Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: A large database of 115 triaxial, direct simple shear, and cyclic tests on 19 clays and silts is presented and ana-
lysed 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 normal-
ize 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.
Multi-linear regression analysis shows that gM=2 is a function of cu, plasticity index Ip, and initial mean effective stress p00 .
Of the 97 stress–strain curves for which cu, Ip, and p00 were available, the observed values of gM=2 fell within a factor of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
three of the regression; this additional uncertainty should be acknowledged if a designer wished to limit immediate founda-
tion settlements on the basis of an undrained strength profile and the plasticity index of the clay. The influence of stress his-
tory is also discussed. The application of these stress–strain 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.
Résumé : Une base de données contenant 115 essais de cisaillement triaxiaux et simples directs, ainsi que des essais cycli-
ques sur 19 argiles et silts, est présentée et analysée dans le but de développer un cadre empirique pour la prédiction de la
mobilisation de la résistance au cisaillement non drainé cu d’argiles naturelles testées à un état des contraintes initial iso-
trope. La déformation à la demie de la résistance maximale non drainée (gM=2) est utilisée pour normaliser les données de
déformation en cisaillement entre des résistances mobilisées de 0,2 cu et 0,8 cu. Une loi de puissance avec un exposant de
For personal use only.
0,6 a été déterminé pour décrire toutes les données normalisées à l’intérieur d’un facteur de déformation de 1,75 lorsqu’un
échantillon représentatif donne une valeur pour gM=2. Une analyse en régression multilinéaire démontre que gM=2 est une
fonction de cu, de l’indice de plasticité Ip et de la contrainte effective moyenne initiale p00 . Parmi les 97 courbes de
contrainte–déformation pour lesquelles cu, Ip et p00 sont disponibles, les valeurs observées de gM=2 sont à l’intérieur d’un fac-
teur de 3 de la régression; cette incertitude additionnelle devrait être considérée si un concepteur désire limiter les tasse-
ments immédiats de la fondation sur la base d’un profil de résistance non drainé et de l’indice de plasticité de l’argile.
L’influence de l’historique des contraintes est aussi discutée. L’application de ces relations de contrainte–déformation pour
les calculs de conception de l’utilisation est illustrée par un exemple. Les implications pour la prise de décision et les codes
de pratique géotechniques sont considérées.
Mots‐clés : argiles, silts, résistance mobilisée, corrélation et normalisation.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]
Can. Geotech. J. 48: 1485–1503 (2011) doi:10.1139/T11-052 Published by NRC Research Press
1486 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Statistical analysis Muir Wood (1983) gives a correlation for undrained shear
When performing a regression analysis, the coefficient of strength (cu) based on liquidity index, which can implicitly
determination (R2) value alone does not give sufficient infor- allow for the reduction of water content by overconsolidation,
mation to determine the validity of the correlation. In addi- but is more convenient as it is available through disturbed
tion to a scatter plot showing the original data, the following soil samples.
pertinent statistical measures have been used in the analyses
presented later in the paper: ½3 cu ¼ 170 e4:6IL kPa
• n, number of data points used in the regression
• p-value (or p), probability of a correlation not existing Correlations with SPT N60 values
• SE, standard error. For standard site investigation the SPT test is often con-
This methodology is similar to that used in Kulhawy and ducted, allowing estimates to be made of cu varying with
For personal use only.
Mayne (1990). depth. Hara et al. (1974) gives a correlation for cu with SPT
blowcount for a database of cohesive soils. The majority of
Undrained shear strength the soils in the database were reported to have void ratios
The soil mechanics literature on undrained shear strength ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. The OCR for the soils in the data-
has two distinct perspectives. Many early papers were con- base was reported to vary from 1.0 to 3.0.
cerned with empirical correlations that would allow practis-
ing engineers to estimate strength based on elementary ½4 cu ¼ 29ðN60 Þ0:72 kPa OCR < 3:0
classifications or probings (e.g., Atterberg limits, vane shear where N60 is the SPT blowcount. Stroud (1974) showed that
tests, and SPTs). In the 1960s and thereafter, however, the plasticity index influences cu/N60 for stiff clays. Reid and
emergence of critical state soil mechanics (CSSM) (Schofield Taylor (2010) comment that Stroud’s chart does not show a
and Wroth 1968) fostered a fundamental understanding that statistical analysis of the data. The optimum power curve
clarified the relationship between undrained and drained (eq. [5]) is fitted to the data (reproduced as Fig. 1) which
shear strength and that provided theoretical relationships be- confirms that there is a correlation, but with a flatter curve
tween undrained strength and overconsolidation ratio (OCR), than that proposed by Stroud (1974).
