AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT

FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING
Advances In Construction Techniques
Correlation between Unconfined Compression Strength (UCS) and
Index Properties of Soil in Assiut Governorate, Egypt
Abdel- Aziz A. A. Senoon1 and Mohammed M.A.Hussein2
1
Prof. Assiut University, Faculty of Eng., Civil Eng. Dep. Assiut, Egypt,
E-mail:[email protected]
2
Assoc. Prof. Sohag University, Faculty of Eng., Civil Eng. Dep. Sohag, Egypt,
E-mail: [email protected].

ABSTRACT:-
Experimental tests are very important to determine the engineering properties of soils in
geotechnical engineering. Special expertise and care are required to perform these tests.
The unconfined compression test is also one of them. Thus, there is a need to develop
models to quickly predict the unconfined compression strength of soils. The researchers
attempted to develop correlations to predict the unconfined compressive strength from
index properties of soils, which are easier and quicker to determine. This paper
describes the geotechnical properties of soils in Assiut Governorate, Egypt. Different
properties of soils were taken from numbers of geotechnical reports that were conducted
by the authors through the engineering consulting center, Faculty of Engineering, Assiut
University. All tests were performed according to Egyptian Code,2001. According to
USCS the soil samples were classified as CH, CL, MH, and ML. Finally, relationships
between unconfined compressive strength and index properties of soil were drawn. Best
possible prediction models were developed using a statistical approach. The developed
predicting formulas were compared with obtained values from tests. It was found that
there is very close between predicted values from prediction formulas and obtained
values from laboratory tests.
KEY WORDS: Assuit city, Liquidity index, Plasticity index, unconfined compressive strength
(UCS), Natural water content, total unit weight
INTRODUCTION
Unconfined compressive strength (qu) is a very important parameter in geotechnical
engineering. Unconfined compressive strength is a parameter from which the soil
cohesion (c) can be determined, and then the bearing capacity of cohesive soil can be
obtained. This test requires a good undisturbed soil sample from the field and this needs
high skills and great experience. Also, determining of unconfined compressive strength
in laboratory is really tedious and time consuming. Therefore, a correlation between
unconfined compressive strength and physical properties of soil is useful for restraint of
testing number and costs. In the last decay, many researches were performed to
correlate the physical properties of soil with the mechanical properties. This approach
was adopted for the purpose of time saving and reducing cost of investigations. This
approach was adopted from the earlier researcher in the field of soil mechanics and

1
foundation engineering. Some of these correlations are listed in the following literature
and article [Abdel-Rahman, G. E. (1982), Al-Busoda, (2009), Bowels, (1996), Chee et
al (2012), Das, (2002), Egyptian Code(2001), Harison, (1987), Khamehchiyan, and
Iwao, (1994), Krystal Wilbourn et al (2007), Magdi Mohammed (2016), Obasi,. and
ANYAEGBUNAM (2005), Rana and Al-Ameri (2010), Ranjini et al (2013),Raoaa
Farah (2011), Teruhisa Masada (2009), Tuncer and Craig (2009), Usama et al (2015),
Wroth,. and Houlsby (1985), Yilmaz. Isik (2000)]. This research is concerned to study
the correlation between different physical properties such as (LL, PL, PI,
and Wn with different mechanical properties such as (qun, ). The
correlation is verified using simple regression analysis. From the regression results, it
was found that there is direct correlation between physical and mechanical properties of
soil. By using these correlations with some information, preliminary investigation
stages and studies of any project can be performed and design parameters can be
obtained.
EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
To develop valid correlations, proper testing program was adopted. Soil samples were
collected from various places in Assuit governorate, Egypt. Total 90 undisturbed soil
samples were collected. Special care was carried out to preserve the natural moisture
content and density of soil samples. All the basic soil tests like natural moisture content;
Atterberg’s limits tests (Liquid limit, LL and Plastic limit, PL) and unconfined
compression tests were performed in accordance with Egyptian code (2001). After
performing basic tests, soil classification and index properties of soil samples were
determined.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Classification of used soil
The summary results of all tests are presented in table 1. On the basis of unified soil
classification system (USCS) all tested soil samples can be classified as fine grained
soils. By plotting the values of liquid limits and plasticity indices on plasticity chart
(Gasagrande chart, 1932) as shown in Figure.1, the fine grained soils can be classified
as clay, silty clay, clayey silt and silt soils with low to very high plasticity (CL, CV,
ML, and MV. ).
Liquid limit and plasticity index
Predictive model can be developed using liquid limit and plasticity index, where less
scattering of data was observed as shown in figure 1 and regression coefficient (R2) was
equal to 0.8155 which indicates a good reproducibility for constructed model according
to the conceptual criteria proposed by Pellinen. The following model has been
developed
PI (%)=0.6728×L.L(%)-12.706 (%) (1)

