Determination of relationship between standard penetration test and geotechnical parameters in Ahwaz soil

Prévia do material em texto

<p>Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgeo20</p><p>Geomechanics and Geoengineering</p><p>An International Journal</p><p>ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tgeo20</p><p>Determination of relationship between standard</p><p>penetration test and geotechnical parameters in</p><p>Ahwaz soil</p><p>Mohsen Farzi & Ali Saligheh Zadeh</p><p>To cite this article: Mohsen Farzi & Ali Saligheh Zadeh (2021) Determination of relationship</p><p>between standard penetration test and geotechnical parameters in Ahwaz soil, Geomechanics</p><p>and Geoengineering, 16:6, 421-433, DOI: 10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877</p><p>To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877</p><p>Published online: 31 Oct 2019.</p><p>Submit your article to this journal</p><p>Article views: 219</p><p>View related articles</p><p>View Crossmark data</p><p>Citing articles: 1 View citing articles</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgeo20</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/tgeo20?src=pdf</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tgeo20&show=instructions&src=pdf</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tgeo20&show=instructions&src=pdf</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877?src=pdf</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877?src=pdf</p><p>http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877&domain=pdf&date_stamp=31 Oct 2019</p><p>http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877&domain=pdf&date_stamp=31 Oct 2019</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877?src=pdf</p><p>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877?src=pdf</p><p>Determination of relationship between standard penetration test and</p><p>geotechnical parameters in Ahwaz soil</p><p>Mohsen Farzi a and Ali Saligheh Zadeh b</p><p>aMember of Construction Engineering Organization, Khuzestan Province, Iran; bDepartment of civil engineering, Islamic Azad University</p><p>shoushtar branch, shoushtar, Iran</p><p>ABSTRACT</p><p>The present study is the result of more than 150 geotechnical investigations that were conducted over</p><p>2 years (from 2015 to 2016) on the Ahwaz soil (which is mainly composed of clay with low plasticity in</p><p>different regions). The standard penetration test was performed at all the boring locations, and after</p><p>preparing the undisturbed Shelby tube samples from different depths, the unconsolidated undrained</p><p>triaxial (UU), Atterberg limits, in situmoisture content and grading tests were performed on all samples.</p><p>All of the abovementioned parameters are presented for the Ahvaz soil, and the range of values of each</p><p>of the parameters were investigated, and finally, the relationship between themodulus of elasticity and</p><p>the standard penetration test was studied. The effect of different soil parameters and their contribution</p><p>to the determination of soil elasticity modulus is another important result of this study. The most</p><p>important result of this study could be the different classifications of soil elasticity moduli by using the</p><p>sample Nspt values to estimate the elasticity moduli because the standard penetration test value has</p><p>the highest correlation and the most significant relationship with elasticity moduli.</p><p>ARTICLE HISTORY</p><p>Received 26 August 2018</p><p>Accepted 11 October 2019</p><p>KEYWORDS</p><p>Modulus of elasticity; soils of</p><p>Ahwaz; unconsolidated</p><p>triaxial test (UU); standard</p><p>penetration test</p><p>1. Introduction and engineering geology of the</p><p>area</p><p>The construction site where this study was carried out is</p><p>Ahvaz city, the capital of Khuzestan Province, which is</p><p>located in southwestern Iran. Ahwaz is located at 31° 20ʹ</p><p>north latitude and 48° 40ʹ east longitude, in the plain of</p><p>Khuzestan at an altitude of 188 metres above sea level.</p><p>Ahvaz soil has different stratifications in terms ofmaterial</p><p>(Pakbaz et al. 2009), sieve and generally in terms of the</p><p>soil classification in such a way that the substrate layer lies</p><p>at different depths in the city. The first soil profile from</p><p>the Northeast section of the city mainly consists of fine</p><p>grain clay and silty layers over a bedrock formation con-</p><p>sisting of red marl, siltstone and sandstone at a shallow</p><p>depth. The second soil profile is from the southwest</p><p>section of the city in which the bedrock formation is</p><p>40 m below a young alluvial deposit due to the presence</p><p>of the ahvaz fault (Pakbaz et al. 2009). The young alluvial</p><p>deposit consists of layers of fine to medium sand, and clay</p><p>and silt with low tomedium density, and thus, we observe</p><p>different resistance and settleability values in different</p><p>parts of city (Pakbaz et al. 2009).</p><p>In Figure 1, the geological map of Ahwaz is presented</p><p>along with its constituent formations. This study was</p><p>conducted on the surface layer of the Ahwaz soil, which</p><p>has different depths.</p><p>The Aghajari formation, indicated by the light brown</p><p>colour, strikes NE to SW in the central part of the city</p><p>and is mainly composed of brown-grey calcareous sand-</p><p>stone, veins of gypsum, red marl and siltstone</p><p>(Sahraeyan et al. 2013). As mentioned before, geotech-</p><p>nical studies require a great deal of time and expense;</p><p>thus, an estimation of the Modulus of Elasticity can</p><p>greatly help projects’ initial calculations.</p><p>1.1. Soil modulus of elasticity and its determination</p><p>methods</p><p>The modulus of elasticity is the slope of the stress-strain</p><p>line in the elastic part of the behaviour curve of a material</p><p>and is generally identified as E. If the slope is calculated at</p><p>the beginning of the curve, it is called the initial modulus of</p><p>elasticity (E0). As the stress-strain curves of materials are</p><p>not constantly linear, the tangent modulus, Et, and secant</p><p>modulus, ES, are defined for the nonlinear behaviour of</p><p>a material in accordance with the method shown in Figure</p><p>2 and can be determined from the stress-strain curve.