Explorer les Livres électroniques

Catégories

Explorer les Livres audio

Catégories

Explorer les Magazines

Catégories

Explorer les Documents

Catégories

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

72 vues19 pages© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

72 vues19 pagesAttribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

P.J. Vardanega and M.D. Bolton

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE on 10/05/11 For personal use only.

Abstract: A large database of 115 triaxial, direct simple shear, and cyclic tests on 19 clays and silts is presented and analysed to develop an empirical framework for the prediction of the mobilization of the undrained shear strength, cu, of natural clays tested from an initially isotropic state of stress. The strain at half the peak undrained strength (gM=2) is used to normalize the shear strain data between mobilized strengths of 0.2cu and 0.8cu. A power law with an exponent of 0.6 is found to describe all the normalized data within a strain factor of 1.75 when a representative sample provides a value for gM=2. 0 . Multi-linear regression analysis shows that gM=2 is a function of cu, plasticity index Ip, and initial mean effective stress p0 0 Of the 97 stressstrain curves for which cu, Ip, and p0 were available, the observed values of gM=2 fell within a factor of three of the regression; this additional uncertainty should be acknowledged if a designer wished to limit immediate foundation settlements on the basis of an undrained strength profile and the plasticity index of the clay. The influence of stress history is also discussed. The application of these stressstrain relations to serviceability design calculations is portrayed through a worked example. The implications for geotechnical decision-making and codes of practice are considered. Key words: clays, silts, mobilized strength, correlation and normalization. Rsum : Une base de donnes contenant 115 essais de cisaillement triaxiaux et simples directs, ainsi que des essais cycliques sur 19 argiles et silts, est prsente et analyse dans le but de dvelopper un cadre empirique pour la prdiction de la mobilisation de la rsistance au cisaillement non drain cu dargiles naturelles testes un tat des contraintes initial isotrope. La dformation la demie de la rsistance maximale non draine (gM=2) est utilise pour normaliser les donnes de dformation en cisaillement entre des rsistances mobilises de 0,2 cu et 0,8 cu. Une loi de puissance avec un exposant de 0,6 a t dtermin pour dcrire toutes les donnes normalises lintrieur dun facteur de dformation de 1,75 lorsquun chantillon reprsentatif donne une valeur pour gM=2. Une analyse en rgression multilinaire dmontre que gM=2 est une 0 fonction de cu, de lindice de plasticit Ip et de la contrainte effective moyenne initiale p0 . Parmi les 97 courbes de 0 contraintedformation pour lesquelles cu, Ip et p0 sont disponibles, les valeurs observes de gM=2 sont lintrieur dun facteur de 3 de la rgression; cette incertitude additionnelle devrait tre considre si un concepteur dsire limiter les tassements immdiats de la fondation sur la base dun profil de rsistance non drain et de lindice de plasticit de largile. Linfluence de lhistorique des contraintes est aussi discute. Lapplication de ces relations de contraintedformation pour les calculs de conception de lutilisation est illustre par un exemple. Les implications pour la prise de dcision et les codes de pratique gotechniques sont considres. Motscls : argiles, silts, rsistance mobilise, corrlation et normalisation. [Traduit par la Rdaction]

Introduction

The prediction of strains and displacements is of increasing concern to a geotechnical engineer. The data of nonlinear stressstrain behaviour is conventionally presented in terms of shear modulus reduction curves of G/G0 (where G is the secant shear modulus and G0 is the linear elastic shear stiffness) versus the logarithm of shear strain (e.g., Hardin and Drnevich 1972). On a plot of shear stress versus shear strain, the data is usually fitted with a modified hyperbola; a recent review for clays has been undertaken by Vardanega and Bolton (2011). A significant practical obstacle to the application of this approach is that G0 is rarely known. Furthermore,

Received 15 April 2011. Accepted 19 July 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 29 September 2011. P.J. Vardanega and M.D. Bolton. Cambridge University, Schofield Centre, Department of Engineering, High Cross, Cambridge CB3 0EL, UK. Corresponding author: P.J. Vardanega (e-mail: pjv27@cam.ac. uk).

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 14851503 (2011)

published data of G/G0 often derive from resonant column (RC) tests in which strains are usually restricted to not much more than 0.1%, which is at the lower extremity of strains experienced in practical applications. The approach adopted in the current work focuses on moderate strains in excess of 0.1%, and normalizes stress using the undrained strength of the clay rather than its elastic stiffness. Geotechnical engineers designing structures on clay generally focus on undrained strength as the key soil parameter. Ground investigations in such circumstances usually include borings from which disturbed samples are taken to determine water contents in relation to Atterberg limits. Additional probing may include standard penetration tests (SPTs). These routine tests are sometimes used to define design strengths through empirical correlations. More commonly, they are used to assess the variability of clay strength and plasticity in the region of interest, while undisturbed cores or in situ tests are used to define spot values of undrained strength or compressibility. The objective of this work is to enhance the foregoing by predicting the shape of the undrained stress strain curve of clays so that this may be conveniently used in

Published by NRC Research Press

doi:10.1139/T11-052

1486

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE on 10/05/11 For personal use only.

simplified deformation calculations. Shear strength mobilization with shear strain is an alternative way of looking at the concept of engineering factors of safety. Factors of safety on undrained shear strength are often quoted in working-stress and limit-state design methods and codes of practice, but without a link being made to the implied strain level. A mobilization factor is specified to reduce the strains in the soil around the structure. This paper presents a detailed database of 115 triaxial, direct simple shear (DSS), and RC tests on 19 clays and silts. A novel way of normalizing their mobilization curves is demonstrated with a view to performing design calculations that deal explicitly with the serviceability criterion in limit-state design. Statistical analysis When performing a regression analysis, the coefficient of determination (R2) value alone does not give sufficient information to determine the validity of the correlation. In addition to a scatter plot showing the original data, the following pertinent statistical measures have been used in the analyses presented later in the paper: n, number of data points used in the regression p-value (or p), probability of a correlation not existing SE, standard error. This methodology is similar to that used in Kulhawy and Mayne (1990). Undrained shear strength The soil mechanics literature on undrained shear strength has two distinct perspectives. Many early papers were concerned with empirical correlations that would allow practising engineers to estimate strength based on elementary classifications or probings (e.g., Atterberg limits, vane shear tests, and SPTs). In the 1960s and thereafter, however, the emergence of critical state soil mechanics (CSSM) (Schofield and Wroth 1968) fostered a fundamental understanding that clarified the relationship between undrained and drained shear strength and that provided theoretical relationships between undrained strength and overconsolidation ratio (OCR), for example. Subsequent authors have done much to rationalise soil test and classification data within the broader CSSM framework, e.g., Muir Wood (1990). In this way, the earlier empirical findings have been generalized to cover most types of element test, and have therefore become more widely applicable. Normally consolidated clay The undrained shear strength, cu, is the obvious parameter to normalize the mobilized shear strength, tmob. It can be measured directly or predicted using established correlations. Skemptons correlation (Skempton 1954, 1957) for the shear strength of normally consolidated soils as a function of plasticity index is often used cu 1 0 0:11 0:37Ip sv ;0

