0.

40
Undrained Strength Ratio, cu/`vc

0.35
TC

0.30
DSS

0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0 10 20 30 40

TE

Triaxial Compression (TC) : qf Direct Simple Shear (DSS) : h Triaxial Extension (TE) : qf

50

60

70

80

90

100

Plasticity Index, Ip (%)

Undrained Strength Anisotropy from CKoU Tests on Normally Consolidated Clays and Slits
Adapted from Ladd (1991)

1.0 0.8
cu(H) cu(V) Ks =

0.6 0.4 0.2 0

TE TC

Note : Ks lower for triaxial than for plane strain due to influence of increasing b, i.e from b = 0 (TC) to b = 1 (TE)

20
PSE PSC

40

60

80
Reference

100

Plasticity Index, P.I. (%)

Stress History

vc > 1.5 - 2 x vm Table 1 Fig. 22, ` ` MIT and NGI ` = vo and ` Berre and vc vm / vo = 1.15 - 1.8 Bjerrum, (1973) ` `

Data on Undrained Strength Ratio Anisotropic of Low OCR Cohesive Soils Cu = Su

Adapted from Ladd et al. (1977)

1.4
ETS

^ ^

1.2
Correction Factor,

Milligan (1972) Bjerrum (1972) Ladd & Foott (1974) Flaate & Preber (1974) LaRochelle et al. (1974)

^ Layered & Varved Clays

1.0

Cu (Field) = x Cu (Vane)

0.8
EABPL

Bjerrum`s (1972) Recommended Curve

0.6
FRT

0.4

20

40

60

80

100

120

Plasticity Index, PI (%)

Field vane correction factor vs. plasticity index derived from embankment failures (Ladd, 1975).

7
SHANSEP CKoUDSS Data ( Cu ~ Su )
1.8

1
1.6

1. Maine Organic 2. Bangkok Clay

See Fig. 25 for identification of soil numbers

1.4

2 3

3. Atchafalaya Clay 4. AGS CH Clay 5. Boston Blue Clay

1.2

4 5

5
v cu /` c Overconsolidated (cu /vc ) Normally Consolidated `

6. Conn. Valley Varved Clay

Soil no. PI(%) LL(%) 1. 34 41 75 41 21 39 12 65 65 95 71 41 65 35

cu /` vc

1.0

0.8

4 Soils 1 to 5 3 Soil 6 2

2. 3. 4.^

0.6

5. 6.^^

0.4

(^) Unpublished data by MIT (1974) (^^) "Clay" & "Silt" layers

0.2 1 2 4 6 8 10

OCR = ` /` vm

vc

Undrained strength ratio vs OCR from CKoU direct simple shear tests on six clays (Ladd and Edgers, 1972). Adapted from Ladd et al. (1977) son, 9th ICSMFE

OCR = ` /vc ` vm

8 10

Relative increase in undrained strength ratio with OCR from CKoU direct simple shear tests (replot of data in Fig. 25) th
Adapted from Ladd et al. (1977) son, 9 ICSMFE

2.0 1.5 1.0

Test Sym m TC 0.78 0.78 DSS TE 0.82

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 a

Note: cu = qf for TC & TE cu = h for DSS

m Test OC NC TC 0.865 0.695 DSS TE 0.82

Peak cu / 'vc

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 30

0.3 b 0.2
15 10 5

f (%)

20
10
0
1 2 4 6 OCR = p / ' ' vc 8 10

1.0

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 OCR = p / ' ' vc

4.0

OCR vs. Undrained Strength Ratio and Shear Strain at Failure from CKoU Tests: (a) AGS Plastic Marine Clay via SHANSEP and (b) James Bay Sensitive Marine Clay via Recompression [B-6 Data from Le-febvre et al. (1983)]
Adapted from Ladd (1991)

0.5
AT z = 6.3m Ip = 16%, IL = 1.3

0.4

'vo = 60 kPa, ' = 145 - 150 kPa p

Destructured

q/`p

0.3

Intact

0.2

Laboratory ` vc In Situ ` p 0.34 0.80 1.33

0.1

3 4 5 Axial Strain, a(%)

(a) Normalized Stress-strain Data From CkoUC Tests

0.5 0.4 0.3
TC esp at in situ OCR Large Strain TC at in situ OCR
Destructured Yield Envelope

' = 35
intact yield envelope

q/ 'p

0.2 0.1 0 0

Kc =

0.55

'p

`vc / ` p

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5 0.6 p`/ 'p

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AT IN SITU OCR :

Triaxial Compression (TC) Triaxial Extension (TE)

LAB ` IN SITU ` : Peak q (TC)/ ` vc p p r NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED : TC and TE (Destructured)

(b) Normalized Effective Stress Paths and Yield Envelops

Adapted from Jamiolkowski et al. (1985)

