EVALUATION OF THE ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
OF CLAYS WITH THE PIEZOCONE PENETROMETER
by
SETH PHILIP GADINSKY
B.S.C.E., Tufts University
(1980)
Submitted to the Department of
Civil Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements
of the Degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
February 1983
© Seth P. Gadinsky
1983
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and
to distribute copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.
A
Signature of Author:
Department of-Civil ngineering,
February
Certified
28, 1983
by:
L_3j Amr . Azzouz
Thes
Supervisor
Accepted by:
Francois M.M. Morel
Chairman, Civil Engineering Department Committee
Archives
MAAfS"SETS INSTnTE
JUL 121NOL983
JUL 1 2 1983
LIBRARIES
EVALUATION OF THE ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF CLAYS WITH
THE PIEZOCONE PENETROMETER
by
SETH P. GADINSKY
Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering on
February 28, 1983 in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
ABSTRACT
This thesis evaluates the adequacy of the recently
developed Piezocone Penetrometer as an in situ testing device.
A literature review documents previous experience with the
piezocone in evaluating such diverse engineering properties as
stress history, undrained shear strength, and coefficient of
This review is updated by results of a recent
consolidation.
the MIT
geotechnical investigation program performed on
campus.
Simultaneous measurements of the cone resistance, qc, and
pore pressures, u, during piezocone penetration, obtained from
several soil deposits, show the device to be extremely useful
in the determination of soil stratification and identificaFurthermore, u and qc measurements may be used to
tion.
Results show
evaluate the stress history of a clay deposit.
ratio;
overconsolidation
is
related
to
the
the
ratio
u/q
that
c
More
high /qc associated with low OCR and vice-versa.
research is necessary, however, so as to establish a data base
that can be relied upon for the estimation of the stress
history of cohesive deposits.
evaluate the
Use of the piezocone penetrometer to
of clays has been approached
undrained shear strength, su,
Direct measurement of su
both theoretically and empirically.
from the cone penetration logs is possible through the use of
one of the many theoretical solutions for the cone factor, NK.
Due to the many uncertainties involved in the application of
those theories, however, empirical solutions are more extensively employed.
Once penetration is interrupted, pore pressure dissipation ensues. Solutions are currently available for predicting
of cohesive
and flow characteristics
the consolidation
Evaluation of these
deposits from the dissipation records.
theories by means of various case studies indicates that the
solution developed by Baligh and Levadoux (1980) provides good
estimates of the horizontal consolidation coefficient for use
in problems involving unloading and possibly reloading of
overconsolidated deposits.
Thesis Supervisor:
Title:
Amr S. Azzouz
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the persons for whom
owed for helping me to
deal of appreciation is
at MIT:
Amr S.
Professor
input,
complete this
Their constant support and understanding enriched my
thesis.
tenure
a great
guidance,
supervisor,
thesis
this
friendship throughout
and
painstaking process
Azzouz, my
a
were
very
special
part
whose
long
and
my
MIT
of
education.
All of my friends at
I would
didn't think that
MIT who
remember them in my acknowledgements.
and
Ronnie Schwartz
and Terri
for putting
with all
up
my thesis
Demeris for typing
of the
and
rewrites
general
harassment throughout the typing process.
Liebe Grace,
only I
can appreciate
constant love and support have made in
three
years;
managed
to keep
and Bill
Schlosser, my
it all in perspective
the
difference her
my life over
roommate,
who
especially
my
father,
blessed with fathers like him.
always
for me.
Finally, my family, whose love is a very special
my life;
the last
Edward, we
should
part of
all
be
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
. .
PAGE
ABSTRACT
..
OF
.
.
OF
TABLES
LIST
OF
FIGURES
1:
.
.
1
2
.
.
·
·
3
. . . . . . .
.
.
·
·
4
. . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . .
7
.
.
·. .
8
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
..
. . . .
. .
INTRODUCTION
. . .
. . . . . . . .
Scope and Objectives . .
1.3
Findings and Conclusions
.
. .
14
.
.
.
.
.
14
.
.
.
.
.
14
.
*
.
.
.
17
.
REVIEW OF IN SITU TESTS FOR EVALUATION OF
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF CLAYS
. . .
2:
In Situ Versus Laboratory Testing
.
.
18
18
..
In Situ Tests for Evaluation of Engineering
of
Properties
2.2.1
2.2.2
Clays
. . . . . . . . . . . .
The
CHAPTER 3:
.
Piezocone
Penetrometer
20
20
. . . . . . . .
Field Vane Test, FVT
Pressuremeter
Test
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
21
23
. . . . . . . . .
25
2.2.3 Cone Penetration Test, CPT
2.3
.
r
1.2
2.2
.
·
Background
2.1
*
.
1.1
CHAPTER
.
.
CONTENTS
LIST
CHAPTER
* .
g
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE
*
Page
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOILS UNDERLYING
THE
MIT
CAMPUS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
3.1
Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
3.2
Stratigraphy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
3.3
Index
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
3.4
Consolidation
3.5
Laboratory Undrained Strength Testing
Properties
and
Stress
History
. . . . . .
.
.
38
42
5
Page
3.6
In Situ
3.7
.
.
.
.
Piezocone Penetration
Field
Vane
Shear
.
Testing
Test
.
.
4.2
Stratigraphic
Logging
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......
.
Profiles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
*
U4C -
Ly
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
83
.
·
.
.
·
.
·.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
84
.
.
87
Theoretical Approach to Cone Penetration
Empirical Approach to Cone Penetration
88
92
Undrained
4.4.1
4.4.2
--
49
.
Background
J1..L
e
*
45
48
.
Solar House Investigation
L L
#
45
.
4.2.2
0a6 taboo
.
.
4.2.1
J
.
EVALUATION OF CONE RESISTANCE AND PORE
PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS DURING PENETRATION
Introduction
4.4
.
3.6.2
4.1
A
t· .
.
3.6.1
Undrained
CHAPTER 4:
.
Testing
Shear
su
Strength,
.
Pore
Pressures
..........
Prediction of s u Using Generated
4.4.2.1
93
CHAPTER 5:
PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION AFTER CONE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
122
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 122
PENETRATION
5.1
Introduction
5.2
Available Theoretical Pore Pressure Dissipation
Solutions
5.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
122
.
.
.
.
.
. 124
.
.
.
.
126
126
5.2.1
Torstensson's
5.2.2
Randolph and Wroth (1979)
.......
5.2.3
Baligh
.
and
Method
(1977)
Levadoux
(1980)
.
Empirical and Curve Fitting Dissipation
Solutions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.3.1
Battaglio
5.3.2
Jones and Van Zyl (1981)
5.3.3
Tavenas
et
al.
(1981)
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
132
.
..
132
133
5.3.4
Tumay
et
al.
(1982)
. . . . . . .... 134
5.4
et
al.
.
(1982)
.
.
.
Evaluation of ch From Laboratory Tests
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.4.1
Background
5.4.2
Why ch(OC) During Unload?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
133
... . 137
137
. .....
... 139
6
Page
5.5
CHAPTER
Case
6:
6.1
Histories
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
141
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
141
142
5.5.1
Introduction
5.5.2
Presentation of Case Histories .
SUMMARY
Scope
AND
and
CONCLUSION
Objectives
. . . . . . . . . .
181
. . . . . . . . . . . .
181
Review of In Situ Devices for Evaluating
6.2
the Engineering Properties of Clays . . . . .
Engineering Properties of Soils Underlying
6.3
the
MIT
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184
Testing
Results
. . . . . .
Laboratory
In Situ Testing
. . . . . . . . . . .
185
186
Campus
.
Evaluation of Cone Resistance and Pore Pressu re
Measurements
6.5
During
Penetration
. . . . . . .
187
Pore Pressure Dissipation After Cone
. . . . . .
192
6.5.2
Solutions to Predict the Horizontal
Coefficient of Consolidation, ch
Evaluation of ch from Laboratory Tests
192
195
6.5.3
Case
197
Penetration
6.5.1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
181
A
. . . . . . . . . . .
Histories
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- CONSOLIDATION
TEST
RESULTS
. . . . . .
. . .
200
207
APPENDIX B - Ko-CONSOLIDATED DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR (CKoUDSS)
TEST RESULTS ................
242
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
Page
Disposition of Samples for Engineering
Properties Tests at the Solar House Site
51
Summary of Compression Data for BBC Below The
MIT Campus
52
3.3
Computation of Vertical Stresses - CAES
53
3.4
Coefficient of Consolidation, Normally
Consolidated - MIT Campus
54
3.5
Summary of CKoUDSS Tests
55
3.6
Summary of Field Vane Tests
56
4.1
Predicted vs. Measured Ultimate Bearing
Capacity of Strip Footing on Boston Blue Clay
3.1
3.2
(from Ladd,
4.2
1971)
95
Summary of Existing Theories of Cone
Penetration In Clays (from Baligh, 1979)
96
4.3
Some Cone Factors Determined For Cohesive Soils
97
5.1
Anisotropic Permeability of Clays (from Baligh
and Levadoux, 1980)
148
Time Factors for Theoretical Solutions at
Different Percent Dissipation
149
5.3
Piezocone Studies Performed at Saugus, Mass.
150
5.4
Prediction of ch(probe) by Theoretical
Solutions
151
Prediction of ch(probe) by Theoretical
Solutions
152
Prediction of ch(probe) by Theoretical
Solutions
153
Summary of Case Histories Where Excess Pore
Pressures were Measured During Pile Installation in Clay (from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
154
5.2
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Comparison Between ch Values by Different
Procedures at the Porto Tolle Site (from
Battaglio
et al., 1981)
155
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Figure
2.1
Geometry of Field Vane
2.2
Empirical Correction Factor Derived From
Embankment Failures for the Field Vane Test
(from Ladd,
2.3
1975)
Page
28
29
Schematic of Pressuremeter (from Ladd
al.,
30
1977)
Typical Pore Pressure Response in a Layered
Soil (from Torstensson, 1975)
31
2.5
Schematic of the Piezocone Penetrometer
32
2.6
Soil Identification for Mine Tailings with
Pore Pressure and Tip Resistance Values
(from Jones and Van Zyl, 1981)
33
2.4
of Soil Investigations
57
3.1
Locations
3.2
Boring Location Plan at the Solar House
58
3.3
Typical Soil Profiles on the MIT Campus
59
3.4
Atterberg Limits and Total Unit Weights
60
3.5
Typical Compression Curves from Oedometer
Tests
on BBC (Solar House)
3.6
In Situ Vertical Effective Stresses
3.7
Compression Data on BBC Underlying the MIT
61
62
Campus
63
3.8
Soil Conditions at the Solar House Site
64
3.9
Vertical Coefficient of Consolidation,
Normally Consolidated Range of Stresses
65
3.10
Drawing of Geonor Direct-Simple Shear Apparatus,
Model
3.11
3.12
3.13
4
66
Normalized Stress Paths from CKoUDSS Tests
(Solar House)
67
Normalized Stress vs. Strain From CKoUDSS
Tests (Solar House)
68
Normalized Modulus from CKoUDSS Tests (Solar
House)
69
9
LIST OF FIGURES - Cont.
Figure
3.14
3.15
3.16
Title
SHANSEP CKoUDSS Parameters for BBC at the
Solar House Site
70
Peak Undrained Shear Strengths for Tests on
BBC Below the MIT Campus
71
Cone Penetration and Pore Pressure Measurements Obtained with the Piezocone: Solar
House,
3.17
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
4.1
4.3
72
Hole MP2
73
Skin Friction Measurement Obtained with the
Piezocone at the Solar House, Hole MP2
74
Measured and Normalized Pore Pressure
Dissipation Curves
75
Normalized Dissipation Records for the Solar
House Investigation
76
Field Vane Strength and Sensitivity Profiles
at the Solar House Site
77
Average Undrained Strength Profiles for BBC
Below the MIT Campus
78
Soil Profile in Boston Blue Clay at Station
246
4.2
Hole MP1
Cone Penetration and Pore Pressure Measurements Obtained with the Piezocone: Solar
House,
3.18
Page
(from Baligh
et al., 1981)
99
Cone Penetration in Soil Stratification and
Identification (from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
Cone Penetration and Pore Pressure Measurements Obtained with the Piezocone: Saugus
Site
4.4
101
Example of Piezocone Logging in Stratified
Soils, British Columbia Highway Test Fill,
Annacis
4.5
100
Crossing
(from Campanella
et al.,
1982)
102
Comparison of Undrained Strength Data:
Orinoco Clay, Boring Fl (from Azzouz et al.,
1982).
103
10
LIST OF FIGURES - Cont.
Title
Figure
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
Determination of Stratigraphy Using Piezocone
Logs: Orinoco Clay, Boring Fl (from Azzouz
et al., 1982)
104
Cone Penetration, Pore Pressure, and
Normalized Pore Pressure Data Obtained
with the Piezocone: Solar House, Hole MP1
105
Cone Penetration, Pore Pressure, and
Normalized Pore Pressure Data Obtained
with the Piezocone: Solar House, Hole MP2
106
Pore Pressure to Cone Resistance Ratio:
Saugus Site
107
Variation of Pore Pressure to Cone
Resistance Ratio with Overconsolidation
(from Tumay
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.17
4.18
4.19
108
Pore Pressure to Cone Resistance Ratio:
Solar House, Hole MP2
110
Effect of Rigidity Index and Cone Angle on
the Penetration Resistance of Clay (from
1975)
111
Undrained Shear Strength from Cone
(from Lacasse
and Lunne,
1982)
112
Comparison Between Measured and Predicted qc
Values at Three Italian Sites (from
Jamiolkowski
4.16
1982)
109
Resistance
4.15
et al., 1981 and Smits,
Pore Pressure to Cone Resistance Ratio:
Solar House, Hole MP1
Baligh,
4.14
Page
et al., 1982)
113
Empirical Cone Factor, NK(FV), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP1
114
Empirical Cone Factor, NK(FV), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP2
115
Empirical Cone Factor, NK(DSS), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP1
116
Empirical Cone Factor, NK(DSS), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP2
117
11
LIST OF FIGURES - Cont.
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
5.1
5.2
5.3
Empirical Cone Factor, NK(FV) and N'(FV) for
K
Very Soft to Medium Clays
118
Excess Pore Pressure Measurement Versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP1
119
Empirical Cone Factor, NAu(FV), versus
Depth: Solar House, Hole MP1
120
Empirical Cone Factor, NAu(FV), versus
Depth: Solar House, Hole MP2
121
Pore Pressure Dissipation Around Spherical
and Cylindrical Pore Pressure Probes Predicted
by Torstensson, 1977
156
Predicted
Pressures
60° Cones
Blue Clay
157
vs. Measured Normalized Excess Pore
Along the Face and Shaft of 180 and
During Steady Penetration in Boston
(from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
Predicted vs. Measured Distribution of
Normalized Excess Pore Pressures During
Penetration in Clays (from Baligh and
Levadoux,
5.4
Page
Title
Figure
Dissipation
158
1980)
Curves
for an 180 and 600 Cone
According to Linear Isotropic Uncoupled
Solutions (from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
5.5
Comparison Between Predicted and Measured Pore
Pressure Decay at Two Italian Sites (from
Battaglio
5.6a
160
et al., 1981)
Correlation of Field Dissipation Times with
Laboratory Consolidation Data (from Jones and
Van
5.6b
161
Zyl, 1981)
Empirical Correlation Between t 50 and Kvm/yw
in Champlain Sea Clays, Canada (from Tavenas
161
et al., 1982)
5.7
159
Interpretation
Method
for Estimation
of 90
percent Dissipation Time (from Tumay et al.,
5.8
1982)
162
ch Versus OCR from CRSC and Oedometer Tests
163
12
LIST OF FIGURES - Cont.
Page
Title
Figure
164
5.9
e Versus log K from CRSC Tests
5.10
Effect
5.11
Soil Profile in Boston Blue Clay at Station
246
5.12
of Unloading-Reloading
(from Baligh
Cycle
on ch
166
et al., 1981)
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
Saugus, Mass. (from Baligh and Levadoux,
167
1980)
5.13
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
Saugus, Mass. (from Baligh and Levadoux,
168
1980)
5.14
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
Saugus, Mass. (from Baligh and Levadoux,
169
1980)
5.15
5.16
5.17a
5.17b
5.18
5.19
chs vs. OCR from CRSC Tests (from Ghantos,
1982)
170
chs at the In Situ OCR vs. Depth from CRSC
Tests (from Ghantos, 1982)
171
Excess Pore Pressure Measurements Due to Pile
Installation in Clays - Case Histories (from
Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
172
Excess Pore Pressure Measurements Due to Pile
Installation in Clays - Simplified
Distributions (from Baligh and Levadoux,
1980)
173
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
MIT Solar House
174
Soil Conditions at Richmond, B.C. Site (from
Campanella
5.20
175
et al., 1982)
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
Richmond,
5.21
165
B.C.
(from Campanella
et al., 1982)
176
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
Burnaby, B.C. (from Gillespie and Campanella,
1981)
177
13
LIST OF FIGURES - Cont.
Figure
Title
5.22
Soil Profiles and Stress Histories of Two
Italian
5.23
Clays
(from Battaglio
Page
et al., 1981)
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
Porto Tolle, Italy (from Battaglio et al.,
178
179
1981)
5.24
Measured Versus Predicted Dissipation Curves:
Trieste,
Italy
(from Battaglio
et al., 1981)
180
14
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
In
situ
engineering.
testing
has
a
long
history
in
foundation
The standard penetration test and earlier forms
of the Dutch cone
test, both in use before
1930, represented
the main methods for early subsurface exploration
ally led
to
the
widely
empirical correlations.
Sweden during
used
design
procedures
based
on
Development of the field vane test in
the 1940's enabled the first
ment of in situ undrained strength.
and developments
of new,
techniques
recently
have
and eventu-
"simple" measure-
Evaluation of these tests
more sophisticated in
become
the
subject
situ testing
of
renewed
interest and research.
The
recently developed electric
Piezocone Penetrometer
represents an example of such new developments.
Being able to
simultaneously measure the cone resistance, pore
sleeve
friction
during
penetration,
information which
previously required
Now, in
to the
addition
this
two
evaluation of
the
strength, the Piezocone can be utilized to
pressure and
device
provides
separate
probes.
undrained shear
evaluate engineer-
ing properties as diverse as stress history and coefficient of
consolidation.
1.2
Scope and Objectives
In the
fall of
1981, a geotechnical
initiated at the vicinity
campus
of the
of the
investigation was
Solar House located
Massachusetts Institute of
on the
Technology, M.I.T.
15
The
study
was intended
facility for carrying
to establish
a
permanent on-campus
The
out geotechnical in situ testing.
field
investigation involved Piezocone
Penetrometer borings,
Field
Vane testing, and undisturbed sampling.
Subsequently,
consolidation
laboratory index-classification,
and
strength
tests were performed on the undisturbed clay tube samples.
The objective of this thesis is to evaluate the adequacy
of the Piezocone Penetrometer as an in situ device
mining
the
clays.
The
reported
in
details the
programs
strength
main
the
and
consolidation
body of
the thesis
literature
characteristics
concerning
the
M.I.T.
A
breakdown
of
past studies
reviews
Piezocone
findings resulting from the field
initiated at
for deter-
and
and laboratory
of
the
topics
covered in the thesis by chapter is as follows:
Chapter 2:
Review of In Situ Tests for Evaluation of
Engineering Properties of Clays.
Discussion in this chapter concerns the pros and cons
of in situ versus laboratory testing and how
tests,
cone
the
such as
the field
penetration tests
strength and
vane,
pressuremeter, and
can be utilized
consolidation
in situ
to evaluate
characteristics
of
clays.
Chapter 3:
Review of Soil Properties Underlying the
M.I.T. Campus
Over the years, soil investigations were performed at
various locations on the M.I.T. campus.
This chapter
16
of these
brings all
results
the
of
strength, and
Solar
recent
are
Included
program.
in the
studies together, tying
investigation
House
of
summaries
consolidation test
index,
the
from
results
the
various studies.
The last two chapters discuss how the Piezocone
to
evaluate
consolidation
strength and
the
is used
properties
of
clays.
Chapter 4:
Evaluation of Cone Resistance and Pore
Pressure Measurements During Penetration
This
studies
chapter
how
resistance,
cone
qc,
measurements are used to evaluate the undrained shear
strength
and how simultaneous qc and
pressure,
u, measurements
stress history
can lead to
of clay deposits.
generated pore
predictions
The chapter
discusses the usefulness of cone penetration
establishing
soil
stratifications
and
of
also
data in
identifica-
tions.
Chapter 5:
Evaluation of Pore Pressure Dissipation
after Penetration
When penetration stops, the generated
dissipate.
sipation
pore pressures
Herein will be demonstrated how the disrecords, when used in conjunction
existing theoretical
solutions, can lead
with the
to estima-
tions of the compressibility and flow characteristics
of clays.
17
1.3
Findings and Conclusions
The extensive study performed herein has shown
piezocone
penetrometer has a great potential
soil stratifications and identifications.
that the
in establishing
Predictions of the
undrained shear strength can be made from the cone resistance,
qc, data through empirical cone factors, Nk.
a universal
the
Nk value
values tend
caution
is
to
for all
clays
fall within
necessary,
Needless to say,
does not
exist,
a certain
however, in
range.
applying
although
Extreme
these
average
values to sites for which no analysis has yet been made.
Theoretical solutions
dicting
the consolidation
grained soils
based
penetration stops.
show
that
the
on the
are currently available
for pre-
and flow characteristics
of fine-
pore pressure
decay
data
when
Evaluations in a variety of soil deposits
solutions
provide
reasonable
coefficients of consolidation and permeability.
estimates
of
18
2
CHAPTER
REVIEW OF IN SITU TESTS FOR EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING
PROPERTIES OF CLAYS
types of tests currently exist,
Many different
situ (e.g.,
cone, etc.)
the field vane, pressuremeter, Dutch
and laboratory, for evaluating the strength
both in
and consolidation
characteristics of clays. Each test has advantages and limitations with regard
to its
use and
of
the Piezocone
Penetrometer as an in situ device for measuring
the engineer-
much
interest has
given to
Recently,
applicability.
been
ing properties of clays.
the use
This chapter
will outline the pros
and cons of in situ versus laboratory testing and
some in situ tests
are utilized to evaluate the
present how
strength and
consolidation properties of clays.
2.1
In Situ Versus Laboratory Testing
In
two alternative
situ and laboratory testing provide
approaches for evaluation of engineering properties
Ladd et al. (1977) discussed the advantages
of both
forms of testing.
A synopsis
of clays.
and disadvantages
of this discussion is
presented herein.
In situ testing (e.g., penetration and field vane tests)
has
the
advantage
of
making
measurements
at substantial
savings in
on
relatively
and
time
undisturbed
soil
compared to
laboratory tests, but interpretation of
is
empirical
highly
uncertainty.
Also, in
and
often
situ tests
being tested cannot be seen.
subject
suffer in
to
cost
the data
substantial
that
the soil
The more sophisticated, but also
19
more expensive,
in situ testing devices (e.g.,
meter) have the potential of yielding more
and reliable data.
increased
in
Interest in
recent
years,
development of improved
in situ
this
easily interpreted
testing has greatly
being
equipment and
the pressure-
directed
new devices
towards
and
at a
better understanding of the simpler and more empirical testing
procedures.
Laboratory
defined
testing offers the advantage of
having well
and directly controllable boundary conditions.
makes interpretation
of the data
This
relatively straightforward,
although assessment of the applicability of the results
to in
situ conditions may still present problems, especially regarding predictions of undrained modulus and creep behavior.
such problems are now at least recognized.
Most of the recent
developments in laboratory testing have been
an improved ability
including
from
to model
the in situ
both the initial stresses and
But
directed towards
stress conditions,
variations resulting
applied loadings for representative elements
within the
foundation soil.
A major problem still facing most laboratory
the influence of sample disturbance.
dictions
of maximum
testing is
Disturbance reduces pre-
past pressures, avm,
from consolidation
tests and lowers the measured undrained shear strengths, su
.
20
2.2
In Situ Tests For Evaluation of Engineering Properties
of Clays.
The
tests
field
are the most
evaluate the
clays.
and
vane, pressuremeter,
and
commonly employed
strength and
cone
penetration
in situ tests
consolidation
used to
characteristics
of
These tests are quick, easy, and economical to perform
will
yield semi-continuous
to continuous
records
at a
given investigation site.
However, since the behavior of most
clays is
strain-rate dependent (Ladd
anisotropic and
1977), the undrained shear strength, su , measured
devices will likely be different.
be employed to
predict su ,
While all
only the
cone
et al.
using these
three tests can
penetration test,
supplemented with pore pressure measurements (e.g., the piezocone penetrometer)
can be
characteristics of clays.
tests and
interpreting
used to predict
The procedures
soil properties
the consolidation
for performing the
in the
case
field vane, pressuremeter, and cone penetration tests
of the
will be
outlined in the next few sections.
2.2.1
Field Vane Test, FVT
The field vane test is probably the most widely
situ
strength test
in the
U.S.A.
The
torque
rotate the blades of the vane at a constant rate of
used in
required to
6°/min is
used to backfigure the undrained shear strength as follows:
21
maximum torque
(d2 h
u
d
(2.1)
d = vane diameter
where,
h = vane height
shown
field
typical rectangular
of a
A schematic drawing
vane is
in Fig. 2.1.
relatively easy and inexpensive to
The test is
is, however,
with this
rotation of
involves severe
vertical
that encountered
with any
with
actual
a stress
failures of
of the
vane is
without
shells,
stones,
vane
correction
Also, use
soft clays
to homogeneous
cylindrical surface
principal planes
interest (Ladd, 1971).
practical
limited
on a
It
mode associated
difficult to assess the failure
test. Shearing
system unlike
remolded su profiles.
well as
will yield undisturbed as
use, and
fibers, sand pockets, etc.
Figure
2.2
shows
developed by Bjerrum
index of the clay.
with
the
the
(1972) as
field
factor
the plasticity
a function of
This correction factor is to be used along
field vane
strength
undrained shear
in designing
embankments on cohesive foundations.
2.2.2
Pressuremeter Test
The pressuremeter
tests, both the
Menard Pressuremeter
Test (MPT) and the Self-Boring Pressuremeter Test
used
widely in
shallow
and
France
and England
deep foundations,
for the
but have
(SBPT), are
design
found
of both
limited
use
22
elsewhere.
The MPT consists of a cylindrical probe (D
6cm),
Fig. 2.3a, connected to a pressure loading and volume measurement system.
A measurement cell is lowered into a predrilled
borehole and the
test performed
water injected into the
by monitoring the
cell as
a result of
volume of
pressure incre-
ments applied at one minute intervals.
In theory,
parameters:
the
the
MPT
in
pressuremeter modulus;
was
situ
thought to
total
yield
horizontal
four
soil
stress;
the pressure corresponding
the
to initial
yielding; and the pressure limit used to estimate the strength
of the soil.
In practice, however, interpretation of MPT data
has proven to be very complex due to the influence
bance, the
minate
substantial end effects at high
drainage
conditions,
and
of distur-
strains, indeter-
variations
in
the
cell
membrane calibration curve (Ladd et al., 1977).
The SBPT device is based on the same measurement concept
as the Menard pressuremeter.
However, the SBPT incorporates a
small rotating cutting tool near the hollow cylindrical tip of
the apparatus,
the
soil
being
carried to
the
slurried form via an inner tube (see Fig. 2.3b).
ling the rate of advance (0.1
surface
By control-
to 1 m/min), the device
inserted with far less disturbance than caused
in
can be
by predrilling
a hole.
The
SBPT
measurements of
greater
offers
the
capability
of
making
strength-deformation properties
detail and
(Ladd et al., 1977).
more accurately than
A study
of
in
situ
soils in
heretofore possible
of the suitability of the
SBPT
23
predicting the
test in
properties of
stress-strain-strength
Boston Blue Clay has recently been completed (see Ladd et al.,
They concluded that the initial pressure
1979, for details).
recorded after self-boring was generally much less than the in
1977)
method,
(e.g.,
methods
in
especially
the
"stiff" clay,
graphical
Marsland-Randolph
quite reasonable
yielded
and this
estimates
ho
of
should
technique
to
inter-
However, available
improper installation techniques.
pretation
due
mainly
aho, perhaps
horizontal stress,
total
situ
be
further evaluated via SBPT programs in other clay deposits.
Values
shear strength, su ,
obtained from
and various derived methods of
analysis were
of undrained
elastic-plastic
very sensitive
showed considerable
input data, often
to the
scatter and generally exceeded the in situ su
capacity
bearing
stability
and
derived peak strengths in the
factor of
analyses.
particular,
In
"soft" clay were too high
However, most
two or more.
appropriate for
by a
of the tests did give
reasonable estimates of undrained shear modulus.
2.2.3
Cone Penetration Test, CPT
static
devices
producing
the quasi-
many types of cone penetrometers,
There are
being
data
devices developed
for
superior
quantitative
in the
to
types
dynamic
design.
The
quasi-static
most
widely used.
Netherlands are
These "Dutch" cones have a base area of 10 cm2 , an
of 60° , and employ a penetration
et
al.,
1977).
Continuous
for
the
rate of 1 to 2
measurements
of
apex angle
cm/sec (Ladd
penetration
24
resistance, qc,
and
sleeve friction, fs, are recorded
as the
cone is statically penetrated through the clay strata.
Dutch cone test, DCT, data are primarily used to predict
the undrained strength
compressibility
of
of clays
sands.
and the
Several
friction
angle and
correlations
have
been
developed for identification of soil types based on
the ratio
fs/qc (e.g.,
used with
caution
Begemann,
unless
1965), but
these must
verified by
local experience
of undrained
shear strength,
be
(Ladd
et al.,
1977).
Estimates
s u,
from
DCT
results usually employ an equation of the following form:
qc = NkSu +
o
(2.2)
where ao is the in situ total vertical, horizontal
dral stress and Nk the cone factor.
Nk
are
currently
However,
tions
available
Theoretical solutions for
(see Chapter
4
used with
reliability.
As
a
generally obtained from empirical correlations,
su
usually being
triaxial
Lunne
for
additional development is needed before
can be
measured via unconsolidated
compression or field vane tests
et al., 1976;- Baligh
or octahe-
details).
these solu-
result, Nk
is
the reference
undrained, UU,
(Schmertmann, 1975;
et al., 1978; de Ruiter,
1982 and
others).
In
1975,
Wissa et
al. (1975)
and
Torstensson (1975)
independently developed the piezometer probe.
It consists of
a fine
tip
porous
hydraulically
element located
to an
on a
conical
electro-mechanical
pressure
connected
transducer
25
which transmits the
Compared to existing piezometers, this probe has
surface.
much shorter
response time
pressures, u,
excess pore
shown in Fig. 2.4. The
or
clay are
an indica-
relative consistency
variations in
soil layers
consolidation of the
varved
measured u values can give
In addition,
density.
in a
penetration
sand and
type and of changes in
tion of the soil
illustration, the
As an
measured during
clay, loose
deposit consisting of
a
and
instantaneous)
(essentially
provides wider capabilities.
hence
at the
signal to the recording equipment
the coefficient of
be
can also
inferred from
rates of pore pressure dissipation.
Since
1975, the electric cone penetrometers
been used in various field
meter probe have
and piezo-
testing programs
The
involving different clay deposits (Baligh et al., 1978).
potential
combining them
that
showed
results
for soil
provides
Laval
well
University, the
as
several
engineering
led a
British Columbia,
Technology, as
Norwegian Institute of
geotechnical
excellent
This has
identification as well.
number of institutions (e.g., University of
an
consultants)
to
develop a single cone that can measure qc and u simultaneously
- The Piezocone Penetrometer.
2.3
The Piezocone Penetrometer
The major
thrust of this report concerns
the piezocone
penetrometer as a tool to be used for the evaluation of engineering properties of clays. The piezocone, illustrated in Fig.
2.5,
is shaped like
the Dutch
cone, but
contains
a porous
26
steel
stainless
tip which
to a
connected
is hydraulically
pressure, u.
pressure transducer for measuring the pore water
The force required to push the cone is measured by a load cell
The friction
located behind the porous stone (see Fig. 2.5).
a freely rotating hollow cylinder
sleeve consists of
225 cm2
and is equipped
with a
load cell for
of area
measuring the
sleeve friction, f.
In addition
to
its use
in providing
stress history, strength and consolidation
estimates
of the
characteristics of
soil (which will be explained in detail in Chapters 4
the piezocone can also be used in a variety of
and 5),
other applica-
tions:
Detection of Failure Planes
(a)
exhibit reduced
Soil around earthen failure planes will
strength due to its partly remolded state.
When landslides or
embankment failures are investigated with the piezocone, these
failure zones will appear on the penetration logs as
resistance and
reduced tip
the increase
in permeability
reduced pore pressure
because of
(Wissa
from remolding
zones of
et al.,
1975).
(b)
Evaluation of Equilibrium Groundwater Conditions
Equilibrium
pore pressures
obtained
after dissipation
will yield information about the degree of consolidation below
embankments.
analyses
This
is
particularly
in determining the rate of
Equilization
useful
for
stability
embankment construction.
of pore pressures also yields
information about
the groundwater seepage characteristics below foundations.
27
(c)
Material Classification
and
Jones
Van
previously published,
it appears
meter based
pressure
on
pore
from
results
highly likely that
a para-
(1981)
Zyl
feel
response will
sensitive than the friction ratio, f/qc
materials identification.
piezocone
a mine
impoundment and
The tailings heterogeneous nature makes it an
sensitive
dilatant materials,
the differences
the
measure than
u, and
e.g., dense sands.
close to
it
feel it
will indicate
the qc
due to
As expected,
soft clays plot
in permeabilities,
Au axis, sands
soil types.
