Ohiou1205248711 PDF

Shear Strength Correlations for Ohio Highway Embankment Soils
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Jeffrey M. Holko
March 2008
2
This thesis titled
Shear Strength Correlations for Ohio Highway Embankment Soils
by
JEFFREY M. HOLKO
has been approved for
the Department of Civil Engineering
and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by
Teruhisa Masada
Professor of Civil Engineering
Dennis Irwin
Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

3
ABSTRACT
HOLKO, JEFFREY M., M.S., March 2008, Civil Engineering
SHEAR STRENGTH CORRELATIONS FOR OHIO HIGHWAY EMBANKMENT
SOILS (227 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Teruhisa Masada
Highway embankment design is typically done with the assistance of empirical
correlations created by researchers in the past. Many of these correlations, however,
were originally developed for soils not commonly found in Ohio. This lead to
embankment designs that are either overly conservative or less conservative. This thesis
details a study conducted that looked at the shear strength of Ohio soils. C-U triaxial
compression tests were performed along with the standard penetration test, unconfined
compression test, sieve analyses, and index property tests to create useful shear strength
correlations for the soils found in Ohio. As a result, three levels of guidelines were
proposed for all three major AASHTO soil types found in the state.
Approved: _____________________________________________________________
Teruhisa Masada
Professor of Civil Engineering

4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Teruhisa Masada, for helping me get
through the Masters Program. I would also like to thank him for encouraging me to
work hard on this thesis and giving me the skills that will help me down the road in my
career.
I would also like to thank Dr. Shad Sargand, Dr. Deborah McAvoy, and Dr. Greg
Springer for being part of my thesis committee, all of whom I previously took classes
with.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents who supported me in many ways
throughout the years I worked in the Masters program.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 8
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 12

1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 12
1.2 Objectives of Thesis .................................................................................. 13
1.3 Outline of Thesis ....................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 16

2.1 General ...................................................................................................... 16
2.1.1 Shear Strength of Soil .................................................................. 16
2.1.2 Pore Water Pressure of Soil .......................................................... 17
2.1.3 Consolidation ............................................................................... 20
2.1.4 Stability of Highway Embankments ............................................ 21
2.1.5 Soil Classifications....................................................................... 22
2.2 Review of Literature in Ohio .................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Bedrock ........................................................................................ 24
2.2.2 Glaciers ........................................................................................ 24
2.2.3 Alluvium and Relief ..................................................................... 26
2.2.4 Climate ......................................................................................... 27
2.2.5 Biota ............................................................................................. 27
2.3 Standard Penetration Test ......................................................................... 27
2.3.1 SPT-General................................................................................. 27
2.3.2 SPT-Equipment ............................................................................ 28
2.3.3 SPT-Procedure ............................................................................. 29
2.3.4 Energy Corrections ...................................................................... 30
2.3.5 Normalization of SPT-N Values .................................................. 31
2.3.6 Static Forces and Stresses in the SPT .......................................... 33
2.3.7 Existing SPT Correlations............................................................ 37
2.4 Triaxial Compression Test ........................................................................ 40
2.4.1 Setup and Equipment ................................................................... 40
2.4.2 Back Pressure Saturation ............................................................. 40
2.4.3 Consolidated-Drained (C-D) Test ................................................ 41
2.4.4 Consolidated-Undrained (C-U) Test ............................................ 41
2.4.5 Unconsolidated-Undrained (U-U) Test........................................ 44
6
2.4.6 Unconfined Compression Test ..................................................... 45

2.5 Statistical Analysis of Geotechnical Data ................................................. 46
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 48

3.1 General ...................................................................................................... 48
3.2 Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................... 48
3.3 Subsurface Exploration Protocol .............................................................. 51
3.3.1 SPT Hammer Calibration............................................................. 51
3.3.2 SPT Hammer Procedure .............................................................. 52
3.4 Laboratory Soil Testing Protocol .............................................................. 56
3.4.1 Soil Index Property Testing ......................................................... 56
3.4.2 Unconfined Compression Test ..................................................... 58
3.4.3 Triaxial Compression Test ............................................................ 59
3.4.3.1 Triaxial Test Equipment ................................................ 60
3.4.3.2 C-U Test Procedure........................................................ 61
3.5 Statistical Analysis Protocol ..................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DATA AND RESULTS ...................................................... 69

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 69
4.2 Subsurface Exploration Work ................................................................... 69
4.2.1 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-275 Site in Hamilton County . 69
4.2.2 Subsurface Exploration Data for USR 35 Site in Fayette County 74
4.2.3 Subsurface Exploration Data for SR 2 Site in Lake County ......... 77
4.2.4 Subsurface Exploration Data for USR 33 Site in Athens County 79
4.2.5 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-71 Site in Morrow County ..... 81
4.3 Laboratory Index Properties and Sieve Analyses ..................................... 85
4.3.1 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 1 (Hamilton County) .............. 85
4.3.2 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 2 (Fayette County) .................. 86
4.3.3 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 3 (Lake County)...................... 87
4.3.4 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 4 (Athens County) .................. 88
4.3.3 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 5 (Morrow County) ................ 89
4.4 Shear Strength Properties.......................................................................... 89
4.4.1 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 1 (Hamilton County) ....... 90
4.4.2 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 2 (Fayette County) ........... 91
4.4.3 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 3 (Lake County) .............. 92
4.4.4 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 4 (Athens County) ........... 94
4.4.5 Shear Strength Properties from Site No. 5 (Morrow County) ...... 95
CHAPTER 5: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES ... 98

5.1 Evaluations of Empirical Correlations ...................................................... 98
5.1.1 SPT-N vs. Unconfined Compression Strength by Terzaghi ......... 98
5.1.2 SPT-N vs. Unconfined Compression by Dept. of Navy ............. 101
5.1.3 Effective Friction Angle vs. Plasticity Index by Terzaghi .......... 105
5.1.4 Soil Type vs. Effective Friction Angle by Dept. of Navy .......... 109
7
5.2 Linear Regression Analysis .................................................................... 109

5.2.1 A-4a Soil ..................................................................................... 110
5.2.2 A-6a Soil ..................................................................................... 113
5.2.3 A-7-6 Soil.................................................................................... 116
5.2.4 All Three Soil Types ................................................................... 119
5.3 Nonlinear Regression .............................................................................. 121
5.3.1 A-4a Soil ..................................................................................... 122
5.3.2 A-6a Soil ..................................................................................... 127
5.3.3 A-7-6 Soil.................................................................................... 130
5.4 Multi-Variable Linear Regression Analysis ........................................... 136
5.4.1 A-4a Soil ..................................................................................... 137
5.4.2 A-6a Soil ..................................................................................... 140
5.4.3 A-7-6 Soil.................................................................................... 142
5.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Guidelines ..................................................... 146
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 151

6.1 Summary ................................................................................................. 151
6.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 152
6.3 Recommendations ................................................................................... 156
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 157
APPENDIX A: SPT CALIBRATION TEST DATA & C-U TRIAXIAL

COMPRESSION TEST INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................... 160
APPENDIX B: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA ............................................ 176
APPENDIX C: TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST DATA & PLOTS ....................... 186
APPENDIX D: NONLINEAR CORRELATION PLOTS ............................................. 225

8
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: AASHTO Classifications for Fine-Grained Materials .................................23

Table 2.2: (N60)1 vs Unconfined Compressive Strength ................................................37
Table 2.3: (N60)1 vs Unconfined Compressive Strength ................................................38
Table 2.4: Effective Friction Angle vs Plasticity Index Terzaghi ..............................39
Table 4.1: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Hamilton County Site)....................................71
Table 4.2: Hamilton County Site (N60)1 Values.............................................................73
Table 4.3: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Fayette County Site) .......................................75
Table 4.4: Fayette County Site (N60)1 Values ................................................................77
Table 4.5: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Lake County Site) ...........................................78
Table 4.6: Lake County Site (N60)1 Values ....................................................................79
Table 4.7: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Athens County Site) .......................................80
Table 4.8: Athens County Site (N60)1 Values .................................................................81
Table 4.9: Athens County Site (N60)1 Values .................................................................82
Table 4.10: AASHTO Classifications for Fine-Grained Materials ...............................84
Table 4.11: Index Properties of Soils (Hamilton County Site) ......................................86
Table 4.12: Sieve Analysis Results (Hamilton County Site) .........................................86
Table 4.13: Index Properties of Soils (Fayette County Site) .........................................87
Table 4.14: Sieve Analysis Results (Hamilton County Site) .........................................87
Table 4.15: Index Properties of Soils (Lake County Site) .............................................87
Table 4.16: Sieve Analysis Results (Lake County Site) ................................................88
Table 4.17: Index Properties of Soils (Athens County Site) ..........................................88
Table 4.18: Sieve Analysis Results (Athens County Site).............................................88
Table 4.19: Index Properties of Soils (Morrow County Site) ........................................89
Table 4.20: Sieve Analysis Results (Morrow County Site) ...........................................89
Table 4.21: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Hamilton County Site) ................90
Table 4.22: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Hamilton County Site) ..............90
Table 4.23: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Fayette County Site) ...................91
Table 4.24: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Fayette County Site)..................92
Table 4.25: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Lake County Site) .......................93
Table 4.26: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Lake County Site) .....................93
Table 4.27: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Athens County Site) ....................94
Table 4.28: C-U Compression Test Results (Athens County Site)................................95
Table 4.29: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Morrow County Site) ..................96
Table 4.30: C-U Compression Test Results (Morrow County Site) ..............................96
Table 5.1: Evaluation of Terzaghis Correlation for A-4a Soil .....................................99
Table 5.2: Evaluation of Terzaghis Correlation for A-6a Soil ...................................100
Table 5.3: Evaluation of Terzaghis Correlation for A-7-6 Soil ..................................100
Table 5.4: Comparison of Dept. of Navy & ORITE Data ...........................................109
Table 5.5: Correlation Paths for Data Analysis ...........................................................110
Table 5.6: Path 1 Linear Correlations for A-4a Soil ....................................................111
9

Table 5.9: Path 4 Linear Correlation for A-4a Soil .....................................................113
Table 5.10: Path 5 Linear Correlations for A-4a Soil ..................................................113
Table 5.15: Path 4 Linear Correlation for A-6a Soil ...................................................115
Table 5.18: Path 1 Linear Correlations for A-7-6 Soil ................................................116
Table 5.21: Path 4 Linear Correlation for A-7-6 Soil ..................................................118
Table 5.24: Path 1 Linear Correlations for All Three Soil Types ................................119
Table 5.27: Path 4 Linear Correlation for All Three Soil Types .................................120
Table 5.30: Exponential Model Correlations for A-4a Soil .........................................123
Table 5.31: Logarithmic Model Correlations for A-4a Soil ........................................123
Table 5.32: Power Model Correlations for A-4a Soil ..................................................123
Table 5.33: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for A-4a Soil ..........................................124
Table 5.34: Reciprocal Model Correlations for A-4a Soil ...........................................125
Table 5.35: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for A-4a Soil ................125
Table 5.36: Exponential Model Correlations for A-6a Soil .........................................127
Table 5.37: Logarithmic Model Correlations for A-6a Soil ........................................127
Table 5.38: Power Model Correlations for A-6a Soil ..................................................127
Table 5.39: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for A-6a Soil ..........................................128
Table 5.40: Reciprocal Model Correlations for A-6a Soil ...........................................129
Table 5.41: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for A-6a Soil ................129
Table 5.42: Exponential Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil .......................................130
Table 5.43: Logarithmic Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil .......................................130
Table 5.44: Power Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil ................................................130
Table 5.45: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil ........................................131
Table 5.46: Reciprocal Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil .........................................132
Table 5.47: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil ..............132
Table 5.48: Exponential Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types ......................133
Table 5.49: Logarithmic Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types ......................133
Table 5.50: Power Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types................................134
10
Table 5.51: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types ........................134
Table 5.52: Reciprocal Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types ........................135
Table 5.53: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for All Three Soil
Types .........................................................................................................136
Table 5.54: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-4a Soil) .......
...................................................................................................................137
Table 5.55: Other Significant Multi-Variable Linear Correlations (A-4a Soil) ..........139
Table 5.56: Multi-Variable Linear Correlations with 3 and 4 Independents (A-4a Soil) ..
...................................................................................................................140
Table 5.57: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-6a Soil) .......
...................................................................................................................141
Table 5.58: Other Multi-Variable Correlation (A-6a Soil) ..........................................141
Table 5.59: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-7-6 Soil) .....
...................................................................................................................142
Table 5.60: Other Multi-Variable Linear Correlations (A-7-6 Soil) ...........................143
Table 5.61: Multi-Variable Linear Correlations with 3 and 4 Independents (A-7-6 Soil)
...................................................................................................................144
Table 5.62: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (All Soil Types)
...................................................................................................................145
Table 5.63: Other Multi-Variable Linear Correlations (All Soil Types) .....................145
Table 5.64: Average and Standard Deviation of Differences for ......................... 149
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: Failure Envelope for Soil ............................................................................17

Figure 2.2: Failure Cases for an Embankment...............................................................21
Figure 2.3: Ohios Soil Regions ....................................................................................25
Figure 2.4: Soil Deposits Throughout Ohio...................................................................26
Figure 2.5: SPT Drill Rig on the Back of a Truck .........................................................28
Figure 2.6: Augering into the Soil .................................................................................29
Figure 2.7: Split-Spoon Sampler Detached from the Drill Rig .....................................29
Figure 2.8: Forces and Stresses Acting on the Split-Spoon Sampler ............................34
Figure 2.9: Correlation Between f and Plasticity Index Terzaghi .............................39
Figure 2.10: Mohrs Circle Created for Three C-U Triaxial Tests ................................42
Figure 2.11: Example of a p-q Diagram ........................................................................44
Figure 2.12: Unconfined Compression Test Machine ...................................................45
Figure 2.13: Mohrs Circle for an Unconfined Compression Strength Test..................46
Figure 3.1: Shelby Tubes Sampling Plan .......................................................................54
Figure 3.2: Liquid Limit Testing Equipment .................................................................57
Figure 3.3: Unconfined Compression Test System .......................................................59
Figure 3.4: Triaxial Compression Test System..............................................................62
Figure 3.5: Correlations for Project ...............................................................................68
Figure 4.1: Highway Embankment Site No. 1 on I-275 (Hamilton County) .................70
Figure 4.2: Original Shelby Tube Sampling Pattern ......................................................72
Figure 4.3: Modified Shelby Tube Sampling Pattern ....................................................72
Figure 4.4: Highway Embankment Site No. 2 on USR 35 (Fayette County) ................74
Figure 4.5: Modified Shelby Tube Sampling Pattern ....................................................76
Figure 4.6: Highway Embankment Site No. 4 on USR 33 (Athens County) ................79
Figure 4.7: Highway Embankment Site No. 5 on I-71 (Morrow County) .....................82
Figure 4.8: Modified Plan for Shelby Tube Sampling...................................................84
Figure 5.1: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for All Three Soil Types .....................101
Figure 5.2: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for A-4a Soil .......................................103
Figure 5.3: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for A-6a Soil .......................................103
Figure 5.4: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for A-7-6 Soil .....................................104
Figure 5.5: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (All Soil) ..................................105
Figure 5.6: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (A-4a Soil) ...............................106
Figure 5.7: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (A-6a Soil) ...............................108
Figure 5.8: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (A-7-6 Soil) ..............................108
12
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Highway embankments constitute some of the most common geotechnical
facilities being built by civil engineers. The design and construction of highway
embankments is of great importance to transportation costs and safety. When the
embankment is not properly designed and/or constructed, problems such as slope
instability and excessive settlement can arise. These problems of highway embankments
are generally controlled by five key factors: (1) the embankment soil's shear strength, (2)
the soil's moist unit weight, (3) the height of the embankment, (4) the angle of the
embankment slope, and (5) the pore pressures in the soil.
Das (2002) defines the shear strength of soil as the internal resistance per unit
area that the soil mass can offer to resist failure and sliding along any plane inside it.
There are two important shear strength parameters for soils, the angle of internal friction
() and cohesion (c). The angle indicates the degree of friction and interlocking among
the soil particles, and the cohesion represents the ionic attraction and chemical
cementation between the soil particles. Both of these parameters can be determined in a
geotechnical laboratory by performing shear strength tests. Also, there are a few test
methods that can be performed in the field to estimate shear strength properties of in-situ
soils.
In Ohio, highway embankments are typically built using silty and clayey soils
found at/near the construction site. In some areas of Ohio, the embankments are also
13
constructed largely using weathered shale material. It has been known that some
cohesive soils found in Ohio have low to medium shear strengths and also that weathered
shale material may undergo further weathering over time. These factors require the
embankment design engineers in Ohio to carefully study the on-site fill materials and
specify their engineering properties, so that slope stability failure and other problems do
not occur. However, in reality, detailed investigations of engineering properties of fill
material are rarely conducted due to cost and time constraints. Instead, highway
embankment engineers in Ohio consult outside sources such as Design Manual 7.2 by
U.S. Dept. of Navy (1982), which present correlations between shear strength properties
and in-situ or laboratory index test results, to estimate shear strength properties of
embankment fill materials. In some embankment projects, unconfined compression
strength tests may be performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the fill material to
determine strength properties of the soils. These practices can lead to either very
conservative or improper designing of the embankments, since the outside sources
examined soils from completely different regions of the country or world. There is a
need to develop reliable shear strength correlations for embankment fill materials found
in Ohio.
1.2 Objectives of Thesis
The study carried out in this thesis had five objectives. They are listed below:
Conduct a literature review to document information relevant to the design

14
and construction of highway embankments in Ohio;
Identify several highway embankment sites in Ohio, which can supply
representative samples of major soil types existing in Ohio;
Perform field soil testing and sampling at the selected highway embankment
sites in Ohio;
Obtain detailed engineering properties of soil samples recovered from the first
five highway embankment sites by performing standard index property and
shear strength tests in the laboratory; and
Perform a variety of statistical analysis on the field and laboratory test data
accumulated for the first five highway embankment site soils to develop
correlations between shear strength properties and in-situ soil test data,
between shear strength properties and index properties.
1.3 Outline of Thesis
Chapter 1 laid out background information for and objectives of the study carried
out in the current thesis. The background information described the current state of
practice in Ohio and problems associated with it. Chapter 2 presents results of a literature
review conducted, which are relevant to both highway embankment design and
construction in Ohio. In this chapter, information on the types of soil found in Ohio is
given. This information is essential for locating several highway embankment sites in
this thesis work. Journal articles involving standard penetration test (SPT) and triaxial
compression test are also discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 focuses on the research
15
methodology utilized in the current study. The current study consisted of four phases
preliminary work (literature review), field soil testing & sampling, laboratory soil testing,
and statistical data analysis. This chapter describes the methodology used in each of
these phases. The aim of Chapter 4 is to present all the field and laboratory test results
obtained for the soils encountered at the first five highway embankment sites. The results
are presented for each embankment site and include those from the SPT, the laboratory
soil index tests, and the laboratory soil strength tests. The index properties here consist
of specific gravity, natural moisture content, Atterberg limits (liquid limits, plastic
limits), and grain size distribution. The strength tests refer to the unconfined
compression and triaxial compression tests. The last part of Chapter 4 discusses briefly
geographical and profile distribution of different soil types and differences in basic
properties among the soils encountered in the study. Chapter 5 presents the results of a
variety of statistical analysis performed on the assembled data. The chapter first
describes a few different statistical approaches (linear regression, nonlinear regression,
multi-variable regression) that can be taken to analyze sizable geotechnical data. Then, it
presents the outcome of each analysis approach, delineating meaningful correlations
produced during the process. This chapter also proposes geotechnical guidelines for
highway embankments in Ohio, based on the results of the statistical data analysis.
Chapter 6 provides a summary of and conclusions drawn from all phases of the thesis
work. Finally, a few appendix sections follow the references list. This was necessary to
provide essential supplementary materials.

16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The current research project is related to soil shear strength, highway
embankment stability, Ohio regional geology, SPT, empirical correlations, and statistical
analysis of geotechnical data. The aim of this chapter is to present both general
information and research findings on these relevant topics, which were assembled
through a relatively extensive literature review conducted.
2.1 General
2.1.1 Shear Strength of Soil
The basic definition of shear strength was given in Chapter 1. Also mentioned
were two important parameters, the angle of internal friction () and cohesion (c). Shear
strength of soil is a function of the normal stress applied, the angle of internal friction,
and the cohesion. The angle of internal friction describes the interparticle friction and the
degree of the particles' mechanical interlocking. This characteristic depends on soil
particle gradation and shape and the void ratio. Cohesion describes soil particle bonding
caused by electrostatic attractions. So, with normal stress, the angle of internal friction,
and cohesion, the following equation, known as the Mohr-Coulomb theory, can be used
to find the shear strength of soil under a certain condition:
= c + (tan ) (2.1)
17
where = normal stress applied.
This equation can be plotted on an x-y graph with shear stress on the ordinate and normal
stress on the abscissa. This is known as a failure envelope and is shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Failure Envelope for Soil
In reality, however, the failure envelope is rarely a linear relationship. The degree
of electrostatic attraction and cementation of cohesive particles in the soil can cause a
slight concave downward curve to form instead.
2.1.2 Pore Water Pressure of Soil
Saturated soils have water filling all of their void spaces. This leads to the
concept of effective and normal stress. When a column of saturated soil is subjected to
18
load, the total stress is carried by both the soil particles and the water filling the voids.
The equation given below describes this:
= + u (2.2)
where = effective stress; and u = pore water pressure.
The effective stress is the soil particle acting as a skeleton to support the load.
Therefore, the effective stress is often directly proportional to the total stress. Also, the
shear failure envelope formula, Equation 2.1, can be addressed in terms of effective
stresses for saturated soils as:
' = c + (tan ) (2.3)
where c = the effective cohesion; and = the effective angle of internal friction.
Many times in the field, however, soil may not be fully saturated. Bishop et al. (1960)
gave the following equation to describe the shear strength of unsaturated soils:
' = ua (ua uw) (2.4)
where ua = pore air pressure; = degree of saturation; and uw = pore water pressure.
19
Going back to Equation 2.3 and adding new variables, the shear strength at failure for
unsaturated soil can be written as:
f = c + [ ua + (ua uw)] (tan ) (2.5)
For soil that is completely dry ( = 0), soil that is 50% saturated, and soil that is 100%
saturated, the following three equations result, respectively:
f = c + ( ua) (tan ) (2.6)
f = c + ( 0.5ua 0.5uw) (tan ) (2.7)
f = c + ( uw) (tan ) (2.8)
Typically, ua is less than 0 and uw is greater than 0. Experiments done by Casagrande &
Hirschfeld (1960) revealed that unsaturated soil has greater shear strength than the same
soil in a saturated condition. In some cases the unsaturated state may be temporary, and
the soil may become eventually saturated due to surface precipitation and subsurface
drainage events. Therefore, it is conservative to design highway embankments using the
shear strength of saturated soils.

20
2.1.3 Consolidation
As mentioned before, saturated soil will have part of its support coming from the
soil skeleton and part of it from the pore water pressure. When loads are applied to clay
that has low hydraulic conductivity, the pore pressure will increase greatly. Gradually,
the pore water pressure and the effective stress will increase, resulting in a volume
reduction. This can happen over a period of days, months, or years, depending on the
type of soil and the corresponding drainage paths (Das 2002).
This leads to a discussion on the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) for soils. The
equation for OCR is given below:
c '
OCR = (2.9)
'
where c = the highest past overburden stress for a soil; and = the current overburden
stress for a soil.
Essentially, if the current overburden stress for a soil is the highest stress it has
ever been subjected to, then the OCR will be 1. Soils under this condition are referred to
as normally consolidated. Soils with an OCR above 1 are overconsolidated. This means
they have been subjected to greater stresses than the current overburden one (Das 2002).
The consolidation of soils and their past stress histories are important for triaxial
compression testing.
21
2.1.4 Stability of Highway Embankments
As it was mentioned in Chapter 1, the five factors that influence stability of an
embankment are the (1) shear strength of the soil used, (2) the unit weight, (3) the
embankment height, (4) the slope steepness, and (5) the pore pressures within the soil.
With this in mind, failure generally occurs in two ways, which are the concerns of
geotechnical design engineers. The first case (Case 1) is by the physical sliding action of
the embankment. This can occur when the base (below the embankment) is very firm
and the embankment soil and subsoils do not interlock well together. The second case
(Case 2) is by shear failure deep within the base layer. This typically occurs when the
subsurface soils are softer. This type of failure happens most frequently in the short-term
period after construction when excess pore pressures are still existent. Figure 2.2
diagrams each of these cases.
Figure 2.2: Failure Cases for an Embankment

22
Another concern when building road embankments is the use of both cohesive
soils and rock fragments. This could occur in an unglaciated region and presents long-
term stability concerns due to gradual breakdown (i.e., weathering) of the rock fragments.
2.1.5 Soil Classifications
Soils are classified into groups based upon their engineering behavior. Soil
engineers currently use two systems, the United Soil Classification System (USCS) and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
system.
The USCS first groups soils based on whether they are gravels and sands or silts
and clays. Next, further sieve analysis is done on the gravels and sands to get a more
detailed classification until a group name is given for the soil. There are a total of 36
group names for gravels and sands under the USCS. For silts and clays, the first divider
is the liquid limit value. Next, the plasticity index and further sieve analysis is done to
classify the silts into one of 35 group names.
The AASHTO system is different. Soils are divided into 7 groups initially based
upon sieve analysis. The groups A-1, A-2, and A-3 contain mostly granular materials.
Groups A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7-6 contain mostly silty and clayey materials. Liquid limit
and plasticity index values are then used to further classify the soils. A group index
number can also be used with the silty and clayey groups of soils. This number is based
upon the percent of soil going through the No. 200 sieve, the liquid limit, and the
plasticity index. Table 2.1 outlines these fine grained soil classifications.
23
Table 2.1: AASHTO Classifications for Fine-Grained Materials
Group classification A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7-6

Percentage passing No. 200 sieve 36 min. 36 min. 36 min. 36 min.
Liquid limit 40 max. 41 min. 40 max. 41 min.
Plasticity index 10 max. 10 max. 11 min. 11 min.
A-4 soils and A-6 soils can be broken down further into the categories of A-4a, A-
4b, A-6a, and A-6b. A-4a soils are A-4 soils that have between 36 and 49 percent of their
particles passing through the No. 200 sieve. A-4b soils are A-4 soils that contain a
minimum of 50 percent of its particles passing through the No. 200 sieve. A-4a soils
contain mostly sands and silts while A-4b soils contain mostly silt. A-6a soils are A-6
soils that have a plasticity index range of 11 15. A-6b soils are A-6 soils that have a
plasticity index greater than 15.
2.2 Review of Literature in Ohio
The soil found throughout Ohio formed over thousands of years. Bedrock,
glaciers, streams, relief, climate, and biota were all contributing factors. Because of this,
soil types differ throughout the state. In Figure 2.3, Ohios seven soil regions can be
seen.
Lake deposit soils tend to be A-4 when looked at using the AASHTO
Classification System. These are seen throughout northern and northeast Ohio. A-7-6
soils, which contain silt and clay, are found throughout central and western Ohio in the
glacial till. A-6 soils are found in the eastern and southeastern portion of the state, the
24
unglaciated region. They contain silts, clays, and rock fragments. These soil deposits in
Ohio are shown in Figure 2.4.
2.2.1 Bedrock
Western Ohio bedrock contains mostly limestone and dolomite. Some calcareous
shale can be found also. Eastern Ohio is mostly sandstone and silaceous shale.
2.2.2 Glaciers
Glaciers covered all of Ohio except for the eastern and southeastern portions of
the state. The unglaciated portion is shown as Soils in Sandstone and Shale, from the
Ohios Soil Regions map. Many of the deposits found in northern and western Ohio
contain rock fragments that originated from Canada because of the glaciers.
Portions of the state that were subjected to glaciers characterize two types of drift.
The first, stratified glacial drift, is seen by layers in the soil. Geological features such as
25
Figure 2.3: Ohios Soil Regions (Source: Johnson 1975)

26
Figure 2.4: Soil Deposits Throughout Ohio
kames, eskers, and outwash plains, display this layered characteristic. The second drift,
known as nonstratified, results from the four documented glacial events which occurred
in Ohio. Glaciers picked up bedrock and soils along their path and deposited them when
they melted in random patterns. Sand and gravel are found in these areas.
2.2.3 Alluvium and Relief
Another big factor for soil development in Ohio is streams and the overland flow
of water. In many lower elevated areas, near rivers, finer soil particles, such as silts and
clays, are found. This is the result of years of erosion and deposition during floods. This
sequence has also caused lower elevated areas to have very deep bedrock depths, which
is critical for construction purposes.

27
2.2.4 Climate
Related to erosion and deposition is the climate in Ohio. Rainfall is a big factor
affecting soil types in Ohio. There is an average runoff of 12 inches per year around the
state (Johnson 1975). This runoff is seen as both groundwater and streams and rivers.
The groundwater works to leach many elements from bedrock into streams.
Also, freezing and thawing has had an effect on the breaking of bedrock in some
places. This can cause bedrock particles to mix with the nearby soils.
2.2.5 Biota
Organisms have a great effect on the soil throughout Ohio. Elements such as
calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, and carbon have been added to soil over the
years from dying organisms. Different parts of the state have varying soil characteristics
because of this.
2.3 Standard Penetration Test
2.3.1 SPT-General
The SPT is the oldest and most commonly used test method for subsurface
exploration. The general process consists of augering a hole in the ground and then
hammering a hollow tube through the soil at the bottom. The hammering is done using a
large truck with a drill rig attached to the back. The resistance given off by the soil
during hammering provides engineers valuable information on the characteristics of the
soil. This section will describe in detail the SPT.

