01 01

XXVI Reunin Nacional de Mecnica de Suelos
e Ingeniera Geotcnica
Sociedad Mexicana de
Ingeniera Geotcnica, A.C.
Noviembre 14 a 16, 2012 Cancn, Quintana Roo
Correlaciones de Compresibilidad para Suelos en la Isla Curtis, Queensland,

Australia
Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Curtis Island, Queensland, Australia
1
Francisco ARIAS , Carlos FUENTES , Mahi GALAGODA , Joseph BAKA

1
Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals, Inc.
RESUMEN: Tiempo y presupuesto son los principales limitantes de las pruebas de campo y laboratorio en las
investigaciones del subsuelo. Ms an, en ocasiones los suelos son difciles de muestrear y los ensayos en muestras
inalteradas pueden ser limitados. Afortunadamente el ingeniero geotecnista puede correlacionar las propiedades ndice
de muestras alteradas de suelo con parmetros de compresibilidad. Estas correlaciones pueden usarse tambin para
verificar la calidad de los parmetros del suelo obtenidos de pruebas de laboratorio. El uso de correlaciones mejora
sustancialmente cuando stas se obtienen especficamente para un sitio particular, utilizando bases de datos de
pruebas de laboratorio en suelos locales. Este artculo presenta los resultados de un proceso de obtencin de
correlaciones para estimar parmetros de compresibilidad para suelos de la Isla Curtis en Queensland, Australia,
considerando una base de datos de ms de 80 pruebas de consolidacin de suelos locales. Esta base de datos es parte
de una investigacin multimillonaria del subsuelo encaminada a desarrollar plantas de gas natural en la isla. Como
resultado de este proceso se propone una serie de correlaciones empricas para hacer estimados preliminares mas
precisos de asentamiento en suelos de la Isla Curtis.
ABSTRACT: Time and budget are major issues in most projects that limit the extent of soil sampling and field and
laboratory testing to assess soil conditions. Furthermore, in occasions soils are difficult to sample and limited laboratory
tests can be performed on undisturbed samples. Fortunately, the geotechnical engineer can often use soil index
properties from disturbed samples to correlate compressibility parameters. These correlations are also used to check the
quality of soil parameters obtained from laboratory tests. The use of correlations is enhanced when they are tailored to
be site-specific, using databases from local soils. This paper presents the results of a process developed to obtain
correlations to determine compressibility parameters for soils in Curtis Island in Queensland, Australia, considering a
database of more than 80 consolidation tests on local soils. This database is part of a multimillion dollar geotechnical site
investigation program performed to develop a liquefied natural gas hub in the island. As a result of this process new
empirical correlations are proposed to perform more accurate preliminary settlement computations on soils in Curtis
Island.
1 INTRODUCTION
A complex site stratigraphy consisting of colluvial and
residual soils and parental mudstone (argillite)
bedrock with intensity of weathering varying
significantly is present in Curtis Island. Changing soil
conditions between borings spaced a few meters is
common, as revealed by more than 200 boreholes
drilled at the site.
Stiff to hard clayey soils with varying contents of
sand and hard gravels are present across the site.
These soils are difficult to sample with conventional
tools (Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c), which limits the
collection of undisturbed soil samples suitable for
laboratory testing. Despite these limitations, more
than 80 undisturbed soil samples were collected and
tested for consolidation, routinely accompanied by
moisture content and Atterberg limit tests. These

consolidation, moisture content and Atterberg limit
tests form the database used to obtain new empirical
correlations to better estimate preliminary soil
compressibility parameters for soils in Curtis Island.
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
Curtis Island is located near the city of Gladstone, in
the state of Queensland, northeastern Australia
(Figure 2). At the southwestern side of the island,
three major LNG plants are currently under
construction by Bechtel. Mangroves and flat tidally
inundated foreshore areas are present along the
coastal line. The site was vegetated with natural
bushland dominated by eucalypt trees with variable
SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA GEOTCNICA A.C.
density, and was used in the past for stock grazing.

Existing site levels across the site range
approximately from +3.0 m AHD (Australian High
Datum) along the western foreshore area up to
+50/60 m AHD at the top of the hills which border the
site.
Figure 2. Curtis Island location at Queensland, Australia.

Figure 1(a). SPT sampler damaged during soil sampling.
3 SITE GEOLOGY
Figure 1(b). Diamond core barrel damaged during coring.
Figure 1(c). Thin-walled tube damaged during soil

sampling.
Curtis Island is underlain by the Lower Paleozoic

Wandilla Formation of the Curtis Island Group
(Figure 3), which consists of layered, interbedded
mudstone with subordinate arenite and minor chert.
There is also presence of Quaternary aged Holocene
alluvial deposits comprising gravel, sand, silt and
clay, in areas of the site immediately adjacent to the
island coastline. The site is underlain by
approximately 4-16 m of medium stiff to hard, silty
clay, gravelly clays, and dense/very dense clayey
gravels. Some of these strata appear to be of
colluvial origin and overlie residual more clayey
strata, which in turn is the result of the weathering
process of the mudstone bedrock. At the mudflat
low-lying area close to the coastal line, there is
commonly a 1.0-2.0 m thick upper soft to medium
stiff clayey layer with variable organic content.
Figure 3. Detail of the geologic map of Curtis Island and

