See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320226702

Statistical Correlations between undrained shear strength (C U ) and both SPT-N

value and net limit pressure (P L ) for cohesive glacial tills

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 12,449

4 authors:

Kanex Balachandran Jinyuan Liu

Ryerson University Ryerson University
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    114 PUBLICATIONS   992 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Laifa Cao S.M. Peaker

Ryerson University WSP Canada Inc.
33 PUBLICATIONS   235 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Feasbility study of using superabsorbent polymer to solidify slurry for backfill View project

Improve Pile Design in Ontario Soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyuan Liu on 05 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Statistical Correlations between undrained
shear strength (CU) and both SPT- N value
and net limit pressure (PL) for cohesive
glacial tills
Kanagaratnam Balachandran
Exp Services Inc., Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Jinyuan Liu
Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Laifa Cao & Scott Peaker
WSP Consultants Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT:
This paper presents a statistical analysis of the correlation between the undrained shear strength (CU) and both
standard penetration test blow count (SPT-N) and net limit pressure (PL) value for cohesive glacial tills in the city of
Toronto. The Cu values were derived from the field vane shear test (FVST) and PL values were derived from SPT-N.
This study is based on the results of a comprehensive geotechnical investigation for the Eglinton Crosstown Light
Rail Transit (LRT) project in Toronto. This study focused primarily on the statistical correlations between CU and both
SPT-N and PL value for cohesive glacial tills with different textures, such as silty clay till and clayey silt till. In this
paper, the correlation equations between SPT – (N) 60 values and CU, PL values and CU are suggested for cohesive
glacial tills. Additionally, the range of SPT – (N) 60, CU, PL and the pressuremeter constant (β) factor for cohesive
glacial tills is suggested.

RÉSUMÉ:
Cet article présente une analyse statistique de la corrélation entre la force de cisaillement non découpée/ drainée(CU)
et le taux de détection de pénétration standard (SPT-N) et la pression de limite nette (PL) pour les calculs glaciaires
cohésifs dans la ville de Toronto. Les valeurs de Cu ont été dérivées du test de cisaillement de la piste de champ
(FVST) et les valeurs de PL ont été dérivées de SPT-N. Cette étude est basée sur les résultats d'une enquête
géotechnique globale pour le projet Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (LRT) à Toronto. Cette étude portait
principalement sur les corrélations statistiques entre la C U et la SPT-N et la valeur PL pour les labies glaciaires
cohésives avec différentes textures, telles que la till d'argile et le till de limon argileux. Dans cet article, les équations
de corrélation entre SPT - (N)60 valeurs et CU, PL valeurs et CU sont suggérées pour les cultures glaciaires cohésives.
En outre, la gamme de SPT - (N)60, CU, PL et le facteur de constante de pressionmètre (β) pour les calculs glaciaires
cohésifs est suggérée.
.