28
2.3.2 SPT-Equipment
As mentioned earlier, the SPT is performed by using a drill rig attached to the
back of a large truck. Figure 2.5 shows this.
Figure 2.5: SPT Drill Rig on the Back of a Truck
An eight inch hole is created in the ground using augers attached to the rig. Then,
a split-spoon sampler is attached to the rig after removing the augers. Augers in use and
a split-spoon sampler are shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7, respectively. In some testing
procedures, investigators will want to bring up soil specimens wider than those found in
the split-spoon sampler. In this case, a Shelby tube will be attached to the drill rig and
pushed into the soil. A Shelby tube is a hollow steel tube about 30 inches long and 3
29
inches wide. It brings to the surface undisturbed specimens that can be used for
laboratory testing.
Figure 2.6: Augering into the Soil Figure 2.7: Split-Spoon Sampler Detached
from the Drill Rig
2.3.3 SPT-Procedure
Once a hole has been augered into the ground and the split-spoon sampler is
attached to the rig, a hammer is dropped onto steel rods connected to the sampler.
Throughout the years, three types of hammers have been used: the donut hammer, the
safety hammer, and the automatic hammer. In the procedure, the 140 pound hammer is
dropped 30 inches onto the steel rods. This process is done until the sampler moves 18
inches through the ground. The blows from the hammer it takes to move the sampler
through each 6 inch interval are recorded. The blow counts from the bottom two 6 inch
intervals are then added together, giving the raw SPT-N value.
30
Despite the available hammers, the automatic hammer has become the most
commonly used in recent years for reasons of safety and efficiency, as Drumright et al.
(1996) points out. Their study concluded that the automatic hammer transferred about
50% more energy to the sampler than the safety hammer. The automatic hammer also
reduces the probability of human error involved in the process since the rig does all of the
work.
2.3.4 Energy Corrections
As mentioned in the previous section, different hammers transfer different
amounts of energy to the split-spoon sampler even if they each drop 140 pounds over 30
inches. Therefore, it is important to correct SPT-N values to a standard measurement.
This standard measurement is the 60% free-fall energy value (N60). Essentially, this is
60% of the energy that would theoretically be transferred by the hammer.
In most cases, however, the transfer energy is somewhere between 60 and 100%.
Therefore, the following series of equations is used to convert raw SPT-N values to N60:
EMX = F(t) V(t) dt (2.10)
where F(t) = force measured at time t; and V(t) = velocity measured at time t.
The value of Equation 2.10 is then put into the numerator for Equation 2.11, given below:
31
Energy transfer ratio (ETR) = EMX / (Theoretical SPT Hammer Energy) (2.11)
where Theoretical SPT Hammer Energy = 0.35 kip-ft.
Finally, the energy transfer ratio can be used to find N60 in Equation 2.12.
ETR
N60 = x (raw SPT-N value) (2.12)
60
This process will be described more in detail in Chapter 3 and Appendix A.
2.3.5 Normalization of SPT-N Values
In addition to energy transfer corrections, raw SPT-N values are also normalized
using a variety of methods. Using the current overburden stress, the N60 value is
normalized to an overburden stress of 13.9 psi. There are five different normalization
factors presented in this section. The first is Peck et al. (1974):
20
CN = 0.77 log (2.13)
0 '
where 0' = effective overburden stress (tsf).
The second method is given as Terzaghi et al. (1996):

32
100
CN = (2.14)
0 '
The third method is given as Bazaraa (1967):
4
CN = (2.15)
1 + 2 0 '
where 0' = effective overburden stress (ksf).
Also, this equation is only used when the effective overburden stress is less than or equal
to 1.5 ksf. If it is above 1.5 ksf, use the following correction factor:
4
CN = (2.16)
3.25 + 0.5 0 '
The fourth correction factor is given as Seed et al. (1975):
0 '
CN = 1 1.25 log (2.17)
2000
Finally, the fifth correction factor is given as Skempton (1986):

33
2
CN = (2.18)
'
1+ ( 0 )
2000
where 0' = effective overburden stress (psf).
2.3.6 Static Forces and Stresses in the SPT
To understand the static forces and stresses involved in the SPT, one must
understand how each component works in the process. It can begin by looking at a
simple equation, presented by Schmertmann (1979):
F + W = Fe + ( Fo + Fi ) (2.19)
where F = the force transferred from the hammer to the sampler; W = the weight of the
rods and sampler; Fe = the reaction force given by the ground onto the bottom surface to
the sampler; Fo = the frictional reaction force on the outside of the sampler; and Fi = the
frictional reaction force on the inside of the sampler.
A diagram of a split-spoon sampler used in a SPT and the forces acting on it is shown in
Figure 2.8.
34
Figure 2.8: Forces and Stresses Acting on Split-Spoon Sampler (Source: Schmertmann
1979)
Next, to better understand the process, some variables will be added to Equation
2.18. An assumption is made that the unit friction acting inside and outside of the
sampler is the same and will be designated with the variable f. The unit bearing pressure
acting on the bottom of the sampler will be designated as q. Also, the standard split-
spoon samplers base area is 10.7 cm2. Using these three new values, Equation 1 can be
changed to the following (Schmertmann 1979):
F + W = 10.7 q + ( di + do ) L f (2.20)
35
where di = inside diameter of the sampler; do = outside diameter of the sampler; and L =
the depth of the sampler into the ground.
Next, in Equation 2.20, q, the unit bearing pressure on the bottom of the sampler,
will be replaced with the product: C1qc. Also, f, the unit frictional force on the sampler
will be replaced with the product: C2fc. C1 and C2 are constants with no units. qc and fc
are both in units of force per area. With these assumptions, Schmertmann (1979) gives
the following equation:
F + W = C1 qc Ae + ( di + do ) L C2 fc (2.21)
Now, with the introduction of another variable, the friction ratio, Rf, which is equal to
fc/qc, Schmertmann (1979) gives this equation:
F + W = [C1 Ae + (di + do) L C2 Rf ] qc (2.22)
The left side of this equation contains the two components that will push the sampler into
the ground (hammer energy and weight of equipment). The right side contains the
reaction forces. As the sampler is pushed into the ground, L is the only variable on the
right side (reaction force side) that changes. Likewise, as the sampler is pushed into the
ground, the left side of the equation must change too. Since the weight of the equipment
is fixed, then F must increase. Also, as mentioned before, the blowcount over a six inch
36
interval is the result of the SPT. As the sampler is pushed further into the ground, more
force is used and the blowcount is increased. Therefore, this equation (Equation 2.23),
given by Schmertmann (1979) is logical since Favg (the average force used through the
six inch interval) and L (the length of sample pushed into the ground) are directly
proportional to an increase in blowcount:
N ~ Favg L (2.23)
Finally, a comparison will be made between the blowcounts experienced in the
three intervals: (0 inches 6 inches), (6 inches 12 inches), and (12 inches 18 inches).
If it is assumed that the average depth of the sampler while testing the top interval is 3
inches, while testing the middle interval is 9 inches, and while testing the bottom interval
is 15 inches, each of these values can be put into Equations 2.24 2.26. Also, replacing
F on the left side of Equations 2.24 2.26 with N (since they are directly proportional),
the following three relations can be made (Schmertmann 1979).
N 0 6 [(10.7C1 + 2.052C 2 R f )q c W '

= (2.24)
N 1218 [(10.7C1 + 10.26C 2 R f )q c W '
N 612 [(10.7C1 + 6.156C 2 R f )q c W '

= (2.25)
N 1218 [(10.7C1 + 10.26C 2 R f )q c W '
37
N 1218 [(10.7C1 + 10.26C 2 R f )q c W '

= =1 (2.26)
N 1218 [(10.7C1 + 10.26C 2 R f )q c W '
Essentially, under the assumption the soil being testing throughout the entire 18
inch interval has the same frictional and bearing capacity characteristics, the blowcounts
will increase with each lower interval. The reason they will increase is because more soil
is adhering and rubbing against the inside and outside of the split-spoon sampler, even
though that soil may be from a higher up interval. While testing the bottom interval, the
soil from the top and middle intervals is affecting the sampler. The sampler is only
affected by the soil in the top interval when this section is being tested. This explains,
why, in many SPTs, the bottom 6 inch interval is highest even if the soil is very
consistent.
2.3.7 Existing SPT Correlations
Currently, there are a few correlations involving SPT-N values and friction
angles. The first one given is between corrected SPT-N values and unconfined
compressive strength for cohesive soils. This is shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: (N60)1 vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength
(N60)1 Stiffness Strength (psi)

<2 very soft < 3.6
2-4 soft 3.6 7.3
4-8 medium soft 7.3 14.5
8 - 15 stiff 14.5 - 29
15 - 30 very stiff 29 - 58
> 30 hard > 58
[Reference] Terzaghi et al. (1996)
38
Essentially, as the soil gets harder, it takes more blows to push the sampler 12
inches. Likewise, the harder and better interlocking between soil particles there is, a
higher unconfined compressive strength will arise. The next set of correlations, given by
Dept. of Navy (1982) in Table 2.3, uses the unconfined compressive strength again, but
also factors in the plasticity of the soil.
Table 2.3: (N60)1 vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength
qu (psi) of clays (low qu (psi) of clays qu (psi) of clays

(N60)1
plasticity) & clayey silts (medium plasticity) (high plasticity)
5 5.2 10.4 17.4
10 10.4 20.8 34.7
15 15.6 31.3 52.1
20 20.8 41.7 69.4
25 26.0 52.1 86.8
30 31.2 62.5 104.1
[Reference] Dept. of Navy (1982)
As previously seen in the Terzaghi et al. (1996) correlations, an increase in SPT-
N value leads to an increase in unconfined compressive strength. Also, the higher the
plasticity of a soil, the larger the increase in strength typically is. The last correlation
given is between the effective angle of internal friction and the plasticity index. This is
shown in Table 2.4 and found in Terzaghi et al. (1996). The general trend is a decreasing
effective friction angle with an increasing plasticity index. Figure 2.9 shows the values
of Table 2.4 in an x-y plot.

39
Table 2.4: Effective Friction Angle vs Plasticity Index Terzaghi
Plasticity Index ' (degrees)

10 33.3
20 30.8
30 29.2
40 27.1
50 25.6
60 24.6
70 23.8
80 23.1
Note: The actual ' value may be off by at least +/- 3 degrees.
40
35
Effective Friction Angle (degrees)
30
25
20 Range
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Plasticity Index (%)
Figure 2.9: Correlation Between and Plasticity Index - Terzaghi
Finally, a correlation between the undrained shear strength of clay and the energy
corrected SPT-N value is given in the following equation from Stroud et al. (1975):
40
su = f1 pa N60 (2.27)
where f1 = 0.045; and pa = 14.7 psi.
This equation can only be used if the plasticity index is greater than 40.
2.4 Triaxial Compression Test
The triaxial compression test is a useful method for obtaining shear strength
parameters from undisturbed soil specimens. Currently, there are three types of tests
used. They all use the same equipment but vary in procedure and effectiveness.
2.4.1 Setup and Equipment
The test begins by extracting a soil sample between 5.6 and 7.0 tall from a
Shelby tube. The specimen is then wrapped in a rubber membrane and placed on the
base of a cylinder (the bottom platen). A small plastic piece (the top platen) is then
placed on top of the specimen. There is drainage lines built into both plastic pieces.
These drainage lines allow for saturation and consolidation to take place.
2.4.2 Back Pressure Saturation
In a triaxial compression test, saturation of the specimen is done by back pressure
of water through the drainage lines. As the specimen is surrounded by a rubber
membrane on its sides and plastic pieces at the top and bottom, water is pushed in to fill
41
the void spaces. Saturation can be checked by finding the specimens b-value. This is
found by closing the drainage valves and increasing the confining pressure and recording
the corresponding increase in pore pressure. This ratio is known as the b-value:
b = increase in pore pressure / increase in confining pressure (2.28)
If this value is over 0.95, then it can be assumed that the specimen has reached
full saturation.
2.4.3 Consolidated-Drained (C-D) Test
In this test, the specimen is extracted, saturated, and then put through a
consolidation process. Consolidation is done by opening drainage lines and removing
any back pressure. Then, a confining pressure acts on the specimen, causing all of the
pore pressures to be removed. After this, an axial stress slowly compresses the specimen
with drainage valves open. Bishop et al. (1960) point out that this prevents any excess
pore pressures from developing, which is important, since this test looks at the long term
stability of soil when dissipation has already occurred. These tests do take a long time to
carry out, however, which is why they are not used very frequently.
2.4.4 Consolidated-Undrained (C-U) Test
The C-U compression test differs from the C-D test in a few ways. First, during
consolidation, there is a back pressure being applied to the specimen through the drainage
42
lines. This is typically done for a 24 hour period. Also, because there is back pressure
applied, the pore pressure in the specimen will not reduce to zero. So, after consolidation
is completed, the drainage lines are closed off and an axial stress is applied to the
specimen. The axial stress is applied by a strain rate that is determined from
consolidation data. This type of test typically lasts for a few hours.
Three different C-U tests are done on the same type of soil, each with different
confining pressures. This will give three different Mohr's circles on a shear stress-axial
stress diagram. Using these Mohr's circles, the angle can be found as shown below in
Figure 2.10. This was shown previously in Figure 2.1. Bishop et al. (1960) also point
out that for normally consolidated silts and clays, cohesion is approximately zero. This is
why it is important the effective consolidation stress be higher than the highest past
overburden stress. The effective consolidation stress will be discussed more in Chapter
3.
Figure 2.10: Mohrs Circles Created for Three C-U Triaxial Tests
43
There is also another method to find the angle of internal friction for a soil
without drawing Mohrs circles as in Figure 2.7. It is done by using a p-q or p-q
diagram. To construct a p-q diagram, the total major (1fail) and total minor (3fail)
principal stresses at failure are put into the following equations:
p = 0.5 (1fail + 3fail) (2.29)
q = 0.5 (1fail - 3fail) (2.30)
Then, they are plotted on an x-y graph with p on the abscissa and q on the
ordinate. The same procedure can be used for effective stresses. Figure 2.11 shows an
example of a p-q diagram.
In this diagram, the angle between the best-fit line and the abscissa will be
referred to as . The angle of internal friction can be found by the following equation in
units of degrees.
= sin-1 ( tan ) (2.31)

44
Figure 2.11: Example of a p-q Diagram
2.4.5 Unconsolidated-Undrained (U-U) Test
This is the third type of triaxial compression test in use. It is typically used on
undisturbed samples of clay and silt to measure the existing strength of natural strata
(Bishop et al. 1960). After back pressure saturation is complete, the drainage lines are
closed off to the specimen and loading begins. Deviator stress is applied until the
specimen fails, at which point the test is over. This type of test is done very fast.
Also, in a U-U test, the shear strength is independent of the confining pressure.
Because of this, the total stress Mohrs circles will produce an angle of internal friction of
zero.
45
2.4.6 Unconfined Compression Test
The unconfined compression (UC) test is similar to the triaxial compression test
except for the lack of a confining pressure. It is performed using a soil specimen of
similar size. The specimen is placed between two loading platens and then stress is
applied to compress the soil. A typical machine used for this test is shown in Figure 2.12.
Since there is no confining pressure and no membrane around the specimen, only
cohesive soils can be used for this. During a test, a stress-strain curve will be created.
The highest stress applied on this curve is defined as the unconfined compressive strength
(qu). Plotting this on a Mohr's circle diagram is shown below in Figure 2.13. The
undrained shear strength of the soil is simply the unconfined compression strength
divided in half.
Figure 2.12: Unconfined Compression Test Machine (Source: Sieken)

46
Figure 2.13: Mohrs Circle for an Unconfined Compression Strength Test
2.5 Statistical Analysis of Geotechnical Data
Researchers have been compiling and analyzing geotechnical data for many years
to provide supporting evidences for new theories, develop new useful empirical
correlations, or validate existing theories/relationships. Several different mathematical
functions (or models) were applied to best represent the correlations existing among
geotechnical data.
Linear functions were used to represent the relationships between the plasticity
index and the liquid limit in the plasticity chart (Casagrande 1932), between the plasticity
index and % clay (Skempton 1953), between the specific discharge and the hydraulic
gradient for clean sands in the laminar flow domain (Darcy 1856), and between the shear
strength and normal stress in the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Terzaghi et al. (1996)
examined the relationship between the effective angle of friction and the plasticity index
for a wide range of fine-grained soils and summarized the results by a nonlinear function.
Semi-log functions were relied upon to describe the relationships between the moisture
content and the blows by the falling cup device (for the determination of liquid limit) and
47
between the void ratio and effective stress for clays. Duncan (1980) utilized a hyperbolic
function to express the initial tangent modulus of soil in terms of the deviatoric stress and
axial strain. Recently, Masada et al. (2006) analyzed a set of laboratory resilient modulus
test data obtained for fine-grained soils in Ohio and concluded that a hyperbolic function
can describe the correlation between the resilient modulus and deviatoric stress well.
Other functions (ex. exponential) were also utilized by geotechnical researchers in the
past to describe, for example, the relationship between the specific discharge and the
hydraulic gradient for granular soils in the turbulent flow domain and the relationship
between effective friction angle and the SPT-N60 for granular soils (Schmertmann 1975).
48
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
The current research work was performed by the ORITE and a private
geotechnical consulting firm, BBCM Engineering, Inc. (Dublin, OH). The ORITE was
the leading researcher institution, and BBCM served as a subcontractor. This
arrangement was necessary, since the ORITE does not possess any capability to perform
augering, SPT, and Shelby tube sampling. Also, the joint venture between the academic
unit and the industry was encouraged by the sponsor of the project (Ohio Department of
Transportation) for maximizing benefits of the research to the engineering community.
The project consisted of four phases --- preparations phase, field testing/sampling
phase, laboratory soil testing phase, and data analysis phase. This chapter describes
general methodology employed in each phase and roles played by each member of the
research team (ORITE, BBCM).
3.2 Site Selection Criteria
A set of criteria was established in the preparations phase of the current project to
select a total of nine (9) sites in Ohio, which can represent a range of highway
embankment soil conditions typically detected in Ohio. The criteria were:
Criterion #1: Embankment fill height over 25 ft
Criterion #2: Site location on major highway
Criterion #3: Site estimated to consist of desired soil type(s)

49
Criterion #4: Site location highly recommended by ODOT district geotechnical
engineers or subcontractor
Criterion #5: Site location in unique geographical and/or geological area within
the state
Criterion #6: A lack of gravel size particles and rock fragments
Criterion #7: No guardrails close to the pavement edge
Criterion #8: Relatively large and level grassed area
The first three criteria were proposed during the initial meeting between the Ohio
Department of Transportation and the ORITE. Criterion #5 was added by the ORITE
researchers after studying geological maps of Ohio. The last four criteria were devised
by the subcontractor (BBCM) to minimize potential problems during the planned field
soil testing/sampling work.
It was decided during the initial meeting that the embankment age will not be an
issue. It was also decided early on that any of the sites selected should not have a history
of slope instability or other problems. This was to ensure safe access to the site, reliable
SPT results, and high quality soil samples. Any embankment site chosen for the project
should have an overall height of at least 25 ft, so that a relatively large volume of SPT
results can be collected within the soil fill. SPT should not be performed into the
foundation soil layers. The sites should be located mostly on major highways such as
50
Interstate highways and U.S. routes, due to their relative importance over lower class
roadways.
As part of the preparations phase, the ORITE contacted the ODOT district
geotechnical engineer in each ODOT district to briefly describe the research project and
request for a few recommended highway embankment sites in the region. Also,
geotechnical engineers at BBCM, who have supervised subsurface exploration work at
numerous locations in Ohio, were consulted to come up with a list of recommended
highway embankment sites. Any sites recommended highly by the ODOT geotechnical
engineers and/or BBCM geotechnical engineers obviously received a serious
consideration in the current project.
According to ODOT, the three major soil types (in terms of the AASHTO
classification system) found in Ohio are A-4, A-6, and A-7-6. Therefore, the sites
selected for the project must consist of these major soil types. The sites should be spread
throughout the state, covering the northeastern, northwestern, central, southeastern, and
southwestern regions. As it was presented in Chapter 2, geological setting in the state of
Ohio is divided into glaciated and unglaciated regions. The ODOT Districts 5, 9, 10, and
11 are mostly in the unglaciated region, while other ODOT Districts are in the glaciated
plains. It has been found in the past that silty A-4 soils (lake deposits) are abundant in
the area surrounding the shorelines of Lake Erie. Clayey A-7-6 soils have been found in
the northwestern portion of the state (ODOT Districts 1 and 2). A-6 soils, which are silty
clay with possible rock fragments, can be found in the unglaciated eastern and
southeastern parts of the state. Based on these reports, it may be ideal to have two sites in
51
the A-4 soils (lake deposits) zone, at least three sites in the unglaciated region, and three
or four sites in the glaciated region.
3.3 Subsurface Exploration Protocol
All the subsurface exploration work in this project was conducted by the
subcontractor (BBCM), with the ORITE researchers involved as decision makers.
During the initial meeting, it was decided that a dedicated truck-mounted drilling rig
equipped with a calibrated automatic hammer should be assigned to the project, along
with dedicated crew, to minimize undesirable equipment-to-equipment or human-factor
variability during the SPT.
3.3.1 SPT Hammer Calibration
The automatic hammer attached to the BBCM drilling rig identified for the
project was calibrated by GRL Engineers, Inc. (Cleveland, Ohio), prior to the field work
at the first site. The calibration testing was done by hammering the sampler into the
ground according to the normal SPT procedure. AWJ rods were used to connect the
automatic hammer to the split barrel sampler. Hammering was done at depths of 1, 4.5,
9, 14, and 19 ft with corresponding AWJ rod lengths of 6, 9, 14, 19, and 24 ft,
respectively. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the SPT was done by dropping a 140-lb
hammer over 30 inches. Assuming no frictional losses, this operation should produce
0.35 kip-ft of free-fall energy.

52
GRL Engineers used a PAK model Pile Driving Analyzer to measure the strain
and acceleration exerted on the sampler. The analyzer converted the strain and
acceleration measurements into force and velocity, so that the results could be easily
interpreted. The average energy transferred from the hammer to the sampler was 0.290,
0.277, 0.277, 0.290, and 0.295 kip-ft, for the depths of 1, 4.5, 9, 14, and 19 ft,
respectively. Dividing each of the above energy values by 0.35 kip-ft gives the transfer
ratio at each depth. The average energy transfer ratio for the five depths resulted at 0.817
(81.7%). This means that about 81.7% of the free-fall energy generated by dropping the
hammer weight was transferred to the sampler as it was pushed into the ground. The
calibration test report by GRL Engineers is included in Appendix A.
3.3.2 SPT Hammer Procedure
The ORITE researchers decided to have at each field site a continuous SPT
performed through embankment soil fill to the depth of 25 ft. This was necessary to
collect comprehensive subsurface soil profile data, which can be used to establish
detailed soil boring logs and aid in selecting the depth ranges for soil sampling. In a
typical geotechnical project, SPT is performed at 5 ft intervals. A standard split-spoon
sampler, with a retainer, inside liners, and sampling length of 18 inches, was used during
the SPT. The hammering was done automatically for the depth ranges of 1.0 to 2.5, 2.5
to 4.0, 4.0 to 5.5, 5.5 to 7.0, 7.0 to 8.5, 8.5 to 10.0, 10.0 to 11.5, 11.5 to 13.0, 13.0 to 14.5,
14.5 to 16.0, 16.0 to 17.5, 17.5 to 19.0, 19.0 to 20.5, 20.5 to 22.0, 22.0 to 23.5, and 23.5
to 25.0 ft.
53
During the SPT, the BBCM drill team kept a soil boring log. The blow counts
over each 18-inch penetration interval were recorded. Whenever the sampler was
brought to the ground surface after each SPT, it was split-open to reveal the types and
thicknesses of soil layers present at the tested depth range. While logging the soils, a
hand penetrometer tip was pushed against each soil layer to record the estimated bearing
capacity value in tons per square foot (tsf). Soil samples were broken up into sections
and placed into separate sealed glass jars for transportation and later inspections in the
laboratory.
Once the continuous SPT was performed, the depth vs. raw SPT blow counts data
was quickly analyzed by the ORITE team. Since the main objective of the current project
was to correlate SPT N-values to other soil properties, it is desirable to find three depth
ranges that differ from each other in terms of SPT-N values. For example, depths at
which the SPT-N value was approximately equal to 10, 20, and 30 might be suitable for
obtaining Shelby tube samples. Here, it is better to rely on the SPT-N values corrected
for the overburden soil pressure effect. Several different correction methods were
described for the SPT-N value in Chapter 2.
To complete the field work at any site, four soil sampling holes were placed about
3 ft away from the location of the continuous SPT. The short offset distance was
necessary to stay close to the soil conditions encountered during the continuous SPTs.
This arrangement would assure reliable input data when seeking correlations between the
SPT-N values and the other soil properties. Figure 3.1 shows the ideal Shelby tube
sampling plan to be used in the field.

54
The procedure for pushing three Shelby tube samples in each soil sampling hole
was as follows. First, the hole was located according to the plan shown in Figure 3.1
Next, the hole was augered with continuous-flight augers to the shallowest depth at which
soil sampling was planned. At that point, the BBCM drill team cleaned out the bottom of
the hole, attached a Shelby tube to the tip of the AWJ rods, and pushed the Shelby tube
hydraulically 2 ft into the ground. It was preferable that the Shelby tube be pushed 2 ft
into the ground. However, this did not always happen since some soils gave a great deal
Figure 3.1: Shelby Tubes Sampling Plan
of resistance to the Shelby tube penetration. If this was the case, then the drill team
pushed the tube as deep as possible. After the first Shelby tube was recovered to the
ground surface, removed from the rods, and labeled properly (along with its actual soil
sample length), the hole was augered down to the middle sampling depth. Here, the
55
second Shelby tube was pushed hydraulically. Next, augering continued down to the
final depth, where the third Shelby tube captured a relatively undisturbed soil sample.
The Shelby tube sampling procedure described above was repeated precisely in
the three remaining holes. When soil sampling efforts were not successful (low sample
recovery, crushing of Shelby tube) at one of the four hole locations, an alternative hole
was randomly located near the initial continuous SPT hole to progress through the soil
sampling program. Since there were three tubes obtained per hole, a total of twelve
Shelby tubes were recovered. At the end of the soil sampling work, both ends of each
Shelby tube were sealed with wax and tight plastic caps. Nine of the tubes (three tubes at
each sampling depth) were transported to the ORITE laboratory at Ohio University. The
remaining three tubes were kept by BBCM and taken to their soils laboratory. It was
important that each Shelby tube retained by the ORITE team had a soil recovery length of
10 inches or more. This was because at least one good triaxial test specimen had to be
trimmed out of the soil inside each tube to perform a C-U triaxial test. A triaxial
compression test specimen should have a length of approximately 6 inches. Here, the
actual recovery should be much more than 6 inches, since the sample ends were usually
uneven and somewhat disturbed from trimming. With this requirement met, three C-U
triaxial tests could be performed at each soil sampling depth. Each tube taken by BBCM
also had to have a soil recovery length of at least 10 inches, so that they could secure a 6-
inch length soil specimen for unconfined compression strength test and use the rest for
index property tests.

56
3.4 Laboratory Soil Testing Protocol
In the current research project, a wide variety of laboratory soil tests was
performed by BBCM and the ORITE for soil samples recovered from each highway
embankment site. The joint efforts were necessary to complete a large number of tests
within a reasonable amount of time. The ORITE research team performed triaxial
compression tests, while BBCM focused mainly on index property tests.
3.4.1 Soil Index Property Testing
The soil index property tests, as mentioned in Chapter 2, included the specific
gravity test, natural moisture content test, liquid limit test, plastic limit test, mechanical
sieve analysis, and hydrometer test. A laboratory technician at BBCM measured the
specific gravity of selected soil samples according to the ASTM D-854 method. Split
spoon sampler soil samples, broken up and sealed in jars, were used to determine the
natural moisture content of the soils found at each field site. Liquid limit and plastic limit
tests were both performed according to the ASTM D-4318 protocol. The falling cup
method was used to determine the liquid limit. Figure 3.2 shows the liquid limit test
equipment. Once the Atterberg limits were found, they provided the plasticity index.
57
Figure 3.2: Liquid Limit Testing Equipment (Source: Bowles 1992)
Grain size analysis consisted of the mechanical sieve analysis and the hydrometer
test. The mechanical sieve analysis was performed according to the ASTM D-422
method. The main outcome of this test was the grain size distribution curve, which
provided percent gravel, percent sand, percent fines (silt + clay), and key particle sizes
(D60, D30, and D10). The hydrometer test was conducted by following the ASTM D-421
58
test method. This test provided further breakdowns of the fines into silt and clay size
particles. The results from the Atterberg limit and grain size analysis tests were then
combined together to arrive at the AASHTO soil classification designation for each soil
sample tested. For soils classified as either A-4 or A-6, the additional steps proposed by
ODOT were applied to group them into A-4a, A-4b, A-6a, or A-6b. The soil index
property test reports issued by BBCM are included in Appendix C.
3.4.2 Unconfined Compression Test
In addition to the index property tests, BBCM performed unconfined compression
tests on Shelby tube specimens recovered from each highway embankment site. The
unconfined compression test was performed according to the ASTM D-2166 method.
Figure 3.3 shows an unconfined compression test machine typically used by soil testing
laboratories. Each test was performed in a strain-controlled mode. The loading rate
typically ranged between 0.056 and 0.060 inches per minute. The test produced load vs.
displacement data until a sign of specimen failure was observed. The raw data were then
converted into stress vs. strain plots, with unconfined compression strength (undrained
shear strength) and strain at failure. The additional data obtained during each unconfined
compression test included moist and dry unit weights, moisture content, degree of
saturation, and void ratio.

59
Figure 3.3: Unconfined Compression Test Machine
3.4.3 Triaxial Compression Test
Accurate determination of shear strength properties of embankment soils
commonly encountered in Ohio constituted one of the most important tasks identified in
the current research project. The ORITE research team performed all the consolidated-
undrained (C-U) triaxial compression tests in the project, using the Shelby tube soil
samples recovered from the first five highway embankment sites. The following sections
provide details on the triaxial test equipment and test procedures.

60
3.4.3.1 Triaxial Test Equipment
The triaxial compression test system housed in the ORITE laboratory comprised
of many state-of-the-art pieces of equipment to permit a careful and high-precision C-U
test to be carried out by trained laboratory personnel. The important system components
are listed below:
Vacuum Pump This was used to pull air out of the soil specimen and deair water.
Water Tank This cylinder shaped tank was used to hold deaired water.
Load Frame This device pressed a loading piston downward against the soil test
specimen to load it axially.
Test Cell This cylinder shaped cell held the soil test specimen and
pressurized water around it. The top plate allowed a loading piston
to penetrate into the cell. The bottom assembly connected pressure
transducers and drainage/saturation lines to the soil specimen or
chamber water.
Sensors
(a). Linear Position Sensor (LPS): This sensor measured the axial
displacement of the soil specimen during the test.
(b). Load Cell: This sensor measured the reaction force on the soil
specimen as it is compressed.
(c). Pore Pressure Transducer: This sensor measured the pore pressure
within the soil specimen.