</p><p>The modulus of elasticity tangent is the slope of the</p><p>line tangent to the stress-strain curve at the point</p><p>according to the considerations. The modulus of elasti-</p><p>city secant is the slope of the line that starts at the point</p><p>of origin and intersects the curve at the optimum point.</p><p>The tangent and secant elasticity modulus values are not</p><p>CONTACT Mohsen Farzi mohsen.farzi@gmail.com</p><p>GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING</p><p>2021, VOL. 16, NO. 6, 421–433</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877</p><p>© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group</p><p>http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2673-1296</p><p>http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-7400</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com</p><p>https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17486025.2019.1680877&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-11-08</p><p>constant and decrease with increasing shear strain. In</p><p>some cases, it is common for elastoplastic materials that</p><p>are subjected to unloading that the slope of the unload-</p><p>ing line (ER) is considered to be the initial tangent</p><p>modulus of elasticity. This slope is usually identical to</p><p>the elastic slope of the stress – strain curve.</p><p>The soil modulus of elasticity is established in three</p><p>ways: (1) the laboratory approach, which is time-</p><p>consuming and costly; (2) the field approach, which is</p><p>relatively less costly and is achieved in less time; and (3)</p><p>the empirical approach, which is based on previous labora-</p><p>tory studies and observations. In the laboratory approach,</p><p>Figure 1. Geological Compilation Map of Ahwaz (Iranian Oil Operating Companies, June 1969)</p><p>Figure 2. Relationship Between Stress and Strain in Elasto-Plastic and Elastic Materials</p><p>422 M. FARZI AND A. SALIGHEH ZADEH</p><p>the results of each of the triaxial, uniaxial, direct shear and</p><p>consolidation tests can be used to directly and indirectly</p><p>calculate the modulus of elasticity. According to research,</p><p>one of the bestmethods that has the closest values to reality</p><p>is the triaxial test,where the results offield tests are approxi-</p><p>mately 1 to 1.5 times the results of triaxial tests. The</p><p>calculation of</p><p>the elasticity modulus using the unconfined</p><p>uniaxial test is highly conservative, such that the result of</p><p>afield experimentmay be approximately 13 times the result</p><p>of this test (Crawford and Burn 1962). It should also be</p><p>noted here that in the pre-consolidated soils, the modulus</p><p>of elasticity varies in both the horizontal and vertical direc-</p><p>tions and that a number of researchers have suggested</p><p>a method to calculate and connect them (Briaud 1992).</p><p>Moreover, the results of field tests, such as plant loading,</p><p>pressuremeter and flat dilatometer, are useful to calculate</p><p>the modulus of elasticity, where the pressuremeter test</p><p>results are closer to those of the modulus of elasticity</p><p>(Phoon and Kulhawy 1999). However, the pressuremeter</p><p>test has relatively high costs and requires high expertise</p><p>during the test (Mayne et al. 2001). Because the results of</p><p>triaxial and standard penetration test (SPT) field tests were</p><p>used in this study, we outline how to calculate the elastic</p><p>modulus from triaxial tests and the relationships between</p><p>soil parameters and the standard penetration test as</p><p>follows.</p><p>The triaxial testing is one of the most accurate</p><p>laboratory methods to determine the elastic modulus</p><p>of the soil. In this experiment, the strain, Δє1, corre-</p><p>sponding to the increased axial stress, Δ(σ1-σ3), is</p><p>obtained and the modulus of elasticity is calculated</p><p>from Equation (1).</p><p>E ¼ Δðσ1�σ3Þ</p><p>Δε1</p><p>(1)</p><p>Due to the significant advances in soil mechanics engi-</p><p>neering, the researchers have come to believe that the</p><p>stress-strain behaviour of all soils is nonlinear even for</p><p>harder soils in the elastic zone. For this reason, one of</p><p>the biggest questions facing researchers in this field is</p><p>how to find a relationship to estimate such behaviour</p><p>(Fahy 1999).</p><p>In most research conducted on granular and fine-</p><p>grained cohesive soils pertaining to the stress-strain beha-</p><p>viour of soil, the results show that if the strain on the clay</p><p>soil is less than 0.01%, the soil behaviour is in the elastic</p><p>range (Jardine et al. 1984, Seed et al. 1986, Burland 1989,</p><p>Jamiolkowski et al. 1991, Tatsuoka and Shibuya 1991,</p><p>Atkinson and Sallfors 1991, Burghignoli et al. 1991),</p><p>which is a very small range; however, as the strain exceeds</p><p>this range, the modulus of elasticity declines (Kuwano and</p><p>Jardine 2002, Hoque and Tatsuoka 2004). The elastic</p><p>behaviour of soil depends on such factors as the void</p><p>ratio, the stress state and the stress history (Gajo and</p><p>Bigoni 2008).