Au=u-u o, was used because they
Excess pore pressure,
a more
and qc
utilizing the Au
ideal deposit with which to study a wide range of
is
more
much
(Begemann, 1965), for
tailings
classification chart
data, Fig. 2.6.
be
With this in mind, they performed a
investigation on
derived a soil
that
axis,
close to
and intermediate
materials graph rationally between the two.
classification chart,
From the
fairly narrow
clude that the
tively small
Jones and Van
with compara-
band of results,
overlap of different materials within
suggests that
this
plot
can
usefully be
Zyl con-
the band,
developed
indication of the effective grain size of the material.
also
note that
the
results are
a function
filter position, and rate of penetration.
of
as
an
They
cone shape,
28
Z
n,
IOD
-
I
ini
D = 55mm.
L=
I Omm.
L=2D
I
M
RECTANGULAR VANE
Figure
2
Geometry of Field Vane
29
1.2
z
o01
o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0
PLASTICITY
Figure 2.2
INDEX, PI,
%
Empirical Correction Factor Derived from
Embankment Failures for the Field Vane
Test (from Ladd, 1975)
30
compressed
gas
CONTROL
UNIT
level
ell
PROBE
1-guard
cell
a) Menard Pressuremeter
T-o
iz
o
! E
iso
M
F soils
A
soils
ter
b) Self-Boring
Figure 2.3
Pressuremeter
(SBP)
Schematic of Pressuremeter
(from Ladd et al.,1977)
31
PORE
PRESSURE
tP
-
CLAY
I
I
Loose
SAND
j
with thin
UJ
layers of
CLAY
varved
U0
CLAY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i lil
Figure 2.4
ii
i
ii
i
i
I
Typical Pore Pressure Response in a
Layered Soil (from Torstensson, 1975)
32
tLL
IDS
DRILL
ROD
ADAPTER
CTRONIC CIRCUIT
,RD AND ADDITIONAL
TRUMENTS
CTION SLEEVE
iD CELL
tLOAD
'ECTION
CE
LOAD
PORE PRESSURE
TRANSDUCER
Figure 2.5
Schematic of the Piezocone Penetrometer
33
C
-0
o
a"
g|
A
|
GOLDcWESTONARIA
o
PLATImNUBAFNo.3
ERPU
|GOLD
/1I~
5JoS~~~
a
*
X
SOFT CLAY(not slime)
ALLUVIAL
SANDS
SILTY
C
CLAY
4
Uf
= Pore Pressure
u
= Equilibrium Pore Pressure
During
Penetration
0
3I!
/i\
0CLAYEY
2
·
:l i
SAND
OA
O
s!
0
o°Z
10
oc
20
30
40
50
qc-d'vo
/d
Figure 2.6
Soil Identification for Mine Tailings
with
with Pore Pressure and Tip Resistance
Values (from Jones and Van Zyl, 1981)
34
CHAPTER
3
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOILS UNDERLYING THE MIT CAMPUS
3.1
Introduction
Ladd
and
properties of
Luscher
the
(1965)
soils
at
summarized
the
several locations
engineering
on
the
MIT
campus, which in chronological order are:
Hayden Library and near vicinity
Materials Center
Life Sciences Building
Student Center
Center for Advanced Engineering Study (CAES)
The data
included
(natural water
soils
history, as
and strength
investigations
Student
report are
content, specific
etc.), stress
solidation
in this
Housing,
the
gravity,
well as the
Atterberg limits,
compressibility, con-
characteristics.
have
McCormick
index properties
Since that
been performed
for
Hall, Space
Center,
the
time,
Married
and
Sloan
Building (The locations of these sites are shown in Fig. 3.1).
However,
regarding
aside
from
soil
profiles,
not
much
the engineering properties of the
information
underlying clays
was obtained from these studies.
In the
fall of
1981, a geotechnical
investigation was
initiated adjacent to the Solar House, which is located on the
West
End of
research
the MIT
campus
program intended
(see Fig.
to establish a
3.1) as
part
of
a
permanent facility
for carrying out geotechnical in situ testing.
The objectives
35
of this investigation were to establish a site with known soil
profile and engineering properties to be used
purposes and
for future
for educational
evaluation and calibration
developed
in situ
abandoned
I-95 embankment in Saugus, Massachusetts,
miles north
of
tests.
In
the
Boston, served
past,
the
site
these purposes,
the drawback of environmental restrictions
is
a wildlife
security
sanctuary).
and access, there
Combined
was a
with
great need
of
the
about 11
but
suffers
now
of newly
it
now
(the area
problems of
for
a closely
located and more permanent site.
The in
situ
testing program
at the
MIT
Solar
House
consisted of a total of 8 bore holes; 4 for piezocone penetration, 3 for field
sampling.
vane testing
and one hole
for undisturbed
The boring locations are illustrated in Fig.
3.2.
In addition, a well and a deep piezometer of the M206 type (at
elevation -76.5
ft) were installed for monitoring
the ground
water conditions.
High
quality undisturbed
depths within the Solar
diameter
sealed
fixed piston
at both
ends
Shelby tube sampler.
with cellophane,
wax-paraffin mixture.
and
presented in Table 3.1.
foil, and
The tubes
laboratory
samples for laboratory
obtained
House clay stratum with a
paraffin mixture, aluminum
radiography
samples were
testing for
3 1/2-inch
The tubes
a coating
were
of
a wax-
a final coating
of the
were stored
testing.
at 11
The
for subsequent
disposition
the Solar House
of
clays is
36
with
This chapter
will update
the
of the
results
Luscher report
and
the Ladd
programs
investigation
different
performed after the publication of that report and
detail the
to
obtain the
field and
program adopted
laboratory testing
results of the Solar House investigation.
3.2
Stratigraphy
the MIT
Geologically,
Clay formation which was
environment in the
the ice
which covers
excess of
till.
Boston Basin,
margin.
The clay
the
It includes
the late
years-ago) under
a marine
probably not very
far from
a glacial
deposit overlays
bedrock, and
50 to 125
the wane of
formed during
(about 14,000
Pleistocene ice age
Boston Blue
campus overlies the
has a
ft depending
typical
on the
numerous lenses
thickness
topography
the earth crust and of
level resulted
of
the
clay
above
followed by extensive weathering, desiccation, and
the
the
which
sea,
erosion of
of lesser
at least two periods of submergence and deposition,
in
the sea
This was in turn followed by
upper part of the deposit.
significance,
of the
Subsequent to
clay deposition, movements of
emergence
in
isolated
of fine sands,
sand pockets and occasional stones or pebbles.
in
.till
outwash
sand, peat
and
silt
were
deposited above the clay.
The
investigations at
disclosed subsurface
the nine
Typical soil
nine locations are presented in
as
they
mentioned above
conditions compatible with
site description given above.
sequence
sites
appear on
the geologic
profiles for the
Fig. 3.3 in the west
campus.
The
to east
overburden
soil
37
profile for the top 40 ft at the Solar House was inferred from
is
surrounding sites.
of
profiles
elevations vary.
and
although thicknesses
very similar,
soil types
of
The sequence
The generalized soil profile is:
Fill - mostly hydraulic, but some dumped
Loose organic silts and fine sand - some pockets of peat
Firm sand and gravel - widely varying in thickess.
in
consistency
- of medium
Clay
Blue
Boston
higher
elevations, soft in lower elevations; the lowest 10 ft
may be
or so
amounts
medium again
contain considerable
and
of sand.
Glacial till - mixture of
gravel, sand, silt
and clay;
usually very dense.
fractured near
or slate - often weathered and/or
Shale
the upper surface.
The
groundwater table
+16.5 ft and appear to
increase from
the lowest
having
Solar House
elevations vary
+10.5
from
west to east,
water level
and
the
to
with the
Hayden
Pore pressure conditions are hydrostatic
Library the highest.
for all the sites.
3.3
Index Properties
Figure
and
total
Atterberg Limits
3.4 plots versus elevation the
unit
weights
from the
CAES,
Student Center, and Solar House sites.
past limits tests
approximately 20%.
Materials
As is consistent with
on BBC, the Plasticity Index
Total unit
Center,
weights were
(Ip=wL-wp) is
either directly
measured, backcalculated from water content measurements using
38
weight-volume
House site,
relationships, or
the total
estimated.
unit weights were
'For
the
Solar
calculated directly
from the weights of the oedometer clay samples.
Prior to performing any tests on the Solar
all sample tubes were
their quality.
consisted
House clays,
radiographed at MIT in order
After several
of placing the
head, exposing it for 5
trials, the
sample about
to assess
procedure adopted
6 ft
from
minutes using a 260 KV
the X-ray
input voltage
with a current of 3.9 mA, and developing the film for about 15
minutes.
Each tube was radiographed in 10 inch sections.
Radiography
is
useful
in
detecting
gas
pockets
or
cracks, sand lenses and zones of excessive sample disturbance.
Such information proves essential in estimating the
amount of
suitable material
the
portions for
in
each tube
the consolidation
and in
selecting
and strength tests.
best
In this
case, the negatives of the radiographed tubes exposed the clay
to
be homogeneous
in
nature and
absent of
sand
lenses or
tests were run
on undis-
excessive disturbance.
3.4.
Consolidation and Stress History
One-dimensional consolidation
turbed clay
CAES,
samples recovered
Student Center,
Solar House sites.
oedometer
cells
from different
depths
Materials Center, Hayden
The tests
(D = 2.5-2.75
were run
Library, and
in brass fixed
in, H = 0.6-1.0
at the
ring
in) according
the procedures described in Lambe (1951), except that:
to
39
1.
Load increment
ratios less than unity were
used on
some tests in order to well define the break
in the
compression curve and therefore the avm estimate.
2.
Vertical strain (v)
rather than void ratio was used
since compression curves based on strain
yield more
consistent and reliable estimates of compressibility
and maximum past pressure (Ladd, 1973).
3.
The
maximum
past
pressure
was
estimated
from
compression curves based on strains corresponding to
the end of primary consolidation, as
recommended by
Ladd (1973), such strains being determined from dial
readings versus
increments
log time
data.
Also,
most
were applied for time intervals
sufficient duration
to enable determination
load
only of
of the
end of primary consolidation.
4.
Tests were run with changing temperature in order to
monitor its effects on compression characteristics.
Figure 3.5 presents typical compression curves
tests performed
on Solar House clays at
from oedometer
three representative-
depths.
Stress history refers to the existing in
situ effective
stresses and the degree of overconsolidation:
OCR
-
vm
Iv o
(3.1)
40
where,
OCR = overconsolidation ratio
avm
=
maximum effective past pressure
vo = in situ effective vertical stress
In situ vertical effective stresses, avo' are
the
total unit
weight measurements and
initial pore pressure conditions.
calculated from
assuming hydrostatic
The values are tabulated in
Table 3.2 and plotted versus depth in Fig. 3.6 for four sites.
A sample calculation of
site.
The Ovm
vo is shown in Table 3.3 for the CAES
values are obtained from the
laboratory com-
pression curves and are plotted, together with
vo'
vs. depth
in Fig. 3.7.
The data in Fig.
dated above
pressure
3.7 show that the clay
elevation
about -60
ft, with
increasing as one goes up.
precompression at the
is overconsoli-
the
maximum past
The increased amount of
higher elevations is thought to
be the
result of
desiccation
stratum.
The wide scatter in values of maximum past pressure
may
result partially
values of
varying
vm
of
appear to be any
result of
House site
portion
from inaccuracies
desiccation.
in
However,
consistent variation
compression with location,
elevation
upper
of
ft (see Fig.
there
recovering higher
as
compared
to
does
in the degree
except that the clay at
3.8 for
details).
quality samples
other sites,
clay
partially from
be somewhat more overconsolidated than
-37
the
determination of
from the compression curves and
degrees of
House may
the
of pre-
the Solar
usual above
This may
from
which
not
be a
the Solar
is
further
41
substantiated by the lower RR values obtained at this location
as will be shown below (Ladd, 1973, states that sample disturbance
decreases
data and
vm
and increases
compression
curves for
RR).
Detailed tabulated
the Solar
House
tests are
the oedometer
tests
from
given in Appendix A.
Compression
data
from
the
different sites are plotted in Fig. 3.7 and tabulated in Table
3.2. Included are data on the following indices:
CR,SR,
or RR
=
e/l+eo
Alog stress
1.
CR = compression
the
ratio for initial loading
virgin compression range
in
of stresses
(i.e., greater than avm)
2.
SR = Swelling
ratio
for rebound from avm over
one cycle
3.
RR = Recompression
and
ratio for
recompression
initial loading
between
7vm of 6
to 8
kg/cm 2 and 1 kg/cm2 .
Values
of
the
normally consolidated
3.4 and plotted in
the
CAES and
coefficient
of
consolidation
range, cv (NC), are tabulated
Fig. 3.9
Solar House
for oedometer test
sites.
The
average
of the square
methods.
The data in Fig. 3.9 show that c v
root time
(NC)
the
in Table
results from
values
and log time
in
represent an
curve fitting
averages
x 10- 4 cm2 /sec below elevation -29 ft, discounting
10.5
the values
42
at
of consolidation.
sand which increases the rate
spersed with
clay is inter-
location, the
At this
elevation -79 ft.
Data on cv in the overconsolidated range for both swelling and
recompression are detailed in Ladd and Luscher (1965).
3.5
Laboratory Undrained Strength Testing
House inves-
The strength testing program for the Solar
consisted of
tigation
one-dimensionally consolidated
twelve
The tests were
undrained Direct Simple Shear (CKoUDSS) tests.
run using the Geonor
SHANSEP (an
DSS device, Fig. 3.10, according
Normalized Soil
and
Stress History
acronym for
to the
Engineering Properties) procedure.
SHANSEP
The
method
(Ladd
and
1974)
Foott,
takes
advantage of the well recognized fact that the in situ stressstrain-strength
properties
primarily controlled
by the
many
Furthermore,
of most
least reasonably
at
viewpoint,
such that
SU/avo can
be
NSP be
uniquely related
avc values
-vm in order to minimize the
Subsequent
yields:
experience at
(1) much
the deposit.
exhibit
"normalized
a
practical design
parameters
to OCR,
are
(NSP) like
independent
of the
Ladd and Foott (1974) recommend-
measured on test
(Ko) reconsolidated to
so from
normalized soil
actual values of avo and avm
ed that
soils
sediments
of
stress history
cohesive
behavior",
cohesive
specimens one-dimensionally
greater than
effects
of
MIT suggests
the
in situ
sample disturbance.
that
this
procedure
more reliable results than reconsolidation
43
to the in situ avo when testing tube samples of low OCR clays,
especially those typically obtained offshore; and
able estimates of
(less
true
the in situ su/jvo versus
for
undrained
deposits
which
cemented
and/or leached
are
index) such that
modulus)
not highly
for
(2) reason-
OCR relationship
those
sensitive
clays possessing
sedimentary
(i.e.,
naturally
high
liquidity
a
reconsolidation beyond the in situ
will
obviously alter the natural clay structure.
Ten SHANSEP
type tests
with nominal sample
2.54cm were run at four levels of OCR (1,2,4, and
ized
stress
paths,
normalized
undrained moduli curves
for the
heights of
8). Normal-
stress-strain
curves,
ten tests
presented in
are
and
Figs. 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13, respectively. Figure 3.14 presents
the
results of these
strength, su/vc,
tests in
the form of
normalized shear
versus overconsolidation ratio, OCR.-
Two additional DSS tests were run at OCR=l to
study the
influence of sample height and consolidation procedure
observed results.
The
was a
SHANSEP
ovm) except that a reduced
(i.e., Ovc=l.5 to 2
(1.46cm as
first test
opposed to 2.54cm) was used.
type
on the
test
sample height
The second test was
run at avc=avo=dvm to check on the possible destruction of the
clay structure that may
times past avm, as
accordance with those of the
The sample
identical results
by consolidating 1.5
per the SHANSEP procedure. The
the two tests were in
SHANSEP tests.
be caused
with what
with the
reduced
to 2
results of
other ten
height produced
had been obtained.
Although the
44
normalized
shear
0.176) when the
strength
was slightly
higher
sample was consolidated to avo'
(0.190
the preshear
OCR could easily have been greater than one due to
tainty
in predicting avo
Su/Ovc.
Therefore, it
avm does not
and avm
and hence the
was concluded that
vs.
the uncerincrease in
consolidation past
significantly alter the structure of
the Boston
Blue Clay samples.
3.5
Table
program.
Further detailed
undrained modulus
Appendix
results of
summarizes the
the
DSS testing
test summaries, stress-strain and
curves, and
stress paths are
presented in
B.
Seven different types of undrained shear
strength tests
were run on samples from seven different locations on
campus.
The strength
tests and
the MIT
corresponding locations are
summarized as follows:
Location
Type Shear Test
Hayden Library
U
Nuclear Physics Lab
U
Materials Center
U,LV,CIU
CAES
UU,LV,CIU, CKoTC
Life Sciences
CIU,CKoTC
Student Center
UU,LV
Solar House
FV,CKoUDSS
45
U = Unconfined Compression Test
where,
UU = Unconsolidated Undrained Compression Test
CIU = Consolidated Isotropically Undrained
Compression Test with Pore Pressure
Measurements
CKoTC = Ko Consolidated Undrained Compression Test
with Pore Pressure Measurements
CKoUDSS = Ko Consolidated Undrained Direct Simple
Shear Test
LV = Lab Vane
FV = Field Vane
test procedures are outlined in
The triaxial and LV
The test results (see Fig. 3.15), illustrate
Luscher (1965).
the amount of
boundary
Ladd and
scatter obtained from tests run
with different
conditions, modes of deformation, and
Average strength profiles for
BBC below the MIT
campus will
all of
strain rates.
the shear tests
be presented and
run on
discussed at
the end of the chapter.
3.6
In Situ Testing
3.6.1 Piezocone Penetration
The
program
piezocone penetrometer
is
illustrated
in
penetrated at a steady rate
(i.e., starting
from a depth
Fig.
of 2
used for
2.5.
the
The
piezocone
cm/sec in the
of 40 ft below
ground
was recorded
as an electrical
was
clay stratum
surface)
four different locations within the Solar House site.
penetration, depth
House
Solar
at
During
signal and
46
all
cone
resistance,
pore
pressure,
and
friction
measurements were displayed on multi-channel
chart
high-speed strip
recorders for observations during field
were also recorded on
sleeve
operations and
magnetic tapes using a data
logger for
subsequent computer processing.
An essential
requirement for the successful use
piezocone is careful
the removal
system.
to
all gases
from the
pore
aimed at
pressure measuring
Failure to properly deair the porous stone would lead
severe
during
of
deairing of the porous element
of the
inaccuracies in
penetration
as well
both the
as the
pore
pressure measured
measured
dissipation of
excess pore pressures after penetration has stopped.
of proper deairing are
described in
Methods
detail in Baligh
et al.
(1980).
It has been shown (Baligh et al., 1981 and
al.,
1982) that the cone resistance
in soft clays, can
be significantly
measurements, especially
reduced due to
pressure acting on the base behind the cone. The
an O-ring seal on a
Zuideberg et
existence of
groove located between the cone
the housing mounted behind it reduces the effective
and allows the free access of water to an area at the
the
cone.
adding
The correction
the pore pressure
for this
on the
the pore
base and
cone area
base of
occurrence was made
grovve to
qc
measured, as
follows:
qc (corrected) = qc (measured) + aubase
by
(3.2)
47
where,
base
=
measured pore pressure at cone base
= ratio of groove area to base area
Values
of a differ
from one
used in this study a = 0.33.
cone to another.
Also,
For the
since the pore pressures
in this investigation were measured at the cone tip,
be more convenient to use
Based on the
et
utip in
Eq. 3.2 instead
results of an extensive testing
al., (1979),
show
that for
Boston Blue
0.33, (qc)
at the tip.
corrected
Combining this
was computed
in this
it would
of ubase.
program, Baligh
Clay,
pressures at the cone base are approximately 10%
those generated
one
the pore
smaller than
with a value of
study
from
the
following relationship:
(qc)corrected = (qc)measured + 0.30 utip
(3.3)
Plots of corrected cone resistance, qc, and pore
pressure, u,
versus depth for two of the four piezocone holes are
Figs.
3.16 and
mechanical
3.17.
Holes
difficulties and
MP3
and MP4
shown in
experienced some
yielded unreliable results.
As
expected, the stiffer, more overconsolidated clays are characterized by
higher point resistances and lower
than the softer,
exhibit linear
pore pressures
normally consolidated clays, where qc
increases with
in situ
hydrostatic pore pressure, respectively.
effective
and u
stress and
At the present time,
the reliability of skin friction measurements in clay deposits
seems to be
questionable (Baligh
skin friction, f,
versus depth
et al., 1981).
is presented
in
A plot
of
Fig. 3.18;
48
however, fs
values were not incorporated into
any subsequent
analyses.
Subsequent to penetration, dissipation of generated pore
pressures
Dissipation tests
occurs.
below 53 ft.
at 12 depths
were run
illustrates typical pore pressure
Figure 3.19a
versus time curves recorded at depths 58 and 78 ft. Baligh and
Levadoux (1980), Torstensson (1977), and others have developed
of consolida-
to predict the horizontal coefficient
theories
tion, ch, from measurements of pore pressure versus time.
order
to
utilize
theoretical
these
pore
a normalized
be presented in
data must
pressure dissipation
the
solutions,
In
form:
u-uO
u-u
ui-Uo
U =
(3.4)
u = pore pressure at time t
where,
u i = pore pressure
at the end of
penetration
uO = hydrostatic pore pressure
Figure 3.19b
presents the
Dissipation curves
eleven tests
for
strated in Fig. 3.20.
curves in
the
normalized format.
below 53
ft
are illu-
Chapter 5 will be devoted to the study
of these dissipation curves to predict ch .
3.6.2
Field Vane Testing
Thirty eight
field vane
tests were performed
Geonor Field Vane,
described in
vane test holes at
the Solar
Chapter 2, within
House. Peak and
with the
the three
Remolded shear
49
strengths
tions.
were measured
Table 3.6
sensitivity of the
according to ASTM
(1965) specifica-
presents the shear strengths measured
clay, and
Fig. 3.21 profiles
and
the results
versus elevation.
3.7
Undrained Shear Test Profiles
Figure 3.22 plots average strength profiles versus eleva-
tion
for
all but
the LV
tests.
Some
points
of interest
regarding the strength profiles are:
1)
The CKoTC strength is higher than that
the DSS test throughout the deposit.
tent
with
the
data
reported
in
measured from
This is consis-
Table
4.1
and
indicates that BBC is anisotropic.
2)
Similarly, the FV profile is consistently higher than
the DSS profile.
is about 0.20
In the
upper clays the difference
kg/cm2 and
increases to a
0.40 kg/cm2 at elevation -80 ft.
maximum of
FV strengths higher
than those
measured by the Direct Simple
Shear test
contradict
existing
Blue
data
on
Boston
Clay
especially in
the normally to
dated region.
The reason for this discrepancy is not
slightly overconsoli-
clear.
However, it should be mentioned that the DSS
results
reported herein
data on
"undisturbed" BBC
(Ladd
and
residemented
Edgers,
samples.
represent the first
1972)
samples.
were
As shown
Previous
obtained
in Chapter
set of
data
from
3, the
su/avo value for N.C. "undisturbed" BBC is about 0.18
whereas from
residemented samples,
Ladd
and Edgers
50
obtained 0.20.
Further work on this aspect is still
needed.
3)
The U and UU profiles don't show any consistent trend
with
the
overconsolidation
Furthermore,
scatter is
as is
profile
shown in
associated with
For example, the
Fig.
these
results in
of
the
clay.
3.15, tremendous
average profiles.
Fig. 3.15 show
that at
any given depth, the strength can vary by a factor of
4 to 6 which
For
more
detailed
is clearly
unacceptable.
information
regarding
stress-strain
behavior, undrained moduli, and Af values for the triaxial and
LV tests, consult Ladd & Luscher (1965).
51
Sample #
Depth (ft)
Type Test
MUD 1-1
40.5-42.5
oedometer 1-1a, DSS-16
MUD 1-2
45-47
oedometer 1-2a, DSS-11,13,19
MUD 1-3
50-52
oedometer 1-3a
MUD 1-4
58-60
oedometer 1-4b, DSS-10,12
MUD 1-5
66-68
oedometer 1-5, DSS-20
MUD 1-6
74-76
oedometer 1-6
MUD 1-7
84-86
oedometer 1-7a, DGL-1
DSS-1,2a
MUD 1-8
90-92
oedometer 1-8, DSS-X1.
MUD 1-9
95-97
oedometer DGL-4, 1-9
DSS-5,X2
MUD 1-10
100-102
oedometer DGL-2, 1-10a
MUD 1-11
105-107
oedometer DGL-3, 1-11
I
l
_I
* Limits tests performed on samples from each tube
Table 3.1
Disposition of Samples for Engineering
Properties Tests at the Solar House Site
I
52
Location I
CAES
Elev. -wN
(ft)
-30.0
-38.5
-45.5
-54.0
vo
( kg/cm )
1.58
1.82
2.00
2.21
-
-
m
(kg/cm )
4.0+
3.1
3.8±
3.1+
OCR
CR
RR
SR
) Denotes Avera e Value
(
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.181 + 0.014
0.163
0.173
0.201
0.014
2.53 0.19
1.70 + 0.22
1.90 + 0.10
1.40 ± 0.05
(0.180)
Materials
Center
0.030
0.024
0.025
0.038
(0.0295)
0.032
0.025
0.025
0.032
(0.0285)
-14.8
34.7
1.25
6.0 + 1.0
4.80 + 0.80
0.155
-
0.024
-26.3
-38.3
-50.3
-62.3
39.6
36.7
32.5
41.8
1.55
1.90
2.20
2.50
4.8 0.3
4.0 t 0.3
3.5 + 0.3
2.5 0.2
3.10
2.11
1.59
1.00
0.209
0.192
0.219
0.206
-
0.032
0.025
0.024
0.023
+ 0.19
+ 0.16
+ 0.14
+ 0.08
(0.195)
(0.0255)
-19.6
-
1.20
4.9
4.08
0.143
-
0.030
-22.0
-
1.36
5.1
3.75
0.137
-
0.027
-28.5
-
1.54
5.2
3.38
0.164
-
0.027
Hayden
-32.1
Library
-
-35.5
-42.1
1.64
-
5.4
1.75
1.92
3.6
3.7
3.29
0.161
2.06
1.93
-
0.021
0.178
0.225
-
0.029
0.033
-51.1
-
2.20
3.1
1.41
0.199
-
0.027
-57.1
-63.3
-72.6
-79.1
-
2.38
2.56
2.80
3.00
2.9
2.5
2.4
2.4
1.22
0.98
0.86
0.80
0.147
0.189
0.170
0.157
-
0.016
0.024
0.024
0.018
(0.0250)
(0.170)
Student
Center
Solar
House
-16.5
32.80
1.52
4.1 - 0.7
-2.70
+ 0.46
0.174
0.029
0.028
-22.0
-22.0
38.70
39.70
1.66
1.66
6.1 - 0.5
6.1 ± 0.5
3.67 - 0.30
3.67 ± 0.30
0.218
0.208
0.036
0.036
0.039
0.036
-26.5
-31.5
-41.5
39.70
47.00
32.26
1.78
1.91
2.20
4.0 ± 0.3
5.0 ± 0.5
2.7 - 0.2
0.188
0.250
0.154
0.037 0.028
0.044 0.039
0.017 0.021
-41.5
40.50
2.20
2.0 ± 2.0
-51.5
36.00
2.46
2.0 - 0.2
0.81
-51.5
-63.5
41.00
41.50
2.46
2.80
1.6 +- 0.1
0.65
2.25 - 0.17
2.62 - 0.26
1.23 + 0.09
0.167
-
0.026
0.08
0.141
0.017
0.018
0.04
0.167
0.140
(0.181)
0.021
0.026
(0.0290)
-
-
+
-
-
0.019
0.023
(0.0280)
-19.5
30.19
1.50
8.60- 0.40
5.74 ± 0.26
0.132
0.019
0.026
-24.0
41.12
1.60
6.60± 0.20 4.12 - 0.12
0.184
0.013
0.033
-29.0
-37.0
-44.5
-52.5
-63.0
-63.0
46.20
39.10
40.79
48.73
51.20
1.75
1.95
2.15
2.38
2.58
2.58
5.85±
5.00+3.30±
2.80±
2.90 +
2.85±
- 0.12
+-0.10
- 0.10
± 0.09
- 0.08
± 0.04
0.196
0.175
0.275
0.185
0.212
0.265
0.015
0.017
0.023
0.028
0.031
0.026
0.043
0.034
0.035
0.027
0.038
0.035
-68.5
47.07
2.72
2.53± 0.13 0.93 + 0.04
0.272
0.018
0.032
-73.5
-73.5
-79.0
-79.0
-83.5
-83.5
37.80
40.44
26.70
26.10
24.60
36.82
2.85
2.85
3.00
3.00
3.12
3.12
0.246
0.238
0.131
0.109
0.065
0.187
(0.198)
0.015
0.018
0.015
0.024
0.016
0.027
(0.0201)
0.025
0.032
0.006
0.012
0.005
0.022
(00246)
(0.185)
(0.0243)
(0.0258)
I__I
Average for all locations
Table 3.2
3.682.70±
4.05±
2.65±
2.72
2.95±
I_
1
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
3.34
2.56
1.53
1.17
1.12
1.10
0.18
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.22
0.15
1.29
0.94
1.35
0.88
0.87
0.95
I
± 0.06
+ 0.04
± 0.05
± 0.05
t 0.07
± 0.05
1
Summary of Compression Data for BBC Below MIT Campus
53
tn
o
!U
4g
E
ULO
U)
U):
Q
>0 4
A
U)I d
_
-
l)
1tJ*'
L
d
D *
I
-
Cdt
c
It J
4
0
fn
CO
ONN
O
.
N
0
(LA
4J
co
tJ. 11
.
CO
04
_
1 Ln
hN
A
N
N
UE
U)
w
U2
U)
0
0
o
NN
.H
0I
cg
~vgr
cv
n
O
C
OL
0
w
LA
0
4)
r-l
U44
M
04
U
(0·
U)
N
H,
qE:
c17
a ..LAulo
E-
U _
E^_
0-
O
o
o
o
O
O
0
L)
N
N
+
-
+
+
nLA
4
__d_
C1
O
o~
_.
0
_.
~~~~~
0
0
I
I
1-I
LA
0
0
LA_
0
LA
'IO
0a.'
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
54
cv(NC) x 10
Location
CAES
cm2/sec
Initial Compression
from 8-16 (kg/cm )
odvm
2
(kg/cm
)
2
)
(kg/cm
-30.0
-38.5
-45.5
1.58
1.82
2.00
4.0 + 0.3
3.1 + 0.4
3.8 + 0.2
9
20
20
-54.0
2.21
3.1 + 0.1
20
Elevation
(ft)
4
Initial Compression
Elevation
Location
vovm
vo2
2
(ft)
(kg/cmcm)
vm
2
(kg/cm )
Load Increment
(kg/cm
c .(NC)
4
(xC
2
(x 10-
cm /sec)
Solar
House
11
Table 3.4
1.50
1.60
1.75
1.95
2.15
2.38
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.72
2.85
2.85
3.00
3.00
3.12
3.12
-19.5
-24.0
-29.0
-37.0
-44.5
-52.5
-63.0
-63.0
-63.0
-68.5
-73.5
-73.5
-79.0
-79.0
-83.5
-83.5
__
1
__
8.60±
6.60±
5.85±
5.00±
3.30±
2.80+
2.85±
2.90+
4.00+
2.53+
2.70±
3.68±
2.65+
2.72+
2.95±
0.40
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.18
0.15
0.22
0.15
14.2-24.14
14.2-24.14
14.2-24.14
14.2-24.14
4-8
4-8
4.75-8-16
8.35-14.2
4-8
4-8
4-8
4.75-8
8.35-14.2
4-8
3-4.75-8-16
4-8
51.00
23.50
12.60
17.20
6.30
11.40
4.45
12.50
6.50
6.33
8.25
6.84
53.80
61.50
151.00
8.00
1I__ 1.___
Coefficient of Consolidation, Normally Consolidated - MIT Campus
N~
55
to
0
N
n
In
CO
o
OO
0co
Ln
C
N
o
N
O4
0
N
CO
I
0
aO
(1
0
0
N
o
o\
io
rN
I 0
a,
Io
r
_
C,
_
10
_r
0ko
LO
N
r
a,
D
0
r
0
_'
La
er
Io 10
La
0
N
LA
1n
N
ID
rN
N
0
a,
La
0
N
a'o
7
a'
o
0
N
a'
N
o
I-
0O
ao
O
r
LA
0
CD
0o
N
0
0D
o
E
O
aLA
ID
N
0
0
00
0
In
U,
No
In
N
r,
0
0)
,r
a,
N
N
N
0r
Ln
:>
Io>
0
0N
LA
Or
o
0
No
N
CN
00
r
(n
N
_r
o0
0
r
. _
0
Io
CD
0
a)
0I
IO
o
o
N
0
r
I a,r
(n
0
O
o
co
N
0
I
o
0
1o
0
a'
,.
I
_
.
_
_
_
.
OD
No
u
ID
1D
0
>1
.4a
a1n
0
If)
0
o
o
a1
N
ON
a,
0
v
a'
xo
rID
0
Ln
10
rN
rrA
uC
W
LD
.,_ m
rn
N
CO
o
N
0
oM
o
a,
0
LD
La
r
r,
U
.
N
_
o
-
ID
o
Cr
r
L
0
r
,-P
U,
a)
m
0
.N_
N
0o
0
o
0o
a'
0o
en-
N
o
o
m
sra'I
In
r,
E-I
N-
-
F
a,
CI
a
ta'
a,
.