Unconfined compressive strength

To develop valid prediction models to obtain unconfined compressive strength,
relationships between unconfined compressive strength and index properties of soils
were drawn. These index properties like Atterberg's limits (LL and PL), plasticity index
(PI), liquidity index (IL), consistency index (Ic), bulk density (γb) and dry density(γd) are
easier and quicker to determine. Keeping this in view relationships were drawn between
unconfined compression strength and the formerly mentioned index properties of soil.
The health of relationships drawn was checked based regression coefficient (R2) value
as it is better indicator to check the health of any correlation as proposed by Pellinen.
The relationship between unconfined compressive strength and liquid limit was drawn
as shown in figure 2, it can be observed that there is a large scatter in data points was
observed. R2 is equal to 0.0156 which indicates very poor strength of relationship. This
result is in a good agreement with that obtained by Khalid,U. and et. (2015), where they
found that R2 equal to 0.0021 for correlation between unconfined compressive strength
and liquid limit. Similarly the relationship between unconfined compressive strength
and plastic limit shows higher scattering of data points, where R2 is equal to 0.0103 as
shown in figure 3. In case of relationship between unconfined compressive strength and
plasticity index (PI), medium scatter of data is observed as shown in figure 4 and R 2 is
equal to 0.3321 which indicates poor strength of relationship according to the
conceptual criteria proposed by Pellinen. Similarly the relationship between unconfined
compressive strength and both liquidity index (IL) and consistency index (IC) as shown
in figures 5 and 6, where R2 is equal to 0.3321for two correlations. In case of
relationships between unconfined compressive strength and both natural water content
(wn), bulk density and dry density, less scatter of data are observed as shown in figures
7,8 and 9 where R2 is equal to 0.5682, 0.4291 and 0.6064 respectively. The values of
regression coefficient (R2) indicate that the relationships between unconfined
compressive strength and both natural water content (wn), bulk density and dry density
are fair according to the conceptual criteria proposed by Pellinen. While observing
relationships between different index properties and unconfined compressive strength of
soil it was observed that predictive models can be developed using moisture content and
dry unit weight of soils. This result is in a good agreement with that result obtained by
Khalid, U. and et. (2015), where they found that R2 is equal to 0.64 and 0.86 for
correlation between unconfined compressive strength and both natural water content
and dry density respectively. Predictive models were developed using single linear
regression. These models are summarized in table 2.
Undrained shear strength ratio
Shear strength is a very important parameter for the design of the foundation of a
structure. It can be determined either in the field or in the laboratory, or both. The tests
employed in the laboratory may include unconfined compression test, triaxial test,
laboratory vane, direct shear box and direct simple shear (DSS) test. In situ tests are
normally conducted to test the validity of the laboratory tests and also for design
purposes. The in situ tests available include field vane, standard penetration test, cone
penetration test, piezocone and pressuremeter tests.
Mohr-Coulomb equation gives a linear correlation between normal stress and shear
stress. This line as criteria of Mohr-Coulomb failure is shown below:

(2)

Where:-

S = shear strength (kPa)

σ = normal stress (kPa)

c = cohesion (kPa)

