1485

Strength mobilization in clays and silts

P.J. Vardanega and M.D. Bolton

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-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

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
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]

Introduction published data of G/G0 often derive from resonant column

The prediction of strains and displacements is of increas-
ing concern to a geotechnical engineer. The data of nonlinear
stress–strain 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 stiff-
ness) 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 Bol-
ton (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).
(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 gener-
ally 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

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 1485–1503 (2011) doi:10.1139/T11-052 Published by NRC Research Press
 1486
simplified deformation calculations. Shear strength mobiliza-
tion 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 perform-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
ing design calculations that deal explicitly with the service-
ability criterion in limit-state design.
Statistical analysis
When performing a regression analysis, the coefficient of
determination (R2) value alone does not give sufficient infor-
mation to determine the validity of the correlation. In addi-
tion 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
For personal use only.
Mayne (1990).
Undrained shear strength
The soil mechanics literature on undrained shear strength
has two distinct perspectives. Many early papers were con-
cerned with empirical correlations that would allow practis-
ing 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 be-
tween undrained strength and overconsolidation ratio (OCR),
for example. Subsequent authors have done much to rational-
ise 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 ap-
plicable.
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.
Skempton’s correlation (Skempton 1954, 1957) for the shear
strength of normally consolidated soils as a function of plas-
ticity index is often used
cu
½1 0 ¼ 0:11 þ 0:37Ip
s v;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 appre-
ciable scatter around eq. [1] for a wider variety of clays.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
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 crit-
ical state soil mechanics both show
0
cu =s vi L
½2 0 Þ ¼ ðOCRÞ
ðcu =s vi nc
where s vi0 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.
½3 cu ¼ 170 e4:6IL kPa
Correlations with SPT N60 values
For standard site investigation the SPT test is often con-
ducted, 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 data-
base was reported to vary from 1.0 to 3.0.
½4 cu ¼ 29ðN60 Þ0:72 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 Stroud’s 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).
½5 cu ¼ 10 N60 ðIp Þ0:22 kPa
R2 ¼ 0:37; n ¼ 53; SE ¼ 1:14; p < 0:001
Anisotropy
It is well-known that the undrained strength of clay de-
pends 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 ob-
tained 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).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
Database of strength mobilization
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
For personal use only.
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 inclu-
sion 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 never-
theless 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 catego-
ries; see Table 2. Rather than a drawback, the merging of dif-
ferent 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 mo-
bilized shear strength are defined as, respectively
½6 g ¼ 1:53a
½7 t mob ¼ 0:5q
1487
BSI (1994) describes the quantity cu/tmob as the mobiliza-
tion factor, M, which is equivalent to a factor of safety on
shear strength.
Analysis of database
The collected database comprises 115 stress–strain curves
from 16 publications describing a variety of test types. This
variety will be an advantage in the application of the empiri-
cal correlations that follow, as the same framework is shown
to fit irrespective of test method. Figure 3 shows an example
of the Todi clay stress–strain 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 cor-
responded to 1.25 ≤ M ≤ 5 for each test curve in the data-
base. 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 ex-
ceptionally 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 ap-
proaching failure.
Power curves are useful for curve-fitting to engineering
data as they have only two regression constants, are straight
lines on log–log plots, and pass through the point (0,0),
which is a necessary condition for many physical phenom-
ena. The power law model used in the subsequent analysis is
t mob
½8 ¼ AðgÞb
cu
where log(A) is the intercept of the best-fit linear line through
the stress–strain data plotted on log–log 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)
Bjerrum and Landva (1966)
Moh et al. (1969)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
Koutsoftas (1978)
Clough and Denby (1980)
Lefebvre and LeBoeuf (1987)
Díaz-Rodriguez et al. (1992)
Shibuya and Mitachi (1994)
For personal use only.
Burland et al. (1996)
Yimsiri (2002)
Callisto and Rampello (2004)
Futai et al. (2004)
Marques et al. (2004)
Gasparre (2005)
Lunne et al. (2006)
Díaz-Rodriguez et al. (2009)
Note: CAUC, anisotropically consolidated undrained compression; CU, consolidated undrained; NC, normally consolidated; OC, overconsolidated.
region. The curve-fitting parameters for the database are sum-
marized in Appendix A1.
The exponent b determined for each test (CIU, DSS, cyclic
triaxial, and RC) is given in Fig. 5, plotted against plasticity
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
No. of tests included
Clay type Test type in the database Comments
Amuay CIU 1 —
Lagunillas CIU 1 —
Kawasaki CIU 1 —
Manglerud quick DSS 3 Data from Fig. 8 excluded as only two
points in moderate strain region
available after digitization
Bangkok (weathered, CIU 12 Test at confining stress of 51 kPa
soft, and stiff) excluded as only two points in
moderate strain region available after
digitization
Plastic CU cyclic–static 3 Inorganic marine clays from New
Jersey. Only the pseudo-static tests
have been used in this database.
Silty CU cyclic–static 2 —
San Francisco Bay CIU 3 —
mud
Grande Baleine OC CIU 5 —
Grande Baleine NC 5 —
Olga OC 4 —
Olga NC 4 —
Mexico City CIU 2 —
Hachirōgata Cyclic triaxial 6 Test T1 of Hachirōgata clay was
rejected as only one data point above
cu/5 was present after digitization
Todi CIU 7 —
London CIU 6 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.
Vallericca (Italy) CIU 9 —
Ouro Preto (Brazil) CIU 8 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).
St-Roch-de-l’Achigan CIU 3 Testing at three temperatures
London CIU 5 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 anom-
alous double peak in the stress–strain
curve
Osnøy DSS 6 CAUC tests in the paper were not used
in the database
Drammen DSS 3 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.
Mexico City CIU 16 —
index, Ip, for the 115 test curves. It is clear that the scatter is
exceptionally high and no correlation is present. No correla-
tion was found using liquid limit, wL; plastic limit, wP; Ip or
IL; water content, w; or initial mean effective stress, p00 . It can
Published by NRC Research Press
 Vardanega and Bolton 1489