for example. Subsequent authors have done much to rational-
ise soil test and classification data within the broader CSSM ½5 cu ¼ 10 N60 ðIp Þ0:22 kPa
framework, e.g., Muir Wood (1990). In this way, the earlier R2 ¼ 0:37; n ¼ 53; SE ¼ 1:14; p < 0:001
empirical findings have been generalized to cover most types
of element test, and have therefore become more widely ap-
plicable. Anisotropy
It is well-known that the undrained strength of clay de-
Normally consolidated clay pends on the mode of shearing, e.g., Mayne (1985). Data on
The undrained shear strength, cu, is the obvious parameter the small strain stiffness of some clays is now also known to
to normalize the mobilized shear strength, tmob. It can be display anisotropy, e.g., Graham and Houlsby (1983); Lings
measured directly or predicted using established correlations. et al. (2000); Gasparre (2005). However, there is as yet no
Skempton’s correlation (Skempton 1954, 1957) for the shear database available that permits the generalization of degree
strength of normally consolidated soils as a function of plas- of anisotropy at different strain magnitudes for different
ticity index is often used clays. The approach adopted in this paper is to use the data
cu of shear strength to normalize the shear stresses consistent
½1 0 ¼ 0:11 þ 0:37Ip with moderate strains. In applying the results, engineers
s v;0
should ideally seek data for undrained shear strength ob-
0
where s v;0 is the in situ vertical effective stress and Ip is the tained in a test mode appropriate to the problem, or could
plasticity index. Muir Wood (1990) shows that there is appre- use the correlations between test types presented in Mayne
ciable scatter around eq. [1] for a wider variety of clays. (1985).
Fig. 1. Relationship between cu/N and Ip for a variety of clays (re-plotted from Stroud 1974).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
Database of strength mobilization BSI (1994) describes the quantity cu/tmob as the mobiliza-
Data was found for triaxial, RC, and DSS tests on natural tion factor, M, which is equivalent to a factor of safety on
clay specimens subjected to consolidated isotropic undrained shear strength.
(CIU) shearing. In all cases the sample was taken from zero
For personal use only.
region. The curve-fitting parameters for the database are sum- index, Ip, for the 115 test curves. It is clear that the scatter is
marized in Appendix A1. exceptionally high and no correlation is present. No correla-
The exponent b determined for each test (CIU, DSS, cyclic tion was found using liquid limit, wL; plastic limit, wP; Ip or
triaxial, and RC) is given in Fig. 5, plotted against plasticity IL; water content, w; or initial mean effective stress, p00 . It can
Table 2. Analysis of test categories in the database. where tmob/cu is the inverse of the mobilization factor (1/M).
Figure 8 shows the measured values of tmob/cu plotted
b standard
Test category b average deviation n
against those predicted using eq. [9]. The resulting regression
is
CIU tests 0.608 0.158 92
0:6
DSS tests 0.610 0.163 12 t mob g
For personal use only.
Fig. 3. Todi clay data (digitized and re-plotted from Burland et al. 1996).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
base in Fig. 9a, and again in Fig. 9b using log–log axes. The Predicting mobilization strain
small scatter in the vicinity of the pivot point tmob/cu = 0.5 is Multiple regression analysis was used in an attempt to dis-
due to random error introduced either by digitizing the cover the significant parametric influences on the reference
stress–strain curves published by the authors listed in Table 1 strain gM=2, and to arrange the key parameters in appropriate
or noise in their original test data. The factor error incurred groups for the purposes of prediction. Some of the tests in
by using eq. [9] is seen in Fig. 8 to be generally no more the database were found to be atypical in that they were
than a factor 1.4 on stresses at a given normalized strain found to have gM=2 values that remained as outliers which-
within the chosen mobilization interval and, correspondingly, ever correlation was attempted. The Manglerud quick clay is
no more than a factor 1.75 on normalized strain at a given best characterized as highly structured inorganic clayey silt
stress, as seen in Fig. 9b. Although four out of 19 clays and with a very low plasticity index of 8%; it was also excluded
silts have at least one point on their stress–strain curve lying from the regression analysis. Some of the publications did
outside these bounds, this only applies to about 1% of the to- not give sufficient information to determine appropriate val-
tal number of digitized data points. It is also evident that ues for p00 (San Francisco Bay mud, Osnoy clay, Drammen
most of these troublesome points lie on the conservative side clay, St-Roch-de-l’Achigan clay); these were necessarily ex-
of prediction (eq. [9]), and none of them refer to low mobili- cluded from the analysis. The subsequent analysis relates to
zation factors M < 4. 14 of the original 19 clays in the database.