.
CO
a,
No
a,co
o
0
,
Nt
Ln
o
_I
N
I
N
ao
m
m
,
a'
ur
,
la
J
_
o
N
,
o
o
0
CD
r
a
1r
E'
s14
N
_
0
4a
U
r
"1_
o
a,
N
9
__
a'
o
Nt
o
8
|r
N
a'
U,
LA
o
0
a
z
3:
0
C.,
In
·s
_
1c
m
a,
N
o0
In
U),
I_
_
.
LA
0
N
0
0
o
0.
'11
4-
-
i
S
a'
o
0
--
-
I
0
aCO
10
O
a
0
I
_
cO
a,
a
0
U,
1\
_
.
0
a'
ul
dP
----------
a'
_
n
0
L0
i,
D
In
_-- .
c,
0
U,
..
---
x
x
z
56
Hole #
FV 1
Depth (ft)
Su(Remolded)
(kg/cm2
St=s(U)/s u(R)
45
51
55.5
61
65.5
71.5
75.5
81
86.5
90.7
96.5
101
1.182
1.086
0.840
0.955
1.031
0.738
0.673
0.732
0.564
0.738
0.848
0.901
0.358
0.325
0.243
0.293
0.320
0.249
0.195
0.239
0.230
0.268
0.285
0.252
3.30
3.34
3.46
3.26
3.22
2.96
3.45
3.06
2.45
2.75
2.98
3.58
106
1.101
0.369
2.98
42
47
1.109
0.906
0.545
0.277
2.04
3.27
53
FV 2
Su(Undisturbed)
(kg/cm2)
1.085
0.342
3.17
58
63
68
73
78
83
88
93
98
103.5
106
0.700
0.998
0.812
0.754
0.597
0.727
0.667
0.765
0.943
0.786
1.052
0.212
0.325
0.217
0.222
0.271
0.225
0.212
0.298
0.404
0.249
0.222
3.30
3.07
3.74
3.40
2.20
3.23
3.15
2.57
2.33
3.16
4.74
80
85
90
93.4
0.628
0.694
0.786
0.900
0.203
0.269
0.342
0.391
3.09
2.58
2.30
2.30
101.5
0.938
0.235
3.99
102.5
0.873
0.466
1.87
104
0.976
0.445
2.19
Table 3.6
Summary of Field Vane Tests
57
01
C
._
r4)
c._
u)
U)
U0
1
._
-
L
c
m
C
Q
II..
J
>3
4
4
0
H
0-D
0
H
'~.C~~
~,
C
C
c
=
0
0
o
WrE
4-
4.
CnC
p4
~,
U)
=La
C
4M206
o
,
E.
Sampling
44
_10
-
0.2/
~ ~
10
mr
F3
*
I
lo.5E
t
23.0'
Fgure 3.2 BoringLoca
tion plan at theSolar House
59
Solar Married
House Student
(+21.5) (+21.5)
.....
+20
Fill
Fill
S.Silt
1rCrpN-rm
_YV
_
_
|L·
I
Hayden Sloan
Space
Center
Mats. Library Bldg.
Center I-1 I ee r
----(+22.0) ,1anb
(+22. ) I [-tZ . U
(+21.5) (+21.5)
(+21.0)
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
I Fill
~.mm-.=
Firm
Sand
..
1r,+
Loose
Silty
Sand
Firm
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Firm
Sand
-10
Grave
Medium
z
-20
Medium
BBC
BBC
F-
traces
Soft
fine
-L
LU
-40
F.Sand
Gravel
Firm
Gray
Sand
ledium
Medium
BBC
w/fine
Medium
BBC
sand
.
I - - -
Loose
F.Silty
Soft
Silt
&
fine
sand
to
Firm
Sand
Sand
&
4edium
Iedium
Sravel
Medium BBC
with
.
.
And
Loose V.Loose Silts
O.Silt Sand & fine
sands
&
&
fine Gravel
sand w/peatl
sand
Gravel
&
Gravel
-
L. Org.
i
Firm
_
I
I
Peat
+IC
0
Studnt
BBC
BBC
Aedium
BBC
BBC
BBC
Soft
Soft
BBC
BBC
with
Soft
fine
BBC
Soft
BBC
sand
-50
Soft
Soft
BBC
BBC
-60
Firm
Sand
&
Gravel
Soft
BBC
with
H.Clay
:races
-70
V.Firm
Sand
&
Gravel
with
Boulds
fine
sand
Soft
-80
IBBC
Sand
w/ san( w/trace
lenses
Clav
----
f..
Figure 3.3
Till
..........-
Med.
BBC
,/san(9
RPrk
Typical Soil Profiles on the MIT Campus
60
SC T.
f (-.ZL
.
·
+20
v
#
_.l
-I
Z4
.r 21
I-7
lq]
j
z4
ml
-
~w
I
I
o
Student Center
.w-
'"lr
.....
A
t4
Solar
HOLise
0
A
U)
fi O '-4
t8
0
.0
L4
0
.w
i
I
Y
*
v Materials Center
0-
13C
W
i
i
o C.A.E.S.
Ctp
.1
·w
I
_r_
D
H
40
20
C:)
t
Ut
b/ft3
Total Unit Weight, X I
1SC 100
110
1 0
WATER CONTENT-(°/o)
0U)
.
H [r-4
.r4
Tn
1
^ ^A -
A
tp
i-I
r4
*
mm
.C-
•-20mu
C-)
I
-30-
1~LiSO3 0
A
m
A
n
AV
VrT.
.,
XM
.,
3
z
-40-
D- m -U
0
a·
.%
-50U
-60-
M9
MI
em U
PC!14
M9
U
4- II
4-I t4
4; 43
rn En
o.
S
i_
_ _4
0
S
x
A
cr 4-I
0
.
Ur
0
A
-70-
0
A
S
&A
-1
V,
0
on
A
E-4
-90
0
II
s.
-
-c-
-
I
·
Figure 3.4
I
tll
I
II
I
I
I
·
-
11
^
1
s
1I
.
I
.
Atterberg Limits and Total Unit Weights
61
S
0U
:0
V\
Z
,)
-j
>
wL
0.2
0.5
1
CONSOLI DATION
2
STRESS
5
51
a
Figure
85
95
20
&vc( kg/cm2 )
SYMBOLDEPTH(ft) nvo
o
10
1.75
258
285
I:_vm
585
290
3.68
Typical Compression Curves from Oedometer Tests
on BBC
(Solar House)
50
62
IN SITU
Figure 3.6
VERTICAL
EFFECTIVE STRESS
In Situ Vertical Effective Stresses
63
C)
O
U)
rU
U
E-4
H
Q)
4
--
E
U
Ib'
0>u
U
0a)
U)
sO
lb>
0
0o
I
J1''_
u
0
c
r
_.
h-
0
X
C0
c
0a
_
0
< o
<
8
O
<_.
o
>0
0t% 01 0 8
<
°z4
-
0
X
<
-
C)
%---j
*+Wst313o
I
u7
1
-
I
I
1.-
I
I
I
O
uo
I
I
I
"
-
I
.
oO
I
il
:rl
64
14 ' Hld-C
0
Q1
C~J
8
0o
OLD
b>llb>
11
0C)
-i1
O
Q)
0
0
~~~~~~If
LlU
>CI
t- C~Oj
OWE
0
E
~
-)
rd
wH~Y
LL Cf) y
L.L
LL c
0O
U)
[
LLJ
· L4
-1
ro
1I
0
I
I
,
I
-i1
o
lr
LLJ
Hco
C)0 _S
·r
I-j
LL N
)-LJ
-0
Wd*
ao·c
I
I
:
I
I
I
,
i
I
-37I
0
I
I
I
I
' NOlIVA3-13
0
0
I
I
65
Cv(NC)x 10- 4 cm2 /sec
2n
tnI
-
1---I
---- -I
-10I
40
I
V
-
60- -V-
_
80
-20A
A
-30LL
i,
A
z
-50.
L
I
LJ -60-
-70-
A
la
A
A
-80-90..
Figure
3 .9
I
I
I
I
I
A
Solar House
.
C.A.E.S.
-
Vertical Coefficient of
Consolidation
66
;
(1) Sample (2) Reinforced rubber membrane (3) Wheels
for applying dead load (4) Load gauge for vertical
load (5) Ball bushing (6) Dial gauge for measurement
of vertical deformation (7) Sliding box (8) Dial
gauge for measurement of horizontal deformation
(9) Ball bushing (10) Load gauge for horizontal
force (11) Gear box (12) Lever arm (13) Weights
Clamping and adjusting mechanism used
(14)-(15)
for constant volume tests (16) Lower and upper
Base (19) Tower
d18)
filter holders (17) Pedestal
(20)Vertical piston (21) Adjusting mechanism
(22)Counterweight (23) Connection fork (24) Horizontal piston
Figure 3.10
Drawing of Geonor Direct-Simple Shear Apparatus,
Model
4
67
.
a:
I1
-
O
Jw
J-J w
0
D
co
0
-J
Z
'z
1-
U
L.
0
w
I
U
00
w
CD
I
a.
LtJ w
-6
E
0
I
-
V
----
-
a'
0o
-
-
N-C Ln
0C
1qf
-V.C
U
Tv
Ir
4-
_
_
_
_
_
_
|_
_
E
>
lb
,i I
a qNJ
|_
_
z
Lr C
|_
-_
l -I
Il.
0
<
S_
w_
CC
_
c,
-
PO
C
0 L' -Ckc r0d drkc
tz d
c
co
4
|-
q2
_
C0Ltr
|-
rq~
-
-
0
0
O
-
ac
C C\l
N CS N-
kc
,n
U)
-
mo
-
|
c
0
0
-I
0 0 C\0a
tC
0C0
N
Cr
_ C'J
Ln
C
K
0C d
0.
a
w
I
|
C
q-J
--I
d
I
-
C 0C
-·I -
I
-
u
I
'V
C,
b
O
C)
tyO
C-,
I
| _
oh
w
KK
0
l
N
i
/,
_-
m
z
I\\
E
1-
C'
m
a)
g_
IF- Z
_
C",
Ln C
C
M:)eC
c'~
a
r'*)
--4
N
r-4
.
d
d
d
r
o
o0
E
FIGURE
68
Th
-i
zvc
0
5
0
5
10
15
20
30
40
20
(/o)
30
40
AU
VC
10
15
SHEAR STRAIN
*See Fig. 3.11 for a list of symbols and test numbers
Figure 3.12
Normalized Stress vs. Strain From CKoUDSS Tests (Solar House)
0
69
2000
1000
800
600
400
EU
Su
200
100
80
60
40
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Th/Su
*See Fig. 3.11 for a list of symbols and test numbers
Figure 3.13
Normalized Modulus from CK UDSS Tests
(Solar House)
1.0
70
SL
/VI
I
2
4
6
8
10
OCR
Figure 3.14
SHANSEP CK UDSS Parameters for BBC at the
Solar HousS Site
71
02
¢
-I OI
kg/cm2)
Su
04
C
11
i
I
I
I
*
-2 0
7
13:O
000
-3 0
O
0O
*
0°
00
0
0
0
0 O
O
*0
0
0
0 01+
0
O
an 0
-L4
0
O
0
O.
0
14
ii
O
*
O
0_O00O 0
LL
LL -610
0
'
-7 10
-830
-9 U
12
I_0
I
0o o o o
000
*
0
0
0o0
1,%
I
I
SYMBOL
TEST
O
UU
FV
UC
O
.3
V
0
LOCATIONS
C.A.E.S., Student Center, & Life Science Bldg.
Solar House
Hayden Library & Nuclear Physics (Near Library)
CIU
CKoTC
Figure 3.15
Materials Center
C.A.E.S. & Life Science Building
Peak Undrained Shear Strengths for Tests on
BBC Below the MIT Campus
72
,:
:n n
-I
0
ro
UU
20.0
U)
,Q
_
u
O
n
u
1)
O.
4-C
a)
E
U)
z,
0. 0
o
0
0
0
0
0
s
0
1'i NI Hld0
a)
a)
Rn
4
J
O
U)
Z
Cr
Lu
L
z
u
20.0
0 U)
O
rf
4-
S.
O
mk
nLu
a)o
z u
0
a)
0 -H
0. 0
0o
0
'is N:
i
2
°
°
°
°
0
t--l
73
a)
41
30. 0
ro
LJ
20. 0
=-
Urd
LO
LO
U,.
uj
LaI
CL
(n
,U)
0U
vr)
l=
OO
10. 0
cJ
E-
0.0
ci
d
16
9~
d
a30
0
a)CN
a,)
.1.I NI Hid30
U)
30.0
rdoU)
u
LI
z
u
11
20. 0
OrrN
..ra
O
a)
-
,i
ui
z
Z
P4
"0C00
(n
(n
I-
(A
10. 0
N
I-
0. 0
o
·o
.
a
0
o
0
0.
'*1J NI Hld30O
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
74
HOLE
.
)
0. 0
MP'
STRE S
Co
c i
FS
DPr
,
MIT
K * W.
CD
CD
CD
20.
30.
40.
50. 3
rn 60.
-0
-i
__j
72. 2
30. 0
90.
2
10.
110. J
120.
2
Figure 3.18
Skin Friction Measurement Obtained with the
Piezocone at the Solar House, Hole MP2
75
SITE
IT
STlIIL
m
!
TEST
2
PS
It
STONE
.000
.OOO
COEC ANSL. IDES.)
PRE PIESSURE AT
POREPRIESURE RAT
DEPTH (FT)
70. 0
S O
00 IKG/CN2)
2.04
1.43
01 IRO/C21
20. IS
10. 40
U
V,
On
,n
ILn
0.00
L
0. 0
0.0
TIME SEC
a)
ST#BOL
TEST
P,
US
P
SITE
AIT
O
1000.
100.
10.
1.00 .0
TIME SEC
MIT
T
Measured
STORE
.00
.0
CBOIERANLE IDEG.I
RT
POAREPRESSL3UE
P ERPRESSURE AT
DEPTH rPT
78.0
0.0
00U IG/C2J
2.o4
1.4S
UT
KI/C12,
10.1
10. 0
i. 00
1.00
G. CO
0. 20
o.oo
.
0. SO 1.00
. 0
1000.
TIME SEC
b)
Figure 3.19
o100.
L-
TIME SEC
Normalized
Measured and Normalized Pore Pressure
Dissipation Curves
76
0
rq
.H
0
4)
0
0
N
tJ
_
0 tO _.
OUZ......
y
._O_.
o0
0
O O
._O N
C
"0
us
0
O
IN
.*
0r
fl
WU o Ou Q
N o
2
"
O
, G l oW
-
o
cn
04a,
o
U)
z'U
00000000000
L
O
ewwwwwwwwwww
S
ccccccccccc
........
.I
l4J
omnne
-i ononnonnn
0 000000000000
00000000000
fU
o
0
W W
WlUW
UW W W W W
zccccccccccc
QWWWWWWWWWWW
- CCCCCCECCEC
Geeeeeee£
Z
WU WU WU W W W lU
Q
LLL0LzLL0
Z
CECCECCECCE
a
a.
LI
.
CceeC
WU WU WU W W
aa a
a. aa
.
. B B B
a.
N N N N 0) o
B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B
K
K
K K
K
a
B B B
rc4
0
-
a. 0)_1
K
0I
'u
rrrrrrrwr
a
t
-0
i
I
I
I
1
I
8Oe +X*+N>-)X
0
M
0
a
0
0
0
ct2
0
C2
ID
I
I
I
I
i~ I
0)
1
0
0
0
o o
o
-
LlU
O
5,
77
I
I
1
-4-
I
I
-4 @ .
·
-n
n
4
4 O *:*n
I<-4n44<
n4l
*-
-
I.I
I
Cl)
o4
t4~~~~~~
II
I
'
I
4
I
0
r
.H
I
4--4
0
r--i
4..
C)
4-,
r-4
*,-[
-4
-,4
CI
tp
E
LL
.-
CI
I (,
C,
Q)
.l
CV
.H
.,H
-t4
Hld3U
78
2
Su, kg/cm
LL
z0
t
Figure 3.22
Average Undrained Strength Profiles
for BBC Below the MIT Campus
79
CHAPTER 4
EVALUATION OF CONE RESISTANCE AND PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
DURING PENETRATION
4.1
Introduction
As
ments
presented in section 2.2.3, cone
during
penetration
can
be utilized
undrained shear strength of clays.
and
resistance measureto
predict
the
Simultaneous pore pressure
cone resistance measurements allow further
evaluation of
the stratigraphy, stress history, and consolidation characteristics of soils.
of the
This chapter
piezocone in
history, and shear
will detail past applications
the evaluation
strength as
of
well as
from the MIT Solar House investigation.
dation characteristics
stratigraphy, stress
present
the results
The topic of consoli-
of soils will be discussed
in Chapter
5.
4.2
Stratigraphic Logging
4.2.1
Background
As
discussed in Chapter 2, simultaneous
the cone resistance,
qc, and
measurements of
pore pressures, u,
during cone
penetration are useful in establishing soil stratification and
identification.
This section presents examples from different
soil deposits to help illustrate this point.
In 1978, Baligh
extensive study at a
miles
and his
site located
north of Boston.
4.1 consists
co-workers at MIT
in Saugus, Mass.
The soil profile
of about 25
ft of
conducted an
about 11
illustrated in Fig.
peat, sand,
and
stiff clay
80
which
overlie 130
ft
laboratory estimates
clay above
of Boston
of the
Blue Clay,
tration pore
overconsolidated.
u,
obtained
u detect
in
the
is very close
to the
25
soil identificaow and
14
clean sand, qc is high
hydrostatic value,
ft.
strata, but
in
For example, in the peat, qc is
high, whereas in the relatively
the pene-
upper
major changes
jointly they have an excellent potential for
tion as well.
avm, the
the cone resistance, qc, and
pressure,
Individually, qc and
Based on
maximum past pressure,
a depth of 75 ft is significantly
Figure 4.2 shows
BBC.
u is
and u
uo -
The qc and u records obtained during the next 120
ft are
illustrated in Fig. 4.3 where we note:
(1)
The sharp increase in qc and decrease in u at depths
of 25, 51, 99 and 117
at these depths.
mination
ft suggest
the presence
sand lenses
of
Such information is essential for the deter-
of drainage
boundaries for
problems
involving the
dissipation of excess pore pressures.
(2)
At a depth
of approximately
in qc is accompanied by
140 ft, a sharp
a sharp decrease in u.
ponds to the interface with the glacial till.
increase
This corresIn fact, the u
record suggests the presence of a small transition
zone over-
lying the till.
Campanella
et al., (1982) define the
heterogeneous soil
profile for the Annacis site near Vancouver, British Columbia,
with the use
resistance
ances
and
of cone
resistance, pore pressure
logs, Fig. 4.4.
high
pore
As mentioned
pressures
and friction
before, low resist-
characterize
the
silt
81
layers, whereas
low pore pressures and high
indicate sand lenses.
cone resistances
Silty sand layers are distinguished by
responses intermediate of the two.
A useful
soil identification parameter
in heterogeneous
deposits is the time to reach 50% dissipation, t5 0 (Campanella
et al., 1982), which is usually achieved in silty sand mediums
during breaks
to extend
the drilling rods.
Equilization of
pore pressures in sands, with relatively high
coefficients of
permeability, will occur in a few minutes, whereas
for clays,
the time required
soils, the
time required
Times
may be a few hours.
for equilization
to 50% dissipation
For silty
is between the
at the Annacis
two extremes.
site are also shown in
Fig. 4.4.
Azzouz
sive
et al.,
(1982) present
soil investigation
Venezuelan clays
regions.
tests,
In
the
laboratory
from
addition
the results
program performed
the Gulf
to the
of Paria
measurements of
qc and
u.
on
soft offshore
and
Orinoco Delta
"conventional" index-strength
investigation involved
testing program
of a comprehen-
a
sophisticated
SHANSEP
together with continuous
in situ
This represents
the first
time
penetration pore pressures were measured offshore.
The
Simple
SHANSEP strength
Shear test
is
profile obtained
shown in
Fig. 4.5
from
the Direct
together
with the
results of the "conventional" strength tests performed onboard
ship.
As can
be seen from the figure,
the SHANSEP
undergoes an abrupt change at a depth of about 75-80
the mud line.
At this
profile
ft below
depth, the normalized strength ratio,
82
su/vo,
was
decreases from 0.235
entirely
unexpected
significant changes
± 0.01
since
+
to 0.200
it was
not
0.005, which
accompanied
in the plasticity index or
by
mineralogy of
the clay.
Figure 4.6 shows the cone resistance, qc, and penetration
pore
pressure,
shown in this
(u-uo)/7vo.
(1)
u, measured
figure is
during cone
penetration.
the normalized pore
Also
pressure record
The results show:
The values of
qc are
only slightly higher
than u,
which suggests, based on experience with other
deposits, that
the clay
well with
stress
at this
history
site is soft.
derived from
This agrees
the results
of
the
the laboratory
testing program (Azzouz et al., 1982).
(2)
The top 134 ft, which are described as soft to stiff
clay based on the onboard classification tests, can be further
divided into three sublayers:
a)
Sublayer
B, Z=75 to 130 ft, has
different
rate
compared to
the
b)
Sublayer
increase of
A and C.
SHANSEP
illustrated
of
a significantly
strength
This is
u
with
depth
consistent with
variation
with
depth
in Fig. 4.5
C, Z=130 to 134 ft, is characterized
by
a clear drop in u which is accompanied by a very
slight
A
increase
transition sublayer between
been added.
in qc.
75 and
85 ft could
also have
83
(3)
The variation in properties between the
"lower"
clays
variation of
For Z<75
can be
further illustrated
the normalized
ft, this ratio
from Z=25 to 35 ft where
125 ft,
(u-uO)/CV
information
stratum.
of
soil
is in
the range
it ranges
of the
studying
pore pressure ratio
ranges between
In summary, study
by
"upper" and
with depth.
of 3 to
3.5, except
from 3.5 to 6.
For Z=75 to
2.5 to 3.
penetration logs can
regarding different
the
reveal useful
stratifications
within
the
These stratifications will yield a detailed picture
variability which
may help
explain
and/or
verify
laboratory test variability.
4.2.2
Solar House Investigation
From
pore
review of the
pressure, Figs. 4.7
clay underlying
the
u and
qc plots, and
and 4.8,
Solar House
the normalized
it would appear
can be
divided
that the
into
four
sublayers as follows:
Layer
A
Depth (ft)
Characteristics
40-50
u,qcand
(u-uo)/~ vo
decreasing
B
50-65
All values increasing
C
65-77.5
All parameters decreasing
D
77.5-98
u and qc increasing,
(u-uo)/vo constant
Layers A-C
soil
clearly indicate the "upper" clays
is overconsolidated and exhibits variable
where the
behavior with
84
depth.
Below 77.5 ft, layer D, are the "lower" clays where u
and qc increase with uo and avo' respectively,
remains relatively constant.
1.5 to
1.
Also, the
The OCR
ratio of
and (u-uo)/ovo
in layer D ranges from
u/qc below 77.5
ft is
near
unity, characteristic behavior of softer clays.
The
sharp drop in u and increase
the interface
depth.
of a clayey
sand or
in qc at 98
ft suggests
sandy clay layer
at that
Index classification of the soil below 98 ft confirms
the presence of sand interspersed with the clay by the reduced
values of the plasticity index below that depth (P.I.
4.3
Stress History
Simultaneous
u
and
qc
measurements
can
evaluate the stress history of a clay deposit.
ship
12%).
between
u/q c,
and overconsolidation
be
used
to
The relation-
ratio
was
first
hypothesized by Baligh et al. (1980):
"Cone penetration in clays causes severe undrained straining of the soil well beyond the peak strength.
clays
with
low
OCR,
decreased effective
undrained
stresses.
shearing
This
For soft
results
in
implies
that pore
pressures near the cone must increase not only
to resist
the compressive stresses caused by penetration,
(i.e., to
satisfy equilibrium), but also because of the large shear
strains.
On the other hand, more overconsolidated clays
will develop smaller pore pressures during
tion, but
cone penetra-
because of the compressive stresses,
the pore
pressure during cone penetration need not be negative."
85
In order to check this
is examined.
High values
low OCR and vice-versa.
for the BBC located at
hypothesis, the ratio of u
to qc
of u/q c should be associated
with
Figure 4a
the Saugus
presents the u/qc profile
site (see Fig.
4.1) which
shows u/qc to increase with depth down to approximately
and
then remains
constant.
This agrees
well with
80 ft
the OCR
profile presented in Fig. 4.9 which shows OCR to decrease from
a value
of about 7 at depth
25 ft to about
and remains constant thereafter.
are measured
simultaneously by
1.2 at depth
80 ft
Furthermore, since u and qc
means of
the
piezocone, the
ratio u/q c is also useful in the determination of soil stratification.
sand
For example, the u/qc profile clearly detects
lenses
at
depths
51,
99,
and 117
ft as
well
the
as the
location of the glacial till.
Many studies have since been performed to further advance
the
usefulness and
relationship.
ponds to a
need as
u/qc-stress history
Lacasse and Lunne (1981) and Zuideberg et
(1982) both show
matches the
applicability of the
that the relative trend of
expectations, i.e.,
decrease in
yet further
(1981), through a
the relationship
the increase in
u/qc; however,
the
al.
OCR corres-
absolute figures
discussion and research.
Tumay et
field study, and Smits (1982),
al.
through lab
penetration tests, present results relating u/q c and OCR (Fig.
4.10),
but arrive
usefulness.
OCR,
at different
Tumay agrees
provided a
conclusions
that u/qc
regarding their
is a good
indicator of
region-specific calibration exists.
On the
86
other
hand,
Smits,
using (u-uo)/(qc-uO
instead
)
states that the wide band of data points, in
a
small slope of
the straight
of
combination with
lines, indicates that
relation is not very useful in practice to
on the stress history of the clay.
u/q c ,
such a
obtain information
He arrives at this conclu-
sion even after showing the existence of a unique relationship
for
Au/qc-uo
suggest
the
for
normally
consolidated
clays,
possibility of, unique values
of
which
may
Au/qc-u o
for
different overconsolidation ratios.
It is believed
that anytime
u is greater
> 1), measurement inaccuracies exist.
than
qc (or u/q c
These inaccuracies are
caused by the free flow of water behind the cone which acts to
reduce the effective qc measured.
It can be seen from Tumay's
study, in Fig. 4.10a, that u/qc for the enlarged
is considerably
greater than
for the
regular
cone (D/d=2)
cone (D/d=l).
This makes sense since the area behind the base of an enlarged
cone allows considerably more water flow than a
which reduces qc to an even greater extent.
u/q c
is greater
pressure behind
than
the
unity, qc
cone
base
must be
by the
regular cone,
In the case when
corrected
method
for the
outlined
in
section 3.5.1.
While Smits
was the only dissenter on
the applicability
of the pore pressure-cone resistance ratio, many
authors dis-
agree on how the pore pressure should be expressed;
either as
the generated
pressure,
Au=(u-u O ).
value,
u,
or
as the
excess
pore
Campanella et al., (1982) expect Au/qc to
relate
87
more uniquely to the stress
for normally
only be constant with depth
feel that u/qc will
consolidated clays
is hydrostatic,
if uo
They
history of a clay deposit.
linear with
i.e.,
A disadvantage of using Au is that knowledge of hydro-
depth.
static conditions must exist to define it, even though
after allowing for excess pore
be obtained
uo can
pressure dissipa-
tion, this takes a considerable amount of time and expense.
Plots
the Solar
u/q c for
of
presented in Figs. 4.11 and 4.12.
House
investigation
These plots show the means
each two
and standard deviations of the u/qc data points from
foot
increment of
depth.
The relative
trend of
supports Baligh's hypothesis; that is, as OCR
the plots
decreases, u/q c
When the clay becomes normally consolidated, u/q c
increases.
becomes
are
being that
approximately 0.67. However,
constant at
the location of the porous stone, the cone angle, and the cone
u and
shape all affect
needed before
u/q c can
research is
qc measurements; further
be quantitatively
to stress
related
history.
4.4
Undrained Shear Strength, su
and labora-
It has been well established, based on field
tory studies, that the
stress-strain-strength characteristics
of soft saturated clays are influenced by the mode
and
the
strain (Ladd,
rate of
evident with regard
4.1 illustrates,
that su
is not
to the
through 4
a
1975).
This
of failure
is
extremely
undrained shear strength.
different strength tests
unique value,
but depends
on
Table
on BBC,
the stress
88
system,
or
direction of shear, type of
one-dimensional),
problem
exists in
and
rate
consolidation
of
loading.
interpreting the
"field
(isotropic
Therefore,
strength"
a
being
measured from cone penetration tests.
Use of the
undrained shear
theoretically
cone penetration
strength of
and
test (CPT) to
clays has
empirically.
utilizes one of the
been
The
many solutions
evaluate the
approached both
theoretical
for the cone
approach
factor, Nk,
for application into the equation:
qc = NkSu +
where,
o
(4.1)
qc = penetration resistance
Su = undrained shear strength
o
=
in situ total vertical, horizontal or
octahedral stress
The empirical
approach to
directly predicting
cone penetration, in
su utilizing a
cone factor, employs
a reference
lieu of
predetermined theoretical
s u that is
determined from
laboratory or field tests, to backfigure Nk utilizing equation
4.1.
This Nk value will then be used in subsequent investiga-
tions to predict su from penetration resistance logs.
4.4.1
Theoretical Approach to Cone Penetration
Baligh
the existing
et al.
(1979) present
theoretical methods
interpretation, Table
based on
plane
three
4.2.
The
approaches that
strain slip-line,
a comprehensive
for
expansion of
of
penetration resistance
theoretical
can be
overview
solutions
grouped
cavities,
are
as follows:
and
steady
89
penetration.
All of the approaches rely on modifications
more rigorous solutions to simplified problems.
cations are
made with
respect to
problem
The simplifi-
geometry, stress-
strain behavior of soil, and the mode of deformation.
which
were not
not able
to be
rigorously considered, totally
accounted for
predictions include:
stresses,
simultaneously
Factors
neglected, or
by theoretical
anisotropy in shear strength and initial
soil deformation
bility,
of
strain softening,
prior to
yield,
soil compressi-
strain rate, cone
angle, relative
depth, and reduced friction at the soil-cone interface, all of
which
are
known to
influence the
ultimate
cone resistance
(Baligh et. al., 1979; Durgunoglo and Mitchell, 1975).
The cavity
expansion and
require computation
obtain
a
defined
as:
of
steady
a rigidity
cone factor
value.
The
penetration approaches
index, IR ,
rigidity
in
order
to
index, IR ,
is
(4.2)
IR = G/s u
G = undrained shear modulus
where,
Baligh
(1975) presents a
cone angles, Fig. 4.13,
approach.
Over
the
(i.e., G/su = 6-400),
In
Levadoux
addition
Nk versus IR
to be used in his
full range
Nc = 16
to the
and Baligh
chart of
steady penetration
of likely
2 for a 60°
clay
rigidities
cone.
solutions presented
(1980) introduced a
for various
in
Table 4.2,
new two-dimensional
90
method to
be
used in
problems
(e.g., cone
path method
is based on
deep foundation
The strain
penetration and piles).
method (Lambe,
concepts similar to the well known stress path
and consists
1967)
of four basic
steps:
a)
estimate the initial stresses
b)
estimate
an
of volume,
conservation
field
strain
approximate
satisfying
and boundary
compatibility
velocity requirements
evaluate the deviatoric stresses at a selected number
c)
of elements by performing laboratory tests on samples
subjected to the same strain paths, or alternatively,
by using an appropriate soil model; and
d)
estimate
the
stresses
(isotropic)
octahedral
by
integrating the equilibrium equations.
Levadoux and Baligh (1980) applied the strain path method
to predict the
cone resistance
profile for
The predictions
shown in Fig. 4.1.
ment with the measurements.
the
Saugus site
are in reasonable agree-
However, the method is sophisti-
cated and requires a significant effort in selecting the input
parameters for the soil model described in step (c) above.
As
a result, their technique cannot be used readily in interpreting the qc records
Several
predicting the
sites
investigators
of some of
adequacy
ments.
in practice.
have attempted
the methods
presented
to
evaluate
in
Table
undrained shear strength from the
4.2
the
in
qc measure-
Lacasse and Lunne (1982) report results from two test
in
Norway.
They
concluded
that
the
Baligh (1975)
91
theory, with an Nk=16 , produced su profiles which are
close agreement
with the
field vane
Jamiolkowski et
Fig. 4.14).
strength
profiles (see
obtained undrained
al., (1982)
shear strengths and rigidity indices from
in very
field pressuremeter
and laboratory Direct Simple Shear and Triaxial tests at three
resistance, qc,
Italian sites in order to predict penetration
utilizing
the
factors.
available
Figure
theoretical
illustrates
4.15
solutions
the
for
results
of
cone
these
studies.
From the above
results, it is difficult to
make conclu-
sions about the applicability of the theoretical
solutions to
predict su .
Although Baligh's approach looks promising at the
Norway sites and at the Taranto site (Italy), it greatly overpredicts qc
at Montalto
di Castro (Italy).
Lacasse and Lunne study,
other
values
studies
which utilized
relied upon
Except for
a range for
laboratory testing
to
NK, the
arrive at
for IR (needed
to obtain
Nc in the
solution) and su . In a
way, this
reduces these studies
quasi-theoretical approach
to the problem.
assume that the cone measures the field vane
of
the good agreement
of studies
more of these kinds
"field strength" the
tical approaches,
at the
if
cavity expansion
Also, are
to a
we to
strength because
two Norway sites?
