Determination of the Atterberg Limits of Eemian Gyttja on Samples with Different Composition

Katarzyna Goławska; Zbigniew Lechowicz; Władysław Matusiewicz; Maria Jolanta Sulewska

doi:10.2478/sgem-2019-0041

Figures & Tables

Tested samples of Eemian gyttja according to the classification of Długaszek [7]: Iom = 0%–2% mineral soils.Note: 1, low organic lacustrine marl; 2, high calcareous mineral gyttja; 3, low calcareous mineral gyttja; 4, high organic lacustrine marl; 5, high calcareous mineral-organic gyttja; 6, low calcareous mineral-organic gyttja; 7, high calcareous organic gyttja; 8, low calcareous organic gyttja; 1–16, test number

Tested samples shown on Casagrande’s plasticity chart.Note: 1–16, test number.

Average values of the liquid limit wL depending on the test method.

Regression models of relationships between the liquid limits: a) wL60 = f(wLC), b) wL30 = f(wLC).Note: RE, relative error.

Comparison of relationships obtained by the authors for Eemian gyttja with relationships for cohesive soils taken from the literature: a) wL60 = f(wLC), b) wL30 = f(wLC).

Comparison between the measured and calculated values: a) wP and wP from Equation (30) in Table 5, b) wLC and wLC from Equation (33) in Table 5 of Eemian gyttja, with zones of maximum RE for regression models.Note: RE, relative error.

Comparison of relationships obtained by the authors for Eemian gyttja with the relationships for Holocene gyttja obtained by Długaszek: a) wP = f(Iom), b) wLC = f(Iom).

Relationships between the Atterberg limits and the clay and organic matter contents in the literature_

Equations (no.)	Soil type	References
(14)LL=13.75+0.637⋅clay + 2.937⋅organic CR2=0.86, n=276\matrix{ {LL = 13.75 + 0.637 \cdot {\rm{clay }} + {\rm{ }}2.937 \cdot {\rm{organic\, C}}} \hfill \cr {R^2 = 0.86,\,{\rm{n}} = 276} \hfill \cr }	Fine-grained soils with organic content below 6%	De Jong et al. 1990 [5]
(15)PL=10.95+0.239⋅clay+1.156⋅organic CR2=0.35, n=256\matrix{ {PL = 10.95 + 0.239 \cdot {\rm{clay}} + 1.156 \cdot {\rm{organic\, C}}} \hfill \cr {R^2 = 0.35,\,{\rm{n}} = 256} \hfill \cr }
(16)PI=3.11+0.394⋅clay+1.726⋅organic CR2=0.55, n=259\matrix{ {PI = 3.11 + 0.394 \cdot {\rm{clay + 1}}{\rm{.726}} \cdot {\rm{organic\, C}}} \hfill \cr {R^2 = 0.55,\,{\rm{n}} = 259} \hfill \cr }
(17)Wp=3.45+13.05 Iom0.69r=0.98,n=43\matrix{ {W_p } \hfill & { = 3.45 + 13.05\,I_{{\rm{om}}}^{0.69} } \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\, r \hfill & { = 0.98,{\rm{n}} = 43} \hfill \cr }	Holocene gyttja I_om = 0.6%–73.1% CaCO₃ = 2.0%–88.4%	Długaszek 1991 [8]
(18)WLC=5.96+4.08 Iom1.325r=0.96, n=43\matrix{ {W_{LC} } \hfill & { = 5.96 + 4.08\,I_{{\rm{om}}}^{1.325} } \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, r \hfill & { = 0.96,\,{\rm{n}} = 43} \hfill \cr }

Single- and two-factor linear regression models of the plastic limit (wP) and liquid limit (wLC) relationship versus the organic matter content (Iom) and/or calcium carbonate content (CaCO3) relationship for Eemian gyttja_