A multiple linear regression (MLR) was performed using determine a value of coefficient C in eq. [12], for the partic-
the data-analysis package in Microsoft Excel. The best model ular clay of interest, is strongly advised.
that could be found is given as eq. [11]. Figure 10 shows the
For personal use only.
Fig. 6. charts showing eq. [8] with various values of A and b: (a) A = 1; (b) A = 10; (c) A = 100.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
For personal use only.
Fig. 7. Moderate strain region data (115 tests, 19 clays and silts).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
Fig. 8. tmob/cu data plotted against predicted tmob/cu from eq. [9].
For personal use only.
0:59 0 0:28
acknowledged that only three sites in a single deposit (Lon- cu p0
don clay) are described on Fig. 12 and by eq. [15], and that ½16 g M¼2 ¼ 0:0109ðIp Þ0:45 OCR 0:8
p00 nc patm
any pattern of variation may be due to some other soil pa-
rameter that varies between the different London clay geolog- Taking a representative Ip = 0.39 for London clay (average
ical groups. Despite this, decreasing OCR seems a credible of the tests quoted in this paper) we get, from eq. [1]
explanation for (eq. [15]).
cu
½15 1000g m¼2 ¼ 2:84 lnðdÞ þ 15:42 ½1bis ¼ 0:11 þ 0:37ð0:39Þ ¼ 0:254
p00 nc
R2 ¼ 0:46; r ¼ 0:67; n ¼ 17;
p ¼ 0:003; SE ¼ 1:79 Therefore
0:28
0:59 0 0:28 0:45 0:8 0:59 p00
½17 g M¼2 ¼ 0:0109ð0:39Þ ð0:254OCR Þ
0:45 cu p0 patm
½12bis g M¼2 ¼ 0:0109ðIp Þ
p00 patm
Fig. 9. tmob/cu data versus normalized strain: (a) shear stress mobilization versus normalized shear strain: natural axes; (b) shear stress mobi-
lization versus normalized shear strain: logarithmic axes.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
For personal use only.
Fig. 10. Logarithm of the measured mobilization strains plotted against values predicted from eq. [11].
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
Fig. 11. tmob/cu values from the database versus predicted tmob/cu values using eqs. [9] and [12].
For personal use only.
with various OCRs marked as R1, R1.4, etc. It is possible to predictions achieved using this procedure. The performance
define a new parameter t0, which is the initial shear stress is generally satisfactory for t0 > 0, K0 < 1, but less so for
after one-dimensional swelling. This can conveniently be the test from the largest yield stress ratio R8 for which
taken in Fig. 13 as the stress mobilized at 3a = 10–5. t0 = –7 kPa. Updating eq. [9] accordingly we obtain
Test R4 begins approximately at K0 = 1, t0 = 0, where K0 0:6
is the initial coefficient of earth pressure. This is used to ob- t mob t 0 g
½21 ¼ 0:5
tain a fitting to eq. [9]. The stress–strain prediction of any cu g M¼2
other K0 test is then achieved by scaling for the actual un-
drained strength achieved in that test, and then by shifting where gM=2 refers to the mobilization strain of test R4, t0,
the scaled curve vertically so that it starts at shear stress t = and cu refer to the start and finish of any other K0 test, and
t0. Figure 14 shows all the test curves accompanied by the (tmob, g) represents the predicted stress–strain curve.