61
(d). Cell Pressure Transducer: This sensor measured the confining
pressure surrounding the soil specimen.
Panel This multi-function unit contained a vacuum regulator and pressure
regulator. Three large burettes mounted on the panel held pressurized
water and were connected to the cell water and soil specimen. It
controlled the confining pressure and back pressure during testing. Also,
the panel has tubes connecting it to a tap water and air pressure supply.
Others (a). Network Module: This device regulates the flow of commands
and data between the computer and the sensors on the load frame.
(b). PC: A standard IBM-compatible PC ran a special software
prepared by the manufacturer of the triaxial test system, so that the
sensor readings acquisition and test management will be automatic
once the soil specimen is conditioned in the test cell.
Figure 3.4 shows a photograph of a compression test setup and the equipment used.
3.4.3.2 C-U Test Procedure
The C-U triaxial compression test procedure followed the guidelines set fourth by
ASTM Standard D-4767. The guidelines, however, were fairly general in their
descriptions. Major efforts were made to translate some of the specifications outlined in
62
the ASTM method to practical steps applicable to the actual test equipment being used in
the laboratory. The following list maps out the steps taken in running the C-U test:
Figure 3.4: Triaxial Compression Test System

63
Step-1: Fill the water tank with tap water up to about 1 inch below the top.
Apply a vacuum pressure of 13 psi to the water tank for 4 hours to remove most
of the dissolved air present in the tap water.
Step-2: Initiate the specimen extraction process by cutting the Shelby tube into
an approximate 6 inch length section, using a circular blade saw. ASTM
guidelines require the actual soil specimen length to be between 5.6 and 7.0
inches. They also require the diameter of the test specimen to be close to 2.8
inches. Make sure that the inner diameter of the Shelby tube is indeed
approximately 2.8 inches. Mount the Shelby tube section on a hydraulic jacking
device. Extract the soil specimen out of the tube (in the direction the soil entered
into the tube in the field) by slowly advancing the hydraulic piston. Care is
needed to prevent bending or fracturing of the soil specimen during the extraction
process.
Step-3: If the specimen does not have smooth and flat end surfaces, place it
sideway on a special curved block and slice off thin uneven sections. Obtain
with a caliper the average diameter and length of the soil specimen. Weigh the
specimen on an electronic scale, so that the initial moist unit weight is known.
Use a small amount of soil remaining inside the tube or the trimmed portion of the
soil specimen to determine the initial (natural) moisture content of the soil.
64
Step-4: Place the soil specimen on the bottom platen attached to the base assembly
of the test cell. Position the top platen on top of the soil specimen. Envelop the
specimen fully with a thin rubber membrane. Seal the ends of the membrane
using rubber O-rings. Assemble the test cell by placing the plexiglass cylinder
cell wall and the top assembly. Attach flexible tubings coming from the panel to
the base assembly ports. Fill the space between the specimen and the cell wall
with the de-aired water by applying positive pressure to the water in the water
tank. Observe that the water flows out of the tube connected to the top assembly.
Step-5: Apply a positive water pressure to the bottom of the soil specimen and a
negative air (or vacuum) pressure to the top of the soil specimen. This is done to
remove air out of the specimen during the specimen saturation stage.
Step-6: Initiate the saturation process by applying back pressure to the top and
bottom of the specimen. This is done by setting the confining pressure (pressure
applied to the chamber water) to 32.0 psi and the water pressure going into the top
and bottom of the specimen to 30.0 psi. Leave the specimen subjected to this
state for a period of time until a B-value of 0.95 is reached. This is done by
monitoring the pore water pressure reading frequently. B-value is calculated by
dividing the change in the pore water pressure reading by the chamber pressure.
65
Step-7: Once the specimen is saturated, the consolidation process can be started.
Increase the confining pressure so that the difference between the confining
pressure and back pressure matches the desired effective consolidation stress.
The effective consolidation pressure should be equal to or higher than the
estimated overburden pressure that existed in the field. This is to assure that the
soil specimen will not exhibit overconsolidated behaviors during the test. The
specimen is left in this state for 24 hours. Record the burette readings and the
pore pressure reading at specified times. Also, measure the axial compression
experienced by the specimen using a caliper. Use these data to verify the
completion of the consolidation process and determine the loading rate for the
triaxial test based on the t50 value. The ASTM D-4767 states that the loading rate
should be set at 4% divided by the t50 value magnified by 10, so that pore pressure
can achieve equilibrium during each increment of the test.
Step-8: After consolidating the soil specimen, close off the drainage paths in and
out of the specimen. Bring the loading piston down, so that its tip is in contact
with the top platen. Go into the computer software and set the loading rate to the
specified value. Begin the loading process. During the test, the computer will
record automatically all of the sensor readings frequently and update key plots on
the computer screen. The actual test duration will depend on the loading rate and
behaviors of the soil specimen. According to ASTM D-4767, the test is to be

66
terminated at 15% axial strain, a 20% decrease in deviatoric stress, or 5%
additional strain beyond the deviatoric stress peak.
Step-9: Shortly after the triaxial test, drain the water from the test cell.
Disassemble the cell and carefully remove the soil specimen. Photograph and
sketch the final conditions of the test specimen. If a shear plane is visible,
measure its inclination angle. Determine the final moisture content of the soil by
placing the entire specimen in the laboratory oven.
This completes the basic protocol for running the C-U triaxial compression test. More
detailed instructions can be found in Appendix A.
3.5 Statistical Analysis Protocol
The main objective of the current research work was to develop for highway
embankment soils commonly found in Ohio correlations between shear strength
properties and in-situ soil test data and correlations between shear strength properties and
index properties. This was done by first analyzing detailed analysis of each triaxial test
data, grouping the triaxial and all of the other test data (including the original and
corrected SPT-N values) according to the AASHTO soil types, and performing a variety
of statistical analyses on the assembled data using computer software.
Data produced by each C-U triaxial test were processed to produce p-q and p-q
diagrams. A linear curve was fit to the data points on each diagram, providing an
67
equation and r2 value. The constants in the equations (m, , m, and ) were converted
to actual shear strength parameters (c, , c, and ).
Before getting into the statistical analysis, the data produced in the project were
first used to examine the previously published correlation between plasticity index (PI)
and effective friction angle () by Terzaghi et al. (1996) and between unconfined
compression strength and SPT-N value by Dept. of Navy (1982). This was important,
because many practicing geotechnical engineers in Ohio had relied on these published
relationships to estimate shear strength properties of Ohio soils for their highway
embankment design work.
For each data set grouped for a specific AASHTO soil type, simple or X-Y
correlations were sought along several different paths, which are listed below, and shown
again in Figure 3.5:
Path 1 - Correlations between SPT-N values and index properties
Path 2 Correlations between triaxial test results and index properties
Path 3 Correlations between triaxial test results and unconfined compression strength
Path 4 Correlations between unconfined compression strength and SPT-N values
Path 5 Correlations between unconfined compression strength and index properties
Path 6 Correlations between triaxial test results and SPT-N values

68
Figure 3.5: Correlations for Project
With the aid of computer software, many mathematical models (such as linear, 2nd degree
polynomial, logarithmic, power, exponential, hyperbolic, and reciprocal) could be easily
applied to the data set to identify the best model and strongest correlations that appear to
exist for the shear strength characteristics of major highway embankment soils in Ohio.
Once the simple correlations are exhausted, linear multi-variable correlations can
be explored within each data set. Incremental forward scheme was adopted to yield the
best correlation case. Further details on the analytical phase and the results of the
statistical data analysis can be both found in Chapter 5.

69
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DATA AND RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
The data for the current research project were mainly produced during the field
subsurface exploration and laboratory soil testing phases. In this chapter, the results from
these two major activities will be presented in detail for the first five highway
embankment sites in Ohio.
The results will be presented in three separate sections. The first section will
focus on the subsurface exploration work. The second section will provide the index
properties of the soils determined at the BBCM soil laboratory. The third section will
present strength test results of the soil samples, which includes unconfined compression
test results by BBCM and C-U triaxial test results by the ORITE.
Each section will have a subsection laying out the results from an individual site.
The order of the sites presented will be: (1) Interstate 275 site in Hamilton County, (2)
U.S. Route 35 site in Fayette County, (3) State Route 2 site in Lake County, (4) U.S.
Route 33 site in Athens County, and (5) Interstate 71 site in Morrow County. A brief
description and pictures taken at each site will accompany the results.
4.2 Subsurface Exploration Work
4.2.1 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-275 Site in Hamilton County
The first highway embankment site can be found in the southwestern part of Ohio,
near the Ohio River. The site selected was located alongside Interstate Highway 275,
70
about 10 miles northwest of downtown Cincinnati, in Hamilton County. A photograph
showing a general view of the site is given in Figure 4.1. This was one of a few sites
highly recommended for the current project by the ODOT geotechnical engineer serving
this area.
Figure 4.1: Highway Embankment Site No. 1 on I-275 (Hamilton County)
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed continuously down to a depth of
19 ft, using an automatic SPT hammer attached to the BBCM drilling rig. The planned
maximum depth of 25 ft could not be reached due to weathered shale found from the
depth of 16.5 ft. This was surprising to the field team, because the plan drawings
obtained from the ODOT did not indicate the bedrock to be located at such a shallow
71
depth. During the filed work, the split-spoon barrel brought samples of relatively
uniform silty clay soil to the ground surface. No water table was encountered during the
field work. The original (or uncorrected) SPT-N values are tabulated against depth in
Table 4.1. The SPT-N value showed a general trend of increasing steadily with depth.
Table 4.1: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Hamilton County Site)
Depth Range (ft) Uncorrected SPT-N Value (blows/ft)

1.0 - 2.5 7
2.5 - 4.0 7
4.0 - 5.5 13
5.5 - 7.0 24
7.0 - 8.5 22
8.5 - 10.0 31
10.0 - 11.5 20
11.5 - 13.0 29
13.0 - 14.5 37
14.5 - 16.0 29
16.0 - 17.5 30
17.5 - 19.0 45
Based on the original SPT blow counts, it was decided that Shelby tubes would be
pushed at the depth ranges of 2.5 to 4.5, 4.5 to 6.5, and 10.0 to 12.0 ft. As it was
mentioned earlier, correlations with N values is a major objective of this project.
Therefore, selecting a wide array of values is most desirable. Here, values of 7, 13, and
20 can be used for making correlations since they correspond to the soil that will be
brought up by the Shelby tubes.
As it was discussed in Chapter 3, the plan shown in Figure 4.2 represented the
ideal pattern in which Shelby tube soil samples should be recovered at this site.
However, when Hole A was drilled, a large amount of gravel was recovered. This forced
72
a change in the plan. The modified Shelby tube sampling plan, shown in Figure 4.3, was
then adapted and executed to produce all twelve tube samples.
3 SPT 3
C Hole D
Figure 4.2: Original Shelby Tube Sampling Pattern
SPT
Hole
3 3
C B D
Figure 4.3: Modified Shelby Tube Sampling Pattern

73
After extracting all twelve Shelby tubes, the ORITE personnel inspected each
tube and selected nine of them to go to the ORITE laboratory. The soil recovery and
notes on each tube kept by ORITE is included in Appendix B as Table B.1. Also
included in Appendix B are five more pictures taken at the first site (Figures B.1-5).
After the field testing was completed, a series of corrections were done to the
original SPT-N values. The first correction made was for the energy transfer to the
automatic hammer attached to the SPT truck. This correction was already discussed back
in Chapter 2. Also, details on the automatic hammer calibration are given in Appendix
A. Next, five more corrections were performed. These are the Peck, Terzaghi, Bazaraa,
Seed et al., and Skempton corrections. These correction methods were also given in
Chapter 2. Table 4.2 presents the corrected SPT-N values from the I-275 site. According
to the table, the correction method by Seed et al. produced values closest to the overall
average. Detailed information on the correction factors given above is included in
Appendix B as Tables B.2-4.
Table 4.2: Hamilton County Site (N60)1 Values
Energy
Depth Original Seed
Correction Peck Terzaghi Bazaraa Skempton Avg.
(ft) SPT-N et al.
Only
2.5-4.0 7 10 15 22 21 18 16 18
4.0-5.5 13 18 24 31 29 28 26 28
10-11.5 20 27 30 33 28 32 32 31
[Note] The value Avg. is simply the rounded average of the five previous columns (Peck, Terzaghi,
Bazaraa, Seed et. al., and Skempton. The actual values from Peck, Terzaghi, Bazaraa, Seed et. al., and
Skempton can be found in Table B.4 in Appendix B as the Summary for each depth range. This is how
the Corrected N-values tables will work in the following subsections also.
74
4.2.2 Subsurface Exploration Data for USR 35 Site in Fayette County
The second highway embankment site can be found in the central-southwestern
part of Ohio in Fayette County. This site, near Jeffersonville, was located on the old
USR 35 embankment about 100 ft away from a bridge abutment. The abutment
supported a bridge that went over the new USR 35. Figure 4.4 shows the general view of
the site. This site was identified as one of the potential sites, while searching for a site in
the central region of Ohio. It was recommended strongly by BBCM based on their prior
drilling in this area.
Figure 4.4: Highway Embankment Site No. 2 on USR 35 (Fayette County)

75
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were conducted to a depth of 25 ft. During the
filed work, the split-spoon barrel brought samples of hard silt with clay and sand to the
ground surface. No water table was encountered during the field work. The original (or
uncorrected) SPT-N values are tabulated against depth in Table 4.3. The SPT-N value
fluctuated mostly between 10 and 25 in the top 20-ft depth, increased with depth from the
depth of 20 to 23 ft, and declined to 20 at the maximum depth of 25 ft.
Table 4.3: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Fayette County Site)

1.0 - 2.5 18
2.5 - 4.0 14
4.0 - 5.5 21
5.5 - 7.0 18
7.0 - 8.5 21
8.5 - 10.0 23
10.0 - 11.5 21
11.5 - 13.0 13
13.0 - 14.5 14
14.5 - 16.0 10
16.0 - 17.5 21
17.5 - 19.0 16
19.0 - 20.5 23
20.5 - 22.0 32
22.0 - 23.5 43
23.5 - 25.0 20
Based on the SPT-N values, it was decided to utilize Shelby tubes at depth ranges
of 5.5 to 7.5, 8.5 to 10.5, and 14.5 to 16.5 ft. At these depths, the original SPT-N values
were 18, 23, and 10. The original plan for the Shelby tube sampling was shown
previously in Figure 4.2. While pushing the tubes, Holes A and B produced good
recovery at each depth. However, Hole C gave very little recovery at the depth range of
76
8.5 to 10.5 ft and no recovery at the 14.5 to 16.5 ft range. This led the field team to
modify the plan to the one illustrated in Figure 4.5, by adding the fifth sampling hole
(Hole E). This hole was located far from Hole C to avoid more problems with soil in
that area. Holes D and E gave moderate recoveries at each depth range.
In total, fifteen Shelby tubes were recovered at the second site. Nine of the tubes
with good sample recovery were kept by the ORITE. The soil recovery and notes on
each tube are included in Appendix B as Table B.5. After field testing was complete, a
series of corrections were applied to the original SPT-N values. This was done in a
Figure 4.5: Modified Shelby Tube Sampling Pattern
similar manner to the ones for the first (Hamilton County) site. Table 4.4 presents the
corrected SPT-N values from the Fayette County site. Detailed information on the
correction factors is included in Appendix B as Tables B.6-8.

77
Table 4.4: Fayette County Site (N60)1 Values
Energy
Original Seed
Depth (ft) Correction Peck Terzaghi Bazaraa Skempton Avg.
SPT-N et. al.
Only
5.5-7.0 18 25 32 38 36 36 34 35
8.5-10.0 23 31 35 38 33 37 37 36
14.5-16.0 10 14 13 13 13 13 13 13
4.2.3 Subsurface Exploration Data for SR 2 Site in Lake County
The third highway embankment site can be found in northeast Ohio, along Lake
Erie, in Lake County. The site was located on an embankment supporting two bridges
carrying State Route 2 over State Route 615. No site photographs are available for this
site. This site was placed in this region with an intention of examining A-4 soils that are
abundant along the shores of Lake Erie.
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed continuously down to a depth of
25 ft, as planned. During the filed work, the split-spoon barrel brought samples of hard
silt and clay to the ground surface. No water table was encountered during the field
work. The uncorrected SPT-N value at each depth range is listed in Table 4.5. The raw
SPT-N values fluctuated between 10 and 30 without exhibiting any clear trend with
depth.
78
Table 4.5: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Lake County Site)

1.0 - 2.5 10
2.5 - 4.0 17
4.0 - 5.5 25
5.5 - 7.0 30
7.0 - 8.5 21
8.5 - 10.0 12
10.0 - 11.5 13
11.5 - 13.0 28
13.0 - 14.5 9
14.5 - 16.0 16
16.0 - 17.5 12
17.5 - 19.0 18
19.0 - 20.5 14
20.5 - 22.0 22
22.0 - 23.5 13
23.5 - 25.0 28
Based on the original SPT blow counts, it was decided to obtain Shelby tube
samples at depth ranges of 1.0 to 3.0, 4.0 to 6.0, 14.0 to 16.0 ft. At these depths, the
uncorrected SPT-N values were 10, 25, and 16, respectively. Shelby tube soil sampling
work went according to the plan (illustrated in Figure 4.2) with very few problems and
good recovery for each tube. Nine of the twelve total tubes were retained by the ORITE.
The recovery and notes on these tubes are included in Appendix B in Table B.9. After
the completion of the field work, corrections were applied to the original SPT-N values.
The new, corrected SPT N-values for the Lake County site are shown below in Table 4.6.
Detailed information on the correction factors is included in Appendix B as Tables B.10-
12.
79
Table 4.6: Lake County Site (N60)1 Values
Energy
Original Seed
SPT-N et. al.
Only
1.0-2.5 10 14 24 43 38 30 25 32
4.0-5.5 25 34 47 61 60 55 52 55
14.5-16.0 16 22 21 21 20 21 21 21
4.2.4 Subsurface Exploration Data for USR 33 Site in Athens County
The fourth highway embankment site was located along U.S. Route 33 in Athens
County. It was on top of a large embankment, approximately five miles south of Athens
on a two-lane portion of the road. Figure 4.6 provides a general view of the site location.
This site was identified jointly with the ODOT District 10 Office in an attempt to
examine typical embankment materials in the unglaciated region of Ohio.
Figure 4.6: Highway Embankment Site No. 4 on USR 33 (Athens County)

80
Field work at this site started with a continuous SPT to a depth of 25 ft, as usual.
This went forward with no problems. A few different types of soil (or different mixtures
of clays and silts) were encountered during the subsurface exploration work. No water
table was encountered during the field work. The uncorrected SPT-N values recorded at
this site are tabulated against depth in Table 4.7. The raw SPT-N values fluctuated
between 15 and 45 without exhibiting any clear trend with depth.
Based on the SPT blow counts, it was decided that Shelby tubes be pushed at
depth ranges of 4.5 to 6.5, 8.0 to 10.0, and 19.0 to 21.0 ft. This gave the uncorrected
SPT-N values of 33, 17, and 21, respectively. At this site, Shelby tube pushing went
according to plan (illustrated in Figure 4.2), with no problems. Nine of the Shelby tubes
Table 4.7: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Athens County Site)

1.0 - 2.5 27
2.5 - 4.0 40
4.0 - 5.5 16
5.5 - 7.0 33
7.0 - 8.5 16
8.5 - 10.0 17
10.0 - 11.5 25
11.5 - 13.0 19
13.0 - 14.5 20
14.5 - 16.0 40
16.0 - 17.5 45
17.5 - 19.0 36
19.0 - 20.5 21
20.5 - 22.0 32
22.0 - 23.5 21
23.5 - 25.0 32
81
were retained by the ORITE, and the remaining three were taken by BBCM. The
recovery and notes on the nine tubes are included in Appendix B in Table B.13.
Corrections were made to the original SPT-N values similar to the other field sites. They
are shown in Table 4.8. Detailed information on the correction factors is included in
Appendix B in Tables B.14-16.
Table 4.8: Athens County Site (N60)1 Values
Energy
Original Seed
SPT-N et al.
Only
5.5-7.0 33 45 58 71 49 66 63 61
8.5-10.0 17 23 26 29 24 28 28 27
19.0-20.5 21 29 26 25 25 24 24 25
4.2.5 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-71 Site in Morrow County
The fifth highway embankment site was located in the median of Interstate
Highway 71 in Morrow County, about 60 miles north of Columbus. The field operation
took place on an embankment about 30 feet high. The embankment supported two
bridges for I-71 as it traveled over a small creek and local road at the bottom of a valley.
The general view of the site is seen in a photograph inserted here as Figure 4.7.
At this location, a continuous SPT was done to a depth of 25 ft. During the filed
work, the split-spoon barrel brought samples of hard silt and clay to the ground surface.
No water table was encountered during the field work. The uncorrected SPT-N values
82
obtained at this site are given in Table 4.9. Although the blow counts oscillated, they
exhibited a general trend of increasing with depth.
Figure 4.7: Highway Embankment Site No. 5 on I-71 (Morrow County)
Table 4.9: Uncorrected SPT-N Values (Morrow County Site)

1.0 - 2.5 11
2.5 - 4.0 10
4.0 - 5.5 9
5.5 - 7.0 13
7.0 - 8.5 14
8.5 - 10.0 16
10.0 - 11.5 9
11.5 - 13.0 21
13.0 - 14.5 17
14.5 - 16.0 25
16.0 - 17.5 15
17.5 - 19.0 31
19.0 - 20.5 16
20.5 - 22.0 30
22.0 - 23.5 16
23.5 - 25.0 35
83
After analyzing the above data, the ORITE team decided to push Shelby tubes at
depth ranges of 10.0 to 12.0, 13.0 to 15.0, and 17.5 to 19.5 ft. This gave the uncorrected
SPT-N values of 9, 17, and 31, respectively. The original soil sampling plan, shown in
Figure 4.2, had to be modified. The SPT truck was setup in the median of the freeway, in
the center of the drainage path. There had also been substantial rain in the area the past
few days. The soil was saturated at the surface, and it was very difficult for the truck to
move around. Figure 4.8 shows the modified pattern.
A total of twelve tubes were pushed with ORITE taking nine of them. Details on
the tubes taken by ORITE are given in Appendix B in Table B.17. Corrections, as done
with the previous field sites, were also done with this site. The corrected SPT-N values
are shown below in Table 4.10. Detailed information on the correction factors is in
Appendix B in Tables B.18-20.

84
Figure 4.8: Modified Plan for Shelby Tube Sampling
Table 4.10: Morrow County Site (N60)1 Values
Energy
Original Seed
SPT-N et al.
Only
10-11.5 9 12 13 14 12 14 14 13
13-14.5 17 23 23 24 22 23 23 23
17.5-19.0 31 42 39 39 38 37 38 38
85
This concludes data collected from the subsurface explorations at the first five
sites. The next section will contain information obtained by BBC&M. The data includes
soil index properties and sieve analyses.
4.3 Laboratory Index Properties and Sieve Analyses
Index properties of soils encountered in the current project were determined using
the Shelby tube samples obtained in the field. The index properties included a wide
range of properties such as natural moisture content, unit weights (dry, moist), Atterberg
limits (plastic limit, liquid limit, plasticity index), specific gravity, and grain size
characteristics (percentages of gravel, sand, silt, and clay). These results will be
presented for each site in the following subsections.
4.3.1 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 1 (Hamilton County)
Four sets of index property testing were performed by BBCM on the soil samples
recovered from the first (Hamilton County) site. Two sets were done on Shelby tube soil
samples taken in the depth range of 2.5 to 4.5 ft, one set was done on a Shelby tube
sample from the depth range of 4.5 to 6.5 feet, and one more set was done on a Shelby
tube sample from the depth range of 10.0 to 12.0 ft. The results of the index tests are
summarized below in Tables 4.11 and 4.12.

86
Table 4.11: Index Properties of Soils (Hamilton County Site)
Depth of Natural w Moist Unit Dry Unit Specific Liquid Plastic Plasticity
Soil (ft) (%) Wt (pcf) Wt (pcf) Gravity Limit Limit Index
2.75 15.7 130.4 112.7 2.74 41 19 22
3.25 22.0 127.4 104.4 N/A 58 21 37
4.75 17.6 126.7 107.8 N/A 50 20 30
10.25 15.4 128.9 111.7 2.66 43 22 21
Table 4.12: Sieve Analysis Results (Hamilton County Site)
Depth of Soil (ft) % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay AASHTO Soil Class.
2.75 11 14 30 46 A-7-6
3.25 10 13 26 51 A-7-6
4.75 7 11 34 48 A-7-6
10.25 6 12 30 51 A-7-6
4.3.2 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 2 (Fayette County)
Four sets of index property testing were performed by BBCM on the soil samples
recovered from the Fayette County site. One set was done on a Shelby tube sample taken
from the depth range of 5.5 to 7.5 ft, two sets on two separate Shelby tubes in the depth
range of 8.5 to 10.5 ft, and one set was done on a Shelby tube sample taken in the depth
range of 14.5 to 16.5 ft. As it was mentioned earlier, a total of five Shelby tubes
sampling holes were created at this site. This allowed for an extra tube being available at
each soil sampling depth. Hence, two tubes were tested at the mid-depth range. The
results of the index tests are summarized in Tables 4.13 and 4.14.
87
Table 4.13: Index Properties of Soils (Fayette County Site)
5.75 15.3 131.0 113.6 2.68 32 17 15
8.75 8.8 138.4 127.2 N/A 20 14 6
8.8 9.1 140.7 129.0 N/A 21 13 8
14.75 9.2 142.2 130.3 2.65 21 13 8
Table 4.14: Sieve Analysis Results (Fayette County Site)
5.75 6 24 40 30 A-6a
8.75 10 26 45 19 A-4a
8.8 15 27 39 19 A-4a
14.75 16 28 38 18 A-4a
4.3.3 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 3 (Lake County)
Five sets of index testing were done by BBCM on the soil samples recovered
from the Lake County site. One set was done on a Shelby tube sample obtained in the
depth range of 1.0 to 3.0 ft, two on a Shelby tube sample taken in the depth range of 4.0
to 6.0 ft, and two on a Shelby tube sample from the depth range of 14.0 to 16.0 ft. The
results of the index tests are summarized in Tables 4.15 and 4.16.
Table 4.15: Index Properties of Soils (Lake County Site)
1.75 14.0 140.0 122.8 2.76 29 18 11
4.25 12.0 138.9 123.9 N/A 28 18 10
4.75 12.5 140.9 125.2 N/A 29 19 10
14.25 11.5 139.3 124.9 2.60 26 16 10
14.75 13.1 141.8 125.3 N/A 25 18 7
88
Table 4.16: Sieve Analysis Results (Lake County Site)
1.75 7 23 37 33 A-6a
4.25 5 27 35 33 A-4a
4.75 4 23 37 36 A-4a
14.25 9 23 38 31 A-4a
14.75 8 24 37 30 A-4a
4.3.4 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 4 (Athens County)
Five sets of index tests and sieve analyses were done by BBCM on the Athens
County site. One set was done on a Shelby tube in the depth range of 4.5 to 6.5 ft, one
was done on a Shelby tube in the depth range of 8.0 to 10.0 ft, and three were done on a
Shelby tube in the depth range of 19.0 to 21.0 ft. The soil varied greatly throughout the
tube at the lowest depth. This is why three tests were done on it. The results of the index
tests are summarized in Tables 4.17 and 4.18.
Table 4.17: Index Properties of Soils (Athens County Site)
5.25 12.7 134.9 119.7 2.72 29 18 11
8.25 12.0 122.4 109.2 N/A 29 18 11
19.25 15.2 121.7 105.7 2.68 39 23 16
19.75 14.8 133.8 116.5 N/A 38 22 16
20.25 22.0 128.2 105.1 N/A 45 21 24
Table 4.18: Sieve Analysis Results (Athens County Site)
5.25 4 26 37 33 A-6a
8.25 5 23 40 32 A-6a
19.25 8 15 45 32 A-6b
19.75 12 22 40 25 A-6b
20.25 1 23 32 44 A-7-6
89
4.3.3 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 5 (Morrow County)
Four sets of index tests and sieve analyses were done by BBCM on the Morrow
County site. Two sets were done on a Shelby tube in the depth range of 10.0 to 12.0 ft,
one was done on a Shelby tube in the depth range of 13.0 to 15.0 ft, and one was done on
a Shelby tube in the depth range of 17.5 to 19.5 ft. The results of the index tests are
shown below in Tables 4.19 and 4.20.
Table 4.19: Index Properties of Soils (Morrow County Site)
10.25 14.0 134.7 118.2 2.68 24 16 8
10.75 11.4 142.7 128.2 N/A 28 15 13
13.25 14.8 128.0 111.4 N/A 30 17 13
17.75 16.0 127.5 110.0 2.64 30 18 12
Table 4.20: Sieve Analysis Results (Morrow County Site)
10.25 10 28 39 23 A-4a
10.75 8 27 40 25 A-6a
13.25 3 23 47 27 A-6a
17.75 8 24 44 25 A-6a
4.4 Shear Strength Properties
In this section, the shear strength properties for the soils obtained at each site will
be given. This includes data from the unconfined compression and C-U triaxial
compression tests.
90
4.4.1 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 1 (Hamilton County)
Four unconfined compression tests were performed by BBCM on the soil samples
taken from this site. Two were done on Shelby tubes from the highest depth range, one
from the middle depth range, and one on the lowest depth range. Table 4.21 summarizes
the test results.
Table 4.21: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Hamilton County)
Unconfined
Avg. Depth of Moisture Dry Unit Strain at Failure
Comp. Strength
Specimen (ft) Content (%) Weight (pcf) (%)
(psi)
2.75 15.7 112.7 24.8 7.4
3.25 22.0 104.4 30.6 7.1
4.75 17.6 107.8 18.7 7.3
10.25 15.4 111.7 46.9 5.9
Also, a total of eight C-U triaxial compression tests were done on soil at this site.
Three were done at the highest depth range, three were done at the middle depth range,
and two were done at the lowest depth range. Specimen depth, t50, angles, and effective
consolidation stress for each specimen are given in Table 4.22. Six of the specimens
Table 4.22: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Hamilton County)
Effective Consolidation
Specimen (Depth) t50 (min) (degrees) ' (degrees)
Pressure (psi)
A-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 20.0 11.1 30.8 5.0
A-1 (3.1' - 3.6') 35.0 10.6 28.0 15.0
D-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 18.0 11.5 25.3 30.0
A-2 (5.1' - 5.6') 30.0 13.7 29.2 7.5
C-2 (4.9' - 5.4') 15.0 10.5 27.9 15.0
D-2 (4.6' - 5.1') 12.0 10.4 24.5 30.0
A-3 (10.3' - 10.8') 24.0 12.6 26.4 12.5
D-3 (10.2' - 10.6') 30.0 14.9 26.8 20.0
91
tested went to 15% axial strain without failure. Two of them were tested to less strain
(Specimen A-1 (2.5 3.0 depth) to 13.39% and Specimen A-1 (3.1 3.6 depth) to
10.2%). Large rocks (larger than 1/6 of the diameter of the specimen) were also found in
some of the specimens that could have affected the results.
Soil recovery was poor at the lowest depth range for this site. That is why only
two tests were done there. In addition, a variety of plots are in Appendix C related to the
data just given. Figures D.1 through D.8 give stress-strain curves for each specimen, and
figures D.9 through D.14 give p-q and p-q plots for each depth range.
4.4.2 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 2 (Fayette County)
Four unconfined compression tests were performed on soil from this site by
BBCM. One was done on a Shelby tube from the highest depth range, two were done
from the middle depth range, and one on the lowest depth range. Table 4.23 summarizes
the test data.
Table 4.23: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Fayette County)
Unconfined
Ave. Depth of Moisture Dry Unit Strain at Failure
Comp. Strength
(psi)
5.75 15.3 113.6 36.6 6.8
8.75 8.8 127.2 47.2 5.9
8.80 9.1 129.0 41.0 7.1
14.75 9.2 130.3 45.1 4.6
Also, a total of nine C-U triaxial compression tests were done on soil at this site.
Four were done at the highest depth range, three were done at the middle depth range,
92
and two were done at the lowest depth range. Specimen depth, t50, angles, and effective
consolidation stress for each specimen are given Table 4.24. Every C-U triaxial test
specimen went all the way to 15% axial strain without showing any failure
characteristics. Rocks were also found in some of the specimens after testing.
Table 4.24: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Fayette County)
Pressure (psi)
A-1 (5.7' - 6.2') 3.7 20.8 37.8 7.5
D-1 (6.6' - 7.1') 10.2 17.1 32.9 15.0
E-1 (6.3' - 6.7') 30.5 18.6 30.5 22.5
E-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 10.1 18.0 36.8 30.0
A-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 1.3 32.5 34.7 15.0
D-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 1.1 31.3 34.8 22.5
E-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 3.4 33.1 33.6 30.0
B-3 (14.7' - 15.2') 1.8 21.9 33.5 18.0
B-3 (15.4' - 15.8') 3.6 26.6 34.2 24.0
Soil recovery was poor at the lowest depth range for this site also. That is why
only two tests were done there. In addition, a variety of plots are in Appendix C related
to the data just given. Figures C.15 through C.23 give stress-strain curves for each
specimen, and Figures C.24 through C.29 give p-q and p-q plots for each depth range.
4.4.3 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 3 (Lake County)
Five unconfined compression tests were performed on the relatively undisturbed
soil samples recovered from this site by BBCM. One was done on a Shelby tube from
the highest depth range, two were done from the middle depth range, and two were done
on the lowest depth range. Table 4.25 summarizes the test results.
93
Table 4.25: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Lake County)
Unconfined
Comp. Strength
(psi)
1.75 14.0 122.8 57.3 7.1
4.25 12.0 123.9 79.0 7.2
4.75 12.5 125.2 71.3 5.5
14.25 11.5 124.9 30.2 12.3
14.75 13.1 125.3 46.1 16.9
A total of nine C-U triaxial compression tests were done on soil at this site. Four
were done at the highest depth range, three were done at the middle depth range, and two
were done at the lowest depth range. Specimen depth, t50, phi angles, and effective
consolidation stress for each specimen are given in Table 4.26. Every specimen at this
site was loaded to a 15% axial strain without exhibiting any failure conditions. Very few
rocks were found in the specimens after testing also.
Table 4.26: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Lake County)
Pressure (psi)
A-1 (1.6' - 2.1') 8.0 18.8 31.9 5.0
A-1 (1.0' - 1.5') 10.5 26.9 31.4 15.0
D-1 (1.1' - 1.6') 9.0 25.5 30.8 30.0
A-2 (4.1' - 4.6') 2.2 20.3 37.4 7.5
D-2 (4.0' - 4.5') 2.1 21.4 37.1 15.0
D-2 (4.7' - 5.2') 10.1 26.0 28.8 30.0
C-3 (14.7 - 15.2) 10.2 21.6 30.6 18.0
A-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 4.1 21.5 30.8 24.0
D-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 7.2 29.1 30.2 30.0
94
In addition, a variety of plots are in Appendix C related to the data just given.
Figures C.30 through C.38 give stress-strain curves for each specimen, and Figures C.39
through C.44 give p-q and p-q plots for each depth range.
4.4.4 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 4 (Athens County)
Five unconfined compression tests were performed on soil from this site by
BBCM. One was done on a Shelby tube from the highest depth range, one was done
from the middle depth range, and three were done at the lowest depth range. Table 4.27
summarizes the test results.
Table 4.27: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Athens County)
Unconfined
Comp. Strength
(psi)
5.25 12.7 119.7 38.0 2.1
8.25 12.0 109.2 25.8 1.3
19.25 15.2 105.7 15.0 2.1
19.75 14.8 116.5 31.5 3.8
20.25 22.0 105.1 41.8 7.0
A total of nine C-U triaxial compression tests were done on soil at this site. Three
were done at each depth range. Specimen depth, t50, angles, and effective consolidation
stress for each specimen are given in Table 4.28. Eight of the nine specimens were tested
to 15% axial strain without showing any signs of failure. Specimen B-3 (20.0 20.5
depth) failed at 12.72% strain. A few small rocks and shale fragments were found after
testing, but they do not seem to be large enough to affect the results. Also, it should be
95
mentioned that two tests were done with soil from different tubes. The first specimen
listed in Table 4.28 is given as A-1 (5.9 6.1) & B-1 (6.1 6.4). Here, because there
was not enough soil in each of the tubes to make a specimen of proper height, two
smaller sections were placed on top of each other. The same procedure was done with
the specimen listed as B-2 (9.4 9.5) & D-2 (9.6 10.0).
In addition, a variety of plots related to the data just given are in Appendix C.
Table 4.28: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Athens County)
Pressure (psi)
A-1 (5.9 6.1) &
6.0 23.2 34.8 7.5
B-1 (6.1 6.4)
B-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 7.4 24.3 34.8 15.0
D-1 (5.9 6.4) 7.5 23.9 33.9 30.0
B-2 (8.8' - 9.3') 3.2 25.9 34.1 15.0
D-2 (9.0' - 9.5') 4.0 19.1 33.7 22.5
B-2 (9.4 9.5) &
2.9 22.2 31.4 30.0
D-2 (9.6 10.0)
A-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 50.0 17.6 27.4 22.0
B-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 25.0 15.0 25.4 30.0
D-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 53.0 18.8 27.6 40.0
4.4.5 Shear Strength Properties from Site No. 5 (Morrow County)
Four unconfined compression tests were performed on soil from this site by
BBCM. Two were done on a Shelby tube from the highest depth range, one was done
from the middle depth range, and one was done at the lowest depth range. Table 4.29
summarizes the test results.

