International Journal of Civil Engineering and (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OFTechnology CIVIL ENGINEERING AND

D (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET) ISSN 0976 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), pp. 104-117 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
IAEME

STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF COMPRESSION INDEX EQUATIONS

Ch.Sudha Rani , K.Mallikarjuna Rao
1

Associate Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University College of Engineerring, Tirupati, India-517502 2 Professor, Dept of Civil Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University College of Engineerring, Tirupati, India-517502

ABSTRACT Several correlations were developed in practice for predicting Compression Index in terms of either Liquid Limit or Plasticity Index or Dry Density or initial Moisture Content. In this investigation an attempt has been made to quantify statistically the effectiveness of twelve such models statistically by comparing predicted and observed Compression Index values for 180 soils test data obtained from literature. A statistical technique called Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to analyse the differences between predicted and observed Compression Index values with and without considering soil classification. One-Factor and Two-Factor ANOVA test results indicate that the influence of soil classification and method of prediction is significant on the deviation between observed and predicted Compression Index values. Certain models were found to have applicability only for some soil classification groups. The best models for prediction of Compression Index of six soil classification groups as well as for all soil types were assessed by conducting statistical Dunnetts test. Two models were found to have general applicability considering all soil classification groups. KeyWords: Compression Index, Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index, Soil Classification, Soil Type

104

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME 1. INTRODUCTION Correlations have been a significant part of soil mechanics from its earliest days, as the soil is known to exhibit greatest degree of variability and uncertainty. This is due to the inherent nature and diversity of geological processes involving stress, time and environment in soil formation. Correlations using Atterberg limits are fairly common in soil mechanics literature from the time Casagrande found that the Atterberg limits provide a much more reliable indication of engineering properties. Virgin Compression of soils is most commonly expressed by Compression Index (Cc), determined from the slope of compression curve. Several investigators proposed empirical or semi empirical correlations to predict Compression Index using Liquid Limit (Skempton 1944, Terzaghi&Peck 1967, and Bowles 1979) or initial Void Ratio (Nishida 1956, Hough 1957, and Bowles 1979) or initial Moisture Content (Bowles 1979, and Koppula 1981) or in-situ Dry Density (Oswald 1980). Burland (1990), and Nagraj et.al. (1990) expressed Compression Index as a function of generalized parameters namely Void Index (IV) and e/eL respectively. According to Jian-Han Yin (1999), Sridharan and Nagraj (2001), and Amithnath and DeDelal (2004) Compression Index yields good correlation with Plasticity Index. The engineering properties of soils are known to depend on the composite effect of compositional and environmental factors (Mitchel, 1993). Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index are known to reflect compositional factors while in-situ Dry Density and natural Moisture Content are the important environmental factors that influence the engineering properties significantly. Review of literature reveals that generally Cc is correlated with any one of the parameters reflecting either composition or environment of soil excepting the one suggested by Mallikarjuna Rao et.al.(2006). Mallikarjuna Rao et.al., 2006/ Sudha Rani, 2007 developed a regression model for predicting Compression Index in terms of four parameters namely, Liquid Limit (WL), Plasticity Index (IP), Dry Density (d) and initial Moisture Content (mc) which reflect both composition and environment of soil. The objective of the present investigation is to quantify statistically the effectiveness of most popular methods for prediction of Cc by comparing the predicted and observed Cc values for soils other than those from which the correlations were developed. 2. COMPRESSION INDEX EQUATIONS STUDIED From literature it is clear that there are several correlations available for prediction of Compression Index using one of the parameters namely, Liquid Limit (WL), Plasticity Index (IP), Dry Density (d), initial Moisture Content (mc), initial Void Ratio (eo) and Porosity (), which reflect either composition or environment. Some of the most commonly used correlations along with the regions/conditions of applicability are reported by Nagraj & Srinivasa Murthy (1986). The same are shown in Table 1 along with the one suggested by Mallikarjuna Rao et.al.(2006) / Sudha Rani(2007). These methods are designated as M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11 and M12 for convenience. Regression models M2, M6 and M7 correlate Compression Index with the Liquid Limit which is dependent on composition of the soil. Models M3, M4, M5, M9 and M10 used environmental factor namely in-situ Void Ratio to predict Compression Index. Model M1 and M8 adopted natural Moisture Content, while model M11 used in-situ Dry Density for development of regression models. Both natural Moisture Content and in-situ Dry Density are environmental factors. Model M12 accounted for all the environmental factors and compositional factors in the development of the model.
105