= internal friction angle

Unconfined compressive strength test in which confining pressure is equal to zero, shear
strength (s) is independent from confining pressure (σ3), so that:
σ1/2 (3)
Where:-
= unconfined compressive strength (kPa).
The ratio of undrained shear strength of clay (cu=qu/2) to in situ effective overburden
stress (σov) have been correlated to Atterberg's limits by many researchers. Skempton
(1957) gives a linear relationship for this ratio value to the value of plasticity index.
0.11 + 0.0037 P.I (4)
Bjerrum and Simons (1960) present a power equation for correlation between undrained
shear strength ratio to plasticity index.
= 0.045 P.I 0.5 (5)
In addition, Bjerrum and Simons (1960) also present another equation between this
ratios to liquidity index, IL which IL = (Wn - P.L)/(P.I.) and consistency index, IC +IL=1
= 0.18 / IL 0.5 (6)
Karlsson and Viberg (1967) present a linear equation for correlation for undrained shear
strength and liquid limit.
= 0.005 L.L. (7)
In this study different correlations between undrained shear strength ratio (Cu/σov ) and
index properties of tested soils were drawn. The relationship between undrained shear
strength ratio and liquid limit was drawn as shown in figure 10, it can be observed that
there is a large scatter in data points where R2 is equal to 0.026 which indicates very
poor strength of relationship. Similarly the relationship between undrained shear
strength ratio and plastic limit shows also higher scattering of data points, where R 2 is
equal to 0.0145 as shown in figure 11. In case of relationship between undrained shear
strength ratio and plasticity index (PI), a large scatter of data is observed as shown in
figure 12 and R2 is equal to 0.0059 which indicates very poor strength of relationship
according to the conceptual criteria proposed by Pellinen. The relationship between
undrained shear strength ratio and both liquidity index (IL) and consistency index (IC)
show medium scatter of data as shown in figures 13 and 14, where R2 is equal to 0.3179
and 0.3346 for two correlations respectively. In case of relationships between undrained
shear strength ratio and both natural water content (wn), bulk density and dry density,
less scatter of data are observed as shown in figures 15,16 and 17 where R2 is equal to
0.4458, 0.4287 and 0.5596 respectively. The values of regression coefficient (R2)
indicate that the relationships between unconfined compressive strength and both
natural water content (wn), bulk density and dry density are fair according to the
conceptual criteria proposed by Pellinen. While observing relationships between
different index properties and undrained shear strength ratio of soil. It was observed that
predictive models can be developed using moisture content and dry unit weight of soils.
Predictive models were developed using a single linear regression. These models are
summarized in table 2.
Validation of the obtained models with the previous models
Figure 18. shows the relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov) and
plasticity index for different previous studies, Skempton (1957), Bjerrum and Simons
(1960) and Widodo, et. (2012) and this study. From this figure it can be seen that the
result of this study is in an agreement with that obtained by Widodo. et. (2012), while
both two relationships show that the normalized shear strength (Cu/σov) decreases with
the increase of plasticity index. These results are in contrast to the results obtained by
both Skempton (1957) and Bjerrum et.(1960).

Figure 19. shows relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov) and
liquidity index for different previous studies, Bjerrum and Simons (1960) and Widodo,
et. (2012) and this study. From this figure it can be seen that the results of these studies
have the same trend, where the normalized shear strength (Cu/σov) decreases with the
increase of liquidity index.
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions can be made from this study as follows:-
a) The unconfined compressive strength is not always available. So, equations which
given in table 2.(figures 2-9) consider convenient and simple for estimating the
unconfined compressive strength by knowing the physical properties of soil.
b) The normalized shear strength (Cu/σov) can be obtained easily from physical
properties of soil as shown by equations given in table 2.(figures 10-17).

