganic substance of a definite structure and chemica l composition. Som e o f th e ver y importan t physical properties o f mineral s ar e crysta l form , color , hardness , cleavage , luster , fracture , an d specifi c gravity. Out of these only two, specific gravity and hardness, are of foundation engineering interest. The specifi c gravit y of th e mineral s affect s th e specifi c gravit y o f soil s derive d fro m them . Th e specific gravit y of most rock and soil forming minerals varies fro m 2.5 0 (som e feldspars) and 2.6 5 (quartz) to 3.5 (augite or olivine). Gypsum has a smaller value of 2.3 and salt (NaCl) has 2.1. Som e iron minerals may have higher values, for instance, magnetite has 5.2 . It is reported tha t about 95 percent o f the known part o f the lithosphere consist s o f igneous rocks and only 5 percent of sedimentary rocks. Soil formation is mostly due to the disintegration of igneous rock which ma y be termed a s a parent rock.

Soil Formatio n and Characterizatio n 7 Table 2. 1 Minera l compositio n o f igneou s rock s Mineral Percen Quartz 12-2 Feldspar 50-6 Ca, Fe and Mg, Silicates 14-1 Micas 4Others 7-

t 0 0 7 8 8

The average mineral composition of igneous rocks is given in Table 2.1. Feldspars ar e the most common rock minerals, whic h account for the abundance of clays derived from th e feldspars on the earth's surface . Quartz comes nex t in order of frequency. Mos t sands are composed o f quartz.

2.3 FORMATIO N O F SOILS Soil i s defined a s a natural aggregate o f mineral grains , wit h or without organic constituents , that can b e separate d b y gentl e mechanica l mean s suc h a s agitatio n i n water . B y contras t roc k i s considered t o be a natural aggregate o f mineral grains connected by strong and permanent cohesiv e forces. Th e proces s o f weatherin g o f the roc k decrease s th e cohesiv e force s bindin g th e minera l grains and lead s t o the disintegration of bigger masses t o smalle r an d smalle r particles . Soil s ar e formed b y the process of weathering o f the parent rock. The weathering of the rocks migh t be by mechanical disintegration, and/o r chemical decomposition . Mechanical Weatherin g Mechanical weatherin g o f rock s t o smalle r particle s i s du e t o th e actio n o f suc h agent s a s th e expansive forces of freezing water in fissures, due to sudden changes of temperature o r due to the abrasion o f roc k b y movin g water o r glaciers . Temperatur e change s o f sufficien t amplitud e an d frequency brin g abou t change s i n th e volum e of the rock s i n the superficia l layers o f the earth' s crust in terms of expansion and contraction. Such a volume change sets up tensile and shear stresse s in the rock ultimately leading to the fracture of even large rocks. This type of rock weathering takes place in a very significant manner in arid climates where free, extreme atmospheric radiation brings about considerable variatio n in temperature a t sunrise and sunset. Erosion b y wind and rain is a very important factor and a continuing event. Cracking forces by growing plants and roots i n voids and crevasses o f rock can force fragments apart. Chemical Weatherin g Chemical weatherin g (decomposition ) ca n transform hard rock mineral s into soft, easily erodable matter. The principa l type s o f decomposition ar e hydmtion, oxidation, carbonation, desilication and leaching. Oxyge n and carbon dioxid e which are always present in the air readily combine with the elements of rock i n the presence o f water.

2.4 GENERA L TYPES O F SOILS It ha s bee n discusse d earlie r tha t soi l i s forme d b y th e proces s o f physica l an d chemica l weathering. The individua l size o f th e constituen t parts o f eve n th e weathere d roc k migh t range from th e smalles t stat e (colloidal ) t o th e larges t possibl e (boulders) . Thi s implie s tha t al l th e weathered constituent s of a parent rock canno t be termed soil . According t o their grai n size , soi l

8 Chapte

r2

particles ar e classified a s cobbles, gravel , sand, silt and clay. Grains havin g diameters i n the range of 4.7 5 t o 76. 2 m m ar e calle d gravel . If the grain s ar e visibl e t o the nake d eye , bu t ar e less than about 4.7 5 m m i n siz e th e soi l is described a s sand. The lowe r limi t of visibility of grains fo r th e naked eye s i s about 0.075 mm. Soil grains ranging from 0.07 5 to 0.002 mm are termed a s silt and those tha t are finer tha n 0.002 mm a s clay. This classificatio n is purely based o n siz e whic h doe s not indicat e th e propertie s o f fin e graine d materials . Residual an d Transporte d Soil s On th e basis o f origi n o f thei r constituents, soils ca n be divide d into two larg e groups : 1. Residua l soils , an d 2. Transporte d soils . Residual soils ar e thos e tha t remai n a t th e plac e o f thei r formatio n a s a resul t o f th e weathering o f parent rocks . Th e dept h o f residual soil s depend s primaril y o n climatic condition s and th e tim e o f exposure . I n som e areas , thi s dept h migh t b e considerable . I n temperat e zone s residual soil s ar e commonly stif f an d stable. An important characteristic o f residual soi l i s that the sizes of grains ar e indefinite. Fo r example, whe n a residual sampl e i s sieved, th e amoun t passin g any give n siev e siz e depends greatl y o n the time and energy expended i n shaking, because o f the partially disintegrated condition. Transported soils ar e soil s tha t ar e foun d a t location s fa r remove d fro m thei r plac e o f formation. The transporting agencies of such soils are glaciers, wind and water. The soils are named according t o th e mod e o f transportation . Alluvial soil s ar e thos e tha t hav e bee n transporte d b y running water. The soil s that have been deposite d i n quiet lakes, ar e lacustrine soils . Marine soils are thos e deposite d i n se a water . Th e soil s transporte d an d deposite d b y win d ar e aeolian soils . Those deposite d primaril y through the action of gravitational force, a s in land slides , ar e colluvial soils. Glacial soil s ar e those deposite d b y glaciers. Man y o f these transporte d soil s ar e loose and soft t o a depth o f several hundre d feet. Therefore, difficultie s wit h foundations and other type s of construction are generally associate d wit h transported soils . Organic an d Inorgani c Soil s Soils i n genera l ar e furthe r classifie d a s organic o r inorganic. Soil s o f organi c origi n ar e chiefly formed eithe r by growt h an d subsequen t decay o f plants such a s peat, o r by th e accumulatio n of fragments o f the inorganic skeletons or shells of organisms. Henc e a soil of organic origi n ca n b e either organic or inorganic. The term organic soil ordinarily refers to a transported soil consisting of the products of rock weatherin g with a more o r less conspicuous admixture of decayed vegetabl e matter. Names o f Som e Soil s tha t ar e Generall y Use d i n Practic e Bentonite i s a cla y forme d b y th e decompositio n o f volcani c as h wit h a hig h conten t o f montmorillonite. It exhibits the properties o f clay to an extreme degree . Varved Clay s consis t of thin alternating layers of silt and fat clays of glacial origin. They posses s the undesirable propertie s o f both sil t and clay. The constituent s of varved clay s wer e transporte d into fres h wate r lake s b y the melte d ic e at the clos e o f the ic e age . Kaolin, Chin a Cla y are very pure forms o f whit e clay used i n the ceramic industry . Boulder Cla y i s a mixtur e o f a n unstratifie d sedimente d deposi t o f glacia l clay , containin g unsorted rock fragments of all sizes ranging from boulders, cobbles, an d gravel to finely pulverize d clay material.