Equations (no.)	R² (−)	SEE	Max. RE (%)
(28)WP=22.12+4.70 IomW_P = 22.12 + 4.70\,I_{{\rm{om}}}	0.833	12.15	±17
(29)WP=20.75+1.33 CacO3W_P = 20.75 + 1.33\,{\rm{CacO}}_3	0.786	13.75	±20
(30)WP=15.79+2.96 Iom+0.59 CaCO3{\bf{W}}_{\rm{P}} {\bf{ = 15}}{\bf{.79 + 2}}{\bf{.96 \, I}}_{{\rm{om}}} {\bf{ + 0}}{\bf{.59}}\,{\bf{CaCO}}_3	0.874	10.93	±16
(31)WLC=44.25+5.12 IomW_{LC} = 44.25 + 5.12\,I_{om}	0.876	11.13	±20
(32)WLC=47.80+1.37 CaCO3W_{LC} = 47.80 + 1.37\,{\rm{CaCO}}_{\rm{3}}	0.731	16.39	±20
(33)WLC=40.81+4.18 Iom+0.32 CaCO3{\bf{W}}_{{\rm{LC}}} {\bf{ = 40}}{\bf{.81 + 4}}{\bf{.18 \, I}}_{{\rm{om}}} {\bf{ + 0}}{\bf{.32}}\,\,{\bf{CaCO}}_3	0.887	11.04	±15

Laboratory test results of the index properties of Eemian gyttja_

Test no.	Soil type	Water content w_n (%)	Plastic Limit w_p (%)	Liquid limit w_L(%)			Calcium carbonate content CaCO₃ (%)	Organic matter content I_om (%)

				Casagrande w_LC	Cone 60° w_L60	Cone 30° w_L30
1	Gyttja (3)	62.3	50.9	81.0	76.7	81.5	29.6	7.44
2		67.8	62.4	88.0	86.4	87.2	31.7	9.41
3		61.3	60.7	80.9	75.1	78.1	34.9	7.69
4		58.5	56.6	82.3	81.5	85.5	37.9	7.92
5	Gyttja (6)	74.4	68.0	104.5	101.5	105.5	31.1	12.0
6	Gyttja (5)	102.1	119.2	150.4	148.5	163.6	54.7	17.8
7		98.7	122.2	136.1	135.5	137.5	60.9	18.6
8		98.9	100.8	140.0	137.1	143.6	63.8	18.1
9		110.1	116.8	156.2	156.8	159.0	66.7	18.4
10		115.6	130.7	152.5	154.8	160.1	70.4	23.3
11		87.1	130.9	159.2	166.1	171.0	77.7	20.6
12		100.3	125.9	155.2	159.5	162.0	74.0	20.2
13		97.7	97.7	121.3	125.4	130.6	65.4	20.7
14		118.5	110.5	164.5	171.6	173.8	73.6	23.8
15	Marl (4)	90.6	114.3	139.1	131.6	140.1	81.0	18.1
16		79.9	110.1	131.0	130.8	133.4	82.1	16.2

Linear and power regression models of relationships between the liquid limit wL determined by Casagrande method and fall cone methods for Eemian gyttja_

Equations (no.)	R² (−)	n (−)	SEE	Max. RE (%)
(25)WL60=−10.39+1.08 WLCW_{L60} = - 10.39 + 1.08\,W_{LC}	0.989	16	3.62	±5
(25a)or WL60=3.07 WLC1.08{\rm{or}}\,W_{L60} = 3.07\,W_{LC}^{1.08}
(26)WL30=−8.93+1.10 WLCW_{L30} = - 8.93 + 1.10\,W_{LC}	0.990	16	3.58	±7
(26a)or WL30=1.32 WLC1.10{\rm{or}}\,W_{L30} = 1.32\,W_{LC}^{1.10}
(27)WL60=1.07+0.97 WL30W_{L_{60} } = 1.07 + 0.97\,W_{L30}	0.990	16	3.41	±5

Relationships between the fall cone liquid limit and the Casagrande liquid limit for cohesive soils in the literature_