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).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
Fig. 14. Predicted stress–strain curves using eq. [21] (test data from Jardine et al. 1986).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
relate the average strains, gmob, to the ratio of undrained foot- W 6=2 cu ðpD2 =4Þ
ing settlement, w, to diameter, D
w g mob So the net effect of the three partial factors is equivalent to
½23 ¼ the application of a single mobilization factor M = 2 on un-
D 1:35
For personal use only.
clay were predicted solely on the basis of Atterberg limits mobilization of stress correspondingly increases to 3.2. Use
and effective stress levels, using eq. [12], then Fig. 10 shows of eq. [12] is not recommended for highly structured quick
the possibility of an error up to a factor of 3. If a sufficient clays or residual soils, which were excluded from the regres-
number of stress–strain tests is conducted to obtain a reliable sion analysis.
mean value for gM=2, Fig. 9 suggests that a factor error up to Although the database, and eq. [9], was based on standard
1.75 on strains might occur towards the extremes of the undrained triaxial compression, DSS, and RC tests for which
chosen range 5 < M < 1.25 due to the inaccuracy of describ- the initial shear stress was zero, one set of tests on reconsti-
ing all clays using the same power exponent b = 0.6. Even in tuted low plasticity reported by Jardine et al. (1986) had been
the vicinity of a measured value for gM=2, the factor error in allowed to swell one-dimensionally prior to being tested in
strain predictions from one test to another can apparently be compression from an initial K0 ≠ 1. Some success was dem-
as large as 1.3, as observed around the pivot point in Fig. 9b. onstrated, at least for cases with K0 ≤ 1, by simply shifting
Equation [26] confirms that the error in nonlinear settlement the standard power curve vertically so that it started at an ini-
prediction should mirror the error in gM=2. tial shear stress t0 corresponding to its K0 value (eq. [21]).
All the foregoing relates to the undrained foundation settle- Prescribed geotechnical factors of safety cannot be used to
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
ment. However, the ratio of fully drained to undrained settle- achieve undrained settlement targets let alone ultimate settle-
ment of shallow foundations on soils in their quasi-elastic ments. The use of a single mobilization factor for the clays in
range of behaviour, as described here, should fall in the range the current database leads to the settlement of a notional 2 m
1.4 to 1.6 as the secant Poisson’s ratio rises from about 0.2 to footing varying over a factor of 30. The information pre-
0.3 (see Burland et al. 1977). The methodology set out in sented here allows an engineer to reduce this variability by
this paper therefore offers a design engineer an order of mag- an order of magnitude.
nitude improvement in settlement control compared with the
use of codified safety factors. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust
Conclusions and Ove Arup and Partners for financial support to the first
author. Thanks are also due to Dr Brian Simpson, Dr Paul
A database of the undrained stress–strain behaviour of nat-
Morrison, and Dr Stuart Haigh for their helpful advice and
For personal use only.
Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 11(1): 33–43. doi:10.1007/ Lunne, T., Berre, T., Andersen, K.H., Strandvik, S., and Sjursen, M.
BF01591800. 2006. Effects of sample disturbance and consolidation procedures
Futai, M.M., Almeida, M.S.S., and Lacerda, W.A. 2004. Yield, strength on measured shear strength of soft marine Norwegian clays.
and critical state behaviour of a tropical saturated soil. Journal of Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(7): 726–750. doi:10.1139/t06-
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(11): 1169– 040.
1179. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:11(1169). Marques, M.E.S., Leroueil, S., and Soares de Almeida, M. 2004.
Gasparre, A. 2005. Advanced laboratory characterisation of London Viscous behaviour of St-Roch-de-l’Achigan clay, Quebec. Cana-
clay. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology, dian Geotechnical Journal, 41(1): 25–38. doi:10.1139/t03-068.
London. Mayne, P.W. 1985. Stress anisotropy effects on clay strength. Journal
Gourvenec, S.M., Bolton, M.D., Soga, K., Gui, M.W., Mair, R.J., of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(3): 356–366. doi:10.1061/
Edmonds, H., Chudleighm, L.J., and Bulter, A.P. 1999. Field (ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(356).
Investigations of long-term ground loading on an old tunnel in Moh, Z.C., Nelson, J.D., and Brand, E.W. 1969. Strength and
London clay. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium deformation behaviour of Bangkok clay. In Proceedings of the 7th
on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Ground, Tokyo, 19–21 July 1999. Japanese Geotechnical Society, Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 25–29 August 1969. A.A.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
Tokyo, pp. 179–184. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 287–295.
Gourvenec, S.M., Mair, R.J., Bolton, M.D., and Soga, K. 2005. Muir Wood, D. 1983. Index properties and critical state soil
Ground conditions around an old tunnel in London clay. mechanics. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Developments in Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of
Engineering, 158: 25–33. Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, 6–9 December 1983. A.A.