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME Table 1 Commonly Used Correlations for Prediction of Compression Index
S.No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Model Desig nation M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11

Equation Cc = 0.0115 wn Cc = 0.0046(wL -9) Cc = 0.156 eo+0.0107 Cc= 0.208(eo-0.0083) Cc = 0.75(eo-0.5) Cc = 0.007(wL -7) Cc = 0.009(wL -10) Cc = 0.01 wn Cc = 0.30(eo-0.27) Cc = 1.15(eo-0.35) Cc = 0.5(w/2d)1.2 Cc = (-0.629+(0.0027* WL)+(0.007*mc)+(0.031*d) + (0.002*IP))

Reference Bowles (1979) Bowles (1979) Bowles (1979) Bowles (1979) Bowles (1979) Skempton (1944) Terzaghi & Peck (1967) Koppula (1981) Hough (1957) Nishida (1956) Oswald (1980) Mallikarjuna et.al.,(2006)/ Sudha Rani(2007)

Regions / Conditions of Applicability from Reference Organic Silt & Clays Brazilian Clays All Clays Chicago Clays Soils with Low Plasticity Remoulded Clays Normally Consolidated, Moderately Sensitive Clays Chicago & Alberta Clays Inorganic Silty Sandy-Silty Clay All Clays Soil Systems of all Complexities and Types All Uncemented Soils

12

M12

3. DATABASE USED In order to assess the general applicability of the above mentioned twelve methods, one hundred and seventy eight soils test data was collected from different sources reported in the literature. Oswald (1980) reported about 100 soils consolidation test data, obtained from United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) records covering the offices throughout the Continental United States.Amongst them about eighty soils test data were used for evaluation in this investigation. Other twenty soils data could not be used, as either liquid limit or insitu void ratio was not reported. Sridharan (1990) reported the e-log p plots of twelve undisturbed samples. Compression Index values were obtained from the e-log p plots and the same were used for evaluation here. Stalin (1995) conducted a series of consolidation tests on about seventy remoulded samples obtained by mixing Bentonite with Kaolinite, fine sand, coarse sand and silt in different proportions. All these tests were conducted on samples with water content brought out to their respective liquid limit consistency. The same are used here for evaluation purposes. One dimensional Consolidation tests were conducted on undisturbed samples by Bayan (2005) for determining compression index on forty two soil samples from Indian Oil Corporation Limited site in Assam, India and the same are used here for evaluation of methods. Table 2 summarizes test data collected from literature giving the details of relevant index properties, soil classification group and Cc values.
106

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME Table 2 Typical Soil Data Base Used for Verification of Compression Index Models
S.No. SOIL LOCATION I.S Classification

WP % 31.00 26.00 23.00 28.00 30.00 27.00 15.00 31.00 28.00 24.00

WL % 87.00 51.00 92.00 55.00 65.00 60.00 53.00 50.50 81.00 55.00

mc % 32.70 26.80 45.60 30.30 28.70 41.70 26.10 29.00 44.00 37.30

d kN/m3

IP %

(Cc)a 0.13 0.31 0.39 0.14 0.09 0.34 0.17 0.12 0.37 0.21

Reference

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Thomasville@18ft Ft.Gordon@d=5ft Ft.Stewart@d=19ft RobbinsAFB@d=11ft Robbins AFB@d=12ft Thomasville@d=15ft IT1 IT2 LockandDam@13ft RedRiver@10ft

CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH

13.86 56.00 14.80 25.00 11.93 69.00 14.32 27.00 14.27 35.00 12.54 33.00 15.40 38.00 14.60 19.50 12.34 53.00 13.33 31.00

Oswald Sridharan Oswald

4. STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF COMPRESSION INDEX EQUATIONS The Compression Index of all the 178 soils test data is predicted using the twelve methods namely M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11and M12 presented in Table 1. The observed Cc values are plotted against Cc values predicted by the twelve regression models and the typical plots are shown in Figs 1 to 6. The solid line in the plots is the line of equality. Careful observation of these plots indicate that the predictability of 6 models namely M1, M6, M7, M8, M9 and M12 appear to be fair to good since most of the points are falling close to the line of equality. All other models are found to either under predicting or over predicting, even though the predictions are good for some of the low compressible soils. Though the prediction by 6 models namely M1, M6, M7, M8, M9 and M12 appear to be fair to good based on graphical plots of observed and predicted Cc values, there is a need further to quantify the effectiveness of each of these twelve methods in order to identify the best one. In the context of statistical analysis, if we wish to compare two methods say, Method A with Method B about its superiority, it is customary to proceed on the assumption that both the methods are equally good (it is known as Null Hypothesis) and the hypothesis is tested through z-test or t-test at 5% or 1% level of significance (), which implies that the null hypothesis will be rejected when sampling result has probability of occurrence less than or equal to the level of significance considered (0.01 for 1% or 0.05 for 5%) and vice-versa. If null hypothesis is true, such groups are identified as samples from same population. If we happen to examine the significance of the difference between more than two methods/samples, it necessitates considering all possible combinations of the two methods/groups of data at a time and that would require a great number of tests before we would be able to arrive at a decision. In all these situations, ANOVA technique developed by Snedcor and others (Snedcor and Cochran 1973) which permits comparison of all groups of data/methods simultaneously is used widely in practice. Analysis of Variance popularly known as ANOVA in short is a statistical technique for testing differences between two or more methods/samples/groups of data.
107

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME The basic principle of ANOVA is to test for differences among the means of the methods/groups by examining the amount of variation within each of the groups, relative to the amount of variation between groups/methods. In ANOVA technique, investigation of any number of factors that influence the variable known as dependent variable is possible. There are two types of ANOVA tests, based on the number of independent variables considered namely (i) One-Way ANOVA or One-Factor ANOVA and (ii) Two-Way ANOVA or TwoFactor ANOVA . The analysis for the research situations where single independent variable is considered is called One-Way Analysis of Variance and if two factors are investigated at a time, then it is called Two-Way Analysis of Variance. In this investigation, in order to quantify the effectiveness of each of these 12 methods in predicting Cc, One-Way ANOVA is carried out on predicted Cc values using these 12 methods for 178 soils test data that is presented in Table 2. Except Oswalds method i.e. method M11, none of the methods have used any of these 178 soils test data in the development of the 12 models under consideration. About 80 soils test data was actually used in the development of model M11 i.e. Oswalds method. The analysis is for finding the best method that predicts values closer to actual value (from experimental study) among the twelve methods namely M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11and M12 for general applicability. Hence, in One-Way ANOVA, the factor under consideration here is method for prediction of Compression Index of soils. Predicted Cc
6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Observed Cc
Fig 1 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model, M1)

Predicted Cc

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Observed Cc
Fig 2 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model, M2)

108

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME

6.00

Predicted Cc

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

ObservedCc
Fig 3 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model, M5)

Predicted Cc

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Observed Cc

Fig 4 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model, M6)

6.00

Predicted Cc

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Observed Cc
Fig 5 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model, M7)

109

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME
6.00

Predicted Cc

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Observed Cc

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Fig 6 Predicted Vs Observed Cc (Model, M12)