96
Table 4.29: Unconfined Compression Test Results (Morrow County)
Unconfined
Comp. Strength
(psi)
10.25 14.0 118.2 20.3 8.4
10.75 11.4 128.2 47.8 8.2
13.25 14.8 111.4 19.1 9.1
17.75 16.0 110.0 20.8 9.4
Also, a total of nine C-U triaxial compression tests were done on soil at this site.
Three were done at the top depth range, three were done at the middle depth range, and
three were done at the lowest depth range. Specimen depth, t50, and angles for each
specimen are given in Table 4.30. All of the specimens were tested to 15% axial strain
without reaching any failure conditions. There were also a few small rocks found in
some of the samples, but they likely did not affect the final results.
Table 4.30: C-U Triaxial Compression Test Results (Morrow County)
Pressure (psi)
B-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 2.7 22.3 34.4 15.0
C-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 5.0 20.9 33.7 22.5
D-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 9.0 17.7 33.2 30.0
D-2 (13.3' -13.8') 5.1 25.4 33.8 15.0
C-2 (13.8' - 14.3') 5.3 25.1 32.7 22.5
C-2 (13.3' - 13.7') 4.0 21.1 32.7 30.0
B-3 (17.9' - 18.4') 6.8 23.1 34.1 20.0
D-3 (18.2' - 18.6') 3.1 20.0 36.9 30.0
C-3 (17.6' - 18.1') 4.7 15.1 31.8 35.0
97
In addition, a variety of plots related to the data just given are in Appendix C.
98
CHAPTER 5: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES
This chapter analyzes the data collected during experimentation. Empirical
correlations presented in Chapter 2 will be evaluated in light of the data collected in the
current study. Then, meaningful correlations between the different soil properties are
sought using various linear and nonlinear mathematical models and a multi-variable
regression analysis method. Based on the outcome of these data analyses, preliminary
guidelines are recommended for estimating shear strength properties of embankment soils
encountered in Ohio.
5.1 Evaluations of Empirical Correlations
5.1.1 SPT-N vs. Unconfined Compression Strength by Terzaghi
The first empirical correlation to be evaluated is the one between the fully
corrected SPT-N value and unconfined compression strength proposed by Terzaghi et al.
(1996). This correlation was previously presented in Table 2.2. Below, in Table 5.1, the
unconfined compressive strengths of A-4a soils measured in the current study are entered
into the chart prepared by Terzaghi et al. (1996), along with the corresponding (N60)1
values.
99
Table 5.1: Evaluation of Terzaghis Correlation for A-4a Soil
SPT Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi)

(N60)1 Terzaghi Values Within Range Values Outside Range
<2 < 3.6
2-4 3.6-7.3
48 7.3 14.5
8 15 14.5 29 20.3 45.1
15 30 29 58 30.2, 46.1
> 30 > 58 71.3, 79.0 47.2, 41.0
The values of 30.2, 46.1, 71.3, and 79.0 psi were obtained on the soil samples
recovered at the Lake County site. These are all within the range given by Terzaghi et al.
(1996), along with the value of 20.3 psi which came from the Morrow County site. The
values of 45.1, 47.2, and 41.0 psi were all found at the Fayette County site. These are all
outside of the range. The value of 45.1 psi is above the range, and the other two values
are below the range.
Next, the unconfined compression strengths of A-6a soil are compared to the
Terzaghi et al. (1996) empirical SPT-(N60)1 vs. unconfined compression strength relation,
as shown in Table 5.2. All the measured values listed in Table 5.2 are falling out of the
given range. The values of 47.8, 19.1, and 20.8 psi came from the Morrow County site.
The values of 25.8 and 38.0 psi came from the Athens County site, the value of 36.6 psi
came from the Fayette County site, and the value of 57.3 psi came from the Lake County
site. Among the seven data points, only one (the value of 47.8 psi) is above the range
specified by Terzaghi et al. (1996). Others are below the reported ranges.
100
Table 5.2: Evaluation of Terzaghis Correlation for A-6a Soil

<2 < 3.6
2-4 3.6-7.3
48 7.3 14.5
8 15 14.5 29 47.8
15 30 29 58 25.8, 19.1
> 30 > 58 36.6, 57.3, 38.0, 20.8
Finally, the unconfined compression strengths of A-7-6 soil samples are applied
to the empirical correlation of Terzaghi et al. (1996), as seen in Table 5.3. Only two of
the measured unconfined compression test values are staying within the range reported
for A-7-6 soils. The values of 30.6, 24.8, 18.7, and 46.9 psi came from the Hamilton
County site, while the value of 41.8 psi came from the Athens County site.
Table 5.3: Evaluation of Terzaghis Correlation for A-7-6 Soil

<2 < 3.6
2-4 3.6-7.3
48 7.3 14.5
8 15 14.5 29
15 30 29 58 30.6, 41.8 24.8, 18.7
> 30 > 58 46.9
The results presented in Tables 5.1 through 5.3 indicate that the empirical
correlation between the SPT-(N60)1 and unconfined compression strength published by
Terzaghi et al. (1996) is, overall, not well suited to the highway embankment soils
encountered in Ohio.
101
5.1.2 SPT-N vs. Unconfined Compression by Dept. of Navy
The next correlation to be assessed is also concerned with the link between the
SPT-(N60)1 value and the unconfined compression strength. It was presented by Dept. of
Navy (1982), as summarized in Table 2.3. The correlation here involves the lower and
upper bounds, depending on the value of liquid limit. The lower bound is given by the
values in Table 2.3 listed as low plasticity. The upper bound is given by the values in
Table 2.3 listed as high plasticity. The actual unconfined compression strengths
measured during the current study can be plotted into the correlation chart. Figure 5.1
shows this for all three soil types (A-4a, A-6a, and A-7-6).
120
100
Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi)
80
60 Navy (low value)

Navy (high value)
ORITE
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
SPT-N Value
Figure 5.1: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for All Three Soil Types
102
A total of twenty-one data points are shown in Figure 5.1. Fifteen of these points
fall within the upper and lower bounds given by Dept. of Navy (1982). This means that
over seventy-one percent of the measured SPT and unconfined compression data for all
three major Ohio soil types (A-4a, A-6a, A-7-6) appear to be mostly compatible with the
empirical correlations reported by Dept. of Navy (1982).
To evaluate this correlation further, the data compiled for each major soil type are
entered into the correlation chart. Figure 5.2 shows a plot of unconfined compressive
strength against (N60)1 values for A-4a soil samples. In Figure 5.2, all eight values fall
within the upper and lower bounds set by Dept. of Navy (1982). Thus, the SPT-N vs.
unconfined compression strength data of A-4a soil found in Ohio appear to conform to
the established empirical correlation.
Next, Figure 5.3 shows a similar plot of unconfined compressive strength against
(N60)1 values for A-6a soil samples examined in the current study. In Figure 5.3, only
three of the eight data points are positioned between the upper and lower bounds
specified by Dept. of Navy (1982). This implies that the empirical correlation established
by Dept. of Navy (1982) may not be quite applicable to the A-6a soil found in Ohio.
103
120
100
80
Navy (low value)

60 Navy (high value)
ORITE
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT-N Value
Figure 5.2: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for A-4a Soil
120
100
80
Navy (low value)

ORITE
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
SPT-N Value
Figure 5.3: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for A-6a Soil

104
Finally, in Figure 5.4, the unconfined compression strength vs. SPT-(N60)1 data
compiled for A-7-6 soil is compared with the empirical correlation of Dept. of Navy
(1982). Four of the five data points in Figure 5.4 are staying within the upper and lower
bounds given. Thus, the SPT-N vs. unconfined compression strength data of A-7-6 soil
found in Ohio appear to conform to the empirical correlation established in Dept. of Navy
(1982).
120
100
80
Navy (low value)

ORITE
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT-N Value
Figure 5.4: Evaluation of Dept. of Navy Data for A-7-6 Soil
In summary, although the amount of data is still lacking, the empirical correlation
between the SPT-(N60)1 and unconfined compression strength reported in Dept. of Navy
105
(1982) appears to be reasonably applicable to A-4a and A-7-6 soils but not to A-6a soils
found in Ohio.
5.1.3 Effective Friction Angle vs. Plasticity Index by Terzaghi
The third empirical correlation to be tested here is the one between the effective
friction angle and the plasticity index. This was established previously by Terzaghi et al.
(1996), as shown in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.9. All of the data produced in the current
study are added to Figure 2.9 to see how well engineering properties of the Ohio
embankment soils obey the established correlation. This is shown in Figure 5.5 for all
three major soil types (A-4a, A-6a, and A-7-6) encountered in the study.
45
40
35
30
25
20
ORITE Values
15
Terzaghi's Range
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 5.5: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (All Three Soil Types)
106
Looking at the results presented in Figure 5.5, it is noted that thirty-one (or
70.5%) of the data points produced in this study fall inside the correlation band reported
by Terzaghi et al. (1996). Thirteen of them (or 29.5%) are falling outside the band. The
correlation band is 6 deep, with the upper and lower curves located at + 3 of the central
curve. Most of the data points located outside the band seem to be positioned within + 5
of the central curve.
The results shown in Figure 5.5 can also be broken down further into each major
soil type to examine which soil types conform to the Terzaghi et al. (1996) -PI
correlation more closely than others. Figure 5.6 shows such a plot for the A-4a soil
samples tested in the current study.
45
40
35
30
25
20
ORITE Values
Terzaghi's Range
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 5.6: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (A-4a Soil)

107
In this plot, six (or 54.5%) of the data points are falling inside of the correlation
band of Terzaghi et al. (1996). Five out of eleven (or 45.5%) stayed outside the band. A-
4a soils were found only at the Fayette County and Lake County sites. The data points
located outside the band are all positioned within + 5 of the central curve.
In Figure 5.7, the measured properties of the A-6a soil samples are plotted in
terms of the effective friction angle against the plasticity index. Nineteen of the twenty-
two data points (or 86.4% of the soils tested) are falling inside the band. Only three
points (13.6% of the cases) are landing outside of the band. This means that over eighty-
six percent of the A-6a soil tested is similar to the Terzaghi et al. (1996) results. The A-
6a soil samples were recovered from the Fayette County, Lake County, Athens County,
and Morrow County sites. Most of the outside data points are within + 5 of the central
curve.
Finally, in Figure 5.8, the measured properties of the A-7-6 soil samples are
plotted over the Terzaghi et al. (1996) empirical correlation chart. Here, six of the
eleven data points (or 54.5% of the soils tested) are landing inside the reported band, and
most of the outside data points are within + 5 of the central curve. In summary, it can be
stated that the established empirical -PI correlation appears to be reliable for most of
the soils encountered in the current study.

108
45
40
35
30
25
20 ORITE Values
Terzaghi's Range
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 5.7: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (A-6a Soil)
45
40
35
30
25
Terzaghi's Range
20
15
ORITE Values
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 5.8: Comparison of Terzaghi & ORITE Data (A-7-6 Soil)

109
5.1.4 Soil Type vs. Effective Friction Angle by Dept. of Navy
The last empirical correlation that can be evaluated here involves the soil type and
effective friction angle, as reported by Dept. of Navy (1982). This relation is shown in
Table 5.4, along with the average effective angle of friction determined for each major
soil type in the current study.
Table 5.4: Comparison of Dept. of Navy & ORITE Data
Soil Type ' (degrees) Dept. of Navy (1982) ' (degrees) ORITE Values
A-4 32 33.2
A-6 28 33.5
A-7-6 19-28 27.2
According to this table, the actual measured average ' value and the Dept. of
Navy (1982) ' value are fairly close to each other for A-4 soil. For A-6 soils, the
measured average ' value is substantially higher than the ' value listed by Dept. of
Navy (1982). For A-7-6 soil, the measured ' value is just below the upper bound of the
range reported by Dept. of Navy (1982).
5.2 Linear Regression Analysis
In Section 3.5, it was stated that many mathematical models (such as linear, 2nd
degree polynomial, logarithmic, power, exponential, hyperbolic, and reciprocal) would be
applied to the data set to identify the best model and strongest correlations that appear to
exist for the shear strength characteristics of major highway embankment soils found in
Ohio.
110
First, linear regression analysis was performed for the soils tested. As mentioned
in Chapter 3, six paths of correlations were formulated. These paths were illustrated in
Figure 3.5. They are described again in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Correlation Paths for Data Analysis
Path Dependent Variable vs Independent Variable

1 Corrected SPT-N Values vs Laboratory Soil Index Properties
2 Laboratory Triaxial Test Results vs Laboratory Soil Index Properties
3 Unconfined Compressive Strength vs Laboratory Triaxial Test Results
4 Corrected SPT-N Values vs Unconfined Compressive Strength
5 Unconfined Compressive Strength vs Laboratory Soil Index Properties
6 Corrected SPT-N Values vs Laboratory Triaxial Test Results
The following equation was applied in all of the linear regression analyses:
y = mx + b (5.1)
Throughout this chapter, the correlations will be listed with the strongest one at the top of
the table and getting weaker as they go down. Any correlation with a coefficient of
determination (R2) value equal to 0.80 or above will be viewed as a strong meaningful
correlation.
5.2.1 A-4a Soil
Table 5.6 summarizes the results of the linear regression analysis performed for
A-4a soil samples along Correlation Path 1. None of the correlations listed in the table
111
yielded the R2 value higher than 0.80. The only correlation which may be considered
mildly strong is the one between the SPT-N value and the plasticity index.
Table 5.6: Path 1 Linear Correlations for A-4a Soil
Dependent Variable y Independent Variable x R2 Equation

SPT-(N60)1 Plasticity Index 0.7365 y = 11.865x 65.25
SPT-(N60)1 Hand Penetrometer 0.4983 y = 15.287x 29.21
SPT-(N60)1 Liquid Limit 0.4139 y = 3.2704x 45.877
SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.3574 y = 486.67x 1276.7
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.3422 y = -1.9551x + 53.348
Initial Dry Unit Weight
SPT-(N60)1 0.2977 y = -3.5268x + 480.65
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 % Clay 0.2909 y = 1.2304x + 1.0314
SPT-(N60)1 % Silt 0.2158 y = -5.3363x + 232.29
SPT-(N60)1 Plastic Limit 0.1531 y = 2.3741x 4.6444
SPT-(N60)1 % Sand 0.0480 y = -0.6176x + 48.968
Initial Moisture Content
SPT-(N60)1 0.0337 y = 162.06x + 15.008
(UC Test)
Tables 5.7 through 5.11 rank numerous linear correlations established for A-4a
soil along Correlation Path 2, Path 3, Path 4, Path 5, and Path 6, respectively. No strong
correlations are seen from Table 5.6 through Table 5.11. The two highest are between
the unconfined compressive strength and both the plasticity index and the liquid limit,
identified along Correlation Path 5. These both come in with a R2 value of just under
0.80.
112

Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.6950 y = 1.2822x 0.088
Friction Angle % Silt 0.6156 y = 2.6855x 74.397
Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.3479 y = -1.0663x + 42.811
Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.3437 y = -0.888x + 47.337
Friction Angle 0.3236 y = -149.68x + 42.477
(UC Test)
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.3210 y = 0.5642x + 20.046
Friction Angle % Clay 0.3180 y = -0.3833x + 35.875
Friction Angle 0.2962 y = 1.0482x 107.12
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.2126 y = -70.124x + 40.994
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' Plasticity Index 0.2049 y = 1.0779x + 24.332
Eff. Friction Angle ' Plastic Limit 0.1268 y = -0.3721x + 39.135
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.0706 y = -0.1044x + 35.954
Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.0628 y = -1.0326x + 34.486
Friction Angle Hand Penetrometer 0.0491 y = 0.0343x + 3.1731
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Silt 0.0402 y = -0.3965x + 48.063
Friction Angle Specific Gravity 0.0289 y = 41.261x 85.086
Friction Angle % Sand 0.0212 y = 0.3871x + 15.88
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.0174 y = -0.1155x + 36.031
Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0115 y = 0.1192x + 18.11
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' Specific Gravity 0.0114 y = -14.953x + 73.485
Eff. Friction Angle ' Hand Penetrometer 0.0000 y = 0.0007x + 4.0388

Final Moisture Content
Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.3968 y = 3.7286x + 6.4735
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.3696 y = -1.6784x + 272.49
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength Friction Angle 0.3185 y = -1.7779x + 98.939
Unconfined Compressive Strength Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0926 y = 1.6582x 2.322
Unconfined Compressive Strength 50% Consol. Time t50 0.0077 y = 0.4041x + 51.082
113
Table 5.9: Path 4 Linear Correlation for A-4a Soil
Dependent Variable Independent Variable R2 Equation

SPT-(N60)1 Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.6194 y = 0.8384x 11.369

Unconfined Compressive Strength Plasticity Index 0.7747 y = 11.423x 41.688
Unconfined Compressive Strength Liquid Limit 0.7537 y = 4.1427x 46.988
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Silt 0.7440 y = -9.3007x + 400.32
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Gravel 0.6259 y = 2.4818x + 78.758
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Clay 0.5708 y = 1.6178x + 10.897
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength Plastic Limit 0.4225 y = 3.702x 5.7468
Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.2129 y = 382.42x + 10.573
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength Hand Penetrometer 0.0937 y = 0.0151x + 3.2685
Unconfined Compressive Strength Specific Gravity 0.0603 y = 187.57x 451.92
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Sand 0.0104 y = -0.8562x + 75.075

SPT-(N60)1 Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.1203 y = 2.0133x 34.03
SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.0025 y = -0.2437x + 33.952
SPT-(N60)1 Friction Angle 0.0014 y = -0.1275x + 36.217
5.2.2 A-6a Soil
Linear regression was also performed for the A-6a soil data along each correlation
path. Tables 5.12 through 5.17 present the outcome. As was the case with A-4a soils, no
strong correlations are seen along any correlation path. The highest one is seen in Table
5.16 between the unconfined compressive strength and initial dry unit weight (measured
114
during the triaxial compression test), along Correlation Path 5. This linear correlation
has the coefficient of determination R2 of 0.738.

SPT-(N60)1 % Clay 0.2858 y = 2.2308x 32.585
SPT-(N60)1 % Silt 0.1574 y = -1.6345x + 99.312
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.0848 y = -2.2386x + 45.944
SPT-(N60)1 Plasticity Index 0.0846 y = -2.6919x + 66.219
SPT-(N60)1 Hand Penetrometer 0.0716 y = 0.5726x 29.21
SPT-(N60)1 0.0418 y = 171.93x + 9.0691
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 Liquid Limit 0.0365 y = 2.0627x 28.408
SPT-(N60)1 0.0216 y = -0.302x + 67.939
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 % Sand 0.0086 y = 0.8647x + 11.829

Friction Angle Specific Gravity 0.2405 y = 47.007x - 105.28
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.1651 y = -0.7343x + 25.9
Eff. Friction Angle ' Specific Gravity 0.1514 y = -22.072x + 93.123
Friction Angle % Clay 0.1110 y = 0.3269x + 12.011
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.0814 y = 0.3712x + 24.539
Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.0570 y = 0.7558x + 8.5392
Friction Angle Initial Moisture Content (UC Test) 0.0538 y = -45.875x + 27.931
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.0474 y = 0.3269x + 23.846
Eff. Friction Angle ' Hand Penetrometer 0.0406 y = -0.2292x + 9.6394
Friction Angle % Sand 0.0196 y = -0.3077x + 29.064
Eff. Friction Angle ' Initial Dry Unit Weight (UC Test) 0.0129 y = -0.0325x + 37.323
Friction Angle Hand Penetrometer 0.0097 y = 0.5726x + 26.234
115
Table 5.13: Path 2 Linear Correlations for A-6a Soil (cont.)

Friction Angle Initial Dry Unit Weight (UC Test) 0.0074 y = 0.0416x + 16.754
Eff. Friction Angle ' Initial Moisture Content (UC Test) 0.0067 y = 9.551x + 32.229
Friction Angle % Silt 0.0060 y = -0.0752x + 24.652
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Silt 0.0046 y = 0.0388x + 31.971

(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.0659 y = 0.6094x 40.318
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0478 y = -1.4882x + 85.054
Unconfined Compressive Strength Friction Angle 0.0039 y = 0.2529x + 29.665
Table 5.15: Path 4 Linear Correlation for A-6a Soil

SPT-(N60)1 Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.0014 y = -0.0397x + 34.214

(UC Test)
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Clay 0.1347 y = 1.451x 7.4151
Unconfined Compressive Strength Hand Penetrometer 0.1306 y = 0.0603x 0.1697
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Sand 0.1172 y = 3.023x 38.478
Unconfined Compressive Strength Liquid Limit 0.0977 y = -3.1972x + 130.03
Unconfined Compressive Strength Plastic Limit 0.0639 y = -3.225x + 90.83
Unconfined Compressive Strength Plasticity Index 0.0089 y = -0.8523x + 45.367
116

SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.0186 y = 0.3269x 30.461
SPT-(N60)1 Friction Angle 0.0156 y = 0.5307x + 21.357
5.2.3 A-7-6 Soil
The project data tied to A-7-6 soil, found only at the Hamilton County and Athens
County sites, was also analyzed with the linear regression model. Path 1 correlations are
shown in Table 5.18. A strong correlation, with a R2 value of 0.902, is seen between the
(N60)1 value and specific gravity.
Table 5.18: Path 1 Linear Correlations for A-7-6 Soil

SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.9018 y = -168.06x + 479.36
SPT-(N60)1 % Silt 0.2862 y = 1.1x 9.4
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.2242 y = -0.6196x + 28.83
SPT-(N60)1 Hand Penetrometer 0.1133 y = -7.7419x + 58.097
SPT-(N60)1 % Clay 0.0957 y = 0.5475x 0.9294
SPT-(N60)1 0.0441 y = -35.455x + 31.543
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 % Sand 0.0299 y = -0.1669x + 27.534
SPT-(N60)1 Liquid Limit 0.0031 y = -0.0537x + 27.494
SPT-(N60)1 0.0001 y = 0.0184x + 23.002
(UC Test)
Tables 5.19 through 5.23 summarize the results of the linear regression analysis
performed along the remaining five correlation paths for A-7-6 soil samples. No strong
117
correlations were found anywhere. The best case along the second correlation path was
presented between the friction angle and % gravel (with R2 of 0.707).