Obviously,
are necessary to
answer what
cone measures
any, is
the
and which of
better suited
undrained shear strength of clays.
to
the theorepredict the
92
4.4.2
Empirical Approach to Cone Penetration
The most widely reported test to estimate a
is the field vane test.
Direct Simple
Shear
summarizes the Nk
Plate load,
tests have
laboratory triaxial and
also been
values reported
reference sU
in the
used.
Table 4.3
literature.
factors vary from 5-33 depending upon the testing
to predict su
and the different clay region.
House site, cone
-22
and
present
using
18-32,
cone
tests.
and fall
respectively.
factor, Nk,
equation
method used
For the
factors were calculated using field
well as DSS strength results,
4.1
Solar
vane as
within a range
Figures
4.16
profiles for
and the
Cone
the
respective
through
of 13
4.19
site calculated
reference
strength
These plots show the means and standard deviations of
the NK data points from
can be seen from these
Nk values plot within
each two foot increment of
figures that below 65 ft
depth. It
(OCR=2), the
a fairly narrow band, 18-22
for su(FV)
and 26-32 for su(DSS) .
Figure 4.20a presents results compiled at
for Nk versus
decreases
that
P.I.
for su(FV) uncorrected.
It is seen that Nk
as plasticity increases; however, Fig.
after applying
2.2), most
Because
numerous sites
of the Nk values fall
=1 for
unchanged.
Bjerrum's correction
factor,
within a
factor helps
scatter in the cone factor values, but cannot
for the dependence of
Nk on some of the
of the empirical approach.
(see Fig.
range of 14
P.I.=20%, the Solar House Nk
Bjerrum's correction
4.20b shows
+ 3.
values remained
to reduce the
totally account
inherent limitations
93
Clearly, because
the scatter
of Nk
analysis, no
the empirical
of
limitations
of
However, for a given clay deposit, a
test conditions.
resistance
be
a
1978).
su (Kjekstad,
and
remembered that if field
cone
between
relationship
unique
it
However,
the
non-uniqueness
a cone
factor
that cone
is used,
important to understand what type of strength profile
(i.e., field vane,
yield
4.4.2.1
must be
Because of
a field vane strength profile.
of su , when
tip
backfigure a
vane tests are used to
cone factor, any subsequent penetration tests using
factor will yield
given
likely that
penetrometer, and given test conditions, it seems
should
Nk value
single
penetrometers, and
exists that will cover all types of clays,
there
and the
values
it is
it will
DSS, etc.).
Prediction of sl Using Generated Pore Pressures
Only recently have empirical studies been performed to
relate
Au(u-u
o)
to s u via a cone factor NAu:
(4.3)
Au = NAuSu
Tavenas et al. (1982)
the Batiscan site
found at
Canada, that NAu seems to be controlled more by
index,
IL , as opposed
in Quebec,
the liquidity
to P.I. as is the case with NK.
porous filter located at
the cone base, and using
strengths, they determined that:
NAu = 7.9
NAu =11.7
+
0.7
for 0.8
2.0
for IL
< IL
> 2
< 2
For the
field vane
94
They feel these correlations are still too scattered to permit
an accurate evaluation of su for design; however, they believe
that NAu should be constant in a given clay formation.
strengths, Roy
Using field vane
found at
et al. (1982)
the St. Alban site in Quebec:
NAu = 7.4 for filters located at the tip
NAu = 4.7 for filters located up the shaft
for NAu
In order
to
be expected
which increases at similar
However, in a clay deposit such as BBC, where the OCR
rates.
undergoes
be
to
with uo
because Au increases
voo both of
and su increases with
need
su
In a normally consolidated clay, a
increase at similar rates.
constant NAu is to
Au and
be constant,
marked changes with depth, a constant NAu is not to
excess
The
expected.
pore
u-u o ,
pressure,
remains
relatively constant during penetration, increasing slightly as
OCR decreases; whereas
Therefore, because
decreases.
would expect
Solar
House
support
site
with
Au/su(FV)
for
the
decreases
until a
becomes constant.
depth
Results from
three test
depth
Figs.
holes.
of about
4.22
As
80 ft
and
4.23
expected,
(OCR=l)
the
4.21
show
Au/su
where NAu
It is clear, therefore, that this relation-
is not adequate
stress histories.
Figure
reasoning.
this
and
as OCR
OCR decreases with depth, one
an opposite effect of Au/su.
illustrates Au
ship
su undergoes a steady decrease
for BBC
nor for deposits
with similar
95
Undrained Shear
Strength
I .
Determined
OCR
a
From
vm
Undrained Strength Ratio
s (ave) 1 s (V)
u
u
vc
(1)
CK0U
Plane Strain
Active & Passive
CIU
Triaxial
Compression
(2)
v
Direct-Simple
Shear
UU
Triaxial
(1)
Compression
= qf =
(
1
u 2
(1)
s
(2)
s uh = th maximum
Table
u
4.1
u
vc
5
1
2
4
4
0.26
0.47
0.81
0.81
1
0.325
0.325
2
0.555
0.555
4
0.90
0.90
1
0.20
CKoU
s (H)
0.34
0.57
0.9
0.95
I
vc
0.19
0.37
0.67
0.67
-
-
2
0.37
-
-
4
0.61
-
-
1
0.18
0.18
2
0.36
0.36
4
0.60
0.60
3)
3 ff
Predicted vs Measured Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Strip
Footing on Boston Blue Clay (from Ladd, 1971)
96
qc
Bearing
Capacity
Ncsu
+
Nc for 2 6 - 60.
Po
Po
Reference
Type of
Approach
Expression for
Terzaghi (1943)
Meyerhof (1951)
Nc
G/s u -
100
G/su -
400
(shape factor)(depth factor)
x 5.14
9.25
same
Cvo
9.63
same
VO
10.2
same
avo
13.4
same
Qvo
17
same
Ovo
Bearing
Mitchell and
(shape factor)(depth factor)
Capacity
Dorgunoglu
(1973)
x
Bearing
Capacity
Meyerhof (1961)
(1.09 to 1.15) x
(6.28 + 2 6 + cot 6)
Bearing
Capacity
Begemann (1965)1 (shape factor)(2) x
(2.57 + 2 6 cot 6)
15.14
Bearing I Anagnostopolousf (shape factor) x 14.88
(1974)
Capacity
Cavity
Expansion
Bishop et al
(1945)
1.33(1 +
n G/su )
7.47
9.30
Cavity
Expansion
Gibson (1950)
1.33(1 +
n G/su ) + cot 6
9.21
11.03
Cavity
Vesic
1.33(1 +
n G/su)
Expansion
1977)
Cavity
Expansion
Al Awkati
(1975)
Steady
Baligh
Penetration
Table 4.2
(1975,
(1975)
+ 2.57
(correction factor) x
(1 + n G/su )
1.2(5.71
+ 3.33 6 + cot 6) +|
(1 + In G/su )
unspecified
| vo
0
oct
10.04
11.87
10.65
13.28
"oct
11.02
11.02
ho
+ 5.61
-1663
+6.99
-18.01
Summary of Existing Theories of Cone Penetration in Clays (Baligh 1979)
97
-.^
Soil Properties
Reference
Region of Clay
Cone Factor
N or N*
WL%
WN%
Correlation
by
Ip%
Penetrometer
Type
_
.
_
.
18.0*
20-30
80-85
55
UC
M (Dutch)
Ward, et al.(1965) London Clay
15.5
22-26
60-71
36-43
UU
M (Dutch)
Meigh & Corbett
(1969)
Arabian Gulf Soft
Clay
16.0
30-47
38-62
20-35
Ladanyi & Eden
(1969)
Leda Clay
(Gloucester)
7.5
50-70
50
23
FV
E (Borros)
Ladanyi & Eden
(1969)
Leda Clay (Ottowa)
5.5
72-84
40
20
FV
E (Borros)
Pham (1972)
Soft Bangkok Clay
16.0
60-70
Anaonastopoulos
(1974)
Patras Clay
17.0'
18
UC
H (Gouda)
Brand, et al.
(1974)
Soft Bangkok Clay
(Bangpli)
19.0
60-120
FV
M (Dutch)
Brand, et al.
(1974)
Weathered Bangkok
Clay (Bangpli)
14.0
60-80
FV
M (Dutch)
Ricceri, et al.
(1974)
Venetia Cohesive
Soils
23/21*
10-50
UC
H
Genevois & Luzzolini (1974)
Rome & Tirrenian
Clays
Milovich (1974)
Nicolet Clay
10.0
5kg/cm2
18.0
2
qc 27kg/cm
10.0
Thomas (1965)
London Clay
70-80
30
35
60-130
60-130
40-50
100-130 100-135
30-85
(Goudsche)
40-70
40-120
20-60
FV
63
8-23
UC
M (Dutch)
q
7.0
Marsland (1974)
Eide (1974)
London
14-18.5
Triaxial
12-16
17.5-21
Triaxial
Plate
11-50
FV
E (Fugro)
8-12*
9-67
FV
E (Fugro)
14-19*
12-15'
14-18*
14-20*
10-15*
9-30
10-35
25-36
40-60
35-50
FV
FV
FV
FV
FV
E
E
E
E
E
30-50
9-27
FV
FV
M(Dutch)
17-26
CID
UU
UC
E (Fugro)
24
E (Fugro)
E (Fugro)
E (Fugro)
M (Begemann )
12-20'
Drammen, Onsoy,
Goteborg
Aarhus, Sandines
Lunne, et al.
(1976)
Drammen Clay
Drammen Clay
Onsoy
Goteborg
Ska-Edeby
Koutsoftas &
Fischer (1976)
New Jersey
Kjekstad, et al.
(1979)
Norway North Sea
Baligh, et al.
Boston Blue Clay
Atchafalaya Basin
Connect. Varved
Clay
9-15*
9-17*
10-14*
40-50
40-70
60-80
20-50
20-90
20-70
60-80
30
FV
FV
FV
Tezcan, et al.
(1979)
Izmir, Soft Clays
13-15
33-70
60-80
20-30
LV/UU
Marsland (1979)
London
16
16
3*
3*
17.9'
45-75
25-50
15-25
15.7*
17.5*
(1979)
9.25
24-29
.
.
,
--
.
Table 4.3 Some Cone Factors
Determined for Cohesive Soils
(Fugro)
(Fugro)
(Fugro)
(Fugro)
(Fugro)
Triaxial
Plate
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
98
Table 4.3
·1
Page 2
__
,,
, , ,
~~~~~~~~
_~~~~~~~~~~~~
i ii
i
|
-
Region of Clay
Reference
Cone Factor
N or N*
Yilmaz
-
-
-
24.0*
20-40
60-70
25-45
40-50
70-100
30-60
60-90
60-80
34-45
19.0*
9.0*
31.0*
10.0'
- Laplace
Tavenas
(1981)
et al.
Lacasse Si
(1982)
Porto Tello
Jamilkowsski et al.
(1982)
Montalto
12
11
E (Fugro)
E (Fugro)
Piezocone
Piezocone
4*
3*
FV
FV (cor)
E (Fugro)
1*
CKOUC
E (Fugro)
2*
CKOUC
E (Fugro)
UU &
UUC
M(Goudsche)
E(Goudsche)
FV
E (Fugro)
CIU
FV
LV
UC
Piezocone
9 +
di
E (Fugro)
FV (cor)
FV (cor)
23-36
10-28
12.1-17.5*
11.8-18.8'
Onsoy
UU
UC
LV
FV
UU
LV
FV
UU
UC
LV
FV
7-18
16-21
James Bay
(Canada)
Lunne
9.3*
9.3*
10.4'
8.5*
5.0*
-
.
17.0'
- Erwinville
Type
by
Ip
WL%
|
Louisiana Cohesive
Soils - Lake
Charles
(1981)
l
-
-
Penetrometer
lat ion
ii-
-
e
Corre-
Soil Properties
Castro
Cancelli
(1982)
et al.
Roy et al..(1982)
Tumay
et al.(1982)
Azzouz et. al.
(1982)
Gadinsky
Taranto
16
Modena
25.2*
28.5
St. Lawrence
Lowlands
14.7'
Louisiana
5.9*
6.7*
11.2'
12.8'
Venezuela
11-19
10-30
65-100
50-70
Piezocone
35-65
(Orinoco)
(1983)
BBC (MIT)
13-22'
18-32'
FV (cor)
CKoUDSS
BBC (Saugus)
10-20'
CKoUDSS
10-19'
FV (cor)
.
.
.
-
l
Piezocone
-
-
--
-
LEGEND
Soil Properties
Cone Factor
WN - Natural Water Content N - qc/Su
WL - Liquid Limit
N*
(qc-av)/Su
Ip -
Su
St
Plasticity
Index
- Undrained Shear
Strength
- Sensitivity
UC
UU
LV
qc - Tip Resistance
(
- Overburden Stress FV
-
Tests
Unconfined Compression
Undrained Unconsolidated
Lab Vane
Field Vane
CKOUC -
Penetration
E - Electrical
M - Mechanical
H - Mechanical
(Hydraulic)
o consolidated
undrained compression
CKoUDSS - Ko consolidated undrained
99
'$; 'Hid30
o q 00 oo 0C(000
0 0
Co
Ici
. fr-l
,I
wd
r::
0
0
k4
LC4
0
>
L.
cfF
d-
/-3
0
.H
4i
C(
cJ_ :cn
C4
EO
rd
rJ
%.t . C
l_!7
O0 E
IJ.
U
W
@ 0
a)
%.I0
0
-
0
O
cO
C.
3
3
3.z
0
0
0
*,i
r- Cd
r-i
OC)
O3 (3.
c
,-E
a-
ao
o
o
C
o
c
r--
0o
v, r
c4I t
i
4C
(
I
'NOl1VA33
0v
0o
I
4
100
0o
C.H
U
.r-4
4-4
")
oV L
,WQ
"
Z
W
WWc
o
0
H
02
o
ro
Cr
0n
Cd
_JC7
k (-
4.
.
H 0
-H O
Z F-
H "O
a
Ct
V) 0-
() r
E
ZY
bJ al
O
C,
CQC
U'-
-C
.N
u)
0
to
0
C"'-J
LOn '
a,
'. 'Hld3C
H
.?4
101
r.- -a)
.C
30. 0
L
I
U'
u
-W-
--
.
I 20.
a
.C
4
.,i
i
I
---
I
0
ro
·
i
i
20. 0
~cII
I
r.
C
nH
(n
n
CT
01
cr
fo
4.
O
la
10.0
0G
r:
aI
n
m
a)
z
0. 0
1D
.
In
C3
'
Ho30
1LS NI
C
0
In
In
o
a
NI
a)
Rld30
¢U
a)
I4
3c. G
a)
U)
a) U)
u :I
uLO
,-
U
20. 0
.)
C,
C)
a)
ur
Lu
a)
I.-
Ln
N
Gr
C3
c,
U
.H
0. G
o
o
o
°
°
n
N
'I1
=,
a)
NI Rid30
rT
4
102
POREfRESSURtFRICIO0 RSISTANE B(ARIG RSiiE
U IIRRi
0
FE IBARi
0U/;l
0
S
20
fRITiO"RRiio OIFFRW[NiiRL
.P. SO0L
QT iBfRi
0
Rf:FC/O: i21
0
iO
200
RTIO
O
PROFIl
.BO
ur ;
I mAt
_1
1 ,111111
vaIM111
ow"
_
to50
eC.
6w
.3
*3
-Il
-4
wWe _
-II
_T Yw
jIl
_* W -I
-II
fi
in
-30
T
I
W
I
-20
hi
lu
r
MT
Ili
r
_
rI-
WM"·
L
-20
I
.4'
-Ge
I
I
I
I
-21
L
0
C
-1S
_1601
WM $AND -is
0
.54
0
hi
C
.10
L
0
-'2
-46
we
.15
Wd
.?
S&T
_ts
-to
.12
is
r
LLpr
t,r
.^
-20
1
I
British Columbia Highway
Test Fill, Annacis Crossing
Figure 4.4
FC-T
I-V
I
I
OFFSET 16.2c at 29.2m depth
)epth corrected for slope
$ Euilibrum water pressure
Example of Piezocone Logging in Stratified
Soils (from CamDanella et al., 1982)
103
0
0
Cd
U
0
d
-.0
LL- O
0
U:
0
0d
I,.
0
0
I(n
O
Cd
Z 0
Z
z
()
w
w:
N
0
040 0
O m
N
U] 4
c;
z
J0
O
0
cm
04
O
o
O
() Hd30
00
c0
o0
104
r
U
O
0
C)
-H
i
0
0
0-o
tN
-H
O-H O
N--i
N
..)
-)-H
04)
r4i
o0
0L
a~4
rL4
'*4' Hld3G
105
d
4.
10.0
Qn
LU
8. o
0
cr
LL
V)
cc
6.
C
uL
cc
,
0
"lm
0
cr
N
-I
4. 0
zw
11Cc
2. 0
z
0
0.0
d
d
d
d
eo
d
o
d
' Ikia,
L1n
1~a
:1
d
G
'lj NI H20
S0. 0
U)
.Od4
U;
r
SO
uU,
!
20.0
G
u
a
U,
S3
U,
w
cn
I-c,
10.0
00r
.0.0
o
o
ta
I
°
0
0
a
o
i
I
"1. NI HldO
r14
106
c
1)
10.0
U)
U)
8. 0
aui
In
a-
to
i -!T--
I
- -'l- --------t
Ln
6. 0
--- ---- 1
N
0
ro
nn
co
-I
a)
I-
0'3
a
N
4. 0
Cd
2. 0
Z
0
0. 0
d
o
o
o
o
o
rr
To
,, , F
_
*1J NI Hldi0
tn
C)
s-I
30. 0
a)
4N
Oz
u
O O
20.0
:
ci
4-)o
O
-on
LL
(r)
10.0
O3
00
o
0. 0
o
o
o
o
o
'I*:I HlJ30
o
o
o
0
o
.
a
-I3
.,--I
107
SRUGUS
U/QC
M4
(CORR. ]
o
o
o
0o
o
·
·
on
0o
o
25. 0
45. O
L
z
65.0
I85. 0
105. 0
125. 0
145. 0
Figure 4.9
Pore Pressure to Cone Resistance Ratio:
Saugus Site
108
2.0
LEGENO
__
u - Pore Pressure
1.8 _ qc- Tip Resistonce
1.6
*
a =60, 0/d :1
0
a a60, D/ :2
d
/d = I
=: 18,
-
-
1.4
H
TipResistance
W
1.2
=IJl.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
I
I
1
I
0
I
I
2
OVERCONSOLIDATION
3
a
RATIO, OCR
a) Field Penetration Tests in Louisiana Cohesive
Soils (from Tumay et al., 1981)
08
I
aI
o
0
n.
wa
0
02
3
,
0
,
1
2
.
*
.
10
.
20
.
.0
64
OCR
b) Laboratory Penetration Tests (from Smits, 1982)
Figure 4.10
Variation of Pore Pressure to Cone Resistance
Ratio with Overconsolidation
109
MIT
#1
U/QC
40. 0
o
o
o
0
N4
.N
I
o
I
o
0)
0x
I
I
I
50. 0
_~~~~~~~~
Ha
,I
60.0
LL
I -
I
I
H
z
"r
--
70.0
L
______
_ +
_,
_H,___
H
.
H
~~~~~~~~~~e
HH
~~~S
80. 0
~~~~I
"'°
I
HH
1-I
FEH
f'=l
90. 0
FH
II_
-OI
100. 0
I
~
~
~~~~II
110. 0
Figure 4.11
Pore Pressure to Cone Resistance Ratio:
Solar House, Hole MP1
110
MIT
#2
U/QC
0
0
rNJ
m
0mb
40. 0
-I
I
50. 0
I
HH-
60.0
He
ILL
z
-
--
701.0
LU
KIt
80. 0
90. 0
I----
100. 0
L~~~-+-~I
I
_
i
a
i~
I~~~~~~~~g
1 :LO.0
Figure 4.12
Pore Pressure to Cone Resistance Ratio:
Solar House, Hole MP2
111
-II-
- .e. 33 . + [it /'orJ
CC J.2[/ -/tlone
ic
Point Resistance
.Horizolal Total S/res
5. Un/,oa7ed Sheaor
Strerngh
on
'V
I
s
-r i
/
J
f~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!
--I
'ol
I/
tio
/8
.
.I-
|-
-
I
to
5
l/
_
I
U
.
/6
w
|
-.
1
i
--
_ f
t
-
_
j
--
i
I
/
1
't1
nW.
-/
30
/4
1
I
/2
111
6
Ie
i!
/o
23
40
RIGIDITY
Figure 4.13
I
i
60 80 /00
INDEX,
1
i
200
G/Su
Effect of Rigidity Index and Cone
Angle on the Penetration Resistance
of Clay (from Baligh, 1975)
400
112
SU:(qC,-ho)/16(kPa)
Su= (qc- ho) /16(kPa) N K
0 10 20 30 40/10
20 0
10 20 30/10
NK
20
A
4
,8
I-Cal
12
16
20
NK =(qc-Ovo)/su(FV),
Figure 4.14
NK f ( Ave. FV),
.) NK =f (Ave Corr.FV)
Undrained Shear Strength from
Cone Resistance (from LaCasse
and Lunne, 1982)
113
.H
U)
a0
I
fd
4.0
o
LU0.
h
PX
i
~4 0.
.
rd
C)
OI
OD
I-C-
, A=
C_
I.
==I_=
-
.-
i
x
_
Xm
e
_
0
_
z
-)
H
)
YO)Xe
rd
.
40
a))
40
0
C:
I
iw
N-IF'
U-l
U0
a)
o
0
.X
-- -
_r> h 2U
0, o
) >
a)
r
4
In
rl)
0
-C
Cd 2
o
1IIl
E-4
x x x
.
.
.
a)
a)
o
Ro
9
I
E
0
-r4
A
40a)
m
---
El
o0
o0
-----------
i) 44
I
y
Q
a.
U
.,)
z
-
"I
r
0o
H
U
LI)
a)
,I
Lfl
0
0
4-,
.0
0
A-L
t"
·
C
NE
a)
t))
-H
114
MIT #1
(QC -SGV
) /SU
FV)
NK
0o
O3
0
o
0
LO
0
o
O
o
40o. a
N
50.0
t
-
60.
70.0.
l .-
-I
i
80.0
I.
90. 0
t
I_
LO0.. 0.
1l0. a
Figure 4.16
Empirical Cone Factor, Nk (FV), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP1
115
MIT #2
(QC-SGVO) /SU (FV)
NK
0
0N)
0
o
0
40. 0
I
0
0
I
I
0
0
I
HH
50. 0
FI-
60.G
I-I
70. 0.
LL
O
LL
C3
|
80. 0
H
I-
- B--
~~t
~H
-1
I.
90. 0
a~~~~r~
100. 0
110.
L~~~~~~~~~--
0
Figure 4.17
Empirical Cone Factor, Nk (FV), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP2
116
MIT #1
0
0o
(QC-SGVO)/SU(DSS)
N)
0
w
0
0
0o
o
o
40.0.
I
o
o
~~~~I
II
50. 0
90.0
LLI
i~
H
o~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~
-I
80. 0i_
0
60.
so.o
,L
.
100.
o
Co
I--
_
110. 0
Figure 4.18
Empirical Cone Factor, Nk(DSS), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP1
117
MIT
2
(QC-SGVO) /SU(DSS
NK
0
0
40. 0
50. 0
0
0
I
w
I
o
I
I4I
I
-'1XfI=
I
I
F-
I
~~~~I
-60. 0
0o
0
0C3
CD
I
I
I
LL
Z
H
I-4
-
70.0
-8-i
I i
o0
--
I
H
'
80. 0
bH
90. 0
I-I
_1H
Hi
100. 0
110. 0
Figure 4.19
Empirical Cone Factor, Nk(DSS), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP2
118
N1
a)
PLASTICITY INDEX} PIJ %
N
b)
NGI Sites- Norway
Onsoy
o E.Borresens
* Sunland
X Ska-Edeby
Goteborg
A
t
Figure 4.20
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI ) %
M.I.T. Test Sites
V
A
O
O
Saugus, Ma.
Amherst, Ma.
EAPL, La.
MIT Solar House
· Canviadan Clays(Roy)
v Italian Clays(Jamiolkowski)
v Louisianna Clays(Acar)
* New Jersey Clays(Koustas)
Empirical Cone Factor, Nk(FV) and N'k(FV), for
Very Soft to Medium Clays
119
MIT
#1
STRESS
0
C:
0
C~
U-UO
P
KSC
wo
0
0
40. 0
50. 0
60. 0
z
ul
0--
70. 0
CL
LL
0
80. 0
90. 0
100.0
110.0
Figure 4.21
Excess Pore Pressure Measurement Versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP1
120
MIT
#1
(U-UO)/SU(FV)
NK
o
o
E
0*
0
0
U
... 0
N
0
N
w
0
l
0
o
0
0
40. 0
S0. 0
60.0
I-
I
70.0
70.0
LUJ
80. 0
90. 0
100. 0
110. 0
Figure 4.22
Empirical Cone Factor, NAu (FV), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole MP1
121
MIT
#2
(U-UO)/SU(FV)
NK
o
e
C
o
o
_
_
0
0
0
N
w
w
0
0
0
40. 0
50. 0
60. 0
LL
U_
I
70. 0
o_
bJ
80. 0
90. 0
100.0
110.0
Figure 4.23
Empirical Cone Factor, NAu(FV), versus Depth:
Solar House, Hole P2
122
CHAPTER
5
PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION AFTER CONE PENETRATION
5.1
Introduction
Steady
undrained
the
penetration in
shearing and
soil.
pressures
brium
cone
saturated
clays
develops excess pore
Once penetration
will dissipate and eventually reach
in Fig. 3.20).
developed
et
these
pore
the equili-
were presented
Many authors (Soderberg, 1962; Torstensson,
1977; Randolph and Wroth, 1979; Baligh and
Battaglio
pressures in
is interrupted,
value uo (typical dissipation curves
causes
al.,
1981;
and
Tumay
et
Levadoux, 1980;
al.,
1982)
solutions to predict the consolidation
have
and flow
characteristics of cohesive deposits from the pore pressure
dissipation data.
tion
process
around
solutions, the
well
This chapter will discuss the consolidaprobes,
shortcomings of
the
their
as compare their results to
coefficients.
existing
dissipation
interpretation,
as
laboratory consolidation
Finally, a study of some case histories and
a discussion of the applicability of the
theoretical solu-
tions in these cases will be presented.
5.2
Available Theoretical Pore Pressure Dissipation
Solutions
Deep
steady
shearing strains
cone
penetration
causes
in the soil, especially in
vicinity of the tip.
very
large
the immediate
In normally consolidated to slightly
overconsolidated clay, these strains produce a failure zone
123
extending to a radial distance equal to 6.5 times the shaft
radius (Levadoux and Baligh, 1980).
strains are applied to a
When shearing
normally con-
solidated clay, positive shear-induced pore pressures, Au s,
develop
resulting
change,
aoct
in
a negative
(= - AUs).
effective
mean
With regards
to clay consolidaa constant
tion, the reduction in mean effective stress at
can be viewed
undrained shearing
void ratio due to
stress
as an
artificial overconsolidation of the clay.
Therefore, pore
pressure dissipation
during early stages
of consolidation
around
place
cones
in a
recompression
to virgin compression) for both
opposed
dated
takes
and
slightly
(as
normally consoliclays
overconsolidated
mode
with
OCR<4
(Baligh
and Levadoux, 1980; and Gillespie
and Campanella,
1981).
The consolidation characteristics of clays will be
studied with respect to this phenomenon.
Theoretical
methods for predicting
cohesive desposits usually
characteristics of
solution of
the consolidation
two separate problems:
require the
1) estimation
of the
initial pore pressure distribution within the soil mass.due
to
cone
penetration; 2)
estimation of
changes
in
soil
properties and stresses during the subsequent consolidation
phase.
In
the
following presentation
methods for the interpretation of the pore
of the
available
pressure dissi-
pation records, an emphasis will be placed on how these two
problems are dealt with as
applied in practice.
well as
on how each
method is
124
Torstensson's Method (1977)
5.2.1
Torstensson (1977) suggests that the pore pressures in
the soil caused by steady cone penetration can be estimated
by
cylindrical
Ladanyi,
soil to
and
solutions
(radial)
one-dimensional
cavities
spherical
During cavity
1963).
corresponding
(Soderberg,
expansion he
to
1962;
assumes the
be isotropic, initially subjected to
an isotropic
prior
to yielding)
stress, and
state of
elastic (linear
with a shear modulus, G, perfectly plastic (after yielding)
with
shear strength,
an undrained
su.
Neglecting shear
model adopted
induced pore pressures, the cavity expansion
by
Torstensson predicts the following expressions
initial
pore pressure
over which
a)
it acts,
distribution, Au(r),
Au(r) = 2s.n
b)
the zone
:
For a cylindrical
X =
and
for the
cavity
(.n
(5.1)
(G/su)1/2
For a spherical cavity
Au(r) =
4 s .ln
u
(R)
(5.2)
X =
(G/su)1/3
Torstensson utilizes linear
finite difference
uncoupled one-dimensional
consolidation analyses
to
estimate the
normalized excess pore pressure dissipation curves
5.1
(u vs.
coefficient
log T;
T = ct/R 2 ).
of consolidation,
In order
in Fig.
to estimate
c, he proposes
the
matching of
125
predictions and measurements at 50% consolidation (u = 0.5)
and hence uses the expression:
R2
R-
c = T 50
(53)
(5.3)
t 50
lent"
E is the "equiva-
an appropriate value of E/su .
5.1) for
shearing E = 3G * t 50
and
consolidation,
of the
modulus
Young's
of
For
clay.
is
an
undrained
achieve 50%
is the measured time to
R
0.5 (Fig.
at u =
time factor
is the predicted
where T50
that
radius
"equivalent"
simulates the cavity radius.
Hence,
determination of
the
method requires
spherical).
difficulties
variables.
using
Torstensson's
estimates of the rigidity index
Baligh
associated
with
the
selection
the shear
For example,
discuss the
Levadoux (1980)
and
E/su , the
cavity (cylindrical
R, and the type of
equivalent radius,
or
c
of
these
modulus (or E)
for a
of
magnitude
depending on the strain level, overconsolidation
ratio and
given clay
the
mode of
appropriate
can
by one
vary
easily
order
the
Similarly,
shearing.
shear strength,
su , is
selection of
not an easy
Table 4.1 which shows that su for Boston Blue
on
the
stress
stresses).
system,
Furthermore,
cavity is difficult.
dimensional
strain
the
rate
selection
Cavity expansion
whereas cone
and
penetration
of
task
an
(see
Clay depends
consolidation
the type
of
solutions are oneis two-dimensional,
and hence the geometrical analogy between the
two problems
126
For a
is not
clear.
cavity
solutions
smaller)
smaller
than
predict
much
cylindrical
values of
(G/su fixed), spherical
given clay
dissipation
faster
and
cavities
the coefficient
of
hence
predict
consolidation,
From Fig. 5.1, the ratio of c estimated by the
is about
(T50
c.
two methods
5.
Randolph and Wroth (1978)
5.2.2
Randolph
and
(1978) developed
Wroth
a
for
method
analyzing the change in stresses and soil properties around
piles
and interpreting
The initial
test.
obtained by
tion,
excess pore
the one-dimensional
Eq. 5.1,
of
the results
assuming
analytical
the soil
5.2.3
is
cavity solu-
cylindrical
also to
as an
behave
They utilize a closed
consolidation analysis
to
normalized excess pore pressure dissipation
to those
presuremeter
pressure distribution
elastic-perfectly plastic material.
form
the
estimate
the
curves similar
in Fig. 5.1.
Baligh and Levadoux (1980)
Baligh and Levadoux (1980) analyze the deep cone penetration in clays as an axisymmetric
state problem that is essentially
two-dimensional
strain-controlled, i.e.,
strains and deformations in the soil are
by kinematic requirements.
method described
in Chapter
They then
primarily imposed
use the strain path
4 to estimate
the normalized
excess pore pressures due to cone penetration on
of
laboratory data
Clay.
on normally
steady
consolidated
the basis
Boston Blue
127
Figures 5.2
pore
pressures
expansion
and 5.3 present a comparison
predicted by
methods and
the strain
between the
path
and cavity
measurements obtained by
al., (1978) and Roy et al., (1979).
Baligh et
The results
show the
following:
1)
Predictions
method are in
the face
of pore pressures by the
good agreement with in situ
and shaft behind
Blue Clay deposit having
18° and
strain path
measurements on
60° cones in
a Boston
1.3<OCR<3 as well as in
the soil
surrounding a jacked pile in Champlain clay.
2)
By neglecting
problem,
cavity
distribution
probe.
of
expansion solutions
pore pressures
Moreover,
predicts
the two-dimensional
in
nature
cannot
along the
provide
shaft
the radial direction, the
unrealistic
distributions,
of the
especially
of
the
the
solution
in
the
around
the
immediate vicinity of the probe (r/R = 1 to 5).
3)
The
measurements
of pore
pressures
jacked pile in Champlain Clay are very similar to
of other
clays of
Therefore,
tion of the
different types
and
it seems possible that the
a number
stress histories.
predicted distribu-
normalized excess pore pressure by
the strain
path method for normally consolidated BBC will prove satisfactory in other clays as well.
Having developed
Baligh
coupled
and Levadoux
the initial
then use
finite element
excess
pore pressures,
two-dimensional
analyses to
obtain
linear un-
the variation
128
of pore
pressures with time.
shows plots
Figure 5.4
factor, T,
normalized excess pore pressure, u, versus time
along the tip and the
at four selected locations
shaft of
as:
u is defined
180 and 600 probes.
u-uO
(5.4)
uiuo
u=
of
where,
recorded
u = pore pressure
at time t
u o = static or equilibrium pore pressure
u i = initial
pore pressure
at end of
penetration (t50 ).