4.1 ONE-WAY ANOVA TEST

The One-Way ANOVA is a statistical testing procedure for comparing the means of more than two groups of data. Here, we have thirteen groups of data, the first group data are the observed Cc values and the data in the twelve groups are predicted values of Compression Index by the twelve methods M1 to M12. The method begins with the assumption that there is no difference between group means i.e. c1= c2 = c3= c4 = c5= c6 = c7= c8 = c9= c10 = c11= c12 = c13 which is normally known as null hypothesis against the alternative hypothesis that the group means are not equal. The variance ratio (F-value/ Fstatic / F) is the ratio of Mean Square (MS) between groups and the Mean Square within the groups. F-test is based on F-distribution and is used to compare the variance of the two-independent samples. This test is also used in the context of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for judging the significance of more than two group/sample means at 5% or 1% level. In this test, Fvalue (F) evaluated is compared with critical value of variance (Fcrit/ F-limit), which is the limiting value for given degrees of freedom and this can be obtained by making use of the F-distribution given by Fisher. The method was introduced by Fisher (Snedcor & Cochran 1973). MS-EXCEL and SPSS softwares have a routine to perform this analysis. Table 3 presents the summary of the results obtained by carrying out the One-Way ANOVA test. From the ANOVA table, the F-value is found to be 22.41, whereas the critical F-value at 5% level of significance is 1.76. The P-Value in the table which is equal to 0.00 indicates the probability of acceptance of null hypothesis. Since the F value is greater than Fcrit, it can be concluded that the means of the groups do differ significantly. Having concluded that the group means differ significantly, it is now necessary to determine which method is best among all and to rank all the methods based on their reliability to predict Cc values. Dunnetts test, which is a multiple comparison test, can be used for this purpose. The details of the Dunnetts test may be found in Montgomery (2005) or any other standard textbook on statistical methods.

110

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME Dunnetts Formula for Critical Difference (CD) is given below CD= d ((a-1), df) MSE (1/n1 + 1/n2) (1)

Where CD = Critical Difference = Significance level at 5% = 0.05 (a-1) = No. of Treatment Means = 12 df = Degrees of Freedom (can be obtained from the ANOVA table) d = F- distribution value at (a-1) denominator and df numerator =2.69 n1, n2 = No. of samples in actual group and comparing groups =178 MSE = Mean Square Error within the groups (can be obtained from the ANOVA table)

Table 3 One-Way ANOVA Summary Sheet

Groups Mactual M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total n 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 SS 243.68 2085.48 2329.16 Sum 97.99 129.72 54.60 48.90 62.35 159.18 85.57 105.22 112.79 75.95 274.77 159.91 103.27 df 12 2301 2313 Average 0.551 0.73 0.31 0.27 0.35 0.89 0.48 0.59 0.63 0.43 1.54 0.89 0.58 MS 20.31 0.91 Varianc e 0.52 0.54 0.08 0.07 0.13 1.74 0.18 0.29 0.41 0.28 4.08 2.78 0.67 F 22.41 P-value 0.00 F crit 1.76

n - No. of soils considered, SS Sum of Squares, df Degrees of freedom, MS Mean Square Error F-Value Probability Value Fcrit - Critical Variance Ratio F - Variance Ratio The critical difference (CD) is calculated using equation (1) and the value is 0.271. SPSS software provides a subroutine for Dunnetts test and the summary of the results are presented in Table 4. Ranking is assigned to the methods of prediction based on the absolute difference between the mean of each method and the mean of the actual method. If the absolute difference does not exceed critical difference, that difference is considered to be insignificant, indicating that the observed data and the predicted data by the specific prediction method are close to each other and this method can be used for prediction with confidence. From Dunnetts test results given in Table 4, the absolute difference of the prediction methods M3, M5, M11 and M10 are 0.28, 0.34, 0.35 and 1.54, respectively, which are slightly greater than or greater than the critical difference from Dunnetts formula (0.271). Hence, these methods may be considered inferior to the other eight methods.