Friction Angle 0.2633 y = 51.232x + 3.8631
(UC Test)
Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.2251 y = 1.3437x 14.288
Friction Angle Hand Penetrometer 0.1782 y = -0.031x + 4.6884
Friction Angle 0.1587 y = -0.3547x + 51.752
(UC Test)
Friction Angle Specific Gravity 0.1365 y = -38.674x + 117.88
Eff. Friction Angle ' Specific Gravity 0.0823 y = 18.806x 23.653
Friction Angle % Silt 0.0281 y = 0.2037x + 6.9479
Eff. Friction Angle ' Hand Penetrometer 0.0169 y = 0.0152x + 3.8606
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Silt 0.0145 y = -0.0919x + 30.064
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.0114 y = -0.0383x + 27.771
Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0048 y = 0.0388x + 22.984
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.0044 y = 0.0238x + 26.084
Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0025 y = -3.1351x + 27.769
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.0000 y = 0.0047x + 26.966
118

Unconfined Compressive Strength Friction Angle 0.4445 y = 2.6524x 3.0216
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0446 y = -1.3418x + 68.787
(UC Test)
Table 5.21: Path 4 Linear Correlation for A-7-6 Soil

SPT-(N60)1 Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.0867 y = 0.1252x + 20.957

Unconfined Compressive Strength Plastic Limit 0.6846 y = 9.3218x 159.22
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Gravel 0.3586 y = -1.8438x + 43.7
Unconfined Compressive Strength Specific Gravity 0.3159 y = -234.03x + 665.03
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Sand 0.2867 y = 1.2169x + 13.828
Initial Moisture Content 0.0568 y = 94.663x + 14.833
Unconfined Compressive Strength
(UC Test)
Initial Dry Unit Weight 0.0065 y = -0.2848x + 63.164
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Clay 0.0000 y = -0.0136x + 32.944

SPT-(N60)1 Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0715 y = -0.7217x + 44.624
SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.0006 y = -0.009x + 25.255
119
5.2.4 All Three Soil Types
Finally, the data compiled for all three soil types tested (44 C-U triaxial
compression tests) were analyzed through the linear regression model concept. Path 1
correlations are shown in Table 5.24. No significant correlations exist in Table 5.24.
Path 2 correlations are, then, shown in Table 5.25. The correlations, overall, are higher
than those determined along Path 1, but none are very strong. Six of them come in with a
regression value over 0.50. Path 3 and 4 correlations are shown in Tables 5.26 and 5.27.
No significant correlations are seen along Paths 3 and 4. Tables 5.28 and 5.29 show Path
5 and Path 6 correlations. No strong correlations are detected in Tables 5.28 and 5.29.
Table 5.24: Path 1 Linear Correlations for All Three Soil Types

SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.0864 y = -1.0224x + 38.136
SPT-(N60)1 % Sand 0.0424 y = 0.5297x + 19.004
SPT-(N60)1 Liquid Limit 0.0249 y = -0.2317x + 38.41
Initial Moisture Content 0.0154 y = -48.559x + 37.821
SPT-(N60)1
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 Plastic Limit 0.0144 y = 0.6729x + 18.958
Initial Dry Unit Weight 0.0024 y = 0.0769x + 21.893
SPT-(N60)1
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 % Silt 0.0014 y = 0.1029x + 27.028
SPT-(N60)1 Hand Penetrometer 0.0004 y = 0.0205x + 30.425
SPT-(N60)1 % Clay 0.0000 y = -0.0104x + 31.229

120
Table 5.25: Path 2 Linear Correlations for All Three Soil Types (cont.)

Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.5078 y = 0.4803x + 21.11
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.4942 y = -0.2702x + 40.66
Friction Angle Initial Moisture Content (UC Test) 0.4493 y = -116.11x + 37.195
Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.4449 y = -1.6551x + 49.952
Eff. Friction Angle ' Plasticity Index 0.4377 y = -0.3151x + 36.532
Initial Dry Unit Weight 0.3949 y = 0.4359x 30.377
Friction Angle
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Silt 0.3733 y = 0.4465x + 15.142
Eff. Friction Angle ' Initial Moisture Content (UC Test) 0.3624 y = -61.805x + 40.711
Friction Angle % Silt 0.2613 y = 0.6303x 3.0222

(UC Test)
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength Friction Angle 0.0829 y = 0.7624x + 23.126
Unconfined Compressive Strength Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.0275 y = 0.7409x + 15.218
Unconfined Compressive Strength 50% Consol. Time t50 0.0056 y = -0.0925x + 39.93
Table 5.27: Path 4 Linear Correlation for All Three Soil Types

SPT-(N60)1 Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.0875 y = 0.2527x + 21.073
121

Initial Dry Unit Weight 0.3889 y = 1.1457x 95.169
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Sand 0.1559 y = 1.189x + 12.17
Initial Moisture Content 0.1012 y = -145.95x + 59.686
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive Strength Plastic Limit 0.0102 y = -0.6638x + 50.608
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Clay 0.0101 y = -0.1625x + 44.202

SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.0309 y = 1.2758x 9.7924
5.3 Nonlinear Regression
With the outcome of the linear regression analysis rather disappointing, nonlinear
regression analyses were performed extensively on the geotechnical data compiled in the
current study to undercover correlations useful to geotechnical engineers in Ohio. These
analyses applied six different nonlinear models. The models were the exponential,
logarithmic, power, hyperbolic, reciprocal, and second-degree polynomial. These are
defined in the equations below:

122
y = b emx Exponential (5.2)
y = b + m(Ln(x)) Logarithmic (5.3)
y = b xm Power (5.4)
b + mx
y= Hyperbolic (5.5)
x
1
y = b + m Reciprocal (5.6)
x
y = a0 + a1x + a2x2 2nd Degree Polynomial (5.7)
Relatively strong correlations identified in Section 5.2 are analyzed with each
nonlinear model for the different soil types. The results are presented with the strongest
(highest R2) correlation at the top.
5.3.1 A-4a Soil
For this soil type, eight mildly strong correlations were identified during the linear
regression analysis. Each of these correlations are put through the nonlinear
mathematical models to find out whether any of the correlations can become stronger.
The results are presented in Table 5.30 through Table 5.35.

123
Table 5.30: Exponential Model Correlations for A-4a Soil

Unconfined Compressive Strength Plasticity Index 0.7501 y = 19.973e0.1264x
Friction Angle % Silt 0.7259 y = 5.3339e0.0401x
Eff. Friction Angle % Sand 0.6865 y = 11.546e0.041x
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.6733 y = 79.857e-0.1115x
Unconfined Compressive Strength Liquid Limit 0.6258 y = 15.116e0.0527x
SPT-(N60)1 Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.6078 y = 5.714e0.0296x
Unconfined Compressive Strength % Gravel 0.5244 y = 78.147e-0.0426x
Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.4219 y = 313962e-0.0687x
(UC Test)
Table 5.31: Logarithmic Model Correlations for A-4a Soil

Unconfined Compressive
% Gravel 0.7348 y = -24.929 Ln(x) + 108.36
Strength q
Plasticity Index 0.7312 y = 94.328 Ln(x) 145.64
Strength q
Liquid Limit 0.7273 y = 98.99 Ln(x) 261.35
Strength q
Eff. Friction Angle % Sand 0.7057 y = 32.943 Ln(x) 74.004
Friction Angle % Silt 0.6074 y = 98.722 Ln(x) 331.43
SPT-(N60)1 0.5812 y = 47.454 Ln(x) 153.71
Strength
Unconfined Compressive Initial Dry Unit Weight
0.5214 y = -556.93 Ln(x) + 2750.4
Strength q (UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.4371 y = -20.482 Ln(x) + 78.551
Table 5.32: Power Model Correlations for A-4a Soil

Unconfined Compressive Strength % Gravel 0.7617 y = 134.37x-0.4344
Unconfined Compressive Strength Liquid Limit 0.7565 y = 0.212x1.7278
Eff. Friction Angle % Sand 0.7326 y = 1.2086x1.017
Unconfined Compressive Strength Plasticity Index 0.702 y = 1.8307x1.5818
Friction Angle % Silt 0.6108 y = 3 E-05x3.7794
Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.5373 y = 1 E+22x-9.6757
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 Unconfined Compressive Strength 0.4138 y = 0.158x1.3253
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.3648 y = 115.24x-0.6193
124
Table 5.33: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for A-4a Soil

Eff. Friction Angle % Gravel 0.9895 y = (34.872x 14.507)/x
% Gravel 0.9048 y = (31.008x + 173.19)/x
Strength q
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.9010 y = (31.663x 47.343)/x
Eff. Friction Angle % Sand 0.8941 y = (64.921x 819.5)/x
SPT-(N60)1 0.8916 y = (91.951x 2936.1)/x
Strength
Plasticity Index 0.8821 y = (159.67x 869.28)/x
Strength q
Eff. Friction Angle % Clay 0.8600 y = (30.638x + 62.706)/x
Liquid Limit 0.8505 y = (159.72x 2535.9)/x
Strength q
SPT-(N60)1 Plasticity Index 0.8432 y = (140.77x 877)/x
Eff. Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.8174 y = (42.01x 71.084)/x
% Clay 0.8136 y = (97.67x 1085.6)/x
Strength q
Unconfined Compressive Final Moisture Content
0.7450 y = (104.55x 619.95)/x
Strength q (C-U Triaxial Test)
Friction Angle % Silt 0.7049 y = (125.9x 3729.8)/x
Eff. Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.7018 y = (27.234x + 92.65)/x
Eff. Friction Angle 0.6914 y = (24.94x + 0.896)/x
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive y = (-285.38x +
% Silt 0.6788
Strength q 12619)/x
Plastic Limit 0.6659 y = (110.53x 888.14)/x
Strength q
Eff. Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.6336 y = (30.96x + 53.97)/x
SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.6207 y = (35.05x 11.65)/x
SPT-(N60)1 Plastic Limit 0.6035 y = (120.14x 2070.3)/x
SPT-(N60)1 % Clay 0.5946 y = (68.29x - 858.42)/x
Friction Angle % Clay 0.5839 y = (16.21x + 234.14)/x
Unconfined Compressive Initial Moisture Content
0.5089 y = (89.75x 3.96)/x
Unconfined Compressive Initial Dry Unit Weight y = (-498.61x +
0.4751
Strength q (UC Test) 69980)/x
125
Table 5.34: Reciprocal Model Correlations for A-4a Soil

Unconfined
% Gravel 0.8032 y = 206.85(1/x) + 27.426
Compressive Strength q
Unconfined
% Silt 0.7580 y = 12841(1/x) 291.34
Eff. Friction Angle % Sand 0.7154 y = -843.55(1/x) + 65.848
Unconfined
Liquid Limit 0.6997 y = -2340.7(1/x) + 151.55
SPT-(N60)1 Plasticity Index 0.6963 y = -822.54(1/x) + 134.12
Unconfined
Plasticity Index 0.6826 y = -764.48(1/x) + 146.88
Friction Angle % Silt 0.5990 y = -3623.4(1/x) + 123.05
SPT-(N60)1 0.5316 y = -2564.3(1/x) + 84.637
Strength
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.5295 y = 178.92(1/x) + 10.95
Unconfined Initial Dry Unit Weight
0.5254 y = 71057(1/x) 507.1
Compressive Strength q (UC Test)
Friction Angle 0.5236 y = 2.3207(1/x) + 3.6644
(UC Test)
Unconfined
% Clay 0.4934 y = -915.6(1/x) + 90.884
Unconfined
Plastic Limit 0.4154 y = -870.35(1/x) + 109.39
Unconfined Final Moisture Content
0.4132 y = -619.48(1/x) + 104.51
Compressive Strength q (C-U Triaxial Test)
Table 5.35: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for A-4a Soil

Unconfined
Plasticity Index 0.9749 y = 6.7863x2 105.25x + 450.32
Compressive Strength
Unconfined
Eff. Friction Angle 0.9411 y = 1.9645x2 128.65x + 2144.3
Unconfined
% Gravel 0.9002 y = 0.677x2 16.594x + 137.37
Unconfined
Liquid Limit 0.8835 y = 0.8547x2 37.79x + 459.02
Eff. Friction Angle % Sand 0.8139 y = -0.527x2 + 28.223x 342.64
Unconfined
% Silt 0.7999 y = 1.878x2 148.46x + 2974.4
0.7938 y = 2.3751x2 608.31x + 38987
Compressive Strength (UC Test)
SPT-N Value Plasticity Index 0.7658 y = 2.7667x2 35.7x + 135.33
126
Table 5.35: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for A-4a Soil (cont.)

Unconfined Unconfined
0.7497 y = 0.2543x2 11.497x + 168.59
Compressive Strength Compressive Strength
Unconfined
% Clay 0.739 y = 0.2543x2 11.497x + 168.59
y = -1.3764x2 64.261x +
SPT-(N60)1 Liquid Limit 0.7104
769.04
SPT-(N60)1 Eff. Friction Angle 0.7066 y = 1.7398x2 113.39x + 1867
Friction Angle % Silt 0.6951 y = 0.7113x2 50.017x + 900.48
Friction Angle 0.6085 y = -0.8014x2 + 204.83x 13057
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.5786 y = 0.6695x2 15.911x + 111.31
SPT-(N60)1 % Silt 0.5486 y = 4.8848x2 367.29x + 6927.6
According to Tables 5.30 through 5.32, the first three nonlinear models
(exponential, logarithmic, power) did not improve the correlations previously seen
through the linear regression analysis. In contrast, the application of the hyperbolic
function introduced significant changes to the correlations. The hyperbolic model
produced many fairly strong correlations. They are shown in Table 5.33. Eleven of the
twenty-four correlations listed in the table received the R2 value of above 0.80. Next, the
outcome of the reciprocal model applications is shown in Table 5.34. One strong
correlation is emerging in Table 5.34. This is between the unconfined compressive
strength and % gravel with a R2 value of 0.8032. Finally, correlations based on the
second-degree polynomial function are listed in Table 5.35 for A-4a soils. Five strong
correlations are found in the table with R2 values of 0.9749, 0.9411, 0.9002, 0.8835, and
0.8139. These results show that both hyperbolic and the 2nd degree polynomial functions
are more effective in expressing the correlations existing among the geotechnical data
127
obtained for A-4a soil in Ohio. Also, Appendix D contains a plot of each type of
nonlinear correlation (Figures D.1 D.6). The highest R2 value plots are represented.
5.3.2 A-6a Soil
A-6a soils were found at every site except in Hamilton County. Only two mildly
significant correlations were found previously for A-6a soil, using the linear regression
model. These two cases are reanalyzed here, using the first three nonlinear functions
(exponential, logarithmic, power). The results are shown in Tables 5.36 through 5.38.
Table 5.36: Exponential Model Correlations for A-6a Soil

% Silt 0.7115 y = 1677.4e-0.0967x
Strength q
0.7130 y = 0.1184e0.0484x
Table 5.37: Logarithmic Model Correlations for A-6a Soil

0.7461 y = 198.7 Ln(x) 909.58
Unconfined
% Silt 0.6247 y = -128.52 Ln(x) + 510.97
Table 5.38: Power Model Correlations for A-6a Soil

Unconfined Initial Dry Unit Weight 0.7217
y = 5 E-11x5.7426
Unconfined 0.7133
% Silt y = 1 E+08x-4.0353
128
Only minor improvements can be seen between the linear and nonlinear regression model
results so far for A-6a soils. Next, the hyperbolic model is applied to eighteen
correlations concerning A-6a soil, as presented in Table 5.39.
Table 5.39: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for A-6a Soil

Eff. Friction Angle % Gravel 0.9591 y = (33.49x + 0.32)/x
SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.8422 y = (35.74x 10.59)/x
Eff. Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.84 y = (37.97x 54.21)/x
Eff. Friction Angle 0.8056 y = (35.21x 0.23)/x
(UC Test)
0.8049 y = (234.11x 23067)/x
Eff. Friction Angle % Clay 0.7612 y = (30.54x + 87.06)/x
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.7296 y = (17.88x + 19.49)/x
Eff. Friction Angle % Silt 0.6952 y = (34.78x 49.64)/x
Eff. Friction Angle % Sand 0.6722 y = (42.53x 217.17)/x
Friction Angle % Clay 0.5682 y = (31.31x 281.37)/x
Unconfined
% Gravel 0.5312 y = (48.52x 68.94)/x
Unconfined
Specific Gravity 0.5183 y = (772.86x 1990.90)/x
Unconfined
% Silt 0.5145 y = (-95.44x + 5278.50)/x
Eff. Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.4875 y = (43.82x 304.43)/x
SPT-(N60)1 Plasticity Index 0.4818 y = (174.68x 2441.30)/x
Eff. Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.4648 y = (30.34x + 55.30)/x
SPT-(N60)1 % Clay 0.4538 y = (98.28x 1895.70)/x
Eff. Friction Angle 0.4515 y = (29.62x + 455.48)/x
(UC Test)
Once again, the hyperbolic model demonstrated its ability to fit to the
geotechnical data better than the linear regression model for a number of cases. Five
strong correlations are seen in the above table. Next, in Table 5.40, correlations based on
the reciprocal model are presented for A-6a soil.

129
Table 5.40: Reciprocal Model Correlations for A-6a Soil

0.7533 y = -23516(1/x) + 237.98
Unconfined
% Silt 0.6291 y = 5342.2(1/x) 97.016
Unconfined
Specific Gravity 0.4901 y = -1970.7(1/x) + 765.36
SPT-(N60)1 Plastic Limit 0.4341 y = -2415.6(1/x) + 173.19
The strongest correlation in the above table is seen between the unconfined
compressive strength and the initial dry unit weight recorded during the C-U triaxial test,
with a R2 value of 0.753. Finally, the second-degree polynomial model is applied to a
few A-6a cases, as presented in Table 5.41. The highest R2 value here is just below 0.80
and is found again between the unconfined compressive strength and the initial dry unit
weight (from the U-C test). Overall, it is noted that the reciprocal and 2nd degree
polynomial functions were not able to express the correlations existing among the A-6a
soil data as well as the hyperbolic function.
Table 5.41: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for A-6a Soil

0.7949 y = -0.0933x2 + 23.745x 1460.2
Unconfined
% Silt 0.6342 y = 0.1579x2 16.29x + 434.78
Unconfined
Specific Gravity 0.5348 y = 1672.7x2 8761.7x + 11496
130
5.3.3 A-7-6 Soil
The data linked to the A-7-6 soil, which was found at the Hamilton County and
Athens County site, was analyzed using the nonlinear models. The four mildly to
strongly significant correlations, identified during the initial linear regression analysis,
are reanalyzed here using the exponential, logarithmic, and power models. The results
are presented in Tables 5.42 through 5.44.
Table 5.42: Exponential Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil

SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.8812 y = 5 E+09e-7.1101x
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.6966 y = 17.387e-0.0465x
Unconfined Compressive Strength Plastic Limit 0.6202 y = 0.0768e0.2909x
Friction Angle % Sand 0.6019 y = 8.0353e0.0319x
Table 5.43: Logarithmic Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil

SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.8996 y = -453.53 Ln(x) + 476.06
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.7467 y = -2.5638 Ln(x) + 17.168
Unconfined
Plastic Limit 0.6733 y = 189.02 Ln(x) 538.82
Friction Angle % Sand 0.6008 y = 7.3626 Ln(x) 6.3692
Table 5.44: Power Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil

SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.8783 y = 5 E+09x-19.18
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.7245 y = 17.139x-0.1818
Unconfined Compressive Strength Plastic Limit 0.6093 y = 6 E-07x5.896
Friction Angle % Sand 0.5736 y = 3.2651x0.518
131
Only mild improvements are brought about by the three nonlinear models. The
correlation between the (N60)1 value and specific gravity remained high. Next, Table
5.45 presents the performance of the hyperbolic model for the A-7-6 soil correlations.
Twenty-two correlations are re-examined through this model.
Table 5.45: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil

Eff. Friction Angle ' % Gravel 0.9778 y = (28.07x 3.824)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.9649 y = (26.29x + 12.72)/x
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.9542 y = (10.46x + 9.16)/x
Friction Angle % Sand 0.9373 y = (22.44x 127.66)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' Plasticity Index 0.9088 y = (28.60x 35.41)/x
SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.8876 y = (-429.97x + 1230)/x
SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.8716 y = (24.70x + 6.937)/x
SPT-(N60)1 0.8641 y = (31.53x 195.49)/x
Strength
Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.8586 y = (26.55x + 0.116)/x
(UC Test)
Unconfined
% Sand 0.8542 y = (55.66x 325.47)/x
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.7811 y = (18.24x + 33.69)/x
SPT-(N60)1 % Sand 0.7810 y = (23.32x + 21.45)/x
Unconfined
Friction Angle 0.7781 y = (70.18x 483.76)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.7606 y = (28.82x 75.13)/x
Unconfined y = (225.60x
Plastic Limit 0.7466
Compressive Strength 3962.30)/x
SPT-(N60)1 Friction Angle 0.7031 y = (30.11x 64.77)/x
Unconfined
% Gravel 0.6691 y = (23.41x + 30.89)/x
Friction Angle 0.6473 y = (23.72x + 1.88)/x
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 % Silt 0.5479 y = (57.15x 999.60)/x
SPT-(N60)1 Plastic Limit 0.5344 y = (83.74x 1204.00)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Silt 0.5153 y = (24.70x + 77.50)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.4405 y = (27.19x + 0.0087)/x
132
Ten correlations in the above table possess the R2 value of above 0.8. This is
significant from what was seen previously using the linear regression model and the first
three nonlinear models. Table 5.46 gives the outcome of the reciprocal model
correlations for A-7-6 soil.
Table 5.46: Reciprocal Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil

SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.8973 y = 1223.80(1/x) 427.69
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.7145 y = 6.0912(1/x) + 11.08
Unconfined
Plastic Limit 0.6611 y = -3821.40(1/x) + 218.73
Friction Angle % Sand 0.5613 y = -112.81(1/x) + 21.42
Unconfined
Friction Angle 0.4914 y = -522.43(1/x) + 73.15
Unconfined
50% Consol. Time t50 0.4191 y = -382.00(1/x) + 48.67
One strong correlation, which is between the (N60)1 value and specific gravity is
seen in the table. Finally, the second-degree polynomial model is applied to some A-7-6
soil correlations, as presented in Table 5.47.
Table 5.47: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for A-7-6 Soil

2
SPT-(N60)1 Specific Gravity 0.9451 y = -1250x + 6587.5x 8647.3
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.9398 y = -0.3485x2 + 3.385x + 22.109
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.7565 y = 0.0543x2 1.2702x + 18.387
Unconfined
Plastic Limit 0.7563 y = 3.1001x2 117.68x + 1138.4
Friction Angle % Sand 0.6874 y = 0.0655x2 1.817x + 24.24
Friction Angle % Clay 0.6646 y = 0.3121x2 30.215x + 741.99
SPT-(N60)1 % Sand 0.6443 y = 0.3637x2 12.778x + 126.44
Unconfined
Friction Angle 0.5148 y = -0.4504x2 + 15.504x 90.758
133
The (N60)1 value against both specific gravity and % gravel produced good
regression values, above 0.90, using the second-degree polynomial models. These were
the only strong correlations noticed using the model.
Once again, all soil tested was combined for analysis. Exponential, logarithmic,
and power model results are shown in Tables 5.48 through 5.50, respectively.
Table 5.48: Exponential Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types

Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.7295 y = 33.09e-0.0354x
Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.7248 y = 50.063e-0.0287x
Friction Angle % Sand 0.6249 y = 6.7849e0.0478x
Friction Angle % Clay 0.6081 y = 44.994e-0.025x
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.5736 y = 42.454e-0.0089x
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.5149 y = 42.21e-0.0088x
Plastic Limit 0.4643 y = 0.6761e0.0341x
Strength q
Friction Angle 0.4370 y = 46.169e-5.9583x
(UC Test)
Table 5.49: Logarithmic Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types

Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.6948 y = -18.891 Ln(x) + 85.721
Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.6670 y = -10.941 Ln(x) + 48.965
Friction Angle % Clay 0.542 y = -14.699 Ln(x) + 71.39
Friction Angle % Sand 0.5305 y = 14.951 Ln(x) 25.379
Friction Angle 0.4859 y = -17.545 Ln(x) 13.997
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.4827 y = -8.2223 Ln(x) + 60.287
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.4652 y = -9.1614 Ln(x) + 63.46
Unconfined
Plastic Limit 0.3897 y = 134.68 Ln(x) 602.16
134
Table 5.50: Power Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types

Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.7238 y = 648.07x-1.013
Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.7117 y = 91.967x-0.5938
Friction Angle % Sand 0.6444 y = 1.3762x0.8657
Friction Angle % Clay 0.5565 y = 294.73x-0.7826
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.5027 y = 81.019x-0.2717
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.4883 y = 90.349x-0.3039
Initial Moisture Content 0.4556
Friction Angle y = 3.3928x-0.8927
(UC Test)
Unconfined 0.4228
Plastic Limit y = 8 E-07x3.6995
Small differences are noticed between the linear model correlation results and the
results produced by the three nonlinear models. No strong correlations are seen in these
tables. Next, the correlations are reformatted by the hyperbolic model using the
combined data for all three soil types. Table 5.51 lists the outcome. Seven strong
correlations are detected, with their R2 values all above 0.80. In fact, ' against % gravel,
% sand, and plasticity index all gave the R2 values above 0.90.
Table 5.51: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types

Eff. Friction Angle ' % Gravel 0.9648 y = (33.36x 8.2807)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' Plasticity Index 0.9467 y = (24.31x + 95.428)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.9249 y = (39.90x 167.45)/x
SPT-(N60)1 50% Consol. Time t50 0.8839 y = (24.79x + 43.31)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Silt 0.8411 y = (47.22x 565.34)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.8374 y = (21.08x + 332.22)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' Liquid Limit 0.8233 y = (20.46x + 349.48)/x
Friction Angle % Gravel 0.7691 y = (27.05x 40.27)/x
Friction Angle % Sand 0.7536 y = (33.88x 276.08)/x
Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.7323 y = (21.28x + 1.45)/x
(UC Test)
135
Table 5.51: Hyperbolic Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types (cont.)

% Gravel 0.7156 y = (40.29x 9.63)/x
Strength q
Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.6121 y = (52.61x 2412.00)/x
(UC Test)
SPT-(N60)1 0.6093 y = (48.80x 636.72)/x
Strength
(UC Test)
Friction Angle % Silt 0.5272 y = (41.14x 756.00)/x
Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.5173 y = (6.53x + 174.83)/x
0.5132 y = (174.11x 15743)/x
(N60)1 Plasticity Index 0.4774 y = (19.66x + 143.59)/x
Strength q
% Sand 0.4516 y = (60.02x 444.35)/x
Strength q
SPT-(N60)1 % Gravel 0.4279 y = (20.08x + 62.19)/x
SPT-(N60)1 Friction Angle 0.3901 y = (39.87x 167.93)/x
SPT-(N60)1 Eff. Friction Angle ' 0.2674 y = (73.28x 1336.80)/x
Table 5.52 shows reciprocal correlations for all the soil tested in the project. No
strong correlations are seen in Table 5.52. Finally, the second-degree polynomial model
is applied to the correlations for all the soils. Fourteen high R2 values resulted. They are
given in Table 5.53. No substantial changes in the R2 values are found using the second-
degree polynomial model as compared to the linear model.
Table 5.52: Reciprocal Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types

Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.6964 y = 612.54(1/x) + 0.49
Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.6267 y = 146.08(1/x) + 8.70
Friction Angle % Sand 0.5120 y = -248.83(1/x) + 32.63
Friction Angle 0.4961 y = 2.394(1/x) + 2.96
(UC Test)
136
Table 5.52: Reciprocal Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types (cont.)

Friction Angle % Clay 0.4944 y = 417.78(1/x) + 6.84
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.4513 y = -138.47(1/x) + 38.57
Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.4207 y = 444.09(1/x) 4.92
Eff. Friction Angle' % Silt 0.4086 y = -609.81(1/x) + 48.42
Eff. Friction Angle' Liquid Limit 0.4074 y = 277.70(1/x) + 22.76
Friction Angle 0.3946 y = -5990.70(1/x) + 72.09
(UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Clay 0.3894 y = 219.76(1/x) + 24.64
0.3892 y = -15755.00(1/x) + 174.22
Table 5.53: Second-Degree Polynomial Model Correlations for All Three Soil Types

Friction Angle Liquid Limit 0.6997 y = 0.0127x2 1.47x + 53.96
Friction Angle Plasticity Index 0.6713 y = 0.021x2 1.4541x + 36.408
Eff. Friction Angle' % Clay 0.5986 y = -0.008x2 + 0.2969x + 31.55
Friction Angle % Clay 0.5717 y = -0.0045x2 0.1458x + 30.661
Eff. Friction Angle ' Plastic Limit 0.5704 y = -0.1841x2 + 5.3803x 4.6368
Friction Angle % Sand 0.5393 y = 0.0029x2 + 0.7231x + 2.845
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Sand 0.5294 y = 0.0236x2 0.4225x + 28.879
Initial Moisture
Friction Angle 0.5079 y = 912.63x2 398.09x + 57.836
Content (UC Test)
Eff. Friction Angle' Liquid Limit 0.4955 y = -0.0014x2 0.1653x + 38.856
Friction Angle Plastic Limit 0.4485 y = -0.0478x2 0.0106x + + 36.086
Eff. Friction Angle ' % Silt 0.4417 y = -0.0289x2 + 2.6063x 24.548
Eff. Friction Angle' Plasticity Index 0.4378 y = 0.0007x2 0.342x + 36.742
Unconfined Initial Dry Unit
0.3918 y = -0.0166x2 + 5.0632x 324.71
Compressive Strength Weight (UC Test)
Friction Angle % Silt 0.3884 y = -0.0665x2 + 5.5948x 94.251
5.4 Multi-Variable Linear Regression Analysis
Up to now, linear and nonlinear correlations were explored between a dependent
variable and a single independent variable. There were some moderately strong to very
strong correlations that emerged from these relatively simple linear and nonlinear
137
regression analyses. The next logical step is to look at correlations between a dependent
variable and two or more independent variables. This section presents results of the
multi-variable linear regression analysis performed for each major soil type and all three
soil types combined.
5.4.1 A-4a Soil
One of the main objectives of this project was to correlate the shear strength
parameters ( and angles) with SPT-(N60)1 values and basic soil index properties. In
Table 5.54 various linear correlations are addressed for the friction angles involving two
independent variables. A total of twelve correlations are examined in the analysis. In the
first six, the angle is specified as the dependent variable. Sieve analysis values along
with the corrected (N60)1 values are looked at in the first four while plasticity index and
the initial dry unit weight are used in the next two with the (N60)1 value. The next six
correlations specify the angle as the dependent variable with the same pattern of
independent variables. The twelve correlations are ranked in terms of the R2 value in
Table 5.54. The strongest correlation for the friction angle is attributed to % silt and
SPT-(N60)1 value. The strongest correlation for the effective friction angle is attributed
to % sand and SPT-(N60)1 value.
Table 5.54: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-4a Soil)
Dependent Variable Independent Variables R2 Equation

= 1.3254 (%Sand) +
% Sand & (N60)1 0.8594
0.0700 (N60)1 3.5154
138
Table 5.54: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-4a Soil) (cont.)
Dependent
Independent Variables R2 Equation
Variable
= 3.3475 (%Silt) + 0.1241 (N60)1
% Silt & (N60)1 0.7516
103.2150
= 0.8240 (%Gravel) + 0.1329 (N60)1
% Gravel & (N60)1 0.4519
+ 12.9546
= -0.5209 (%Clay) + 0.1118 (N60)1 +
% Clay & (N60)1 0.4179
35.7600
= -0.2509 (%Clay) + 0.1190 (N60)1 +
% Clay & (N60)1 0.4093
35.8315
Initial Dry Unit Weight (UC = 1.4356 (IDUW-UC) + 0.1099
0.3917
Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 159.9341
= -0.2094 (PI) 0.1094 (N60)1 +
Plasticity Index & (N60)1 0.3640
41.4881
= 0.3472 (%Gravel) + 0.1205 (N60)1
% Gravel & (N60)1 0.3596
+ 25.6529
0.2453
Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 29.6595
= 0.0697 (PI) + 0.0637 (N60)1 +
27.7694
= -0.0991 (%Silt) + 0.0557 (N60)1 +
% Silt & (N60)1 0.1222
35.1191
= 0.3819 (%Sand) 0.0084 (N60)1 +
% Sand & (N60)1 0.0220
16.2896
While analyzing shear strength parameters is the most vital to this project, other
significant correlations will be examined here as well. To do this effectively, the
outcome of the linear correlations presented in Section 5.2 can be revisited. The A-4a
soil correlations that produced relatively high R2 values are put together and are shown in
Table 5.55. In this table, the independent variables consisted only of sieve analysis and
index property testing values. Another meaningful correlation, with the R2 value of
0.855, is identified for the effective friction angle . It has % sand and % silt listed as
the independent variables. For the unconfined compression strength, three promising
139
correlations have emerged. Among them the strongest one, with the R2 value of 0.916,
expresses the unconfined compression strength in terms of % gravel and the liquid limit
LL.
Table 5.55: Other Significant Multi-Variable Linear Correlations (A-4a Soil)

Unconfined Compressive q = 15.8261 (LL) + 7.7845
% Gravel & Liquid Limit 0.9163
Strength (q) (%Gravel) 409.8357
Unconfined Compressive % Gravel & Plasticity q = 0.2628 (PI) 2.9718
0.8577
Strength (q) Index (%Gravel) + 72.5430
= 1.4256 (%Sand) 0.8128
% Sand & % Silt 0.8551
(%Silt) + 26.5523
Unconfined Compressive Liquid Limit & Initial Dry q = 6.9719 (LL) + 3.8721 (IDUW-
0.8095
Strength (q) Unit Weight (UC Test) UC) 606.7243
Unconfined Compressive % Gravel & Initial Dry q = -5.0533 (%Gravel) + 5.1235
0.6670
Strength (q) Unit Weight (UC Test) (IDUW-UC) 544.8135
= 1.3797 (%Sand) 0.0308 (PI)
% Sand & Plasticity Index 0.6315
0.9290
= -0.0916 (%Sand) + 2.7123
% Sand & % Silt 0.6168
(%Silt) 73.0151
= 0.7296 (%Gravel) + 0.1133
% Gravel & % Clay 0.3211
(%Clay) + 15.3822
Finally, it was deemed necessary to look at equations involving more than two
independent variables. Table 5.56 does this with the and angles as the dependent
variables. In this table, eight new correlations are examined statistically. Six of the cases
addressed here involve the SPT-(N60)1 value as an independent variable. Two of the cases
do not involve the SPT-(N60)1 value and instead use a combination of other values that
can be obtained in the lab. According to Table 5.56, seven strong correlations exist for
estimating the shear strength parameters of A-4a Ohio soil. The highest correlation, with
a R2 value of 0.983, does not even rely on a SPT-(N60)1 value.