Graham, J., and Houlsby, G.T. 1983. Anisotropic elasticity of a Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 301–309.
natural clay. Géotechnique, 33(2): 165–180. doi:10.1680/geot. Muir Wood, D. 1990. Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics.
1983.33.2.165. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., and Banno, T. 1974. Shear Osman, A.S., and Bolton, M.D. 2005. Simple plasticity-based
modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils and prediction of the undrained settlement of shallow circular
Foundations, 14(3): 1–12. foundations on clay. Géotechnique, 55(6): 435–447. doi:10.1061/
Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P. 1972. Shear modulus and damping (ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(356).
For personal use only.
in soils: design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil Reid, A., and Taylor, J. 2010. The misuse of SPTs in fine soils and
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98(SM7): 667–691. the implications of Eurocode 7. Ground Engineering, 43(7): 28–
Jardine, R.J. 1992. Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil 31.
stiffness. Soils and Foundations, 32(2): 111–124. Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, C.P. 1968. Critical state soil mechanics.
Jardine, R.J., Symes, M.J.P.R., and Burland, J.B. 1984. The McGraw-Hill, London.
measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus. Géotechni- Shibuya, S., and Mitachi, T. 1994. Small strain modulus of clay
que, 34(3): 323–340. doi:10.1680/geot.1984.34.3.323. sedimentation in a state of normal consolidation. Soils and
Jardine, R.J., Potts, D.M., Fourie, A.B., and Burland, J.B. 1986. Foundations, 34(4): 67–77.
Studies of the influence of non-linear stress-strain characteristics Skempton, A.W. 1954. Discussion: Sensitivity of clays and the c/p
in soil-structure interaction. Géotechnique, 36(3): 377–396. ratio in normally consolidated clays. Proceedings of the American
doi:10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.377. Society of Civil Engineers, Separate 478: 19–22.
Koutsoftas, D. 1978. Effect of cyclic loads on undrained strength of Skempton, A.W. 1957. Discussion: Further data on the c/p ratio in
two marine clays. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering normally consolidated clays. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Division, ASCE, 104(GT5): 609–620. Engineers, 7: 305–307.
Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. 1990. Manual on estimating soil Stroud, M.A. 1974. The standard penetration test in sensitive clays
properties for foundation design. Electric Power Research Institute, and soft rocks. In Proceedings of the European Seminar on
Palo Alto, Calif. Report No. EL-6800. Penetration Testing, Stockholm. Vol. 2:2, pp. 366–375.
Ladd, C. 1964. Stress-strain modulus of clay in undrained shear. Vardanega, P.J., and Bolton, M.D. 2011. Practical methods to
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, estimate the non-linear stiffness of fine grained soils. In
90(SM 5): 103–132. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Deformation
Ladd, C., Foot, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H. 1977. Characteristics of Geomaterials, 1–3 September 2011, Seoul,
Stress-deformation and strength characteristics. In Proceedings of South Korea. Edited by I. Chung et al. Hanrimwon Co., Ltd. Vol.
the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda- 1, pp. 372-379.
tion Engineering, Tokyo, 10–15 July 1977. Japanese Society of Yimsiri, S. 2002. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of soils:
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan. anisotropy and soil fabric. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge,
Vol. 2, pp. 421–494. Cambridge, UK.
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). Appendix A
Lings, M.L., Pennington, D.S., and Nash, D.F.T. 2000. Anisotropic
stiffness parameters and their measurement in a stiff natural clay.
Géotechnique, 50(2): 109–125. doi:10.1680/geot.2000.50.2.109.