0 where s v; 0 is the in situ vertical effective stress and Ip is the plasticity index. Muir Wood (1990) shows that there is appreciable scatter around eq. [1] for a wider variety of clays.

Overconsolidated clay OCR has a significant effect on undrained shear strength. Ladd et al. (1977) on empirical grounds and Muir Wood (1990) additionally from theoretical relations based on critical state soil mechanics both show 2

0 cu = s v L i 0 OCR cu =s v i nc

0 where s vi is the vertical effective stress, nc indicates normal consolidation, OCR is the overconsolidation ratio (or, more strictly, yield stress ratio), and L varies from 0.85 to 0.75 as OCR increases.

Correlations with liquidity index (IL) Muir Wood (1983) gives a correlation for undrained shear strength (cu) based on liquidity index, which can implicitly allow for the reduction of water content by overconsolidation, but is more convenient as it is available through disturbed soil samples. 3 cu 170 e4:6IL kPa

Correlations with SPT N60 values For standard site investigation the SPT test is often conducted, allowing estimates to be made of cu varying with depth. Hara et al. (1974) gives a correlation for cu with SPT blowcount for a database of cohesive soils. The majority of the soils in the database were reported to have void ratios ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. The OCR for the soils in the database was reported to vary from 1.0 to 3.0. 4 cu 29N60 0:72 kPa OCR < 3:0

where N60 is the SPT blowcount. Stroud (1974) showed that plasticity index influences cu/N60 for stiff clays. Reid and Taylor (2010) comment that Strouds chart does not show a statistical analysis of the data. The optimum power curve (eq. [5]) is fitted to the data (reproduced as Fig. 1) which confirms that there is a correlation, but with a flatter curve than that proposed by Stroud (1974). 5 cu 10 N60 Ip 0:22 kPa R2 0:37; n 53; SE 1:14; p < 0:001 Anisotropy It is well-known that the undrained strength of clay depends on the mode of shearing, e.g., Mayne (1985). Data on the small strain stiffness of some clays is now also known to display anisotropy, e.g., Graham and Houlsby (1983); Lings et al. (2000); Gasparre (2005). However, there is as yet no database available that permits the generalization of degree of anisotropy at different strain magnitudes for different clays. The approach adopted in this paper is to use the data of shear strength to normalize the shear stresses consistent with moderate strains. In applying the results, engineers should ideally seek data for undrained shear strength obtained in a test mode appropriate to the problem, or could use the correlations between test types presented in Mayne (1985).

Published by NRC Research Press

Vardanega and Bolton Fig. 1. Relationship between cu/N and Ip for a variety of clays (re-plotted from Stroud 1974).

1487

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE on 10/05/11 For personal use only.

Data was found for triaxial, RC, and DSS tests on natural clay specimens subjected to consolidated isotropic undrained (CIU) shearing. In all cases the sample was taken from zero shear stress to failure. Additional Ko-consolidated tests are discussed later. Table 1 summarizes the publications, clay types, test apparatus, and number of tests available for inclusion in the dataset after digitization of the original test plots, or the input of filtered raw data of London clay in the case of Yimsiri (2002) and Gasparre (2005). Some data in the 16 publications was not used in the study due to the published curves being unreadable for the purposes of digitization. Some tests (seven out of 122) were available, but were nevertheless excluded from the database for a variety of reasons, which are outlined in Table 1. Figure 2 shows a plot of the excluded test data. The variety of test types included in the database in Table 1 might have been thought to be a drawback to the creation of useful correlations. This will be shown not to be the case. No statistical difference was found between the values of the key curve-fitting parameter determined for different test categories; see Table 2. Rather than a drawback, the merging of different test data is a significant advantage as the results of the correlations will be more generally applicable to the data of undrained strength, cu. The use as a normalizing parameter of cu, determined from the peak strength in any given test, is assumed to automatically filter out anisotropic effects from the correlations. Engineers may wish to make judgements about the strain that would be experienced at some mobilized shear stress, tmob, in relation to the peak undrained shear strength, cu. The strength tmob mobilized at shear strain g was identified as Gg. Many of the tests show deviator stress, q, versus axial strain, 3a. For the purposes of this paper, shear strain and mobilized shear strength are defined as, respectively 6 7 g 1:53a t mob 0:5q

BSI (1994) describes the quantity cu/tmob as the mobilization factor, M, which is equivalent to a factor of safety on shear strength. Analysis of database The collected database comprises 115 stressstrain curves from 16 publications describing a variety of test types. This variety will be an advantage in the application of the empirical correlations that follow, as the same framework is shown to fit irrespective of test method. Figure 3 shows an example of the Todi clay stressstrain data at various confining stresses (Burland et al. 1996). Plots were made of tmob/cu (= 1/M) versus shear strain for the 19 clays (115 tests) being considered. Power laws were fitted to the data points that corresponded to 1.25 M 5 for each test curve in the database. This region is referred to by the authors as the moderate-strain region. The reason for excluding the data in the low-strain region (M > 5) is partly because it is difficult to resolve low-strain measurements, and partly because such determinations are best made in relation to the small-strain shear modulus, G0 (Vardanega and Bolton 2011). Data in the high-strain region (M < 1.25) was excluded as the shapes of the test curves immediately pre- and post-peak display an exceptionally high degree of variability, presumably due to yielding, softening, and strain localization. In this region, the prediction of settlements is almost irrelevant as the clay is approaching failure. Power curves are useful for curve-fitting to engineering data as they have only two regression constants, are straight lines on loglog plots, and pass through the point (0,0), which is a necessary condition for many physical phenomena. The power law model used in the subsequent analysis is t mob 8 A g b cu where log(A) is the intercept of the best-fit linear line through the stressstrain data plotted on loglog axes and b is the slope. The Todi clay data from Fig. 3 is shown again in Fig. 4, fitted with power curves through the moderate-strain