the Port City of Gladstone, Queensland, Australia.
ARIAS et al.
4 SOIL INVESTIGATION
The soil investigation program consisted mainly of
borehole drilling, supplemented by a number of test
pits and geophysical testing. Boreholes were typically
drilled using solid flight augering methods, followed
by open-hole rotary wash boring using polymer fluids
for cutting removal and borehole stability. Standard
penetration tests (SPT) were carried out at regular
depth intervals to recover disturbed soil samples and
to provide an indication of the in-situ strength of soil
and weathered rock strata. Undisturbed tube
samples were also taken at selected depths in
suitable cohesive strata using 63-mm diameter thinwalled tube samplers pushed (no rotation) into the
soil.
5 TEST RESULTS
The data used in this study includes more than 80
consolidation tests from more than 200 borings
drilled across the site. All consolidation tests were
performed in 1-D consolidation oedometer devices,
in accordance with Australian Specification AS
1289.6.6.1 - 1998.
The database has been compiled over four
different investigation campaigns, starting in March
2009 and ending in December 2011. The
consolidation tests were performed in different
laboratory facilities over time. The tests were
commenced typically with an initial stress of 25 kPa,
with stress increments doubling to a final stress of
1600 kPa. In various cases an unload-reload cycle
was started at 400 kPa. Figure 4 shows a typical
consolidation test plot from the database. All
consolidation tests included Atterberg limits and
moisture content tests. Specific gravity (G s ) was
measured on several consolidation soil samples,
while in other cases typical previously observed
values were assumed, as variation was negligible.
Maximum past pressure was calculated using the
Casagrande procedure. A correction to the virgin
compression curve was done with the Schmertmann
procedure (Schmertmann 1955) to account for
disturbance of the soil samples during sampling,
transportation and storage.
Some consolidation tests done on samples with
high organic matter content were eliminated from the
database. These samples showed atypical high
water contents and liquid limits. Table 1 summarizes
the consolidation and soil index properties included in
the database.
Figure 4. Typical consolidation test plot from the database.
6 COMPRESSIBILITY CORRELATIONS
It is typical to use correlations to estimate compressibility parameters of clay in geotechnical practice.
The correlated compressibility parameters are used
to perform preliminary settlement calculations without
requiring expensive, time-consuming laboratory testing. Only basic soil index properties such as moisture
content (w n ) and Atterberg limits are required.
The compressibility parameters of clay that are
commonly correlated to soil index properties are the
compression index (C c ) and the compression ratio
(CR).
Consolidation settlement of normally consolidated
clay is then calculated as:
h =
Cc
P' + P
H log 0 '
1 + e0
P0
(1)
Cc
(2)
1 + e0
Where:
h = Consolidation settlement
C c = Compression index
CR =Compression ratio
e 0 = Initial void ratio
H = Thickness of the compressible layer that undergo consolidation
P0' = Initial effective vertical stress at the center of the
compressible layer
P = Stress increment at the center of the compressible layer due to external loading
CR =
Initial efforts to correlate soil index properties with

compressibility parameters were done by Terzaghi
and Peck (Terzaghi and Peck 1967). Further correlations with extensive databases have been developed
by several authors and are discussed in the following
sections. This paper presents new empirical correlations proposed to better predict C c and CR for the
stiff clayey soils in Curtis Island.
index C c correlated to the liquid limit LL, specially for

soils with high plasticity (LL>40); a medium variation
when related to the initial void ratio e 0 , and a
moderate variation when correlated to the moisture
content w n . Based on these observations, it seems
that there is a better chance to get a reasonable
correlated compression index with the moisture
content.
7 COMPRESSIBILITY CORRELATIONS
Preliminary settlement calculations performed with
the use of compressibility correlations may vary significantly depending on the correlation selected. Although these calculations are preliminary, sufficient
accuracy is required at early stages of the project to
select foundation alternatives (i.e. shallow vs. deep
foundations) and to identify soil improvement requirements (e.g. excavation and soil replacement,
pre-loading, soil inclusions, vertical drains, etc). Early
identification of the most appropriate foundation system or soil treatment option may be the difference
between a successful profitable project and one that
requires extensive re-work (e.g. change of foundation
system or late implementation of a soil improvement
program). Considering these facts, it is important to
stress that preliminary settlement estimates should
be as accurate as possible, and they should be ratified rather than rectified at later design stages with
more complete field and laboratory testing programs.
Development of site-specific compressibility
correlations for preliminary settlement calculations is
a practice that is becoming more popular in the
industry. Technical papers describing database
manipulation and statistical correlation process have
been presented in geotechnical forums (Crumley et
al., 2003) and are part of advanced degree
dissertations in geotechnical engineering (Dayal
2006; Djoenaidi 1985).
7.1 Variability of Compressibility Correlations
Table 2 shows a compilation done by the authors of
more than 60 compressibility correlations to estimate
compression index C c based on index properties.
However, there are close to a hundred published correlations in the technical literature, and even specific
engineering software programs (Afkhami 2012)
which calculate compressibility correlations based on
index properties.
Figure 5a shows the variation of the compression
index with typical index properties, considering
several published correlations (Djoenaidi 1985).
Figure 5b shows the area of variation (shaded area)
of the compression index, which will be referenced
later in this paper. As it can be seen on this figure,
there is a relatively large variation of the compression
Figure 5a. Variability of Compression Index C c with index

properties.
Figure 5b. Area of variation of compression index C c

correlated to index properties (Plots prepared by the
authors based on original plots from Djoenaidi 1985,
Figure 5a).
7.2 Compressibility correlation with liquid limit