1.0 INTRODUCTION accordance with the ASTM D 1586 method. This

Statistical correlations between in-situ soil testing
results have become growingly more and more
popular during the site investigations especially for
being practical and economical. Hence, estimations of
geotechnical parameters from in – situ test results
hold a significant place in the geotechnical design
practice. Keep that in mind, in this study also the
statistical correlation between undrained shear
strength (CU) from the field vane shear test (FVST)
and both standard penetration test blow count (SPT-
N) and net limit pressure (PL) value for cohesive
glacial tills were performed.
The SPT is a well-established method for soil
investigation. As many forms of the test are in use
worldwide, standardization is essential in order to
facilitate the comparison of results from different
investigations, even at the same site (Thorburm
1986). In this paper, SPT was performed in
means that the test was standardized using a 50 mm
O.D. split spoon sampler, driven into the soil with a 64
kg weight having a free fall of 760 mm auto hammer
was used exclusively on the project. The blows
required to drive the split –barrel sample a distance of
305 mm, after an initial penetration of 152 mm, is
referred to as the SPT –N value. This method has
been accepted internationally and is useful in field
investigation.
The FVST is a moderately rapid and economical in
situ method for determining the undrained shear
strength of fully saturated clays without disturbance.
The test is relatively simple, quick, and provides a
cost-effective way of estimating the soil shear
strength. Therefore, it is widely used and much more
common in geotechnical investigations. The results of
the test are not reliable if clay contains silt or sand. In
this paper, FVST is performed in accordance with the
ASTM D 2573 (1) method. This means that the test
involves pushing a four blade vane into a clay stratum
and slowly rotating it while measuring the resisting
torque. The peak torque which develops is related to
the undrained shear strength of soil, CU at cylindrical
failure surface, which is a function of the shape and
dimensions of the vane. This undrained shear
strength (CU) was derived for rectangular vane is
6 𝑇𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝐻 CU (kPa) = 7.25N for medium plasticity clay and CU
equal to 3 for = 2. Where, T MAX is a maximum
7 𝐷 𝐷
value of measured torque corrected for apparatus and
rod friction, D is vane diameter and H is a height of
vane. The equation can be in any units as long as
shear strength, torque, and diameter are in consistent
units.
It is very important that the measured vane
strength has to be corrected prior to use in stability
analyses involving embankments on soft ground,
bearing capacity, and excavations in soft clays
(Bjerrum, 1972). The corrected undrained shear
strength (CU) is given by CU =  CU, where μ is an
empirical vane shear correction factor that has been
related to plasticity index (PI). The Bjerrum, (1972)
suggested vane shear correction factor () based on
plasticity index (PI). In our study, the plasticity index
(PI) is less than 20%. Then  is equal to one is
adopted in this paper according to Bjerrum, (1972).
After the peak torque has been determined, the vane
is rotated quickly about to ten times to remold the
soils. The torque then is measured again to determine
the remolded shear strength. The sensitivity (St) may
be calculated as the ratio of the peak to remolded
strength. Details are given in the ASTM D 2573 (1).
In this study, an attempt was made to develop
correlations between SPT- N values with CU, and PL
values with CU were performed for cohesive glacial
tills based on the extensive site investigation program
conducted for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project in
the city of Toronto. As emphasized by Phoon and
Kulhawy (1999), local correlations that are developed
within a specific geologic setting generally are
preferable to generalize global correlations because
they are significantly more accurate.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review was conducted on the statistical
correlation between both SPT- N values and CU, PL
values and CU in this paper. Information available
from specific research studies on the statistical
correlation between both SPT- N values and CU, PL
values and CU is few, as only a few researchers have
studied for clay, even rare for Toronto cohesive glacial
tills. Such information, as it was considered very
valuable, is presented in this section.
2.1 The literature review on statistical correlation
between SPT- N values and CU
Approximate ranges of CU and corresponding SPT- N
values for cohesive soils proposed by Terzaghi &
Peck (1967) are given in Table1. Further they
proposed correlation equation such as CU (kPa) =
6.25N. After Terzaghi & Peck, many studies have
been done in this area by using unconfined
compression (UC) test results. Sowers (1979),
(adapted from NAVFAC DM 7.1, 1986) proposed a
correlation with considering the plasticity of the clay.
He concluded CU (kPa) = 3.63N for low plasticity clay,
(kPa) = 12.0N for high plasticity clay. Sivrikaya &
Togrol (2007) evaluated a large data of SPT-N mainly
obtained from different sites in Turkey with the results
of various laboratory tests such as UC, triaxial test
and FVST. Based on these studies, the results are
differentiated according to the type of the laboratory
tests. According to the results of the study, the
relationships between SPT - Nf and CU are expressed
such as CU = 4.30Nf from UC tests, 5-10 Nf from
triaxial tests. Sivrikaya & Togrol (2007) clearly stated
that the coefficients in the equations are highly
dependent on the type of the laboratory test. In
addition, the scatter of the data was found to be the
largest for the UC tests. This result can be mainly
related to disturbance and heterogeneity of the
sample that influences the behavior. Especially, hard
clay can be very sensitive to sampling and testing
condition due to their fissured nature and brittle
behaviour tendency. Stroud (1974) proposed one of
the most popular relationships between SPT- N values
and CU. In his study, SPT- N data were collected from
many sites in the United Kingdom together with
triaxial tests performed in insensitive stiff and hard
clays. The relationships between SPT-N values and
CU were recommended as CU (kPa) = f1 N60. Stroud
(1974) stated that the factor f1 is not a constant value
but changes with the plasticity index (PI) of the soil
such as CU (kPa) = 4.2 N60 for PI>30, CU (kPa) = 4-5
N60 for 20<PI<30 and CU (kPa) = 6-7 N60 for PI<20.
Stroud and Butler’s (1975) stated that CU (kPa) = 4.5
N for PI>30% and CU (kPa) = 8N for low plasticity clay
(PI =15%).
Table 1. Approximate ranges of CU and corresponding
SPT-N for cohesive soils (Terzaghi & Peck 1967)
Consistency SPT-N Undrained shear
values strength (CU) (kPa)
Very soft 0-2 0 – 12.5
Soft 2-5 12.5 - 25
Medium stiff 5 - 10 25 - 50
Stiff 10 - 20 50 - 100
Very stiff 20 - 30 100 - 200
Hard >400 >200
2.2 The literature review on SPT- N correction
In the literature, most researchers express their
concerns in regards to energy correction which was
elaborated as follows. The energy delivered to the
rods during a SPT expressed as a ratio of the
theoretical free fall potential energy, can vary from Stiff to very 15
30% to 90% (Kovacs and Salomone 1982 and stiff clays
Robertson et al. 1983). Schmertmann and Palacios Stiff clays 6.8 Marsland & Randolph
(1979) have shown that the SPT blow count is 1977
inversely proportional to the delivered energy. Kovacs All clays 5.1 Lukas and Le Clerc de
et al. (1984), Seed et al. (1984) and Robertson et al. Bussy 1976
(1983) have recommended that the SPT-N value has Stiff clays 10 Martin & Drahos 1986
to be corrected to an energy level of 60% (CFEM
2006). The SPT N-values corresponding to 60%
efficiency is termed as N60. The practice in the United Other non – linear relationships were
States/Canada the SPT N-value measured to an recommended by Baguelin et al. (1978) and Bozbey
average energy ratio of 60% (ERR=60%) according to et al. (2010) between CU and PL. The Baguelin et al.
ASTM D1586-11 (2014). In this study energy ratio of
(1978) and Bozbey et al. (2010) suggested the 
60% (ERR=60%) is adopted.
factor varies between 5.5 and 10 and 5.5 and 15
respectively.
2.3 The literature review on statistical correlation
Currently, there is no such relationship available
between PL values and CU
for cohesive glacial tills in the city of Toronto. This
study is performed based on an extensive site
In the literature, most researchers expressed that
investigation conducted for the Eglinton Crosstown
Pressuremeter test (PMT) is a commonly suitable test
LRT project for the Toronto Transit Commission and
to estimate the undrained shear strength of cohesive
Metrolinx.
soils. There are different approaches for the
estimation of undrained shear strength which can be
listed as limit pressure method, yield pressure method
3.0 ENGINEERING BACKGROUND
and shear curve method etc. Yield pressure method
uses the yield pressure result and employs the
The site is situated along Eglinton Avenue from the
following equation for the estimation of CU such as CU
existing Kennedy subway station in the east to the
= py - 𝑜ℎ , where py - yield pressure and 𝑜ℎ - total
Mount Dennis station in the west, in Toronto, Ontario,
horizontal stress at rest. However, yield pressure
Canada.
method is not recommended because yield pressure
The Toronto area acquired at least three glacial
is generally a large value that may lead to
and two interglacial periods from the published
overestimated results (Briaud 1992). Shear curve
geological data (Karrow 1967 and Sharpe 1980). The
method, on the other hand, uses a graphical solution
geological history of the Toronto area has included
for the entire shear stress and strain graph is derived
several advances and retreats of glaciers of Illinoian
from the test. This method is also not recommended
and Wisconsinan ages (Karrow and White 1998). The
for being a graphical solution and leading high
glacial tills in this area were generally deposited
undrained shear strength estimations. The limit
during the early to late Wisconsinan period,
pressure method is commonly accepted in the
represented by the Sunnybrook, Seminary,
practice which uses the theoretical expression such
𝑃 Meadowcliffe, Newmarket and Halton tills (Sharpe
as CU = 𝐿 stated by Cassan (1972) (cited in Clarke 1999). The glacial till deposits in Toronto can be