The
results in Fig.
achieve a
5.4 show
that the
of dissipation,
given degree
points further away from
required to
time
increases for
u,
Moreover,
the apex of the cone.
dissipation rates are affected by the probe angle.
Parametric
Levadoux to
studies were
carried out
Baligh
by
initial excess
investigate the effects of the
pore pressure distribution, the anisotropy of the
between pore pressures and total
the coupling
the
and
soil and
stresses on
theoretical dissipation curves presented in
Fig. 5.4.
Their results show that:
1)
influenced by
dissipation times are significantly
the initial excess pore pressure distribution
2)
a
reduction
in
the
vertical
coefficient
of
consolidation, cv, from ch to 0.1 ch causes little delay in
the
uncoupled
pore
pressure dissipation
at
4
selected
129
locations along
the
tip and
shaft of
an
18° piezometer
probe provided that the time factor is defined as T=cht/R 2 .
This
suggests that ch governs consolidation
meter
probes.
Gillespie
3)
Similar
conclusions
and Campanella
The
effect
were
(1981) and Tumay
of
linear
around piezoarrived
et al.,
coupling
at by
(1982).
between
total
stresses and pore pressures is small except at early stages
of consolidation especially
near the apex of an
18° cone.
This suggests that uncoupled solutions can
provide reason-
ably
apex
accurate
predictions away
from the
and after
sufficient dissipation has taken place.
Finally,
Baligh
and Levadoux
(1980)
recommend
following procedure for the application of their
predict
the
coefficient
of
consolidation
of
the
method to
cohesive
deposits:
1.
Normalization
of dissipation records and plotting
u vs. log t:
u
2.
is defined
Choice
in Eq. 5.4
of Records
Identify and eliminate unusual dissipation records
caused
by high soil variability or
ance of the piezometer probe.
ing judgement
and some
improper perform-
This requires engineer-
experience.
Unusual records
are characterized by:
a)
A
much higher or lower initial pore pressure,
ui ,
that may
be easily detected in a plot of
penetration pore pressure versus depth.
130
b)
A
fluctuation or an increase in pore pressure
(or
u)
for
(greater
a
than
significant
10 seconds)
period
of
time
after penetration
stops.
3.
Applicability of Predictions
This can be achieved graphically
measured normalized dissipation
to the recommended curves
of
R=shaft radius) in Fig. 5.4.
curve
the predicted curve
until the
best
(u vs. log t)
u vs.
curves
log T (T=cht/R2,
The measured dissipation
(u vs. log t) is plotted
vs. log T and translated
by comparing the
to the
same
scale
of u
horizontally with respect to
(while maintaining equality of u)
agreement is achieved.
linear uncoupled analyses, the
According to
horizontal translation
reflects changes in ch whereas the shape of the dissipation
curve
depends
on
the
initial
excess
pressure distribution around the probe.
good agreement
between the
measured
Therefore, a
and recommended
normalized dissipation curves provides a
cation
of the applicability of the
pore
strong indi-
prediction method
to the soil at hand.
4.
Evaluation
of ch (Probe)
At a given degree of consolidation,
the predicted
ch(probe) is obtained from the expression:
ch (probe)=
t
(5.5)
131
R = radius of the cone shaft
where,
t = measured time to reach this degree of
consolidation
T = time factor
An analytical method
the predic-
determining ch
different u.
consists of
method
tion
to check the validity of
at
Large differences between ch at various degrees of consolidation
indicate
excess
pore
inadequate
an
pressure
initial
or significant
distribution
coupling
or
of
creep
behavior.
can
water
problems
in foundation
be used
flow due to
unloading or
involving horizontal
reloading of clays.
problems involving vertical water flow in
dated range, cv
50% dissipation
values of ch (probe) at
The estimated
For
the overconsolithe expres-
(probe) can be estimated from
sion:
cv (Probe)
where, kv and
kh are
k
v
ch (probe)
the vertical and
cients of permeability, respectively.
reliability of
the estimates
(5.6)
horizontal coeffi-
the laboratory,
of kh/kv in
rough estimates of kh/kv for different clays
Levadoux (1980)
in Table 5.1.
Baligh and
technique. for
predicting kh
the lack of
Due to
and cv(NC)
are presented
also provide a
from
the
probe
measurements.
Table 5.2 summarizes Figs. 5.1 and 5.4 in a more workable fashion.
132
Empirical and Curve Fitting Dissipation Solutions
5.3
In addition to the theoretical solutions
presented in
Section 5.2, several empirical and curve fitting procedures
have been developed over the last few years.
Battaglio
5.3.1
(1981)
et al.,
Battaglio and
his co-workers
use a
trial
and error
method to obtain a dimensionless u vs. T relationship which
best
field dissipation
matches the
excess
pore
dimensional cavity
tion
process
finite
are
pressures
estimated
using
expansion solutions and
is modeled
by means
difference solution
The initial
curves.
of
a
to Terzaghi's
the
one-
the consolidaone-dimensional
Equation.
The
steps required to use their approach is as follows:
1) Compute the excess pore pressure distribution.
to select
this, one needs
the cavity shape,
For
the rigidity
index, IR , and the pore pressure parameter at failure, Af.
2) Solve,
trial
ch
by the
value,
the
finite difference
simple
Terzaghi-type consolidation
is
governed by
method,
one-dimensional
theory, which for
the following
partial
using a
diffusion
radial flow
differential equa-
tion:.
6u
E
c
6 2u
-
6r 2
6u)
r
-r
(5.7)
133
where,
=1
for cylindrical cavity (c=ch)
= 2 for spherical
cavity
(c=cav;
cv<Cav<ch)
u = excess pore pressure
r = radius
3) Evaluate the
of probe
standard deviation,
A,
between com-
puted and observed curves of the excess pore pressure decay
with time.
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until a ch value which corresponds to the minimum
value of the standard deviation
A is
obtained.
Examples of application of this procedure for two test
sites are shown in Fig. 5.5.
cal
cavity shape
In these tests, the cylindri-
adopted and
was
of
the value
IR
was
estimated from Direct Simple Shear tests.
5.3.2
Jones and Van Zyl, (1981)
Their
empirical approach
t 5 0, versus
dissipation,
coefficient
of
the reciprocal
consolidation
oedometer tests.
simply plots
obtained
of
time
to 50%
the vertical
from
laboratory
A straight line fit through the origin of
the results as in Fig. 5.6a yields the equation:
t50
(min ) =
(m
cv
5.3.3
Tavenas
et al.,
They state
permeability
k
intact clay M.
(5.8)
(m /yr)
(1982)
that
ch
and the
should
be a
modulus of
function
deformability
of
the
of the
In overconsolidated clays, M is related to
the maximum past pressure,
vm, by M=movm so that
be more or less constant and equal to:
ch would
134
-
Ch
Kvm m
- wv
The steps
(5 *9)
required
to get ch are:
1)
Obtain k from direct permeability tests
2)
Obtain avm from oedometer tests
3)
3)Plot
vs
Plot t5
t 5 0 vs.
4)
Correlate t5 0 to T 50 in a manner similar
vm
w
to that presented in Figure 5.6b.
5.3.4
Tumay et al., (1982)
Tumay et
cedure
for
al., (1982)
recommend a curve
predicting the
cohesive deposits.
along the shaft
consolidation
fitting pro-
coefficient
of
The initial pore pressure distributions
and in the radial direction,
a sufficient
distance behind the tip, were obtained from the results and
measurements obtained by Levadoux and Baligh (1980) and Roy
et
al., (1979),
element
respectively.
consolidation
Linear
analyses
were
uncoupled
then
finite
performed
to
obtain the theoretical dissipation curves.
Typical theoretical
Fig.
5.7 where
we
dissipation curves
note that
there is
a
portion of every dissipation curve. Each of
are
straight
intersection
observed
called T' 9 0 .
Also,
that all the parameters that
Tumay
line
these straight
lines, when extended, meet at 90% consolidation;
of
shown in
the point
et al.,
(1982)
affect dissipation,
135
i.e., anisotropy, disturbed zone around the
of
piezometric
element, and
the final
pronounced during
can be
seen
from Fig.
disappeared at
they
feel
90% consolidation
T 90 .
The procedure
be
least
It
stages of consolidation.
5.7 that
anisotropic effects
the
dissipation curves
about
will
cone angle,
about 90% consolidation.
that all
cone, location
and called this
adopted to
In other
words,
converge at
will
converging point
compute the consolidation
coefficient using Tumay's method is as follows:
log T
0 which equals a
1) Calculate the ratio of log T 9 090
constant A
2) Estimate t90 by the expression:
=
t9o
where,
10
Alogt' 9g0
t'g=time
of 90% dissipation
at
the straight line portion
tgo = actual time of 90% dissipation
3) Calculate ch by the expression:
T
90
t9o
ch
((R
2
Using the expression for t90 in step 2 will
in field
operations
by
not
having to
pressures have completely dissipated.
can be
A=1.13 and T9 0 240.
estimated.
until
wait
pore
Once the dissipation
curve has reached its straight line portion,
of consolidation
save time
a coefficient
For their
analysis,
136
The
Tumay,
Jones,
and Tavenas
solutions
are
limited to predicting ch at one level of dissipation.
criteria for
violates one of the
a solution to
all
This
be appli-
That is, an acceptable solution to dissipation must
cable.
be able
the
to predict
same ch
value at
levels of
all
dissipation.
Another
limitation of
be no indication that t90
there seems to
their
the Tumay
would match
procedure
dissipation curves.
t90 from
is
that
calculated using
the
actual
field
They do not present dissipation curves
order to
dissipation in
carried to 90%
solution
verify
the curve
fitting assumptions.
The
empirical solutions
of Jones
mainly on laboratory test results for ch
As will be shown
and
Tavenas
rely
and permeability.
values from
in the following section, ch
consolidation tests can vary depending on the type of test,
loading cycle, and stress level.
One must first understand
the consolidation process around probes and also understand
the limitations of ch(lab) values before an attempt to draw
systems can
empirical relationships from the two measuring
be made.
Although the Battaglio solution appears
to reasonably
predict ch at all levels of dissipation, and
compares well
with reference ch
and time-consuming.
tions is that
values, use
The beauty
the hard
of the solution
of the
analytical work
is complex
theoretical soluhas
been reduced
137
to a series
of curves
which makes
for
easy application.
However, the Battaglio solution requires the
knowledge to
run a
this is impractical
equipment and
finite difference analysis.
as comparable
ch values
Clearly,
can
be pre-
dicted at a fraction of the time and cost using the theoretical solutions.
Due to all of the
limitations
in the
applicability
of
the above curve fitting and empirical solutions to dissipation
of pore
pressures,
subsequent analyses.
the most promising
needed to
they will
be left
out
of
any
Of the four procedures, Battaglio is
if and
perform such
when the hardware
an analysis
becomes
and software
more readily
available.
5.4
Evaluation of ch From Laboratory Tests
5.4.1
Background
Since consolidation
dated state (see
tory testing
takes place
in
the overconsoli-
Section 5.2), the objective of
program should be to evaluate
a labora-
ch(probe) with
lab measurements of ch obtained from tests when the soil is
in the overconsolidated range, i.e., ch(OC).
tion
tests, this would
cycle.
Initial loading
be during
an unload
is largely
In consolidaor
influenced by
a reload
sample
disturbance which lowers ch(OC), Ladd (1973), and is therefore not suitable for use in evaluating ch(probe).
Consolidation tests, either the
oedometer
or the
constant rate
of
standard incremental
strain consolidation,
138
CRSC, (Wissa
most
et al.,
widely used
horizontal
1971) are the
laboratory techniques
to evaluate ch(OC).
samples allow
stress increments.
CRSC tests
measurement of
ch(OC)
run on
at small
On the other hand, for the range of OCR
of interest (estimated to
be
3), the oedometer
test is
inadequate to evaluate ch(OC) for the following reasons:
1)
or a
The very high gradients at the start of
reload
cycle are
overlooked by
the
an unload
curve
fitting
procedures used to calculate ch which tend to emphasize the
data towards the middle of the load increment.
2)
Oedometer tests can only yield average
values for
an increment of loading.
It can be seen from Fig. 5.8 that ch(OC)
during unloading,
as measured in the oedometer test in the range of
2-4, is five to ten times lower than that from a
OCR from
CRSC test
run on samples from the same tube.
The degree of overconsolidation at
takes
place in not presently known.
which dissipation
However, it
that the value of ch at the in situ OCR is a
is felt
good starting
point from which to evaluate ch(probe) until further information on this subject is known.
Furthermore,
values with
ch(lab)
one
would want
to
values measured
compare
at the
ch(probe)
in
situ OCR
during a reload cycle, since this best simulates the actual
field
occurrence.
However,
as
will
be
shown
below,
attempts to evaluate ch(lab) during recompression will lead
to erroneous results because at a given OCR,
ch(reload) is
139
a function
of the size of the unload
felt that
ch measured
cycle.
Instead,
during unloading will
it is
yield proper
values for comparison with ch(probe).
5.4.2
Why ch(OC) during unload?
To prove that the ch measured during the unload cycle
is
appropriate
to evaluate
established that
ch during
amount of unloading, and
will be the same
ch(probe), first
reloading is
second, that
whether it
it
affected
at a given
is measured during
must be
by the
OCR, ch
unload or
reload.
1)
Dependence of ch(reload) on magnitude of unloading
By definition,
where,
ch =
kh
mvYW
(5.10)
kh = horizontal coefficient of permeability
mv = coefficient of volume change
yw = unit weight of water
From Baligh and Levadoux (1980),
v
RR
2.3 av
for small increments of stress (5 11)
where,
RR = recompression ratio
By combining Eqs. 5.10 and 5.11, we arrive at the relationship:
ch
2.3 kh
RR
v
(5.12)
(5.12)
140
The dependency of ch (reload) on the degree of unloading can be shown by studying how the parameters kh, av' and
with
reloading, for two tests
different
levels of
same av,, during
the
same avm
the
From the
OCR.
unloaded
results of
it can
ratio, e.
is proportional to the void
be seen that log kh
in e
Because of the steepness of the slopes, small changes
not change
unloading.
means
v will be the same for both tests.
that
Eq. 5.12.
degree
of
Therefore,
v are constant, ch is inversely related to RR
that at
5.10 shows
Figure
reloading, RR is
greater
the
Also, comparing ch for two tests at a given OCR
since kh and
by
regardless of
relatively constant
remain
kh should
an unload-reload cycle,
much during
e does
Therefore, since
will not considerably change kh.
to
two CRSC
of BBC in Fig. 5.9,
samples
run on horizontal
tests
at
evaluated
when
RR are affected
test A
greater for
As a
degree of unloading.
would be lower for test A
which
any
OCR during
experienced a
result, ch at
than B because of the
any OCR
degree of
unloading associated with each test.
Because of
question, "what is
the correct
faced
with the
degree to
which
I should
Unfortunately, this question cannot be
unload my sample?"
answered because
one is
this phenomenon,
it
is not
yet known
exactly
how
much
unloading takes place upon probe penetration in clays.
2)
ch(unload)
Once
dissipate.
= ch (reload)
penetration
stops,
pore
pressures
begin
to
The values measured therefore take place during
141
compressibility is
the
reloading where
beginning of
the
low; and
as the effective stress increases,
Assuming
that
(OCR
cycles
1-4)
=
simulate the probe penetration and subsequent con-
closely
the
solidation,
more
unload-reload
small
RR increases.
shapes of the unload-reload loops will be
unloading is
beginning of
compressibility and
the
this symmetry,
Because of
symmetric.
or less
characterized by
the
same low
in
the
swelling
subsequent increase
ratio, SR.
Although
kh will
be slightly
stages of reloading, av will be slightly lower.
the compensating
in kh
decrease
and increase
Therefore,
in
part of
stant at similar locations on the unload or reload
Therefore, ch measured during the early stages
the cycle.
of
unloading
portions of
measure
felt
Since
reloading.
this
is
the
ch
well with
should compare
and is not dependent
that
v and
relatively con-
should keep the product kh(av)
vice-versa
early
during
higher
ch(unload)
during
is
early
easier
on degrees
of unloading,
parameter
to
to
it is
evaluate
with
ch(probe).
5.5. Case Histories
5.5.1
Introduction
The
applicability of the Baligh and
Levadoux (1980)
and
spherical solu-
and Torstensson's
tions
to
(1977) cylindrical
dissipation of
excess pore
pressures
will
be
evaluated in this section through a series of case studies.
142
The first two cases represent research done at MIT (including the
House study)
Solar
research reported
and the
Included
literature.
in the
two represent
final
in
each
study will be the soil characteristics, dissipation curves,
comparisons of ch predicted by the different solutions, and
any laboratory ch data presented as reference values.
5.5.2
Presentation of Case Histories
Saugus, Massachusetts (Baligh et al., 1980,1981)
1.
The piezocone was
160 to 200 ft
a site in
used at
to the east of the
Saugus, Mass.,
unfinished Interstate-95
embankment certerline at a location designated station 246.
This site
M.I.T. over
has been comprehensively studied by
the last two decades.
Chapter 4,
As presented in
test site consists of 25
about 120
layers which
overlie
(BBC),
Fig. 5.11).
(see
pressure, avm,
indicate
from
ft of
the soil profile
peat, sand and
ft of
Estimates of
Boston
the
at the
stiff clay
Blue Clay,
maximum
past
conventional oedometer and CRSC tests
that the clay above
a depth
of 60 ft
is signifi-
cantly overconsolidated.
of dissipation tests were run
between 1979
and 1980 using different probe geometries and
porous stone
A series
locations.
Table 5.3
outlines the
respective number of tests.
tests
are presented
normalized
in
probe geometries
and
The results of all dissipation
Fig. 5.12
to 5.14
excess pore pressure versus time.
as
bands
of
Included on
143
solutions corres-
are the Baligh and Levadoux
these Figs.
ponding
to ch(probe)=0.04
present
ch(probe)
at
cm2 /sec.
Tables
degrees
various
5.4
to
5.6
dissipation
of
evaluated by the three theories mentioned above.
Ghantos (1982) ran
a series
BBC
samples.
turbed
horizontal
(swelling) versus OCR
on undis-
of CRSC tests
His
for
results
From this
in Fig. 5.15.
are shown
situ OCR
curve he was able to plot ch(swelling), at the in
in Fig.
versus depth
shows that
This figure
5.16.
ch(probe) value of 0.04 cm2 /sec, predicted with
the
the Baligh
of 0.014
and Levadoux solution, falls nicely within a band
to 0.06 cm2 /sec for ch(swelling).
ch
This band represents the
uncertainty in the prediction of OCR.
requires
ch(probe)
knowledge
for
method
Torstensson's
Utilizing
of
parameters,
three
the
type of cavity ex-
3the
Eu
3sU
rigidity index (IR = G/s-
predicting
expansion (cylindrical or spherical), and the probe radius,
R.
Tables 5.4 through 5.6 show that the spherical solution
at
best
underpredicts
Therefore, it is
ately
model
discussed
ch(probe)
felt that
pore pressure
further.
by a
factor
this solution does
is an
not accurbe
solution appears
to
will
predict ch(probe) well for Eu/su between 400 and
ever, there
five.
not
dissipation and
The cylindrical
of
inaccuracy involved in
500; how-
utilizing these
144
normalized
modulus values
to predict
ch(probe)
in
soft
excess
pore
clays which will be discussed below.
Baligh
pressure
clay
and
Levadoux
measurements due
deposits, Fig.
(1980)
present
to pile
5.17a.
installation
in eight
Important properties
of the
eight clays and pile types are summarized in Fig. 5.17a and
Table 5.7; and cover a wide range of soil types.
They note
in Fig. 5.17a that:
1)
Significant
vo' say]
excess
develop
pore
pressures [Aui (r)
within
a radius
r = 20R
0.2
(i.e.,
= 20) around the pile and measurable excess pore
pressures extend to r = 50R or even 80R.
2)
In
spite of
the very different
and pile) in cases a,
between r
= 5R and
b, c,
r =
conditions (soil
d, g and
20R fall
defined band and suggest that x
h, results
within
a well
20R.
Figure 5.17b shows the band including most of the test
data for
r > 5R.
between r
= 5R
A reasonably
and r =
20R can
good fitting
of the data
be achieved by
either a
logarithmic distribution or a linear distribution.
Noting
that
the
pressure distribution
drical
line
Eu/Su = 1200
This ratio
of
Torstensson in
and
to
= 0.68 (i.e., G/vo
much higher
analyzing cavity
pore
elasto-plastic cylin-
5.17b corresponds
sU/vo
is
excess
solutions; according to
in Fig.
Eu/su
initial
is derived by
cavity expansion
the straight
with
logarithmic
than
expansion
Eq. 5.1,
a
clay
= 272).
estimated
problems
by
even
145
though su = 0.68 avo is excessively high especially for the
soft
clays
(OCR
=
1)
in
cases
a
and
b.
Therefore,
Torstensson's cylindrical solution, even with Eu/su
cannot accurately predict the initial excess
distribution needed
Judging
by
the
to model
trend,
pore
pore pressure
pressure
(ch(probe)
= 500,
dissipation.
increases
as
Eu/su
increases), a solution for Eu/Su = 1200 would severly overpredict ch(probe).
Since
the
Baligh and
predicts ch for
all types
locations, and does
type of cavity
to
predict
Levadoux
of probe
not rely
solution
geometries
for
and stone
upon evaluating Eu/su
expansion, it will be the
ch(probe)
accurately
the
nor a
solution applied
remainder
of
the
case
studies.
2.
M.I.T. Solar House
Dissipation tests
program outlined
were part
in Chapter
curves representing
12
of the
3.
The band
tests run
in
situ testing
of dissipation
below depths
(OCR < 3) are shown in Fig. 5.18 along with the
Levadoux solution
compared
for
ch (probe)
with dissipation
= 0.04
of
53 ft
Baligh and
cm 2 /sec.
When
curves obtained at
Saugus with
the same radius cone, an almost identical band
of dissipa-
tions is
obtained.
results obtained for
Because of
this phenomenon,
the Saugus site will also
the lab
be applied
to the Solar House site and a ch of 0.04 cm 2 /sec adopted.
146
3.
Canadian
A.
Clays
(Campanella
et al., 1982)
McDonald's Farm, Richmond, British Columbia
The soil profile at the site consists
mately 15 meters of
soft,
normally
clay and
60" piezocone with
Fig. 5.20
curves
sand overlying a
consolidated clayey
dissipation test was run at
SILT, Fig.
5.19.
stone located at
the dissipation
representing
deposit of
a depth of 20.5 meters
the porous
presents
of approxi-
ch(probe)
=
curve and
0.05
to
A
with a
its base.
a
band of
0.08
cm 2 /sec
obtained from the Baligh and Levadoux solution.
CRSC
tests run
on vertical
predict ch(OC) = cv(OC)
=
and
horizontal
0.058 cm2 /sec which
samples
falls within
the band of ch(probe) predictions.
B.
Burnaby, B.C.
One dissipation
test was performed at a
depth of
15.5m in a soft silty clay deposit located at Burnaby, B.C.
This test
utilized
a 600
cone with
located at the cone base as well.
dissipation
curve
and
a
band
the
porous
element
Figure 5.21 presents the
of
curves
representing
ch(probe) = 0.005 to 0.007 cm2 /sec obtained from the Baligh
and Levadoux solution.
CRSC
cv(OC)
tests
equal
performed
to 0.01
on
vertical
cm2 /sec, slightly
samples
higher
yielded
than the
ch (probe) predictions.
4.
Italian Clays (Battaglio et al., 1981)
Dissipation tests were performed in two
using
an
18" piezometer
probe with
the
Italian clays
porous
element
147
located slightly above the tip.
A.
Porto Tolle Site
Porto Tolle
The
within
the clay
obtained by
5.23,
bounded by
ch(probe) = 0.015 to 0.030
cm 2 /sec as
is shown
and
curves representing
test was run
A dissipation
in Fig. 5.22a.
are presented
of which
and stress history
soil profile
silty clay, the
normally consolidated
clay is a
in Fig.
These ch
solution.
and Levadoux
the Baligh
values compare favorably with those calculated by different
laboratory and field procedures shown in Table 5.8.
B.
Trieste Site
Figure
history of
the
5.22b shows
the soil
Trieste clay,
and stress
profile
which is
a
soft
normally
consolidated organic clay with shell fragments.
The dissi-
pation curve performed at this site is shown in
Fig. 5.24,
bounded by
curves representing ch(probe) = 0.007
cm2 /sec as
obtained by
the Baligh and
to 0.011
Levadoux solution.
No laboratory ch values accompanied this case in the literature.
In conclusion,
is
apparent
predict
the
from review of these case
that the
Baligh and
horizontal coefficient
Levadoux
of
that
this coefficient
should be
involving unloading or reloading.
solution
can
consolidation
of
It should
be
cohesive deposits with reasonable accuracy.
noted
studies, it
used
in problems
148
Anisotropic Permeability of Clays
Nature of Clay
kh/kv
1.
No evidence of layering
1.2 + 0.2
2.
Slight layering, e.g.,
sedimentary clays with
occasional silt dustings
to random lenses
2
3.
Varved clays in northeastern U.S.
Table 5.1
10
to
5
5
Anisotropic Permeability of Clays
(from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
149
TIME FACTOR T
40%
50%
60%
80%
90%
0.44
1.90
3.65
6.50
27.00
82.20
0.12
0.51
1.90
3.65
6.50
27.00
82.20
600,base
0.18
0.68
3.09
5.75
10.72
39.80
04.70
180,tip
0.04
0.16
1.35
3.00
6.00
30.80
74.50
180,midheight
0.13
0.52
2.60
4.70
8.20
34.00
84.00
Eu/SU=500
0.11
0.46
0.81
1.26
3.28
5.74
E/s
0.10
O 0.40
0.68
1.13
2.85
4.70
10%
20%
600,tip
0.12
600,midheight
Degree
Dissipation
Baligh &
Levadoux
Torstensson
spherical
400
Eu/S =300
0.085
0.35
0.61
0.98
2.36
4.01
Eu/s =200
0.067
0.28
0.47
0.77
1.91
3.04
Eu/Su=100
0.0571
0.20
| 0.32
10.50
1.16
1.89
Eu/SuS500
0.34
2.14
4.29
8.33
23.61
38.57
Eu/Su=4
0.30
1.75
3.57
6.79
20.20
31.62
0.24
1.38
2.81
5.37
16.29
26.98
0.18
1.06
2.32
3.82
10.13
17.43
0.14
0.83
1.37
2.49
6.03
10.00
Torstensson
cylindrical
00
Eu/s-300
Eu/su
200
|
Eu/Su=100
_ _ _
Table 5.2
_
_
i
1
I
_
_
_
I
_
_
_
I
_
_
.
_
_
I.
_
_
I.
_
_
1
_
_
Time Factors for Theoretical Solutions at Different Percent
Dissipation
150
Year
Cone Angle
1979
600
1979
180
1979
18°
Table 5.3
Stone Location
Tip
Mid-Height
Tip
Cone Radius (cm)
No. of Tests
1.91
9
1.91
6
1.91
j
Piezocone Studies Performed at Saugus, Mass.
17
151
SAUGUS (180, MID-HEIGHT)
Ch x 10-2 (cm2/sec)
% Dissipation
10
20
40
7.4-16
31-51
210-310
2.96-6.41
3.72-6.12
E,/su=500
t (sec)
50
60
440-650
910-1250
3.06-4.52
2.64-3.90
2.39-3.29
0.79-1.29
0.54-0.80
0.45-0.67
0.37-0.51
Eu/Su 400
0.72-1.18
0.47-0.69
0.38-0.56
0.33-0.45
Eu/Su-300
0.61-1.00
0.41-0.61
0.34-0.51
0.29-0.39
Eu/Su-200
0.48-0.79
0.33-0.49
0.26-0.39
0.22-0.31
Eu/Su=100
0.41-0.67
0.24-0.35
0.20-0.27
0.15-0.20
Eu/Su=500
2.43-4.00
2.52-3.72
2.41-3.56
2.43-3.34
Eu/su=400
2.15-3.53
2.06-3.04
2.00-2.96
1.98-2.72
Eu/Su=300
1.72-2.82
1.62-2.40
1.58-2.33
1.57-2.15
Eu/su=200
1.29-2.12
1.25-1.84
1.30-1.92
1.11-1.53
Eu/Su=100
1.00-1.65
0.98-1.44
0.77-1.14
0.73-1.00
Baligh &
Levadoux
Torstensson
spherical
Torstensson
cylindrical
l_
I
I
I
Band of 6 tests below 60 ft (OCR
_
i
< 2)
R = 1.91 cm
Table 5.4
Prediction of ch(probe) by Theoretical Solutions
_
152
SAUGUS (180, TIP)
Ch x 10-2
% Dissipation
(cm2 /sec)
(4 tests)
60
10
20
40
50
2.3-10.5
15-38
106-175
209-360
1.54-3.89
2.81-4.65
3.04-5.24
2.74-5.09
EU/Su=500
1.06-2.68
0.96-1.58
0.82-1.41
0.57-1.07
Eu/Su=400
0.96-2.43
0.83-1.38
0.69-1.19
0.52-0.96
Eu/sU=300
0.82-2.07
0.73-1.20
0.62-1.06
0.45-0.83
Eu/Su=200
0.64-1.63
0.58-0.96
0.48-0.82
0.35-0.65
Eu/su=100
0.55-1.39
0.42-0.69
0.32-0.56
0.23-0.42
500
3.26-8.27
4.46-7.37
4.35-7.49
3.80-7.07
Eu/su=400
2.88-7.30
3.65-6.02
3.62-6.23
3.10-5.76
Eu/Su= 3 0 0
2.30-5.84
2.88-4.75
2.85-4.90
2.45-4.56
Eu/su=200
1.73-4.38
2.21-3.65
2.35-4.05
1.74-3.24
Eu/Su=100
1.34-3.40
1.73-2.86
1.39-2.39
1.14-2.11
t (sec)
430-800
Baligh &
Levadoux
1.39-6.34
Torstensson
spherical
Torstensson
cylindrical
Eu/Su
Band
of 17 tests
below
60 ft
(OCR < 2)
R = 1.91 cm
Table 5.5
Prediction of ch(probe) by Theoretical Solutions
153
SAUGUS (600, TIP)
ch x 10-2 (cm 2 /sec)
% Dissipation
10
20
40
50
60
t (sec)
1.5-15
7.6-60
125-280
295-530
630-1100
Baligh &
Levadoux
2.92-29.18
2.68-21.2
2.48-5.55
2.51-4.51
2.16-3.76
Torstensson
spherical
Eu/Su=500
0.67-5.28
0.60-1.34
0.56-1.00
0.42-0.73
Eu/su=400
0.61-4.80
0.52-1.17
0.47-0.84
0.37-0.65
Eu/Su=3 0 0
0.52-4.08
0.46-1.02
0.42-0.75
0.33-0.57
Eu/su=200
0.41-3.22
0.36-0.82
0.32-0.58! 0.26-0.45
Eu/Su=100
0.35-2.74
0.28-0.58
0.22-0.40| 0.17-0.30
Eu/Su=500
2.07-16.32
2.79-6.25
2.95-5.31
2.76-4.82
EU/S=400
1.82-14.40
2.28-5.11
2.46-4.41
2.25-3.93
Eu/SU=300
1.46-11.52
1.80-4.03
1.93-3.47
1.78-3.11
EU/SU=200
1.09-8.64
1.38-3.09
1.60-2.87
1.27-2.21
Eu/su=100
0.85-6.72
1.08-2.42
0.94-1.69
0.83-1.44
Torstensson
cylindrical
I
I
_
Band
of 9 tests
below
60 ft.
I
(OCR<2)
R = 1.91 cm
Table 5.6
Prediction of ch(probe) by Theoretical Solutions
_
154
I
0
4'N,
_
*0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9
8.
.
4
a
.
0
3~
4']?
.d. Z:@^s '' s o
-=
' g.
p-0
to
i
s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t
:I
a)
;4
.
Z
~~,d,
,
j[>
I
_
4'<~"
*-
C3i°_
.X
~~
a . ,
.
_
v
a.
"
a . o.w
.4
A
0
a_
i
3^-
-
.
<
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
g
0
3 ro
00~~~~~~~~~
.T
e*
X
j-
ft r0
o 3
S~~~~f
a
-
.
,
-
.
.I
o
1.-
fi
:
x tr
U)
OHr
UX
am
.
*
'
w
,
"
'
8
4'8
a.
4'4
'"'~~~~~~~~~~~~~
u
J
,
*6
1. _.
'l
r-
,
X,
eq
IL
'
_
o
.04"
3Aa.
'
^
si
-i
.
.
-
:
44
-
0
.-0 I
0
,-1
rO U2k
UH
>,
Ev
Q)
155
S O U R C E
Ch
10
3
(cm2 /sec)
IL Oedometer test
1.7
-
Piezometer probe dissipation tests
8 (IR = 110)
Constant head permeability tests
Self boring permeameter
Back analyses of trial embankment
with vertical drains
Table 5.8
2.5
9.7
1.86
-
14.8
6
-
21
Comparison Between ch Values by Different Procedures at
the Porto Tolle Site (from Battaglio, et al. 1981)
156
1,0
i 0,5
II
0
time factor
T = ct/R 2
of pore pressure probe
R = radius
c = coefficient
of consolidation
1,0
E /S
u
500
-400
-a
,300
0,5
,I
IA:
R
I
nI
0,01
0,1
time factor
R =radius
c
of pore pressure
=coefficient
Figure 5.1
10
1,0
T
\
100
c t/R 2
probe
of consolidation
Pore Pressure Dissipation Around Spherical
and Cylindrical Pore Pressure Probes Predicted
by Torstensson, 1977
157
a)
u r-i
Cr
rz
rdZ4
O
WU u
;tmm-0
Ui
CD
O0
r.
m C
aU)
I
O
u,
n-
(D)o a
0
0w - co
kM
g
O
o-
,m
ur
O
o~~~~~~~(%
N
H WX
(n
"U
x
w
a:
O
a.
tr
N
kU d
O
V
uA
0
EO"
W* _ [V
I,
VI)
0
it)
Io
>
Zo
a)
nl
rD
A
,..3M
Cd
o
0
;i co0.