Published by NRC Research Press

1488 Table 1. Summary of database of strength mobilization. Source Ladd (1964) Clay type Amuay Lagunillas Kawasaki Manglerud quick Test type CIU CIU CIU DSS No. of tests included in the database 1 1 1 3

CIU

12

Koutsoftas (1978)

Plastic

Silty San Francisco Bay mud Grande Baleine OC Grande Baleine NC Olga OC Olga NC Mexico City Hachirgata Todi London

2 3 5 5 4 4 2 6

Comments Data from Fig. 8 excluded as only two points in moderate strain region available after digitization Test at confining stress of 51 kPa excluded as only two points in moderate strain region available after digitization Inorganic marine clays from New Jersey. Only the pseudo-static tests have been used in this database. Test T1 of Hachirgata clay was rejected as only one data point above cu/5 was present after digitization Raw data files provided Tests E1 and E2 were not included as the specimen was cored horizontally. The power-law fitting described later in the paper was, however, found to be equally applicable. Data not shown on Fig. 2. Test curves from Fig. 3 unable to be digitized so only the tests that were conducted on the sample that was taken from a depth of 5 m are included in the database (Fig. 4). Testing at three temperatures Raw data files provided Test t19 was removed as the author reported the existence of a pre-existing fissure Test t33 was removed due to an anomalous double peak in the stressstrain curve CAUC tests in the paper were not used in the database Two tests on Drammen clay from 17.58 and 17.85 m depths were excluded as the fitting of a power law proved invalid in the strain region of interest.

CIU CIU

7 6

CIU CIU

9 8

St-Roch-de-lAchigan London

CIU CIU

3 5

Osny Drammen

DSS DSS

6 3

Mexico City

CIU

16

Note: CAUC, anisotropically consolidated undrained compression; CU, consolidated undrained; NC, normally consolidated; OC, overconsolidated.

region. The curve-fitting parameters for the database are summarized in Appendix A1. The exponent b determined for each test (CIU, DSS, cyclic triaxial, and RC) is given in Fig. 5, plotted against plasticity

index, Ip, for the 115 test curves. It is clear that the scatter is exceptionally high and no correlation is present. No correlation was found using liquid limit, wL; plastic limit, wP; Ip or 0 IL; water content, w; or initial mean effective stress, p0 . It can

Published by NRC Research Press

1489

Table 2. Analysis of test categories in the database. Test category CIU tests DSS tests Cyclic tests All b average 0.608 0.610 0.548 0.603 b standard deviation 0.158 0.163 0.083 0.153 n 92 12 11 115

where tmob/cu is the inverse of the mobilization factor (1/M). Figure 8 shows the measured values of tmob/cu plotted against those predicted using eq. [9]. The resulting regression is 0:6 t mob g 0:49 10 cu g M2

be concluded that b is more likely to be explained by structure, fabric, the presence or absence of fissures, sampling technique, and general sample condition. Table 2 shows the average b-values for the three test categories in the database. The standard deviation and number of tests is also shown. The average b-value is 0.60 and the range plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean is approximately 0.45 to 0.75. This range captures the b-value of most clays. The collected data fitted with power curves in the moderate-strain region yield A-values ranging from 2.79 to 455.9 with an average A of 16.9 and a range of exponents b from 0.3 to 1.2. Figures 6a, 6b, and 6c show this range of bvalues for A = 1, 10, and 100, respectively. This demonstrates the variability that can exist between different clays and tests. Figure 7 shows all the moderate-strain region data plotted for the entire database.

Mobilization strain

A variety of b-values describe the stressstrain data of the individual clays in the database, the average value being b = 0.6. It was decided to accept this as the best value for prediction. In addition, a pivot strain was used to normalize the strain axis. This pivot point was taken as the strain level when M = 2, denoted as gM=2. This strain level is referred to by the authors as the mobilization strain. Equation [8] is therefore modified, and becomes t mob g 0 :6 9 0:5 cu g M2

The coefficient in eq. [10] is 0.49, rather than the 0.5 as defined in eq. [9], because of the decision to lock the b-value at 0.60. Equations [9] and [10] are operationally identical and it is evident that eq. [9] successfully normalizes the shear strain data in the database. The regression model has a coefficient of determination R2 of 0.90; in other words 90% of the variation in the data can be explained using the best-fit mobilization strain gM=2 and the average b-value of 0.60. Equation [9] effectively offers a one-parameter model for nonlinear kinematic hardening inside the volumetric yield surface. Jardine (1992) describes this as behaviour lying between the Y2 and Y3 yield surfaces in a nested yield surface visualization. The need, in Fig. 4 and subsequently, to impose the lower limit tmob/cu > 0.2 on the chosen moderatestrain range must partly reflect the initially linear elastic behaviour at small strains within what Jardine describes as the Y1 yield surface. The upper limit tmob/cu < 0.8 of the chosen range, within which eq. [9] has been shown to be useful, is taken to reflect the onset of nonlinear plastic behaviour, described by Jardine in terms of approaching the Y3 yield surface. These limits are shown in Fig. 9a to be useful in defining the moderate-strain region for the database. They must obviously be taken as approximations as the shapes and relative locations of the Y1, Y2, and Y3 yield surfaces must be soil and stress-history dependent. Figure 4 is typical of a set of stressstrain curves at different confining pressures, in that the variation in gM=2 is much more significant than the variation in exponent b. Use of the mobilization strain has been shown to be effective in reducing the error in prediction of tmob/cu as shown in Fig. 8. The normalized stressstrain data are shown for the whole dataPublished by NRC Research Press

1490 Fig. 3. Todi clay data (digitized and re-plotted from Burland et al. 1996).

base in Fig. 9a, and again in Fig. 9b using loglog axes. The small scatter in the vicinity of the pivot point tmob/cu = 0.5 is due to random error introduced either by digitizing the stressstrain curves published by the authors listed in Table 1 or noise in their original test data. The factor error incurred by using eq. [9] is seen in Fig. 8 to be generally no more than a factor 1.4 on stresses at a given normalized strain within the chosen mobilization interval and, correspondingly, no more than a factor 1.75 on normalized strain at a given stress, as seen in Fig. 9b. Although four out of 19 clays and silts have at least one point on their stressstrain curve lying outside these bounds, this only applies to about 1% of the total number of digitized data points. It is also evident that most of these troublesome points lie on the conservative side of prediction (eq. [9]), and none of them refer to low mobilization factors M < 4.