Soil Formation and Characterization 9

Calcareous Soi l i s a soil containing calcium carbonate. Suc h soil effervesce s when tested wit h weak hydrochloric acid. Marl consists of a mixture of calcareous sands , clays, or loam. Hardpan is a relatively hard, densely cemented soi l layer, like rock whic h does not softe n whe n wet. Boulder clays or glacial till is also sometimes named as hardpan. Caliche is an admixture of clay, sand, and gravel cemented by calcium carbonate deposite d fro m ground water. Peat i s a fibrou s aggregat e o f fine r fragment s o f decaye d vegetabl e matter . Pea t i s ver y compressible an d one should be cautious when using it for supporting foundations of structures. Loam is a mixture of sand, silt and clay. Loess is a fine-grained, air-borne deposit characterized by a very uniform grain size, and high void ratio. The size of particles ranges between about 0.01 to 0.05 mm . The soil can stand deep vertical cuts because of slight cementation between particles. It is formed in dry continental regions and its color is yellowish light brown. Shale is a material in the state of transition from clay to slate. Shale itself is sometimes considere d a rock but, when it is exposed to the air or has a chance to take in water it may rapidly decompose .

2.5 SOI L PARTICL E SIZ E AN D SHAP E The siz e of particles a s explained earlier, ma y range from grave l to the finest siz e possible. Their characteristics vary with the size. Soil particles coarser than 0.075 mm are visible to the naked eye or may b e examine d by mean s o f a hand lens. They constitut e the coarse r fraction s of the soils . Grains finer tha n 0.075 mm constitute the finer fraction s o f soils. I t is possible t o distinguish the grains lying between 0.075 mm and 2 \JL (1 [i = 1 micron = 0.001 mm ) under a microscope. Grain s having a size between 2 ji and 0.1 JL A can be observed under a microscope bu t their shapes cannot be made out . Th e shap e o f grain s smalle r tha n 1 ja ca n b e determine d b y mean s o f a n electro n microscope. The molecular structure of particles can be investigated by means of X-ray analysis. The coarse r fraction s of soils consist of gravel and sand. The individua l particles o f gravel, which ar e nothin g but fragment s of rock, ar e composed o f one o r mor e minerals , wherea s san d grains contain mostly one mineral which is quartz. The individual grains of gravel and sand may be angular, subangular , sub-rounded , rounde d o r well-rounde d a s show n i n Fig . 2.1. Grave l ma y contain grains which may be flat. Som e sands contain a fairly hig h percentage o f mica flakes that give them the property of elasticity. Silt and clay constitute the finer fractions of the soil. Any one grain of this fraction generally consists of only one mineral. The particles may be angular, flake-shaped or sometimes needle-like . Table 2. 2 give s th e particl e siz e classificatio n system s a s adopte d b y som e o f th e organizations i n th e USA . Th e Unifie d Soi l Classificatio n Syste m i s no w almos t universally accepted an d has been adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) . Specific Surfac e Soil is essentially a paniculate system, that is, a system in which the particles are in a fine stat e of subdivision or dispersion. In soils, the dispersed or the solid phase predominates an d th e dispersion medium, soil water, only helps to fill the pores between the solid particles. The significance of the concept of dispersion becomes mor e apparen t when the relationship o f surface to particle siz e is considered. I n the case o f silt, sand and larger siz e particles th e ratio of the are a of surface of the particles t o the volume of the sample is relatively small. This ratio becomes increasingl y large as

Chapter 2

Angular

Subrounded

Subangular

Rounded Wel

l rounded

Figure 2. 1 Shape s of coarse r fractions o f soil s size decreases from 2 \JL which is the upper limit for clay-sized particles . A useful index o f relative importance o f surface effects i s the specific surface o f grain. The specifi c surfac e is defined as the total are a o f th e surfac e o f th e grain s expresse d i n squar e centimeter s pe r gra m o r pe r cubi c centimeter o f the dispersed phase . The shap e o f th e cla y particle s i s an important property fro m a physical poin t of view . The amount o f surfac e pe r uni t mas s o r volum e varie s wit h the shap e o f th e particles . Moreover , th e amount of contact area per unit surface changes with shape. It is a fact that a sphere has the smallest surface are a pe r uni t volum e wherea s a plat e exhibit s th e maximum . Ostwal d (1919 ) ha s emphasized the importance of shape in determining the specific surface of colloidal systems . Since disc-shaped particle s ca n b e brough t mor e i n intimat e contact wit h each other , thi s shap e ha s a pronounced effect upo n the mechanical properties o f the system. The interparticle forces between the surfaces of particles have a significant effect o n the properties o f the soil mass if the particles in the media belong t o the clay fraction. The surface activity depends no t only on the specific surface but als o on the chemical and mineralogical composition of the solid particles. Sinc e clay particles Table 2. 2 Particl e siz e classificatio n b y variou s system s Name o f th e organizatio n Gravel San Massachusetts Institut e of Technology (MIT )

Particle siz e (mm ) d Sil t Cla

>2 2

to 0.06 0.0

6 t o 0.002
2 2

to 0.05 0.0

5 t o 0.002


/l

c

e> 1 0 1 Negativ

1

e

Consistency Index , /C The consistency index may be defined as / (3.46 p

)

The index lc reflects the state of the clay soil condition in the field in an undisturbed state just in the same wa y a s I t describe d earlier . Th e value s of / fo r differen t state s o f consistency ar e give n in Table 3.10 along with the values Ir I t may be seen that values of 7, and I c are opposite t o each other for th e same consistency of soil. From Eqs (3.45 ) an d (3.46) w e have wl — w P c= j = l (3.47 p

I +I

i

)

Effect o f Dryin g o n Plasticit y Drying produces a n invariable change in the colloidal characteristics o f the organic matte r in a soil. The distinctio n between organi c an d inorganic soils ca n be made b y performing tw o liqui d limit tests on the same material . On e test is made on an air-dried sample an d the other o n an oven-drie d one. If the liquid limit of the oven-dried sampl e is less tha n about 0.75 time s that for the air-drie d sample, the soils ma y be classed a s organic. Oven-drying also lower s the plastic limit s of organic soils, but the drop in plastic limit is less than that for the liquid limit. Shrinking an d Swellin g o f Soil s If a mois t cohesiv e soi l i s subjecte d t o drying , i t lose s moistur e an d shrinks . Th e degree o f shrinkage, S , is expressed a s . , = - x (3.48a o

)

where, Vo = original volume of a soil sample at saturated state Vd = final volum e of the sample at shrinkage limit On the basis of the degree o f shrinkage, Scheidig (1934) classified soils a s in Table 3.11. Shrinkage Rati o SR Shrinkage rati o i s define d a s th e rati o o f a volum e chang e expresse d a s a percentag e o f dr y volume to the corresponding chang e in water content abov e th e shrinkag e limit .