</p><p>1.2. Estimation of the elasticity modulus through</p><p>an empirical formula</p><p>The modulus of elasticity in this method is obtained</p><p>from existing correlations and the empirical relation-</p><p>ships mentioned in the technical references. Today,</p><p>the standard penetration test is used to estimate the</p><p>initial soil hardness and stiffness. In this regard, many</p><p>studies have been conducted to find a relationship</p><p>between the standard penetration test and other soil</p><p>parameters (Kayabaşı 2015). Therefore, there is</p><p>a meaningful relationship between CPT and SPT</p><p>using an artificial neural network in which an accep-</p><p>table ability to estimate SPT values were obtained</p><p>using CPT data (Tarawneh 2017). A number of</p><p>researchers have also conducted research to find</p><p>a relationship between Nspt and Vs (Esfehanizadeh</p><p>et al. 2015). Research has also been conducted to</p><p>investigate the probability of the occurrence of lique-</p><p>faction through the standard penetration test, which</p><p>has also yielded tangible results in this study (Duman</p><p>et al. 2015). The relationship between the modulus of</p><p>elasticity and the standard penetration test has been</p><p>investigated by a number of researchers. In another</p><p>study on clay soils, an indirect relationship with the</p><p>standard penetration test was proposed to calculate</p><p>the elastic modulus of clay soils including non-</p><p>drained adhesion, which provided a relatively good</p><p>estimate to calculate the elastic modulus for the con-</p><p>solidated and over consolidated clays (E = 150 CU</p><p>for consolidated clays, E = 300 Cu for over consoli-</p><p>dated clays, Cu (Kp/cm2)) (Das 1983) .In another</p><p>reference, a relationship between the non-drained</p><p>adhesion and the standard penetration test was pro-</p><p>posed to establish the relationship between the elastic</p><p>modulus of clay soils and the standard penetration</p><p>test, which can provide a relatively good estimate of</p><p>the modulus of elasticity with the standard penetra-</p><p>tion test (Cu = 0.06 * N30 (SPT))(Bowles 1996).</p><p>However, most relationships are associated with gran-</p><p>ular soils (Das 1983, Bowles 1996) In cohesive soils,</p><p>the relationship is mainly expressed in terms of the</p><p>strength from the cone penetration test. The few</p><p>studies that have been done on the relationship</p><p>between the standard penetration test and the mod-</p><p>ulus of elasticity in cohesive soils (Webb 1969,</p><p>Behpoor and Gharamani 1989, Ghanbari 2009) have</p><p>shown a significant relationship between these two</p><p>GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 423</p><p>parameters in cohesive soils. In one study (Behpoor</p><p>and Gharamani 1989), the results of 60 geotechnical</p><p>studies of fine-grained soils in Iran were collected,</p><p>and the relationship between the standard penetration</p><p>test and modulus of elasticity were studied. Based on</p><p>these results for cohesive soils with standard penetra-</p><p>tion values below 25, there was a good agreement</p><p>between the two parameters of standard penetration</p><p>and the modulus of elasticity obtained from the</p><p>unconfined compressive strength of soil. Researchers</p><p>have described this relationship as E = 1.7</p><p>N (Behpoor and Gharamani 1989), where N is the</p><p>standard penetration test value, and E is the modulus</p><p>of elasticity in kg/cm2. In another study (Ghanbari</p><p>2009) on the fine-grained and coarse-grained soils of</p><p>the plain of Tehran, a linear relationship was pro-</p><p>vided between the modulus of elasticity and the soil</p><p>particle size and the standard penetration, and</p><p>Table 1 shows the empirical studies that estimated</p><p>the value of the elasticity modulus and its relation-</p><p>ship to the standard penetration test. It should be</p><p>noted that a number of researchers believe that the</p><p>main reason for the lack of coordinated and effective</p><p>formulas in the past could be the lack of a direct</p><p>relationship between parameters used in the equa-</p><p>tions (Kulhawy 2013). In another study, the differ-</p><p>ence between the results obtained from the modulus</p><p>of elasticity in sandy soils with silicate and calcium</p><p>carbonate were examined, and the different impacts</p><p>caused by cementation and the impacts of tests such</p><p>as the SPT were evaluated, which clearly demon-</p><p>strated the effect of fine-grained material on the</p><p>modulus of elasticity (Charif and ShadiNajjar 2012).</p><p>In another study, the relationship between the mod-</p><p>ulus of elasticity obtained using the SPT and pres-</p><p>suremeter tests were examined, the result of which</p><p>can be the reduced accuracy of the estimate of the</p><p>modulus of elasticity with respect to changes in soil</p><p>sieve (Anwar 2016).</p><p>2. Materials and methods</p><p>Many empirical relationships have been provided for</p><p>the modulus of elasticity in coarse-grained soils, and</p><p>few relationships were suggested for the modulus of</p><p>elasticity using the standard penetration test, but these</p><p>relationships cannot be used for all sites. Therefore, this</p><p>research was conducted on more than 150 undisturbed</p><p>and disturbed samples from different depths resulting</p><p>from geotechnical studies across 2 years. The distribu-</p><p>tion of boring locations according to the geological</p><p>conditions in Ahwaz mentioned earlier is given in</p><p>Figure 3. Standard penetration tests and sample pre-</p><p>paration were done in the field for more than 100</p><p>samples that were used in all standard tests of in situ</p><p>moisture, Atterberg limits, dry density, gradation and</p><p>triaxial tests.</p><p>After completion of the drilling and the standard</p><p>penetration test (ASTM D3441 – ASTM D1586-08a)</p><p>and preparation of the undisturbed samples from dif-</p><p>ferent depths, the Shelby tube sample was completely</p><p>covered in thick plastic and transported to a laboratory</p><p>for testing. After transferring the Shelby tube sample to</p><p>the laboratory and removing the samples, an</p><p>amount of</p><p>soil was taken to determine the moisture, and then</p><p>another part was prepared for the undrained unconso-</p><p>lidated triaxial test (ASTM D2850 – 15).</p><p>3. Results and discussion</p><p>After preparation of the samples and transferring them</p><p>to the lab, all triaxial, grading, hydrometer and</p><p>Atterberg limits tests including determining the moist-</p><p>ure content of the plastic and liquid limits on all samples</p><p>were carried out for the detailed examination of all</p><p>parameters, where all the analysed results are presented.</p><p>According to samples taken from various depths, the</p><p>distribution of samples in terms of their depth is given</p><p>in Figure 4.