Predicting mobilization strain Multiple regression analysis was used in an attempt to discover the significant parametric influences on the reference strain gM=2, and to arrange the key parameters in appropriate groups for the purposes of prediction. Some of the tests in the database were found to be atypical in that they were found to have gM=2 values that remained as outliers whichever correlation was attempted. The Manglerud quick clay is best characterized as highly structured inorganic clayey silt with a very low plasticity index of 8%; it was also excluded from the regression analysis. Some of the publications did not give sufficient information to determine appropriate val0 ues for p0 (San Francisco Bay mud, Osnoy clay, Drammen clay, St-Roch-de-lAchigan clay); these were necessarily excluded from the analysis. The subsequent analysis relates to 14 of the original 19 clays in the database.

Published by NRC Research Press

Vardanega and Bolton Fig. 5. Derived b-values versus Ip for database of clay data.

1491

A multiple linear regression (MLR) was performed using the data-analysis package in Microsoft Excel. The best model that could be found is given as eq. [11]. Figure 10 shows the logarithm of the measured mobilization strains log10(gM=2) plotted against the values predicted from eq. [11]). An error up to a factor of three still remains in the prediction, although the coefficient of determination, R2, is 0.44 and the p value is exceptionally low. 11

0 =patm log 10 g M2 1:964 0:306 log 10 p0 0:592 log 10 cu =patm 0:453 log 10 Ip

determine a value of coefficient C in eq. [12], for the particular clay of interest, is strongly advised. Link to OCR Equation [12] suggests that mobilization strain is a function of undrained shear strength, plasticity index, and present confining stress. However, using eqs. [1] with eq. [2], and rearranging 1:25 0 cu =p0 13 OCR 0:11 0:0037Ip Therefore, from eqs. [12] and [13] we can alternatively say that 14

0 g M2 f OCR; Ip ; p0

R2 0:44; r 0:66; n 97; SE 0:236; p < 0:001 where patm is the atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa), cu is the undrained shear strength of the clay, and C is the regression constant (= 0.0109). Rearranging 0:59 0 0:28 p0 0:45 cu 12 g M2 C Ip 0 p0 patm Figure 11 shows tmob/cu values from the database plotted against predicted tmob/cu values using eqs. [9] and [12]. Use of the mobilization strain gM=2 as predicted using routine 0 , and Ip), together with the average ground information (cu, p0 b-value of 0.6, and in the absence of any stressstrain test, creates a factor error of up to 2.0 in the prediction of tmob/cu values in the moderate-strain region, or correspondingly a factor of error of 3.2 in the strains estimated at a given stress. This study has not, therefore, negated the need for laboratory testing of the stressstrain behaviour of clays, but it does offer a framework within which shear strength mobilization can be estimated within different margins of probable error, depending on what soil testing data are available. As eq. [12] allows the mobilization strain gM=2 to vary from less than 0.1% for low-plasticity silty clays to greater than 3% for high-plasticity clays, at least one test to actually

Many of the publications used to compile the database do not explicitly state OCR. Equation [13] has inherent errors 0 )nc and therefore due to the use of eq. [4] to compute (cu/p0 back-calculation of OCR was not attempted for all the clays in the database. However, given there is greater confidence in the relationship for London clay it was decided to compute values of the mobilization strain with increasing OCR as an example. Equation [14] suggests that gM=2 should vary with stress history, and should therefore vary with depth in an overconsolidated deposit. Depth-related data of high quality cores of London clay is available in the database, from Yimsiri (2002) and Gasparre (2005). Two additional tests on intact samples from Cannons Park in London, were reported in Jardine et al. (1984). Seventeen tests on London clay were therefore available to plot mobilization strain (gM=2) data against sample depth (see Fig. 12). A logarithmic trend results with mobilization strain decreasing with depth (eq. [15]). The correlation has a coefficient of determination R2 of 0.46, which means that (eq. [15]) explains 46% of the variation of mobilization strain for the three London clay sites studied. This could be evidence of reduced OCR reducing the mobilization strain. It is

Published by NRC Research Press

1492 Fig. 6. charts showing eq. [8] with various values of A and b: (a) A = 1; (b) A = 10; (c) A = 100.

Vardanega and Bolton Fig. 7. Moderate strain region data (115 tests, 19 clays and silts).

1493

Fig. 8. tmob/cu data plotted against predicted tmob/cu from eq. [9].

acknowledged that only three sites in a single deposit (London clay) are described on Fig. 12 and by eq. [15], and that any pattern of variation may be due to some other soil parameter that varies between the different London clay geological groups. Despite this, decreasing OCR seems a credible explanation for (eq. [15]). 15 1000g m2 2:84 lnd 15:42 R2 0:46; r 0:67; n 17; p 0:003; SE 1:79

16

g M2 0:0109Ip 0:45

Taking a representative Ip = 0.39 for London clay (average of the tests quoted in this paper) we get, from eq. [1] cu 1bis 0:11 0:370:39 0:254 0 p0 nc Therefore 17 18 g M2 0:01090:39

0:45

12bis

g M2

0:254OCR

0:8 0:59

0 p0 patm

0:28

0 0:28 g M2 0:000872OCR0:47 p0

1494

Fig. 9. tmob/cu data versus normalized strain: (a) shear stress mobilization versus normalized shear strain: natural axes; (b) shear stress mobilization versus normalized shear strain: logarithmic axes.

0 Ds s v Ds ;0 0 1 0 s v ;0 gz

Using eq. [20], and taking an assumed bandwidth of Ds = 300 to 1000 kPa for London clay, the predicted profiles with depth of gM=2 can be computed; these are plotted on Fig. 12. The fit to the scattered observations is not unreasonable.

where Ds is the apparent past overburden pressure, g is the buoyant unit weight 10 kN/m3, and z is the depth in the London clay. Substituting in eq. [18] we obtain Ds 0:47 10z0:28 20 g M2 0:000872 1 10z

In K0-triaxial tests the test curves do not start at zero shear stress. Jardine et al. (1984, 1986) reported the data of highquality triaxial tests performed on reconstituted low-plasticity clay. Figure 13 shows the original data re-plotted for tests

Published by NRC Research Press

Vardanega and Bolton Fig. 10. Logarithm of the measured mobilization strains plotted against values predicted from eq. [11].

