ABSTRACT: Many empirical correlations have been obtained to predict the Engineering properties with the help of Index
properties. These empirical equations are not only used to predict the engineering properties, but also can be used as a
measure of validating experimental values. Of the available mathematical correlations, hyperbolic model has been widely
used by many researchers to establish the stress-strain, time-settlement, time-swelling and time-shrinkage characteristics of
fine grained soils. In this investigation an attempt is made to re-examine the suitability of hyperbolic model for widely
varying plasticity characteristics, initial moisture content and initial density. Using hyperbolic model few equations are
proposed in this paper for predicting the stress-strain behaviour, suction-water content and time-shrinkage behaviour of soil
for any liquid limit, initial moisture content and density. The validity of the proposed equations have been attempted and
found to be in good agreement experimental values.
632
Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model
Table 1: (b) Physical Properties of Soils linearization of the curve, initial portion of the curve
Ben- is ignored. The slopes and intercept of that plot was
Properties
Soil Soil Soil
tonite determined. A typical plot of (strain/stress) % Vs
(5) (6) (7) Strain hyperbolic relationship after ignoring initial
(2)
Specific Gravity 2.71 2.6 2.7 2.8 portion of stress–strain curves is shown in Figure 2.
Liquid Limit % 62.5 69 72 430
Linearised equation is
Plastic Limit % 27.5 31 40 48 Y = X / (c + mX)
Plasticity Index % 35 38 32 382
Shrinkage Limit % 9.3 12 10 7.5
Free Swell Index % 78.0 70 70 350
Maximum Dry
16.5 15.9 16 12.8
Strain/Stress, kN/m2
Density, kN/m3
OMC,% 23.36 25 28 35
Compressibility
CH CH CH CVH
Classification
3. METHODS
Unconfined compressive strength, suction and shrinkage
tests were conducted on natural and commercial soils for
varying initial moisture content and density. The stress–strain
Strain
curve, suction–water content curve and time–shrinkage
curves were analysed for linearization, so as to propose a Fig. 2: Strain Vs Strain /Stress Relationship for Soil–4
more generalized equation for predicting the same.
Where,
3.1 Procedure Involved in the Determination of Soil
Properties Using Hyperbolic Model c = Intercept of (X/Y) Vs X plot
1. The values of ‘X’ and ‘Y’ variable (For example m = Slope of hyperbolic plot of (X/Y) Vs X plot
strain (X)-stress (Y) or time (X)–shrinkage (Y)) is
3. The linear portion of the transformed plot (i.e. ‘X’ Vs
obtained from different engineering properties for
‘(X/Y)’) was critically analyzed using best fitting
varying initial conditions such as density, IMC, clay
curve technique by ignoring some initial points and
content etc., from experimental results. A typical
“X-Y” variables of strain–stress (kN/m2) is shown the same alone was considered for analysis and
in Figure 1. proposing a more generalized empirical equations.
633
Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model
Table 2: Best Fit Linear Equations of Transformed Plot of Table 3: Best fit Linear Equations of Transformed Plot of
Stress–Strain Curves of Soil for Varying IMC and Density Suction–Water Content Curves of Soils for Varying Initial
Density IMC Moisture Content (IMC)
Soil Equation
(kN/m3) (%) Soil IMC% Equation
16.0 11.0 (ε/σ) = 0.273 (ε) + 0.002 Soil - 1 70 (ψ/w) = 0.025 (ψ) – 0.904
16.5 12.0 (ε/σ) = 0.282 (ε) + 0.003 Soil - 4 40 (ψ/w) = 0.049 (ψ) – 2.176
Soil - 1 17.28 14.5 (ε/σ) = 0.221 (ε) + 0.004
67 (ψ/w) = 0.033 (ψ) – 4.195
16.5 18.0 (ε/σ) = 0.937 (ε) + 0.001
16 19.75 (ε/σ) = 0.892 (ε) + 0.006 50 (ψ/w) = 0.035 (ψ) – 3.566
Soil - 5
16.5 10.75 (ε/σ) = 0.349 (ε) + 0.003 40 (ψ/w) = 0.041 (ψ) – 3.476
17.84 13.5 (ε/σ) = 0.219 (ε) + 0.007 32 (ψ/w) = 0.042 (ψ) – 1.919
Soil - 2
17.0 17.90 (ε/σ) = 0.7 (ε) + 0.015 63 (ψ/w) = 0.026 (ψ) – 2.093
16.5 19.90 (ε/σ) = 0.950 (ε) + 0.019 53 (ψ/w) = 0.029 (ψ) – 2.114
17.95 16.6 (ε/σ) = 0.525 (ε) + 0.003
Soil - 6
43 (ψ/w) = 0.037 (ψ) – 2.308
18.095 16.95 (ε/σ) = 0.499 (ε) + 0.003 33 (ψ/w) = 0.050 (ψ) – 4.560
Soil - 4
17.95 17.5 (ε/σ) = 0.635 (ε) + 0.003 64 (ψ/w) = 0.022 (ψ) – 1.251
17.7 18.5 (ε/σ) = 0.622 (ε) + 0.003
52 (ψ/w) = 0.034 (ψ) – 2.579
15.2 24.25 (ε/σ) = 0.2163 (ε) + 0.011 Soil - 7
Bent (1) 43 (ψ/w) = 0.038 (ψ) – 2.152
14.5 29 (ε/σ) = 0.572 (ε) + 0.036
90 % Bent 15.4 19.5 (ε/σ) = 0.075 (ε) + 0.007 33 (ψ/w) = 0.047 (ψ) – 3.696
(1) + 10 % 16.0 23.75 (ε/σ) = 0.261 (ε) + 0.03
Sand 15.4 26.5 (ε/σ) = 0.577 (ε) + 0.045 It is observed that the slope is decreasing with increasing
70 % Bent 17.6 18 (ε/σ) = 0.312 (ε) + 0.023 IMC and intercept is increasing with increasing IMC.