1995). Factor  is referred as pressuremeter divided into low plasticity cohesive glacial tills (silty
constant. According to many researchers such as clay to clayey silt glacial till) and cohesionless glacial
Cassan (1972) and Briaud (1992),  value ranges tills (sandy silt to silty sand glacial till) (Manzari et al.
between 5.5 and 7.5 with an average of 6.5. Similarly, 2014). This kind of soil is derived due to the wearing
Clarke (1995) presented a summary of  factors away and entrainment of material as a result of the
proposed in the literature which is given in Table 2. moving ice of a glacier. As shown in Figure 1, this
The variation of factor  can be related to type of soil can be described as high variability
uncertainties involved in the measurement of 𝑜ℎ , materials in both horizontal and vertical axis, and it
differences in reference strength, an influence of normally contains complex non-linear stress-strain
disturbance and anisotropy (Clarke1995). characteristics (Baker et al. 1998). In addition to that,
the tills consist of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel,
sand, silt and clay size particles in varying
proportions. Cobbles and boulders are common in
Table 2. Proposed values of the  factors in the
these deposits (Robert et al. 2011). However, the
literature (Clarke1995)
behaviour of glacial tills in southern Ontario is not fully
understood.
Soil Type  factors Source
All clays 2 -5 Menard 1957
Soft to firm 5.5 Cassan 1972, Amar &
clays Jezequel 1972
Firm to stiff 8
clays