56 Chapte

r3

Table 3.1 1 Soi l classificatio n accordin g t o degre e o f shrinkag e S r Sr% Qualit < 5 Goo

y o f soi l d

5-10 Mediu 10-15 Poo > 1 5 Ver

m goo d r y poo r

(V -V,)/V, SR=' ° d)l d xlO O (3-48b

)

W

0~WS

where

Vo = initial volum e of a saturated soi l sampl e a t water content w o Vd = the final volum e of the soil sample at shrinkage limit w s (wo-ws) = change in the water content

Md = mass o f dry volume, V d, of the sampl e Substituting for (w o-ws) i n Eq (3.48b) and simplifying, we have

• ; - • - •

Thus the shrinkage ratio of a soil mass i s equal to the mass specifi c gravity of the soi l i n its dry state . Volumetric Shrinkag e S v The volumetric shrinkage or volumetric change is defined as the decrease i n volume of a soil mass, expressed as . a percentage of the dry volum e of the soi l mas s whe n th e wate r conten t i s reduce d from th e initial w o to the final w s at the shrinkage limit. (3.49)

d

Linear shrinkage ca n be computed fro m the volumetric chang e b y the following equatio n 1/3 LS= l

~ c 5..1+1.0 m Xl

°° percen t (3-50

)

The volumetri c shrinkag e S v i s use d a s a decima l quantit y i n Eq . (3.50) . Thi s equatio n assumes tha t the reduction in volume is both linear and uniform in all directions. Linear shrinkage can be directly determined by a test [this test has not yet been standardized in the United States (Bowles, 1992)] . Th e British Standard BS 137 7 used a half-cylinder of mold of diameter 12. 5 m m an d length Lo = 140 mm. The we t sample fille d int o the mol d i s dried an d th e final lengt h L,is obtained. Fro m this , the linea r shrinkag e LS i s computed a s

Soil Phas e Relationships, Inde x Propertie s an d Soi l Classificatio n

LS =

57

L-L.

(3.51)

Activity Skempton (1953) considers that the significant change in the volume of a clay soil during shrinking or swellin g is a function o f plasticity inde x and the quantit y of colloidal cla y particles presen t in soil. The clay soil can be classified inactive, normal or active (after Skempton, 1953) . The activity of clay is expressed a s Activity A =

Plasticity index, /

(3.52)

Percent fine r tha n 2 micro n

Table 3.1 2 give s th e typ e o f soi l accordin g t o th e valu e of A. The cla y soi l whic h has a n activity value greater than 1.4 can be considered as belonging to the swelling type. The relationship between plasticity index and clay fraction i s shown in Fig. 3.18(a). Figure 3.18(b ) show s result s o f som e test s obtaine d o n prepare d mixture s o f variou s percentage o f particle s les s tha n an d greate r tha n 2 /^ . Severa l natura l soils wer e separate d int o fractions greater and less than 2 /z and then the two fractions were combined as desired. Fig 3.18(c) shows the results obtained on clay minerals mixed with quartz sand. Table 3.12 Soi l classificatio n accordin g to activit y A Soi

l type

1.40 Activ

e

Acti VQ soi l

OOO

> -£>

. Lf>

O

O\

A

>U

Plasticity index, I p

/

DO

O

•— K

/

{

/1

/ // s

/ •0

Nformal s o 11

/*

jr

^/l = (.75

Inactiv e soil

// 10 2

03 04 05 Percent finer than 2 micron

0

60

Figure 3.18(a ) Classificatio n o f soi l accordin g t o activit y

58 1UU

80 X

160 'o

1 40 a,

20

/

Chapter 3

y y // ^o> »& -

SOxO.OlxlO- 3 1 4 XJ — = 0.0064 mm . V (2.7-1 ) V6 0

From Eq . (3.31 ) From Tabl e 3.6 for T= 25 °C, Cr = +1.3. Therefore , Rc = 19.5-2. 5 + 1.3=18.3 From Eqs (3.32) an d (3.31), w e have CR 1.65G . ,C = sg Ms 2.65(G-1 ) sg

1.65X2. 7 p 2.65(2.7-1 ) 5 =

.%

0

Example 3.1 1 A 500 g sampl e o f dry soi l wa s used fo r a combined siev e an d hydrometer analysi s (15 2 H type hydrometer). Th e soi l mas s passin g throug h the 7 5 fi siev e = 12 0 g. Hydromete r analysi s wa s carried ou t on a mass of 40 g that passed through the 75 (Ji sieve. The average temperatur e recorde d during the test was 30°C. Given: G s = 2.55, C m (meniscus) = 0.50, C o = +2.5, n = 8.15 x 10~ 3 poises. The actua l hydrometer readin g R a = 15.00 after a lapse of 12 0 min after th e start of the test . Determine the particle siz e D and percent fine r P'% and P%. Solution

From Eq . (3.29 ) L =16.3-0.16417?

62

Chapter 3

where, R = Ra + Cm = 15.0 + 0.5 = 15. 5 L = 16.3 -0.1641 x15.5 = 13.757 From Eq . (3.24 ) 30x8.15xlO- 6 13.75 7 ^ = x.| 0.004 2.55-1

0

3 mm

From Eq . (3.32 ) C Rc

Percent finer , P'% = S8 From Table 3.7 , C =

x 100

M

1.02 for G s =2.55

From Table 3.6 , C r = +3.8 for T= 30 °C Now, R c = Ra- Co + CT = 15 - 2. 5 + 3.8 = 16. 3

Now, / " = L 0 2 x l 6 3 x 100 = 41.57% 40

P% = 41.57 x — 500

Example 3.1 2 500 g of dry soil was used for a sieve analysis. The masses of soil retained on each sieve are given below: US standar d siev e

Mass i n

Mass i n g

US standard siev e

2.00 mm

10

500 fj.

135

1 .40 mm

18

250 j U

145

1.00mm

60

125/1

56

75 fji

45

g

Plot a grain size distribution curve and compute the following: (a) Percentage s o f gravel , coars e sand , mediu m sand, fine sand an d silt , as pe r th e Unified Soil Classificatio n System, (b) uniformity coefficien t (c) coefficient of curvature. Comment o n the type of soil. Solution

Computation o f percen t fine r

US stand - Diameter ard siev e o

,D

f grain s i n m m

Mass

%

Cumulative

%

retained i n g

retained

% retaine d

finer P

2.00 m m

2.00

10

2.0

2.0

98.0

1 .40 mm 1.00mm

1.40

18 60

5.6 17.6

94.4

500/1

1.00 0.500

3.6 12.0 27.0

250 fj, 125/1 75 p.

0.25 0.125 0.075

135 145

56 45

29.0 11.2 9.0

44.6 73.6 84.8

93.8

82.4 55.4 26.4 15.2 6.2

Soil Phas e Relationships , Inde x Propertie s an d Soi l Classificatio n

100

Sand Coarse to medium «

\ \

Gravel

90 80

^\

70

60%

g 60 4 1 < Cc < 3 Not meeting al l gradation requirements for G W (C u < 4 or 1 > C, > 3)

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixture

Atterberg limits Abov below A lin e or 4 IP < ^ borderlin

GC

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixture

Atterberg limits symbol above A line with /„>?