Figure 6 shows the variation of the compression
index with liquid limit for the site soil, and the area of
variation of C c shown in Figure 5b. There is a large
data dispersion and the best trendline obtained has a
poor correlation, with a coefficient of determination
2
R =16%; thus no regression equation is proposed to
correlate compression index with liquid limit. This
poor correlation with liquid limit has been observed
previously by others (Dayal 2006; Azzous 1976;
Kulhawy and Mayne 1990), and may be explained by
the fact that soils with the same liquid limit may have
different plastic and shrinkage limits, thereby
exhibiting different shrinkage or volume-change
behavior. As a consequence, the soils are bound to
exhibit different compressibility behavior even though
the liquid limit is the same. Any attempt to correlate
compressibility characteristics with liquid limit alone
will be limited because the plasticity and volumechange properties would not be considered; viz.,
plastic limit and shrinkage limit (Sridharan and
Nagaraj 2000). It has been noted that void ratio and
ARIAS et al.
natural moisture content are the best estimators to

correlate compressibility parameters (Bartlett and
Lee 2004). This is demonstrated in the following
sections.
Compression Index vs. Liquid Limit
7.4 Compressibility correlation with initial natural

moisture content, wn.
Figure 8 shows the variation of the compression index with the natural moisture content for the soils in
Curtis Island, and the area of variation of Cc shown in
Figure 5b.
Compresion Index vs. Moisture Content
0.9
1
0.9
0.7
Proposed correlation:
Cc = 0.0002 wn 2 - 0.0034 wn
+ 0.1227
0.8
0.6
Compression Index, Cc
Compression Index, Cc
0.8
Area of Variation
of Cc
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Trend Line
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Liquid Limit, LL (%)
0
0
10
20
30
7.3 Compressibility correlation with initial void ratio,

e0.
Figure 7 shows the variation of the compression index with the initial void ratio for the soils in Curtis Island, and the area of variation of Cc shown in Figure
5b. In this case there is a moderate dispersion of data, and the best trendline obtained has a better coef2
ficient of determination R =79%. Predictive performance with coefficients of determination >45% is
considered sufficient for use in preliminary design
and to supplement laboratory investigation (Bartlett
and Lee 2004). The proposed correlation is:
C C = 0.286 e0 2 0.1163 e0 + 0.1059
(3)
Compression Index vs. Initial Void Ratio

1
Area of Variation
of Cc
0.9
0.8
Proposed correlation:
Cc = 0.286 e 02 - 0.1163 e 0 + 0.1059
0.7
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Moisture Content, w n (% )
Figure 6. Compression index vs. liquid limit.
Compression Index, C C
Area of Variation
of Cc
R2 = 0.78
0.7
Figure 8. Compression index correlation with natural moisture content.
As mentioned in Section 7.1, there is a moderate

variation when the compression index is correlated to
the moisture content w n , and a better chance to get a
reasonable correlation.
In this case there is a moderate dispersion of data,
and the best trendline obtained has a good
2
coefficient of determination R =78%. The proposed
correlation is:
C C = 0.0002 wn 2 0.0034 wn + 0.1227
An alternative to the compression index C c is the

compression ratio CR, defined in Equation (2).
The benefit of using the compression ratio CR instead of the compression index C c for preliminary
settlement calculations is that CR already includes
the initial void ratio e 0 , which is more difficult to determine in the laboratory. However, the following
equation can be used to estimate the initial void ratio
in saturated soils:
e0 = wn G s
R2 = 0.7884
(4)
(5)
0.6
Where:
G s = Specific gravity.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1.5
Initial Void Ratio, e0
Figure 7. Compression index correlation with initial void

ratio.
Figure 9 shows typical ranges of CR reported by

various authors. Figure 10 shows the area of
variation (shaded area) of CR.
Figure 11 shows the variation of the compression
ratio CR with the natural moisture content of soils
from Curtis Island. In this case a medium dispersion
2
is noted with a coefficient of determination R =38%.
The proposed correlation is:
CR = 3 E 5 wn2 + 0.0015 wn + 0.0485
(6)
Figure 11 also shows that compression ratio

estimates based on the plot proposed by Lambe and
Whitman (1969) tends to underestimate the value of
CR for soils in Curtis Island. This is exemplified in
Section 7.6.
Moisture Content vs. Compression Ratio
Azzouz et al
1976
C r C c = 0.22
(7)
+15%
Lambe &
Whitman
1969
0.50
Compression Index vs. Recompression Index
0.40
0.09
-15%
0.08
0.30
Crumley
et al
2003
Solanki
et al
2010
0.07
0.20
0.10
0.00
10
100
1000
Figure 9. Compression ratio vs. moisture content variation.
Recompression Index Cr
Compression Ratio, CR (%)
The ratio between recompression and compression

indexes (C r /C c ) for the stiff clays in Cutis Island was
found to be on the order of 20%, as shown in Figure
12.
This ratio is in accordance with previous ratios

reported by others (Wroth 1979).
0.60
Bartlett &
Lee 2004
7.5 Recompression index.
Cr = 0.2172Cc
R2 = 0.8143
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
Moisture Content vs. Compression Ratio

Area of
variation of CR
with w n
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Figure 12. Compression index C c vs. recompression index

Cr.
0.50
0.05
Compression Index Cc
0.60
0.40
7.6 Settlement calculation with the proposed

correlations
0.30
The following examples illustrate the use of the new

proposed compressibility correlations for settlement
calculation.
0.20
0.10
0.00
10
100
1000
Figure 10. Area of variation of compression ratio CR vs.