</p><p>Given the various depths of the samples, shown in</p><p>Figure 4, more than 90% of the samples were taken from</p><p>a depth of less than 5 m, which enhances the accuracy of</p><p>finding the modulus of elasticity used for designing</p><p>Table 1. Equations proposed by various researchers to estimate</p><p>the modulus of elasticity using the standard penetration test.</p><p>Equations Type of soil Researcher</p><p>E = 1.7N Cohesive soils Behpoor and</p><p>Ghahramani(1989)</p><p>E = 3.2N+48 Sand with clay Bowels(1996)</p><p>E = 3N+18 Silt,Silty sand,Silty Clay</p><p>E = 3.6N+18 Sand with clay Webb(1969)</p><p>E = 6(N + 2D)+100</p><p>E = 7(N + 2D)+25</p><p>E = 3.5(N + 2D)+32</p><p>D = Maximum Diameter</p><p>particle(cm)</p><p>All soils in Tehran Ghanbari(2009)</p><p>ES=500(N + 15) Sand Webb(1969)</p><p>ES=18000 + 750N Sand D Appolonia(1970)</p><p>ES=41600 + 1090N Sand D Appolonia(1970)</p><p>ES=1200(N + 6) Sand Boweles(1982)</p><p>ES=1350N Sand Boweles(1982)</p><p>ES=(15200 ~ 22000)N Sand Trofimenkof(1974)</p><p>ES=12 (N + 6) N < 15 Gravel with sand Begemann(1974)</p><p>ES=40 + 12 (N-6) N > 15 Gravel with sand Begemann(1974)</p><p>ES=300(N + 6) Silty Sand Boweles(1982)</p><p>ES=23(N + 6) N < 15 Silty Sand Begemann(1974)</p><p>ES=40 + 3(N-6) N > 15 Silty Sand Begemann(1974)</p><p>ES=300(N + 15) Sand with clay Boweles(1982)</p><p>ES=3.33(N + 5) Sand with clay Webb(1969)</p><p>E = 150 CU Consolidated clays Braja M. Das</p><p>E = 300 Cu Overconsolidated clays Braja M. Das</p><p>Cu = 0.06 * N30 (SPT) Cohesive soils Boweles(1982)</p><p>424 M. FARZI AND A. SALIGHEH ZADEH</p><p>shallow foundations and construction of retaining</p><p>structures at shallow depths.</p><p>After transferring the samples to the laboratory, first the</p><p>natural soil moisture test was done according to ASTM</p><p>D2216-10 and then, to further examine the samples, the</p><p>Atterberg limits tests were done according to ASTM</p><p>D4318-10e1 to determine the moisture content of liquid</p><p>and plastic limits, and the results are given in Figure 5.</p><p>According to Figure 5, where the distributions of the</p><p>in situ moisture and Atterberg limits levels for all samples</p><p>Figure 3. Distribution of taken samples</p><p>Figure 4. Distribution of samples in terms of depth</p><p>GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 425</p><p>are given, the moisture contents ranged between 10% and</p><p>27% and more than 90% of the samples had the moisture</p><p>contents between 16% and 24%. Also, according to the</p><p>results of Atterberg limits testing, the moisture levels of</p><p>the plastic limit ranged from 13% to 27%, which is almost</p><p>the same as the range of the natural moisture contents of</p><p>the soil, and in more than 90% of the samples, the plastic</p><p>limits were approximately 16% to 23%. The liquid limits</p><p>ranged between 22% and 57% and in more than 70% of</p><p>samples, they were approximately 30% to 40%, which,</p><p>according to test results, the plastic limits ranged from 5%</p><p>to 26%. Due to the in situmoisture obtained in the tests, it</p><p>can be stated that the levels of the water table in different</p><p>areas of Ahwaz are at different depths, which is due to the</p><p>distance of the sample location to the Karoon River. The</p><p>depth of the water table varies, but in most of the locations</p><p>on the western side of the river, which is composed of fine-</p><p>grained soil with clay and silt placed over the bedrock</p><p>(formed from mudstone and sandstone), the distance to</p><p>the water table is approximately 2m from the ground. Due</p><p>to the obtained moisture, the water table represents the</p><p>saturation of the samples taken in most places, and it has</p><p>a great impact on preparing, testing and analysing the</p><p>samples. In this study, samples were accurately taken by</p><p>a trained, experienced person, and using the most recent</p><p>devices, the samples were tested by professionals.</p><p>Eventually, the samples were analysed using the Nova</p><p>Studio software (one of the most recent software tools to</p><p>describe and prepare soil mechanics reports).</p><p>After doing the mentioned tests, all samples were</p><p>classified according to the unified classification, the</p><p>results of which are given in Figure 6.</p><p>According to the results obtained from the soil classi-</p><p>fication of samples given in Figure 6, it can be stated that</p><p>almost all samples are grouped as clays with low plasticity</p><p>(CL) according to the depth and layering in the unified</p><p>classification. It should be noted here that the soil layering</p><p>in Ahwaz is not limited to low plasticity clay, and the</p><p>obtained results represent only part of the city.</p><p>As the Atterberg limits test results are further explored,</p><p>a linear relationship was established between the plastic</p><p>index (PI) and the liquid limit (LL) of the obtained sam-</p><p>ples, the result of which is represented by Equation (2).</p><p>PI ¼ 0:7LL� 8:11 (2)</p><p>Regarding Equation (2), by calculating the values of the</p><p>plastic and liquid tests, a highly accurate initial estimate</p><p>of the other Atterberg limits, including the plastic or</p><p>liquid limits, can be achieved, which contributes to the</p><p>initial estimation of the Atterberg limits, and thereby</p><p>increases the accuracy of the conclusions about the</p><p>consistency and stiffness of the soil.</p><p>Figure 5. Distribution of in situ moisture content and Atterberg limits</p><p>426 M. FARZI AND A. SALIGHEH ZADEH</p><p>After finding the parameters of the Atterberg limits,</p><p>these limits can be widely used in geotechnical engineer-</p><p>ing. For example, the plasticity index was used to classify</p><p>soils (Casagrande 1947) or to estimate the undrained</p><p>shear strength (Skempton 1954). Another important</p><p>parameter for evaluating the consolidated and pre-</p><p>consolidated soils is the liquid index, which can be</p><p>used to express and calculate the relative stiffness and</p><p>is determined by Equation (3).</p><p>LI ¼ ðWn� PLÞ</p><p>ðLL� PLÞ (3)</p><p>The in situ moisture content of an unconsolidated soil</p><p>deposit can be larger than the liquid limit. In this case,</p><p>a liquid index greater than 1 is obtained, and in the case of</p><p>a disturbance, such soils can flow as a concentrated liquid.