Test cu Sample
Author Clay type A b R2 n (kPa) gM=2 Ip WP WL w (%) depth (m) OCR p00 (kPa)
Ladd (1964) Amuay CIU 4.34 0.40 0.98 7 249 0.004 49 0.42 0.29 0.71 0.51 — — 785
Kawasaki CIU 7.16 0.49 0.98 4 118 0.004 15 0.34 0.36 0.70 0.67 — — 294
Lagunillas CIU 4.15 0.36 0.99 6 31 0.002 94 0.37 0.24 0.61 0.60 — — 98
Moh et al. Weathered CIU 13.06 0.65 1.00 4 27 0.006 56 0.51 0.35 0.86 0.70 2.5 — 38
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
(1969) Bangkok
CIU 10.34 0.58 0.99 4 35 0.005 59 0.51 0.35 0.86 0.70 2.5 — 102
CIU 2.79 0.32 0.98 4 48 0.004 32 0.51 0.35 0.86 0.70 2.5 — 170
CIU 6.69 0.54 0.99 3 54 0.008 27 0.51 0.35 0.86 0.70 2.5 — 204
CIU 5.34 0.48 1.00 3 87 0.007 39 0.51 0.35 0.86 0.70 2.5 — 306
Soft Bangkok CIU 9.40 0.59 0.89 4 27 0.006 81 0.50 0.36 0.86 0.76 5.3 — 102
CIU 7.10 0.63 0.98 9 54 0.014 69 0.50 0.36 0.86 0.76 5.3 — 204
CIU 6.35 0.61 0.99 6 99 0.015 95 0.50 0.36 0.86 0.76 5.3 — 407
Stiff Bangkok CIU 6.14 0.60 0.99 10 92 0.015 24 0.45 0.20 0.65 0.26 11.0 — 102
CIU 5.69 0.52 0.99 7 103 0.009 27 0.45 0.20 0.65 0.26 11.0 — 204
CIU 9.55 0.64 0.99 5 158 0.010 16 0.45 0.20 0.65 0.26 11.0 — 407
CIU 6.37 0.55 1.00 5 288 0.010 13 0.45 0.20 0.65 0.26 11.0 814
For personal use only.
Clough and San Francisco CIU 6.27 0.50 0.89 7 76 0.006 07 0.35 — — — — 1.30 —
Denby Bay mud
(1980)
CIU 5.22 0.45 0.96 6 74 0.005 73 0.35 — — — — 1.30 —
CIU 5.29 0.45 0.89 7 102 0.005 36 0.35 — — — — 1.30 —
Lefebvre and Grande Ba- CIU 39.29 0.71 0.97 14 48 0.002 18 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 45
LeBoeuf leine OC
(1987)
CIU 31.45 0.70 0.93 17 55 0.002 67 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 45
CIU 22.68 0.64 0.98 20 57 0.002 65 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 45
CIU 54.03 0.82 0.98 18 64 0.003 20 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 45
CIU 26.40 0.67 0.95 16 64 0.002 76 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 45
Grande Ba- CIU 28.30 0.71 0.95 8 66 0.003 51 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 224
leine NC
CIU 9.84 0.49 0.97 11 70 0.002 33 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 224
CIU 6.99 0.46 0.99 14 71 0.003 18 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 224
CIU 7.90 0.45 0.91 12 73 0.002 09 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 224
Olga OC CIU 40.81 0.81 0.96 16 36 0.004 38 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 18
CIU 455.91 1.21 0.93 17 34 0.003 63 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 18
CIU 76.57 0.87 0.97 15 29 0.003 16 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 18
CIU 58.61 0.84 0.90 12 23 0.003 48 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 18
Olga NC CIU 4.17 0.39 1.00 18 39 0.004 22 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 137
CIU 8.17 0.47 0.93 18 41 0.002 54 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 137
CIU 7.64 0.43 0.97 14 44 0.001 83 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 137
CIU 5.06 0.37 0.96 14 50 0.002 01 0.40 0.28 0.68 0.92 3.9 — 137
Vardanega and Bolton
Table A1 (continued).
Test cu Sample
Author Clay type A b R2 n (kPa) gM=2 Ip WP WL w (%) depth (m) OCR p00 (kPa)
Díaz-Rodriguez Mexico City II CIU 10.61 0.66 1.00 21 22 0.009 84 4.93 0.57 5.50 4.64 1.7 — 15
et al. (1992)
CIU 7.96 0.66 0.99 31 33 0.014 85 4.93 0.57 5.50 4.70 1.7 — 41
Burland et al. Todi CIU 17.18 1.02 0.99 11 297 0.030 83 0.28 — — — — — 50
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
(1996)
CIU 14.63 0.88 1.00 14 661 0.021 59 0.28 — — — — — 200
CIU 12.71 0.75 1.00 16 839 0.013 29 0.28 — — — — — 443
CIU 11.62 0.77 1.00 14 1076 0.016 50 0.28 — — — — — 600
CIU 8.46 0.66 1.00 16 1453 0.014 05 0.28 — — — — — 1500
CIU 8.06 0.66 1.00 25 1803 0.014 69 0.28 — — — — — 2200
CIU 5.15 0.52 1.00 27 2029 0.011 47 0.28 — — — — — 3200
Yimsiri (2002) London II CIU 7.39 0.53 1.00 219 202 0.006 45 0.45 0.28 0.60 0.26 13.6 — 270
CIU 7.17 0.50 1.00 111 199 0.004 81 0.45 — — 0.26 13.6 — 270
CIU 8.33 0.60 1.00 87 365 0.009 34 0.42 — — 0.22 16.4 — 310
CIU 7.18 0.54 1.00 78 336 0.007 27 0.42 — — 0.22 16.4 — 310
CIU 14.69 0.62 0.99 112 348 0.004 25 0.33 — — 0.22 22.9 — 410
For personal use only.