140
Table 5.56: Multi-Variable Linear Correlations with 3 and 4 Independents (A-4a Soil)
Dependent
Variable
% Sand, % Silt, Plasticity Index, = 2.2538 (%Sand) + 1.3420
& Initial Dry Unit Weight (UC 0.9830 (%Silt) + 0.0172 (PI) 1.5662
Test) (IDUW-UC) + 122.4839
= 1.2989 (%Gravel) 3.5746
% Gravel, % Silt, Plasticity
0.9421 (%Silt) 0.0501 (PI) + 0.1314 (N60)1
Index, & (N60)1
+ 151.5057
= -0.3836 (%Gravel) + 2.2076
% Gravel, % Sand, Plasticity
0.9419 (%Sand) 0.0502 (PI) 0.0015
Index, & (N60)1
(N60)1 17.4791
= 0.4183 (%Gravel) + 2.4400
% Gravel, % Silt, Plasticity
0.9417 (%Silt) 0.0537 (PI) + 0.1771 (N60)1
Index, & (N60)1
73.2207
= 1.5669 (%Gravel) 1.5072
% Gravel, % Sand, Plasticity
0.9417 (%Sand) 0.0536 (PI) + 0.2678
Index, & (N60)1
(N60)1 + 42.1348
= 1.4091 (%Sand) + 3.3904
% Sand, % Silt, & (N60)1 0.9169
(%Silt) + 0.1248 (N60)1 101.3519
% Sand, % Silt, Plasticity Index, = 1.1742 (%Sand) + 4.3705 (%Silt)
& Initial Dry Unit Weight (UC 0.8687 0.0727 (PI) 1.4078 (IDUW-UC)
Test) + 14.6260
= -0.1342 (%Sand) + 3.3904
% Sand, % Silt, & (N60)1 0.7540
(%Silt) + 0.1248 (N60)1 101.3519
5.4.2 A-6a Soil
Similar to the previous section, the study data linked to A-6a soil samples were
analyzed by the multi-variable linear regression method, with the and angles as the
dependent variables. The independent variables again, consisted of the (N60)1 value
paired with sieve analysis, plasticity index, and initial dry unit weight values for the soil.
The outcome is given in Table 5.57. None of the cases in the table is strong enough to be
meaningful. Earlier in Section 5.2, only two significant correlations were identified for
A-6a soil. Therefore, only one other significant correlation is looked at here. This is
141
shown in Table 5.58. The unconfined compression strength of A-6a soil is strongly
correlated to % silt and initial dry unit weight.
Table 5.57: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-6a Soil)
Dependent
Variable
= -1.0283 (PI) 0.0026 (N60)1 +
34.4530
= -0.7206 (%Gravel) + 0.0024 (N60)1
% Gravel & (N60)1 0.1639
+ 25.7528
= -0.2303 (%Clay) + 0.0582 (N60)1 +
% Clay & (N60)1 0.1549
38.3897
= 0.4454 (PI) + 0.0427 (N60)1 +
26.6203
= 0.3494 (%Sand) + 0.0252 (N60)1 +
% Sand & (N60)1 0.114
24.2404
= 0.3579 (%Clay) 0.0162 (N60)1 +
% Clay & (N60)1 0.1127
11.6432
= 0.1017 (%Silt) + 0.0385 (N60)1 +
% Silt & (N60)1 0.06903
28.150
Initial Dry Unit Weight (UC = -0.0243 (IDUW-UC) + 0.0270
0.04959
Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 + 35.4918
= 0.0550 (%Gravel) + 0.0308 (N60)1
% Gravel & (N60)1 0.04494
+ 32.2163
= -0.3379 (%Sand) 0.0330 (N60)1 +
% Sand & (N60)1 0.03997
28.7237
0.02676
Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 + 14.7138
= -0.0272 (%Silt) + 0.0271 (N60)1 +
% Silt & (N60)1 0.01686
21.8238
Table 5.58: Other Multi-Variable Linear Correlation (A-6a Soil)

Unconfined Compressive % Silt & Initial Dry Unit 0.8742 q = -1.7375 (%Silt) + 1.1892
Strength (q) Weight (UC Test) (IDUW-UC) 32.4728
142
An attempt was made to find additional multi-variable linear correlations for A-6a
soils, using three or four independent variables and or angle as the dependent
variable. However, the attempt was unsuccessful. None of the cases tried produced a R2
value above 0.80. This is not too surprising, however, since the regression values in
Table 5.57 are very low.
5.4.3 A-7-6 Soil
The same type of multi-variable linear regression analysis was carried out, using
the project data tied to A-7-6 soil type. Table 5.59 summarizes the outcome for the cases
which involved or as the dependent variable. The independent variables consist of
sieve analysis, index property, and initial dry unit weight values for A-7-6 soil.
Table 5.59: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-7-6 Soil)
Dependent Var. Independent Variables R2 Equation

= 0.4930 (%Sand) + 0.2349 (N60)1 -
% Sand & (N60)1 0.7838
0.0372
= -0.7217 (%Gravel) 0.1144 (N60)1
% Gravel & (N60)1 0.7359
+ 20.6400
= -0.6927 (%Clay) + 0.2678 (N60)1 +
% Clay & (N60)1 0.4576
39.4349
Initial Dry Unit Weight = -0.3575 (IDUW-UC) + 0.1496
0.2228
(UC Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 + 48.3162
Plasticity Index & = -0.2155 (PI) + 0.1073 (N60)1 +
0.1991
(N60)1 16.2209
= -0.0567 (%Sand) 0.1091 (N60)1 +
Sand & (N60)1 0.0957
30.7784
= 0.0826 (%Gravel) 0.0691 (N60)1
Gravel & (N60)1 0.09387
+ 28.4075
= 0.0654 (%Clay) 0.1104 (N60)1 +
Clay & (N60)1 0.08037
26.8522
Initial Dry Unit Weight = 0.0411 (IDUW-UC) 0.0993
0.0768
(UC Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 + 25.2188
143
Table 5.59: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (A-7-6 Soil) (cont.)

Plasticity Index & = -0.0944 (PI) + 0.0251
0.07613
(N60)1 (N60)1 + 28.8991
= 0.0240 (%Silt)
Silt & (N60)1 0.07208
0.1052 (N60)1 + 29.0712
= 0.0588 (%Silt) +
% Silt & (N60)1 0.06319
0.1314 (N60)1 + 8.1942
Using information from Section 5.1, ten other significant multi-variable linear
correlations were examined. This is shown in Table 5.60. Here, the dependent variables
are the friction angle , unconfined compressive strength, and corrected SPT-(N60)1
value. Three statistically strong correlations were found for SPT-(N60)1, and one strong
correlation for the unconfined compression strength.
Table 5.60: Other Multi-Variable Linear Correlations (A-7-6 Soil)

Plastic Limit & Specific (N60)1 = -1.4066 (PL)
(N60)1 0.9377
Gravity 207.7801 (Gs) + 615.6618
% Sand & Specific (N60)1 = -0.1208 (%Sand)
(N60)1 0.9174
Gravity 166.9366 (SG) + 478.1706
% Gravel & Specific (N60)1 = 0.0371 (%Gravel)
(N60)1 0.9023
Gravity 170.6683 (Gs) + 486.1955
Unconfined Compressive q = 0.8677 (%Sand) + 9.7743
% Sand & Plastic Limit 0.8242
Strength (q) (PL) 154.2631
= -0.8487 (%Clay) +
% Clay & Plastic Limit 0.7916
2.1994 (PL) + 8.3293
= -0.4361 (%Gravel) +
% Gravel & % Sand 0.7586
0.2048 (%Sand) + 12.9050
Unconfined Compressive = 0.0640 (q) 0.5325
0.7483
Strength (q) & % Gravel (%Gravel) + 14.5429
= 0.4154 (%Sand) + 0.9210
% Sand & Plastic Limit 0.7319
(PL) 11.911
Unconfined Compressive q = -0.6002 (%Gravel) +
% Gravel & Plastic Limit 0.7105
Strength (q) 8.0858 (PL) 130.1148
Unconfined Compressive % Sand & Specific q = 1.2847 (%Sand)
0.6347
Strength (q) Gravity 245.9255 (Gs) + 677.6913
144
Additional multi-variable linear correlations were investigated for A-7-6 soil in
Ohio, with three or four independent variables. The outcome is given in Table 5.61. The
R2 value of all four correlations is slightly below 0.80. The friction angle can be
predicted fairly well for A-7-6 soils using the equations shown in Table 5.61. One of the
correlations does not even use the (N60)1 value, which allows it to be of extreme
convenience to a design engineer. The same independent variables (% gravel, % sand, %
clay, PI, dry unit weight, SPT-N) were tried using as the dependent variable.
However, these cases all resulted in the R2 values of about 0.10.
Table 5.61: Multi-Variable Linear Correlations with 3 and 4 Independents (A-7-6 Soil)
Dependent
Variable
% Gravel, % Sand, % = 0.5003 (%Gravel) + 0.8809 (%Sand)
0.7989
Clay, & (N60)1 + 0.1502 (N60)1 - 21.7395
% Gravel, % Sand, = 4.8724 (%Gravel) + 3.8457 (%Sand)
0.7989
Plasticity Index, & (N60)1 + 0.5392 (PI) + 2.6960 (N60)1 156.5556
% Gravel, % Sand, = 0.7740 (%Gravel) 0.7271 (%Sand)
Plasticity Index, & Initial 0.7989 1.7601 (PI) 3.1107 (IDUW-UC) +
Dry Unit Weight (UC Test) 402.2371
% Sand, % Gravel, & = 0.4661 (%Gravel) + 0.7958 (%Sand)
0.7920
(N60)1 + 0.4577 (N60)1 13.0867
The last multi-variable linear regression analysis was performed using the entire
project data (i.e., looking at all of the soils combined), since they were all from Ohio.
The set of correlations using shear strength parameters as the dependent variables is
shown in Table 5.62. Unfortunately, no statistically strong multi-variable linear
correlations emerged for either or .

145
Other significant correlations that include shear strength parameters and
unconfined compressive strength in as the dependent variable were also investigated.
This is shown in Table 5.63. Once again, the attempts met no major success.
Table 5.62: Multi-Variable Linear Regression Correlations for and (All Soil Types)
Dependent
Variable
= -0.2673 (%Clay) + 0.0862 (N60)1 +
% Clay & (N60)1 0.6588
38.0385
= -0.6287 (PI) + 0.0195(N60)1 +
29.2827
= -0.4579 (%Clay) + 0.0982 (N60)1 +
% Clay & (N60)1 0.6158
32.6819
= 0.8162 (%Sand) + 0.0353 (N60)1 +
% Sand & (N60)1 0.5453
1.2121
= 0.4531 (%Sand) + 0.0513 (N60)1 +
% Sand & (N60)1 0.5445
20.1342
= -0.2940 (PI) + 0.0497 (N60)1 +
34.6851
= 0.4381 (%Silt) + 0.0818 (N60)1 +
% Silt & (N60)1 0.4707
12.9278
0.4337
Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 32.2852
= 0.6207 (%Silt) + 0.0925 (N60)1
% Silt & (N60)1 0.3049
5.5186
0.2903
Test) & (N60)1 (N60)1 + 8.9975
= 0.2683 (%Gravel) + 0.1103 (N60)1
% Gravel & (N60)1 0.1909
+ 26.5745
= 0.5297 (%Gravel) + 0.1455 (N60)1
% Gravel & (N60)1 0.1603
+ 12.3638
Table 5.63: Other Multi-Variable Linear Correlations (All Soil Types)

= 0.1930 (%Sand) 0.4354 (LL) +
% Sand & Liquid Limit 0.6712
30.4235
= -0.0483 (%Clay) 0.4814 (LL) +
% Clay & Liquid Limit 0.6639
37.8382
146
Table 5.63: Other Multi-Variable Linear Correlations (All Soil Types) (cont.)

% Clay & Plasticity = -0.1846 (%Clay) 0.4348
0.6568
Index (PI) + 33.1122
% Sand & Plasticity = 0.2984 (%Sand) 0.4652
0.6516
Index (PI) + 20.7798
= 0.3847 (%Sand) 0.2829
% Sand & % Clay 0.5976
(Clay) + 21.3115
= -0.2131 (%Clay) 0.0647
% Clay & Liquid Limit 0.5557
(LL) + 41.0105
Plasticity Index &
Unconfined Compressive q = 0.2884 (PI) + 1.3422
Initial Dry Unit Weight 0.3911
Strength (q) (IDUW-UC) 122.2376
(UC Test)
Unconfined Compressive % Sand & Initial Dry q = 0.0503 (%Sand) + 1.1477
0.3826
Strength (q) Unit Weight (UC Test) (IDUW-UC) 96.3597
Once again, as it was done previously, further correlations were sought after using
three or four independent variables. However, after going through a series of regressions,
no combination of variables was able to produce a strong correlation. Most of the R2
values ranged from 0.55 to 0.65.
5.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Guidelines
The outcome of the data analysis presented in this chapter can be combined to
formulate a set of guidelines that geotechnical engineers can apply to estimate more
confidently shear strength properties of highway embankment soils commonly
encountered in Ohio. The guidelines may be given at multiple levels to allow varying
degrees of sophistication involved in the estimation process. The guidelines presented
here are of preliminary nature, since the data from the final four embankment sites will
not be available for a few months.

147
Level 1: Use the following default values for the three major embankment soil
types found in Ohio:
A-4a . = 30.2 (5.1)
A-6a . = 30.5 (5.2)
A-7-6 .. = 24.5 (5.3)
Level 2: Estimate the effective friction angle of any major embankment soil type
(A-4a, A-6a, A-7-6) using the empirical -PI correlation chart established
by Terzaghi et al. (1996). It is noted here that the actual value may be
within + 3 to + 5 of the average value extracted from the center region
of the band.
Level 3: For any of the three major soil types, use any of the following mathematic-
al equations to estimate the effective friction angle (in degrees).
33.36(%G ) 8.28
= (5.4)
(%G )
39.90(% S ) 167.45
= (5.5)
(% S )
24.31(PI ) + 95.43
= (5.6)
( PI )
148
Level 3 (Alternative):
For each specific major soil type, use any of the following mathematical
equations to estimate the effective friction angle (in degrees).
34.87(%G ) 14.51
A-4a Soil: = (5.7)
(%G )
64.92(% S ) 819.5
= (5.8)
(% S )
42.01(PI ) 71.08
= (5.9)
( PI )
= 0.527(%S)2 + 28.22(%S) 342.64 (5.10)
= 2.254(%S) + 1.342(%M) + 0.017(PI) 1.566(d)
+ 122.48 (5.11)
= 1.325(%S) + 0.070{SPT-(N60)1} 3.515 (5.12)
33.49(%G ) + 0.32
A-6a Soil: = (5.13)
(%G )
37.97(PI ) 54.21
= (5.14)
( PI )
28.07(%G ) 3.82
A-7-6 Soil: = (5.15)
(%G )
26.29(% S ) + 12.72
= (5.16)
(% S )
149
28.60(PI ) 35.41
= (5.17)
( PI )
where %G = % gravel (by mass); %S = % sand (by mass); PI = plasticity index
(%); %M = % silt (by mass); d = dry unit weight (lb/ft3); SPT-(N60)1 = SPT-N
value fully corrected to energy ratio and overburden stress level (blows/ft).
The Level 1 and Level 2 correlations are simply the empirical correlations given
by Dept. of Navy (1982) and Terzaghi et al. (1996) with some modifications or additional
comments introduced. The Level 3 correlations, however, which are shown in the many
tables throughout Chapter 5, were analyzed further. In Table 5.64, the average difference
between the predicted value (calculated using the Level 3 correlations) and the actual
' value (given in Chapter 4) is given in the second column. The third column gives the
standard deviation of the differences between the predicted and actual values.
Table 5.64: Average and Standard Deviation of Differences for
Average Standard Dev. of

Equation Difference for Differences for
(deg.) (deg.)
5.4 0.33 3.31
5.5 0.07 2.61
5.6 -0.21 3.22
5.7 0.16 2.88
5.8 0.00 1.51
5.9 -0.01 2.47
5.10 0.05 1.22
5.11 0.69 0.46
5.12 0.01 1.06
5.13 0.00 1.93
5.14 0.00 1.87
150
Table 5.64: Average and Standard Deviation of Differences for (cont.)
Average Standard Dev. Of

Equation Difference for Difference for
(deg.) (deg.)
5.15 0.52 2.20
5.16 -0.01 1.84
5.17 0.00 1.83
The results presented in this table clearly indicate the advantage of taking the Level 3
(alternative) over any of the other options. Some of the equations, especially Eqns. 5.8,
5.10, 5.14, 5.16, and 5.17, listed under the Level 3 (alternative) yielded very small
average and standard deviation values for the difference between the predicted and
measured values.
151
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary
For many years, geotechnical engineers in Ohio have had to rely on empirical
correlations found in textbooks or journal articles to design highway embankments.
However, many of these correlations were found by testing soil from other areas of the
U.S. or the world. This has caused engineers to use overly conservative estimates in
design. The project at hand looked to create reliable correlations for geotechnical
engineers created from testing on Ohio soils. To accomplish this, the following
objectives were given:
Conduct a literature review related to highway embankments in Ohio;
Identify several embankment locations around Ohio for detailed field and
laboratory testing;
Perform the continuous SPT and push multiple Shelby tube samples at each
site;
Perform index property tests, sieve analyses, and shear strength tests on the
obtained soil; and
Analyze field and laboratory test results to develop correlations regarding the
shear strength of the soil.

152
The first task was completed by looking through journal articles and texts relating
to the shear strength of soil, pore water pressure in soil, highway embankment stability,
and AASHTO classifications. The different soil regions in Ohio and the types of soil
found there were examined. Field testing methods used at embankments and laboratory
testing methods used on soil from the embankment were also given.
The second task was completed by studying old geotechnical reports from many
locations around the state. Figuring out which types of soil were found in certain
locations, the project team decided where it would be best suited to perform testing
operations. A total of five different locations in the state (Hamilton, Fayette, Lake,
Athens, and Morrow Counties) were used for testing. Each location also had to meet the
criteria set out in Chapter 3.
The third and fourth tasks were completed using a combined effort from BBCM
and the ORITE. Proper field and laboratory test methods were used to perform these
tests. Finally, the fifth task was completed through a series of statistical analyses. Some
of these analyses proved to be useful and some did not. They did provide, however,
some guidelines to be used by Ohio engineers, which was a major objective of the
project.
6.2 Conclusions
After completing the objectives, a series of conclusions were drawn out. First, in
Chapter 4, SPT-(N60)1 values were given. These values were all energy corrected and
then normalized by using an average of the five normalization factors. Looking at the
153
final (N60)1 value given at each site, it should be noted that it is extremely close to the
value given by Seed et al. (1975). The Skempton (1986) factor was also very close to the
final averaged (N60)1 value, but not as close at Seed et al. (1975). A conclusion can be
drawn that the Seed et al. (1975) factor is very effective in normalizing the effects of
overburden pressure compared to the other ones.
It is also interesting to look what types of soil, in regards to AASHTO
classifications, were found at each site. A-7-6 soils were found only at the Hamilton and
Athens County sites. These sites are the most southern located of the five. It is possible
that Southern Ohio contains a good amount of A-7-6 soil regardless of the whether the
area is glaciated (Hamilton County) or not (Athens County). Also, A-4 soils were
plentiful at the Lake County site with smaller deposits found also at the Fayette and
Morrow County sites. A preliminary conclusion is that A-7-6 soils are found
predominantly in Southern Ohio, A-4 soils are found predominantly in Northern Ohio,
and A-6 soils are scattered, with most though being found in the Central Region.
Next, comparisons made between the BBCM and ORITE unconfined
compression test results and SPT-(N60)1 values and those results given through empirical
correlations by Terzaghi et al. (1996) and Dept. of Navy (1982) were mixed. Ohio A-4a
soils appear to conform to both the Terzaghi et al. (1996) and the Dept. of Navy (1982)
correlations plotting the unconfined compressive strength against SPT-(N60)1 values. A-
6a soils in Ohio do not appear to conform to either the Terzaghi et al. (1996) or the Dept.
of Navy (1982) correlations between unconfined compressive strength and SPT-(N60)1
values. Finally, using the results of Table 5.3 and Figure 5.4, Ohio A-7-6 soils do not
154
conform to the Terzaghi et al. (1996) results but they appear to conform to the Dept. of
Navy (1982) results.
Another reason that some of the unconfined compression test results are not
conforming well to the correlations given in Chapter 2 is that this test is not a very
reliable one to begin with. The unconfined compression test set-up does not simulate
field conditions. Even with experienced people doing the work and good quality control,
the results may be very scattered, as was the case in the current study.
Strict quality control was used, also, with the SPT. The same drill rig and field
crew worked at each site. This was done to obtain consistency in the results. The same
quality control was also used by the ORITE for triaxial compression testing, whose
results will be discussed next.
Next, effective friction angle and plasticity index data obtained from the ORITE
and BBCM experimentation was compared to that from Terzaghi et al. (1996). Overall,
the comparisons turned out to be moderately compatible. Six out of eleven of the A-4a
soils fell into the Terzaghi et al. (1996) + 3 range and all of them fell within a + 5 range
of the central curve. Looking at A-6a soils, nineteen of the twenty-two C-U triaxial tests
done gave values within the Terzaghi et al. (1996) + 3 range with the remaining three
inside the + 5 degree range. Finally, with the Ohio A-7-6 soils, six of eleven values fell
into the Terzaghi et al. (1996) + 3 range. The remaining five were within a + 5 range of
the central curve. Overall, the use of the Terzaghi et al. (1996) correlation between
effective friction angle and plasticity index is moderately reliable for A-4a and A-7-6
soils and very reliable for A-6a soil in Ohio. These were presented as Level 2
155
correlations in Section 5.5. Also presented in Section 5.5, as a Level 1 correlation, are
the effective friction angles for A-4, A-6, and A-7-6 soils. These correlations are
conservative estimates that represent the lower range of the results given in Chapter 4.
However, they should not be used very frequently, as most engineers should turn to the
Levels 2 and 3 correlations.
In the early sections of Chapter 5, many other correlations were given using
ORITE and BBCM data. Linear, exponential, logarithmic, power, and reciprocal models
gave only a few strong correlations. The use of hyperbolic, second-degree polynomial,
and multi-variable linear regression models, however, gave much stronger correlations
while using the same dependent and independent variables, especially the hyperbolic.
This was apparent with each type of soil tested.
Hyperbolic functions again appeared in Section 5.5 giving Level 3 correlations.
The first set of functions given can be used for Ohio soil on any of the three AASHTO
types tested in the project. % Gravel, % Sand, or the Plasticity Index can be used to find
the effective friction angle of a soil effectively. On the other hand, independent
variables such as saturated moisture content, dry unit weight, and specific gravity,
showed weaker correlations to the effective friction angle. Analysis was able to go
further, too, by looking at each AASHTO classification. These are listed as the
Alternative Level 3 correlations. Hyperbolic functions that were found in Section 5.3
are given for specifically A-4a, A-6a, and A-7-6 soils. Correlations regarding the
effective friction angle were so good for A-4a soils, a second-degree polynomial model
and two multi-variable linear regression models were made available for use also. The
156
five strongest equations of the fourteen were Equations 5.8, 5.10, 5.14, 5.16, and 5.17.
These were chosen as the best because of their extremely low average difference value
and low standard deviation values. These equations need to be considered by Ohio
engineers when performing highway embankment design.
6.3 Recommendations
A few recommendations need to be made for future studies. First, many types of
statistical analyses were done on the results. Although many good correlations were
found, multi-variable nonlinear regression analysis is another model that can be used.
This method has the possibility to produce better correlations.
Also, the types of soils (AASHTO classification) to be obtained from the final
four sites needs to be addressed. With the first five sites, there were 44 C-U triaxial tests
done. Half of these contained A-6 soils. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of
ORITE and ODOT to obtain mostly A-4 and A-7-6 soils from here on out. The site with
the most A-4 soils from the first five was in Lake County. This is located in the Low
Lime Glacial Lake Sediment area on Figure 2.3, the Ohio Soils Regions Map. It would,
therefore, be desirable to obtain soils from one or two more sites in that area, possibly
Lorain, Cuyahoga, or Ashtabula Counties. Also, majority of the A-7-6 soils tested came
from the Hamilton County site. This is located in the Glacial Drift of Illinoian Age on
the Soils Regions Map. To obtain more A-7-6 soils, it would be desirable to look at
future field sites in parts of Knox and Perry Counties or in Highland, Brown, and
Clermont Counties.
157
REFERENCES
ASTM (2004). Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression
Test for Cohesive Soils. Designations D4767-04, West Conshohocken, PA, pp.
887-899.
Bazaraa, A. R. S. S. (1967). "Use of the Standard Penetration Test for Estimating
Settlements of Shallow Foundations on Sand, Ph. D. Dissertation, Civil
Engineering Dept., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Bishop, A. W., Bjerrum, L. (1960). The Relevance of the Triaxial Test to the Solution of
Stability Problems. Proceedings of Research Conference on Shear Strength of
Cohesive Soils, ASCE, pp. 437-501.
Bowles, J. E. (1992). Engineering Properties of Soils and Their Measurement, 4th
Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 241.
Casagrande, A. (1932). The Structure of Clay and its Importance in Foundation
Engineering, Proc. Contributions to Soil Mech., 19251940, Boston Society of
Civil Engineers, Boston, MA, pp. 72112.
Casagrande, A., and Hirschfeld, R. C. (1960). Stress Deformation and Strength
Characteristics of a Clay Compacted to a Constant Dry Unit Weight.
Proceedings of Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, ASCE,
pp. 359-417.
Darcy, H. (1856). Les Fontaines Publiques de la Villa de Dijon, Dalmont, Paris.

158
Das, B. M. (2002). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 5th Edition, Brooks/Cole,
Pacific Grove, CA, 743 pp.
Dept. of Navy (1982). Soil Mechanics Design Manual, NAVFACDM-7.1, Alexandria,
VA.
Drumright, E. E.. Pfingsten, C. W., Lukas, R. G. (1996). Influence of Hammer Type on
SPT Results. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), Vol. 122, No. 7, pp. 598.
Duncan, J. M., Byrne, P., Wong, K. S., and Mabry, P. (1980). Strength, Stress-Strain
and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analysis of Stresses and
Movements in Soil Masses. Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, College of Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, California.
Johnson, G. O. (1975). Engineering Characteristics of Ohio Soil Series, Report No.
OHIO-DOT-75, 3 Volumes, Columbus, OH.
Masada, T., Sargand, S. M., and Liao, Y. (2006). Resilient Modulus Prediction Model
for Fine-Grained Soils in Ohio: Preliminary Study. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Perpetual Pavements (ICPP).
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). Foundation Engineering, 2nd
Edition, Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY
Schmertmann, J. H. (1975). Measurement of In-Situ Strength. Proceeding of the
Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, American Society of Civil
Engineers, pp. 55-138.

159
Schmertmann, J. H. (1979). Statics of SPT, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division. Vol. 105. No. GT5. pp. 655-657.
Seed, H. B., Arango, I., and Chan, C. K. (1975). Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction
Potential During Earthquakes, Report No. EERC 75-28, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Sieken, Inc. <http://www.seikensha.com/en/unit/ichijiku/itijiku25.jpg>. Accessed
January 20, 2008.
Skempton, A.W., (1953). The Colloidal Activity of Clay. Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
London, Vol. 1, pp. 5761.
Skempton, A. W. (1986). Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Effect in Sands
of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and
Overconsolidation, Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 425-447.
Stroud, M. A. and Butler, F. G. (1975). The Standard Penetration Test and the
Engineering Properties of Glacial Materials. Proc. Symp. On Engineering
Properties of Glacial Materials, Midlands Geotechnical Society, Birmingham,
pp.117-128.
Terzaghi, K, Peck R. B., and Mesri, G. (1996) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
2nd Edition, Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY pp. 549.
160
APPENDIX A: SPT CALIBRATION TEST DATA & C-U TRIAXIAL
COMPRESSION TEST INSTRUCTIONS
Below is the report from GRL on equipment calibration.