111

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME The absolute difference of the other eight methods namely M1, M2, M4, M6, M7, M8, M9 and M12 are 0.18, 0.24, 0.20, 0.07, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12 and 0.03, respectively. These values are less than the critical difference. Hence, any one of these eight methods can be adopted to predict Cc values with higher confidence. However, the absolute difference of means is also lowest for method M12 being 0.03. Hence it may be concluded that the model M12, which relates Cc with wL, mc, d, and IP has more general applicability for predicting Cc than any other model. Model M7 which relates Cc with wL may also be considered equally good as the absolute difference is only 0.04 which is very low and very nearer to 0.03. Table 4 Dunnetts Test Summary (for ALL Soils)
Groups Mactual M12 M7 M6 M8 M9 M1 M4 M2 M3 M5 M11 M10 Average 0.55 0.58 0.59 0.48 0.63 0.43 0.73 0.35 0.31 0.27 0.89 0.90 1.54 Abs Diff 0 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.34 0.35 0.99 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9(NA) 10(NA) 11(NA) 12(NA)

4.2 TWO-WAY ANOVA TEST Soils are generally not homogenous in nature. Studying engineering behaviour and engineering use of each and every soil in isolation is neither possible nor encouraged. That is why soils are generally classified adopting any of the engineering classification systems like Unified Soil Classification System (Casagrande, 1948), Indian Standard Classification System (IS: 1498, 1970) and American Society of Testing Materials Classification System (ASTM: D 2487-83, 1983). In these classification systems any given soil is classified using dual symbol system based on grain size distribution and plasticity characteristics. All the soils falling under one classification group are expected to exhibit similar engineering behaviour. Hence, it may be expected that the empirical compression index equations may have a bearing on soil classification too. This aspect has not been considered by any of the investigators. However, Wesley (2003) suggested that correlations involving Liquid Limit or Plasticity Index on their own are unlikely to be applicable to soils on a general basis. It is the position of soil occupying on the plasticity chart (involving both IP and wL), that is more likely to lead to general correlations. An attempt was made here to find out whether there was any relationship between classification of soil (type of soil) and the applicability of the empirical compression index equations. This objective can be achieved by the statistical technique called Two-Way Analysis of variance test in which two factors are considered simultaneously to test equivalence of different methods of prediction of Cc. Two-Way ANOVA is performed in this investigation considering type of soil/soil classification as one factor and the method for prediction of compression index as another factor. SPSS software package extends facility for Two-Factor ANOVA testing also. The test is performed for different types of soils (soil classification groups) using different methods of prediction
112