SW

Well-graded sands , gravell y sands, littl e or no fines

SP

Poorly grade d sands , gravelly sands, littl e or no fines

Not meeting al l gradation requirement s for S W (C u < 6 or 1 > C c > 3)

Silty sands, sand-sil t mixtur e

Atterberg limits Abov below A line or 4 'p < borderlin

GM

SM

d u

u

SC

Clayey sands, sand-sil t mixture

ML

Inorganic silt s and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands, o r clayey silts with slight plasticity

CL

Inorganic clays of very low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clay s

OL

Organic silts and organic silty clays of lo w plasticity

MH

Inorganic silts , micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts

CH

Inorganic clays or high plasticity, fat clay s

OH

Organic clay s of medium to high plasticity, organic silt s

A

6

Typical name s

Pt

e A line with

< / < 7 are e cases s

Cu>6 1 < Cc < 3

Atterberg limit s symbol above A line with

e A iine with < / < 7 are e cases

s

1 . Determin e percentages o f sand an d gravel fro m grain-size curve . 2. Dependin g on percentages o f fines (fraction smalle r tha n 200 sieve size) , coarse-grained soil s are classified as follows: Less than 5%-GW, GP, SW, SP More tha n 12%-GM , GC, SM, SC 5 to 12%-Borderlin e cases requiring dual symbol s

c

-=ft

Peat an d other highly organic soil s

Gravels an d sands are GM, GC, SM, or SC if mor e tha n 1 2 percent passe s th e No . 20 0 sieve ; M = silt ; C = clay. Th e sil t o r cla y designation is determined by performing the liquid and plastic limit tests on the (-) No . 40 fraction an d usin g th e plasticit y char t o f Fig . 3.22 . Thi s char t i s als o a Casagrand e contribution t o th e US C system , and th e A lin e show n on thi s char t i s sometime s calle d Casagrande's A line.

75

Soil Phas e Relationships , Inde x Propertie s an d Soil Classificatio n

60 50

- 30

20

30 4

05

0

60

70

80

Liquid limi t w, percent

Figure 3.2 2 Plasticit y char t fo r fine-graine d soil s The char t a s presented her e has been slightl y modified based o n the Corp s o f Engineers findings that no soil has so far been found with coordinates that lie above the "upper limit " or U line shown. This chart and lines are part of the ASTM D 2487 standard . 3. Gravels and sands are (note using dual symbols) GW-GC SW-S C GP-G C SP-SC , or GW-GM SW-S M GP-G M SP-S M if between 5 and 1 2 percent of the material passes the No. 200 sieve. It may be noted that the M o r C designatio n i s derive d fro m performin g plasti c limi t test s an d usin g Casagrande's plasticit y chart . 4. Fine-grained soil s (mor e tha n 50 percent passes th e No. 200 sieve) are : ML, OL, or CL if th e liquid limits are < 50 percent; M = silt; O = organic soils; C = clay. L = Less tha n 50 percent fo r \v t Fine grained soil s are MH, OH, or CH if the liquid limits are > 50 percent; H = Higher than 50 percent. Whether a soil is a Clay (C), Silt (M), or Organic (O) depends on whether the soil coordinates plo t above or below the A line on Fig. 3.22 . The organi c (O ) designatio n als o depend s o n visua l appearanc e an d odo r i n th e US C method. I n the ASTM metho d th e O designation is more specificall y defined by using a comparison o f the air-dry liquid limit vv / and the oven-dried w' r I f the oven dried value is 0.75w and the appearance and odor indicates "organic" then classify th e soil as O.

76

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 8 Unifie

Soil

d Soi l Classificatio n Syste m —fine-grained soil s (mor e tha n hal f of materia l i s larger than No . 20 0 siev e size )

Major divisions

Liquid limit less than 5 0

Silt and clays

Highly organic soils

Liquid limit mor e than 50

Group symbols

Identification procedure s on fraction smalle r tha n No. 4 0 sieve siz e Dry strength

Dilatancy

Toughness

ML

None to slight

Quick to slow

None

CL

Medium to hig h

None t o very slo w

Medium

OL

Slight to medium

Slow

Slight

MH

Slight to medium

Slow t o none

Slight t o medium

CH

High to very hig h

None

High

OH

Medium to high

None to very slo w

Slight t o medium

Pt Readil

y identifie d b y color, odor, spongy fee l an d frequently by fibrous textur e

The liquid and plastic limits are performed o n the (-) No . 40 sieve fraction of all of the soils, including gravels , sands , and the fine-grained soils. Plasticit y limit tests ar e not required fo r soil s where th e percen t passin g th e No . 20 0 siev e < 5 percent . Th e identificatio n procedur e o f fin e grained soil s ar e give n i n Table 3.18 . A visua l descriptio n o f th e soi l shoul d accompan y th e lette r classification . Th e AST M standard include s some descriptio n i n terms o f sandy or gravelly, but color i s also ver y important . Certain area s ar e underlai n wit h soi l deposit s havin g a distinctive colo r (e.g. , Bosto n blu e clay , Chicago blu e clay) which may be red, green , blue , grey, black, and so on. Geotechnical engineer s should becom e familia r wit h th e characteristic s o f thi s materia l s o th e colo r identificatio n i s of considerable ai d in augmenting the data base o n the soil .

3.21 COMMENT

S O N TH E SYSTEMS O F SOIL CLASSIFICATIO N

The various classificatio n system s described earlie r ar e based on : 1. Th e propertie s o f soil grains. 2. Th e properties applicabl e to remolded soils . The system s d o no t tak e int o account th e propertie s o f intac t materials a s foun d i n nature . Since th e foundatio n material s o f mos t engineerin g structure s ar e undisturbed , th e propertie s o f intact material s onl y determin e th e soi l behavio r durin g and afte r construction . The classificatio n of a soil accordin g t o any of the accepted system s does no t in itself enabl e detaile d studie s of soil s to b e dispense d wit h altogether . Solvin g flow, compressio n an d stabilit y problem s merel y o n th e basis o f soi l classificatio n ca n lea d t o disastrou s results . However , soi l classificatio n ha s bee n found t o b e a valuabl e too l t o th e engineer . I t help s th e enginee r b y givin g genera l guidanc e through makin g availabl e i n a n empirica l manner th e result s o f fiel d experience .

Soil Phas e Relationships , Inde x Propertie s an d Soi l Classificatio n 7

7

Example 3.2 0 A sampl e o f inorgani c soi l ha s the followin g grain siz e characteristic s Size (mm ) Percen

2.0 (No. 10 ) 9 0.075 (No . 200 ) 7

t passin g

5 5

The liquid limit is 56 percent, an d the plasticity inde x 25 percent. Classify the soil according t o the AASHTO classification system. Solution

Percent o f fine graine d soil = 75 Computation o f Group Index [Eq . (3.56a)] :

a = 75 - 3 5 =40 b = 75 - 1 5 =60 c = 56-40 = 16, d=25-W=15 Group Index, GI = 0.2 x 40 + 0.005 x 40 x 1 6 + 0.01 x 60 x 1 5 = 20. 2 On the basis of percent of fine-grained soils, liquid limit and plasticity index values, the soil is either A-7-5 or A-7-6. Since (w l - 30) = 56 - 3 0 =26 > /(25) , the soil classification isA-7-5(20).