REFERENCES
[1] Abdel-Rahman, G. E. (1982). Correlations between index tests and the
properties of Egyptians Clay. Ms.C. Thesis, College of Engineering,
University of Cairo.
[2] ASTM D 4318-00 (2003). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic
Limit and Index of Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[3] Busoda, b. S. Z. (2009). Evaluation and correlations Associated with liquid
Limit and Plasticity index of Baghdad Cohesive Soil. The sixth Engineering
Conference, of the Conference, Civil Engineering, Volume 1.
[4] Bishop, A. W. (1996).The strength of soils as engineering materials. Geot,
16,2, 91-128.
[5] Bjerrum, L., and N.E. Simons (1960). Comparison of Shear Strength
Characteristics of Normally Consolidated Clay. Proceedings. Research
Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, ASCE,: 1771–1726.
[6] Bowels, J.E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill
Companies.
[7] Brackley, I.J.A. (1973). Swell pressure and free swell in compacted clay. In:
COKCA, E.,
[8] TILGEN, H.P. (2010).Shear strength-suction relationship of compacted
Ankara clay. Applied clay science 49, Pp. 400–404, ISSN 1872-9053.
[9] Brackley, I.J.A. (1975).A model of unsaturated clay structure and its
application to swell behavior. In: COKCA, E.,
TILGEN, H. P., (2010). Shear strength-suction relationship of compacted
Ankara clay. Applied clay science 49, pp. 400–40, ISSN 1872-9053.
[10] Chee-Ming Chan, Yoshiaki Kikuchi and Taka-aki Mizutani(2012). Correlation
between Unconfined Compressive Strength and Mixing Quality of Solidified
Clay", INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING Volume 3, No 2, 408-417.
[11] Egyptian Code of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Laboratory
Tests, Part 2, No 202/2(2001).
[12] Karlsson, R. and L. Viberg. (1967). Ratio c/p’ in relation to liquid limit and
plasticity index with special reference to Swedish clays”. Proc. Geotechnical
Conf., Oslo, Norway, 1: 43–47
[13] Khalid,U. Rehman,Z. Farooq, K. Mujtaba, H. (2015). Prediction of unconfined
compressive strength from index properties of soils. Sci.Int.(Lahore), 27(5),
Pp. 4071-4075.
[14] Magdi M. E. Zumrawi and Lina A. D. Mohammed (2016). Correlation of
Placement Conditions and Soil Intrinsic Properties with Shear Strength of
Cohesive Soils",7th Annual Conference for Postgraduate Studies and
Scientific Research Basic Sciences and Engineering Studies - University of
Khartoum, February,
[15] Mohamed, A.E.M. (1986). Microstructure and swelling Characteristics of an
Untreated and Lime-treated Compacted Black Cotton Soil, Ph.D. thesis,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
[16] Obasi, N. L. and Anyaegbunam, A. J. (2005). Correlation of the undrained
shear strength and plasticity index of tropical clays",, Nigerian Journal of
Technology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1-11.
[17] Rana Mohammed Al-Kahdaar and Abbas Fadhil Ibrahim Al-Ameri (2010).
Correlation between physical and mechanical properties od Al-Ammarah soil
in Messan governorate," Journal of Engineering, Volume 16 Number 4, 5946-
5957.
[18] Ranjini A/P Arumugam, Ahmad Safuan A. Rashid, Haryati Yaacob and
Norhazilan Md Noor (2013). Correlation Between Liquidity Index (LI) &
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Stabilized Silty Clay. Australian Journal
of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(10): 450-454.
[19] Sheskin, D.J. (2000). "Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical
procedures, 2nd edition", Chapman & Hall, New Vorl
[20] Teruhisa Masada (2009)," Shear Strength of Clay and Silt Embankments",
FHWA/OH-2009/7, Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the
Environment, Ohio University
[21] Tuncer B. Edil and Craig H. Benson (2009)," Comparison of basic laboratory
test results with more sophisticated laboratory and in-situ tests methods on soil
in Southeastern Wisconsin", WISCONSIN HIGHWAY RESEARCH
PROGRAM #0092-06-05, Geo Engineering Program Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison.
[22] Usama Khalid, Zia-ur-Rehman, Khalid Farooq, and Hassan Mujtaba (2015),
"Prediction of unconfined compression strength from index properties of
soil",Sci.Int.(Lahore),27(5),4071-4075.
[23] Yilmaz Isik (2000) “Evaluation of shear strength of of clayey soils by using
their liquidity index”. Bull Eng. Geo. Env., V. 59, P. 227-229.
[24] Zumrawi, M.M.E. (2000). Performance and Design of Expansive Soils as
Road Subgrade, Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. in Highway
 Engineering, Chang’an University, China.
[25] Bjerrum, L., and N.E. Simons.(1960) “Comparison of Shear Strength
Characteristics of Normally Consolidated Clay”. Proceedings. Research
Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, ASCE, 1960: 1771–1726.
[26] Karlsson, R. and L. Viberg. “Ratio c/p’ in relation to liquid limit and plasticity
index with special reference to Swedish clays”. Proc. Geotechnical Conf.,
Oslo, Norway, 1 (1967): 43–47.
[27] Skempton, A.W. “Th e Planning and Design of New Hongkong Airport”.
Proceeding. London: Institute of Civil Engineering 7 (1957): 305–307.