Figure 1. Typical glacial till (Source-Mark Clark,
(http://www.free-stockillustration.com)
The proposed Eglinton Crosstown LRT is
approximately 33 km in length and located
approximately 7 km north of Lake Ontario. There are
25 proposed stations along the alignment as shown in
Figure 2.
The glacial tills are interbedded with silty clay, clayey
silt, sandy silt, sand and silt and silty sand.
SPTs conducted near the FVSTs at similar depths
were selected to develop the relationship between
SPT-N values and CU in this paper for the following
stations such as Bermondsey, Keel, Victoria Park,
West portal. The pairs of readings (SPT-N and CU)
for silty clay till and clayey silt till were collected from
these tests in this study.
Silty clayey till from the above stations contains 1
to 19% gravels, 9 to 41% sand, 36 to 62% silt and 14
to 31% clay size particles based on grain size
analysis. The water contents are generally between 6
3
to 31% and unit weight is from 20.6 – 23.7 kg/m .
Based on the consistency (Atterberg) limits test the
range of LL is 17 to 28%, PL is 7 to 17% and PI is 7 to
14. These values are shown in Table 3.
Clayey silt till from the above stations contains 1 to
13% gravels, 22 to 44% sand, 37 to 60% silt and 11 to
22% clay size particles based on grain size analysis.
The water contents are generally between 6 to 31%
3
and unit weight is from 21.7 – 23.1 kg/m . Based on
the consistency (Atterberg) limits test the range of LL
is 15 to 22%, PL is 10 to 16% and PI is 4 to 7. These
values are shown in Table 3.
Overall cohesive glacial till from the above stations
contains 1 to 19% gravels, 9 to 44% sand, 36 to 62%
silt and 11 to 31% clay size particles based on grain
size analysis. The water contents are generally
between 6 to 31% and unit weight is from 20.6 – 23.7
3
kg/m . Based on the consistency (Atterberg) limits
test the range of LL is 15 to 28%, PL is 7 to 17% and
PI is 4 to 14. These values are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Properties of cohesive glacial tills