Example 3.2 1 Mechanical analysis on four different sample s designated a s A, B, C and D were carried out in a soil laboratory. The results of tests are given below. Hydrometer analysis was carried ou t on sample D. The soil is non-plastic. Sample D: liquid limit = 42, plastic limit = 24, plasticity index =18 Classify th e soils per the Unified Soi l Classification System. Samples ASTM Siev e Designation

A B Percentage finer tha n

C

D

63.0 mm 20.0 mm 6.3 2.0mm 600 JL I 212 ji 63 ji 20 n 6(1 2 |i

100 64 39 24 12 5 1

93 76 65 59 54 47 34 23 7 4

100 95 69 46 31

100 98 90 9 2

78

Chapter 3

Cobbles (> 76.2 mm)

0.01

0.001

100

0.075 0. 1 1 Particle size (mm)

Figure Ex . 3.2 1 Solution Grain siz e distribution curves of samples A, B, C and D are given in Fig. Ex. 3.21. The values of Cu and C c are obtained fro m th e curves as given below. Sample

D

10

^30

60

cu

D

cc

A

0.47

3.5

16.00

34.0

1.60

B

0.23

0.30

0.41

1.8

0.95

C

0.004

0.036

2.40

600.0

0.135

Sample A: Grave l siz e particles mor e tha n 50%, fin e graine d soi l les s tha n 5%. C u, greater than 4, and C c lies between 1 and 3. Well graded sand y gravel classifie d a s GW . Sample/?: 96 % o f particles ar e san d size . Fine r fractio n less tha n 5%. C u = 1.8, C , is not between 1 and 3. Poorly-graded sand , classified as SP . Sample C: Coars e graine d fractio n greate r tha n 66 % an d fin e graine d fractio n les s tha n 34%. The soi l i s non-plastic. C u is very high but C c is only 0.135. Gravel-sand silt mixture, classified a s CM. Sample/): Fine r fractio n 95% with clay size particle s 31% . The point plots just above th e A-line i n th e C L zon e o n th e plasticit y chart . Silty-cla y o f lo w plasticity , classified a s CL.

Example 3.2 2 The followin g dat a refer s t o a silt y cla y tha t wa s assume d t o b e saturate d i n th e undisturbe d condition. On the basis of these data determine th e liquidity index, sensitivity, and void ratio o f the saturated soil . Classif y th e soil accordin g t o the Unified an d AASHTO systems. Assume G = 2.7.

Soil Phas e Relationships , Index Propertie s and Soi l Classification 7

Index propert y Undisturbe Unconfmed compressive strength, q u kN/m2 24

d

Remolded

4 kN/m 2

144 kN/m2

2

22 45 20 12 90

Water content, % 2

9

Liquid limit , % Plastic limit , % Shrinkage limit, % % passing no. 200 sieve

Solution wn-w 22-2

Liquidity Index , / , = —

' Wf-w

= =

45-2

0 0

q undisturbe d 24 4 Sensitivity, 5= =— = q'u disturbe d 14 4

0.08

1.7

V =— V,

Void ratio , e

ForS=l,e = wGs = 0.22 x 2.7 = 0.594. Unified Soi l Classificatio n Use the plasticity chart Fig. 3.22. w, = 45, / = 25. The point falls above the A-line in the CL-zone, that is the soi l i s inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity. AASHTO Syste m Group Index G I = 0.2a + 0.005ac + 0.01 bd

a = 90 - 3 5 =55 £ = 90-15 = 75 c

= 45 ~ 40 =5

d = 25 - 1 0 =15 (here I p = wt - w p = 45 - 2 0 =25) Group inde x GI = 0.2 x 55 + 0.005 x 55 x 5 + 0.01 x 75 x 15 = 1 1 + 1.315 + 11.2 5 =23.63 or say 24 Enter Table 3.1 5 with the following data % passing 20 0 sieve =

90 %

Liquid = limit

45 %

Plasticity inde = x

25 %

With this, the soil is either A-7-5 o r A-7-6. Sinc e (w l - 30 ) = (45 - 30 ) = 15 < 25 (/ ) the soil is classified a s A-7-6. According t o this system the soil is clay, A-7-6 (24).

80 Chapte

r3

3.22 PROBLEM S 3.1 A soil mass i n its natural state is partially saturated having a water content o f 17.5 % an d a void rati o o f 0.87 . Determin e th e degre e o f saturation , tota l uni t weight , an d dr y uni t weight. What is the weight of water required to saturate a mass of 1 0 m3 volume? Assume G^ = 2.69 . 3.2 Th e voi d rati o o f a clay sampl e i s 0.5 an d th e degre e o f saturatio n i s 70% . Comput e th e water content, dry and wet unit weights of the soil. Assume G s = 2.7. 3.3 A sampl e o f soi l compacte d accordin g t o a standar d Procto r tes t ha s a uni t weigh t o f 130.9 lb/ft 3 a t 100 % compactio n an d a t optimu m wate r conten t o f 14% . Wha t i s th e dr y unit weight? If the voids become fille d wit h water what would be the saturated uni t weight? Assume G s = 2.67. 3.4 A sampl e o f san d abov e th e wate r tabl e wa s foun d to have a natural moistur e conten t of 15% an d a uni t weigh t o f 18.8 4 kN/m 3. Laborator y test s o n a drie d sampl e indicate d values o f e min = 0.50 an d e max - 0.8 5 fo r th e denses t an d looses t state s respectively . Compute th e degree o f saturation and the relative density. Assume G s = 2.65. 3.5 Ho w many cubic meters of fill can be constructed at a void ratio of 0.7 from 119,00 0 m3 of borrow materia l that has a void ratio of 1.2 ? 3.6 Th e natural water content of a sample take n fro m a soil deposi t wa s found to be 11.5% . It has been calculated tha t the maximum density for the soil wil l be obtained when the water content reaches 21.5% . Compute how much water must be added to 22,500 Ib of soil (in its natural state ) i n order t o increas e th e wate r conten t t o 21.5% . Assum e tha t the degree of saturation in its natural stat e was 40% an d G = 2.7 . 3.7 I n an oil well drilling project, drillin g mud was used t o retain th e sides o f the borewell. I n one lite r of suspension in water, the drilling mud fluid consists o f the following material : Material

Mass

Sp.gr

Clay Sand Iron filing s

(g) 410 75 320

2.81 2.69 7.13

Find th e density of the drilling fluid o f uniform suspension . 3.8 I n a field exploration , a soil sampl e wa s collected i n a sampling tub e o f internal diamete r 5.0 cm below th e ground water table . The length of the extracted sampl e wa s 10. 2 c m and its mass wa s 387 g. If G y = 2.7, and the mass of the dried sampl e i s 313 g, find th e porosity, void ratio, degree of saturation, and the dry density of the sample . 3.9 A saturated sample of undisturbed clay has a volume of 19. 2 cm 3 and weighs 32.5 g . After oven drying , the weight reduces t o 20.2 g . Determine th e following: (a) wate r content, (b ) specific gravity, (c) void ratio, an d (d ) saturate d densit y o f the clay sample. 3.10 Th e natura l total uni t weight o f a sandy stratum is 117. 7 lb/ft 3 an d ha s a water content of 8%. For determining of relative density, dried san d from the stratum was filled loosely int o a 1.0 6 ft 3 mol d and vibrated to give a maximum density. The loose weight of the sample i n the mol d wa s 105. 8 Ib , an d th e dens e weigh t wa s 136. 7 Ib . I f G 9 = 2.66 , fin d th e relativ e density o f the sand in its natural state. 3.11 A n earth embankment is to be compacted t o a density of 120. 9 lb/ft 3 a t a moisture conten t of 1 4 percent . Th e in-sit u tota l uni t weigh t an d wate r conten t o f th e borro w pi t ar e