1495

Fig. 11. tmob/cu values from the database versus predicted tmob/cu values using eqs. [9] and [12].

with various OCRs marked as R1, R1.4, etc. It is possible to define a new parameter t0, which is the initial shear stress after one-dimensional swelling. This can conveniently be taken in Fig. 13 as the stress mobilized at 3a = 105. Test R4 begins approximately at K0 = 1, t0 = 0, where K0 is the initial coefficient of earth pressure. This is used to obtain a fitting to eq. [9]. The stressstrain prediction of any other K0 test is then achieved by scaling for the actual undrained strength achieved in that test, and then by shifting the scaled curve vertically so that it starts at shear stress t = t0. Figure 14 shows all the test curves accompanied by the

predictions achieved using this procedure. The performance is generally satisfactory for t0 > 0, K0 < 1, but less so for the test from the largest yield stress ratio R8 for which t0 = 7 kPa. Updating eq. [9] accordingly we obtain 0:6 t mob t 0 g 0:5 21 cu g M2 where gM=2 refers to the mobilization strain of test R4, t0, and cu refer to the start and finish of any other K0 test, and (tmob, g) represents the predicted stressstrain curve.

Published by NRC Research Press

1496

Fig. 12. Mobilization strain data for London clay samples plotted against depth from Jardine et al. (1984); Gourvenec et al. (1999, 2005); Yimsiri (2002); Gasparre (2005).

Discussion

Engineers generally begin designs for clay by establishing the undrained strength profile, and then assigning a safety factor that is thought to safeguard against material variability. Some form of penetrometer probing is usually conducted to fix a design line for cu. If SPTs have been conducted, Fig. 1 suggests that the undrained strength of a clay of known plasticity index Ip could be estimated within an error factor of 1.4, even allowing for uncertainties in energy transmission. This is also a typical partial factor on cu adopted in codes of practice (e.g., Eurocode 7 Geotechnics; CEN 2003). Many engineers assume that the standard safety factors on material strength and loads are also effective in preventing excessive deformations. Even where deformation calculations are carried out, they usually rely on linear elastic calculations with an estimated value of soil stiffness.

This paper sets out an explicit understanding of soil strains in relation to mobilized stresses. Taking the example of a simple circular footing on clay, Osman and Bolton (2005) introduced the notion of a mobilized shear strength, tmob, sufficient to hold in equilibrium the vertical bearing pressure, q, arising from working loads. Applying the usual symbol Nc, originally defined as an ultimate bearing capacity factor, but now used as an equilibrium factor at working loads 22 t mob q Nc

Eason and Shield (1960) established an upper bound of Nc = 6.05 for a rough circular foundation, and a value of 6 will be used here. Osman and Bolton (2005) used a continuous deformation field within a Prandtl bearing mechanism to

Published by NRC Research Press

Vardanega and Bolton Fig. 14. Predicted stressstrain curves using eq. [21] (test data from Jardine et al. 1986).

1497

relate the average strains, gmob, to the ratio of undrained footing settlement, w, to diameter, D w g mob 23 D 1:35 Associating cmob from eq. [22] with gmob from eq. [23], by using the power curves (eq. [9]), we predict q 1:35w 0:6 24 6cu g M2 D Furthermore, using mobilization factor M (which is functionally equivalent to a safety factor on soil strength) 25 M 6 cu q

W 6=2 cu pD2 =4 So the net effect of the three partial factors is equivalent to the application of a single mobilization factor M = 2 on undrained shear strength in relation to dead load. Using M = 2 in eq. [26] we can determine the range of likely proportional settlements w g M2 28 4:3 D The range of gM=2 for various natural clays found in the database, and shown in Fig. 10, is from 0.0015 (Grande Baleine normally consolidated clay) to 0.044 (Manglerud quick clay) with a mean value of 0.0088. It is that the range covers a factor of 30, however, that is most significant, as eq. [28] shows that the provision of a single mobilization factor results in the same uncertainty factor of 30 in settlements. This corresponds to a range of settlements from 0.7 to 20.5 mm for a 2 m diameter foundation (or equivalently a square foundation). The adoption of a strength-reduction factor M = 2 should therefore lead to the design of foundations that would generally settle by a tolerable amount in relation to building damage. If, on the other hand, an engineer was permitted to adopt a partial factor of unity on applied loads, such as in the design of storage tanks where the maximum working loads are closely predictable, the consequence for undrained settlements would be significant. Allowing M to fall from 2.0 to 1.4 in eq. [26] might seem acceptable from a conventional reliability perspective, but the settlements would increase by a factor of about 1.431.67 1.8, corresponding to a range from 1.3 to 37 mm for a 2 m diameter foundation. There could well be serviceability issues at the upper end of this range, for the most compliant soils, even where the probability of soil failure was considered acceptably small. An engineer who wants to limit deformations can use the information provided in this paper, in conjunction with any site-specific stressstrain data, to narrow the range of expected settlement values. If the reference strain gM=2 for a

Published by NRC Research Press

and rearranging, we obtain w g M 2 26 D 1:35M 1:67 Equation [26] demonstrates that the material parameter gM = 2 is required in addition to the mobilization ratio M if engineers are to make reliable estimates of footing settlement. Osman and Bolton (2005) showed a close correspondence between this method, termed mobilizable strength design (MSD), and a fully nonlinear finite element analysis of circular footings. In limit-state codes of practice, and in load and resistance factor design (LRFD), the overall safety factor is split into various partial factors. For example, if partial factors of 1.1 and 1.3 were applied to the characteristic dead load W and live load V, respectively, and a partial factor of 1.4 were applied to the undrained shear strength cu, then for the same circular footing the following limitation on load would apply: 27 1:1W 1:3V 6cu =1:4pD2 =4