Table 1: Laboratory test results data

Sample Sample Wn L.L P.L. qu
e USCS
No. Color (%) t/m3 (%) (%) (kg/cm2) (t/m3)
1 B 30 1.9 67 32 1.45 6.70 0.6615 CH
2 B 48 1.8 59 30 1.14 8.40 0.9186 CH
3 B 32 1.85 63 33 2.40 7.55 0.6905 MH
4 B 39 1.8 59 31 1.37 9.40 0.7756 MH
5 B 33 1.9 58 29 1.00 7.20 0.7137 CH
6 B 38 1.8 57 31 0.95 9.40 0.7643 MH
7 B 42 1.7 58 31 0.80 8.10 0.7536 MH
8 B 30 1.9 59 32 2.50 10.50 0.6821 MH
9 B 33 1.8 61 33 1.60 9.00 0.6839 MH
10 B 37 2.0 44 27 0.90 11.00 1.3122 MI
11 B 33 1.8 48 28 1.90 11.00 0.6703 MI
12 B 40 1.9 75 41 1.30 9.50 0.945 MH
13 B 29 1.9 55 27 2.20 9.50 0.6246 MH
14 B 39 1.8 62 33 1.40 11.00 0.7888 MH
15 B 36 1.8 54 32 1.70 9.00 0.7497 MH
16 B 40 1.8 53 28 0.40 10.00 0.7765 MH
17 B 35 1.8 62 35 1.50 11.00 0.7379 MH
18 B 38 1.8 62 33 0.80 10.00 0.771 MH
19 B 34 1.8 62 34 1.50 11.00 0.7091 MH
20 DB 34 2 68 32 1.87 8.00 0.805 MH
21 DB 33 1.8 41 22 1.25 7.20 0.6267 MI
22 DB 29 1.8 47 25 2.50 9.00 0.5747 MI
23 DB 30 1.9 45 25 3.00 7.60 0.6483 MI
24 DB 32 1.9 48 27 2.00 9.50 0.7007 MI
25 DB 33 1.9 33 25 2.00 7.60 0.7488 MI
26 DB 31 1.9 40 25 2.50 9.50 0.6823 MI
27 DB 33 1.8 41 22 1.25 7.20 0.6267 MI
28 DB 27 1.8 45 24 2.50 10.00 0.5361 MI
29 DB 30 1.9 45 25 3.00 7.60 0.6483 MI
30 DB 32 1.9 48 27 2.00 9.50 0.7007 MI
31 DB 33 1.9 35 26 2.50 7.60 0.7552 MI
 Table 1: Cont.
Sample Color Wn L.L P.L. qu
e USCS
No. sample (%) t/m3 (%) (%) (kg/cm2) (t/m3)
32 DB 31 1.9 40 25 1.50 9.50 0.6823 MI
33 DB 34 1.9 70 53 2.82 7.60 1.0049 MH
34 DB 34 1.8 71 36 2.60 9.00 0.7032 MH
35 DB 33 1.8 41 22 1.84 7.20 0.6267 MI
36 DB 28 1.9 45 28 1.20 9.50 0.6406 MI
37 DB 36 1.9 51 31 0.85 11.50 0.8221 MH
38 DB 39 1.8 60 28 1.15 9.00 0.7403 MH
39 DB 35 1.8 61 30 0.72 11.00 0.6907 MH
40 DB 36 1.8 62 36 1.30 11.00 0.7676 MH
41 DG 51 1.7 64 36 1.00 13.50 0.9324 MH
42 DG 52 1.7 56 31 0.80 11.10 0.9113 MH
43 DG 63 1.6 70 38 0.20 10.80 0.9959 MH
44 DG 37 1.7 63 34 0.70 9.10 0.6918 MH
45 DG 57 1.6 55 35 0.40 10.00 0.9393 MH