CK0U Testing Program CKoU Test (1) TC TE DSS

Crust Deep

n (2) 13 17^ 14^^ 13^

Reconsolidation Technique Shansep Recompression S m COV n S m COV (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 0.280 0.142 0.200 0.180 0.681 0.830 0.775 0.660 4.5% 7.1% 6.5% 7.4%
n = no. of tests COV = Coef. of variation (%)

23 9

0.298 0.144

0.676 0.978

11.0% 6.9%

^ For in situ OCR < 1.5 ^^ For in situ OCR > 1.5

Table 1. Normalized Undrained Strength Parameters from

80 Test SB EB
TC DSS TE

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

Shansep DSS
Upper Clay Lower Clay

60

Direct Simple Shear h /` vc

Project Elevation (feet)

40

0.5

Upper Clay
0.4

20

Lower Clay
0.3

0.2

For Stress - Strain Behavior, Recompression has a "stiffer" response, i.e. > Lower f, especially for TE & at higher OCR > Higher Eu50/'vc at OCR > 2, especially for TE

DSS
-20

TE a
-40 0.1 0.2

TC c
0.3 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Shansep NC su /` vc Shansep TX
SHANSEP
TC TE

OCR
Recompression TX
Recompression
TC TE

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Triaxial q1/` vc

TC
0.4

TC TE

0.4 0.3

TE For Values of S & m, Recompression (compared to SHANSEP) Leads to: > TC - Slightly higher Sc & same mc > TE - Same Se & much higher mc

0.3

0.2

0.2

b
0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1

d
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

OCR

OCR

Normalized Undrained Strength Data from SHANSEP and Recompression CK0U Tests

Comparison of SHANSEP and Recompression CKoU Tests on Natural Boston

Blue Clay (Ladd et al. 1998, ASCE GSP 91, 1-24)

SFV = 0.165, m = 0.96

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 2.0 5.0

SFV = 0.74, m = 0.83

0.2

1.0

Field Vane Strength, Cu (FV) /` vo

0.1

0.5

Overconsolidation Ratio, OCR SFV = 0.20, m = 0.93 SFV = 0.16, m = 1.18 B - 2 SFV = 0.17, m = 1.35 B - 6

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

James Bay Marine Clay 0.2 Connecticut Valley Varved Clay 0.2 B-2 B-6 0.1 1 2 4 6 8 0.1 1 2 4 6 8

Overconsolidation Ratio, OCR

Undrained Strength Ratio vs. OCR from Field Vane Tests [Lacasse et al. (1978) ] ; (a) Boston Blue Clay, I-95 Saugus ; MA (b) Connecticut Valley Varved Clay, Amherst, MA ; (c) Organic Clay with Shells, Fore River, ME; (d) James Bay B-2 and B-6 Marine Clays [Ladd et al. (1983)].

Adpated from Jamiolkowski et al. (1985) SOA 11th ICSMFE

Mean of Scattered Data

Boston Blue Clay

0.8

Fore River Organic Clay

Image removed due to copyright reasons. Please see: Ladd (1991).

0.40

A- Line Source of Strength Data Below Above Field cu/p: Larsson (1980) Lab CKoU ave/vc:Table 4

0.35 Undrained Strength Ratio

* * *
0 10

Lab CKoUDss h/vc: MIT cu/p

0.30

0.25

* * * *
30

*
h/vc ave/vc

0.20

Note: Linear Regression Lines for Clay Data

0.15 20 40 50 Plasticity Index, Ip (%)
60 70 80 90

Comparison of field and laboratory undrained strength ratios for nonvarved sedimentary soils (OCR = 1 for laboratory CKoU testing)
Adapted from Ladd (1991)

Undrained Shear Strength, Su(TSF)

80

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.6

1.8

Sta. 71 + 2 -

60

Data Along CA/T SB Alignment (Haley & Aldrich) (Sta. = 100 ft)

40

SHANSEP 20
Project Elevation (H) s = 0.20, m = 0.8 UUC CIUC, ` = ` vo c

UUC Scattered about Design Su

0 70
Sta. 87 + 4 -

Design Su 50

UUC generally much lower than Design Su

30 60
Sta. 95 + 1 -

40

CIUC >> Design Su UUC highly scattered about Design Su

80

Conventional Tests 2 ` UUC, c = 3 vo ` = ` CIUC, c vo Ave. Su (s = 0.20, m = 0.80)

Data from CAIT Special Test Program (Ladd et al. 1998)

Crust, Incr. OCR OCR ~ 1.15 ~

60

UUC = Design Su Within Crust UUC < Design Su With Deep low OCR Clay CIUC >> Design Su Note: UUC and CIUC on high quality FP 3" samples with mudded hole

Project Elevation (feet)

40
Triaxial Compression + 1SD (s = 0.29, m = 0.68) Ave. Su (s = 0.18, m = 0.70)

20

GSEI = +110

0 Design Su -20 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

3.0

Undrained Shear Strength, Su (KSF)

Comparison of Undrained Strengths from Conventional Triaxial Tests with SHANSEP su Profiles at SB Test Site

Comparison of Conventional Vs. SHANSEP su Data: BBC