1498

clay were predicted solely on the basis of Atterberg limits and effective stress levels, using eq. [12], then Fig. 10 shows the possibility of an error up to a factor of 3. If a sufficient number of stressstrain tests is conducted to obtain a reliable mean value for gM=2, Fig. 9 suggests that a factor error up to 1.75 on strains might occur towards the extremes of the chosen range 5 < M < 1.25 due to the inaccuracy of describing all clays using the same power exponent b = 0.6. Even in the vicinity of a measured value for gM=2, the factor error in strain predictions from one test to another can apparently be as large as 1.3, as observed around the pivot point in Fig. 9b. Equation [26] confirms that the error in nonlinear settlement prediction should mirror the error in gM=2. All the foregoing relates to the undrained foundation settlement. However, the ratio of fully drained to undrained settlement of shallow foundations on soils in their quasi-elastic range of behaviour, as described here, should fall in the range 1.4 to 1.6 as the secant Poissons ratio rises from about 0.2 to 0.3 (see Burland et al. 1977). The methodology set out in this paper therefore offers a design engineer an order of magnitude improvement in settlement control compared with the use of codified safety factors.

mobilization of stress correspondingly increases to 3.2. Use of eq. [12] is not recommended for highly structured quick clays or residual soils, which were excluded from the regression analysis. Although the database, and eq. [9], was based on standard undrained triaxial compression, DSS, and RC tests for which the initial shear stress was zero, one set of tests on reconstituted low plasticity reported by Jardine et al. (1986) had been allowed to swell one-dimensionally prior to being tested in compression from an initial K0 1. Some success was demonstrated, at least for cases with K0 1, by simply shifting the standard power curve vertically so that it started at an initial shear stress t0 corresponding to its K0 value (eq. [21]). Prescribed geotechnical factors of safety cannot be used to achieve undrained settlement targets let alone ultimate settlements. The use of a single mobilization factor for the clays in the current database leads to the settlement of a notional 2 m footing varying over a factor of 30. The information presented here allows an engineer to reduce this variability by an order of magnitude.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and Ove Arup and Partners for financial support to the first author. Thanks are also due to Dr Brian Simpson, Dr Paul Morrison, and Dr Stuart Haigh for their helpful advice and suggestions; as well as Dr A. Gasparre for the provision of her triaxial test data for analysis.

Conclusions

A database of the undrained stressstrain behaviour of natural silts and clays was compiled from 16 publications by various authors. A total of seven of the 122 tests were excluded either because they were found to display inherently erratic features or due to the data falling outside the range of interest corresponding to moderate-strain levels and typical safety factors. A method of estimating the undrained shear stressstrain curves of clays is recommended, using a normalization based on their undrained shear strength cu and a reference strain gM. This can conveniently be discussed in terms of mobilization factor M = cu/tmob. Plots of tmob/cu = 1/M versus shear strain were obtained for the 19 clays and silts in the database. It was discovered that for the range of greatest practical interest (1.25 M 5) these curves could reasonably be described as power curves whose apexes lie at the stressstrain origin. This observation led to the adoption of a reference strain gM=2 for each test, defined as the shear strain required to mobilize one-half of the peak strength. An average exponent of 0.6 was used to describe the normalized power function for 5 < M < 1.25. The undrained stressstrain equations of a large database of clays, variously overconsolidated, thereby came to fit eq. [9] in the moderate strain range. The use of eq. [9] to derive a mobilization factor consistent with any moderate strain level, based on the measurement of reference strain gM=2, does not generally result in an error exceeding 40%, see Fig. 8. This error is largely due to the exponent b being taken at a standard value of 0.6, whereas it was found to range from 0.3 to 1.2; see Fig. 3. The corresponding error factor on the strain predicted at a given mobilized stress ratio is 1.75; see Fig. 9. If eq. [12] is used to predict gM=2, based only on a routine ground characterization instead of actual stressstrain tests, then the possible error in the prediction of mobilized stress for a given strain increases to a factor of 2; see Fig. 11. And the possible error factor on the strain predicted for a given

References

Bjerrum, L., and Landva, A. 1966. Direct simple-shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. Gotechnique, 16(1): 120. doi:10.1680/ geot.1966.16.1.1. BSI. 1994. Code of practice for earth retaining structures. British standard BS8002. British Standards Institution (BSI), London. Burland, J.B., Broms, B.B., and de Mello, V.F.B. 1977. Behaviour of foundations and structures. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1015 July 1977. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan. Vol. 2, pp. 495546. Burland, J.B., Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V.N., and Calabresi, G. 1996. A laboratory study of the strength of four stiff clays. Gotechnique, 46(3): 491514. doi:10.1680/geot.1996.46.3.491. Callisto, L., and Rampello, S. 2004. An interpretation of structural degradation for three natural clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(3): 392407. doi:10.1139/t03-099. CEN. 2003. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design Part 1: General rules. Standard EN 19971. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium. Clough, G.W., and Denby, G.M. 1980. Self-boring pressuremeter study of San Francisco Bay mud. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 106(GT1): 4563. Daz-Rodriguez, J.A., Leroueil, S., and Aleman, J.D. 1992. Yielding of Mexico City clay and other natural clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 118(7): 981995. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:7(981). Daz-Rodriguez, J.A., Martinez-Vasquez, J.J., and Santamarina, J.C. 2009. Strain-rate effects in Mexico City soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(2): 300 305. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:2(300). Eason, G., and Shield, R.T. 1960. The plastic indentation of a semiinfinite solid by a perfectly rough circular punch. Zeitschrift fr