CIU 11.05 0.64 1.00 125 407 0.007 69 0.33 — — 0.21 22.9 — 410
Callisto and Vallericca CIU 6.90 0.53 0.98 7 205 0.007 00 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 58
Rampello
(2004)
CIU 4.25 0.38 0.98 7 313 0.003 39 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 200
CIU 6.49 0.47 0.97 6 414 0.004 18 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 428
CIU 8.93 0.52 0.91 7 421 0.003 73 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 412
CIU 11.69 0.59 0.88 8 436 0.004 75 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 619
CIU 25.17 0.73 0.94 6 492 0.004 77 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 817
CIU 7.63 0.53 0.97 10 555 0.005 72 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 1600
CIU 10.18 0.61 0.95 13 697 0.007 13 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — — 2400
CIU 3.93 0.39 0.98 9 876 0.005 22 0.33 0.27 0.60 0.29 — 3200
Futai et al. Ouro Preto CIU 4.10 0.61 1.00 6 74 0.032 16 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 25
(2004)
CIU 4.92 0.54 0.99 7 116 0.014 57 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 50
CIU 5.11 0.58 0.99 6 125 0.017 58 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 100
CIU 4.98 0.53 0.89 6 149 0.013 06 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 200
CIU 4.22 0.52 0.96 9 253 0.016 07 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 300
Published by NRC Research Press
CIU 2.98 0.48 0.97 11 251 0.024 14 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 400
CIU 7.34 0.62 0.98 9 292 0.013 13 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 540
CIU 6.43 0.66 0.99 14 401 0.020 28 0.22 0.20 0.42 0.33 5.0 — 690
Marques et al. St-Roch-de- CIU 104.84 1.09 0.97 4 45 0.007 35 0.42 0.28 0.70 0.84 5.3 2.10 —
(2004) l’Achigan
CIU 25.40 0.78 0.99 5 31 0.006 51 0.42 0.28 0.70 0.84 5.3 2.10 —
CIU 94.52 0.97 0.98 6 29 0.004 61 0.42 0.28 0.70 0.84 5.3 2.10 —
1501
1502
Table A1 (continued).
Test cu Sample
Author Clay type A b R2 n (kPa) gM=2 Ip WP WL w (%) depth (m) OCR p00 (kPa)
Gasparre London CIU 5.41 0.49 0.99 133 158 0.007 82 0.37 0.29 0.66 0.26 7.0 — 260
(2005)
CIU 3.69 0.45 0.99 85 290 0.012 02 0.37 0.29 0.66 0.24 11.0 — 261
CIU 3.39 0.41 0.98 139 187 0.009 15 0.37 0.28 0.65 0.26 13.4 — 257
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
CIU 5.86 0.47 1.00 92 220 0.005 31 0.48 0.23 0.71 0.24 26.2 — 248
CIU 9.98 0.58 1.00 65 250 0.005 68 0.33 0.26 0.59 0.25 38.8 — 502
Díaz-Rodri- Mexico City CIU 9.52 0.64 1.00 12 34 0.009 85 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 40
guez et al.
(2009)
CIU 11.41 0.74 0.99 21 61 0.014 75 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 40
CIU 9.66 0.70 0.99 21 71 0.014 56 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 40
CIU 8.13 0.64 1.00 25 73 0.013 06 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 40
CIU 8.96 0.69 0.99 25 59 0.015 29 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 80
CIU 10.49 0.72 1.00 21 70 0.014 72 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 80
CIU 11.52 0.73 0.99 17 78 0.013 24 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 80
CIU 8.98 0.67 1.00 20 90 0.013 79 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 80
For personal use only.