Silty Clayey All soil

clayey till silt till
Gravel (%) 1 - 19 1 - 13 1 - 19
Figure 2. Crosstown route map Sand (%) 9 - 41 22 - 44 9 - 44
(http://www.thecrosstown.ca/the-project) Silt (%) 36 - 62 37 - 60 36 - 62
Clay size 14 - 31 11 - 22 11 - 31
particles (%)
A series of laboratory and in-situ tests were Water contents 6 - 31 6 - 31 6 - 31
conducted in advance at the stations above. The in- (%)
situ tests included SPTs, FVSTs, pre-bored TEXAM Unit weight 20.6 – 21.7 – 20.6 –
PMT and seismic tests. The laboratory tests included (kg/m )
3
23.7 23.1 23.7
density and moisture content measurements, grain LL (%) 17 - 28 15 - 22 15 - 28
size and hydrometer analysis, consistency (Atterberg) PL (%) 7 - 17 10 - 16 7 -17
limit tests, consolidation tests, consolidated undrained PI (%) 7 - 14 4-7 4 - 14
and drained triaxial compression tests.
Based on these tests, the soil was classified as a
glacial till which further classified as low plasticity
cohesive glacial till and cohesionless glacial till 4.0 CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT-(𝑁) 60, CU AND
according to the current version of TTC Geo-technical PL
Standards (2014). In this area, the low plasticity
cohesive glacial till mostly consists of the following The statistical analysis is carried out in this paper to
soil types such as (i) silty clay till (ii) clayey silt till. The investigate the relationship between SPT-N value with
cohesionless glacial till mostly consists of following CU, and PL value with CU. The first step is to collect
soil types such as (iii) sandy silt till (iv) silty sand till. the pairs of field vane shear strength (CU) and SPT-N
value at the same depths in the same boreholes. The
field measured SPT-N values are corrected according 200
to the CFEM (2006). Because of the variability in

C Range (kPa)
equipment and operating conditions, direct use of
SPT-N values for geotechnical design is not 150
recommended. As a result, many corrections shall be 58% 95%
65%
done on the field SPT-N values. Those corrections 100
are rod length, borehole diameter, sampler, energy
and overburden described in CFEM (2006). The

U
50
practice in the Canada the SPT N-value measured to
an average energy ratio of 60% (ERR=60%)
0
according to ASTM D1586-11 (2014). In this study
energy ratio of 60% (ERR=60%) is adopted. In the Silty clay till Clayey silt till All soil
case of cohesive glacial tills, overburden correction is
Figure 4. Range of CU values for cohesive glacial tills
not accommodated in this study. In these situations,
the SPT-N became SPT-(𝑁) 60. Then the net limit
pressure (PL) value is predicted according to
Balachandran et al. (2016) equation for that particular 2000
SPT-(𝑁)60 values.

P Range (kPa)
After corrected the SPT-N, the pair of data were 1500
collected for both SPT- (N) 60 values and CU, PL
values and CU for cohesive glacial tills. In order to 1000 73% 65% 75%
analyze more accurately, the compiled data were
filtered by using the following methodology:

L
500
(1) The data situated far from the trend line was
discarded by visual inspection compared to other 0
data. Silty clay till Clayey silt till All soil
(2) In such cases the same SPT-(𝑁) 60 values was
associated with different values of CU and this Figure 5. Range of PL values for cohesive glacial tills
pair of readings was omitted.