</p><p>On the other hand, in pre-consolidated deposits, the</p><p>moisture can be less than the plastic limit, which in this</p><p>case, the liquid index is less than 1, and in such soils, it can</p><p>be close to zero or negative (Das 1983). Due to the above-</p><p>mentioned issues, if the value of the liquid index tends to</p><p>the negative numbers, the soil has relative consistency and</p><p>stiffness.</p><p>The undrained shear strength of a soil is widely related</p><p>to its liquid index (LI), and a lot of research has been done</p><p>to find such relationship such that different ranges and</p><p>relations for calculation have been suggested, and an</p><p>important result has been that the undrained shear</p><p>strength increased at lower values of the LI (Wroth and</p><p>Wood 1978, Leroueil et al. 1983, Locat and Demers 1988,</p><p>Koumoto and Houlsby 2001, Yang et al. 2006, O’Kelly</p><p>2013, Vardanega and Haigh 2014).</p><p>Another test, which is currently widely used world-</p><p>wide in various projects to determine and estimate the</p><p>geotechnical properties of the soil, is a standard pene-</p><p>tration test (SPT) that it can de done by ASTM D3441-</p><p>ASTMD1586-08a. As a result of researches on soil types</p><p>in order to estimate the strength of fine-grained soils,</p><p>some relationships have been proposed by many</p><p>researchers, as shown in Table 2 (Karol 1960).</p><p>Given that on all the sampled sites, the standard</p><p>penetration test was done, and the distribution of the</p><p>results at all sites is given in Figure 7.</p><p>According to the results of the standard penetration test</p><p>given in Figure 7, and compared with the obtained values</p><p>and the ranges expressed in Table 2, it can be stated that</p><p>the majority of the samples are classified as very stiff fine-</p><p>grained soils, which</p><p>was confirmed by the visual inspection</p><p>of the soils at the project site and in the laboratory.</p><p>Therefore, in order to assess this parameter (LI) of</p><p>the soil of Ahwaz, the changes in the parameter along</p><p>with the standard penetration test results obtained in</p><p>the sampling area and in the depth after sampling were</p><p>examined, and the results are shown in Figure 8.</p><p>According to the results of exploring the changes of</p><p>the liquid index and the values of the standard penetra-</p><p>tion test given in Figure 9, the plasticity index ranged</p><p>between 0.56 and −0.5 showing the pre-consolidation</p><p>state of all samples. According to the trend of changes</p><p>in the liquid index, it can be noted that as the standard</p><p>penetration test value increased, the liquid index tended</p><p>towards the negative numbers, representing the consis-</p><p>tency and stiffness of the soil having high standard pene-</p><p>tration values and in negative LI values. It should also be</p><p>Table 2. Relationship between standard penetration and stiff-</p><p>ness of clay soils.</p><p>N(spt) Uncorrected Consistency</p><p>0-2 Very soft</p><p>2-4 Soft</p><p>4-8 Firm</p><p>8-15 Stiff</p><p>15-30 Very stiff</p><p>> 30 Hard</p><p>Figure 6. Classification of samples by unified methods</p><p>GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 427</p><p>noted that as the samples have different depths and</p><p>percentages of fine grain like silt and clay with different</p><p>in situmoisture contents, it would not be surprising to see</p><p>some samples not following the general trend.</p><p>Another effective parameter related to the standard</p><p>penetration test is the particle size distribution. To ver-</p><p>ify this, the changes in the standard penetration values</p><p>were considered with respect to the clay and silt levels,</p><p>and the results are shown in Figure 9.</p><p>According to Figure 9, which depicts the changes of</p><p>the standard penetration with respect to the levels of silt</p><p>and clay available for all the samples, it can be stated that</p><p>as the level of clay-sized particles increased, the value of</p><p>the standard penetration test increased. For the silt-sized</p><p>particles, this behaviour can be reversed; by reducing this</p><p>level, the standard penetration test value increased.</p><p>After doing the initial tests mentioned before, the</p><p>undrained unconsolidated triaxial test (UU) was done on</p><p>all samples, and using Equation (1), the modulus of elas-</p><p>ticity in the case of the 50% strain was calculated. The</p><p>amount of axial strain calculated for all samples ranged</p><p>from 0.02% to 0.06%. To investigate the relationship</p><p>between all parameters such as Atterberg limits, clay and</p><p>slit content, the soil’s natural moisture (Wn) and the</p><p>number of standard penetration test (Nspt) with soil elas-</p><p>ticity modulus, the parameters’ correlations (study of the</p><p>existence of the relationships between the parameters)</p><p>were investigated using SPSSV16. The number of standard</p><p>penetration test was the parameter showing the most sig-</p><p>nificant relationship with the elasticity modulus. For</p><p>a closer investigation of these relationships, the variation</p><p>of elasticity modulus by Nspt is plotted in Figure 10.</p><p>Figure 7. Distribution of results obtained in the standard penetration test</p><p>Figure 8. Standard penetration test vs. liquid index</p><p>428 M. FARZI AND A. SALIGHEH ZADEH</p><p>According to Figure 10, it can be observed that the</p><p>elasticity modulus ranged from 0.75 Nspt to 2 Nspt indi-</p><p>cating a high variation between these results. For a closer</p><p>investigation of this issue, the variation of elasticity mod-</p><p>ulus versus the number of standard penetration test was</p><p>examined in three ranges:</p><p>● First range: samples whose Nspt was less or equal</p><p>to 20.</p><p>● Second range: samples whose elasticity moduli ran-</p><p>ged between 0.75 Nspt and 1.15 Nspt and their</p><p>Nspt was more than 20</p><p>● Third range: samples whose elasticity moduli ran-</p><p>ged between 1.15 Nspt and 1.55 Nspt and their</p><p>Nspt was more than 20</p><p>For this purpose, all the parameters including Atterberg</p><p>limits, clay and slit content, soil’s natural moisture and</p><p>number of standard penetration test were investigated</p><p>using SPSS V16 software. The results are presented</p><p>below.