moisture content w n .
Compression Ratio vs. Moisture Content
0.60
0.50
Lambe &
Whitman
1969
Proposed correlation
CR = 3E-05 w n2 + 0.0015w n +
0.0485
R2 = 0.3719
Area of
variation
of CR
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
10
100
1000
Data:
Foundation type = circular 4.0 m diameter
Foundation contact pressure = 100 kPa,
Thickness of compressible clayey layer (normally
consolidated clay) = 4.0 m, starting at ground
surface
Groundwater table = at ground surface.
Soil effective (submerged) unit weight, = 10
3
kN/m
Soil moisture content, w n = 20%
Soil specific gravity G s = 2.7.
Initial effective vertical stress at the center of the
compressible layer:
3
P0' = (2m) (10 kN/m ) = 20 kPa
Stress increment at the center of the compressible
layer due to foundation loading:
p = (Contact pressure) (Boussinesq dissipation
factor) = (100 kPa) (0.65) =65 kPa
Moisture Content, w n (%)
Figure 11. Compression ratio CR correlation with moisture

content w n .
ARIAS et al.
7.6.1 Settlement calculation with Compression Index

Cc.
Compression ratio calculated with equation (4), initial
void ratio determined with equation (5), and consolidation settlement estimated with equation (1) are as
follows:
Figure 14 (Lambe & Whitman 1969) provides the

following results:
CR = 0.04
h = 0.10 m
C c = 0.14
e 0 = 0.54
h = 0.23 m
Calculating settlement using the compression
index C c estimated from the well-known plot shown
in Figure 13 below (Terzaghi et al. 1996) provide the
following results:
C c = 0.20
h = 0.32 m
c
Figure 14. Compression ratio
correlation with
+
1
e0
moisture content w0, from Lambe and Whitman (1969).
The preliminary consolidation settlement was

underestimated (50%) with the use of generic
correlations or plots (Figure 14) when compared to
the settlement calculated with the new proposed
correlation. Also, there is good agreement between
the consolidation settlements calculated with the
proposed correlations for compression index (0.23
m) and compression ratio (0.22 m).
8 CONCLUSIONS
Figure 13. Compression index C c correlation with moisture
content w 0 , from Terzaghi et al. (1996).
The preliminary consolidation settlement was

overestimated (40%) with the use of generic
correlations (Figure 13) when compared to the
settlement calculated with the new proposed
correlation.
7.6.2 Settlement calculation with Compression Ratio
CR.
Compression ratio calculated with equation (6) and
consolidation settlement estimated with equations (1)
and (2) are as follows:
CR = 0.09
h = 0.22 m
Calculating settlement using the compression ratio
CR estimated from the well-known plot shown on
Relationships between soil compressibility characteristics with index properties should be used as intended only for preliminary calculations and never as a
substitute for results of actual tests. There is no universal correlation applicable to clayey soils. The correlation varies and is site-specific. The precision on
these calculations can be significantly enhanced
when new site-specific empirical correlations are developed from local laboratory test databases. The
process to obtain these correlations is relatively simple and beneficial in cases projects expand to new
areas that have not been previously investigated, but
for which a database of nearby soil tests exists.
The proposed empirical correlations for settlement
calculation in Curtis Island are:
C C = 0.286 e0 2 0.1163 e0 + 0.1059
(3)
10
C C = 0.0002 wn 2 0.0034 wn + 0.1227
(4)
CR = 3 E 5 wn2 + 0.0015 wn + 0.0485
(6)
C r C c = 0.22
(7)
The utilization of the above mentioned correlations

is preferred over the generic correlations and plots
presented in the classic technical literature to
estimate settlement on the clayey soils in Curtis
Island. The examples presented in Section 7.6 show
that settlement calculation based on generic wellknow and industry-accepted correlations (Figures 13
and 14) tend to overestimate or underestimate
settlement in the range of 40-50%. In particular,
correlations with liquid limit should be avoided as
they have shown poor correlations in previous
investigations, as it was corroborated in this
investigation. It is recommended that the natural
moisture content w n is used to estimate
compressibility parameters whenever possible, as
this is a good predictor of C c and CR, and it is
relatively easier to determine in the laboratory than
e0.
ARIAS et al.
Table 1. Database - consolidation and index test.

Boring
836
403
Soil Origin
(Alluvial or
Colluvial /
Residual)
Soil
Type
INDEX
PARAMETERS
CONSOLIDATION
PARAMETERS
LL
PL
PI
eo
Cc
CR
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Clayey Sand
With Gravel
Gravelly Silty
Clay Some
Sand
Silty Clay Some
Sand
Silty Clay (EW
Mudstone)
Silty Clay (EW
Mudstone)
Silty Clay (EW
Mudstone)
Silty Clay (EW
Mudstone)
Clay
1.0
12.9
28
19
0.39
0.02
0.02
1.5
21.8
34
15
19
0.62
0.15
0.09
7.2
22.2
35
22
13
0.72
0.08
0.05
3.6
6.5
35
24
11
0.39
0.08
0.05
3.6
6.5
35
24
11
0.44
0.10
0.07
3.6
6.5
35
24
11
0.44
0.09
0.06
3.6
6.5
35
24
11
0.38
0.06
0.05
1.0
15.6
36
18
18
0.80
0.12
0.07
Silty Clay Some

Sand
Sandy Clay
9.0
17.8
37
25
12
0.87
0.16
0.09
1.0
12.0
38
19
19
0.42
0.10
0.07
Sandy Clay
w/Gravel
Clay
2.5
11.9
39
16
23
0.42
0.10
0.07
1.7
15.3
39
16
23
0.43
0.09
0.07
Silty Clay some