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME (methods M1 to M12) by including the observed (actual) values of compression index. The difference between the actual compression index and the predicted value from the equation is taken as the measure of adequacy. The mean of the predicted values by various methods for different types of soils was obtained. The difference of the means from mean of the observed values (control) for particular type of soil should be close to zero if the prediction equation is truly suitable. Deviation from observed compression index could also occur due to type of soil accounted. Statistical treatment of the errors can be carried out with the help of two factor ANOVA with factors as soil type (i.e. soil classification group) and the method used for prediction. The 178 soils test data collected from literature and reported in Table 2 is used for carrying out two factor ANOVA test. All the 178 soils are classified based on Indian Standard Soil Classification System (IS 1498, 1970). The classification group so obtained is one of the two factors i.e. soil type in Two-Factor ANOVA. Indian Standard Soil Classification is no different from Unified Soil Classification System excepting that the fine grained soils having wL in the range of 35% - 50% are classified as Intermediate compressible soils (i.e. CI and MI). Method of prediction (i.e. M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11 and M12) is another factor considered in two factor ANOVA test. The details of the test can be found in Montgomery (2003) or in any standard textbook on Statistics. In the analysis, the Soil type is designated as SOIL_COD, the method code (i.e. M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11 and M12) is designated as METHOD_C and the joint effect of soil type and the method code is denoted as SOIL_COD * METHOD_C. The ANOVA table with means and standard deviation of error (deviation) is shown in Table 5. The null hypotheses are: Hypothesis 1: The average error (deviation) between observed and predicted Cc value using empirical equation/model remains same in all soils (labeled as SOIL_COD in Table 5). Hypothesis 2: The average deviation with respect to each empirical equation/model remains the same (labeled as METHOD_C in Table 5). Hypothesis 3: There is no joint effect of soil and the equation on the deviation (labeled SOIL_COD * METHOD_C in Table 5). The ANOVA table gives the components into which the total variation is divided. From Table 5 the Fstatic for the three factors SOIL_COD, METHOD_C and SOIL_COD*METHOD_C (read as SOIL_COD by METHOD_C) are 79.130, 8.101and 2.807, respectively. The probability of acceptance of the three null hypotheses mentioned above is 0.000 for Hypothesis 1 i.e. SOIL_COD, 0.000 for Hypothesis 2 i.e. METHOD_C and 0.000 for Hypothesis 3 i.e. SOIL_COD*METHOD_C. The probability being very much less than 0.05 (i.e. 5% level of significance), all the three hypotheses are rejected. Rejection of all the three hypotheses indicates that the average deviation between observed and predicted Cc values is significantly different for different soil types and for different methods of prediction. Further the joint effect of soil type and method of prediction is significant which implies that certain methods are more suitable for certain soil types. Hence, it may be concluded that there is significant main effect for the SOIL_COD (soil type) factor, METHOD_C (method) factor and the interaction factor SOIL_COD *METHOD_C (joint effect). Having concluded that the effect of soil type and method for prediction of compression index are significant, it is necessary to determine the best method and the methods applicable to predict Cc values for each type of soil. Eleven types of soils namely CH, CI, CL, MH, MI, ML, CL-ML, OH, SC, SC-CH and SP-SC are found among the 178 soils test data listed in Table 2. Out of these CH, CI, CL, MI, OH and SC groups have more than 10 sets of soils test data. For these seven soil types, an attempt has been made here to identify the best method and methods applicable for prediction of Cc amongst the twelve methods presented in Table 1 by analyzing statistically the observed and predicted Cc values.
113

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME Table 5 Two-Way ANOVA Summary Sheet
Source Corrected Model Intercept SOIL_COD METHOD_C SOIL_COD * METHOD_C Error Total Corrected Total Sum of Squares 940.626 215.938 485.268 59.619 206.562 1331.376 3181.043 2272.002 df 142 1 10 12 120 2171 2314 2313 Mean Square 6.624 215.938 48.527 4.968 1.721 0.613 F 10.802 352.118 79.130 8.101 2.807 Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