CIU 6.03 0.58 0.98 14 76 0.013 83 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 160
CIU 6.19 0.57 0.99 20 78 0.011 93 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 160
CIU 8.81 0.65 0.98 18 91 0.012 43 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 160
CIU 7.71 0.65 0.99 22 108 0.014 72 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 160
CIU 5.90 0.55 0.97 18 116 0.011 38 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 300
CIU 7.20 0.59 0.96 15 114 0.010 64 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 300
CIU 11.06 0.70 0.98 21 173 0.012 17 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 300
CIU 14.01 0.73 0.99 19 158 0.010 39 1.47 0.64 2.11 1.90 17.9 — 300
Koutsoftas NC Coastal Cyclic 10.36 0.53 0.89 4 168 0.003 26 0.38 0.25 0.63 0.53 — 1.00 477
(1978) plastic
OC Coastal Cyclic 3.63 0.39 0.97 10 134 0.006 20 0.38 0.26 0.64 0.54 — 3.98 120
plastic
Cyclic 4.38 0.47 0.95 7 129 0.009 54 0.39 0.27 0.66 0.54 — 3.95 121
NC Coastal Cyclic 19.71 0.64 0.91 5 155 0.003 18 0.18 0.17 0.35 0.29 — 1.00 478
silty Clay
OC Coastal Cyclic 6.92 0.49 0.99 6 126 0.004 50 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.27 — 4.00 120
silty
Mitachi (various
(1994) depths)
Cyclic 16.98 0.61 1.00 3 45 0.003 07 0.78 0.44 1.22 0.97 — — 115
Cyclic 12.89 0.54 0.99 5 25 0.002 53 0.85 0.52 1.37 1.28 — — 77
Cyclic 6.78 0.49 0.98 5 30 0.005 04 0.61 0.51 1.12 1.13 — — 69
Cyclic 10.12 0.63 1.00 3 22 0.008 43 0.89 0.51 1.40 1.31 — — 45
Cyclic 13.18 0.62 1.00 3 20 0.004 94 1.07 0.58 1.65 1.64 — — 37
Vardanega and Bolton 1503
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
p00 (kPa)
References
144
198
99
Bjerrum, L., and Landva, A. 1966. Direct simple-shear tests on a
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Norwegian quick clay. Géotechnique, 16(1): 1–20. doi:10.1680/
geot.1966.16.1.1.
Burland, J.B., Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V.N., and Calabresi, G.
OCR
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.20
1.20
1.20
1996. A laboratory study of the strength of four stiff clays.
—
—
— Géotechnique, 46(3): 491–514. doi:10.1680/geot.1996.46.3.491.
Callisto, L., and Rampello, S. 2004. An interpretation of structural
depth (m)
12.6
14.2
12.2
16.5
16.5
16.1
8.4
8.4
8.3
7.2
7.3
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): 45–63.
w (%)
0.36
0.36
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.28
0.28
0.28
of Mexico City clay and other natural clays. Journal of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 212.3.196.121 on 01/30/21
0.27
0.27
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.34
0.34
0.34
WL
0.19
0.19
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.19
0.19
0.19
305. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:2(300).
WP
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–
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.15
0.15
0.15
1179. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:11(1169).
Ip
0.013 36
0.020 41
0.044 12
0.003 36
0.002 91
0.004 86
0.004 12
0.004 73
0.003 94
0.001 51
0.005 08
0.004 25
London.
Koutsoftas, D. 1978. Effect of cyclic loads on undrained strength of
gM=2
26
42
26
24
25
21
15
14
31
32
28
16
19
15
14
10
11
10
12
3
3
6
n
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
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.84
0.95
0.91
0.89
0.92
0.94
0.85
0.98
0.99
0.76
0.92
0.53
0.43
0.60
0.53
0.46
0.64
0.36
0.59
0.70
6.14
9.14
5.79
5.15
15.44
10.42
12.25
17.14
11.36
23.45
Moh, Z.C., Nelson, J.D., and Brand, E.W. 1969. Strength and
deformation behaviour of Bangkok clay. In Proceedings of the 7th
A
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
type
Test
Drammen
Cambridge, UK.
Osnoy
Clay
Table A1 (concluded).
Bjerrum and
Lunne et al.
Landva
(1966)
(2006)
Author