Published by NRC Research Press

Vardanega and Bolton Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 11(1): 3343. doi:10.1007/ BF01591800. Futai, M.M., Almeida, M.S.S., and Lacerda, W.A. 2004. Yield, strength and critical state behaviour of a tropical saturated soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(11): 1169 1179. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:11(1169). Gasparre, A. 2005. Advanced laboratory characterisation of London clay. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London. Gourvenec, S.M., Bolton, M.D., Soga, K., Gui, M.W., Mair, R.J., Edmonds, H., Chudleighm, L.J., and Bulter, A.P. 1999. Field Investigations of long-term ground loading on an old tunnel in London clay. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Tokyo, 1921 July 1999. Japanese Geotechnical Society, Tokyo, pp. 179184. Gourvenec, S.M., Mair, R.J., Bolton, M.D., and Soga, K. 2005. Ground conditions around an old tunnel in London clay. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, 158: 2533. Graham, J., and Houlsby, G.T. 1983. Anisotropic elasticity of a natural clay. Gotechnique, 33(2): 165180. doi:10.1680/geot. 1983.33.2.165. Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T. 1974. Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations, 14(3): 112. Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P. 1972. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98(SM7): 667691. Jardine, R.J. 1992. Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil stiffness. Soils and Foundations, 32(2): 111124. Jardine, R.J., Symes, M.J.P.R., and Burland, J.B. 1984. The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus. Gotechnique, 34(3): 323340. doi:10.1680/geot.1984.34.3.323. Jardine, R.J., Potts, D.M., Fourie, A.B., and Burland, J.B. 1986. Studies of the influence of non-linear stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Gotechnique, 36(3): 377396. doi:10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.377. Koutsoftas, D. 1978. Effect of cyclic loads on undrained strength of two marine clays. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(GT5): 609620. Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. 1990. Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. Report No. EL-6800. Ladd, C. 1964. Stress-strain modulus of clay in undrained shear. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 90(SM 5): 103132. Ladd, C., Foot, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H. 1977. Stress-deformation and strength characteristics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1015 July 1977. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan. Vol. 2, pp. 421494. Lefebvre, G., and LeBoeuf, D. 1987. Rate effects & cyclic loading of sensitive clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(5): 476 489. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:5(476). Lings, M.L., Pennington, D.S., and Nash, D.F.T. 2000. Anisotropic stiffness parameters and their measurement in a stiff natural clay. Gotechnique, 50(2): 109125. doi:10.1680/geot.2000.50.2.109.

1499 Lunne, T., Berre, T., Andersen, K.H., Strandvik, S., and Sjursen, M. 2006. Effects of sample disturbance and consolidation procedures on measured shear strength of soft marine Norwegian clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(7): 726750. doi:10.1139/t06040. Marques, M.E.S., Leroueil, S., and Soares de Almeida, M. 2004. Viscous behaviour of St-Roch-de-lAchigan clay, Quebec. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(1): 2538. doi:10.1139/t03-068. Mayne, P.W. 1985. Stress anisotropy effects on clay strength. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(3): 356366. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(356). Moh, Z.C., Nelson, J.D., and Brand, E.W. 1969. Strength and deformation behaviour of Bangkok clay. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 2529 August 1969. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 287295. Muir Wood, D. 1983. Index properties and critical state soil mechanics. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Developments in Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, 69 December 1983. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 301309. Muir Wood, D. 1990. Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Osman, A.S., and Bolton, M.D. 2005. Simple plasticity-based prediction of the undrained settlement of shallow circular foundations on clay. Gotechnique, 55(6): 435447. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(356). Reid, A., and Taylor, J. 2010. The misuse of SPTs in fine soils and the implications of Eurocode 7. Ground Engineering, 43(7): 28 31. Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, C.P. 1968. Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill, London. Shibuya, S., and Mitachi, T. 1994. Small strain modulus of clay sedimentation in a state of normal consolidation. Soils and Foundations, 34(4): 6777. Skempton, A.W. 1954. Discussion: Sensitivity of clays and the c/p ratio in normally consolidated clays. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Separate 478: 1922. Skempton, A.W. 1957. Discussion: Further data on the c/p ratio in normally consolidated clays. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 7: 305307. Stroud, M.A. 1974. The standard penetration test in sensitive clays and soft rocks. In Proceedings of the European Seminar on Penetration Testing, Stockholm. Vol. 2:2, pp. 366375. Vardanega, P.J., and Bolton, M.D. 2011. Practical methods to estimate the non-linear stiffness of fine grained soils. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, 13 September 2011, Seoul, South Korea. Edited by I. Chung et al. Hanrimwon Co., Ltd. Vol. 1, pp. 372-379. Yimsiri, S. 2002. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of soils: anisotropy and soil fabric. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Appendix A

1500

Test type CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU

A 4.34 7.16 4.15 13.06 10.34 2.79 6.69 5.34 9.40 7.10 6.35 6.14 5.69 9.55 6.37 6.27

b 0.40 0.49 0.36 0.65 0.58 0.32 0.54 0.48 0.59 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.52 0.64 0.55 0.50

R2 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.89 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.89

n 7 4 6 4 4 4 3 3 4 9 6 10 7 5 5 7

gM=2 0.004 49 0.004 15 0.002 94 0.006 56 0.005 59 0.004 32 0.008 27 0.007 39 0.006 81 0.014 69 0.015 95 0.015 24 0.009 27 0.010 16 0.010 13 0.006 07

Ip 0.42 0.34 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.35

WP 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.22

WL 0.71 0.70 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.34

w (%) 0.51 0.67 0.60 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.60

Sample depth (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

OCR 1.30

Soft Bangkok

Stiff Bangkok

102 170 204 306 102 204 407 102 204 407 814 45

Grande Baleine OC

6 7 14

74 102 48

1.30 1.30

Grande Baleine NC

CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU

31.45 22.68 54.03 26.40 28.30 9.84 6.99 7.90 9.01 40.81 455.91 76.57 58.61 4.17 8.17 7.64 5.06

0.70 0.64 0.82 0.67 0.71 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.81 1.21 0.87 0.84 0.39 0.47 0.43 0.37

0.93 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.91 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.90 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.96

17 20 18 16 8 11 14 12 12 16 17 15 12 18 18 14 14

55 57 64 64 66 70 71 73 80 36 34 29 23 39 41 44 50

0.002 67 0.002 65 0.003 20 0.002 76 0.003 51 0.002 33 0.003 18 0.002 09 0.001 55 0.004 38 0.003 63 0.003 16 0.003 48 0.004 22 0.002 54 0.001 83 0.002 01

0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28

0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Olga OC

Olga NC

Table A1 (continued).