4.1 General Range of SPT--(𝑁) 60, CU and PL for Table 4. Approximate range of SPT--(𝑁) 60, CU and PL
cohesive glacial tills for cohesive glacial tills

The ranges of SPT- (𝑁) 60, CU and PL values are Soil type SPT--(𝑁) 60 CU (kPa) PL (kPa)
determined for cohesive glacial tills of the data are Silty clay till 2 - 16 18 - 197 184 - 1840
collected from in-situ tests. The ranges of (𝑁) 60, CU Clayey silt 5 - 12 78 - 93 520 - 1248
and PL values of cohesive glacial tills are shown in till
Figure 3 to 5 and Table 4 respectively. The All soil 2 - 16 18 - 197 184 - 1840
percentages (%) marked in Figure 3 to 5 represents
most of the range values that belong to the thick
portion of the range diagrams.
4.2 Correlation between SPT--(𝑁) 60 values and CU

25 The correlation between SPT--(𝑁) 60 values and CU for

SPT- (N) Range

a cohesive glacial till is shown in Figure 6. The

20 correlation functions and correlation coefficients are
given in Table 5.
60

15
65% 62%
10 60%
200
5
150
(kPa)

0
Silty clay till Clayey silt till All soil
100
U

Figure 3. Range of SPT- (N) values for cohesive

C

60 Silty clay till

glacial tills 50 Clayey silt till
All soil
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
SPT - (N)
60
Figure 6. Correlation between CU vs SPT- (N) 60 for
cohesive glacial tills
4.3 Correlation between PL values and CU
The correlation between PL values and CU for
cohesive glacial till is shown in Figure 7. The
correlation functions, correlation coefficients and “”
factors are given in Table 5.
(1974) and Stroud and Butler’s (1975) were plotted in
Figure 8 with the studied data. In this comparison, a
linear best fit line was plotted for the studied corrected
and filtered data due to the available linear literature
model. For the preliminary estimation of the CU for the
cohesive glacial tills, the CU can be estimated from
the SPT- (N) 60 value using the following relationship:
CU (kPa) = 8.32(N) 60
2
R = 0.79 [1]

2000 The predicted CU values were calculated by using

“Equation 1” and the measured CU and predicted CU
values also presented in Figure 8.
1500
P (kPa)

y=
1000 200
L

Silty clay till Measured m1

500 Predicted
Clayey silt till 150 Terzaghi & Peck Chisq 5.9
Stroud

C (kPa)
All soil 2
Stroud & Butlers R
0 100
0 50 100 150 200
m1

U
C (kPa)
U
Figure 7. Correlation between PL vs CU for cohesive 50 Chisq
glacial tills R
2

0 m1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Table 5. Summary of correlation between SPT- (N) 60 SPT - (N) Chisq 8
60
values and CU, PL values and CU and “” factors for Figure 8. Correlation between SPT- y = 10.521x
(N) 60 and CU for 2
y = 11.695x R
cohesive glacial tills cohesive glacial tills (Linear relationship)
y = 10.834x
2
Soil type Correlation equation (R ) “”
CU (kPa) PL (kPa) In this comparison, there is good agreement with
Stroud (1974) and Stroud and Butler’s (1975). Stroud
Silty clay 8.42 (N) 60 (0.80) 10.52 CU (0.80) 11
and Butler’s (1975) expressed CU = 8N for low
till
plasticity clay (PI =15%) and Stroud (1974) expressed
Clayey 8.22 (N) 60 (0.34) 11.70 CU (0.62) 12 CU=6-7(N) 60 for PI<20%. Studied cohesive glacial tills
silt till also have a PI range 4 -14 in this project. Plasticity
All soil 8.32 (N) 60 (0.79) 10.83 CU (0.76) 11 Index value also has a good agreement with literature
value.