46 DG 27 1.8 63 34 0.50 12.00 0.5768 MH
47 DG 27 1.8 63 34 1.50 13.00 0.5768 MH
48 DG 40 2.1 66 34 1.30 12.50 1.0807 MH
49 DG 41 1.8 70 35 1.20 14.00 0.8214 MH
50 DG 38 1.9 52 27 0.96 15.50 0.8043 MH
51 DG 49 1.7 60 29 0.44 10.50 0.8281 MH
52 DG 54 1.7 61 32 0.30 12.50 0.936 MH
53 DG 58 1.7 57 33 0.20 13.50 1.031 MH
54 DG 58 1.7 59 33 0.25 13.50 1.0213 MH
55 DG 54 1.6 71 36 0.37 14.00 0.8509 MH
56 DG 38 1.8 61 34 0.60 13.00 0.7855 MH
57 DG 38 1.8 55 27 1.40 13.00 0.7261 MH
58 DG 37 1.8 77 28 0.90 15.00 0.6747 MH
59 DG 38 1.8 71 30 0.30 16.00 0.718 MH
60 B 39 2 77 34 1.00 8.00 0.9127 CH
61 B 29 1.9 65 35 1.25 9.75 0.6737 MH
62 DG 33 1.7 51 29 1.00 10.92 0.6144 MH
63 DG 26 1.9 76 34 2.25 9.74 0.5796 CH
64 DG 59 1.6 65 37 0.60 13.49 0.9499 MH
65 DG 38 1.9 61 33 2.00 11.76 0.8514 MH
66 DG 27 1.9 58 31 2.00 5.70 0.6139 MH
67 DG 36 2 46 28 1.50 11.21 0.8772 MI
68 DG 41 1.8 44 30 0.45 14.37 0.8564 MI
69 B 27 1.8 52 32 2.00 9.34 0.5872 MH
70 DG 35 1.8 42 29 1.00 15.34 0.7387 MI
71 B 24 2 69 34 2.50 9.14 0.5978 MH
72 DG 39 1.8 46 24 0.80 15.31 0.733 CI
73 B 38 1.9 51 33 1.50 10.02 0.8952 MH
 74 DB 22 1.9 59 33 3.00 7.60 0.5232 MH
Table 1: Cont.
Sample Color Wn L.L P.L. qu
e USCS
No. sample (%) t/m3 (%) (%) (kg/cm2) (t/m3)
75 DB 36 1.9 51 37 1.50 10.92 0.9148 MH
76 DG 40 1.8 65 37 1.00 13.49 0.844 MH
77 B 41 1.82 57 34 1.43 10.72 0.8737 MH
78 DG 38 1.75 59 33 0.80 12.41 0.7442 MH
79 DB 30 2 70 36 2.50 8.00 0.7525 MH
80 DG 32 1.8 44 31 0.95 12.36 0.6991 MI
81 DB 23 1.9 72 35 2.30 5.70 0.5325 MH
82 DB 21 1.9 69 34 2.40 5.70 0.4896 MH
83 B 33 1.9 49 28 0.80 8.92 0.7291 MH
84 DB 12 1.8 66 36 2.50 8.52 0.2814 MH
85 DB 28 1.9 52 33 1.25 10.96 0.6721 MH
86 DG 31 1.8 52 34 2.00 13.52 0.6844 MH
87 DB 27 1.95 68 36 2.00 5.85 0.6597 MH
88 DG 36 1.8 56 34 1.40 12.16 0.7661 MH
89 B 30 1.8 54 31 1.50 9.70 0.6292 MH
90 DB 18 1.9 65 33 1.75 7.60 0.4263 MH
B:- Light brown

DB:- Dark brown

DG:- Dark gray

σov :- Effective overburden stress.