Test type CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU

A 10.61 7.96 17.18 14.63 12.71 11.62 8.46 8.06 5.15 7.39 7.17 8.33 7.18 14.69 11.05 6.90

b 0.66 0.66 1.02 0.88 0.75 0.77 0.66 0.66 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.60 0.54 0.62 0.64 0.53

R2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98

cu (kPa) 22 33 297 661 839 1076 1453 1803 2029 202 199 365 336 348 407 205

gM=2 0.009 84 0.014 85 0.030 83 0.021 59 0.013 29 0.016 50 0.014 05 0.014 69 0.011 47 0.006 45 0.004 81 0.009 34 0.007 27 0.004 25 0.007 69 0.007 00

Ip 4.93 4.93 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.33

w (%) 4.64 4.70 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.29

Sample depth (m) 1.7 1.7 13.6 13.6 16.4 16.4 22.9 22.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3

0 p0 (kPa) 15

Todi

41 50 200 443 600 1500 2200 3200 270 270 310 310 410 410 58

Yimsiri (2002)

London II

Vallericca

Ouro Preto

CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU

4.25 6.49 8.93 11.69 25.17 7.63 10.18 3.93 4.10 4.92 5.11 4.98 4.22 2.98 7.34 6.43 104.84 25.40 94.52

0.38 0.47 0.52 0.59 0.73 0.53 0.61 0.39 0.61 0.54 0.58 0.53 0.52 0.48 0.62 0.66 1.09 0.78 0.97

0.98 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.97 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.89 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.98

7 6 7 8 6 10 13 9 6 7 6 6 9 11 9 14 4 5 6

313 414 421 436 492 555 697 876 74 116 125 149 253 251 292 401 45 31 29

0.003 39 0.004 18 0.003 73 0.004 75 0.004 77 0.005 72 0.007 13 0.005 22 0.032 16 0.014 57 0.017 58 0.013 06 0.016 07 0.024 14 0.013 13 0.020 28 0.007 35 0.006 51 0.004 61

0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.42 0.42 0.42

0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.28

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.70 0.70 0.70

0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.84 0.84 0.84

200 428 412 619 817 1600 2400 3200 25 50 100 200 300 400 540 690 1501

St-Roch-delAchigan

1502

Table A1 (continued).

Clay London

n 133 85 139 92 65 12

0 p0 (kPa) 260

Mexico City

Koutsoftas (1978)

NC Coastal plastic OC Coastal plastic NC Coastal silty Clay OC Coastal silty Hachirgata (various depths)

CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU CIU Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic

11.41 9.66 8.13 8.96 10.49 11.52 8.98 6.03 6.19 8.81 7.71 5.90 7.20 11.06 14.01 10.36 3.63 4.38 19.71 6.92 25.12

0.74 0.70 0.64 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.67 0.58 0.57 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.59 0.70 0.73 0.53 0.39 0.47 0.64 0.49 0.63

0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.89 0.97 0.95 0.91 0.99 1.00

21 21 25 25 21 17 20 14 20 18 22 18 15 21 19 4 10 7 5 6 4

61 71 73 59 70 78 90 76 78 91 108 116 114 173 158 168 134 129 155 126 35

0.014 75 0.014 56 0.013 06 0.015 29 0.014 72 0.013 24 0.013 79 0.013 83 0.011 93 0.012 43 0.014 72 0.011 38 0.010 64 0.012 17 0.010 39 0.003 26 0.006 20 0.009 54 0.003 18 0.004 50 0.002 02

1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.18 0.14 0.75

0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.17 0.14 0.41

2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.35 0.28 1.16

1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.29 0.27 0.90

17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9

40 40 40 80 80 80 80 160 160 160 160 300 300 300 300 477 120 121 478 120 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011 131

3 5 5 3 3

45 25 30 22 20

115 77 69 45 37

Note: Italicized values are used where the same piece of information is carried through to describe subsequent tests in a series. London clay raw data was filtered before input into the main database ( every 10th datapoint in the moderate strain region).

0 p0 (kPa) 99

1503

References

Bjerrum, L., and Landva, A. 1966. Direct simple-shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. Gotechnique, 16(1): 120. doi:10.1680/ geot.1966.16.1.1. Burland, J.B., Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V.N., and Calabresi, G. 1996. A laboratory study of the strength of four stiff clays. Gotechnique, 46(3): 491514. doi:10.1680/geot.1996.46.3.491. Callisto, L., and Rampello, S. 2004. An interpretation of structural degradation for three natural clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(3): 392407. doi:10.1139/t03-099. Clough, G.W., and Denby, G.M. 1980. Self-boring pressuremeter study of San Francisco Bay mud. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 106(GT1): 4563. Daz-Rodriguez, J.A., Leroueil, S., and Aleman, J.D. 1992. Yielding of Mexico City clay and other natural clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 118(7): 981995. doi:10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:7(981). Daz-Rodriguez, J.A., Martinez-Vasquez, J.J., and Santamarina, J.C. 2009. Strain-rate effects in Mexico City soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(2): 300 305. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:2(300). Futai, M.M., Almeida, M.S.S., and Lacerda, W.A. 2004. Yield, strength and critical state behaviour of a tropical saturated soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(11): 1169 1179. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:11(1169). Gasparre, A. 2005. Advanced laboratory characterisation of London clay. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London. Koutsoftas, D. 1978. Effect of cyclic loads on undrained strength of two marine clays. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(GT5): 609620. Ladd, C. 1964. Stress-strain modulus of clay in undrained shear. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 90(SM 5): 103132. Lefebvre, G., and LeBoeuf, D. 1987. Rate effects & cyclic loading of sensitive clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(5): 476 489. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:5(476). Lunne, T., Berre, T., Andersen, K.H., Strandvik, S., and Sjursen, M. 2006. Effects of sample disturbance and consolidation procedures on measured shear strength of soft marine Norwegian clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(7): 726750. doi:10.1139/t06040. Marques, M.E.S., Leroueil, S., and Soares de Almeida, M. 2004. Viscous behaviour of St-Roch-de-lAchigan clay, Quebec. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(1): 2538. doi:10.1139/t03-068. Moh, Z.C., Nelson, J.D., and Brand, E.W. 1969. Strength and deformation behaviour of Bangkok clay. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 2529 August 1969. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 287295. Shibuya, S., and Mitachi, T. 1994. Small strain modulus of clay sedimentation in a state of normal consolidation. Soils and Foundations, 34(4): 6777. Yimsiri, S. 2002. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of soils: anisotropy and soil fabric. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

144 198 1.65 8.4 8.3 14.7 0.36 0.36 0.63 0.27 0.27 0.68 0.19 0.19 0.31 0.08 0.08 0.37 0.020 41 0.044 12 0.003 36 26 42 26 3 6 14 1.00 0.99 0.84 0.76 0.92 0.53 9.48 8.83 10.42 DSS DSS DSS

OCR

w (%) 0.36

WL 0.27

WP 0.19

Ip 0.08

cu (kPa) 18

gM=2 0.013 36

R2 1.00

b 0.79

A 15.44

Table A1 (concluded).

Drammen

Osnoy

16 19 15 14 10 11 10 12

24 25 21 15 14 31 32 28