Fig. 2. Tests excluded from the database.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

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.

Cyclic tests 0.548 0.083 11 ½10 ¼ 0:49

All 0.603 0.153 115
be concluded that b is more likely to be explained by struc-
ture, fabric, the presence or absence of fissures, sampling
technique, and general sample condition.
Table 2 shows the average b-values for the three test cate-
gories 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 approx-
imately 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 b-
values for A = 1, 10, and 100, respectively. This demon-
strates 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 stress–strain 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 predic-
tion. 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
½9 ¼ 0:5
cu g M¼2
cu g M¼2
R2 ¼ 0:90; n ¼ 1365; p < 0:001
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 coef-
ficient 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 be-
tween the Y2 and Y3 yield surfaces in a nested yield surface
visualization. The need, in Fig. 4 and subsequently, to im-
pose the lower limit tmob/cu > 0.2 on the chosen moderate-
strain range must partly reflect the initially linear elastic be-
haviour 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, de-
scribed by Jardine in terms of approaching the Y3 yield sur-
face. 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 stress–strain curves at differ-
ent 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 reduc-
ing the error in prediction of tmob/cu as shown in Fig. 8. The
normalized stress–strain data are shown for the whole data-

Published by NRC Research Press

 1490
Fig. 3. Todi clay data (digitized and re-plotted from Burland et al. 1996).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
Fig. 4. Power laws fitted to Todi clay data from Fig. 3.
For personal use only.
base in Fig. 9a, and again in Fig. 9b using log–log 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
stress–strain 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 stress–strain curve lying
outside these bounds, this only applies to about 1% of the to-
tal 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 mobili-
zation factors M < 4.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Predicting mobilization strain
Multiple regression analysis was used in an attempt to dis-
cover 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 which-
ever 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 val-
ues for p00 (San Francisco Bay mud, Osnoy clay, Drammen
clay, St-Roch-de-l’Achigan clay); these were necessarily ex-
cluded 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.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
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
For personal use only.
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.
½11 log 10 ðg M¼2 Þ ¼ 1:964  0:306 log 10 ðp00 =patm Þ
þ 0:592 log 10 ðcu =patm Þ
þ 0:453 log 10 ðIp Þ
R2 ¼ 0:44; r ¼ 0:66; n ¼ 97; SE ¼ 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
0:45 cu p0
½12 g M¼2 ¼ CðIp Þ 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
ground information (cu, p00 , and Ip), together with the average
b-value of 0.6, and in the absence of any stress–strain 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 stress–strain behaviour of clays, but it does of-
fer a framework within which shear strength mobilization can
be estimated within different margins of probable error, de-
pending 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
1491
determine a value of coefficient C in eq. [12], for the partic-
ular clay of interest, is strongly advised.
Link to OCR
Equation [12] suggests that mobilization strain is a func-
tion of undrained shear strength, plasticity index, and present
confining stress. However, using eqs. [1] with eq. [2], and re-
arranging
 1:25
cu =p00
½13 OCR ¼
0:11 þ 0:0037ðIp Þ
Therefore, from eqs. [12] and [13] we can alternatively say
that
½14 g M¼2 ¼ f ðOCR; Ip ; p00 Þ
Many of the publications used to compile the database do
not explicitly state OCR. Equation [13] has inherent errors
due to the use of eq. [4] to compute (cu/p00 )nc and therefore
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 Cannon’s
Park in London, were reported in Jardine et al. (1984). Sev-
enteen 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 coef-
ficient 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 evi-
dence of reduced OCR reducing the mobilization strain. It is
Published by NRC Research Press
 1492 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

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 www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Vardanega and Bolton 1493

Fig. 7. Moderate strain region data (115 tests, 19 clays and silts).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

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

Substituting eq. [2] in ½18 g M¼2 ¼ 0:000872ðOCRÞ0:47 ðp00 Þ0:28

Published by NRC Research Press

 1494 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

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 www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
For personal use only.