</p><p>First range: Nspt≤20</p><p>Regarding the high distribution of elasticity modulus of</p><p>the samples with Nspt � 20, they were investigated first.</p><p>Studies showed no significant relationship between clay</p><p>and slit content and natural moisture with the other para-</p><p>meters, while a significant association was observed</p><p>between liquid limit and plasticity limit, as shown in</p><p>Equation (4) and (5).</p><p>LL� ¼ 17:2þ 1:02PI R2 ¼ 0:78 (4)</p><p>PI� ¼ �9:77þ 0:77PL R2 ¼ 0:78 (5)</p><p>The best equation for estimation of elasticity modulus in</p><p>this range was obtained in Equation (6)</p><p>Figure 9. Changes in standard penetration vs. clay and silt levels in soil of Ahwaz</p><p>GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 429</p><p>ES ¼ 7:12þ 2:2Nspt � 1:12LL� 0:22Clayð%Þ R2 ¼ 0:5</p><p>þ 1:62PI þ 0:25Siltð%Þ � 0:64Wnð%Þ</p><p>(6)</p><p>Second range: Nspt>20, 0.75Nspt≤Es≤1.15Nspt</p><p>This range includes samples whose elasticity moduli</p><p>ranged between 0.75 Nspt and 1.15 Nspt and number of</p><p>standard penetration test values were more than 20.</p><p>After analysis using SPSS software, Equations (7) and</p><p>(8) were obtained; there was no significant relationship</p><p>between parameters such as the clay and slit content and</p><p>the natural moisture.</p><p>LL� ¼ 12:9þ 1:06PI þ 0:225Nspt R2 ¼ 0:77 (7)</p><p>PI� ¼ �5:38þ 0:61LL R2 ¼ 0:73 (8)</p><p>According to Equation (7), the liquid limit varied in the</p><p>range of LL*-3< LL<LL*+3. In other words, all the</p><p>samples’ liquid limit values will be in this range. The</p><p>plasticity index (PI) will also be in the range of PI*-3.5≤</p><p>PI≤PI*+3.5.</p><p>A closer investigation of the plasticity index showed</p><p>that in this range, this parameter was always less than in</p><p>Equation (9). Therefore, this equation can be used as</p><p>one of the controlling limits in this range.</p><p>PL� ¼ 0:58LL� 2:42 (9)</p><p>Study of the PI in this range showed no significant</p><p>relationship between this parameter and the rest of the</p><p>parameters. For this parameter, Equation (10) can be</p><p>used, in which the PL values of none of the samples were</p><p>placed in the range of PL*-0.5≤ PL≤PL*+0.5.</p><p>PL� ¼ 0:545Nspt þ 5:545 (10)</p><p>By the application of Equations (7), (9) and (10) on all the</p><p>samples possessing number of standard penetration test</p><p>values over 20, approximately all samples in the second</p><p>range (with elastic moduli of 0.75 Nspt to 1.15 Nspt and</p><p>Nspt>20) were separated from the rest of samples. After</p><p>analysis using SPSS software, Equations (11) and (12)</p><p>were obtained for the relationship between elasticity</p><p>modulus and the other parameters for these values.</p><p>ES ¼ 9:32þ 1:48Nspt þ 1:3PI � 0:98LL</p><p>� 0:19Clayð%Þ R2 ¼ 0:60</p><p>(11)</p><p>Es ¼ 1:42Nspt � 11:37 R2 ¼ 0:55 (12)</p><p>Third range: Nspt>20, 1.15Nspt≤Es≤1.55Nspt</p><p>This range includes samples whose elasticity modu-</p><p>lus varied in the range of 1.15 Nspt to 1.55 Nspt and</p><p>Nspt>20. Equations (13) and (14) were obtained for</p><p>describing the relationship between Atterberg limits</p><p>parameters.</p><p>LL� ¼ 9:63þ 1:31PI þ 0:1Clayð%Þ R2 ¼ 0:88</p><p>(13)</p><p>PI� ¼ 0:667LL� 0:08Sand ð%Þ � 0:09Clayð%Þ</p><p>� 0:146Wnð%Þ R2 ¼ 0:90</p><p>(14)</p><p>All liquid limits of these samples were in the range of</p><p>LL*-3≤ LL≤LL*+3. PI of these samples were also in the</p><p>range of PI*-1.5≤ PI≤PI*+1.5, which indicates the high</p><p>accuracy of the presented equations to describe the</p><p>plasticity index of these samples.</p><p>The majority the samples whose number of standard</p><p>penetration test are over 20 and are not placed in the</p><p>limitations of Equations (7), (9) and (10), are included</p><p>Figure 10. Modulus of elasticity vs. standard penetration test</p><p>430 M. FARZI AND A. SALIGHEH ZADEH</p><p>in the third range (their elasticity moduli were in the</p><p>range of 1.15 Nspt to 1.55 Nspt and Nspt>20).</p><p>Equations (15) and (16) were obtained for estimation</p><p>of the elasticity modulus.</p><p>ES ¼ 4:93þ 1:1Nspt þ 0:34PI</p><p>� 0:69PLþ 0:44Wnð%Þ R2 ¼ 0:75</p><p>(15)</p><p>Es ¼ 4:93þ 1:1Nspt þ 1:03PI</p><p>� 0:9LLþ 0:44Wnð%Þ R2 ¼ 0:75</p><p>(16)</p><p>Among the most important results of such classification</p><p>is that no general equation can be proposed for all the</p><p>samples since various factors are involved in determina-</p><p>tion of elasticity modulus. However, if the different soil</p><p>parameters could be</p><p>determined within a specific range,</p><p>the elasticity modulus can be estimated with suitable</p><p>precision.</p><p>4. Conclusions</p><p>This study aimed to review all the usual tests in soil</p><p>mechanics to better describe the behaviour and change</p><p>in values obtained in the standard penetration test. This</p><p>study aimed to use the triaxial test, based on the recom-</p><p>mendations from previous research, to find the modulus</p><p>of elasticity with high accuracy. Altogether, according to</p><p>the results of a layer of clay with Low plasticity (CL) and</p><p>at various depths, it can be stated that generally, as the</p><p>standard penetration test increases, the modulus of</p><p>elasticity increases; however, this trend has been</p><p>observed by all researchers working on these relations.</p><p>Regarding the conducted analyses, the best method for</p><p>estimating the soil elasticity modulus is to use the clas-</p><p>sification of the obtained results by the application of</p><p>the soil parameters. Although each soil parameter would</p><p>be calculated by a method and defined separately, they</p><p>are related to each other, and the impact of one para-</p><p>meter cannot be determined without regard to the rest</p><p>of the effective parameters. In this study, only linear</p><p>relationships were used; more complicated relation-</p><p>ships, which do not have a clear image of their mutual</p><p>interaction, were avoided. To simplify the presented</p><p>equations to the most applicable one, Figure 11 was</p><p>provided, by which the soil elasticity modulus can be</p><p>estimated.