-o r-
0
>0
U) d
O
aG- ,"cr >
NI
Nu
o
r')
158
I
(n
.
^
I.
1.
.
Z)
U)
0
w
(n
W
Ld
0
0
.r_
U)
La
0
0
La
N 0
zo
1
2
5
.10
NORMALIZED
Figure 5,.3
20
RADIUS,
50
r/R
Predicted vs. Mleasured Distribution of Normalized
Excess Pore Pressures During Penetration in Clays
( from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
IOC
159
IJ
w
w
0.
w
(r
w
N
-J
0
z
TIME FACTOR
TCt
in
w1
C:
w
IL
w
i
0
a.
IL
x
o
N
4
a2
O
z
0.01
0.1
10
TIME FACTOR T.
Figure 5.4
100
1000
t
Rl
Dissipation Curves for an 180 and a 600 Cone
According to Linear Isotropic Uncoupled
Solutions (from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
160
U['x..
nU-
-e-
I
10
z
0
I-
20
4 30
-j
0
40
z
50
U
60
_
U,
0
___-
-
7
8
9
10 Ch 10 3
UA.
0
70
-
W 80
U.1
O
w
0 90 -
4--
a
100 -
I
~
! i I I !
01
-C--
I
100
10
~
~
l
, |
1000
t[mn]
TIME
a) Porto Tolle Site
U['.]
I
-
0
3
1111 I
I R . 172
10 F-
Z
Z
20
30
-j
0
U)
z
0
U
U.
k_
40
50
-3
10
60 ..
0
70 t-
w
U.1
80
90
0 100
.·---.
_
LU
0.1
Figure 5.5
l
10
TIME
100
1000
t [ min]
b) Trieste Site
Comparison Between Predicted and Measured Pore
Pressure Decay at Two Italian Sites (from Battaglio
et al.,
1981)
161
O5O
0
'Cv year/n'20
1,5
IE
0
3w
x
Figure 5.6a
Correlation of Field Dissipation Times
with Laboratory Consolidation Data
(from Jones and Van Zyl, 1981)
o_
N
0
,,o/y. .",/.
Figure 5.6b
Empirical Correlation Between t
and
kv /y in Chamlain Sea Clays, anada
(from avenas et al., 1982)
162
0
00
0
0
LO
In
cq
0
0
oO
oCo
o
o
~
O
s
E
c,
00
O
Lvc
0
co
tD
(!n/n. =n-) 3lnS3d
V0
C\j
380d QC3Z-lVVJtON
163
OCR
I
A
40
An
C
2-
3
4
5
6
7
--
8
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
A
hs
x
2
F
10-3
*
cm2 /sec
16
--
I
20
--
2v
I
I
IL_i
Ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
CYCLE
T.EST
_
12
--
CRSC
1st
CRSC
2nd
Oedometer
1st
Oedometer
2nd
10
8_
6
5
4
.,m
3
i
2
_
_
I
0.8
.ii
N
0.6
0.5
I
0L1,
.
I
I
I
iI
ii
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
,
Figure 5.8
ch Versus OCR from CRSC and Oedometer Tests
164
I
I
Itr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LUi
-J
,0,11,1
01:
~
D
04
u
U)
(U
C-,
P
00
I
Ox
I
)0
0
0)
I
CQj
0
0O
I
I
00
0d
I
I
00
0i
I
I
000
0
I
A
0
U)
a)
E
U
co
U
u
4-I
4I
>-
0
U)
U)
LLI
En
a)
wy
w
v
165
Ev
Ch
X
10-2
(cm2se
TV/ (7,.
Figure 5.10
Effect of Unloading-Reloading Cycle on ch
166
, o
.-
'; 'Hld3C
U--
0 0 0 0
0
c0
.H
rd
II
go
k4
v4
0
N
Cr.l
0
U)
C
.r-
I-
4-J
O
0C
W
CMo
r:
w
0
0
0
co
E
lb lb
0
t
I
'
1
'
l )
C
H
4J
H
r-l
0
U)
0a_-,
14H
Z
I
I
Cd)
C*
wz
0
_ Z
0
.ri
C:
0l0
-
3:
P4
.
r-l
,r 10
rH
·
0 0
0 4i
U) Q)
r-i
r-q
Ln
(b
iLJ
.H
H
C
C
H
co
,(n. cn
0
0000
cN
I
'I
o 0
q
I I
00
I
'NOIlVA313
NC
0
I
167
o
o0
m
H
:>
0o
(U
Id
H
E)
0
LU~
F-
ICd
a)
C/i
w
.3
U)
CO
LL
u
V)
:z
4J
%..
Cd
U)
U)
D
D
U)
CO
z,
C.
.H
rZ
168
C
o0
x
0
ro
Cd
r-
(a
U
LLJ
0
0
CO
LLJ
W
<1
ci:
U)
E:
,1
a)
U)
U)
CO
z)
ID
a)
169
o0
0o
a
0
0)
4-4
LU
Oc
Cn
r.
cnD
C9
D
0
U2
ro
U)
a)
-,4
(n
s-
ID
170
I-
C(4
U)
0
Cd
-W
0(,
En
U)
)
0o
U
u
o
L4
r4-
U)
0
U)
,
LO
rs
C
.EC
C)
171
I
I
I
0oo
0
C
-W
U)
0%
6
Li
U
n
0
C)
1·
o
1
z
Ul)
0E
4-4
-W
T:
c-
7
CO
_
O
V
-+
0
0
oC
C3
_ _
%,\
0
\\\\-\
\
.
O
__
E4
4;
-
U
E
U4
o
'N
Oc
_
\ \ \
_
11
O
LLI
C)
LL
I
(J;d
" '
I
Qa
I
C)
±I
1
>S
U
(5.-I
Ln
Ic
m
O
kD
0
i
"AS
i
'Hldi3G
I
0co
Ii
O
i
,. tr
I
O
O
O
-H
172
vx
-4D°D
gn
MORWO
, Wn
to0
0"'
;oc
0 _I
0
. <Iuo
uY
-Cy
C,
-
Cy2 Iq
Cy
10
0.
0
0
0
_
0
uo
' w- -
-U
_
o--
q.
2 h-bl
i/CY
,
W
C
0
lo(W)4$S
0+ 0 0
O
ol0 1 0
ro
U4)
I!
Ul !nv
4--049
_ --
O_o_
o
S311d .N3wd33V'IdS0
Ir
0
4r
U)
O
"
C[l
O
4-)
DO
'
H
h
U) O
0
En
Ox
0
U)
N
Ci
-O
.)
3d
°A~)/(J)!n V
31SS31:d
rr-C
3:1Od SS33X3
0
0.
0
03Z1Vt:bON
0
_
LC
0)
173
APPROXIMATE SHEAR STRAIN,
50
20
10
5
2
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.5
%
0.2
0.1
I
I
I
0.05
0.02 0.01
,,
;.tl
o
Ibt
2.4
2.0
.)
')
w
aC
(n
Qn
1.6
w
cr
a-
a.
()
(,
1.2
X
O 0.8
N
:
zZ
0.4
0
I
2
5
NORMALIZED
Figure 5.17b
10
20
RADIUS,
50
100
r/R
Excess Pore Pressure Measurements Due to
Pile Installation in Clays - Simplified
Distributions (from Baligh and Levadoux, 1980)
174
0
a)
EH
Lli
0oH
I-
CI
0
LD
LL 'a
Cz
U)
I
o
H,
a)
ID
175
BEARING RESISTANCEDIFFERENTIAL
PORE PRESSURE
u
(RAR)
OT
(RAPR)
RATI
P.P.
SOIL
PROFILE
A/QT
I0
Soft CLAY
SILT
Coarse SAN D
Loose to Dense
with layers
Sand
of fine
I
VI
Fine
SANJD,
somesilt
E
I:
a.
Soft, normally
a
C3
consolidated
clayey SILT
Sand =10%
Silt = 70%
Cloy =20%
L.L. : 38%/
P.I.:
Wn
k
Cc
15%
:35%
8 X 10 cm/c.
0.3
31
mmVw.
wm.
~...
pore pressure
Figure 5.19
I BAR
IOOkPo
QT = qc
(corrected)
lkgf/cm
2
I ton/ft.
Soil Conditions at Richmond, B.C. Site (from
Campanella et al., 1982)
176
rCd
Q)
r_
rz
0
Ill
I0
urz
U)
0
m0
z
LI
0
I0
m-
0
0
Cd
Md
.1r-
Q)
ID
o
n
177
CO
CJ
r-i
r.
a,
Cd
rd
.
Cd
U
a)
03l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-4
I
rI. I
11
0
I
U4
a)
I
o0
C)
Cd
u
0
'-.
>-
U2
m
el1%
7
ol
.,4
,Od
a 0
m
U
-H )
nU) >
a,
O
I
d
I
-
O
rO
I
I
I
I
O
O
I
O
I
M
z4
d.
aQ
-1
U)
.1-
178
G.L.+05 ABOvE
STRESSES ,Xvo AND Fyvo
-OVERBURDERN
2
MAXIMUM PAST PRESSURE vmax
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 t/m
SL
G.W.L
.
bMU
_V
ThLLUW
YELLW
1Y
UMUWN
MEDIUM DENSE SAND
AND SILTY SAND
2
4.
__ __
2
FROM 1-D CONSOLI
v max
4
ATION TESTS ACCORDING TO'
6
ASAGRANOE'S PROCEDURE
8
8-
10
LIGTH BROWN SOFT
SILTY CLAY
12-
12
14-
14
i16
16
18
18
.
.
.
.
"
20
22
22-
24
26
28
28-
.
BROWN DENSE SILTY SAND
z (m)
m)
--- ,
a) Porto Tolle Site
-OVERBURDERN
0
G.L:
G.w
+ 2 9 AOVE
STRESSES "vo AND
PRESSURE vmax
PAST
MAXIMUM
_
M S L
"7vo
I-9
,
.L.
21
.
FILL
HRECENT
2
6 ,
10
12
GREY SOFT ORGANIC C'LAY
WITH SHELL FRAGMEN TS
22
BROWN VERY STIFF TO
HARD SILTY CLAY
28
Z
i)
(*) PLACED IN
Figure 5.22
YEAR1970
b) Trieste Site
Soil Profiles and Stress Histories of Two
Italian Clays (from Battaglio et al., 1981)
179
r-4
o0
U,
a)
0o
.H
.i
rd
LI
4-4
-t
En
Ld
-JJ
LJ
0
0
O
a)
rd
En
ro
O0
,ro
.)
a4
IZ
ID
CN
Ln
*,
.1rZ
.30
.
r0
0-I
U)
_ i
LI
w
D
CO
LLJ
L
cr-
.,,
U)
i.c)
U)
ro
q-2
a)
3
1k4
04-r
u'"3
.,..
ID
181
CHAPTER
6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1
Scope and Objectives
Piezocone Penetrometer represents
The
over other testing devices in that it
provides information
By being
two separate probes.
previously required
which
an improvement
u, and
able to measure cone resistance, qc',pore pressure,
it combines the measurement capabilities
skin friction, f,
of the Dutch cone and piezometer probe into one tool.
This
thesis evaluates the adequacy of the Piezocone Penetrometer
as an in situ device
for evaluating
properties
engineering
as diverse as stratigraphy, stress history, undrained shear
and
strength,
of
coefficient
achieved through
of the
a review
geotechnical investi-
gation program performed on the MIT campus.
situ
in
devices
properties of clays
for
is
piezocone studies
past
updated with the results of a recent
other
This
consolidation.
evaluating
Discussions of
the
engineering
and the soil properties below
campus preceed the evaluation of the piezocone as
the MIT
a viable
tool for soil investigation.
6.2
Review of In Situ Devices for Evaluating the
Engineering Properties of Clays
In situ and laboratory testing provide two alternative
approaches
clays.
tests)
for
evaluation of
engineering
properties
In situ testing (e.g., penetration and field
have
the
advantage
of
making
measurements
relatively undisturbed soil at substantial savings
and
cost compared to laboratory tests,
of
vane
on
in time
but interpretation
182
of the
is highly
data
substantial uncertainty.
subjected to
often
Laboratory testing, on the other
the advantage
offers
hand,
empirical and
of having
well
and
defined
directly controllable boundary conditions; however, a major
influence of
problem facing most laboratory testing is the
sample disturbance.
Disturbance reduces predictions of the
tests and
past pressures, avm, from consolidation
maximum
lowers the measured undrained shear strengths, su
The field
vane, pressuremeter,
and
.
cone penetration
tests are the most commonly employed in situ tests
evaluate the strength and consolidation
clays.
These tests
perform
and
will
are quick,
yield
behavior
of
most
characteristics of
easy, and
economical
to
semi-continuous
records at a given investigation site.
clays is
used to
to
continuous
However, since the
anisotropic
and
strain-rate
dependent, the undrained shear strength, su , measured using
these
devices will likely be different.
While all
three
tests can be employed to predict su; only the cone penetrapore
pressure
measurements
tion test,
supplemented with
(e.g., the
piezocone penetrometer) can be used
to predict
the consolidation characteristics of clays.
The field vane
test is probably the most
in situ strength test in the U.S.A.
The test is relatively
easy and inexpensive to use, and will yield
well as remolded su profiles.
widely used
undisturbed as
It is however, difficult to
assess the failure mode associated with this test.
183
The pressuremeter tests, both the Menard Pressuremeter
are
Test (SBPT),
(MPT) and the Self-Boring Pressuremeter
Test
use
The
elsewhere.
measurement concept
SBPT
of the
making in
measurements of
situ
show that
of
estimates
the
in
the test
situ
greater detail
possible. Evaluations
accurately than heretofore
SBPT
quite reasonable
yields
total
factor of
stress,
horizontal
in "soft"
especially in stiff clay, derives peak strengths
clay too high by a
same
The SBPT
disturbance.
strength-deformation properties of soils in
and more
the
Pressuremeter; however,
far less
capability of
offers the
based on
device is
as the Menard
inserted with
it can be
found limited
and deep foundations, but have
both shallow
design of
England for the
France and
widely used in
two or more,
and reasonably
estimates of undrained shear modulus.
The cone penetration test (CPT), most widely performed
using
electric
the
quasi-static
cone,
"Dutch"
qc, and
continuous measurements of penetration resistance,
sleeve friction,
This data
clay strata.
strength
undrained
compressibility
Torstensson
connected
pressure
surface.
of
the cone
through the
penetrates
is primarily used to predict
of clays
and the
In
sands.
1975,
independently developed the
It consists of a
tip
fs, as
et
Wissa
hydraulically
which
to
an
the
angle and
friction
al. and
piezometer probe.
fine porous element located on
transducer
yields
a conical
electro-mechanical
transmits the
The measured u values can give an
signal
to
the
indication of
184
the soil type
density.
and of
changes in
In addition,
relative
variations in
consistency or
the coefficient
consolidation of the soil layers can also be
of
inferred from
rates of pore pressure dissipation.
The
Piezocone
capabilities of
Penetrometer
the Dutch
combines
cone and the
the
measuring
Piezometer Probe.
In addition to its use in providing estimates of the stress
history, strength and consolidation characteristics of soil
(explained in detail later), the piezocone hs
in
detecting failure planes from landslides
failures, evaluating
equilibrium
applications
or embankment
groundwater
conditions,
and material classification.
6.3
Engineering Properties of Soils Underlying the MIT
Campus
Ladd and
Luscher (1965)
properties of the
campus.
soils at
Since that
summarized
the
engineering
several locations
time, soils
on
the MIT
investigations have been
performed at other sites on the campus, however, aside from
soil profiles, not much information regarding the engineering properties
of the underlying clays were
obtained from
these studies.
In
the
fall
of 1981,
a
geotechnical
investigation
program was initiated adjacent to the Solar House.
The in
situ testing program consisted of a total of 8
bore holes;
4 for piezocone
testing and
penetration, 3 for field vane
one hole for undisturbed sampling.
The laboratory testing
program consisted of Atterberg limits, Standard Incremental
Oedometer, and Ko-consolidated Direct Simple Shear tests.
185
Geologically, the MIT campus overlies the
Boston Blue
Clay formation which was formed during the wane of the late
Pleistocene ice age (about 14,000 years ago) under a marine
environment in the Boston Basin, probably not very far from
the ice
margin.
The
investigations
at
the
mentioned in the text disclosed subsurface
are compatible
with the
geologic site
nine sites
conditions that
description.
The
generalized soil profile is:
Fill-mostly hydraulic, but some dumped
Loose organic
silts and
fine sand
-some
pockets of
peat
Firm sand and gravel - widely varying in thickness
Boston
Blue Clay
-of medium
consistency
in
higher
elevations, soft in lower elevations
Glacial till - mixture of gravel, sand, silt and clay,
usually very dense
Shale or slate - often weathered and/or fractured near
the upper surface
6.3.1
Laboratory Testing Results
As is
BBC, the
consistent with past Atterberg limits
Plasticity
approximately
20%.
Index for
The
consolidation tests show
the Solar
results
of the
House
pressure
the clay below the MIT
increasing
as
clay
is
one-dimensional
be overconsolidated above elevation about -60 ft,
maximum past
tests on
one goes
campus to
with the
up.
The
increased amount of precompression at the higher elevations
is
thought to be
the result
of desiccation of
the upper
186
portion of the clay stratum.
any
consistent variation
There does
in the degree
not appear to be
of precompression
with location, except that the clay at the Solar
be
somewhat more overconsolidated than usual
tion -37 ft.
This may
quality samples from
be a
House may
above eleva-
result of recovering
the Solar
House site as
higher
compared to
other sites, which is further substantiated by the lower RR
values
obtained
at this
consolidation in
averages
location.
strength
investigation
coefficient
the normally consolidated
10.5 x 10 - 4 cm 2 /sec below
The
The
testing
consisted
of
range, cv(NC),
elevation
program for
-29 ft.
the
twelve
of
Solar
House
one-dimensionally
consolidated undrained Direct Simple Shear (CKoUDSS) tests.
The tests were run according to the SHANSEP (an acronym for
Stress History and Normalized Soil
procedure.
shear
In
strength
all,
tests
Engineering Properties)
seven different
were
run
on
types of
samples
undrained
from
seven
different locations on the MIT campus.
These test results
as
are
well
Chapter
6.3.2
as average
strength profiles
presented
3.
In Situ Testing
The
piezocone penetrometer
used for the
Solar House
program was penetrated at a steady rate of 2 cm/sec
clay stratum
All
in
at four different locations within
cone resistance,
measurements
pore pressure,
were displayed
on
and
in the
the site.
friction sleeve
multi-channel
high-speed
187
strip chart recorders for observations during
field opera-
tions and were also recorded on magnetic tapes using a data
logger for subsequent computer processing.
piezocone
holes experienced
some
Two of the four
mechanical difficulties
and yielded unreliable results.
are
As expected, the stiffer, more
overconsolidated clays
characterized by
higher point
resistances
the
normally
pore
pressures
than
softer,
and lower
consolidated
clays, where qc and u exhibit linear increases with in situ
effective stress
tively.
At
friction
the
and hydrostatic
present time,
measurements
questionable
in
can be
the reliability
clay
to penetration,
pore pressures occurs.
below 53
curves, the
pressure,
deposits
respecof
seems
skin
to
be
(Baligh et al., 1981).
Subsequent
depths
pore
ft.
dissipation
Dissipation tests
From
the
were run
dissipation versus
horizontal coefficient
predicted utilizing
of generated
at 12
time
of
consolidation, ch,
one of the
available theories
for pore pressure dissipation (see Section 6.5).
Thirty
three vane
yielded
eight field
test
peak and
holes at
vane tests were
the Solar
remolded shear
performed within
House.
strength
These tests
profiles
from
which the sensitivity of the clay was determined.
6.4
Evaluation of Cone Resistance and Pore Pressure
Measurements During Penetration
Simultaneous pore
pressure, u,
and
qc, measurements can be used to evaluate
cone resistance,
the stratigraphy,
188
stress history, and consolidation characteristics of soils.
These
penetration
logs
distinguish between
are
very useful
helping
sand, silt and clay layers
geneous or stratified soil deposits.
identify
in
sand and
silt
lenses
in hetero-
Also, the
as well
as
to
logs will
different
sub-
layers that may exist within a homogeneous clay deposit.
Review
of the u and qc plots,
pressure
data, (u-uo)/jvo,
clay can
be divided
layers indicate the
consolidated and
Below
77.5 ft,
increase
and the
suggests that the
into four sublayers.
are
the
and
remains relatively
The top
"lower"
vo'
behavior
clays where
respectively,
constant.
and
pore
Solar House
"upper" clays where the soil
exhibits variable
with uo
normalized
three
is over-
with
u
depth.
and
qc
(u-uo)/-vo
These stratifications
will
yield a detailed picture of soil variability which may help
explain and/or verify laboratory test variability.
Simultaneous
u
evaluate the stress
and qc
measurements can
be
history of a clay deposit.
used to
The rela-
tionship between u/qc and overconsolidation ratio was first
hypothesized by Baligh et al., (1980).
should be associated
studies have
with low
since been
High values of u/qc
OCR and
vice-versa.
performed to further
advance the
usefulness
and applicability of this relationship.
most agree
that u/q c is
present
time
a good
the absolute
discussion and research.
indicator of OCR,
figures need
as
Many
yet
While
at the
further
Plots of u/q c for the Solar House
189
investigation
trend of
as OCR
substantiate this
reasoning.
the plots supports Baligh's hypothesis;
decreases, u/q c increases.
normally consolidated,
mately
The relative
0.67.
When the
u/q c becomes
However,
being
clay becomes
constant
that the
that is,
at approxi-
location of
the
porous stone, the cone angle, and the cone shape all affect
u and
qc measurements;
further research is
needed before
u/q c can be quantitatively related to stress history.
It
has
been well
established, based
on
field
and
laboratory studies, that the stress-strain-strength characteristics of
soft saturated
clays are
influenced
by the
mode of failure and the rate of strain (Ladd, 1975).
is extremely
strength.
"field
evident with
regards to the
This
undrained shear
Therefore, a problem exists in interpreting the
strength"
being
measured
from
cone
penetration
to
evaluate the
tests.
Use
of
the penetration
test (CPT)
undrained shear strength of clays has been
theoretically and
empirically.
approached both
The theoretical
approach
utilizes one of the many solutions for the cone factor, Nk,
for application into the equation:
qc = NkSu + ao
where,
(6.1)
qc = penetration resistance
su = undrained shear strength
ao = in situ total
vertical,
octahedral stress
horizontal
or
190
The
approaches that
rigorous
to
solutions
rely on
plane strain
of
modifications
simplified
three
on
steady penetration.
of cavities, and
these approaches
of
based
are
grouped as follows:
can be
slip-line, expansion
All
solutions
theoretical
problems
more
cannot
and
account for all of the factors which are known to influence
the
ultimate cone
resistance (e.g.,
in shear
anisotropy
strength and cone angle).
method introduced
The new two-dimensional strain path
by
Levadoux
predict
site.
and
(1980) was
able
profiles for
the
Baligh
cone resistance
to
reasonably
Mass.
Saugus,
However, the method is sophisticated and cannot
be
used readily in interpreting the qc records or su profiles.
More studies are necessary to answer what
the cone measures and which of the
if any, is
better suited
"field strength"
theoretical approaches,
to predict
the
undrained shear
strength of clays.
approach
The empirical
su utilizing
directly predicting
tical cone factor,
mined
from
employs a
laboratory or
subsequent investigations
a reference
a
predetermined theore-
reference su that
field tests,
to
Cone
is deter-
backfigure Nk
to predict
su
from penetration
The most widely reported test to estimate
su is the field
vane test.
Plate
load,
tory triaxial and Direct Simple Shear tests have
used.
in lieu of
This Nk value will then be used on
utilizing equation 6.1.
resistance logs.
to cone penetration,
factors
in
the
literature vary
labora-
also been
from
5-33
191
depending on the testing method used to predict s u
different clay
region.
factors were calculated
For
the
Solar House
using field
vane as
and the
site, cone
well
as DSS
strength results, and fall within a range of 13-22
32, respectively.
and 18-
Below 65 ft (OCR=2), the Nk values plot
within a fairly narrow band, 18-22 for su(FV) and 26-32 for
su(DSS).
When
Bjerrum's correction factor is applied
¶where Nk is
determined by su(FV), the corrected
fall within a
reduce
totally
the
range of 14
scatter
in
account for the
3.
to cases
Nk values
Obviously, this
cone factor
values,
dependence of
helps to
but
cannot
Nk on some
of the
inherent limitations of the empirical approach.
Clearly, because of
limitations of
exists that
the empirical analysis, no single
will cover all types of
and test conditions.
given
and s u
Recently, empirical
relate Au(u-uo)
Nk value
clays, penetrometers,
(Kjekstad,
studies have
conditions,
it seems
relationship between
1978).
been
performed
to su via a pore pressure factor NAu.
research is still
in practice.
given test
there should be a unique
cone tip resistance
and the
However, for a given clay deposit, a
penetrometer, and
likely that
the scatter of Nk values
needed before this approach can
to
More
be used
192
6.5
Pore Pressure Dissipation After Cone Penetration
6.5.1
Solutions to Predict the Horizontal Coefficient of
Consolidation,
h
Steady
undrained
the
cone
shearing and
soil.
Once
pressures
brium
saturated
clays
develops excess pore
penetration
uo .
is interrupted,
Torstensson,
Many
authors
1977; Randolph
1980; Battaglio
causes
pressures in
these pore
will dissipate and eventually reach
value
Levadoux,
penetration in
the equili-
(Soderberg,
and Wroth,
1979;
1962;
Baligh and
et al., 1981; and Tumay
et al.,
1982) have developed solutions to predict the consolidation
and flow characteristics of cohesive deposits from the pore
pressure dissipation data.
Torstensson
suggests that
the pore pressures
soil caused by steady cone penetration can be
estimated by
one-dimensional (radial) solutions corresponding
drical and spherical cavities.
adopted
predicts
a
distribution assuming
perfectly plastic
analyses
to
the soil
material.
estimate
dissipation curves.
of
to cylin-
The cavity expansion model
logarithmic
uncoupled one-dimensional
in the
initial
to behave
pore
as
pressure
an elastic-
Torstensson utilizes
finite
normalized
In order
linear
difference consolidation
excess
pore
pressure
to estimate the coefficient
consolidation, ch, he proposes matching
of predictions
and measurements at 50% consolidation (=0.5).
Baligh
and
penetration in
Levadoux
clays as
(1980) analyze
an
axisymmetric
the
deep
cone
two-dimensional
193
steady-state
assumes
problem with
that
strains and
primarily imposed
ized excess
predicted
the strain
deformations in
method, which
the
by kinematic requirements.
pore pressures
on
path
the basis
due to
cone
of laboratory
consolidated Boston Blue Clay.
soil
are
The normal-
penetration were
data
on
However, it
normally
is shown that
the strain path method will predict satisfactory normalized
excess pore pressures
in other clays as well.
Baligh and
Levadoux (1980) use two-dimensional linear uncoupled finite
element analyses to obtain the variation of
pore pressures
with time.
Predictions
comparing
curves
to
of
ch
the measured
can be
normalized
the recommended
curves
achieved
graphically
dissipation
of u
vs.
(u vs. log t)
log
T.
measured dissipation curve (u vs. log t) is plotted
same scale of u vs.
log T and translated
respect to the predicted curve (while
by
The
to the
horizontally
with
maintaining equality
of u) until the best agreement is achieved.
At a
given degree
of consolidation, the
predicted ch
(probe) is obtained from the expression:
ch (probe)
where,
-
R2 T
(6.2)
R = radius
of the cone shaft
t = measured time to reach this degree of
consolidation
T = time
factor
194
An analytical method
tion
method
to check the validity of
consists of
determining ch
at
the predicdifferent u.
Large differences between ch at various degrees of consolidation
indicate
excess
pore
an
inadequate
pressure
initial
or significant
distribution
coupling
or
of
creep
behavior.
Several empirical
and curve
fitting
procedures have
been developed over the last few years by Battaglio et al.,
(1981), Jones
and
Van
Zyl
(1981), Tavenas
et
al.
(1982),
and Tumay et al., (1982) to predict ch(probe).
Battaglio and
his co-workers
use a
trial
and error
method to obtain a dimensionless u vs. T relationship which
best
matches the
excess pore
field dissipation
pressures
dimensional cavity
tion
process
are
curves.
estimated
using
expansion solutions and
is modeled
by means
of
The initial
a
the
one-
the consolidaone-dimensional
finite difference solution to Terzaghi's Equation.
The Jones and Van Zyl empirical approach simply plots
time to 50% dissipation, t50 , versus the reciprocal
of the
vertical coefficient of consolidation obtained from laboratory oedometer tests,
slope
of a straight
results.
line fit
through the
origin
from the
of the
Tavenas et al. state that ch should be a function
of the permeability
the intact clay M.
to
from which they compute cv
the maximum past
k and the modulus
of
deformability
of
In overconsolidated clays, M is related
pressure, avm,
by M=mavm so
would be more or less constant and equal to:
that ch
195
Kavm
m
K
av m
Yw
Ch
(6.3)
Tumay et al., recommend a curve fitting
predicting
the
deposits.
They
curves
coefficient
consolidation
is
there
a straight
cohesive
of
dissipation
typical theoretical
present
and show that
procedure for
line
portion
of
every dissipation curve. Each of these straight lines, when
extended, meet
at 90%
consolidation; the point
section called
T'9 0 .
Also, Tumay
that
all the
parameters that
disturbed zone
anisotropy,
pronounced during
the final
at
90%
about
converging point T9 0 .
consolidation
cone
i.e.,
dissipation,
around the
cone,
will
angle,
location of
be
least
In
stages of consolidation.
that all
they feel
other words,
converge
and
element,
piezometric
(1982) showed
et al.,
affect
of inter-
dissipation
consolidation
curves will
called
and
this
The procedure adopted to compute the
coefficient
using
Tumay's
method
is
follows:
T90
log
1) Calculate the ratio of log
T 90 which equals a
constant A
2) Estimate t90 by the expression:
t9o
=
10
Alogt'go
where, t'9 0 =time of 90% dissipation at
the straight line portion
t9o= actual time of 90% dissipation
as
196
3) Calculate ch by the expression:
t90
Ch =
The
Tumay,
Jones,
empirical solutions
laboratory test
and
Tavenas
solutions
of Jones
As will
results for ch and permeability.
can
The
mainly on
rely
and Tavenas
from consoli-
be shown in the following section, ch values
dation tests
all
are
ch at one level of dissipation.
to predicting
limited
(R2 )
vary
depending
loading cycle, and stress level.
on the
type
of
test,
One must first understand
the consolidation process around probes and also understand
the limitations of ch(lab) values before an attempt to draw
empirical relationships from the two measuring
systems can
be made.
Although the Battaglio solution appears
to reasonably
predict ch at all levels of dissipation, and
compares well
with reference ch
values, use
of the solution
is complex
and time-consuming.
6.5.2
Evaluation of c
Pore
pressure
consolidation
mode (as
From Laboratory Tests
dissipation
during
early
around cones takes place in
stages
a recompression
opposed to virgin compression) for
both normally
consolidated and slightly overconsolidated clays with OCR
4.
of
197
Therefore,
the objective
testing program
of a laboratory
should be to evaluate ch(probe) with lab measurements of ch
dated
range, i.e., ch(OC).
would
be during
loading
an
unload or
CRSC, (Wissa
most
disturbance which
strain consolidation,
1971) are the
laboratory techniques
CRSC tests
to evaluate ch(OC).
samples allow
stress increments.
standard incremental
of
constant rate
et al.,
widely used
horizontal
not suitable
ch(probe).
Consolidation tests, either the
or the
Initial
cycle.
a reload
Ladd (1973), and is therefore
for use in evaluating
oedometer
tests, this
In consolidation
is largely influenced by sample
lowers ch(OC),
the overconsoli-
soil is in
when the
obtained from tests
at small
h(OC)
measurement of
run on
On the other hand, for the range of OCR
of interest (estimated to
be
3), the oedometer
test is
inadequate to evaluate ch(OC) for the following reasons:
1)
or a
an unload
The very high gradients at the start of
reload
cycle are
overlooked by
the
curve
fitting
procedures used to calculate ch which tend to emphasize the
data towards the middle of the load increment.
2)
Oedometer tests can only yield average
values for
an increment of loading.
The degree of overconsolidation at
takes
place in not presently known.
that the value
which dissipation
However, it
of ch at the in situ OCR is a
is felt
good starting
point from which to evaluate ch(probe) until further information on this subject is known.
198
Furthermore,
values with
one
ch(lab)
would want
to
values measured
compare
at the
ch(probe)
in
situ OCR
during a reload cycle, since this best simulates the actual
field
occurrence.
evaluate
ch(lab)
during
erroneous results
function of the
felt that
However,
ecause
as
was
shown,
recompression
will
lead
at a given OCR, ch(reload)
size of the unload cycle.
ch measured
attempts to
to
is a
Instead, it is
during unloading will
yield proper
values for comparison with ch (probe).