USCS:- Unified soil classification system.

Table 2: Summary of test results
Properties Maximum Minimum Average
Liquid limit (%), LL 77 33 57.333
Plastic limit (%), PL 53 22 31.467
Plasticity index (%), PI 49 8 25.867
Natural water content (%), Wn 63 12 35.722
Consistency index, Ic 2.1176 -0.1 0.8033
Liquidity index, IL 1.1 -1.118 0.1967
3
Bulk density (t/m ), 2.01 1.6 1.8309
3
Dry density (t/m ), 1.7518 0.9816 1.3613
Unconfined compressive 3 0.2 1.4379
strength (kg/cm 2), UCS
Vertical effective stress, σ (t/m2) 16 5.7 10.279
Specific gravity (Gs) 2.88 2.21 2.49
2.1 0.074 0.79
 Table 2: Summary of regression analysis
Independent Fig.
Parameters Equation R2
variable No.
Plasticity
Liquid limit (LL) PI= 0.6728×LL - 12.706 0.816 1
index (PI.)
Liquid limit, (LL)
qu = 1.9128e-0.008LL 0.0156 2
(%)
Plastic limit , PL
qu = 0.0148PL + 0.9748 0.0103 3
(%)
Plasticity index,
qu = 1.5958e-0.01PI 0.0153 4
PI (%)
Liquidity index
Unconfined qu = 1.4646e-0.941Ic 0.3321 5
(IL)
compressive
Consistency
strength qu = 0.5716e0.941Ic 0.3321 6
index(Ic)
Natural water
qu = 8.1057e -0.o53wn 0.5682 7
content (wn) (%)
Bulk density, γb
qu = 0.0003e4.5097γb 0.4291 8
(t//m3)
Dry density, γd
qu = 0.0003e4.5097γd 0.6064 9
(t//m3)
Liquid limit, (LL) Cu/σov = 0.0026LL +
0.0026 10
(%) 0.6489

Plastic limit , PL Cu/σov = 0.0127PL +

0.0145 11
(%) 0.3989
Plasticity index,
Undrained Cu/σov = 0.923e-0.013PI 0.0059 12
PI (%)
shear Consistency index
strength Cu/σov = 0.7639e-1.15Ic 0.3179 13
(Ic)
ratio Liquidity index
(Cu/σov) Cu/σov = 0.2458e1.1265IL 0.3346 14
(IL)
Natural water Cu/σov = -0.039wn(%) +
0.4458 15
content (wn) (%) 2.1875
Bulk density, γb
Cu/σov = 2E-05e5.6124γb 0.4287 16
(t//m3)
Dry density, γd
Cu/σov = 0.0023e4.0769γd 0.5596 17
(t//m3)
 Fig. 1 Location of samples in plasticity chart

Fig 2. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and liquid limit

Fig 3. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and plastic limit

Fig 4. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and plasticity index

Fig 5. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and liquidity

index

Fig 6. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and consistency

index
Fig 7. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and natural water
content

Fig 8. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and bulk density

Fig 9. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength(qu) and dry density

Fig 10. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov)) and liquid limit

Fig 11. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov)) and plastic limit

Fig 12. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov)) and plasticity
index
 Fig 13. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov)) and liquidity
index

Fig 14. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov)) and consistency
index

Fig 15. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov)) and natural water
content
Fig 16. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov)) and bulk density

Fig 17. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov) and dry density

Fig 18. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov) and plasticity
index for different studies
Fig 19. Relationship between undrained shear strength ratio(Cu/σov) and
liquidity index for different studies