</p><p>The liquid index calculated for all samples obtained</p><p>in this study represents the degree of pre-consolidation</p><p>for all considered soils, and the behaviour of soils by an</p><p>increase in the standard penetration test and the nega-</p><p>tive index indicates the relative stiffness of study soil.</p><p>Another result obtained from the study of Atterberg</p><p>Figure 11. Chart for finding soil elasticity modulus</p><p>GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 431</p><p>limits was the proposed equation PI ¼ 0:7LL� 8:11 to</p><p>calculate the liquid limit through the plastic limit, which</p><p>can be measured with minimal equipment, and the</p><p>natural moisture of the soil, thus examining the relative</p><p>stiffness and consistency of soil. Another result of this</p><p>research is to examine the relationship between the</p><p>standard penetration and the values of soil the compo-</p><p>nents, such as the level of clay, which increased as the</p><p>value of standard penetration increases. This pattern is</p><p>different for the constituent particles of silt type, and by</p><p>increasing the levels of the particles, the standard pene-</p><p>tration is reduced.</p><p>Disclosure statement</p><p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p><p>Funding</p><p>This work was supported by the Construction Engineering</p><p>Organization Khuzestan Province Iran N K/31772.</p><p>ORCID</p><p>Mohsen Farzi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2673-1296</p><p>Ali Saligheh Zadeh http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-7400</p><p>References</p><p>Anwar, M.B., 2016 March 26. Correlation between PMT and</p><p>SPT results for calcareous soil. HBRC Journal, ISSN 1687-</p><p>4048. doi:10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.03.001</p><p>ASTM D2850 – 15, Standard Test Method for</p><p>Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on</p><p>Cohesive Soils.</p><p>ASTM D3441 - ASTM D1586-08a, Standard Test Method for</p><p>Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling</p><p>of Soils.</p><p>Atkinson, J.H. and Sallfors, G., 1991. Experimental determi-</p><p>nation of soil properties (stress-strain-time). General</p><p>Report 10th ECSMFE. Florence: Balkema, 3, 915–958.</p><p>Begemann, H, 1974. General report for central and western</p><p>europe. Proc. of the European Symp. Om Penetration</p><p>Testing(esopt).Stockholm, Sweden, 29–39.</p><p>Behpoor, L. and Gharamani, A., 1989. Correlation of SPT to</p><p>strength and modulus of elasticity of cohesive soils. 12th</p><p>International conference on soil mechanics and foundation</p><p>engineering. Rio do Janeiro, Brazil: ISSMFE.</p><p>Bowles, J.E, 1982. Foundation analysis and design. 3rd ed. Inc.,</p><p>New York: McGraw-Hill.</p><p>Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation analysis and design. 3rd ed.</p><p>New York: McGraw-Hill.</p><p>Briaud, J.L., 1992. The pressuremeter. 1st ed. A.A. Balkema, ed.</p><p>Rotterdam, Netherlands.</p><p>Burghignoli, A., et al., 1991. Modelling stress–strain–time</p><p>behaviour of natural soils. General Report 10th ECSMFE.</p><p>Florence: Balkema, 3, 959–979.</p><p>Burland, J.B., 1989. Ninth Laurits Bjerrum memorial lecture:</p><p>small is beautiful—the stiffness of soils at small strains.</p><p>Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26, 499–516. doi:10.1139/</p><p>t89-064</p><p>Casagrande, A., 1947. Classification and identification of soils.</p><p>Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 73</p><p>(6), 783–810.</p><p>Charif, K.H. and ShadiNajjar, A.M., 2012. Comparative study</p><p>of shear modulus in calcareous sand and sabkha soils.</p><p>GeoCongress, 25–29 March 2012. Oakland, California,</p><p>United States: ASCE.</p><p>Crawford, C.B. and Burn, K.N., 1962. Settlement studies of</p><p>Mt. Siani hospital. Engineering Journal of Canada, 45 (12).</p><p>D'Appolonia, D.J., D'Appolonia, E., and Brissette, R.F., 1970.</p><p>Settlement of Spread Footings on Sand". Journal of the Soil</p><p>Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 96 (SM2),</p><p>754–761.</p><p>Das, B.M., 1983. Advanced soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill Book</p><p>Company.</p><p>Duman, E.S., Ikizler, S.B., and Angin, Z., 2015. Evaluation of</p><p>soil liquefaction potential index based on SPT data in the</p><p>Erzincan, Eastern Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences,</p><p>8, 5269. doi:10.1007/s12517-014-1550-4</p><p>Esfehanizadeh, M., Nabizadeh, F., and Yazarloo, R., 2015.</p><p>Correlation between standard penetration (NSPT) and</p><p>shear wave velocity (VS) for young coastal sands of the</p><p>Caspian Sea. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8, 7333.</p><p>doi:10.1007/s12517-014-1751-x</p><p>Fahy, M., 1999. Determining the parameters of a non-linear</p><p>elastic model for prediction of ground deformation.</p><p>Australian geomechanics-march.</p><p>Gajo, A. and Bigoni, D., 2008. A model for stress and plastic</p><p>strain induced nonlinear, hyperelastic anisotropy in soils.</p><p>International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods</p><p>in Geomechanics, 32, 833–861. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9853</p><p>Ghanbari, A., 2009. - the modulus of elasticity of alluvial soil in</p><p>the south of Tehran. Journal of Earth Sciences, 18 (71), 3–8.</p><p>Hoque, E. and Tatsuoka, F., 2004. Effects of stress ratio on</p><p>small-strain stiffness during triaxial shearing. G´eotechni-</p><p>que, 54, 429–439. doi:10.1680/geot.2004.54.7.429</p><p>Jamiolkowski, M., Leuroeuil, S., and Lo Presti, D.C.F., 1991.</p><p>Design parameters from theory to practice. Geo.coast ’91</p><p>international conference. Yokohama, 2, 877–917.</p><p>Jardine, R.J., Symes, M.J., and Burland, J.B., 1984. The mea-</p><p>surement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus.G´eotech-</p><p>nique, 34, 323–340. doi:10.1680/geot.1984.34.3.323</p><p>Karol, R.H., 1960. Soils and soil engineering. Englewood Cliffs,</p><p>NJ: PrenticeHall, 194.