161
The following is a detailed set of instructions on running a CU triaxial compression test.

162
C-U Triaxial Test Instructions - Shelby Tube sample of clayey-silty material
1) Turn on the system (This means the computer, panel, etc.). Then, turn on the
water and air pressure using the valves on the wall. Turn the panel pressure up to 60 psi.
Next, drain the crappy water from the wall, through the FILL CELL port, into the water
drain bucket, so that it wont be used in the test. Check that all the tubing within the
cell is clean so that nothing will clog during the test. Fill the deairing water tank (to 1
from the top) with water from the wall. Turn on the vacuum. Then, switch to the
VACCUUM position for the top TANK CONTROLS valve on the panel. This will begin
deairing the water. Deair the water for at least 4 hours.
2) Measure off on the Shelby Tube where it is to be cut so that the experimenter
obtains the desired sample height.
3) Cut the tube with the electric saw.
4) Using the Dremel rotary tool, shave off any pieces of metal around the perimeter
of the Shelby tube that will affect the sample when it is being removed. Jack the sample
out of the Shelby Tube with the jacking device. (The jacking process may take a few
steps. It may be necessary to place porous stones and circular weights between the
sample and the jacking device.) If the sample comes out of the tube in relatively good
form, move on to Step 5. If not, go to Step 4a.
*If it appears that it will be difficult to remove the specimen

from the Shelby tube in good form, it may be necessary to
cut the Shelby tube lengthwise, and, then, peel off the
pieces of metal.
4a) In this case, the soil has come out of the Shelby Tube in poor testing form. This
means that the experimenter will need to remold the specimen. So, for remolding the
specimen, first, smash up the soil on the floor using a concrete cylinder. If the soil is
fairly wet already, the smashing process will not need to be done. Then, put the soil
into a large metal bowl. Add water to the bowl in order to obtain the desired water
content (if the desired water content is already present, do not add any water). For a
remolded specimen, the desired water content is the optimum moisture content. Its
typically difficult to measure the desired/optimum moisture content. It can be
approximated, however, by feeling the soil and kneading it together. When mixing soil
with water in the large metal bowl, slowly add water. Keep kneading the soil with the
water. When the soil sticks together in the experimenters hand (no crumbling of dry
pieces), the soil is at approximately the optimum moisture content. It is important to not
go over the optimum moisture content. If the experimenter squeezes some of the soil in
their hand and a muddy water/slime mixture comes out of the hand, the soil is over its
optimum moisture content. So, if water has been added to the soil and the optimum
163
moisture content has been reached, go on to Step 4b. If no water was added to the soil,
and the soil is simply sitting in the bowl, go on to Step 4c.
4b) If water has been added to the soil, place Saran Wrap over the bowl and tape it
down on the sides so that it forms an airtight seal for the soil inside of the bowl. Here,
the experimenter wants the new water added to the bowl to mix in to the soil more. Let
the soil sit in the bowl with the airtight seal for at least 16 hours. After at least 16 hours,
the experimenter can remove the Saran Wrap and go on to Step 4c.
4c) Next, its time to physically form the remolded specimen. First, weigh the mold,
porous stones, and plastic limit plate separately. Then, place wet paper towels on the
insides of the mold so that they actually stick to the insides of the mold. Clamp the two
pieces of the mold together. Then, get out a plastic limit plate. Place a porous stone in
the middle of the plastic limit plate. Place a paper towel over the porous stone. Place the
mold over the porous stone and paper towel. Then, begin compacting the specimen in the
mold. Six layers should be formed with the compaction process. Scarify the top of each
layer before adding a new layer. The desired soil density can be reached by measuring
the mass of the soil sample plus the mold, porous stones, and plastic limit plate during or
after compacting the soil. The volume of the mold and its mass, along with the mass of
the plate and porous stones, should be known, so a simple calculation can be done to find
the density. While compacting the specimen, make sure that the tamping device used is
less than half of the interior diameter of the mold. Finally, after the desired height and
density of the specimen is reached, remove the mold from the specimen and move on to
Step 5. (Note: After molding the soil, it may appear that the specimen will not be able to
stand on its own. If this is the case, place a paper towel over the top of the specimen and
place a porous stone over the paper towel. Do not place anything on the porous stone.
Let the specimen sit for two hours in the mold. After two hours, take off the stone and
paper towel and touch the top of the specimen. If the specimen feels drier and more
stable, remove the mold. If the specimen does not feel any drier, place the paper towel
and stone back on and let it sit for a few more hours. The experimenter should do this
process until they feel certain that the specimen can stand on its own. Once the mold is
removed from the specimen, it is difficult to place back on. Likely, the experimenter will
need to completely remold the specimen.)
5) Now, measure the height and diameter of the specimen and find its mass. (The
mass of the specimen should be the same as was found in the Step 4c density calculation,
if Step 4c had been done). When measuring the height of the specimen, do three
measurements along the longitudinal axis, each measurement 120 degrees apart, to get an
average height of the specimen. Then, do three separate diameter measurements at the
quarter points of the specimen height. This will get you the average specimen
diameter. Record the readings.
6) The specimen should be approximately 6 inches tall and exactly 2.8 inches (A
specimen that comes out of the Shelby tube will be 2.8 inches in diameter and will not
164
need its diameter shaven down.) in diameter (The height to diameter ratio needs to be
between 2 and 2.5.). Even if the specimen meets the proper height requirements, it is
desirable to saw off a small amount of soil on one end of the specimen. This soil will be
used for a moisture content test. An initial moisture content test must be performed
with soil used in the test. So, soil shavings must be obtained from the jacked out
sample prior to mounting by either shaving down the height of the specimen or
shaving down its diameter. Shaving down the height of the specimen is done most
easily with a miter box and saw.
Also, no particle can be within the specimen that is larger than 1/6th of the
specimen diameter. The specimen cannot be used if it does not meet this criteria.
The experimenter can find a large particle by simple visual inspection.
Also, an individual reading of the specimen height or diameter should not deviate
by more than 5% from the average reading. (For example; if the three readings of
specimen height are 5.7, 6.2, and 5.7, the average is 5.867; the reading of 6.2
deviates from the average by 5.68%.) If this occurs, saw down the specimen so that there
is no longer a large deviation with the average height or diameter. (If, during the sawing
of the specimen, small pieces of soil fall out leaving voids, carefully remold the specimen
at the voided areas with shavings of the soil.)
Save the shavings from the sample in a tin to be used in Step 7 (Before placing
the trimmings in the tin, place the tin on a balance and record the mass of the empty tin.).
Finally, find the specimen mass again and measure its height and diameter a final time.
Record these readings. From these readings, calculate the specimens volume and unit
moist unit weight.
7) Perform a water content determination on material trimmed from the sample.

This test needs to be in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216. The mass of the tin
should already be recorded. So, next, find the mass of the wet soil trimmings that are in
the tin. Next, place the soil trimmings and the tin into the oven. (Note: The rest of Step 7
will likely be completed some time during the saturation of the soil specimen.) The
trimmings should remain in the oven for at least 16 hours. After 16 hours, record the
mass of the tin with the soil trimmings. Then, place the tin and soil trimmings back into
the oven for at least 4 more hours. After this 4 hour period, record the mass again. If the
change in mass over the 4 hour drying period is less than 0.1%, the drying process of the
soil trimmings is completed. If the change is greater than 0.1%, continue the process of
drying for 4 hours and recording the mass until the change between the two mass
readings is less than 0.1%. Finally, the water content of the soil trimmings can be found
by the equation:
water content ={ [ (mass wet trimmings) (mass of dry trimmings) ] /

[mass of dry trimmings] }
x 100
Record the water content on a sheet along with the Shelby tube sample it
corresponds to. The water content value needs to be recorded to the nearest 0.1%.
165
8) Next, find the effective consolidation stress (The effective consolidation stress is
the chamber pressure minus the back pressure during consolidation. For example, if we
have a back pressure of 30.0 psi and a chamber pressure of 45.0 psi during consolidation,
then the effective consolidation stress will be 15.0 psi.) of the soil sample. The first step
here is figuring out the past overburden stress of the soil specimen. This is found by
multiplying the unit weight of the soil by the depth of the midpoint of the specimen. Our
effective consolidation stress needs to be significantly greater than the past overburden
stress.
9) Put the two porous stones into the oven for one hour. Then, put the stones into a
bowl filled with desiccate pellets for 30 minutes to cool them down.
10) Mount the soil sample:
a) Put the dry stone on top of the plastic piece on the bottom of the triaxial cell.
Put a piece of dry filter paper on top of the stone.
b) Put a membrane onto the metal o-ring slider (Have the membrane cover the
inside of the slider and pull the ends of the membrane onto the outside surface of
the slider.). After the membrane is secured on the slider, hook a hose up to the
hole on the side of the slider. Then hook up the other end of that hose to the
VACUUM HOSE port on the panel.
c) Turn on the vacuum. Toggle the VACUUM HOSE port. The membrane
should stick to the inside of the slider.
d) Put the soil specimen on its side on a green glass plastic limit plate. Then, put
a piece of stripped filter paper around the specimen (The stripped filter paper
helps decrease the length of the drainage path for the specimen). Small pieces of
tape can be used to secure it around the sides of the specimen. Make sure that the
filter paper is shorter than the length of the specimen. This will prevent excess
resistance when shearing the specimen. Carefully cut the ends of the filter paper
down if it is too long.
e) Put the clay specimen on top of the filter paper and bottom porous stone. Put
the slider (with the membrane sticking to the insides of it) over the soil specimen
and the plastic piece at the bottom of the cell. Raise the slider a little bit and slide
the bottom of the membrane off onto the plastic piece at the bottom of the cell.
Then, put a piece of dry filter paper on top of the specimen. Then, place a dry
porous stone over the paper. Next, place the top plastic piece on the porous stone.
Slide the top of the membrane over the top plastic piece. Pull the slider over the
plastic piece and place it off to the side. Finally, turn off the VACUUM HOSE
toggle and unhook the vacuum hose from the panel and the slider.
166
f) Put two o-rings onto each end of the metal o-ring slider (4 o-rings in total).
g) Put the slider over the specimen and membrane and slide two o-rings onto the
plastic piece at the bottom of the cell. The two o-rings on the bottom form a
water-tight seal over the bottom of the membrane. Then, pull the slider up a little
bit and slide two o-rings onto the plastic piece at the top of the specimen. These
two o-rings form a water-tight seal at the top of the membrane.
h) Put a thin coat of vacuum grease around the outside of the ends of the two 1/8
tubes coming out of the bottom of the cell. Make sure to not clog the ends of the
tubes. Then, put the tubes into the holes in the plastic piece. Make sure the tubes
are secure in the holes in the top plastic piece. Pressurized water will travel
through these pipes into the soil specimen.
i) Make sure all 4 valves are closed. Hook up a 1/8 tube from POSITION 1 to
valve 4 on the cell. Then, dial up a vacuum pressure of 5 psi with the vacuum
regulator. Finally, on POSITION 1, turn the top valve to VACUUM, turn the
bottom valve to ON, make sure valves 1, 2, and 3 are closed, and open up valve 4.
11) Put an o-ring and vacuum grease on the bottom of the cell and on the top of the
cell.
12) Put the cylinder over the specimen and onto the bottom o-ring.
13) Put on the top and lock it onto the top of the cylinder. Also, at this point, lock the
piston into place on top of the plastic piece on top of the sample. Putting the piston into
the plastic piece on top of the specimen is an essential way to check the eccentricity. If
the alignment of the specimen is off, then first turn off the vacuum, then very gently
adjust the cap and specimen by lightly tapping the piston on the specimen cap so that the
alignment works. Once the specimen is aligned, you can turn the vacuum back on.
Before going onto Step 14, reduce the vacuum by 0.2 psi if the effective
consolidation stress is below 5.2 psi. If the effective consolidation stress is above 5.2 psi,
don't change anything.
14) Fill the cell. This is done by, first, hooking up the tube with two quick-connects
to the FILL CELL port and the bottom port on the cell. Then, hook up a tube (this tube
should have a quick connect on one end and be open on the other end) to the top of the
cell. Next, open the FILL CELL toggle. Water should start pouring into the cell. When
the water is about 1 inch from the top of the cell, physically tilt the cell back so that the
port on the top of the cell is higher than the rest of the top. Tilting the cell greatly
reduces the amount of water that can get trapped in the cell.
167
Finally, water should start spurting out of the open-ended tube. Make sure the
open-ended tube can drain into the water drain bucket. Once the open-ended tube has no
more air bubbles in it, turn off the FILL CELL toggle. Then, unhook the top tube.
*Note: Water comes out of the FILL CELL port at a high velocity. Once
the water starts coming out of the open-ended tube, it might start spraying
everywhere. Try to use one hand to hold down the end of the tube inside
the water drain bucket. Use the other hand to tilt the cell. Once it
appears all the air bubbles are out of the open ended tube, rest the cell on
its three legs on the table and use that hand to close the FILL CELL
toggle.
15) Now, the cell should be filled with water. Fill the burette of POSITION 3 (pipette
and annulus) with water to the 21 mL marking. Make sure the cell is resting on the table
where the panel is resting (not the load cell). Take the double quick-connect tube (the
one used to fill the cell) out of the FILL CELL port and put it into the port of POSITION
3. Make sure the top valve of POSITION 3 is on VENT. Then, turn the bottom valve of
POSITION 3 to ON. With the cell on the table, water at the 21 mL marking of
POSITION 3, and having POSITION 3 vented to the atmosphere, the top of the cell is at
a pressure of approximately 0.0 psi and the bottom of the cell is at a pressure of
approximately 0.40 psi (The reason for reducing the vacuum in Step 13 was to prevent
overconsolidation of the specimen that would result from the water column in the cell;
the middle of the specimen is exposed to approximately 0.2 psi pressure from the
unpressurized chamber). Now, increase the vacuum to its maximum pressure. The
Welch brand vacuum used has a maximum pressure of about 13.25 psi (1 in Hg = 0.4911
psi). This means that the experimenter can increase the vacuum to maximum pressure
only if the effective consolidation stress is greater than 13.45 psi (13.25 psi + 0.2 psi =
13.45 psi; the middle of the specimen will be exposed to an approximate pressure of 0.2
psi from the confining water.). However, if the effective consolidation stress is lower than
13.45 psi, the vacuum needs to be adjusted accordingly to not overconsolidate the
specimen. For example, if the effective consolidation stress is 8.5 psi, then the vacuum
pressure should be decreased to 8.3 psi.
Now, let the specimen sit with the new vacuum pressure on it and the sides being
confined by water for 10 minutes. While the specimen is sitting, open up the Sigma-1
CU program on the computer, and, then, zero the pore pressure sensor and the cell
pressure sensor. Hook the pore pressure sensor up to valve 3 making sure there is access
to the bleed port screw. Keep valve 3 closed.
Next, fill up the pipette of POSITION 2. Apply a pressure of 2.5 psi to the pipette
of POSITION 2. Then, turn the vacuum pressure down to 2.0 psi. Essentially, the
experimenter will create a pressure difference of 4.5 psi between the top and bottom of
the specimen (positive 2.5 psi from the bottom and negative 2.0 psi from the top). Next,
turn the bottom valve of POSITION 3 to OFF. Then, take the double quick-connect tube
out of the bottom port of the cell and put it in the top port of the cell. Then, put the cell
pressure sensor into the bottom port of the cell.
168
Now, turn the top valve on POSITION 3 to PRESSURE and slowly dial up a
pressure of 2.8 psi (2.8 psi coming in at the top of the cell will act as approximately 3.0
psi in the middle of the specimen). Switch the bottom valve of POSITION 3 to ON.
Now, there should be a 2.8 psi pressure coming from POSITION 3 and a 2.0 psi vacuum
pressure at the top of the specimen. Then, hook up a 1/8 diameter tube to the port of
POSITION 2 (dont hook up the open end of the tube; instead, aim it towards the water
drain bucket). Slowly turn the valve on the bottom of POSITION 2 to ON. Water should
start coming through the tube and draining into the bucket. Once it appears that there are
no air bubbles in the tube, turn the bottom valve of POSITION 2 to OFF.
Finally, hookup the 1/8 tube from POSITION 2 to the bridge valve. Then, open
up valve 2. Finally, turn the bottom valve on POSITION 2 to ON. The end result should
be a 2.8 psi confining pressure, a 2.0 psi vacuum pressure at the top of the specimen, and
a 2.5 psi positive pressure acting at the bottom of the specimen.
Note: The reason for adding the 2.8 psi confining pressure is so that the
specimen does not expand when water is pushed into it through the
bottom. A 2.8 psi confining pressure coming out of POSITION 3 will act
as an approximate 3.0 confining pressure (hydrostatic pressure) in the
middle of the specimen.
16) Loosen up the bleed port screw on the pore pressure sensor. Then, open up valve
3 on the cell. Water should start coming out of the bleed port. Watch the 1/8 tube that
goes into valve 3. There will likely be some bubbles going through it as the bleed port
screw is open. After about 20 seconds all the bubbles should be out. At this point, snug
the bleed port screw. Remember to not overtighten the screw, just make sure its
snug. Also, at this point, if for some reason the water in POSITION 3 starts decreasingly
rapidly, then turn off the bottom valves of POSITION 1, then POSITION 2, and then
POSITION 3 (in that order). Then, turn the top valve of POSITION 3 to VENT, and fill
up the burette with deaired water. Finally, turn the top valve on POSITION 3 back to
PRESSURE. Then, turn the bottom valve to ON for POSITION 3, then POSITION 2,
and then POSITION 1 (in that order). During the course of the experiment, the three
positions should be turned on and off in the manner just described if water ever needs to
be drained or added to POSITIONS 1, 2, or 3.
Also, its necessary to keep observing the pipette of POSITION 1. The time will
vary for every experiment (It could be 5 minutes, or it could be 3 hours.), but, eventually,
water will start rising in the pipette of POSITION 1. Once water appears to rise in the
pipette of POSITION 1, turn the bottom valve of POSITION 2 to OFF. Now, there is a
2.8 psi confining pressure and a 2.0 psi vacuum pressure on top of the specimen.
Next, turn the vacuum pressure from POSITION 1 down to 0.0 psi. Next, turn the
top valve on POSITION 1 to VENT. Then, turn the pressure on POSITION 3 up to 4.8
psi. (Note: While it's difficult, the experimenter should try to simultaneously decrease
the vacuum pressure while increasing the chamber pressure. This is done so that the pore
pressure at the top of the specimen and the pore pressure at the bottom of the specimen
can equalize. The process should be done slowly. It may be advisable to reduce the
169
vacuum pressure by 0.5 psi, and, then, increase the chamber pressure by 0.5 psi, and,
then, keep that process going.)
Finally, observe the pore pressure reading on the computer screen. Once it
appears to have stabilized (Stabilization can take 10 minutes, 60 minutes, etc.; it all
depends)., close valves 2 and 4. Again watch the pore pressure reading on the screen. If
it changes by less than 5% of the value of the chamber pressure, then stabilization has
been reached and Step 17 can begin.
17) Now, its time saturate the soil specimen. Close off the bottom valves of all three
positions. If at anytime during the experiment, POSITION 3 needs to be refilled or
drained, its imperative to first close POSITION 1, then POSITION 2, then POSITION 3
(in that order). So, at this point, drain all the water from the annulus of POSITION 3.
Leave the pipette of POSITION 3 about half full.
Next, fill the pipettes of POSITIONS 1 and 2 about halfway. Now, there should
be three pipettes all filled approximately halfway. Next, dial up a chamber pressure of
32.0 psi to POSITION 3. Dial up a back pressure of 30.0 psi to POSITIONS 1 and 2 (the
back pressures should be the same). Make sure that valves 2 and 4 are open. Finally,
open POSITION 3 (Open up POSITION 3 very slowly. It's likely that the 32.0 psi
pressure will send the water shooting down the POSITION 3 pipette very fast. So, watch
out for this. If it happens, make sure to close the bottom valve on POSITION 3, turn the
top valve of POSITION 3 to VENT, and, then, turn one of the middle valves on
POSTION 3 to tank. Fill the pipette of POSITION 3 about halfway. Then, turn the top
valve on POSITION 3 to PRESSURE, and turn the bottom valve on POSITION 3 to ON.
Keep doing this process until the pipette of POSITION 3 can maintain a 32.0 psi pressure
without sending all of the water out.) , then POSITION 2, and then POSITION 1. Record
the pipette readings for each position. Recording the pipette readings allows the
experimenter to monitor the saturation process closely and possibly determine when
saturation is complete.
18) Over the first few hours of attempted saturation, its important to visually monitor
the process. Record the readings approximately every three hours. Ideally, water levels
in POSITIONS 1 and 2 should be decreasing. The water from these positions should be
going into the specimen. While saturation is taking place, one of the positions may
become close to drained or filled completely. If this happens, simply turn off POSITION
1, then POSITION 2, and then POSITION 3 (record the pipette readings before turning
off the positions). Drain or refill the proper pipette, then turn on POSITION 3, then
POSITION 2, and then POSITION 1 (in that order). Record the pipette readings, at this
point. Overall, the saturation process can take anywhere from one day to five days.
19) After monitoring the pipette readings for many hours or days, it may appear that
saturation is complete. A B-check needs to be done to make sure that saturation is indeed
complete. This is performed by, first, closing off POSITIONS 1 and 2 (this will make the
sample undrained). Then, watch the pore pressure readings from the Sigma-1 CU
program on the computer. Once the pore pressure readings have stabilized, the B-check
170
can be done. So, at this point, click on the Tools button at the top left of the Sigma-1
CU program. Select B Check from the menu. A little window will pop up on the
screen. Click the Start button on the window. There is a timer on the window that will
start counting up. At this point, turn the chamber pressure up by about 10.0 psi on the
panel. On the computer screen, a number should appear for the B coefficient. After 2
minutes of taking readings, record the highest B-value that shows up on the screen. If
this value is at 0.95 or higher, then saturation has been achieved. If 0.95 is not reached,
then the experimenter must continue back pressure saturation until a 0.95 B-value is
achieved. Follow one of the two options below.
1 - Saturation has been achieved: Simply click Done on the B-check

window. Then, move onto Step 20.
2 - Continuation of back pressure saturation: After the B-check is done,

close out of the window. Then, reduce the chamber pressure back to 32.0
psi. Next, turn the bottom valve of POSITION 2 to ON, then turn the
bottom valve of POSITION 1 to ON. Finally, monitor saturation the same
way it was done before. Do not move onto Step 20 until saturation has
been achieved.
* It's important to note that some soils will simply not reach a b-value of
0.95 after many days of saturation. This will be noticed if for three or four
days the b-value does not increase. If this occurs, stop the saturation
process and go onto Step 20. Also, make a note of this on the checklist or
write a note up on the computer and talk about what happened.
20) Now, its time to consolidate the specimen. Its good at this point to make a table
where readings from the pipettes can be made. Record pipette readings, pore pressure
readings, and cell pressure readings, and caliber readings, at times of 0.1 minutes, 0.2
minutes, 0.5 minutes, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 8 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes,
1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 8 hours, 16 hours, and 24 hours. Make sure that the bottom
valves on POSITIONS 1 and 2 are still closed. Turn the bottom valve on POSITION 3 to
OFF. Increase the pressure in POSITION 3 so that it is more than the back pressure in
POSITIONS 1 and 2 (POSITIONS 1 and 2 need to be at a pressure of 30.0 psi) by the
amount of the effective consolidation stress. Next, take an initial reading of the pipettes,
cell pressure, pore pressure, and caliber. Now, turn the bottom valve of POSITION 3 to
ON, then turn the bottom valve of POSITION 2 to ON, and, finally, turn the bottom valve
of POSITION 1 to ON. Then, start making readings at 0.1 minutes. Continue making
readings for the specimen at the specific times just listed. When 24 hours of
consolidation has amounted, turn off the bottom valves of POSITIONS 1 and 2.
Finally, it's important for the pore pressure to stabilize. After closing the valves
on POSITIONS 1 and 2, watch the pore pressure reading. It should be fairly stable after
the 24 hour consolidation process. After about 5 minutes, compare the pore pressure
reading at the 24 hour consolidation reading to the current reading. If the change in pore
pressure is less than 5% of the chamber pressure, the sample is assumed to have a stable
171
pore pressure and the experimenter can go onto Step 21. If the change is greater than 5%,
the drainage valves (valves of POSITIONS 1 & 2) need to be reopened and consolidation
needs to continue until pore pressure readings appear stable. Once again, stabilization
can be checked by closing the valves to POSITIONS 1 and 2 and measuring the change
in pore pressure. If it's less than 5% of chamber pressure, then stabilization has been
reached.
21) Now, it's necessary to calculate the strain rate for the loading of the specimen.
Assuming that failure will occur after 4% strain, the strain rate can be found using the
following equation:
= 4 / [(10)(t50)]
The term, t50, can be found in the following procedure.
Finding t50: Plot the burette readings on the y-axis and the log of time in
minutes on the x-axis. This can be done on Excel. Its best to choose the
Excel graph function that places a curved line on the points, connecting
them. Print out the plot. Next, draw a straight line through the points that
represent the final readings on the plot. These points should already be in
an approximate straight line and at a constant slope. Then, draw a straight
line through the steepest part of the plot. Make sure that these two straight
lines cross each other. The intersection of these two lines represents d100
and t100.
Next, the experimenter needs to find the deformation representing
0% primary consolidation. First, find two points on the plot that have a
time ratio of 1 to 4. These two points need to occur before the steepest
part of the curve occurs. It is suggested to use the points at times of 0.5
minutes and 2 minutes. Next, find the deformations at these two points.
Find the difference between the two deformations. Then, subtract the
difference between the two readings from the reading of the lower time
(Essentially, if using times of 0.5 minutes and 2 minutes, find the
difference between the deformation at 2 minutes and 0.5 minutes and
subtract this difference from the deformation at 0.5 minutes). It is possible
that the final result (the deformation representing 0% primary
consolidation) will be above (at less deformation) than the deformation
at 0.1 minutes. This is fine and expected.
Finally, the average d100 and the deformation representing 0%
primary consolidation. This deformation is d50, the deformation
representing 50% primary consolidation. Find the point on the specimens
deformation plot where d50 corresponds. This point is also where t50 is.
Now that t50 has been found, it can be plugged into the above equation to
find . is the strain rate used while loading the specimen.
172
When calculating the strain rate, t50 is in minutes. If, for example,
t50 is 5 minutes, then the calculation will look like the following:
4 / (10 5) = 0.08
This gives a strain rate of 0.08% per minute or 4.8% per hour.
If additional assistance is needed for finding t50, go to ASTM D 2435.
Look at sections 12.3, 12.3.1, 12.3.1.1, 12.3.1.2, and 12.3.1.3. This will give
some helpful advice.
If the experimenter believes that the specimen will fail at a strain lower than 4%,
the term 4 in the above equation can be changed to the proper, lower strain
value.
22) Place the triaxial cell on the loading device and raise it to about 0.1 inches from
the load cell. The cell can be raised using controls from the Sigma-1 CU computer
program. Zero the loading cell and the DCDT using the Sigma-1 CU computer program.
Then, on the top left of the Sigma-1 CU window, click on File. Go to Specimen
Data. Fill in all of the proper entries (Remember: The height of the specimen is the
initial height minus the change after consolidation.). Make sure to save the shear test
data to the proper folder. Then, go back to File, and click on Test Data. Fill in all of
the proper entries here. Finally, check the entries in the top right of the screen in the
Sigma-1 CU program to make sure they are correct (height, stain rate, etc.) Then, click
on Start Test. A window will pop up that says Unlock the cell piston and click, OK.
So, physically unlock cell piston and let it rise (slowly if you can) so it touches the load
sensor. Then, click OK on the window that popped up on the computer.
Note: The chamber pressure used in consolidation is the

same pressure that needs to be used in shear testing. So,
for example, if the effective consolidation stress of the
sample is 15.0 psi, the chamber pressure during
consolidation should be 45.0 psi. After consolidation was
completed, POSITIONS 1 and 2 needed to be closed. So,
now, with the shear test starting, the chamber pressure
should still be at 45.0 psi with POSITIONS 1 and 2 closed
off.
23) After OK has been clicked, a window will pop up that says Measuring piston
correction. Then one will pop up that says Seating in progress. If something else
pops up, go to the notebook Sigma-1 5K: Automated Load Test System 5K, and on
page 57 and 58, there are some helpful instructions.
173
24) At this point, unless something is wrong as mentioned in the previous step, the
test should be running. You can view plots or other information with the Sigma-1 CU
program on the computer.
While the test is running, it is important to observe the graphs showing the
principal stresses on the screen. There are three modes of failure while running the CU
compression test. The three modes are shown below.
1) Stop the test once axial strain has reached 15 %.
2) Stop the test after the behavior seen below occurs.
3) Stop the test after the behavior seen below occurs.