6.5.3
Case Histories
The
applicability of
and Torstensson's
tions
to
the Baligh and
(1977) cylindrical
dissipation
of
excess
Levadoux (1980)
and
spherical solu-
pore
pressures
evaluated through a series of case studies.
study,
Saugus, Massachusetts,
values
stone
for three
probes, with
The first case
showed that the
Levadoux solution not only predicts very
different
geometries
locations, but also predicts ch(probe)
it was
does not
shown that Torstensson's
accurately model
Baligh and
similar ch(probe)
coincide well with ch(lab) reference values.
hand,
were
and
values which
On the other
spherical solution
pore pressure dissipation.
best, this solution underpredicts ch(probe) by a
At
factor of
five.
Also, it was demonstrated that Torstensson's cylin-
drical
solution
excess
pore pressure
cannot
pressure dissipation.
accurately
predict
distribution needed
to
the
initial
model
pore
199
Since
the
Baligh and
predicts ch for
locations,
all types
and
bearing
was only applied
case
solution
of probe
in
Torstensson's solutions,
the
Levadoux
mind
geometries
the
the Baligh and
From
review
of
and stone
shortcomings
of
Levadoux solution
to predict ch(probe) in the
studies.
accurately
these
remainder of
case studies
(including the MIT Solar House, two Canadian sites, and two
Italian sites), it is apparent that the Baligh and Levadoux
solution
can
consolidation
accuracy.
predict
of
the
cohesive
horizontal
deposits
coefficient
with
of
reasonable
It should be noted that this coefficient should
be used in problems involving unloading or reloading.
200
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PROCEEDINGS
A) Proceedings of the First European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, Stockholm, Sweden, June 1974, Vols. 1-2.
Vol. 2.2
1. Anagnostopoulos, A. "Evaluation of the Undrained
Shear Strength from Static Cone Penetration Tests in Soft
Silty Clay in Patros, Greece," pp. 13-14.
2. Eide, O., "Correlation Between Cone Tip Resistance
and Field Vane Shear Strength," pp. 128-129.
3. Marsland, A., "Comparisons of the Results from Static
Penetration Tests and Large in situ Plate Tests in London
Clay," pp. 245-252.
B) Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on In Situ
Measurement of Soil Properties, Raleigh, North Carolina, June
1975, Vol. I and II. Published by ASCE.
Vol.
I
1. Massarch, K.R., Broms, B.B., and Sundquist, O., "Pore
Pressure Determination with Multiple Piezometer," pp.
260-265.
2. Wissa, A.E.Z., Martin, R.T., and Garlanger, J.E.,
"The Piezometer Probe," pp. 536-545.
Vol.
1.
II
Ladd,
C.C.,
"Discussion
on Measurement
of In Situ
Shear Strength," pp. 153-160.
2. Schmertmann, J.H., "Measurement of In-Situ Shear
Strength," pp. 57-138.
3. Torstensson, B.A., "Pore Pressure Sounding
Instrument," pp. 48-54.
C) Proceedings of the ASCE convention, Session 35 on Cone
Penetration Testing and Experience, St. Louis, Missouri,
October, 1981. Edited by Norris, G.M. and Holtz, R.D.
201
1. Baligh, M.M., Azzouz, A.S., Wissa, A.E.Z., Martin,
R.T., and Morrison, M.J., "The Piezocone Penetrometer," pp.
247-263.
2.
Battaglio,
M., Lancelotta,
M., Jamiolkowski,
R., and
Maniscalco, R., "Piezometer Probe Test in Cohesive Deposits,"
pp. 264-302.
3. Campanella, R.G., and Robertson, P.K., "Applied Cone
Research," pp. 343-362.
4.
1-48.
5.
pp.
DeRuiter, J., "Current Penetrometer Practice,"
Jones,
G.A., Van
Zyl, D., and Rust,
E., "Mine Tailings
Characterization by Piezometer Cone," pp. 303-324.
6.
Tumay,
M.T.,
Boggess,
R.L.,
and Acar, Y.,
Investigations with Piezo-cone Penetrometer,"
"Subsurface
pp. 325-342.
D) Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, May 1982. Edited by Verruijt, A.,
Beringen, F.L., and DeLeeuw, E.H., publisher: A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
1.
2.
Cancelli,
A., Guadagnini,
P.K.,
D., and Robertson,
R.G., Gillespie,
Campanella,
"Pore Pressures During Cone Penetration,"
pp. 507-513.
R., and Pellegrini,
M.,
"Friction-Cone Penetration Testing in Alluvial Clays,"
513-518.
pp.
3. DeRuiter, J., "The Static Cone Penetration Test State of the Art Report," pp. 389-406.
4.
Jamiolkowski,
M., Lancellotta,
R., Tordella,
L., and
Battaglio, M., "Undrained Strength from CPT ," pp. 599-605.
5.
Jones,
G.A.,
Testing CUPT,"
6.
Koumoto,
and Rust,
E.,
"Piezometer
Penetration
pp. 607-613.
T., amd Kaku,
K., "Three-Dimensional
Analysis of Static Cone Penetration into Clay,"
635-640.
pp.
7. Lacasse, S., and Lunne, T., "Penetration tests in two
Norwegian Clays," pp. 661-670.
8. Smits, F.P., "Penetration Pore Pressure Measured with
Piezometer Cones," pp. 871-876.
9.
Tavenas,
F., Leroueil,
S., and Roy, M.,
"The
Piezocone Test in Clays: Use and Limitations," pp. 889-894.
202
10. Torstensson, B.A., "A Combined Pore Pressure and
Point Resistance Probe," pp. 903-908.
11. Tumay, M.T., Yilmaz, R., Acar, Y., and DeSeze, E.,
"Soil Exploration in Soft Clays with the Quasi-Static Cone
Penetrometer," pp. 915-922.
12. Zuideberg, H.M., Schaap, L.H.J., and Beringen, F.L.,
"A Penetrometer for Simultaneously Measuring of Cone
Resistance, Sleeve Friction and Dynamic Pore Pressures," pp.
963-970.
REFERENCES
1.
Acar, Y., "Piezo-cone Penetration Testing in Soft
Cohesive Soils," Internal Report, Louisiana State
University, Civil Engineering Department, 1982, Activity
Report
No. 4, 81 p.
2.
Al-Awkati, Z., "On Problems of Soil Bearing Capacity at
Depth," Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Duke University, 1975, 204 p.
3.
ASTM, "Vane Shear and Cone Penetration Resistance Testing
of In Situ Soils,"
4.
Azzouz,
A.S.,
ASTM STP 399, 1965,
Baligh,
M.M.,
47 p.
and Ladd, C.C.,
"Cone
Penetration and Engineering Properties of Soft Orinoco
Clay," Proceedings, International Conference on the
Behavior of Offshore Structures, Cambridge, Mass., 1982,
53 p.
5.
6.
Baligh, M.M., "Theory of Deep Site Static Cone
Penetration Resistance," Research Report R75-56, No.517,
September 1975, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 133 p.
Baligh,
M.M.,
and Scott,
R.F.,
"Wedge Penetration
in
Clays," Geotechnique, 1976, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 185-208.
7.
Baligh,
M.M., Vivatrat,
V., and Ladd,
C.C.,
"Cone
Penetration in Soil Profiling," Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.106, No.GT4,
Proceeding Paper 15377, April 1978, pp. 447-461.
8.
Baligh,
M.M., Vivatrat,
V., and Ladd,
C.C.,
"Exploration
and Evaluation of Engineering Properties for Foundation
Design of Offshore Structures," Research Report R78-40,
Order No.607, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass., Dec.1978, 268 p.
203
9.
Baligh, M.M., and Levadoux, J.-N., "Pore Pressure
Dissipation after Cone Penetration," Research Report
R80-11, Order No.662, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT,
Cambridge,
Mass.,
April
1980, 367 p.
10.
Begemann, H.K.S., "The Friction Jacket Cone as an Aid in
Determining the Soil Profile," Proc., 6 th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Montreal, Canada, 1965, Vol. 1, pp. 17-20.
11.
Bishop,
R.F., Hill,
R., and Mott, N.F.,
"Theory
of
Indentation and Hardness Tests," Proceedings, Physical
Society
12.
of London,
Bjerrum,
1945, Vol. 57, No. 321, pp.
L., "Embankments
147-159.
on Soft Ground,"
State-of-the-Art Report, Proceedings, ASCE Specialty
Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported
Structures,
13.
1972, Vol. 2, pp. 1-54.
Durgunoglu, H.T. and Mitchell, J.K., "Static Penetration
Resistance of Soils," Research Report Series 14, Issue
24, Space Science Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley,
14.
Layfayette,
1973, pp. 223.
Gibson, R.E., Discussion of G. Wilson, "The Bearing
Capacity of Screw Piles and Screwcrete Cylinders,"
Journal of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 1950, Vol.
34, No. 4, 382p.
15.
Gillespie, D. and Campanella, R.G., "Consolidation
Characteristics from Pore Pressure Dissipation After
Piezometer Cone Penetration," Soil Mechanics Series No.
47, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, May, 1981, 18p.
16.
Jones, G.A. and Van Zyl, D.J.A., "The Piezometric Probe A Useful Investigation Tool," Proceedings, l0th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, 1981, Vol. 3, pp.
489-495.
17.
Kjekstad, O., Lunne, T., and Clausen, C.J.F., "Comparison
Between In-Situ Cone Resistance and Laboratory Strength
for Overconsolidated North Sea Clays," Marine
Geotechnology,
18.
Vol. 3, No. 1, 1978, pp. 23-36
Koutsoftas, D. and Fischer, T.A., "In Situ Undrained
Shear Strength of Two Marine Clays," Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No.
GT9, Proc. Paper 12431, September, 1976, pp. 989-1005.
204
19.
Ladayni, B., "Expansion of a Cavity in a Saturated Clay
Medium," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM4, July, 1963, pp. 127-161.
20.
Ladayni, B. and Eden, W.J., "Use of the Deep Penetration
Test in Sensitive Clays," Proceedings, 7 th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico, 1979, Vol. 1, pp. 225-230.
21.
Ladd, C.C., "Stress-Strain Modulus of Clay in Undrained
Shear," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 1964, Vol. 90, No. SM5, pp. 103-132.
22.
Ladd, C.C., "Strength Parameters and Stress-Strain
Behavior of Saturated Clays," Research Report R71-23,
Soils Publication 278, 1971.
23.
Lqdd, C.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and
Poulos, H.G., "Stress-Deformation and Strength Characteristics," Proceedings, 9 th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1977,
pp. 421-494.
24.
Ladd, C.C., "Estimating Settlements of Structures
Supported on Cohesive Soils," 1982 Class Notes, 113p.
25.
Lambe, T.W., Soil Testing For Engineers, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1951.
26.
Lambe, T.W., "Shallow Foundations on Clay," Proceedings,
Symposium on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of
Foundations, Duke University, Durham, N.C., 1967.
27.
Leroueil, S., Tavenas, F.A., Brucy, F., LaRochelle, P.,
and Roy, M., "Behavior of Dectructured Natural Clays,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
105, No. GT6, June, 1979, pp. 759-778.
28.
Levadoux, J.-N. and Baligh, M.M., "Pore Pressures During
Cone Penetration in Clays," Research Report R80-15, Order
No. 666, Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T.,
Cambridge, Mass., April, 1980, 310p.
29.
Lunne, T., Eide, O., and DeRuiter, J., "Correlations
Between Cone Resistance and Vane Shear Strength in Some
Scandinavian Soft to Medium Stiff Clays," Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, 1976, pp. 430-441.
30.
Marsland, A., "The Interpretation of In Situ Tests in
Glacial Clays," Proceedings, Conference on Offshore
Site Investigation, Society of Underwater Technology,
London, England, 1979, pp. 217-230.
205
31.
Meyerhoff, G.G., "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of
Foundations," Geotechnique, 1951, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.
301-302.
32.
Meyerhoff, G.G., "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of
Wedge-Shaped Foundations," Proceedings, 5 h International
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
1961, Vol. 2, pp. 105-109.
33.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P., "An Analytical Solution
for the Consolidation Around a Driven Pile,"
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 3, 1979, pp. 217-229.
34.
Roy, M., Tremblay, M., Tavenas, F., and LaRochelle, P.,
"Development of Pore Pressures in Quasi-Static
Penetration Tests in Sensitive Clay," Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1982, Vol. 19, pp. 124-138.
35.
Roy, M., Tremblay, M., Tavenas, F., and LaRochelle, P.,
"Development of a Quasi-Static Piezocone Apparatus,"
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1982, Vol. 19, pp.
180-188.
36.
Sanglerat, G., The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration,
Elsevier Publishing Company: Amsterdam, 1972; 464p.
37.
Soderberg, L.O., "Consolidation Theory Applied to
Foundation Pile Time Effects," Geotechnique,
Vol. 12,
1962, pp. 217-225.
38.
Tavenas, F., 1982 personal correspondence.
39.
Taylor, D.W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, Wiley
Publishing Co., New York, 700p.
40.
Terzaghi, K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New
York, 1943.
41.
Thorburn, S., Laird, C.L., and Reid, W.M., "The
Importance of the Stress Histories of Cohesive Soils and
the Cone Penetration Test," The Structural Engineer,
Volume 59A, No. 3, March 1981, pp. 87-92.
42.
Torstensson, B.-A., "The Pore Pressure Probe," Nordiske
Geotekniske Mote, Oslo, Paper No. 34, 1977, pp.
34.1-34.15.
43.
Tumay, M.T., Acar, Y., and Chan, A., "Analysis of
Dissipation of Pore Pressures After Cone Penetration,"
Report FHWA/LA/LSU, Department of Civil Engineering,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June,
1982, 131p.
206
44.
Vesic, A.S., "Design of Pile Foundation," Synthesis of
Highway Practice 42, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977, 427p.
45.
Wissa, A.E.Z., Christian, J.T., Davis, E.H., and Heiberg,
S., "Consolidation at Constant Rate of Strain," Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.
97, Oct. 1971, pp.
1393-1412.
207
APPENDIX A-
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
208
1
i
8
\a
I
O1 I -1
O
fn,
_
4)
01%
%9j~
,
0
U.
vl 0
.0
Jj
i1
Q
E
E .2 Ib
0U)u, ) .o
G)v,
"
t--
.
.
-
O
C
O
u)
CO)
o
U
E
h
z
F
>c
_j·
'
30.:
3 a:
A
Z
t
I
Cn
0_
O
1
w
!-
O 0
4)
Z Q.
33
%
oz
0t
U
oI
I.
M
I _jo
(n °0
(D
g>
_>
1
I'
I
4,
n3~
4)
Q Q.-
0-I-O
3
3o
4
a
43
*_
0-
-
UO 2
IL
.O3
(n
_
0
>
w
0D
209
'U
z
CI
cr)
-
<[
CONSOLIDATION
Sample
No.
L.1-l
'1 4.
Depth
Soil Type
BRLc
STRESS&vc
( K/c"' )
Estimated
wN (0/°) - 3.1?
wL
(%)
wp
(%)
_
At (
hr
Remarks
6VO
CR
P.I. (%)
o At tp or .-
v
Gs
Ev (%)
6
/ KSC
o.132.
_
bsexi on d..
Z
rvm
.2-9.0
RR
eo
j:ot
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.. T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST
No.
/lud -IQ
o.ir
S(%)
.Ios
curvef
)
_
210
06
e
4) fQ
-(.- CA,
a
iQ.
? I
-az
11
Ln
U
1
V
0
i
I
r;
l
U)
0
W~z=IZaz
)
0
E
i0
o
(
°_
c
i--
<O J
U
't 0
0
C L
(3
- Q
O
3
_
C
a. 0
_
i
_
cn
.
-
211
0
w
z
I-
-j
0
w
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
CONSOLI DATION STRESS
Sample No.
A0uo
Depth -
5 f
Soil Type
- 3
*
At
(
WN
(/o)
C
hr
Estimated
q1t.
V
O /1.4I Kg
VO
wp(°/)
Remarks
CR
o. sq
Gs -
Fvm
Vrn
k.er-6.8
RR
0.013
eo.
F (/o) based on
do
ro,
S(%)lofit cNe',
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
50
20
)
&vc ( K5 l/c
WL(%)
P. 1.(/)
--
o At tp or
I-11
10
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
/41t)-
I-ac,
212
l
s
Q,
-
o
,
IIZ
V..
1.
FE
u3
ri~
\o3E
0 c
f
F
._ lb
0 Q
cn
0
;R
I 0
4
Irf
a
~Jl
o
C
e b
O
cn
(,
0
I,
w
E
0
z0
.1
z
0
y
30
0 0
O0
L)
O
Z n
o<(D
0z
ao Z
<:
-
-
O cn
ZO
.I
(VI
(::f
o
10
4-
>%
I..
.
. 0
._
_
v
>
I
213
0
Z
z
cr
C)
-
>
P
.
LM
CONSOLI DATION STRESS
(0/)
Sample No.
Depth
/MU -3
50. I f.
Soil Type
a 3c
o At tp or -
eAt (
hr
(Tv c(
K/c-n
Estimated
WN (%) '6.N
WL(%)
Wp(%)
P. 1.(/)
Remarks
)
5VO
1' 7S
Ksc.
CR 0o.qb
Gs
E (fn) bsed
Cvm
MTT 5s7-6.0
RR o.os15
eo,
oN doe, -rom Iot
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
S( %)
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No. -MUD -3a
cjNe
214
.
N
I
Q:
4)
S
4o
01>
Q
%Q
%I,
kV"-.
u
tnS
E
'A
Q
n
,
lb0w
I.
4
v
t E
Q; o
', o
o. o
lb
U3
0
E
-.. z
o
Z
-I0
i
a
o
:
o
'-'*"
C
>
Z
0
o
W
<Q _
IU
Oa
V-
4)
.
0c-
.. 0
oo
4
(3
.._
- .s c
r
..O
'Oa
_
_.
._
._
o
C >
(D
215
0
\'
0-
z:0
(I,
-J
w
)
vc ( w/ca
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
Sample
Denth
-I
No. ALuo
-,
58.5 ft:
Soil Type
3BC
w N (0/)
3q'.l
wL( )
-v
Estimated
o At tp or hr
* At
(
) hr
Wp(%)
Remarks
CR 0. 75
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
RR
e o ..
Gs
E
-fvm
vrn''~~
Icq5
~vo 10
/.s M
P.I.(%)
_
)
(/ ) basedon doo
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST
No.
vol-'-
b
o.ol7
S (%)
vrolof cuf.
216
t0
0
-Z
0a a
14
SS , Ij
..i
Q
I
A.
Cr
>
'r.
0
V)
c
94
E-E
lb
(n h
en
(n
.I.
O
E
0
00
z .
Z o c
o
()
0
c
0
z-
~0*~~
_JC.
oZ
CLLJ
I>.
Z-o
11
no
I
O
4)
-
0&- 0
a.
cf
.o
-
a-
.s
4-
*-
.2 0
w0
uit
(D
217
0
-
z
I-
(n
-J
0.5
0.2
2
1
10
5
STRESS cvc ( Kjc
CONSOLIDATION
Sample No.
Depth
Soil Type
uvo -5
WL(%)
Fvo
r13
Re
Wp (%)
CR
hr
o At tp or
(
Remarks
Ev(0/o)
;
-
o0.75
avm
5edo
RR
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
-A
0.0o3
S(%)
lt
dloo fom IO
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M. I. T.
u, J-.
5'
1-3
e o,
Gs
P. 1.(%)
)
Estimated
7
66.o f.
.
* At
W N (%)
50
20
CIrW(
31
(A
a
-Z
.
4) I
.O(m
ZU
E
UI b
Q
f
CY
,. -3
&I
-O
=
¢
w
=
A
0
5
E
%I-
s
1<1-
0ao0c
EE.C *ib
0
I
0
.
¢)
E0
Q
0<I:
n
0 O
3_
)Qn
1
O
<z
OZ
IJ
0W~_
0
¢3.
0;4
>
ZOL
%J
I.
co
a)
3
o
4-
.-
.
O
'>
cn
cn0
(
W
-
219
A
5
t
Z
O
-
on
15
-J
z..20
,
25
·,,,,w v
0.5
0.2
2
1
CONSOLIDATION
Samplee No.
Depth
,v1-6-b
7'.o ff.
Soil T,ype
Rsc
STRESS
N (°/)
Ir
*
At (
Ior ..
hr
&vc ( ks,/c
)
Estimated
0.7q
Cvo .3
wp(%)
CR o.w5'
Remarks
20
10
WL (%)
P. I.(%)
0 At to
5
eo .
Gs
Ev(/o) based o
cvm .3.
RR aoaS
do
-.f,
S(%)
Iteat Cuve
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION -CURVE
TEST No.
/W)( 1-6
50
220
H
-1116-c
4) s &v
O
uh
o -r0
,'
0> *
ea
'I
._
0
It I0p
N
Z
0b
0
E 0o
gn
lb
0
E
1vz cc
I-C'
..oa
4)
0
I- o
Q
O
_m
.
<0
ZO0
IQ
co
%90
(3 -%
C)
.
o--,.(.=
-
_
3 a
)
O.0 o
I_
cr)
.-
.-
C >
LJ
w
CD
221
zZ
n)
-J
P
w
3
CONSOLI DATION
Sample No.
Depth -
,Do
1-7
, .s* .,
Soil Type
v
"~
STRESS avc ( K5/cr- )
WN ( % )
Estimated
48 7
WL (%)
Wp(%)
Cvo
.. CR o.al;
P.I.(% )
o At tp or
eAt (
hr
Remarks
rra v.s,,,7-3.1
Gs fv(%)/
bed
RR o-.o3
eo.
Mod,,,
it
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
Jo
1-7
4
S(%)
lot
ce
.;--1
i
4o
f
r
.4
au
Vr
I.
lCi
,317
a.
cU
cv9
s
0
,,.
MO
Ed
Z .0 ct
>%'T
n
E
lb
E_
I-) ?.)
-i
00E
0,.e
O
OI
c
O
E
a,
~.O
*I,
.o
C
U,
o
QC
o
C, ,
z
._
i
CL_
C
3
<*J
I
-
<
o Z
(0
Q~~~C,)'F
-
-.
223
Z
,;R
I-
.I
w
>
0
'vc (
CONSOLI DATION STRESS
WN (/(%)
Ni0.
Sample
Depth _
Soil Type
qo.o fW
+
Q0.0
WL (%)
C
-- -
wp(%)
C R O.2,72
P. I. M)
_
o At tp or
*
At
(
Estimated
471
hr
Remarks
Gs
Ev (6)
a
Ku-.
vm
RRvm
o-;.
RR
eo
M.I.T.
. S (%)-
baL,--d on djoo 4;rov% lm + curv
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
0o0'
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
AIuoJ-R
224
rn\
N
'I ~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A
E
%3
aN
~~~~vi
0
cEc
._
O
>.
0
^
4,0
E
j ZIIn
0J--c~~
.0
aS~9 44i
r:
-11
a-
a
-b
0
0
U)
a
E
0
O
H*-0
c-
o
.0_o
: _
f
mL
ZO
I -
<O
a.
to
co
.,o
0
O
.0_
_
-
'E
.0
O
.-
zo 2
Qr
L
~
Oa
O
(3
L.-
U,
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
k.
E
0
4-
aa
C
O
0
.A%
Co
0.
00
0
I
J
-
j
0o -
0 a
I
C
o lb
0
od-
'
{
i
I
jI
i
~~I
-
I
I'
I
i
i
i
0rcn0
w
E
HZ6
n
I
z
0
0
C3
0
n
n
n
0_
I
a:
iii
j Jil I
oi
l
~~~~
llll~
i
)-w
f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oii ll
--
II
.............
4-.
I
U)
:
Zo-
O '0
i
I
I
-
c1.
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,!
zo
OF-
"- i
>_
.
t
,
I
!
r
~
W
C -O
.
o
I
I
o
j
Ioi
J
LL
lb~~~~~~~~~~~
0.
-
.0._
0 .
a_
(,
C>
1I
!
,
Oi91
I
i
226
z
Z
I
-J
4
c)
w
w
J
CONSOLIDATION
Depth
9'
-
-
hr
o At tp or
WN (°/)
P.I.(%)
Remarks
)
Estimated
37. S
WL(%)
Wp (%)
6C-
Soil Type
At (
1-9
/,Al
Sample No.
vc ( K/tr
STRESS
5vrn
:
v52o
CR
A 6,
eo
Gs
EvL/o)
RR
basew
ol
da
lg
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
o
I
OR
d,
5
S(%)
/ oa+ c,rvs.
227
E
>-L
.
4 2
C(n
-4
cnO3
q-53
V'T JI
E
Cz
,C
L-
!-- Z
,
_o
,
CO
_
r
p
C,
Z
O
3
o
3
tC5
O E
--
'
o
,_
C)
cnU
ZO
I
< j W
U
O n
LZL
5
Li
Xn
0u )
'
0
--:
223
0
4-
0
l
I
0
U-
w
- T"Z
E
.0
I
--L
E
-
>
E .°
lb
tn ,O
o
,
o
.
O
E
Q)
ZZa
, |
w
O
ZdC .
J
O
,
0
0
I
-
0.
oz_
0
Z~
a
I
o
I.
Q
LJ
LiL
O 0
0 O "
_"._
L cn
'
_w O
4, -
C
!
mllml
,111~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
IC
z
Z
It)
-J
4
F:
'P 2C
25V
3C
0.5
.2
C
2
I
STRESS
CONSOLI DAT
Sample
No.
/VuoD 1-.1
4+.
Depth - lo-10a
Soil Type
5
WNt (/)
&VC (K
Estimated
b16.1
w L (%)
8:v
3.00
Wp(%)
CR
o0 13l1
Gs
i
o At tp or
*At (
hr
Remarks
20
10
Lvt 1A/
I
vm 3
Vrn
RR
eo
e
dog0 dA
bed e
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST
No.
01
.2-;
-
o.os
S(%)
Io E Gu
weVr4
230
£
I
Q
CA\/
I t3
1i ; d
0
a _ C
'4
S
O
0
.,
%
_
4
Q)IQ
.- E
Ib
-°
E
0o)
I
g0 C
3r
-
E
4)
<n
0
._
4
00
oZ
a
z
-
0\
I
I
_
D0
m
I
.
>
<'
o
v.
V
o
Iu..I
0LL
I
0.
/
ae0E
0
,-oo
.
CL
O
L
-
3: a
>
4.
a.-u,
-
c
.E 0
(D
231
()
E
a
0
h.
i
%M
0)0
(1)
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i
._
> I
i
00
0
a) a
E
w cn0n
0
lb
E .
c
.,
I
I
er
-~1
-1
n
F09)
LW
H-
c
O
U
()i
U)
0-0
z
…l
E
c)
O~~~~~~~~~~
cr
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lbI
z
0
0-
a)a
Un
0
,
4 .0
0
0
a
0
-4 -
>>
o>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CL
,,
o 3a.
lb
> ~:
Q'
L.~~~~~~'
0.
4-
a)
-
n O
-
m UJ
CL 0
0C) .
- t
. . 0r
_
'E
a
-IZO
00
uJ
(D
232
Z
I
-)0
U)
wu.
CONSOLI DATION STRESS
Sample No /ivO I-Il
Iv5- /7
Depth
++-
WN (%)
w
L
(%)
G
C13
Soil Type
oAt (
hr
___
Estimated
q6
CRVO
-./5
CR 1of,
Wp.
P
. . (%)
o o
o At tp or .
v (
Remarks
vm
RR o.ob
eo,
M.I.T.
S(%)
_ (c,) bsed on d4, 4,,0 /o'. + cc,,5
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
-'
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST
No.
c L.L-3
--
233
.
u
-0 (
a
-Z
Q
O
VI
111
Q
Is
a
IE
d
,
U
4
A
Q1!
0
>
W
Z3
IDC
>..
r
.Q
0
0' (
-I
E
E .°
b
0
cn
000 0
0
_
L_
I
cn
Oud Vl
c;
I- z
cn),
_
0
T
Z o
0
0
:
o
-
:
_, _
t--o
0
'4-
I.
O
00J
O
I !I -
< U__
_
1,
U)
I
0
0
0
CL U,
- cn
o
.O
m
'EC0>
-
-
-w
234
0
0O
I
L.
^ ._
0
00 '
> Io
._
0E E..'b
"O cn
-
c
_
,
.
_-
O
ICV)
w
z0
o
o
I
0L.n
0
0U)
z
00
a
0
!.-
0)
ZO
00
!
1 >
'
_
I uJ
-
0
._
Q,
O,
(D
Q3
I
!
_
235
z
I-
4
W.
w
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
CONSOLI DATION STRESS
N 0.
Sample
MUID
S--- -
Depth
OBc
Soil Type
wN ()
I-
R.
·
I
eAt (
'hr
20
Estimated
1.
'Vo
wp(°/)
CR o.6
vrn
m
'
RR
eo
oa6
S(%)
Remarks E(% bam
t(1, droo,,O4m* crcs
Gs
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
50
av ( K/cr)
WL(%)
P.I.(%)
o At tp or
10
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
r)CL-
E
0a,
0
'l
-o
I
lfr
1g
'
I
dr
V,
.0
w
--
oE0
t
.
-t
0. 0
C
) a
1
.0
4-
co
EE
IA I
I
A
0 .0
0
C*I
I
I
'I0
40o
0 u,cI,
0 Ib
.
I1;..
0
,
(n
U
(n Oa
00 .)
6
Hz
zO
0
VI
11
I
0
U,
I
C
Z
00
0
O
QL
CL
I
'
o
a
I I
of O'Z
z Oc
M
,n
-
O
I
8
zo3
I"
oE
3
4m
0
-J
o
<:
0_ o
i, D Z
'ro
3U
I
II
a,
Is
4-
a,
a-
ro
0.
U)
o
c >
IC,
4,
d
3 iZd6
237
0
v\
'ID
Z
-
U
w
0.2
0.5
1
2
CONSOLIDATION
Sample No.
Denth
--I
-9
,1UD
qS.O f.
Soil Type
-
-
-
-
WN
5
-IO.L
(0/)
STRESS
(%
/
)
hr
(
K/tLn
O'V
*p (M)
CR
Remarks
vo
)
;. 83" me
vm r.n - .8
RR
.a3
e o ..
Gs
E (/')
50
20
Estimated
WL(%)
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
'V
o.1f
P. I.(%)
o At tp or
At (
) hr
10
bsed oa divo fr,
S (%).
lot oCu-ve
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
Mo
I-
o.oxL.
238
%a
e
,v
4-
%0
fn
e
0
0
Y'
--z
-4
l'
C"
..
II
f
fa h
>Ii
0
U
o(
1
"I
I
lb
E2
0
O C
(0
z
C)
O¢;-Z _-_
(0
E
L
O o
O
W
(D O
>-_
.
,
.
_
D
ZO
'
(::
A<
0
4
L.
c
,.
o0
-
3
a
._o
_
O
- >
m2
-
Oa
w
(D
239
-
z
cn
-J
w
0.2
0.5
1
2
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
Sample
N 0.
Depth
A/MD 1-10
100.5 ft.
Soil Type
(
hr
4/r.
'
20
)
'VO
3.00 Ko,. '7 vm~
v n -2-Y VO
CR
Gs
o. lo
RR
eo
oahL
S(%)
bieo vao ¢c, )ot ce.
Remarks £,(C)o
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.1.T.
50
Estimated
30.
WL (%)
P. 1.(%)
o At tp or..
vc (
Wp(%)
__
-
* At
WN (%)0/)
10
5
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
AUD Hcoa
240
co
f
0
0
E
I
4)
-,Z
4
00
0
C'
ca
=
*0
0
0 a
E
O 0
0 C,
nQ
c
E
7
0
0)
._-
*~~~~~~)
b0vl )O cc
I
dc
fj
13
-
II
I
-I
0)
7
ff
7
-O
~~~6
o~~
o0
.uc
0 -
-~~~~
~
Q0
14
Pl
0
~,C
I.-
,
~
hi~
~
.- '
r
M
-
a
~~-1*1~6
E
(n
-'
*3
-L
O
0
e
-.
Z.
q
0 * U)
J0 .-
oZB
0
cn
M
ZZ
zi
o
-Q
O
-n
0
-`
I-V
C
o
o0
E
0
0a
0
J
Z a:
3
0z
-Izo
UZ
U-0 a
I-
0
0
-o
C>
on_
(D U
L
a
E
lb
o
w
m
Z
I
0
% o
0
-
c
o
0.
a.
U)
C
,
o
03
(3
o6
~
o
241
0
zo
-
r
I-
-J
0
3
CONSOLI DATION STRESS
Sample
No.
Depth
WN (%)
uOo-ll
Estimated
36.8
1o5p f4
W L (%)
CVO 3. 1' v:-
13C.
wp(°/)
CR
Soil Type
-
o At tp or
eAt (
&vc ( Ki/cm )
hr
P. 1.(%)
Remarks
o.is7
-aR 0vm
RR
eo .
Gs
E,("/o) b4scAon JdoofroD
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
AND
I- H
.oa-i
S(%)L
Ie t curv_
242
APPENDIX B-
Ko-CONSOLIDATED DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR (CKoUDSS) TEST
RESULTS
243
DIRECT - SIMPLE
PROJECT
TYPE
SOIL TYPE sc.
TESTED BY
LOCATION
So/alorfi.
. G,.=.r)
SHEAR TEST
OF TEST
DSS
C-4U
NO.
I
DEVICE
sP&
CONSOLIDATION
(Stresses
c
'rhc
. '7
OCR
or
o00
DATE b/8
in tJ/'M)
*vm
-
-t.s7
tc(Day) o-66, ff/o) ?.7 ~c(%)_tc(Oay)
III
Iw,%
e
f
I Initial
I Preshear
Final
.
4-1 I
I
I 3.
S,%
_
_
DURING SHEAR
1 23.000 1 Controlled Strain -, Stress
1 0.lr3 I
H (,
_
I
·
,
1
·
f
TIME
Hr.)