Sand & Gravel
Clay with Sand
1.2
20.6
39
18
21
0.65
0.17
0.10
3.5
15.9
39
14
25
0.48
0.11
0.08
Fill: Clay
w/Sand
Clayey Gravel
w/sand organics
Clay
1.0
12.3
40
16
24
0.40
0.04
0.03
3.8
67.1
41
18
23
1.90
0.53
0.18
20.5
19.9
41
27
14
0.74
0.17
0.10
Silty Clay
1.0
13.5
42
16
26
0.58
0.15
0.10
Silty Gravelly
Clay
Silty Clay Some
Sand
Clay (EW Mudstone)
Clay (EW Mudstone)
Clay (EW Mudstone)
Clay (EW Mudstone)
Clay
2.5
20.5
43
17
26
0.58
0.12
0.08
3.0
20.0
43
16
27
0.54
0.16
0.11
4.0
13.6
43
28
15
0.72
0.06
0.03
4.0
13.6
43
28
15
0.74
0.09
0.05
4.0
13.6
43
28
15
0.64
0.06
0.03
4.0
13.6
43
28
15
0.64
0.08
0.05
20.5
22.9
43
28
15
0.67
0.16
0.09
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Clay w/Sand
5.5
18.0
44
17
27
0.53
0.15
0.10
Clay/Silt
0.5
28.4
44
27
17
0.72
0.16
0.09
Clay with Sand
9.0
20.7
46
22
24
0.63
0.14
0.09
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Sandy Clay
With Gravel
1.5
22.2
46
21
25
0.82
0.11
0.06
311
Residual
TP
409
TP
409
TP
409
TP
409
832
Residual
902
924
928
946
312
Residual
Residual
Residual
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Fill
904
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
FILL
910
FILL
823
Residual
30A
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
852
32
47
TP
402
TP
402
TP
402
TP
402
821
911
859
912
861
Residual
Residual
Residual
Residual
Depth
(m)
Water
Content
(%)
11
12
Boring
Soil Origin
(Alluvial or
Colluvial /
Residual)
Soil
Type
Depth
(m)
Water
Content
(%)
INDEX
PARAMETERS
CONSOLIDATION
PARAMETERS
LL
PL
PI
eo
Cc
CR
823
Residual
Gravelly Clay
7.5
20.0
47
29
18
0.74
0.15
0.09
910
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Clay
4.8
17.9
47
17
30
0.51
0.15
0.10
Sandy Clay with

Gravel
Silty Clay with
Relict Rock
Structure
Mudstone (EW)
6.5
18.5
47
24
23
0.67
0.17
0.10
7.5
43.0
47
28
19
1.00
0.35
0.17
8.5
16.6
48
25
23
0.50
0.08
0.05
Sandy Clay (EW

Mudstone)
Silty Clay Some
Sand
Clayey Gravel
w/Sand
Sandy Clay
8.2
22.5
49
22
27
0.69
0.17
0.10
1.5
19.3
50
19
31
0.56
0.19
0.12
4.0
18.3
50
34
16
0.50
0.15
0.10
0.0
38.5
52
27
25
3.02
0.96
0.24
Clay w/Sand
3.0
20.9
52
17
35
0.64
0.11
0.06
Sandy Clay (EW

Mudstone)
Clay
2.2
15.4
53
20
33
0.52
0.14
0.09
2.0
18.4
53
16
37
0.43
0.09
0.06
Silty Clay/Sandy
Clay
Clay with Sand
1.7
15.2
53
25
28
0.57
0.07
0.05
3.5
17.1
53
20
33
0.66
0.14
0.08
Clay
1.5
17.8
53
27
26
0.46
0.18
0.12
Clayey Silt/Silty
Clay some Sand
& Gravel
Sandy Clay
13.5
34.0
54
35
19
1.00
0.30
0.15
0.7
15.5
54
16
38
0.50
0.13
0.09
Silty Clay with

Rock Fragments
CLAY w/Sand
1.0
23.6
54
20
34
0.51
0.24
0.16
2.0
17.0
54
20
34
0.54
0.12
0.08
Sandy Clay
7.5
38.3
55
25
30
0.96
0.27
0.14
Silty Clay Some

Sand
Clayey Silt/Silty
Clay
Clay
2.7
22.7
56
20
36
0.71
0.18
0.11
11.5
30.1
56
30
26
0.88
0.33
0.18
14.5
30.5
56
34
22
0.81
0.16
0.09
0.3
23.0
56
19
37
0.97
0.23
0.12
2.5
23.1
56
20
36
0.71
0.18
0.11
10.0
26.2
57
34
23
0.98
0.28
0.14
0.6
61.6
57
20
37
1.75
0.82
0.30
Clay With Sand
1.7
23.6
57
19
38
0.65
0.19
0.11
Clay with Sand
0.5
21.3
58
21
37
0.77
0.19
0.11
Silty Clay
0.8
11.4
58
26
32
0.63
0.18
0.11
852
35
800
Residual
945
Residual
322
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
911
859
905
916
46
211
800
902
409
800
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
11
Residual
409
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
13
945
823
853
11
409A
407
858
835
TP402
Clayey Sand
With Gravel
Silty Clay some
Sand
Clayey Silt/Silty
Clay
Silty Clay
ARIAS et al.
Boring
321
858
TP401
TP401
311
909
47
935
Soil Origin
(Alluvial or
Colluvial /
Residual)
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Soil
Type
Depth
(m)
Water
Content
(%)
INDEX
PARAMETERS
CONSOLIDATION
PARAMETERS
LL
PL
PI
eo
Cc
CR
Silty Clay
2.0
11.4
59
16
43
0.42
0.13
0.09
Sandy Clay
w/Gravel /Sandy
SILT w gravel
Silty Clay
4.5
29.0
59
32
27
0.73
0.24
0.14
0.6/2.
5
0.6/2.
7
4.2
13.7
59
24
35
0.78
0.25
0.14
13.7
59
24
35
0.63
0.17
0.10
17.7
60
17
43
0.51
0.13
0.09
4.0
24.3
60
17
43
0.58
0.23
0.15
Silty
Clay/Clayey Silt
Clay (Mudstone)
7.5
26.0
61
23
38
0.69
0.18
0.10
1.0
20.1
62
17
45
0.56
0.18
0.11
Silty Clay
Silty Clay Some
Sand
Clay w/Gravel
201
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Silty Clay
1.2
19.5
62
22
40
0.62
0.09
0.06
853
Residual
Clay with Sand
7.0
28.3
62
30
32
0.74
0.15
0.08
912
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Sandy Clay
w/Gravel
Silty clay/ Clayey Silt
Sandy Clay
3.0
23.0
63
19
44
0.65
0.17
0.10
1.8
25.7
63
26
37
0.56
0.15
0.10
0.5
51.6
63
22
41
1.54
0.53
0.21
Silty Clay Some