Soil Phas e Relationships , Inde x Propertie s an d Soi l Classificatio n 8

1

114.5 lb/ft 3 an d 8 % respectively . Ho w muc h excavatio n shoul d b e carrie d ou t fro m th e borrow pi t fo r eac h ft 3 o f the embankment? Assume G^ , = 2.68 . 3.12 A n undisturbed sample of soil has a volume of 29 cm3 and weighs 48 g. The dry weight of the sample is 32 g. The value of G s = 2.66. Determin e th e (a) natural water content, (b) insitu void ratio, (c ) degree o f saturation, and (d) saturated unit weight of the soil . 3.13 A mas s o f soi l coate d wit h a thi n layer o f paraffi n weigh s 0.98 2 Ib . When immerse d i n water i t displace s 0.01130 2 ft 3 o f water . The paraffi n i s peele d of f an d foun d t o weig h 0.0398 Ib . Th e specifi c gravit y o f th e soi l particle s i s 2. 7 an d tha t o f paraffi n i s 0.9 . Determine th e void ratio of the soil if its water content is 10% . 3.14 22 5 g of oven dried soil was placed i n a specific gravity bottle and then filled with water to a constant volum e mark mad e o n the bottle. The mass of the bottle wit h water and soil is 1650 g. The specific gravity bottle was filled with water alone to the constant volume mark and weighed. It s mass was found to be 151 0 g. Determine th e specific gravity of the soil . 3.15 I t is required t o determine th e water content of a wet sample o f silty sand weighing 400 g. This mass of soil was placed i n a pycnometer an d water filled t o the top of the conical cu p and weighed (M 3). Its mass was found t o be 2350 g. The pycnometer wa s next filled with clean wate r and weighe d and it s mass wa s found t o be 2200 g (A/ 4). Assuming G^ . = 2.67 , determine th e water content of the soil sample . 3.16 A clay sample is found to have a mass of 423.53 g in its natural state. It is then dried i n an oven at 10 5 °C. The dried mass is found to be 337.65 g . The specific gravity of the solids is 2.70 an d the density of the soil mass in its natural state is 170 0 kg/m 3. Determin e the water content, degre e o f saturation and the dry density of the mass in its natural state . 3.17 A sampl e o f san d i n it s natura l stat e ha s a relativ e densit y o f 6 5 percent . Th e dr y uni t weights of the sample at its densest and loosest state s are respectively 114. 5 and 89.1 lb/ft 3. Assuming th e specifi c gravit y o f th e solid s a s 2.64 , determin e (i ) it s dr y uni t weight , (ii) wet unit weight when fully saturated , an d (iii) submerged uni t weight. 3.18 Th e mass o f wet sampl e o f soil in a drying dish is 462 g. The sampl e an d the dish hav e a mass o f 36 4 g afte r dryin g i n an oven a t 11 0 °C overnight. The mas s o f th e dish alon e i s 39 g. Determine th e water content of the soil . 3.19 A sampl e o f san d abov e th e wate r tabl e wa s found to have a natural moisture conten t of 10% and a unit weight o f 12 0 lb/ft3. Laborator y test s o n a dried sampl e indicate d value s e mm ~ 0-45 , an d e max = 0.90 fo r th e denses t an d looses t state s respectively . Comput e th e degree o f saturation, S, and the relative density, Df. Assum e G ^ = 2.65 . 3.20 A 50 cm 3 sample o f moist cla y wa s obtained b y pushing a sharpened hollo w cylinder into the wall of a test pit. The extruded sampl e had a mass of 85 g, and after oven drying a mass of 60 g. Compute w, e, S, and pd. G s = 2.7. 3.21 A pit sample o f moist quart z sand was obtained fro m a pit by the sand cone method . Th e volume of the sample obtained wa s 15 0 cm3 and its total mass was found to be 250 g. In the laboratory th e dr y mas s o f th e san d alon e wa s foun d t o be 24 0 g . Test s o n th e dr y san d indicated emax = 0.80 an d emin = 0.48. Estimate ps, w, e, S, pd an d Dr of the sand in the field. Given G s = 2.67. 3.22 A n earthe n embankmen t unde r constructio n ha s a tota l uni t weight o f 99. 9 lb/ft 3 an d a moisture content o f 1 0 percent. Comput e th e quantit y of wate r require d t o be adde d pe r 100 ft3 o f earth t o raise its moisture content to 1 4 percent a t the same void ratio . 3.23 Th e wet unit weight of a glacial outwash soil is 12 2 lb/ft3, th e specific gravity of the solid s is G S = 2.67, an d the moisture content of the soil is w = 12% by dry weight. Calculate (a ) dry unit weight, (b) porosity, (c ) void ratio, and (d ) degree of saturation.

Chapter 3

82

3.24 Deriv e th e equation e = wGs which expresses th e relationship between th e void ratio e, the specific gravit y G s and the moisture content w for full saturatio n of voids. 3.25 I n a siev e analysi s of a given sampl e o f san d th e followin g data wer e obtained . Effectiv e grain siz e = 0.25 mm , uniformit y coefficient 6.0, coefficien t of curvature = 1.0 . Sketch th e curve on semilo g paper . 3.26 A sieve analysi s of a given sample o f sand wa s carried ou t b y making use o f US standar d sieves. Th e tota l weight of sand used fo r the analysis was 522 g . The followin g data wer e obtained. Sieve siz e in mm 4.75 0 2.00 0 1.00 0 0.50 0 0.35 5 0.18 0 0.12 5 0.07 5 Weight retained ing 25.7 5 61.7 5 67.00126. 0 57.7 5 78.7 5 36.7 5 36.7 5 Pan 31. 5 Plot th e grain siz e distribution curve on semi-log paper an d compute th e following: (i) Percen t grave l (ii) Percen t o f coarse, mediu m and fine san d (iii) Percen t o f silt and clay (iv) Uniformit y coefficient (v) Coefficien t of curvature 3.27 Combine d mechanica l analysi s of a given sample of soil wa s carried out. The tota l weigh t of soi l use d i n th e analysi s wa s 35 0 g . Th e sampl e wa s divide d int o coarse r an d fine r fractions b y washin g i t throug h a 7 5 micron s siev e Th e fine r tractio n wa s 12 5 g . Th e coarser fraction was used for th e sieve analysis and 5 0 g of the finer fractio n was use d fo r the hydrometer analysis . The tes t results were as given below: Sieve analysis: Particle siz e

Mass retaine d g

Particle siz e

Mass retained g

4.75 m m

9.0

355 u

24.5

2.00 m m

15.5

180 n

49.0

1.40 m m

10.5

125 u

28.0

1.00mm

10.5

75 n

43.0

500 fi

35.0

A hydrometer (15 2 H type) was inserted int o the suspension just a few seconds before th e readings wer e taken. It was next removed an d introduced just before each o f the subsequent readings. Temperature of suspension = 25°C. Hydrometer analysis : Reading s i n suspensio n Time, mi n

Reading, R g

1/4

28.00

1/2

2

24.00 20.50 17.20

4

12.00

8

8.50

15

6.21

1

Time, mi n

30 60 120 240 480 1440

Reading, R g

5.10 4.25 3.10 2.30 1.30 0.70

Soil Phas e Relationships , Inde x Propertie s an d Soi l Classificatio n 8

3

Meniscus correction C m = +0.4, zero correction C o = +l.5,Gs = 2.75 (i) Sho w (step by step) all the computations required fo r the combined analysis , (ii) Plo t the grain size distribution curve on semi-log pape r (iii) Determin e the percentages o f gravel, sand, and fine fraction s present in the sample (iv) Comput e the uniformity coefficien t an d the coefficient o f curvature (v) Commen t on the basis of the test results whether the soil is well graded o r not 3.28 Liqui d limit tests were carried out on two given samples of clay. The test data are as given below. Test No s