(1) + 30 % 17.25 20 (ε/σ) = 0.288 (ε) + 0.025 Further, both slope and intercept are decreases with
Sand 16.5 22 (ε/σ) = 0.787 (ε) + 0.063 increasing clay content (LL). Hence the slope and intercept
18.5 12.5 (ε/σ) = 0.3075 (ε) + 0.001 are independently related to product of LL and IMC. Using
50 % Bent
18.95 15 (ε/σ) = 0.451 (ε) + 0.024 this correlation an empirical equation is proposed to predict
(1) + 50 %
18.5 16.5 (ε/σ) = 0.687 (ε) + 0.056 the suction–water content curve of soil.
Sand
17.5 18.5 (ε/σ) = 1.360 (ε) + 0.076
w = ψ/(90.94(LL × IMC)–0.97 × ψ – 20297 (LL × IMC)–1.4) (2)
The stress–strain values predicted based on above equation Based on above equation (2), the suction–water content
(1) are in close agreement with experimental values irrespective values were predicted and found to be in close agreement
of soil type, density and IMC as shown in Figure 3. with experimental values irrespective of soil type and IMC as
shown in Figure 4.
Stress, kN/m2
Water Content, %
Strain
Fig. 3: Comparisons of Experimental and Predicted Values Suction, kN/m2
of Stress–Strain Curve for Soil – (2) Fig. 4: Comparison of Experimental Vs Predicted Values of
Suction–Water Content Curve for Soil – (1)
4.2 Suction–Water Content Behaviour of Soil
An empirical equation is proposed to predict the suction– 4.3 Time-Shrinkage Behaviour of Soil
water content curve of any soil irrespective of LL and IMC Earlier Stalin et al. (2004) have proposed an empirical
using hyperbolic relationship. Treating suction–water content equation to predict the time–shrinkage behaviour of soil
curve as rectangular hyperbola, the curve is re-plotted into irrespective of soil type. In that equation influence of IMC is
suction Vs (suction/water content) with high correlation not included. The existing equation could not be used
coefficient of 0.999. The slope (m) and intercept (c) of the successfully to predict the shrinkage of soil with IMC lower
linear plot ((ψ/w) = m (ψ) – c) is shown in Table 3. than LL water content. In order to overcome this difficulty,
634
Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model
Vertical Shrinkage, mm
vertical shrinkage curve is re-plotted into time–(time/vertical
shrinkage) with high correlation coefficient of 0.94 to 0.99.
The slope (m) and intercept (c) of linear plot ((t/Vsh) = m (t) +
c) with high correlation coefficient is shown in Table 4. It is
observed that the slope is decreasing with increase in IMC
and intercept is increasing with increase in IMC. From the
closer observation of graph, it is noticed that the slopes of
linear equations are decreasing with increase in liquid limit.
Hence, attempt is made to correlate the slope and intercepts Time, min
with liquid limit and IMC of respective soils. Using this
Fig. 5: Comparisons of Experimental and Predicted Values
correlation an empirical equation is proposed to predict time
of Time–Vertical Shrinkage Curve for Bentonite - (2)
–shrinkage behaviour of soil.
635
Soil Behaviour and Hyperbolic Model
Kondner R.L. (1963). “Hyperbolic Stress–Strain Response: Sivapulliah, P.V., Sridharan, A. and Stalin, V.K. (1996).
Cohesive Soils”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and “Swelling Behaviour of Soil Bentonite Mixtures”,
Foundations Division, ASCE, 89, No. SM1, pp. 115–143. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 808–814.
Sridharan, A and Prakash, K. (1985). “Improved Rectangular Stalin, V.K., Anuradha, P. and Ambily A.P. (2004). “A
Hyperbolic Method for the Determination of Coefficient Study on the Control of Shrinkage Potential of Expansive
of Consolidation”, Geotechnical Testing Journal Clays and Their Predictions”, 15th South East Asian
GTJODJ, Vol. 8, No. 1, March 1985, pp. 37–40. Geotechnical Society Conference, November 2004,
Bangkok, Thailand, Vol. 1, pp. 867–870.
636