174
25) Once the test is finished, there should be a bulge in the center of the specimen.
Lock the piston. Lower the platen using the controls on the computer program so its
possible to get the cell off of the platen and onto the table. Take the cell pressure sensor
out of the bottom port of the chamber. Next, drain the chamber. This is done by placing
the open ended tube with one quick-connect into the bottom port of the chamber. There
should still be a chamber pressure being applied by POSITION 3 going into the top of the
chamber.
Water should now be spurting out of the tube from the bottom port of the
chamber. Once all of the water is out of the chamber, turn the bottom valve of
POSITION 3 to OFF. Take the double quick-connect ended tube out of the top port on
the triaxial chamber and the port of POSITION 3. Next, close valve 3 on the triaxial
chamber. Then, take the pore pressure sensor off of valve 3.
Also, remove the 1/8 tubes from the bridge valve and valve 4. Hold these tubes
over the water drain bucket and drain the water from them.
Now, drain the water from the pipettes of POSITIONS 1 and 2. There should
already be a pressure of 30.0 psi on each of the pipettes.
Then, take the chamber apart. Pull the 1/8 tubes out of the top plastic piece.
Next, remove the top o-rings that cover the rubber membrane, slide down the top of the
membrane, pull off the top plastic piece, remove the porous stone, and take the specimen
off of the bottom porous stone. Take all of the filter paper off of the specimen. Place the
specimen on the scale and record its mass.
Set the specimen on a table and make a sketch of it on paper. Finally, place the
specimen in a large tin and place it in the oven. Measure to find the mass of the tin
before putting it and the specimen into the oven.
Next, take the rubber membrane and the bottom o-rings off the plastic piece on
the bottom of the cell. Also, remove the two large o-rings from the top and bottom of the
cell. Clean all of the vacuum grease off of the cell (chamber) and o-rings also.
Essentially, at this point, clean up everything and put it back to where it came from. This
175
includes the tubing, porous stones, pieces of the chamber, o-rings, etc. Also, at this point,
the experimenter can reduce the pressures in each of the positions to 0.0 psi.
Make a note of any unique features noticed with the specimen at this point also.
26) The test is over, and the results can be viewed on Excel. Close out the Sigma 1-
CU program on the computer. The results can be viewed by opening up the CU triaxial
test template and importing and calculating the proper file. The results will show graphs
containing the principal stresses, the shear stresses, pore pressures, etc.
27) After 24 hours, remove the specimen from the oven and find its mass. Then, put
it back into the oven for another 4 hours. Then, measure the specimen's mass again. If
the change in mass is less than 0.1% over the 4 hour period, then the specimen is dry. If
the change is over the 4 hour period is more than 0.1%, then continue the process of
drying and measuring mass of the specimen for four more hours until the change in mass
is less than 0.1%. Using the mass of the dry specimen and the mass of the wet specimen
from Step 25, find the moisture content.
Next, a series of calculations will be found as required by ASTM. Using the
Excel spreadsheet titled Step 27 calculations, do the following:
a) Initial specimen properties -

Fill in values for the initial specimen volume (from Step 6), initial water
content (from Step 7), the initial moist mass of the specimen (from Step 6), the
initial unit weight of the soil (from Step 6), and the specific gravity supplied by
BBC&M. Filling in the proper cells will give the other needed values.
b) Specimen properties after consolidation
Fill in values for the initial height of the specimen (from Step 6), the
change in specimen height from consolidation (from Step 20; this can be done by
using the change in caliber length), the final water content of the soil, and the wet
mass of the specimen after shearing (from Step 27). Filling in the proper cells
will give the other needed values.
c) Principal stress difference and induced pore-water pressure versus strain
curves
Fill in values from the Sigma-1 CU template for the axial strain at failure,
effective major principal stress at failure, the effective minor principal stress at
failure, and the pore pressure at failure. Filling in the proper cells will give the
other needed values.
Also, after drying it may be necessary to take apart the specimen. Take any notes
on the specimen and any unique features in it (shear failure plane, large rocks, etc.).
Other necessary calculations that can be done are explained in Section 10 of
ASTM D 4767-04. Section 11 of ASTM D 4767-04 gives information on Test Data
Sheet(s)/Form(s). This includes Mohr-Coulomb diagrams and p-q diagrams.
176
APPENDIX B: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA
Table B.1: Recovery and Notes from Shelby Tubes Taken by ORITE from the Hamilton
County Site
Tube Depth range (ft) Recovery (in) Notes

A-1 2.5 - 3.8 15.6 Bottom end is somewhat crushed.
B-1 4.5 - 5.6 13.2
D-1 10.0 - 11.0 12
A-2 2.5 - 3.9 16.8
C-2 4.5 - 5.4 10.8
D-2 10.0 - 11.1 13.2 Tube is slightly pushed inward along one side.
A-3 2.5 - 3.8 15.6
B-3 4.5 - 5.4 10.8
D-3 10.0 - 10.9 10.8
Figure B.1: SPT Truck (Hamilton County Site)

177
Figure B.2: Continuous SPT Being Done (Hamilton County Site)
Figure B.3: Logging of Soil in the Split-Spoon Sampler (Hamilton County Site)
178
Figure B.4: BBC&M Workers Attaching the Shelby Tube (Hamilton County Site)
Figure B.5: BBC&M Worker Filling Shelby Tubes with Wax (Hamilton County Site
179
Table B.2: Uncorrected and Energy Corrected N Values for Each Shelby Tube Sample
Depth Range Tube (depth, ft.) Uncorrected N Value Energy Corrected N Value
A-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 7 9.53169
A-1 (3.1' - 3.6') 7 9.53169
Top
D-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 7 9.53169
Summary 7 9.53169
A-2 (5.1' - 5.6') 13 17.70171
C-2 (4.9' - 5.4') 13 17.70171
Middle
D-2 (4.6' - 5.1') 13 17.70171
Summary 13 17.70171
A-3 (10.3' -10.8') 20 27.2334
Deep D-3 (10.2' - 10.6') 20 27.2334
Summary 20 27.2334
Table B.3: Conversion Factors for Each Correction
Depth Range Tube (depth, ft.) Peck Terzaghi Bazaraa Seed et al. Skempton
A-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 1.5693 2.3872 2.30819 1.9212246 1.6902742
A-1 (3.1' - 3.6') 1.4969 2.14234 2.09415 1.8037255 1.6293014
Top
D-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 1.5699 2.38955 2.31011 1.9222922 1.6907886
Summary 1.5436 2.2972 2.23274 1.8794976 1.6696163
A-2 (5.1' - 5.6') 1.325 1.65673 1.58617 1.5246309 1.448805
C-2 (4.9' - 5.4') 1.3488 1.71692 1.65497 1.563378 1.4768431
Middle
D-2 (4.6' - 5.1') 1.3832 1.80735 1.75537 1.6191057 1.5155189
Summary 1.3515 1.72371 1.66263 1.5676613 1.4798854
A-3 (10.3' -10.8') 1.1116 1.20429 1.03093 1.1783344 1.1627907
Deep D-3 (10.2' - 10.6') 1.11 1.2013 1.02712 1.1756268 1.160362
Summary 1.1108 1.20279 1.02902 1.1769789 1.1615751
Table B.4: Actual (Not Rounded) Corrected N Values for Each Shelby Tube Sample
A-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 14.958 22.7541 22.00095 18.312518 16.111169
A-1 (3.1' - 3.6') 14.268 20.4202 19.96082 17.192553 15.529995
Top
D-1 (2.5' - 3.0') 14.964 22.7764 22.01924 18.322694 16.116073
Summary 14.713 21.8962 21.28179 17.914789 15.914265
A-2 (5.1' - 5.6') 23.454 29.3269 28.07799 26.988573 25.646326
C-2 (4.9' - 5.4') 23.877 30.3924 29.29583 27.674464 26.142648
Middle
D-2 (4.6' - 5.1') 24.484 31.9931 31.07308 28.660939 26.827276
Summary 23.923 30.5126 29.43143 27.750286 26.196502
A-3 (10.3' -10.8') 30.274 32.797 28.07567 32.090051 31.666744
Deep D-3 (10.2' - 10.6') 30.229 32.7154 27.97186 32.016315 31.600603
Summary 30.251 32.7561 28.02367 32.053137 31.633639
180
Table B.5: Recovery and Notes from Shelby Tubes Taken by ORITE from USR 35 Site
Tube Depth Range (ft) Recovery (in) Notes

A-1 5.5 6.4 10.8
B-1 5.5 6.3 9.6 Slight elliptical shape at the bottom.
D-1 5.5 7.2 20.4 Elliptical shape over the bottom 6.
E-1 5.5 7.0 18
A-2 8.5 9.9 16.8
D-2 8.5 9.7 14.4
E-2 8.5 9.9 16.8
B-3 14.5 16.0 18
D-3 14.5 16.0 18
Table B.6: Uncorrected and Corrected N values for Each Shelby Tube Sample
A-1 (5.7' - 6.2') 18 24.51006
D-1 (6.6' - 7.1') 18 24.51006
Top E-1 (6.3' - 6.7') 18 24.51006
E-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 18 24.51006
Summary 18 24.51006
A-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 23 31.31841
D-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 23 31.31841
Middle
E-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 23 31.31841
Summary 23 31.31841
B-3 (14.7' - 15.2') 10 13.6167
Deep B-3 (15.4' - 15.8') 10 13.6167
Summary 10 13.6167
A-1 (5.7' - 6.2') 1.2881 1.56786 1.48192 1.4647694 1.4037058
D-1 (6.6' - 7.1') 1.2808 1.55087 1.46165 1.4529377 1.3945445
Top E-1 (6.3' - 6.7') 1.263 1.5101 1.41259 1.424013 1.3718174
E-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 1.3128 1.62683 1.55145 1.5048587 1.4341441
Summary 1.2857 1.56224 1.47523 1.4608729 1.4006975
A-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 1.1231 1.22512 1.05738 1.1969444 1.1794289
D-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 1.1157 1.21159 1.04019 1.1848882 1.1686612
Middle
E-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 1.1187 1.21714 1.04725 1.189856 1.1731031
Summary 1.1192 1.21791 1.04823 1.1905403 1.1737144
B-3 (14.7' - 15.2') 0.992 1.00708 0.93467 0.9841643 0.9854158
Deep B-3 (15.4' - 15.8') 0.9501 0.94589 0.90557 0.9161056 0.9228838
Summary 0.9704 0.97505 0.91989 0.9490691 0.9531253
181
A-1 (5.7' - 6.2') 31.571 38.4283 36.32196 35.901585 34.404913
D-1 (6.6' - 7.1') 31.393 38.0118 35.82504 35.611591 34.18037
Top E-1 (6.3' - 6.7') 30.956 37.0125 34.62264 34.902644 33.623326
E-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 32.176 39.8737 38.02603 36.884177 35.150958
Summary 31.512 38.2906 36.158 35.806082 34.331181
A-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 35.174 38.3687 33.11538 37.486396 36.937837
D-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 34.941 37.945 32.57719 37.108814 36.60061
Middle
E-2 (9.2' - 9.7') 35.037 38.119 32.79827 37.264399 36.739724
Summary 35.05 38.143 32.8288 37.285831 36.75887
B-3 (14.7' - 15.2') 13.508 13.7131 12.72708 13.40107 13.418112
Deep B-3 (15.4' - 15.8') 12.937 12.8799 12.33084 12.474335 12.566632
Summary 13.214 13.277 12.52583 12.923189 12.978421
Table B.9: Recovery and Notes from Shelby Tubes Taken by ORITE from SR 2 Site

A-1 1.0 - 2.7 20.4
B-1 1.0 - 1.8 9.6 Bottom end is deformed badly.
D-1 1.0 - 2.1 13.2
A-2 4.0 - 5.4 16.8
C-2 4.0 - 4.6 7.2
D-2 4.0 - 5.2 14.4
A-3 14.0 - 15.6 19.2
B-3 14.0 - 15.6 19.2
D-3 14.0 - 15.4 16.8
Table B.10: Uncorrected and Corrected N Values for Each Shelby Tube Sample
A-1 (1.6' - 2.1') 10 13.6167
A-1 (1.0' - 1.5') 10 13.6167
Top
D-1 (1.1' - 1.6') 10 13.6167
Summary 10 13.6167
A-2 (4.1' - 4.6') 25 34.04175
D-2 (4.0' - 4.5') 25 34.04175
Middle
D-2 (4.7' - 5.2') 25 34.04175
Summary 25 34.04175
C-3 (14.7' - 15.2') 16 21.78672
A-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 16 21.78672
Deep
D-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 16 21.78672
Summary 16 21.78672
182
A-1 (1.6' - 2.1') 1.6788 2.81212 2.61747 2.0990852 1.7667095
A-1 (1.0' - 1.5') 1.8116 3.42966 2.9518 2.3146305 1.8369251
Top
D-1 (1.1' - 1.6') 1.7865 3.30347 2.89278 2.2739282 1.8253371
Summary 1.7539 3.14604 2.81291 2.2209138 1.8091296
A-2 (4.1' - 4.6') 1.4006 1.85518 1.80699 1.6474662 1.5344389
D-2 (4.0' - 4.5') 1.3986 1.84948 1.80089 1.6441271 1.5322383
Middle
D-2 (4.7' - 5.2') 1.3488 1.71692 1.65497 1.563378 1.4768431
Summary 1.3818 1.80369 1.75139 1.6169093 1.514032
C-3 (14.7' - 15.2') 0.9782 0.98653 0.9253 0.9617787 0.9648114
A-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 0.9835 0.9943 0.92888 0.9702967 0.9726491
Deep
D-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 0.969 0.97298 0.9189 0.9467609 0.9510043
Summary 0.9769 0.98448 0.92434 0.9595248 0.9627382
A-1 (1.6' - 2.1') 22.86 38.2917 35.64133 28.582614 24.056754
A-1 (1.0' - 1.5') 24.668 46.7007 40.19382 31.51763 25.012858
Top
D-1 (1.1' - 1.6') 24.327 44.9824 39.39014 30.963397 24.855068
Summary 23.882 42.8387 38.30252 30.241518 24.634375
A-2 (4.1' - 4.6') 47.68 63.1535 61.51293 56.082633 52.234987
D-2 (4.0' - 4.5') 47.61 62.9596 61.30556 55.968962 52.160073
Middle
D-2 (4.7' - 5.2') 45.917 58.447 56.33813 53.220123 50.274324
Summary 47.039 61.4009 59.62028 55.042422 51.540301
C-3 (14.7' - 15.2') 21.313 21.4933 20.15915 20.954003 21.020076
A-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 21.427 21.6626 20.23735 21.139583 21.190834
Deep
D-3 (14.6' - 15.1') 21.111 21.198 20.01977 20.626815 20.719264
Summary 21.283 21.4487 20.13836 20.904897 20.974907
Table B.13: Recovery and Notes from Shelby Tubes Taken by ORITE from USR 33 Site

A-1 4.5 - 6.2 20.4
B-1 4.5 - 6.5 24
D-1 4.5 - 6.5 24
A-2 8.5 - 9.4 10.8 Oval shaped at the bottom.
B-2 8.5 - 10.2 20.4 Oval shaped at the bottom.
D-2 8.5 - 10.5 24
A-3 19.0 - 20.85 22.2
B-3 19.0 - 21.0 24
D-3 19.0 - 21.0 24
183
Depth Range Tube (depth, ft.) Uncorrected N Value Energy corrected N Value
A-1 (5.9' - 6.1') &
33 44.93511
B-1 (6.1' - 6.4')
Top B-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 33 44.93511
D-1 (5.9' - 6.4') 33 44.93511
Summary 33 44.93511
B-2 (8.8' - 9.3') 17 23.14839
D-2 (9.0' - 9.5') 17 23.14839
Middle B-2 (9.4' - 9.5') &
17 23.14839
D-2 (9.6' - 10.0')
Summary 17 23.14839
A-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 21 28.59507
B-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 21 28.59507
Deep
D-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 21 28.59507
Summary 21 28.59507
Depth
Range Tube (depth, ft.) Peck Terzaghi Bazaraa Seed et al. Skempton
A-1 (5.9' - 6.1') &
1.2892 1.57052 1.08892 1.4666127 1.4051259
B-1 (6.1' - 6.4')
Top B-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 1.3067 1.61204 1.09534 1.4949444 1.4267045
D-1 (5.9' - 6.4') 1.2802 1.54958 1.08552 1.4520382 1.3938448
Summary 1.2919 1.57675 1.08991 1.4709074 1.4084269
B-2 (8.8' - 9.3') 1.1469 1.26944 1.02617 1.2355312 1.2135922
D-2 (9.0' - 9.5') 1.1523 1.27986 1.02894 1.24441 1.221383
Middle B-2 (9.4' - 9.5') &
1.1334 1.24412 1.0192 1.2136599 1.1942865
D-2 (9.6' - 10.0')
Summary 1.1441 1.26421 1.02475 1.231046 1.2096462
A-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 0.8897 0.86419 0.86054 0.8180228 0.8339449
B-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 0.8997 0.87716 0.86821 0.8341952 0.8484643
Deep
D-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 0.8935 0.86913 0.86348 0.8242078 0.8394896
Summary 0.8943 0.87011 0.86407 0.8254345 0.8405904
184
A-1 (5.9' - 6.1') &
57.932 70.5716 48.9308 65.902404 63.139487
B-1 (6.1' - 6.4')
Top B-1 (5.5' - 6.0') 58.716 72.4374 49.21925 67.175489 64.109123
D-1 (5.9' - 6.4') 57.528 69.6306 48.77783 65.247497 62.632569
Summary 58.05 70.8513 48.97528 66.095384 63.287818
B-2 (8.8' - 9.3') 26.548 29.3855 23.75412 28.600559 28.092706
D-2 (9.0' - 9.5') 26.675 29.6267 23.81835 28.806088 28.27305
Middle B-2 (9.4' - 9.5') &
26.237 28.7994 23.59288 28.094272 27.64581
D-2 (9.6' - 10.0')
Summary 26.484 29.2643 23.7214 28.496734 28.001362
A-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 25.441 24.7115 24.60722 23.391421 23.846713
B-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 25.726 25.0824 24.82642 23.85387 24.261895
Deep
D-3 (20.0' - 20.5') 25.55 24.8527 24.69137 23.568281 24.005264
Summary 25.571 24.8808 24.70801 23.603356 24.036742
Table B.17: Recovery and Notes from Shelby Tubes at Morrow County Site

B-1 10.0 - 11.6 19.2
C-1 10.0 - 11.2 14.4
D-1 10.0 - 11.6 19.2
B-2 13.0 - 13.85 10.2
C-2 13.0 - 14.3 20.4
D-2 13.0 - 13.9 24
B-3 17.5 - 18.5 12
C-3 17.5 - 18.1 7.2 Very small recovery, but usable.
D-3 17.5 - 18.7 14.4
B-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 9 12.25503
C-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 9 12.25503
Top
D-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 9 12.25503
Summary 9 12.25503
D-2 (13.3' - 13.8') 17 23.14839
C-2 (13.8' - 14.3') 17 23.14839
Middle
C-2 (13.3' - 13.7') 17 23.14839
Summary 17 23.14839
B-3 (17.9' - 18.4') 31 42.21177
D-3 (18.2' - 18.6') 31 42.21177
Deep
C-3 (17.6' - 18.1') 31 42.21177
Summary 31 42.21177
185
Depth
Range Tube (depth, ft.) Peck Terzaghi Bazaraa Seed et al. Skempton
B-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 1.0825 1.15298 0.9912 1.1310534 1.1201219
C-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 1.0807 1.14982 0.99014 1.1280761 1.1174183
Top
D-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 1.089 1.16424 0.99493 1.1416047 1.1296882
Summary 1.0841 1.15563 0.99208 1.1335471 1.1223848
D-2 (13.3' - 13.8') 1.0108 1.03573 0.9471 1.0146135 1.0134587
C-2 (13.8' - 14.3') 0.9899 1.00393 0.93325 0.9807584 0.9822797
Middle
C-2 (13.3' - 13.7') 1.0158 1.04347 0.95034 1.0227041 1.0209082
Summary 1.0053 1.02728 0.9435 1.0057193 1.0052676
B-3 (17.9' - 18.4') 0.922 0.907 0.88508 0.870519 0.8813057
D-3 (18.2' - 18.6') 0.9228 0.90803 0.88565 0.8717521 0.8824256
Deep
C-3 (17.6' - 18.1') 0.9372 0.92775 0.89622 0.8950845 0.9036689
Summary 0.9273 0.91411 0.88895 0.8790015 0.8890153
B-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 13.266 14.1298 12.14716 13.861094 13.727127
C-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 13.244 14.0911 12.13417 13.824606 13.693995
Top
D-1 (10.5' - 11.0') 13.346 14.2677 12.19285 13.990399 13.844363
Summary 13.285 14.1623 12.15801 13.891654 13.75486
D-2 (13.3' - 13.8') 23.398 23.9754 21.92373 23.486669 23.459938
C-2 (13.8' - 14.3') 22.916 23.2393 21.60332 22.702978 22.738193
Middle
C-2 (13.3' - 13.7') 23.514 24.1547 21.99874 23.673953 23.632381
Summary 23.271 23.7798 21.84058 23.280782 23.270327
B-3 (17.9' - 18.4') 38.921 38.286 37.36084 36.746147 37.201475
D-3 (18.2' - 18.6') 38.953 38.3295 37.38466 36.798198 37.248747
Deep
C-3 (17.6' - 18.1') 39.559 39.1621 37.83095 37.783101 38.145464
Summary 39.141 38.5863 37.52424 37.104208 37.52691
186
APPENDIX C: TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST DATA & PLOTS
HAM-275 (A-1, top)
30.00
25.00
Effective principal stress (psi)
20.00
Sigma 1
15.00
Sigma 3
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
Figure C.1: Specimen A-1 (2.5 3.0 Depth)
HAM-275 (A-1, bottom)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Axial strain (%)

187
HAM-275 (D-1)
60.00
50.00
40.00
Sigma 1
30.00
Sigma 3
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
Figure C.3: Specimen D-1 (2.5 3.0 Depth)
HAM-275 (A-2)
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
Sigma 1
20.00
Sigma 3
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

188
HAM-275 (C-2)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
Figure C.5: Specimen C-2 (4.9 5.4 Depth)
HAM-275 (D-2)
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
Sigma 1
25.00
Sigma 3
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

189
HAM-275 (A-3)
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
HAM-275 (D-3)
60.00
50.00
40.00
Sigma 1
30.00
Sigma 3
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

190
HAM-275 (A, D-1) (p'-q')
18
16
14
12
y = 0.4274x + 0.5638
2
R = 0.9876
10
q' (psi)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
p' (psi)
Figure C.9: p-q Diagram for the Highest Depth Range
HAM-275 (A, D-1) (p-q)
16
14
12
10
y = 0.1957x - 0.1368
2
R = 0.9967
8
q (psi)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-2
p (psi)
Figure C.10: pq Diagram for the Highest Depth Range

191
HAM-275 (A, C, D-2) (p'-q')
16
14
12
10
q' (psi)
8
y = 0.4352x + 0.3389
2
R = 0.9801
6
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
p' (psi)
Figure C.11: p-q Diagram for the Middle Depth Range
HAM-275 (A, C, D-2) (p-q)
16
14
12
10
q (psi)
8
y = 0.1872x + 0.4367
2
R = 0.9466
6
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
p (psi)

192
HAM-275 (A, D-3) (p'-q')
18
16
14
12
10
y = 0.4487x - 0.0141
2
R = 0.9999
q' (psi)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-2
p' (psi)
Figure C.13: p-q Diagram for the Lowest Depth Range
HAM-275 (A, D-3) (p-q)
18
16
14
12
10
y = 0.2413x - 0.0771
2
R = 0.9873
q (psi)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-2
p (psi)

193
FAY-35 (A-1)
60.00
50.00
40.00
Sigma 1
30.00
Sigma 3
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
FAY-35 (D-1)
60.00
50.00
40.00
Sigma 1
30.00
Sigma 3
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

194
FAY-35 (E-1, bottom)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
Figure C.17: Specimen E-1 (6.3 6.7 Depth)
FAY-35 (E-1, top)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

195
FAY-35 (A-2)
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
Sigma 1
80.00
Sigma 3
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
FAY-35 (D-2)
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

196
FAY-35 (E-2)
250.00
200.00
150.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
FAY-35 (B-3, top)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
Figure C.22: Specimen B-3 (14.7 15.2 Depth)

197
FAY-35 (B-3, bottom)
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

198
FAY-35 (A, D, E-1) (p'-q')
30
25
20
q' (psi)
15
y = 0.5477x + 0.4773
2
R = 0.9714
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
p' (psi)
FAY-35 (A, D, E-1) (p-q)
30
25
20
q (psi)
15
y = 0.3115x + 0.364
2
R = 0.9832
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
p (psi)

199
FAY-35 (A, D, E-2) (p'-q')
80
70
60
50
q' (psi)
40
y = 0.559x + 0.3538
2
R = 0.9993
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
p' (psi)
FAY-35 (A, D, E-2) (p-q)
80
70
60
50
40
y = 0.5383x - 0.265
q (psi)
2
R = 0.9984
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-10
p (psi)

200
FAY-35 (B-3) (p'-q')
50
45
40
35
30
25
q' (psi)
y = 0.5602x - 0.0627
2
R = 0.9999
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-5
p' (psi)
FAY-35 (B-3) (p-q)
50
45
40
35
30
25
q (psi)
y = 0.424x - 0.3855
2
R = 0.986
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-5
p (psi)

201
LAK-2 (A-1, bottom)
60.00
50.00
40.00
Sigma 1
30.00
Sigma 3
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
LAK-2 (A-1, top)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Sigma 1
60.00
Sigma 3
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

202
LAK-2 (D-1)
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
Sigma 1
80.00
Sigma 3
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

203
LAK-2 (A-2)
60.00
50.00
40.00
Sigma 1
30.00
Sigma 3
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

LAK-2 (D-2, top)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

204
LAK-2 (D-2, bottom)
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
Sigma 1
80.00
Sigma 3
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

LAK-2 (C-3)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

205
LAK-2 (A-3)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Sigma 1
50.00
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
LAK-2 (D-3)
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

206
LAK-2 (A, D-1) (p'-q')
50
45
40
35
30
y = 0.5132x + 0.2285
2
R = 0.9997
q' (psi)
25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
p' (psi)
LAK-2 (A, D-1) (p-q)
50
40
30
y = 0.445x - 1.7989
2
R = 0.9762
q (psi)
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-10
p (psi)

207
LAK-2 (A, D-2) (p'-q')
60
50
40
q' (psi)
30
y = 0.4721x + 2.7497
2
R = 0.98
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
p' (psi)
Figure C.41. p-q Diagram for the Middle Depth Range
LAK-2 (A, D-2) (p-q)
50
40
30
y = 0.4288x - 2.057
2
R = 0.9757
q (psi)
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-10
p (psi)
Figure C.42: p-q Diagram for Middle Depth Range

208
LAK-2 (A, C, D-3) (p'-q')
60
50
40
y = 0.5027x + 0.2285
2
R = 0.9998
q' (psi)
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
p' (psi)
LAK-2 (A, C, D-3) (p-q)
60
50
40
30
q (psi)
y = 0.4564x - 2.7086
2
R = 0.9467
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-10
p (psi)

209
ATH-33 (A-1 & B-1)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
Figure C.45: Specimens A-1 (5.9 6.1 Depth) & B-1 (6.1 6.4 Depth)
ATH-33 (B-1)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Sigma 1
50.00
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

210
ATH-33 (D-1)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Sigma 1
50.00
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
ATH-33 (B-2)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Sigma 1
60.00
Sigma 3
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

211
ATH-33 (D-2)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
ATH-33 (B-2 & D-2)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Sigma 1
60.00
Sigma 3
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
Figure C.50: Specimens B-2 (9.4 9.5 Depth) & D-2 (9.6 10.0 Depth)
212
ATH-33 (A-3)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
ATH-33 (B-3)
80.00
70.00
Failure
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

213
ATH-33 (D-3)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Sigma 1
60.00
Sigma 3
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

214
ATH-33 (A, B, D-1) (p'-q')
45
40
35
30
25
q' (psi)
y = 0.5611x + 0.1853
2
20 R = 0.9996
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
p' (psi)
ATH-33 (A, B, D-1) (p-q)
45
40
35
30
25
q (psi)
20
y = 0.4065x - 0.1338
2
15 R = 0.9992
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-5
p (psi)

215
ATH-33 (B, D-2) (p'-q')
40
35
30
y = 0.5364x + 0.3151
25 2
R = 0.9955
q' (psi)
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
p' (psi)
ATH-33 (B, D-2) (p-q)
40
35
30
25
20
q (psi)
y = 0.3814x - 0.0223
2
15 R = 0.9561
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-5
p (psi)

216
ATH-33 (A, B, D-3) (p'-q')
35
30
25
20
q' (psi)
15
y = 0.4568x - 0.2142
2
R = 0.9962
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-5
p' (psi)
ATH-33 (A, B, D-3) (p-q)
35
30
25
20
q (psi)
15
y = 0.3012x - 0.3607
2
R = 0.9698
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-5
p (psi)

217
MRW-71 (B-1)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
MRW-71 (C-1)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

218
MRW-71 (D-1)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
40.00
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
MRW-71 (D-2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Sigma 1
50.00
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

219
MRW-71 (C-2, bottom)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Sigma 1
60.00
Sigma 3
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
MRW-71 (C-2, top)
120.00
100.00
80.00
Sigma 1
60.00
Sigma 3
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

220
MRW-71 (B-3)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Sigma 1
50.00
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)
MRW-71 (D-3)
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

221
MRW-71 (C-3)
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
Sigma 1
Sigma 3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Axial strain (%)

222
MRW-71 (B, C, D-1) (p'-q')
35
30
25
20
q' (psi)
15
y = 0.5559x - 0.0047
2
R = 0.9993
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-5
p' (psi)
MRW-71 (B, C, D-1) (p-q)
35
30
25
20
q (psi)
15
y = 0.3366x + 0.4684
2
R = 0.9667
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
p (psi)

223
MRW-71 (C, D-2) (p'-q')
45
40
35
30
25
q' (psi)
20
y = 0.544x + 0.0594
2
R = 0.9993
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
p' (psi)
MRW-71 (C, D-2) (p-q)
45
40
35
30
25
q (psi)
20
y = 0.3961x + 0.4154
2
R = 0.9747
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
p (psi)

224
MRW-71 (B, C, D-3) (p'-q')
35
30
25
20
y = 0.5704x - 0.2281
2
R = 0.9912
q' (psi)
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-5
p' (psi)
MRW-71 (B, C, D-3) (p-q)
35
30
25
20
q (psi)
y = 0.3268x + 0.2685
2
R = 0.9049
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
p (psi)

225
APPENDIX D: NONLINEAR CORRELATION PLOTS
Unconfined compressive strength vs Plasticity index
90
80
70
0.1264x
Unconfined compressive strength (psi)
y = 19.973e
2
R = 0.7501
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Plasticity index (%)
Figure D.1: Exponential Model Correlation (A-4a Soil)
Unconfined compressive strength vs % Gravel
90
80
70
60
50
40
y = -24.929Ln(x) + 108.36
2
R = 0.7348
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
% Gravel
Figure D.2: Logarithmic Model Correlation (A-4a Soil)

226
Unconfined compressive strength vs % Gravel
90
80
70
60
50
40 -0.4344
y = 134.37x
2
R = 0.7617
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
% Gravel
Figure D.3: Power Model Correlation (A-4a Soil)
600
500
y = 34.872x - 14.507
2
R = 0.9895
400
Phi' x % Gravel
300
200
100
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
% Gravel
Table D.4: Hyperbolic Model Correlation (A-4a Soil)

227
90
80
70
y = 206.85x + 27.426
2
R = 0.8032
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
1 / % Gravel
Figure D.5: Reciprocal Model Correlation (A-4a Soil)
Unconfined compressive strength vs Plasticity index
90
80 2
y = 6.7863x - 105.25x + 450.32
2
R = 0.9749
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Plasticity index
Figure D.6: Second-Degree Model Correlation (A-4a Soil)

Ohiou1205248711 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ohiou1205248711 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Shear Strength Correlations for Ohio Highway Embankment Soils

the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University

of the requirements for the degree

This thesis titled

Shear Strength Correlations for Ohio Highway Embankment Soils

has been approved for

the Department of Civil Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by

Professor of Civil Engineering

Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

HOLKO, JEFFREY M., M.S., March 2008, Civil Engineering

SHEAR STRENGTH CORRELATIONS FOR OHIO HIGHWAY EMBANKMENT

SOILS (227 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Teruhisa Masada

Highway embankment design is typically done with the assistance of empirical

correlations created by researchers in the past. Many of these correlations, however,

Professor of Civil Engineering

Finally, I would like to thank my parents who supported me in many ways

throughout the years I worked in the Masters program.

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 8

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 16

2.4.6 Unconfined Compression Test ..................................................... 45

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 48

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DATA AND RESULTS ...................................................... 69

CHAPTER 5: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES ... 98

5.2 Linear Regression Analysis .................................................................... 109

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 151

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 157

APPENDIX A: SPT CALIBRATION TEST DATA & C-U TRIAXIAL

APPENDIX B: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA ............................................ 176

APPENDIX C: TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST DATA & PLOTS ....................... 186

APPENDIX D: NONLINEAR CORRELATION PLOTS ............................................. 225

Table 2.1: AASHTO Classifications for Fine-Grained Materials .................................23

Table 5.7: Path 2 Linear Correlations for A-4a Soil ....................................................112

Figure 2.1: Failure Envelope for Soil ............................................................................17

Highway embankments constitute some of the most common geotechnical

embankments is of great importance to transportation costs and safety. When the

embankment is not properly designed and/or constructed, problems such as slope

embankment slope, and (5) the pore pressures in the soil.

not occur. However, in reality, detailed investigations of engineering properties of fill

embankment fill materials. In some embankment projects, unconfined compression

conservative or improper designing of the embankments, since the outside sources

1.2 Objectives of Thesis

Conduct a literature review to document information relevant to the design

and construction of highway embankments in Ohio;

Identify several highway embankment sites in Ohio, which can supply

representative samples of major soil types existing in Ohio;

five highway embankment sites by performing standard index property and

shear strength tests in the laboratory; and

between shear strength properties and index properties.

1.3 Outline of Thesis

describes a few different statistical approaches (linear regression, nonlinear regression,

presents the outcome of each analysis approach, delineating meaningful correlations

provide essential supplementary materials.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The current research project is related to soil shear strength, highway

through a relatively extensive literature review conducted.

2.1.1 Shear Strength of Soil

degree of the particles' mechanical interlocking. This characteristic depends on soil

to find the shear strength of soil under a certain condition:

where = normal stress applied.