1

2

3

4

Number of blows, N

120 7

114 10

98 30

92 40

Sample no . 2 Water conten t % Number of blows , N

96 9

74 15

45 32

30 46

Sample no . 1 Water content %

The plastic limit of Sample No. 1 is 40 percent and that of Sample No . 2 is 32 percent. Required: (i) The flow indice s of the two sample s (ii) The toughness indices of the samples (iii) Comment on the type of soils on the basis of the toughness index values 3.29 Fou r differen t type s o f soils wer e encountered i n a large project . Their liqui d limits (w ;), plastic limits (w ) and their natural moisture contents (wn) were as given below: Soil type

w,%

wp%

wn%

1

120 80 60 65

40 35 30 32

150 70 30 25

2 3 4

Required: (i) The liquidity indices of the soils, (ii) the consistency of the natural soils (i.e., whether soft, stiff, etc.) (ii) and the possible behavior of the soils under vibrating loads 3.30 Th e soi l type s a s give n in Proble m 3.2 9 contained soi l particle s fine r tha n 2 micron s a s given below: Soil typ e

1

2

3

4

Percent finer than 2 micron

50

55

45

50

Classify th e soils according to their activity values.

84

Chapter 3

3.31 A sample o f clay has a water content of 40 percent a t full saturation . Its shrinkage limi t is 15 percent . Assumin g G s = 2.70 , determin e it s degre e o f shrinkage . Commen t o n th e quality of the soil. 3.32 A sample o f clay soi l has a liquid limit of 62% and its plasticity index i s 32 percent . (i) Wha t i s the stat e o f consistency o f th e soi l i f the soi l i n its natura l stat e ha s a wate r content o f 34 percent ? (ii) Calculat e th e shrinkag e limit if the voi d rati o of the sampl e a t the shrinkag e limi t is 0.70 Assume G ^ = 2.70 . 3.33 A soil wit h a liquidity index of-0.20 has a liquid limit of 56 percent and a plasticity index of 20 percent. What i s its natural water content? 3.34 A sampl e o f soi l weighin g 5 0 g i s disperse d i n 100 0 m L o f water . Ho w lon g afte r th e commencement o f sedimentatio n shoul d th e hydromete r readin g b e take n i n orde r t o estimate th e percentage o f particles les s than 0.002 mm effective diameter, i f the center of the hydrometer i s 15 0 mm below th e surface of the water ? Assume: G s = 2.1; ^ = 8.15 x 10" 6 g-sec/cm 2. 3.35 Th e results of a sieve analysis of a soil were a s follows: Sieve

Mass

Sieve

Mass

size (mm )

retained (g)

size (mm )

retained (g)

20 12 10 6.3 4.75 2.8

0 1.7 2.3

0.5

30.5

8.4

0.355

45.3

5.7

0.180

25.4

12.9

0.075

7.4

2

3.5

1.4

1.1

The total mas s of the sample wa s 147. 2 g. (a) Plo t th e particle-size distribution curve and describe th e soil. Comment o n the flat part of the curve (b) Stat e th e effective grai n siz e 3.36 A

liquid limit test carried ou t on a sample of inorganic soil taken from below the water table gave the following results: Fall cone penetration y (mm) 15.

5 18.

2 21.

4 23.

6

Moisture content, w% 34.

6 40.

8 48.

2 53.

4

A plastic limi t test gave a value of 33%. Determin e th e average liqui d limit and plasticity index of this soil and give its classification. 3.37 Th e ove n dr y mas s o f a sampl e o f cla y wa s 11.2 6 g. The volum e o f th e dr y sampl e wa s determined b y immersin g it in mercury and the mass o f the displace d liqui d was 80.29 g. Determine the shrinkage limit, vv y, of the clay assumin g G s = 2.70 .

Soil Phas e Relationships , Inde x Propertie s an d Soi l Classificatio n 8

5

3.38 Particle s o f five different size s are mixed in the proportion shown below and enough water is added to make 100 0 cm 3 of the suspension. Particle siz e (mm )

Mass (g )

0.050 0.020 0.010 0.005

6 20 15

0.001

5 4

Total 50 g

It is ensured that the suspension is thoroughly mixed so as to have a uniform distribution of particles. All particles have specific gravity of 2.7. (a) Wha t is the largest particle size present at a depth of 6 cm after 5 mins from th e start of sedimentation? (b) Wha t is the density of the suspension at a depth of 6 cm after 5 mins from th e start of sedimentation? (c) Ho w long should sedimentation be allowed s o that all the particles hav e settled below 6 cm? Assume ,u= 0.9 x 1Q- 6 kN-s/m 2 3.39 A sample of clayey silt is mixed at its liquid limit of 40%. It is placed carefully in a small porcelain dis h wit h a volume of 19. 3 cm 3 and weighs 34.67 g. After oven drying, the soil pat displaced 216. 8 g of mercury. (a) Determine the shrinkage limit, ws, of the soil sampl e (b) Estimate the dry unit weight of the soil 3.40 Durin g the determination o f the shrinkage limi t of a sandy clay, th e following laboratory data was obtained: = Wet wt. of soil + dish

87.8

5g

= Dry wt . of soil + dish

76.9

1g

52.7

0g

430.

8g

= Wt of dish The volumetri c determination o f the soil pat : = Wt. of dish + mercury = Wt. o f dish Calculate th e shrinkage limit, assuming = Gs

244.62 2.6

g 5

3.41 A sedimentation analysis by a hydrometer (152 H type) was conducted with 50 g of oven dried soil sample. The hydrometer reading in a 1000 cm3 soil suspension 60 mins after th e commencement o f sedimentatio n i s 19.5 . Th e meniscu s correctio n i s 0.5 . Assumin g Gs = 2.70 an d \L - 1 x 10" 6 kN-s/m 2 for water , calculate the smallest particl e siz e which would have settled durin g the time of 60 mins and percentage o f particles fine r tha n this size. Assume: C 0 = +2.0, an d C T = 1.2 3.42 Classif y the soil given below using the Unified Soi l Classification System. Percentage passin g No. 4 sieve 7 2 Percentage passin g No. 200 sieve 3 3 Liquid limit 3 5 Plastic limit 1 4

86 Chapte

r3

3.43 Soi l sample s collecte d fro m th e field gave the following laboratory tes t results: Percentage passin g No. 4 sieve 10 0 Percentage passin g No. 200 sieve 1 6 Liquid limit 6 5 Plastic limit 3 0 Classify th e soil using the Unified Soil Classificatio n System . 3.44 Fo r a large project, a soil investigatio n was carried out . Grain siz e analysi s carried out on the samples gav e the following average tes t results. Sieve No . Percen

49 10 6 20 1 40 1 60 7 100 4 200 2

t fine r

6 0 8 2

Classify th e soil by using the Unified Soi l Classification System assuming the soil i s nonplastic. 3.45 Th e sieve analysis of a given sample of soil gave 57 percent of the particles passin g through 75 micro n sieve . Th e liqui d an d plasti c limit s o f th e soi l wer e 6 2 an d 2 8 percen t respectively. Classif y th e soi l pe r th e AASHT O an d th e Unifie d Soi l Classificatio n Systems.