5.0 DISCUSSIONS 5.2 Comparison between PL values and CU for

Limited information is available on the correlation
between SPT- (N) 60 values and CU, PL values and CU
for clayey soil, sparse for cohesive glacial tills. This
paper presents a study on the correlation between
SPT- (N) 60 values and CU, PL values and CU for
cohesive glacial tills in the city of Toronto. In addition,
comparisons between these studies with the literature
studies were also performed. In this study the specific
twenty - six (26) pair of corrected and filtered data
available for cohesive glacial tills. The developed
regression line by using these data was compared
with available literature studies.
5.1 Comparison between SPT- (N) 60 values and CU
for cohesive glacial tills
The approximate correlation between SPT- (N) 60
and CU proposed by Terzaghi & peck (1967), Stroud
cohesive glacial tills
The approximate correlation between PL and CU
proposed by Baguelin et al. (1978) and Bozbey et al.
(2010) were plotted in Figure 9 with the studied data.
In this comparison, a nonlinear power best fit line was
plotted for the studied corrected and filtered data due
to the available nonlinear literature model. For the
preliminary estimation of the CU for the cohesive
glacial tills, the CU can be estimated from the PL
values using the following relationship:
CU (kPa) = 0.39(PL)
0.78 2
R = 0.70 [2]
The predicted CU values were calculated by using
“Equation 2” and the measured CU and predicted CU
values also presented in Figure 9.
 by the results of the statistical analysis. There is a
200
Measured good agreement with the Menard “” factors.

150 Predicted
Baguelin
C (kPa)

Bozbey 6.0 CONCLUSION

100
U

In conclusion, the study was performed based on2 an

y = 0.38981
intensive site investigation program * x^(0.78132)
conducted for R= 0.69889
the
2
50 y = 0.3898 * x^(0.78132) 2 R = 1
Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project in the city of Toronto.
y = 0.67 * x^(0.75) R2= 1
The data were collected from in-situ
y = 0.35 tests such
* x^(0.86) R =as
1
0 FVST and SPT and analysed statically. In this study,
0 500 1000 1500
P (kPa) the linear correlation equations between SPT--(𝑁) 60
L
Figure 9. Correlation between CU and PL for values and CU, PL values and CU are established for
cohesive glacial tills (Non-linear relationship) cohesive glacial till. Further, the ranges of SPT--(𝑁)
60, CU and PL were suggested. In addition, the Menard
“” factors are suggested for cohesive glacial till in the
Another comparison of the data was performed city of Toronto
with Baguelin (1978), Martin and Drahos (1986) are
plotted in Figure 10 with the studied corrected and
filtered data. In this comparison, a linear correlation 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
with zero intercept has been used due to the available
linear literature model. For the preliminary estimation This study was performed using data generated by
of the PL for the cohesive glacial tills, the PL can be the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project in Toronto. The
estimated from the CU value using the following authors would like to thank the Metrolinx for granting
relationship; permission to use the geotechnical test data in this
paper.

PL (kPa) = 10.83 CU
2
R =0.76 [3]
8.0 REFERENCES
.
The predicted PL values were calculated by using ASTM D 1586 – 11 2014. Standard test method for
“Equation 3” and the measured PL and predicted PL standard penetration test (SPT) and split –barrel
values also presented in Figure 10. sampling of soils. Annual book of ASTM
standards, vol 04.09.
ASTM D 2573 – 01 2002. Standard tests method for
field vane shear test (FVST) in cohesive soils.
2500 Annual book of ASTM standards, vol 04.08 yy==10.834x
Measured 10.83x
Predicted Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F. and Shields, D.H. 1978.
y = 7.75x
2000
Baguelin et al. The Pressuremeter and foundation engineering, y = 10x
Trans tech publications, 617p.
P (kPa)

1500 Martin and Drahos

Baker, C.L., Lahti, L.R., and Roumbanis, D.C. 1998.
Urban Geology of Toronto and surrounding area.
L