Equations (no.)	Range of liquid limit	Cone type	Soil type	References
Linear relationships
(1)WL60=0.95 WLC+9.4W_{L60} = 0.95\,\,W_{LC} + 9.4	85%–200%	60°–60 g	Danish Eocene clays	Grønbech et al. 2011 [16]
(2)WL60=0.86 WLC+3.75R2=0.99, n=63\matrix{ {W_{L60} } \hfill & { = 0.86\,\,W_{LC} + 3.75} \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\, \,{R^2 } \hfill & { = 0.99,\,{\rm{n}} = 63} \hfill \cr }	13%–117%	60°–60 g	Fine-grained soils	Matusiewicz et al. 2016 [28]
(3)WL60=0.772 WLC+10.71r=0.993, n=33\matrix{ {W_{L60} } \hfill & { = 0.772\,\,W_{LC} + 10.71} \hfill \cr \,\, \,\,\,\,\,\, \,r \hfill & { = 0.993,\,{\rm{n}} = 33} \hfill \cr }	30%–390%	60°–60 g	Fine-grained soils, kaolin–bentonite mixtures	Mendoza and Orozco 2001 [29]
(4)WL30=0.832 WLC+13.28r=0.989, n=9\matrix{ {W_{L30} } \hfill & { = 0.832\,\,W_{LC} + 13.28} \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \, r \hfill & { = 0.989,\,{\rm{n}} = 9} \hfill \cr }	30%–350%	30°–80 g
(5)WL(FC)=0.95 WLC−0.85W_{L(FC)} = 0.95\,\,W_{LC} - 0.85	<150%	30°–80 g/100 g60°–60 g	Fine-grained soils	Shimobe 2010 [36]
(6)WL30=1.0056 WLC+4.92W_{L30} = 1.0056\,\,W_{LC} + 4.92	27%–110%	30°–80 g	Turkish natural soils	Wasti 1987 [42]
(7)WL30=0.841 WLC+11.686W_{L30} = 0.841\,\,W_{LC} + 11.686	80%–150%	30°–80 g	Soil–bentonite mixtures	Mishra et al. 2012 [30]
(8)WL30=0.91 WLC+3.20R2=0.99, n=63\matrix{ {W_{L30} } \hfill & { = 0.91\,\,W_{LC} + 3.20} \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\, {R^2 } \hfill & { = 0.99,\,{\rm{n}} = 63} \hfill \cr }	13%–117%	30°–80 g	Fine-grained soils	Matusiewicz et al. 2016 [28]
Power relationships
(9)WL30=2.56 WLC0.78W_{L30} = 2.56\,\,W_{LC}^{0.78}	>100%	30°–80 g	Natural clays	Schmitz et al. 2004 [34]
(10)WL30=1.86 (WLC,BS cup)0.84R2=0.98, n=216\matrix{ {W_{L30} } \hfill & { = 1.86\,\left( {W_{LC,BS\,{\rm{cup}}} } \right)^{0.84} } \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\,\, {R^2 } \hfill & { = 0.98,\,\,{\rm {n}} = 216} \hfill \cr }	Up to approx. 600%	30°–80 g	Fine-grained soils	O’Kelly et al. 2018 [27]
(11)WL30=1.62(WLC,BS cup)0.88R2=0.96, n=199\matrix{ {W_{L30} } \hfill & { = 1.62\left( {W_{LC,BS\,{\rm{cup}}} } \right)^{0.88} } \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\, {R^2 } \hfill & { = 0.96,\,{\rm{n}} = 199} \hfill \cr }	<120%
(12)WL30=1.90(WLC,ASTM cup)0.85R2=0.97, n=199\matrix{ {W_{L30} } \hfill & { = 1.90\left( {W_{LC,ASTM\,{\rm{cup}}} } \right)^{0.85} } \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\, {R^2 } \hfill & { = 0.97,\,{\rm{n}} = 199} \hfill \cr }	Up to approx. 600%
(13)WL30=1.45 (WLC,ASTM cup)0.92R2=0.97, n=188\matrix{ {W_{L30} } \hfill & { = 1.45\,\,\left ( {W_{LC,ASTM\,{\rm{cup}}} } \right)^{0.92} } \hfill \cr \,\,\,\,\, {R^2 } \hfill & { = 0.97,\,{\rm{n}} = 188} \hfill \cr }	<120%

Determination of the Atterberg Limits of Eemian Gyttja on Samples with Different Composition

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Relationships between the Atterberg limits and the clay and organic matter contents in the literature_

Single- and two-factor linear regression models of the plastic limit (wP) and liquid limit (wLC) relationship versus the organic matter content (Iom) and/or calcium carbonate content (CaCO3) relationship for Eemian gyttja_

Laboratory test results of the index properties of Eemian gyttja_

Linear and power regression models of relationships between the liquid limit wL determined by Casagrande method and fall cone methods for Eemian gyttja_

Relationships between the fall cone liquid limit and the Casagrande liquid limit for cohesive soils in the literature_

Paradigm

My account