CHAPTER 4 SOIL PERMEABILITY AND SEEPAGE 4.1 SOI

L PERMEABILIT Y

A material i s permeable i f it contains continuous voids. All materials suc h as rocks, concrete , soil s etc. ar e permeable . Th e flo w o f wate r throug h al l o f the m obey s approximatel y th e sam e laws . Hence, th e differenc e between th e flo w o f wate r throug h rock o r concrete i s on e o f degree . Th e permeability o f soil s ha s a decisiv e effec t o n th e stabilit y of foundations , seepage los s throug h embankments of reservoirs, drainage of subgrades, excavation of open cut s in water bearing sand , rate of flow o f water into wells and many others. Hydraulic Gradien t When water flows through a saturated soi l mass there is certain resistanc e fo r the flow becaus e o f the presence o f solid matter. However, the laws of fluid mechanics whic h are applicable fo r the flow of fluid s throug h pipe s ar e als o applicabl e t o flo w o f wate r throug h soils . A s pe r Bernoulli's equation, th e total head a t any point in water under steady flo w conditio n may be expressed as Total hea d = pressure hea d + velocity head + elevation hea d This principl e can be understood with regards t o the flow o f water through a sample of soil of length L and cross-sectional are a A as shown in Fig. 4.1 (a). The heads o f water at points A and B as the wate r flows fro m A to B ar e given as follows (wit h respect t o a datum) Total hea d at A, H. = ZA + —^ + -^Y 2g

Total head at B, H

K=

2 pV ZK-\—— + ——

87

88

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 (a) Flo w o f wate r throug h a sample o f soi l

As the water flows from A to B, there is an energy loss which is represented b y the difference in the total heads H, an d H D or

H

A-HB=

\ZA

PA

PRo» u c

i

_ ,

where, pA an d pB = pressure heads, V A and V B = velocity, g - acceleratio n du e to gravity, yw = unit weight of water, h = loss o f head. For all practical purposes the velocity head is a small quantity and may be neglected. The loss of head of h units is effected a s the water flows from A to B. The loss of head per unit length of flow may be expressed a s

i=

h

(4.1)

where / is called th e hydraulic gradient. Laminar an d Turbulen t Flo w Problems relatin g to the flow o f fluids i n general may be divided into two mai n classes : 1. Thos e in which the flo w i s laminar. 2. Thos e in which the flow i s turbulent. There i s a certain velocity, vc, below which for a given diameter of a straight tube and for a given flui d a t a particula r temperature, th e flo w wil l alway s remain laminar . Likewise ther e i s a higher velocity, vr above which the flow wil l always be turbulent. The lower bound velocity, vp of turbulent flo w i s abou t 6. 5 time s th e uppe r boun d velocit y v o f lamina r flo w a s show n i n Fig. 4.1(b). Th e uppe r boun d velocit y of lamina r flow i s calle d th e lower critical velocity. Th e fundamental law s tha t determin e th e stat e existin g fo r an y give n cas e wer e determine d b y Reynolds (1883). H e foun d th e lower critical velocity is inversely proportional to the diameter of

89

Soil Permeabilit y an d Seepag e Flow always Flow alway s laminar laminar turbulen t

Flow alway s turbulent

log/

logv

VT

Figure 4.Kb) Relationshi p betwee n velocit y o f flow an d hydraulic gradien t fo r flo w of liquid s i n a pip e

the pipe an d gave the following general expression applicabl e for an y fluid an d for an y system of units. = 2000 where, A ^ = Reynold s Numbe r take n a s 200 0 a s th e maximu m valu e fo r th e flo w t o remai n always laminar, D = diameter of pipe, v c = critical velocity below whic h the flow always remains laminar, y 0 = unit weight of flui d a t 4 °C , fJL = viscosity of fluid, g = acceleration du e t o gravity. The principa l difference between lamina r flow an d turbulent flow i s that in the former cas e the velocity is proportional to the first power of the hydraulic gradient, /, whereas in the latter case it is 4/7 the power of /. According to Hagen-Poiseuille's' Law the flow through a capillary tube may be expressed a s R2ai

or

(4.2a) (4.2b)

where, R = radius of a capillary tube of sectional area a, q = discharge through the tube, v = average velocity through the tube, ^ = coefficient of viscosity. 4.2 DARCY'

S LAW

Darcy i n 185 6 derive d a n empirica l formul a for the behavior o f flo w throug h saturated soils . H e found tha t th e quantit y of wate r q pe r se c flowin g through a cross-sectiona l are a o f soi l unde r hydraulic gradient / can be expressed b y the formula

q = kiA or the velocity of flow ca n be written as

(4.3)

90

Chapter 4

1 .0 1.6 1.4

\

\ \ \ \

\

1.0 0.8 n£

^ ^k^

10 2 0 Temperature ° C

30

Figure 4.2 Relatio n between temperature an d viscosity o f wate r

v = -j = & (4.4

)

where k is termed th e hydraulic conductivity (o r coefficient o f permeability)with units of velocity. A in Eq. (4.4) is the cross-sectional area of soil normal to the direction of flow which includes the area of the solids and the voids, whereas the area a in Eq. (4.2 ) is the area of a capillary tube. The essential point i n Eq . (4.3 ) i s tha t th e flo w throug h the soil s i s als o proportiona l t o th e firs t powe r o f th e hydraulic gradient i as propounded by Poiseuille's Law. From this, we are justified i n concluding that the flo w o f wate r through th e pore s o f a soi l i s laminar . It i s foun d that, on th e basi s o f extensive investigations made sinc e Darcy introduced his law in 1856 , this law is valid strictly for fine grained types of soils. The hydrauli c conductivit y i s a measur e o f th e eas e wit h whic h wate r flow s throug h permeable materials . I t i s inversel y proportional t o th e viscosit y o f wate r whic h decrease s wit h increasing temperature a s shown i n Fig. 4.2 . Therefore, permeabilit y measurement s a t laboratory temperatures shoul d b e correcte d wit h th e ai d of Fig. 4. 2 befor e applicatio n t o fiel d temperatur e conditions by means of the equation k ~~

(4.5)

where k f an d k T ar e th e hydrauli c conductivit y value s correspondin g t o th e fiel d an d tes t temperatures respectivel y and /^,and ^r are the corresponding viscosities . It is customary to report the values of k T at a standard temperature of 20°C. The equatio n is (4.6)

^20

4.3 DISCHARG

E AN D SEEPAG E VELOCITIES

Figure 4. 3 show s a soi l sampl e o f lengt h L and cross-sectional are a A. The sampl e i s placed i n a cylindrical horizonta l tube between screens . The tub e is connected t o two reservoirs R^ an d R 2 in which the water levels are maintained constant. The difference in head between R { an d R2 is h. This difference i n head is responsible for the flow o f water. Since Darcy's la w assumes no change in the

91

Soil Permeabilit y an d Seepag e

— Sample B

\ Screen

Screen

Figure 4.3 Flo w o f wate r through a sample o f soi l

volume of voids and the soil is saturated, the quantity of flow past sections AA, BB and CC should remain the same for steady flow conditions . We may express the equation of continuity as follows Qaa =