This objective can be met by carrying out statistical Dunnetts test for each soil type separately while comparing the observed and predicted Cc values. Dunnetts test is carried for each type of soil separately to find the critical difference using equation 1. The absolute difference is the difference between the mean of the actual and the mean of a method. If the absolute difference is less than the critical difference then that particular method is acceptable for prediction of Cc for the particular soil type and vice versa. The methods suitable for each class of soil are concluded, excluding the methods, which have the absolute difference greater than the critical difference. Ranking is given to the suitable methods by sorting the absolute difference values of these methods, so that the method ranked as one predicts a closer value of compression index to actual measured value. More details concerning Dunnetts test can be found in Montgomery (2003) or any standard textbook on Statistics. The SPSS software provides a subroutine and the same is used in this investigation. Dunnetts test results for CH soil type are presented in Table 6. The critical difference according to Dunnetts formulae is 0.58 for this group of soils. The absolute differences of means for all the 12 methods are also shown in Table 6 arranged in ascending order. The absolute difference is less than 0.58 for 9 methods namely M12, M7, M8, M6, M9, M1, M4, M2 and M3. Further the absolute difference is increasing from 0.09 to 0.53 in that order for all these nine methods. Hence it may be concluded that any of these nine methods could be used to predict Cc values with reasonable accuracy. However, the absolute difference being lowest for M12 it may be considered best among all these nine methods. The other three methods namely M5, M11 and M10 are not applicable for use with CH soils since the absolute difference is more than 0.58. NA under the rank column indicates that the absolute difference for that method is more than the critical difference and the method is not applicable for prediction of Cc. Table 7 summarizes Dunnetts test results of all the seven soil types along with ALL soils giving the methods applicable and methods not applicable for each soil type separately. The methods are presented in the order of their ranking. From this table it may be observed that the methods M4, M6, M7, M8 and M12 are applicable for almost all soil types whereas either M12 or M7 are found to be the best method for any given soil type. Hence, methods M12 and M7 can be adopted to predict Cc values with more confidence, while methods M4, M6 and M8 can be also used with reasonable degree of confidence. The Dunnetts test for all soils is presented in Table 3 after carrying one-Factor ANOVA test. Here also M12 and M7 were found to be most suitable methods among all the twelve methods in that order, reinforcing the abovederived conclusion from Two-Factor ANOVA test. Prediction model M12 fails to predict Cc values for low compressible clays (i.e., soils falling above A-Line in Plasticity chart with wL<35%) and organic soils of high compressibility. On the other hand the performance of method M7 is not upto the mark for Intermediate compressible fine grained soils (i.e. fine grained soils having wL between 35% and 50%).
114

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME Table 6 Dunnetts Test Summary for CH Soils
Groups Mactual M12 M7 M8 M6 M9 M1 M4 M2 M3 M5 M11 M10 Count 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 CH Soils Average 0.994 0.985 1.011 1.060 0.808 0.790 1.219 0.602 0.521 0.464 1.803 1.976 Abs Diff 0.000 0.009 0.017 0.066 0.186 0.204 0.225 0.392 0.473 0.530 0.809 0.982 RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NA NA NA

57 2.937 1.943 Critical Difference = CD=d(a-1,f) MSE ((1/n1) + (1/n2)) CD=2.69* 1.787* ((1/57) + (1/57)) (CD)CH = 0.58

NA Not Applicable

Table 7 Summary of Models for Prediction of Compression Index from Two-Factor ANOVA test
Soil Type CH CI CL MI OH SC ALL Soils* Methods Applicable M12 , M7 , M8, M6, M9, M1, M4, M2, M3 M12 , M11, M2, M4, M5 M7 , M8, M11, M6 M12 , M11, M5, M2, M4, M6, M9 M7 , M8, M1, M6 M7 , M9, M11, M6, M12, M4, M8 M12 , M7 , M6, M8, M9, M1, M4 Methods Not Applicable M5, M10 , M11 M1, M3, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10 M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M9, M10 , M12 M1, M3, M7, M8, M10 M2, M3, M4, M5, M9, M10 , M11, M!2 M1, M2, M5, M10 M2, M3, M5, M10, M11 No. of Soils in the Group 57 39 17 20 11 14 178

