This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Figure 1
Tested samples of Eemian gyttja according to the classification of Długaszek [7]: Iom = 0%–2% mineral soils.Note: 1, low organic lacustrine marl; 2, high calcareous mineral gyttja; 3, low calcareous mineral gyttja; 4, high organic lacustrine marl; 5, high calcareous mineral-organic gyttja; 6, low calcareous mineral-organic gyttja; 7, high calcareous organic gyttja; 8, low calcareous organic gyttja; 1–16, test number
Figure 2
Tested samples shown on Casagrande’s plasticity chart.Note: 1–16, test number.
Figure 3
Average values of the liquid limit wL depending on the test method.
Figure 4
Regression models of relationships between the liquid limits: a) wL60 = f(wLC), b) wL30 = f(wLC).Note: RE, relative error.
Figure 5
Comparison of relationships obtained by the authors for Eemian gyttja with relationships for cohesive soils taken from the literature: a) wL60 = f(wLC), b) wL30 = f(wLC).
Figure 6
Comparison between the measured and calculated values: a) wP and wP from Equation (30) in Table 5, b) wLC and wLC from Equation (33) in Table 5 of Eemian gyttja, with zones of maximum RE for regression models.Note: RE, relative error.
Figure 7
Comparison of relationships obtained by the authors for Eemian gyttja with the relationships for Holocene gyttja obtained by Długaszek: a) wP = f(Iom), b) wLC = f(Iom).
Relationships between the Atterberg limits and the clay and organic matter contents in the literature.
Single- and two-factor linear regression models of the plastic limit (wP) and liquid limit (wLC) relationship versus the organic matter content (Iom) and/or calcium carbonate content (CaCO3) relationship for Eemian gyttja.
Laboratory test results of the index properties of Eemian gyttja.
Test no.
Soil type
Water content wn (%)
Plastic Limit wp (%)
Liquid limit wL(%)
Calcium carbonate content CaCO3 (%)
Organic matter content Iom (%)
Casagrande wLC
Cone 60° wL60
Cone 30° wL30
1
Gyttja (3)
62.3
50.9
81.0
76.7
81.5
29.6
7.44
2
67.8
62.4
88.0
86.4
87.2
31.7
9.41
3
61.3
60.7
80.9
75.1
78.1
34.9
7.69
4
58.5
56.6
82.3
81.5
85.5
37.9
7.92
5
Gyttja (6)
74.4
68.0
104.5
101.5
105.5
31.1
12.0
6
Gyttja (5)
102.1
119.2
150.4
148.5
163.6
54.7
17.8
7
98.7
122.2
136.1
135.5
137.5
60.9
18.6
8
98.9
100.8
140.0
137.1
143.6
63.8
18.1
9
110.1
116.8
156.2
156.8
159.0
66.7
18.4
10
115.6
130.7
152.5
154.8
160.1
70.4
23.3
11
87.1
130.9
159.2
166.1
171.0
77.7
20.6
12
100.3
125.9
155.2
159.5
162.0
74.0
20.2
13
97.7
97.7
121.3
125.4
130.6
65.4
20.7
14
118.5
110.5
164.5
171.6
173.8
73.6
23.8
15
Marl (4)
90.6
114.3
139.1
131.6
140.1
81.0
18.1
16
79.9
110.1
131.0
130.8
133.4
82.1
16.2
Linear and power regression models of relationships between the liquid limit wL determined by Casagrande method and fall cone methods for Eemian gyttja.
Equations (no.)
R2 (−)
n (−)
SEE
Max. RE (%)
W_{L60} = - 10.39 + 1.08\,W_{LC}
0.989
16
3.62
±5
{\rm{or}}\,W_{L60} = 3.07\,W_{LC}^{1.08}
W_{L30} = - 8.93 + 1.10\,W_{LC}
0.990
16
3.58
±7
{\rm{or}}\,W_{L30} = 1.32\,W_{LC}^{1.10}
W_{L_{60} } = 1.07 + 0.97\,W_{L30}
0.990
16
3.41
±5
Relationships between the fall cone liquid limit and the Casagrande liquid limit for cohesive soils in the literature.