Sand
Sandy Clay
2.5
28.3
64
24
40
0.82
0.17
0.10
1.5
17.0
64
23
41
0.56
0.13
0.08
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Clay
4.5
25.8
64
23
41
0.76
0.21
0.12
Clay
2.7
22.0
65
20
45
0.68
0.24
0.14
Silty Clay Some

Sand
Silty Clay
8.5
19.0
65
26
39
0.62
0.07
0.04
8.5
34.4
66
35
31
0.98
0.33
0.17
2.0
18.6
66
20
46
0.54
0.16
0.10
47
858
405
5
802
903
313
409A
821
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
834
Residual
31
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
904
301
913
300
Alluvial or
Colluvial
Residual
Clayey Gravel
w/Sand
Silty Clay
10.5
28.2
67
32
35
0.75
0.14
0.08
Mudstone (MH)
Clay w/Sand/
Silt w/sand
Silty Clay
11.5
44.6
68
35
33
1.23
0.39
0.17
3.5
22.8
68
22
46
0.75
0.33
0.19
Silty Clay Some

Sand
Sandy Clay with
Gravel
Silty Clay/Some
Sand
7.7
26.0
69
24
45
0.57
0.07
0.04
2.0
29.3
75
27
48
0.75
0.10
0.06
10.7
17.4
84
22
62
0.55
0.09
0.06
13
14
Table 2. Compression Index (C c ) Correlations

Compression Index
CC = 0.156 e0 + 0.0107
a) CC = f (e)
Applicability
All clays
CC = 1.15 (e0 - 0.35)
All clays
Cc = 0.30 (e0 - 0.27)
Inorganic, silty
clays
CC = 0.75 (e0 - 0.50)
Low plasticity
clays
CC = 0.40 (e0 0.25)
All natural soils
CC = 0.208 e0 + 0.0083
Chicago clays
CC = 0.35 (e0 - 0.50)
Organic soils
CC = 0.246 + 0.43 (e00.25)

CC = 0.4066 e0 0.0415
Motley clays from

Sao Paulo, Brazil
Surat clayey alluvial deposits
Brazilian clays
CC = 0.256 + 0.43 (e00.84)

CC = 0.43 (e0 0.25)
Brazilian clays
CC = 1.21 + 1.055 (e01.87)

CC=0.44 (e0 - 0.30)
Motley clays from

Sao Paulo City
Pakistan clays
CC=0.4049 (e0 - 0.3216)
Pakistan clays
1.6
CC = 0.20 e
CC = 0.274 eL
Naturally sedimented young

soils
All remolded,
normally consolidated clays
All remolded,
Clay-sand mixes
CC = 1.15 (e - e0)
All clays
CC= 0.54 (e0 0.37)
South Korea coast
CC= 0.39 (e0 0.13)
East Korea coast
CC= 0.37 (e0 0.28)
West Korea coast
CC= 0.46 (e0 0.28)
West Korea coast
Cc=0.5928 e0 0.247
Clayey soils of
Salt Lake Valley,
Utah
CC = 0.2237 eL
CC = 0.243 eL
Table 2. Contd.
Reference
Holtz and
Kovacs
(1981)
Nishida
(1956)
Holtz and
Kovacs
(1981)
Holtz and
Kovacs
(1981)
Azzous et
al. (1976)
Bowles
(1989)
Hough
(1957)
Cozzolino
(1961)
Solanki et
al. (2010)
Cozzolino
(1961)
Cozzolino
(1961)
Cozzolino
(1961)
Serajuddin
and Ahmed
(1967)
Serajuddin
(1987)
Shorten
(1955)
Nagaraj
and Srinivasa (1983)
Nagaraj
Nagaraj et
al. (1995)
Nishida
(1956)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Compression Index
CC = 0.007 (LL - 7)
b) CC = f (LL)
Applicability
Remolded clays
CC =0.009 (LL - 10)
CC = 0.0046 (LL - 9)
Clay of medium to
slight sensitivity
(St<4, LL<100)
All clays with
LL<100%
Brazilian clays
CC = (LL - 13) / 109
All Clays
CC = 0.0186 (LL - 30)
Cc = 0.0078 (LL - 14)
Motley clays from

Sao Paulo
Pakistani clays
Cc = 0.012 (LL + 16.4)
South Korea coast
Cc = 0.011 (LL - 6.36)
East Korea coast
Cc = 0.01 (LL - 10.9)
West Korea coast
CC 10 = 0.009 (LL - 8)
Osaka Bay clay
CC 10 = 0.009 LL
Tokyo Bay clay
CC = 0.006 (LL - 9)
CC = 0.0061 LL - 0.0024
Compression Index
Cc = 0.0082 Ip + 0.0915
Compression Index
CC = 0.01 wn
c) CC = f (Ip)
Applicability
d) CC = f (wn)
Applicability
Chicago clays
CC = 0.01 (wn - 5)
All clays
CC = 0.0115 wn
Organic soils,
peat
CC = 17.66X10-5 wn2+
5.93X10-3 wn -1.35X10-1
Chicago clays
CC = 0.01 (wn - 7.549)
All clays
CC = 0.85 [(wn / 100)3]0.5
CC= 0.013 (wn 3.85)
Finnish muds and

clays
South Korea coast
CC= 0.01 (wn + 2.83)
East Korea coast
CC= 0.011 (wn - 11.22)
West Korea coast
Cc=0.0163 wn - 0.247
Clayey soils of
Salt Lake Valley,
Utah
CC= 0.0091w + 0.0522

Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Bartlett and
Lee (2004)
Reference
Skempton
(1944)
Holtz and
Kovacs
(1981)
Azzous et
al. (1976)
Cozzolino
(1961)
Mayne
(1980)
Cozzolino
(1961)
Mayne
(1980)
Serajuddin
and Ahmed
(1967)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Tsuchida
(1991)
Tsuchida
(1991)
Reference
Solanki et
al. (2010)
Reference
Azzous et
al. (1976)
Azzous et
al. (1976)
Holtz and
Kovacs
(1981)
Peck and
Reed
(1954)
Herrero
(1983)
Helenelund
(1951)
Solanki et
al. (2010)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Bartlett and
Lee (2004)
ARIAS et al.
Table 2. Contd.
e) CC = f (x,y,z)
Compression Index
Applicability
CC = 0.37 (e0 + 0.003 LL
All clays
+ 0.0004 wn - 0.34)
CC = -0.156 + 0.411 e0 +
All clays
0.00058 LL
CC = -0.156 + 0.41 e0 +
0.00058 LL
All clays
CC = (1+e0) [0.1 + (wn25) 0.006]
Varved clays
CC = 0.141 Gs1.2
[(1+e0)/Gs]2.38
CC = 0.5 (w/d)2.4
All clays
CC = 0.50 Gs (Ip / 100)
All clays
CC = 0.329 [0.027 (w-LP)

+ 0.0133 IP (1.192 +
ACT-1)]
CC = 0.2343 wn Gs
All remolded,
All clays
CC = 0.009 wn + 0.002 LL
-0.10
All clays
CC = 0.0023 LL GS
All clays
CC = 0.141 GS (W /S)12/5
All soils
Cc = -0.0003wn +
0.538e0+ 0.002 LL - 0.3
Cc = 0.0098 LL + 0.194
e0 -0.0025 PI 0.256
CC = 0.0038 wn + 0.12
e0 + 0.0065 LL 0.248
Cc = 0.2765 [Gs
{(1+eo)/Gs}2 0.5171]
South Korea coast
All soil types
East Korea coast

West Korea coast
Bangladesh soils
Reference
Azzous et
al. (1976)
Al-Khafaji
and Andersland
(1992)
Al-Khafaji
and Andersland
(1992)
Holtz and
Kovacs
(1981)
Herrero
(1983)
Herrero
(1980)
Holtz and
Kovacs
(1981)
Carrier
(1985)
Nagaraj
(1985)
Nagaraj
Nagaraj
(1985)
Herrero
(1980)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Yoon et al.
(2004)
Serajuddin
(1987)
Table 2 Notation:
wn =
Natural moisture content.
Gs =
Specific Gravity.
e=
Void ratio at a specific pressure.
e0 =
Initial void ratio.
eL =
Void ratio at liquid limit.
LL =
Liquid limit.
Ip =
Plasticity index.
St =
Sensitivity = undisturbed undrained shear
strength/remolded undrained shear strength.
C c10 = Compression index when consolidation pressure p=10
kg/cm2
REFERENCES
Afkhami A.A. (2012). Novoformula Software version
1.2.2012.306, Novo Tech Software Ltd.
Al-Khafaji A.W.N. and Andersland O.B. (1992).
Equations for Compression Index Approximation, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 118(1), pp 148-153.
15
Azzous A.S., Krizek R.J. and Corotis R.B. (1976).

Regression Analysis of Soil Compressibility, Soils
and Foundations, No. 2, Vol. 16, pp. 19-29.
Bartlett S.F. and Lee H.S. (2004). Estimation of
Compression Properties of Clayey Soils, Salt Lake
Valley, Utah, prepared for the Utah DOT Research
Division, Report UT-04.28.
Bowles J.E. (1989). Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soils, New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company Inc.
Carrier, W.D. III (1985). Consolidation Parameters
Derived from Index Tests, Gotechnique, 35(2),
pp. 211-213.
Cozzolino V.M. (1961), Statistical Forecasting of
th
Compression Index, Proceedings of the 5 International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 5153.
Crumley A., Fernndez A.L. y Regalado C.A. (2003),
Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Puerto
th
Rico, Soil and Rock America, 12 Panamerican
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dayal N. (2006). Consolidation Analysis of Greater
Cincinnati Soils, M.Sc. Dissertation, University of
Cincinnati.
Djoenaidi W.J. (1985). A Compendium of Soil
Properties and Correlations, M.Sc. Dissertation,
University of Sydney, Australia.
Helenelund K.V. (1951), On Consolidation and Settlement of Loaded Soil Layers, PhD Thesis, Finland Technical Institute.
Herrero O.R. (1980), Universal Compression Index
Equation, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(11), pp. 11791199.
Herrero O.R. (1983), Universal Compression Index
Equation: Closure, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109(5), pp. 755-761.
Holtz R.D. and Kovacs W.D. (1981). An Introduction
to Geotechnical Engineering, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., Prentice-Hall.
st
Hough B.K. (1957). Basic Soil Engineering, 1 Edition, New York, The Ronald Press Company.
Kulhawy F.H. and Mayne P.W. (1990). Manual on
Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design,
Cornell University Geotechnical Engineering
Group, Ithaca, New York, p. 6-3.
Lambe W.T. and Whitman R.V. (1969). Soil
Mechanics, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Mayne P.W. (1980). Cam-Clay Predictions of
Undrained Strength, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(11), pp. 12191242.
Nagaraj T.S. and Srinivasa M.B.R. (1983). Rationalization of Skemptons Compressibility Equation,
Gotechnique, 33(40), pp. 433-443.
16
Nagaraj, T.S. and Srinivasa M.B.R. (1985), Prediction of the Preconsolidation Pressure and
Recompression Index of Soils, Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, 1985, pp 199-202.
Nagaraj T.S. and Srinivasa M.B.R. (1986), A Critical
Reappraisal of Compression Index Equations,
Gotechnique, 36(1), pp. 27-32.
Nagaraj T.S., Pandian N.S., Narasimha R.P.S.R and
Vishnu B.T. (1995). Stress-State Time Permeability Relationships for Saturated Soils,
Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Compression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils,
Hiroshima, Japan, pp. 537-542.
Nishida Y. (1956). A Brief Note on Compression Index of Soils, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, No. SM3. Vol. 82,
pp. 1027-1 to 1027-14.
Peck R.B. and Reed W.C. (1954). Engineering Properties of Chicago Subsoils, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Bulletin 423.
Schmertmann J.H. (1955). The Undisturbed
Consolidation Behavior of Clay, Transactions,
ASCE, Vol. 120, pp. 1201-1233.
Serajuddin M. and Ahmed A. (1967). Studies on Engineering Properties of East Pakistan Soils,
Proc. First Southeast Asian Regional Conference on Soil Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand,
pp. 9-12.
Serajuddin M. (1987), Universal Compression Index
Equation and Bangladesh Soils, Proc. Ninth
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Vol.
1, pp 5-61 to 5-72.
Shorten G.G (1955). Quasi-Overconsolidation and
Creep Phenomena in Shallow Marine and Estuarine Organo-Calcareous Silts, Fiji, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 32, pp. 89-105.
Skempton A.W. (1944). Notes on the Compressibility of Clays, Quarterly Journal of Geological Society of London, Vol. 100, pp. 119-135.
Solanki C.H., Desai M.D. and Desai J.A. (2010),
Quick Settlement Analysis of Cohesive Alluvial
Deposits Using New Empirical Correlations,
Journal of Civil Engineering Research and Practice, No. 2, Vol. 7, pp. 49-58.
Sridharan
A.
and
Nagaraj
H.B.
(2000).
Compressibility Behavior of Remolded, FineGrained Soils and Correlations with Index
Properties, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37, 3,
pp. 712-722.
Terzaghi K. and Peck R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, New York, John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Terzaghi K., Peck R.B. and Mesri G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition,
New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 106.
Tsuchida T. (1991). A New Concept of e-log p Relath
tionship for Clays, Proceedings of the 9 Asian
Region Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand,