* From One-Factor ANOVA test

115

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME 5. CONCLUSIONS The performance of twelve different models for prediction of Compression Index is statistically evaluated using One-Factor ANOVA and Two-Factor ANOVA by comparing the predicted and observed values of Cc values for 178 soils test data collected from literature. The statistical analysis reveals that both soil classification (i.e. the position of soil in engineering classification chart) and the method of prediction have bearing on the performance of models. Most suitable models for each soil type for prediction of Cc are obtained by statistical technique called Dunnetts test. Two models, one suggested by Mallikarjuna Rao et.al. (2006) and the other suggested by Terzaghi & Peck (1967) were found to have more general applicability considering all soil types. REFERENCES Journal Papers Amithnath and DeDalal SS (2004) The Role of Plasticity Index in Predicting Compression Index behaviour of clays. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering http://www.ejge.com/2004/Per0466/Ppr0466.htm. 2. Burland JB (1990) On the Compressibility and Shear Strength of Natural Clays. Geotechnique 40(2): 327-378. 3. Jian- Hua Yin (1999) Properties and Behaviour of Hong Kong Marine Deposits with different Clay Contents. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36: 1085-1095. 4. Koppula SD (1981) Statistical Estimation of Compression Index. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal 4(2): 68-73. 5. Nagraj TS Srinivasa Murthy BR and Vatsala A (1990) Prediction of Soil Behaviour Part I Development of Generalised Approach. Indian Geotechnical Journal 20: 4. 6. Nagraj TS and Srinivasa Murthy BR (1986) A Critical reappraisal of Compression Index equations. Geotechnique Vol 36(1): 27-32. 7. Nishida Y (1956) A Brief Note on the Compression Index of Soil. Journal of Soil Mechanics and. Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 82(3): 1-14. 8. Oswald RH (1980) Universal Compression Index Equation. Journal of.Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 106: 1179-1200. 9. Skempton AW (1944) Notes on the Compressibility of Clays. Quaterly Journal of Geotechnical Society. London 100:119-135. 10. Sridharan A and Nagraj HB (2001) Compressibility behaviour of remoulded, finegrained soils and correlation with index properties. Candian Geotechnical Journal 38:1139-1154. 11. Wesley LD (2003) Residual Strength of Clays and correlations using Atterberg Limits. Geotechnique 543(7): 669-672. 12. Ch. Sudha Rani and K Mallikarjuna Rao, Compositional and Environmental Factors Role on Compression Index International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 392 - 403, ISSN Print: 0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316 Books 13. ASTM: D 2487-83 (1983) standard test method for classification of soils for engineering purposes, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, USA
116

1.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), IAEME 14. Bowles JW (1979) Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soils, McGraw Hill, New York. 15. Hough BK (1957) Basic Soil Engineering, Ronald, New York. 16. IS: 1498 (1970) (Reaffirmed 2002) Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 17. Mitchell JK (1993) Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, John Wiley and Sons, New York. 18. Montgomery CD (2005) Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 19. Snedcor GW, Cochran WG (1973) Statistical Methods, Mc Graw Hill New York. 20. Terzaghi K and Peck RB (1967) Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Wiley New York Theses 21. Sreelatha N (2001) Analysis Compressibility and Shear Behaviour of Tropical Residual Soils with Induced Cementation. M.Tech Thesis of Sri Venkateswara University College of Engg, Tirupati, India. 22. Stalin VK (1995) Factors and Mechanisms Controlling the Index Properties and Engineering Behaviour of Soil Mixtures. Ph.D Thesis of Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. 23. Sudha Rani Ch (2007) A Knowledge Based System for Soil Identification and Assessment of Volume Change Characteristics of Clayey Soils. Ph.D Thesis of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India. Proceedings Papers 24. Bayan GK (2005) Prediction of Historical Loading Condition of Alluvium Soil: Problem and Possible New Solution A Case Study. Proceedings of National Symposium on Prediction Methods in Geotechnical Engineering GEOPREDICT2005, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, 113-120. 25. Casagrande A (1948) Classification and Identification of Soils. Transactions of American Society of Civil Engineers 113. 26. Mallikarjuna Rao K, Subba Reddy PV and Sudha Rani Ch (2006) Proper Parameters for Prediction of Compression Index. Proceedings National Conference on Corrective Engineering Practices in Troublesome Soils CONCEPTS 2006, JNTU College of Engineering, Kakinada, 35-40. 27. Sridharan A (1990) Engineering Behavior of Soils A Fundamental Approach IGS Lecture. 13th Indian Geotechnical Conference 36(1): 27-32.

117