Now, writing Using eq. [20], and taking an assumed bandwidth of Ds =

0 300 to 1000 kPa for London clay, the predicted profiles with
Ds þ s v;0 Ds
½19 OCR ¼ ¼ 0 þ1 depth of gM=2 can be computed; these are plotted on Fig. 12.
0
s v;0 gz 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 K0-consolidated test data
London clay. Substituting in eq. [18] we obtain In K0-triaxial tests the test curves do not start at zero shear
 
Ds 0:47 stress. Jardine et al. (1984, 1986) reported the data of high-
½20 g M¼2 ¼ 0:000872 1 þ ð10zÞ0:28 quality triaxial tests performed on reconstituted low-plasticity
10z clay. Figure 13 shows the original data re-plotted for tests

Published by NRC Research Press

 Vardanega and Bolton 1495

Fig. 10. Logarithm of the measured mobilization strains plotted against values predicted from eq. [11].
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

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.

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).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
Fig. 13. Original triaxial data from Jardine et al. (1986).
For personal use only.
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 plas-
ticity 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 car-
ried out, they usually rely on linear elastic calculations with
an estimated value of soil stiffness.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
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) in-
troduced the notion of a mobilized shear strength, tmob, suffi-
cient 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
q
½22 t mob ¼
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 continu-
ous deformation field within a Prandtl bearing mechanism to
Published by NRC Research Press
 Vardanega and Bolton 1497

Fig. 14. Predicted stress–strain curves using eq. [21] (test data from Jardine et al. 1986).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

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.

drained shear strength in relation to dead load. Using M = 2

Associating cmob from eq. [22] with gmob from eq. [23], by
using the power curves (eq. [9]), we predict
 
q 1:35w 0:6
½24 ¼ D
6cu g M¼2 D
Furthermore, using mobilization factor M (which is func-
tionally equivalent to a safety factor on soil strength)
6 cu
½25 M ¼
q shows that the provision of a single mobilization factor re-
and rearranging, we obtain
w g M¼2
½26 ¼
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 circu-
lar 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 ap-
plied to the undrained shear strength cu, then for the same
circular footing the following limitation on load would apply:
½27 1:1W þ 1:3V  6ðcu =1:4ÞðpD2 =4Þ
In the particular example where V = 0.25W we can rewrite
eq. [27] as
in eq. [26] we can determine the range of likely proportional
settlements
w g M¼2
½28 ¼
4:3
The range of gM=2 for various natural clays found in the
database, and shown in Fig. 10, is from 0.0015 (Grande Ba-
leine 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]
sults 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 fac-
tor 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 settle-
ments 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 probabil-
ity 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 stress–strain data, to narrow the range of ex-
pected settlement values. If the reference strain gM=2 for a