1000
500
0 Proceedings of ASCE Speciality Conference on
0 50 100 150 200
C (kPa)
U Structure, PurdueUniversity, pp 1–54.
Figure 10. Correlation between PL and CU for
cohesive glacial tills (Linear relationship)
In this comparison, there is good agreement with
Martin and Drahos (1986). Martin and Drahos (1986)
expressed PL =10 CU for stiff clay. In this study also
cohesive glacial till was stiff to very stiff.
Finally, the Menard pressuremeter constant “”
factors are suggested for cohesive glacial tills in this
study for the city of Toronto. According to literature,
the “” factors are between 2 and 15 for different
types of soils such as soft to firm, firm to stiff and stiff
to very stiff. In this study, these factors are retrieved
Urban Geology of Canadian Cities. Edited by: P.F.
Karrow, 42, 323-352.
Bjerrum L. 1972, Embankments on soft ground
Performance of Earth and Earth Supported
Briaud, J.L. 1992. The Pressuremeter, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1992. Canadian
rd
Foundation Engineering Manual. 3 ed., the
Canadian Geotechnical Society Co & Bi Tech,
Publishers Ltd. Canada.
Clarke, B.G. 1995. Pressuremeter in Geotechnical
st
Design. 1 ed., Chapman & Hall, Glasgow.
Eglinton Cross – Town (LRT), Geo-Engineering
Factual data report.
Karrow, P.F. 1967. Pleistocene Geology of the
Scarborough area. Ontario Department of Mines,
Geological Reports 46.
Karrow, P.F. and White, O.L. 1998. Urban geology of
 Canadian cities, Geological Association of Thorburn, S. 1986. Field testing: Standard Penetration
Canada, GAC Special Paper 42. Test, Engineering Geology Special Publication,
Kovacs, W.D. and Salomone, L.A. 1982. SPT No: 2, Geological Society.
hammer energy measurements. American Society Toronto Transit Commission Geo Technical Standards
of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of the 2014 Version 8.
Geotechnical Engineering Division, vol.108, GT4,
pp.599-620
Kovacs, W.D., Yokel, F.Y., Salomone, L.A and Holtz,
R.D. 1984. Liquefaction potential and the
international SPT; Proceeding of the 8th world
conference on earthquake engineering, San
Francisco, CA.
Manzari, M., Drevininkas, A., Olshansky, D. and
Galaa, A. 2014. Behavioral modelling of Toronto
Glacial Soils and implementation in numerical
modeling, Geo Regina
NAVFAC, 1986, “Soil Mechanics Design Manual
7.01”, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Alexandria.
Phoon, K.K. and Kulhawy, F.H. 1999. Evaluation of
geotechnical variability. Canadian Geo- tech J
36:625-639.
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. C. and Wightman,
A. 1983. SPT-CPT correlations, American society
of civil engineers, ASCE, Journal of the
geotechnical engineering division, vol.109, GT11,
pp. 1449-1459.
.Schmertmann, J.H. and Palacios, A. 1979, Energy
dynamics of SPT, American society of civil
engineers, ASCE, Journal of the geotechnical
engineering division, vol. 105, GT8, pp. 909-926.
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. and Chung,
R.M. 1984. Influence of SPT procedures in soil
liquefaction resistance evaluations. Report no:
UCB/EERC-84/15, Berkeley. Reprinted in journal
of geotechnical engineering, ASCE, vol. 111,
no.12, pp 1425-1445.
Sharp, D.R. 1980. Quaternary geology of Toronto and
surrounding area. Ontario geological survey,
Geological series preliminary map, p 2204.
Sharpe, D.R., Barnett, P.J., et al.1999. Regional
geological mapping of Oak Ridges Moraine –
Greater Toronto Area – Sourthern Ontario, In
current research 1999 – E, Geological Survey of
Canada, 123-136.
Sivrikaya, O., Toğrol, E., 2007, “Türkiye’de SPT N
Değeri ile Đnce Daneli Zeminlerin Drenajsız
Kayma Mukavemeti Arasındaki Đliskiler”,
Technical Magazine of Chamber of Civil
Engineers, Issue 4229 – 4246, Paper No: 279.
Stroud, M. A. 1974. “The Standard Penetration Test in
Insensitive Clays and Soft Rocks”, 1st European
Conference on Penetration Testing, Vol.1, pp. 372
– 373.
Stroud, M. A. .and Butler, F.G. 1975. “The standard
penetration test and the engineering properties of
glacial materials’’ Proceedings of the symposium
on Engineering Properties of glacial materials,
Midlands, U.K.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R., B., 1948 / 1967, “Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, John Wiley &
Sons, USA.

View publication stats