Vol. 1, pp. 87-90.
Wroth C.P. (1979), Correlation of Some Engineering
nd
Properties of Soils, 2 International Conference
on Behavior of Offshore Structures, London, pp
121-132.
Yoon, G.L., Kim, B.T., and Joen, S.S. (2004), Empirical Correlations of Compression Index for Marine Clay from Regression Analysis, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, (41), pp 1213-1221.

01 01

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

01 01

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

XXVI Reunin Nacional de Mecnica de Suelos

Noviembre 14 a 16, 2012 Cancn, Quintana Roo

Correlaciones de Compresibilidad para Suelos en la Isla Curtis, Queensland,

Francisco ARIAS , Carlos FUENTES , Mahi GALAGODA , Joseph BAKA

Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals, Inc.

moisture content and Atterberg limit tests. These

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA GEOTCNICA A.C.

Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Curtis Island, Queensland, Australia

density, and was used in the past for stock grazing.

Figure 2. Curtis Island location at Queensland, Australia.

Figure 1(b). Diamond core barrel damaged during coring.

Figure 1(c). Thin-walled tube damaged during soil

Curtis Island is underlain by the Lower Paleozoic

Figure 3. Detail of the geologic map of Curtis Island and

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA GEOTCNICA A.C.

Figure 4. Typical consolidation test plot from the database.

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA GEOTCNICA A.C.

Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Curtis Island, Queensland, Australia

Initial efforts to correlate soil index properties with

index C c correlated to the liquid limit LL, specially for

Figure 5a. Variability of Compression Index C c with index

Figure 5b. Area of variation of compression index C c

7.2 Compressibility correlation with liquid limit

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA GEOTCNICA A.C.

natural moisture content are the best estimators to

7.4 Compressibility correlation with initial natural

Compresion Index vs. Moisture Content

Liquid Limit, LL (%)

7.3 Compressibility correlation with initial void ratio,

C C = 0.286 e0 2 0.1163 e0 + 0.1059

Compression Index vs. Initial Void Ratio

Figure 6. Compression index vs. liquid limit.

Figure 8. Compression index correlation with natural moisture content.

As mentioned in Section 7.1, there is a moderate

C C = 0.0002 wn 2 0.0034 wn + 0.1227

An alternative to the compression index C c is the

Initial Void Ratio, e0

Figure 7. Compression index correlation with initial void

Figure 9 shows typical ranges of CR reported by

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA GEOTCNICA A.C.

Compressibility Correlations for Soils in Curtis Island, Queensland, Australia

CR = 3 E 5 wn2 + 0.0015 wn + 0.0485

Figure 11 also shows that compression ratio

Compression Index vs. Recompression Index

Figure 9. Compression ratio vs. moisture content variation.

Compression Ratio, CR (%)

The ratio between recompression and compression

This ratio is in accordance with previous ratios

7.5 Recompression index.

Moisture Content vs. Compression Ratio

Figure 12. Compression index C c vs. recompression index

7.6 Settlement calculation with the proposed

The following examples illustrate the use of the new

Figure 10. Area of variation of compression ratio CR vs.

Compression Ratio, CR (%)

Moisture Content, w n (%)

Figure 11. Compression ratio CR correlation with moisture

SOCIEDAD MEXICANA DE INGENIERA GEOTCNICA A.C.

7.6.1 Settlement calculation with Compression Index

Figure 14 (Lambe & Whitman 1969) provides the

moisture content w0, from Lambe and Whitman (1969).

The preliminary consolidation settlement was

The preliminary consolidation settlement was