Published by NRC Research Press

 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 stress–strain 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 describ-
ing 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.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
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 settle-
ment. However, the ratio of fully drained to undrained settle-
ment 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 Poisson’s 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 mag-
nitude improvement in settlement control compared with the
use of codified safety factors.
Conclusions
A database of the undrained stress–strain behaviour of nat-
For personal use only.
ural silts and clays was compiled from 16 publications by
various authors. A total of seven of the 122 tests were ex-
cluded 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
stress–strain curves of clays is recommended, using a nor-
malization 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 stress–strain origin.
This observation led to the adoption of a reference strain
gM=2 for each test, defined as the shear strain required to mo-
bilize 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 stress–strain 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 exceed-
ing ±40%, see Fig. 8. This error is largely due to the expo-
nent 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 stress–strain 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
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
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 regres-
sion 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 reconsti-
tuted 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 dem-
onstrated, at least for cases with K0 ≤ 1, by simply shifting
the standard power curve vertically so that it started at an ini-
tial 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 settle-
ments. 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 pre-
sented 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.
References
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.
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, 10–15 July 1977. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan. Vol. 2, pp. 495–546.
Burland, J.B., Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V.N., and Calabresi, G.
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
degradation for three natural clays. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 41(3): 392–407. doi:10.1139/t03-099.
CEN. 2003. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules.
Standard EN 1997–1. 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): 45–63.
Díaz-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): 981–995. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:7(981).
Díaz-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 semi-
infinite solid by a perfectly rough circular punch. Zeitschrift für
Published by NRC Research Press
 Vardanega and Bolton
Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 11(1): 33–43. 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
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14
London clay. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium
on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground, Tokyo, 19–21 July 1999. Japanese Geotechnical Society,
Tokyo, pp. 179–184.
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: 25–33.
Graham, J., and Houlsby, G.T. 1983. Anisotropic elasticity of a
natural clay. Géotechnique, 33(2): 165–180. 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): 1–12.
Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich, V.P. 1972. Shear modulus and damping
For personal use only.
in soils: design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 98(SM7): 667–691.
Jardine, R.J. 1992. Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil
stiffness. Soils and Foundations, 32(2): 111–124.
Jardine, R.J., Symes, M.J.P.R., and Burland, J.B. 1984. The
measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus. Géotechni-
que, 34(3): 323–340. 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. Géotechnique, 36(3): 377–396.
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): 609–620.
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): 103–132.
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 Founda-
tion Engineering, Tokyo, 10–15 July 1977. Japanese Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
Vol. 2, pp. 421–494.
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.
Géotechnique, 50(2): 109–125. 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): 726–750. doi:10.1139/t06-
040.
Marques, M.E.S., Leroueil, S., and Soares de Almeida, M. 2004.
Viscous behaviour of St-Roch-de-l’Achigan clay, Quebec. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 41(1): 25–38. doi:10.1139/t03-068.
Mayne, P.W. 1985. Stress anisotropy effects on clay strength. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(3): 356–366. 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, 25–29 August 1969. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 287–295.
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, 6–9 December 1983. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 301–309.
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. Géotechnique, 55(6): 435–447. 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): 67–77.
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: 19–22.
Skempton, A.W. 1957. Discussion: Further data on the c/p ratio in
normally consolidated clays. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, 7: 305–307.
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. 366–375.
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, 1–3 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
Published by NRC Research Press
 1500
Table A1. Database summary.

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
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

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
(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

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

CIU 9.01 0.45 0.97 12 80 0.001 55 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.60 — — 224
Published by NRC Research Press

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
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

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
(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
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

(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
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

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Shibuya and Hachirōgata Cyclic 25.12 0.63 1.00 4 35 0.002 02 0.75 0.41 1.16 0.90 — — 131
Published by NRC Research Press

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)

degradation for three natural clays. Canadian Geotechnical

Sample

Journal, 41(3): 392–407. doi:10.1139/t03-099.

14.7

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
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 11/15/14

study of San Francisco Bay mud. Journal of the Geotechnical

Engineering Division, 106(GT1): 45–63.
w (%)

Díaz-Rodriguez, J.A., Leroueil, S., and Aleman, J.D. 1992. Yielding

0.36

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
Geotechnical Engineering, 118(7): 981–995. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:7(981).
0.27

0.27
0.27
0.68

0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.34
0.34
0.34
WL

Díaz-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–
0.19

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

Gasparre, A. 2005. Advanced laboratory characterisation of London

clay. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology,
For personal use only.

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

two marine clays. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering

Division, ASCE, 104(GT5): 609–620.
Ladd, C. 1964. Stress-strain modulus of clay in undrained shear.
(kPa)
18

26
42
26

24
25
21
15
14
31
32
28

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,

cu

90(SM 5): 103–132.

Lefebvre, G., and LeBoeuf, D. 1987. Rate effects & cyclic loading of
sensitive clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(5): 476–
14

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

on measured shear strength of soft marine Norwegian clays.

R2

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(7): 726–750. doi:10.1139/t06-

040.
0.79

0.76
0.92
0.53

0.43
0.60
0.53
0.46
0.64
0.36
0.59
0.70

Marques, M.E.S., Leroueil, S., and Soares de Almeida, M. 2004.

b

Viscous behaviour of St-Roch-de-l’Achigan clay, Quebec. Cana-

dian Geotechnical Journal, 41(1): 25–38. doi:10.1139/t03-068.
9.48
8.83

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

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, 25–29 August 1969. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 287–295.
DSS

DSS
DSS
DSS

DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
DSS
type
Test

10th datapoint in the moderate strain region).

Shibuya, S., and Mitachi, T. 1994. Small strain modulus of clay

sedimentation in a state of normal consolidation. Soils and
Foundations, 34(4): 67–77.
Yimsiri, S. 2002. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of soils:
Manglerud

Drammen

anisotropy and soil fabric. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge,

quick

Cambridge, UK.
Osnoy
Clay
Table A1 (concluded).

Bjerrum and

Lunne et al.
Landva
(1966)

(2006)
Author

Published by NRC Research Press