</p><p>Kayabaşı, A., 2015. Some emprical equations for predicting</p><p>standard penetration test blow counts in clayey soils: a case</p><p>study in Mersin, Turkey. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8,</p><p>7643. doi:10.1007/s12517-014-1694-2</p><p>Koumoto, T. and Houlsby, G.T., 2001. Theory and practice of</p><p>the fall cone test. Géotechnique, 51 (8), 701–712.</p><p>doi:10.1680/geot.2001.51.8.701</p><p>Kulhawy, F., 2013. On the evaluation of static soil properties;</p><p>Honoring Fred. In: H. Kulhawy, ed.. Foundation engineer-</p><p>ing in the face of uncertainty. Geotechnical Special</p><p>Publication ASCE, 56–76.</p><p>Kuwano, R. and Jardine, R.J., 2002. On the applicability of</p><p>cross-anisotropic elasticity to granular materials at very</p><p>432 M. FARZI AND A. SALIGHEH ZADEH</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.03.001</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/t89-064</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/t89-064</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1550-4</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1751-x</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9853</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2004.54.7.429</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1984.34.3.323</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1694-2</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2001.51.8.701</p><p>small strains. G´eotechnique, 52, 727–749. doi:10.1680/</p><p>geot.2002.52.10.727</p><p>Leroueil, S., Tavenas, F., and Bihan, J.L., 1983. Proprietes</p><p>caracteristiques des argiles de l’est du Canada. Canadian</p><p>Geotechnical Journal, 20 (4), 681–705. (In French).</p><p>doi:10.1139/t83-076</p><p>Locat, J. and Demers, D., 1988. Viscosity, yield stress,</p><p>remoulded strength, and liquidity index relationships for</p><p>sensitive clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25 (4),</p><p>799–806. doi:10.1139/t88-088</p><p>Mayne, P., Christopher, B.R., and DeJong, J., 2001. Manual of</p><p>subsurface investigations, FHWA NHI-01-031.</p><p>O’Kelly, B.C., 2013. Atterberg limits and remoulded</p><p>shear-strength water content relationship. Geotechnical</p><p>Testing Journal, 36 (6), 1–9.</p><p>Pakbaz, M.S., et al., 2009. Numerical prediction of subway</p><p>induced vibrations: case study in Iran-Ahwaz City. Journal</p><p>of Applied Sciences, 9, 2001–2015. doi:10.3923/</p><p>jas.2009.2001.2015</p><p>Phoon, K. and Kulhawy, F., 1999. Evaluation of geotechnical</p><p>variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36 (4), 625–639.</p><p>doi:10.1139/t99-039</p><p>Sahraeyan, M., Bahrami, M., and Hejazi, S.H., 2013. The</p><p>Aghajari (Upper Fars) formation in the folded Zagros</p><p>zone, Iran: insights to identify facies, architectural ele-</p><p>ments, fluvial systems, petrography and provenance. Acta</p><p>Geologica Sinica - English Edition, 87, 1019–1031.</p><p>doi:10.1111/1755-6724.12107</p><p>Seed, H.B., et al., 1986. Moduli and damping factors for</p><p>dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. Journal of</p><p>Geotechnical Engineering Division (ASCE), 105,</p><p>871–880.</p><p>Skempton, A.W., 1954. Discussion: sensitivity of clays and</p><p>the c/p ratio in normally consolidated clays. Proceedings</p><p>of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Separate, 478,</p><p>19–22.</p><p>Tarawneh, B., 2017. Predicting standard penetration test -</p><p>value from cone penetration test data using artificial neural</p><p>networks. Geoscience Frontiers, 8 (1), 199–204, ISSN 1674-</p><p>9871. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2016.02.003</p><p>Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S., 1991. Deformation characteris-</p><p>tics of soils and rocks from field and laboratory tests.</p><p>Keynote Lecture. Ninth ACSMFE, Bangkok, 2, 101–170.</p><p>Trofimenkof, J.G. 1974. Penetration testing in eastern Europe.</p><p>Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration</p><p>Resistance. Stockolm. Vol. 2.1, 24–28.</p><p>Vardanega, P.J. andHaigh, S.K., 2014. The undrained strength –</p><p>liquidity index relationship. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,</p><p>51 (9), 1073–1086. doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0169</p><p>Webb, D.L., 1969. Settlement of structures on deep alluv-</p><p>rial sandy sediments in Durban,South Africa. Proc. Conf.</p><p>In-Situ Behav. Soil Rock, Inst. Civil Eng. London,</p><p>181–188.</p><p>Wroth, C.P. and Wood, D.M., 1978. The correlation of index</p><p>properties with some basic engineering properties of soils.</p><p>Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15 (2), 137–145. doi:10.1139/</p><p>t78-014</p><p>Yang, S.L., et al., 2006. Parameter study of sediments in the</p><p>Storegga slide region. Geo-Marine Letters, 26 (4), 213–224.</p><p>doi:10.1007/s00367-006-0023-5</p><p>GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 433</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.10.727</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.10.727</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/t83-076</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/t88-088</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2009.2001.2015</p><p>https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2009.2001.2015</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-039</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-6724.12107</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2016.02.003</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0169</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/t78-014</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1139/t78-014</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-006-0023-5</p><p>Abstract</p><p>1. Introduction and engineering geology of the area</p><p>1.1. Soil modulus of elasticity and its determination methods</p><p>1.2. Estimation of the elasticity modulus through an empirical formula</p><p>2. Materials and methods</p><p>3. Results and discussion</p><p>4. Conclusions</p><p>Disclosure statement</p><p>Funding</p><p>ORCID</p><p>References</p>