STRAIN
(%)
0.00
0.00
0o.oo
.
0.0
0.023
rh
vc
0.1
0.06
0.H'
0.17
rh
vc
5vc
Su
c
1.000
0o
O.q
i
0.61
9o37
.
0D050
D5 .
;
.070
0.a3
0O
0.1
d 9.'s
0.3,
o.' .s
O.qqS
0.3
.
0.7
,90
.7
0.31
o....
A.O
0O.476
0.'
0.7
0.-libh
0.13
o.a
4b
2.o
7
IJ
'1
.
7in
oz.oq
olo
ob
04-.
LI7.
,__5
" a. b
W .s
orna3
.321
768
0
__
_
T
__
067a
0.57
$5'3
.
PK
_1
o.,.
o.6 a
A.t
a.1
oO
I o.6
oJff
Q703
o.:
INSTITUTE
REMARKS
|
o.7f
_
SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASSACHUSETTS
v
°vm
.751
0.119
Q ?.
7._ o
j
1
065T
o.-1
.8bO
CLIO
0.2q
0.171 o.381
f.Ja.
/o / Hr.)
|h
'
.W
ooo
1 Rate
·
0.073
I. 3
)
OF TECHNOLOGY
t
REMARKS: Eu . 32'
SU
Sy2tn
244
0
I-
n,
-j
iL
0.5
0.2
1
2
CONSOLIDATION
Sample No.
AlO 1-7
Depth
',soft.
Soil Type
- t3Gc
STRESS
WN (0/0)
eAt (
hr
vo as
~vm
CR
Gs
bvL%\ b
RR
eo .
on1cea1ob
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
50
20
Estimated
Lo
wp(%)
Remarks
10
&vc ( 'w&-" )
WL (%)
P.I.(%)
o At tp or-.
5
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
(5-5-1
S(%)
)Act
Cirve
245
,
, , -- ,IT"-' ~
.... ,
~ .....
,t---T----T-
,---;
,·
·h
Qrv
..-'"
:: P'-.;..:
~:; '. .~ ~
~'
.4
~':
~~~ti'
~~'
-2.4-..~:-T--~.._'-._
_ .
0
;
_4
-';""w"'TI
t-7
~:~
. ,-
;.',,_
~ . ~.--~: --- ?J·i~
__
t~-r
,_
;~=r
.
r---..__~
~
.?
,
T
~
_
~ . - - - ' - : · - --
:
r
r
;,,''"'.
-_'~''-
~-:i'_
ii-!:,:-!::u
IO
5
10
15
20
30
40
0
5
10
15
20
30
40
0.8
Au
0.
1r-c
0.'.
SHEAR
Sample No.
uoL
,-7
Is,00t.
Depth
-
Soil Type
- 8e c
WN(%0)-'2-l
WL(%)
wp(%)
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
STRAIN
!vc(
m('
3' (%)
/,m
Kr,5/
) ¥.7 .tc(Days) n.
7
)
Estimated &vo(
NORMALIZED
CKoUDSS
STRESS
TEST
OCR
I.0o
/Im=-
VS
NO.
STRAIN
I
FIGURE
246
a:-
taZI.
)i~
a.C
H
ii,ilr3'1'
1H;jEhpII
li 7_,.Ii
r;
F;
kF;;L;-ke+L-;;
r
V1...
w
w
0I
LaJ,,
.5
= i I E . I _e 1 i = T ^
E
U)
d
i
,
10
0
o
.
I-
f
1:
I~ t-11
!#i
,b j
i
;>
F~
'
.......
d
nT,
-I.i_
il -jli+l
.rT;rd
, -5 ' il,,fl
I-
-
L: .
=
@ O(O
~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~C ,I
~~~d
l
i
l
!1
'
l --
l
4
%S@Iz
_'
=
I
.!i,=>::
I=
,
:lT
!
l)~·
Cl)
:I.... :jI :. !
4 X
!I
It.o.1..
,Ii il =
_
|
.....................
ii i i :~ [ 1 i i '[
bo
1'i'!'
E
i
'
Ii
j : ii : ~ i ~~
,,: ...
==_N
<::
51-
w.-
uC,)
jU
n
zI"
zI,
_
H
-
:!!
: :
'
: .I'
i!
:!
'
-:i
9 :: =! j
:~ == =
0
7 .
:i
l
l
C3
~~
-
L
o
c
~~~~~~~~~;,
_
==^1r .''4'11!i
j
',', :
-,,
'
:':
=
::5
i][
if
I
]:
r
J :_
+ !
*[:
=~~~~~~~
i!I
d
O
*_l
b
O
!H~~i!9
i
i~
0
4-llb
FIGURE
,1
.,
.1,.1,1
247
2000
FB
._
trc
rE
I
=
iI'!
1
=
II
;
-.
I
_
i
: . :i
..
i
-I
-I
!
l
NP.
i
I %
#
i
SU
!
-
-
I
I
;
SS:
I
IL
_ dD
i
;
=
lI
w
I. . . . . .
-
-
=
.
J
1
-
--
,
.;
.
.
I
1
1
:
i
I
I
I
i
:1 iJiI
I
I
i[--I:
.
80
Si,
i
i
. .i Li
, I
!
I
I
I
I
i
II I
i
L
:
.
i
.
.
i ], :.
I
I
a
S
i
.
i
!
.
'
.
.
I
.
;
,
t-
I
,
'_e
,
r
i
.
i
t9
i
Ij
.,
i
,
. -
I
111 1
t
, ,
j
-,
.
XI!
7 'il l
i
I
i 1
i
t I
]i
i 1 |l
I '
i
I i
-
U
!r
.
iI
r 71 1
'
i I !i
i
IT 1
M
|:
.
L i L L ! I_
Ii l
!_ i I FII
I
1i7 1I11~ i i
L1
I
;
I
I j ,!
,
I,
,
X
,
Ij
:
-
-
'I ' "'s
t .i.t
I
.
.,-
i
.i
l
.
~: .
r
I
I
I
i i
i
- -
:
L
!
!i1
:
I i !I
,
iI
,
,
I
:
Ii
!
!
,
;;
, 1,
1
,
i
.
I,:
i
I
-
I
-,
1
I
i
i i
III
: '..'
'
¢,~~:,
t..--
, , 0 I 1
II 1 1I -III1I I
, l . 1 r I"1l
4--I I 7
I
II IL III
LiX
100
z
i
i
I
0:
1
. .. . .
I I't11;i .
i1
-
i:
-
I
i
I
.
,
,
.
I
i,
-
. .
i
EE-~-=
1
-n
-
:
T
J
200
:
_
'
I
]J J[i
. ! i
1
'
I
|
.
-- - - -
-
;
6
i
bL !
=
_
r .| Iai __ 1
.. j
I
I
--
-
4
-
,-
11
i
-
ic
-
;?
_
Hiiii-Hf ii
i
I Ii
I I I I I
~ I ll
I
=
-
l
3
I
-
r
1
KFK~~~tfill
I
-
;Z
. I
Eu
L
-
J
I
-41-
-
_.,
IL1,
rL
...
I
.r .
.
. .
-
.
;
I
I
i .
=T-
I
=4-
400
-
_ _
r..
..
-
_
i
I
.
M
I
i
-
E i
._
I
b_ _
7
M
A=
i
.I
!
_-
E
._
_
r
:I
TX
I
I
600
1lI
!
-
-1_
._
w
I
-
800oo
l-
. _
7
i
i'
S_
I
I'
I
1000
_L
! I
r-
.g cI7
· II I
I
I
w
!'
I
I
-·
i---~
-)
4.
60
c
-
i
L
I
-L
0
0
40
O.
U
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Th/
I0
4
04
Test
I
1.0
Su
6
Sample
No.
No.
0.8
No.
Depth
(N
.(%)
g5
.oi
,44uo-7
9.
(
c
(
%SC
l
'-,"
OCR
Symbol
/.oo
w
-
0
LI
MODULUS
NORMALIZED
BORING
,,.vo
I
FROM
SOIL TYPE
CKoUDSS
.-
TESTS
'
Clf IoC'
248
DIRECT - SIMPLE
PROJECT
TYPE OF TEST CoU[055
SOIL TYPE
TESTED
BC
Sol,
LOCATION
e
TIME
( Hr.)
.00
o.5o
s,%
H (
1
37q
STRAIN
(/%)
I
I
i
I
I
rh
O'vc
E,/)
/.
DURING
rh
0.ooo
/O
o.o
o.ooo
/.oo
0.103
1.38
O.
.38
TZ.11.8
,.* '
0.1
2
o.nsO
-o.ol
-0o
-0 Ol.
aol
00
.
Lo .
'
0a.b7
.
0.773
/.3
o.l
.1S
o.M1
_o1
o no ./'
a_
'H:1
o-.n3
7
_Io.o
r,
0.17o.
rQ_.7b
0.i59
i'_ tf
o.IS
o.0
0.158
°.
i
[
_
30.qi
_
,_1
o.'7
o.ql
oo.
o.,3
.o
_
.
_'_b
INSTITUTE
_'l
.773
3
.o .
_
__
|
_._|_
(3
o. _
o.1
SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASSACHUSETTS
_
,0
0.3 1
0._3
.
o.5,
0.8
So.'
o.,Ib
0q1
o.[q¶
REMARKS
EMAJKS
0.000
_
0.20
.10
l03
.aoi
1.013
i.-bl7
0.06ob7-0.o0,
rh
I aJ
.ooL
o0.036
0000
0.6_
Stress
Su
vc
0.OOD
o/I
SHEAR
I
-
'vc
0.050
OS9
VIlI
1 Rate (%/ Hr.)
0.o
0.12
o.17
o.H
0
.3
6.
-"II
c(%)-_t c((Day)
)
ao.q91
AuL
0.06
-
cc
I1
/10
DATE 7/21
Controlled Strain /
0.oo0
/3W7
T
|352 S
Preshear
Final
tc(Day )
OCR
5/)
in
(Stresses
6.o&4
"f,./
NO. ac
DEVICE &eor,
sPC
_-"eVi,
'
w;'/o
Initial
BY
CONSOLIDATION
gs
(,-r)
I
SHEAR TEST
OF TECHNOLOGY
REMARKS: E v . 3%
u
.':rfrn
249
A
5
5
0
10
'I
z
Icr
,)
15
-J
w 20
25
'%
0.5
0.2
1
2
5
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
Av , 1-7
Sample No.
Depth
-
Soil Type
.-.
iiii
eAt (
hr
vc K/c,,
(
n
wN (%) , 1..
.
o At tp or
10
.
vo
wp(%)
CR
Remarks
)
Estimated
WL(%)
P. .(%)
v5m
RR
e o ..
Gs
cv AOi bqie
OA
dloo
i
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
50
20
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
Ln-,;1
-,;i
S (%)
tjt
b
cUrve
250
_
.
.- +·_
__
_.
. .
.
_
.
.
.z
---
i,
a
r
1C-·
·
_
l~-_+
-_
__
_
.--
____=-i
Iml - .
: _
::-
c
..
:
_
m
-+
-
-
!
r-
-
m
_ I
L
1-
_---
-
_+_
-C
-_
-
_i
_
f
-
-
I
c+ f
i·
II
;-
-Ih-
ki=41HEi
'-tl r . I+--
-:~r-l1-. :._~.q..::~i'--_
7-I - .--~':=~:-~-~~
......·
|i
,.-Lrt 4 -.4
4= -4
-C
_k-
-=-
ri
=
...
__
-?3_ j
_
j-_
_
o
-
r___
l1
o__s
___
j
j[ _
=
_
_
j
_
j-
_
_
I
C-__r
----
-
_
l --I _
_
.
TI
__.
'rh
aQvc
0o.
0
0
5
10
40
30
20
15
1Y
I
~
~
·
>@D
_:
.tl -. ;*
C;:!.i|
- :-'4!':-4-"4~".
-o
· 'f,
-- :F
t'-l~-----
--~~-----
~
~
'----.- -r
.
-t,- , .
"'
t?-.-
'
-
...
t'.'
~
, rr
_-
..
..
"_ ,*"-*-'-'-'-::~
:j'.!~
-:,
: .--oP6
_--i~~~~~g===
=~~~~~~.rL3
==:
AU
1~.L,||
t~~!!~
:
~ - --~ ~ '.---,T~-- it ,'--t,- --
rvc
-,
.~,
t-
:1,
c
"
.._ ,I
!-'
-
;l
_
....
i--i
-::.:
..
't_
;=
'
.
r4
.'" .---
0>
r1
0
+- tn- -'-1.
-
.
rS.o
Depth
_:
III
t
10
WL(0%/)
wp(%)
20
STRAIN
wN(%) 1.
M.I. T.
.
3' (%)
vc( K5/cv ) I.o
) 6
_vm( 'HKe
.. Estimated
NORMALIZED
CKoUDSS
40
30
vo(
.
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
'---.-_v_
''I·----
15
SHEAR
Sample No. uO 7-
- ---
'
-
.
. ;::
: --.... ;!--??
5
Soil Type
.-
.
jl.....
..
..
..
'?cc~.
-1
.. ! '.. - . t~ : -. .I::~-. |-
'/c'
2.
OCR
oo
)
STRESS VS
TEST
tc(Days)
NO.
STRAIN
aa
o
251
o a
I
Icn
I w
ot
I
U(
0Cr
o
o
c
Q.
s
0
ix
cn
w
N
o
z
D
o
dT
E
i- lie
FIGURE
c
0
CD
252
2000
.
I
7 _
-_
-4
1000
I
I
I
I
I
,
_
_,
,
T
E! !
!!.qT
,
,
:12211
-
c
_
111
-I
._
I
,
,
-
.
_
_
I
I
._
._
. I I t t t
N
t t1
t t1
t
1 I l
111111
I
I
II
I
I I
II
I
I l
l
...........
11 11 111
1 111 111
N
800
N
I
600
I
I
1;
3
I
n V~
9
400
N !R
3
Eu
I
5;
I
SU
3
200
S
I
I I
L--_J,i
I
I
I
100
80
-i
±t
60
40
C
0
aw
0
0.4
0.2
Test
No.
0o
_
_
_
;;_
_
I
_
_
_
_
_
No.
_
_
_
Depth
_
()
.
_
Ovc
-J
(
^/
I
51
D
o
/_uo1-7
1.0
/S u
wN
Sample
0.8
0.6
Th
/.I/
.
OCR
_
6._O_
.
l
_
Symbol
_
/.0oo
-J
O4
z
l
l
I
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
0w
0
w
NORMALIZED
BORING
/vuo
MODULUS
I
FROM
CKoUDSS
TESTS
SOIL TYPE
FIGURE
1
253
i
DIRECT - SIMPLE
PROJECT
TYPE
SHEAR TEST
OF TEST
NO.
CKoU 055
SOIL TYPE
Be.
TESTED
LOCATION
kr A,-
CONSOLIDATION (Stresses in
(rvC Y.5
The
BY
f(Day)
_
.
I w,/o
e
s,%
36.6
TIME
STRAIN
( Hr. )
(%)
0.13.
th
|vc
o.
|
L
v~c
0.000
o.0
DURING
0.11
.b
o..
o.g
o.a'
Q
o7'
0.tam
o.r*
o..36bS
O.
o.
alt
O.37D
0.02
o.q71
o.oaq
O j .U'L o ib
0.33
O.
o.o
0z
O.D
O.s
o.11,
o.453
o.'fl
_s_
_
0.1i
0.14
Ol
_
o
0.2S
o.:v,,q
0. -N
0.
731
,f s
0.73
0.531
o031
o.. 1
D S3,.t
o.q663
0.1oi
0.1 9
0.ge;A
6b
o.,e
0. VI
..1J5b" I1oO,
| R E MARKS
rh
Su
v
v
vm
!
QLq8
_
a42;6
.
o.__a3
I
I
a77
.
!_
_2___
1
I
0.3
./o.5j
MECHANICS LABORATORY
DEPT.
OF CIVIL
MASSACHUSETTS
3.7
on
0.7S
. 5.0 itJ~77
Hr.)
Stress
qs
1.
.IJ
J1ka
Rote ('/o/
qS3
o.0.0
0.987
97g
1.Ot
iLi.A9
SHEAR
O.0) 0a.]
0. S
0.oia
0.
oa3.0
O.D
____
SL
-tc(Day
1.oo000. aoo
03
0.11
o.
v; .-
Controlled Strain v/
_
-vc
00.'03
003
.os
wr
0.03
__
SOIL
H (,,)
a.o36
Final
,)
.
ai qf3
Preshear
/.ov
DATE 7/1
cnor
0-90 VI.) ILACM.)
.
37.6
Initial
DEVICE
5P&
OCR
5
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
REMARKS:
E,. ";
5u
S
in
254
0
'U
0
:0
z
U)
-j
4
wr-
w
)o
3-
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
-q
WN (0/0)
lb, p 4.
WL (%)
Sample No.
Depth
my
Soil Type
w
--
q
o At tp or
eAt (
hr
()
vc ( Kg/cv
Estimated
ag-
v
VO
Rm
CR
.
P. I.(%)
Remarks
)
RR
eo.
Gs-
9 -i
i)
baed
n
cl,0
-cy I, j 2A
F,
f
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST
No.
o
6-s
S(%)-
255
-
i--!-v t
.ZE=
.
..
.
~.
.
'i EfL- 44o
___
_r
,=--j=
t·-
-
- I.
= f -- -
-
·-
--
·--
= =
-
-
-
=
_
t .:
-·~-··
s
r.
f-
r
.--.---
t.-.-
:_
-C··
I
· ·
'
*
Y
·-
~
-i--t:-
i
j_
·-
.
-.
..
.t'
T
,,
----
'
.
.
i r -
T
I
.
- -tr
|
_
- - - -
-
7 1=
I
:...
-~~
--- _r~
~_-Z
-_
---
....
&h
Qrivc
0.2.
0.I
0
I --
0
5
10
.-
tI I
-!-- t
Au
o.b
-II
.
._
o'c
0.9
t
i-,
: --
-t I·
6=
-
t-t..
-.
'· -
I ..
! I+-
-
.
,
I
._
14-'".
- i-
ti
IL
!-
---
I
i
__-_';___-_[-
-
;:-.-- --I
9b.0
-.
- S 13c
_
·-
!I-
-7=·
-
-
,
-,-'-.--
_
.
I
I
_
.
.
,
STRAIN
I-
)..
WL(%)
vm( s4
'-
-
-
:
40
tc(Days)
o
.9
).
OCR
kl,/L
STRESS VS
TEST
NO.
.oo
)
STRAIN
ENGR.
CKoUDSS
.
30
Estimatedvo(
NORMALIZED
.
I
3' (/)
vc(Vs
q
wp(%)
-'
_-
-
20
15
-
i _- . _
_
wN(%) 36.6
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
M.I.T.
_t
I0
Sample No. muDl,-
DEPT. OF CIVIL
'
_,
-,
SHEAR
Type
_
_ ....
-E-._
5
Depth
-'--,,
___'-
.
__.
! 0
0
Soil
I
~'i~---t~ _F . . t
,
40
30
__
I
__;__
0
I
---
20
15
r
256
:= _ _ :':
}
I$-~iF~Fi~·~+;raF"~ir!
<z
_
.-:
.
o-
z
U0 o
00 o-__
_
lb =
.
,
._
'
I.
, : .,
_
_:_
!
I
I
_:_r _ _: _. ;
_ _.,
.'!
i: :.
.I. . '
~T"~'"~i.
c~L.
.
.
I1
'
2
1..,
. . . .. : " .
.. !. 1:3 :: =
......1;1,1
.
.
.
.
F .
! |
)i:
. .
CD
w
.
I5
I
....
Z,~~~~~~~~~~~.
L
·
,
l
_
IC
I
:
_V)
,.,
I.
..
.
-.
I
.I}:is:
; .. I. . . . ,. . _ :;,::
;,, . , .. .
.
. .
.
.
. .
. . . . ..
I ' I .. . ..
; ' '.. .; ; ;'.:;::
....
I_
C : ,l5=' ........
::1 .................... . ' .
....... . '.. ' ...
', ,;::
...
d
CJ
o
. .
-
-
0
FIGURE
257
2000
I
U
I
I
II
II
I
II
I
I
-
- I -,
-
I
I
I
A
II
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
z
1000
M
I
I
I
I
- I -I
U-
I
I
I
I
I
!r
I
I
I
I Ip
I I
-
800
I
z
Ier
. . .
x
z:
I.
II
I
II
II
It~
E
... ... ...
400
-3
I
w
-
Eu
--
5
t
-3
N;
I I .
i
I I
I I
I
---
I I
200
I I I
t
t
T
.
t
.
.
.
t t t
t
t
n
*
,
I
I
tltl
.
.
t
tl
.
.
.
.T
.
.
.
.
l
l
l
l
tft __..__ t
tlt
t
l
I
tltltw
t
1
t t
T
t t
1
,F j11
su
0
I I
I
I I
I
5
600
I
t::I I I-
I
IN
w
M
I
I
111
k"
I
.
.
.l
l
-
-
.--
_
_
._
.
I
I
.
.
tlt
.
tlI
C
--
|-
--
._
._
.
t t
--
_
._
.
.
r
z
r3
lt
I I I I.I
I.
_
I
tlt
t t
.
.
.
-
-
I
I
I
/ --
w-
._
_
I
.
.
._
._
100
z
80
+i
60
+i
0
40
w
0
cr.
0
0.2
Test
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
/oo
WN Nvc
(
(
/
%q.o 3b.,
I- 9
1.0
/ uS
No._______~~_5'
0.8
0.6
0.4
Th
n-
0
m
i i
0
OCR
Symbol
*(ft)
A. 5/ -.
.oo
Iwz
-J
0
w
0(.
NORMALIZED
MODULUS
BORING
I
AULD
FROM
CKoUDSS
SOIL TYPE
BBC
TESTS
FIGURE
258
DIRECT - SIMPLE
PROJECT
TYPE
SOIL TYPE
13RC
e
w/o
TIME
( Hr.)
I
I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEPT.
|
0.17
0.2
0.1o2
0.
o.s
0.~L.2.
o.o
ol5
.
I
I
.22.u~q
.
vc
0
1 jh
|h
REMARKS
RKSu
S
-
vm
I
0=
____
L
0.290
0.21
I.
o.f__ _
I.
0,3
__
_ O
0.5
.
0.15(
D.___'
0.15'
o~il
_____ ____ _
_
_3'
./,,
~
MECHANICS LABORATORY
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
_
_ _
o.y
o.
_
D.
o.YI
MASSACHUSETTS
2Ao0
6renor DATE 81/8
c
_)1_
0.15'
0.1'0
OF CIVIL
OCR
_ II, ... .
_I_ Rte
'o/ Hr.)
0.000
2.T32
SY
00.173
°.3.
q
0.15'7
0.63
3.
SOIL
|AL
vc
0.
0
.l
-
Th
0.00
DEVICE
10
DURING SHEAR
Controlled Strain /
Stress
---
i)I
.2-63:
I
I
2.0
STRAIN
()
5p&
H (
_I
I
.
__ _
S,%
3. 0
I Preshear
I Final
BY
NO.
CONSOLIDATION (Stresses in _e)
-'c
45'
Thc m - 9.
1
tc(Day ) 07,
v,/O)v7
c(%)_tc( Day)
_
(._r.T.)
Initial
OF TEST CuooS5S
TESTED
LOCATION-__lr-
SHEAR TEST
OF TECHNOLOGY
____
REMARKS:
-
,,
%U
4
3
_ _Pew_
'
S, :R"in
*4aovtM od,
-- . h%.
f,*
q4
259
0
0X
cc
m
z(n
<
-j
C..
<~
4
0
P:
M
cD
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
Sample No.
Depth
/cVo
-
o At tp or
hr
}
:vo 1.'5 i..
Wp(%)
P. .(%)
Remarks
"r2
20
Estimated
3'1-
WL (%)
II
(
W N (/)
I
Soil Type
* At
-'1
yvc
(
10
cvmr
CR
RR
Gs
foa,)
eo.
basedo do
oo
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
Oss-lo
S(%)
t4*crve
50
260
2000
0
'
I 1I1 1 I
II
1000
,
B
I
i
- I!Tt
Lf
LL!
i
;tt
·
:
i
I
-II,·
~
L
I '
:
I
.E E
i
A;
EEaE
L
7-
i'
,
;
I
I
4____
l
ri ni
E
i
-4
EEl
I
--C
i
80
i
-
-
i
-7
I T i-
-
= =
t
-
TI
11i L
I
11
t
i
i .,::-
,
I
I
:
1
II
I
r
I
I
L
L
:;
fI';
I 1II ii'
IL
z_-
-
-
I
t+
-
i ! i 1IL
1ti
l
!
r' :
,
'
Ii
r
-
I
;;
;t
I_
I1' i. IIII
7
-.4
=
I I
I
t-L-I
-- -
z
! '
i ,
,
I
ii
!_l
100
i
i
I
0.
w
iL~iL
,
I IiT
-!I
II
,
I
±
,
c'-
iI
I .i:I,
42
r I-'
I
FE
.j f
± r_
I
. II
I!
,t
Ijiij
-i-
I
=EtE
I--
I!!I
II
I
'
lqi
III:
III
200
iI
!
i!
L_
I
i
il
-t-1-
Su
II
,-}
,
!
:I _
Eu
I
r
-I
___i
400
I!
t'
r
i
I
I
i1 i ' i
I I
ii
t
I
.
Ii
I!I.
i
I I
____
I
i
z:
I
I
l
IIJ
l
800
600
t
I !~II
II
i
IL
i
I
iI T
! I I i
It
I
I
;
,,
-
I
'
i
---__
,
l
,
i
-
:
.
.
z_
60
0
40
U.I
0
0.4
0.2
0.6
Th
o4
cr
0
a-
Sample
No.
10
,Iuo
Depth
No.
j-.
I'
1.0
/ S
u
vc
wN
Test
0.8
(%)
•9.oI
OCR
(
I.t.l
Symbol
I.0
Iq
z
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o
0
_1
MODULUS FROM CKoUDSS TESTS
NORMALIZED
BORING
,/vO
I
SOIL TYPE
B 3c.
CE1_I IDC'
261
DIRECT - SIMPLE
PROJECT
SHEAR TEST
TYPE OF TEST CKU QD5
SOIL TYPE
BBC
LOCATION S
-
TESTED
2al
BY
SPG
DEVICE
CONSOLIDATION
.=rA)
'rthc
tc(Day
) o.l
I w/.
e
Presheaor
Final
31
TIME
( Hr. )
STRAIN
(%)
O. D
I
DEPT.
I
o / Hr.)
Rate
.
ALL
v
'vc
Ovc
Th
S
Su
h
v,,
REMARKS
'vm
.00
60
).
c0oo
0-02'
d.O721
-. oig
-00.1
,.oH
01
1.L1
o.oa.
0.D3b
o.og0
O.os9
-0.034
-. 06
i.03
I.oa
0
0.10
0.166
- 0o,02
l.on
0.318
O
0.2.5
0.17.
-o.0'3
12s
O.3~
tL.
0.3O
Olat
-o.
Iq
1.0
0.42
q l.
0.572
7
0._
0.5'
- 0Q.
oR
l1
0./
0.. S
O.
-0.,03
1.03
O.t
0
013
D.104
-o.oN
1.04
0.o61
o.
-o.oil
I.0'1
0.l
0.17
.0
loq
0.2A
- 0. oq3
1.04
0.
0._
-0.,f
.
1.33
0.21
- 0.061
o.q
.3tl
0.31
i
-q.,6
&l
Jjj1
0.2.b
.
.
IoS
.;*
o0a
*OD
.
.i
0.32
o0.,191
0.30¶
0.253
a.3L.
|.764
,o
0.102.
0,
MASSACHUSETTS
_
_
__
0.51
_
!
o. o
O_.
0.511
_
05al
0.'2:
|l
o.120
o.5
'
0.5
0.
0.1sq
_S'
I
P3.,
OS2
.Do
0.1b. . 0.
PK
..
_11b
_
o.
j./1
a
0.m
___
0.126
0.300
|
REMARKS: EVu ,. L.
Cu
OF TECHNOLOGY
_
_
_ss
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
_
i
o.o
MECHANICS LABORATORY
OF CIVIL
_
.512.
O.S
IDI
.I
0.5J8
O.Se.
.S'3 o.__
.12
0.
_j
OAI
0.967
1
o.3
0,¢
.m
o.
0..0Q7
.S61
o
0. 00
o.so
0.Q Li_|
.4
sO
/ i'
0..5
o.33L*0.L1I W
o0.33
t
.
-0. oS
:z.
~'t7 6a
AZ
110
SOIL
=.3iY
O
0.0
.-
6.7
c(%)_tc(Day)
0.00
.
_
vm .oa
0. V
o.
0.73
_
Qa,
i. 10
2.;.
rh
cOvc
DATE 7/&a.
DURING SHEAR
Controlled Strain
Stress
.Ai771
_
I
I
I
.
0.Q1
0.1H
o.lb
_
-
I
I
eonor
-
, )
H (,)1
_s,%
1376
Initial
OCR .-oo
/
in/2,,)
(Stresses
-
7YC
NO.
-At
_
.%
S.%'
m'
,a.un,load,
fc. - .5k.
10o.
262
Z
z
a:
In
-
W
0
Samplee No.
AuO
S0
Depth
f+
_S~/.O *
Soil T ype
L
w
N
()
_
eAt (
hr
Estimated
Estimated
11-1
_
- w wL
L (°/°)
O'vo
.c Wp(%)
CR .
P. I.(%)
o At tor or
37.,
Mw(%)
)
vc ( ,/.,.
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
Remarks
Gs
£v1/o%)b.d
/
~
n
v.
v
RR
eo
o do
rw, IMc+ Curve
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
S (%)
D5S-1.
__
._
263
·
r
_
r
_ ·
=I_.__,_.
_t
-I
*_,,,_.......
_;__,-,
_
*_
f_
_
_---~.
1_
4__+_=·
f--.
~---
! .-. 4-.-F..-,.i.--.- --.{.
t
!,.
-1
:I
.i
--.-.
-
.4
_
_
_
_:
f-
__
I
rh
I
I
o.z
,
0.
0
0
5
20
10
40
30
I
t
AU
:
_
_s
o.b
C~
-)--
f-,-4--~
--
j --
.
---. .
. 4 t=
,
.4
_ .' C.
--
t-
_
_
.-
0.2
-
'
i=
i-
':
F
j
o
,.
a.W--
~
,
.
|-
.
L I
_
-__F_
'
_
*
_. _ _.it_ _f_=::-
s=rr
.
F-W
-- -1 -M
,
_
i
_
s t-
_
_
,_
.
__ -E..._
i-- o
i
L--
0
5
~:::
j~
uWl-
s-g.o*
Depth
Soil Type
_
_
I--I
L
.;' :._
_
- _IC.-
;.;
. i --L -j--
-.
-
-
-i
I
-
I
1__._
. 4.
=
:.
·
-
--
---- -------t -·' --- L------- -Z
r-r-t.r·i·-.
;.--
--
,
f
4_
-
STRAIN
i
.
;-
20
40
30
2 (%)
wN(%) .vC(
37.b
&v
WL(%)
vm('
wp (%)
Estimated
NORMALIZED
c
| t-tLZ
- ·r-r·- 1t~'
i-
15
10
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M. I. T.
-- .
. .-
SHEAR
Sample No.
r
.==
_._
=-I:
_'
--
-
~
-=
I
-0.'1
-
/C(
"
/,
)
.14;
o3 OCR .2oo
)
vo(
STRESS
CKoUDSS TEST
tc(Days) o'.s
/&z
VS
NO.
)
1.f5-
STRAIN
l_
FIGURE
264
O .t~F;t.
.......
z
0
Iii,~i:::
(~
_O _
iiii*iiii...........
:1i!iIiilii'i;:,
... ,.i......................
......
: ZII
i ii; i 4.i; ...
........I..........
....
..... .
_ 3 5::
= -
_!i_
;':'-:
m
=
_
i
... .......
! . ::4F : G--0
=..
.
.
.
.
.
.
O...................................
_f1I- |,cn
= -
~~~~~~~o
ie~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
C..
I-
E
=
N~~~~
n-
~~~~~~~~~~1
'.0
o~~~~~~~~
0O
__
I
. . . -j. .ci
..
..
_
_
·-
_
... ... . :.
o:~~~,
·-
l:
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
. . . . . . . _ .=_..t-. . .w
·
_
. .....
_
. ...
~
_
I n-·
nd3
E I
.. . .,
I o-
zZ
·
a0E
. ..-
.
.
.... ....
;
. . . . . . .. .
I l :== .-.- CI
.
..
....
.:
..
I
I
l
l
i,
d
il|
...
......
.
I"
.
T;r
;,
_W
c
......!
;
.,,
....
M"
'1
. ,
...
. . .
, ....:
PI11'
=
':
z
::,,:
I
C
:
oo
d
-,
I-
.
..
1-
1 -1--: :
rJ
'
00
FIGURE
i
265
2000
i
1000
I
I
I I
I
800
600
400
Eu
Su
200
t
I
/
. I
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
tr iI
. . . . . .I I
._
I
l
I
i
l
_
r
(
r
(
T
I
(
T
I
It
T
I
I
I
I
_
rI r
11
1 1
IT
_
1
._
T I|I 1
. I
I
I II .I .I .I .I .I T.I
I
I
it
100
I
t t
i
i
I
t
80
zo
(D
60
40
a\
0
0.2
0.4
Th /
0.6
0.8
CKoUDSS
TESTS
1.0
Su
-
0-
0m
-J
z
w
0
NORMALIZED
BORING vp
MODULUS
I
FROM
SOIL TYPE
r
FIGURE
266
DIRECT - SIMPLE SHEAR TEST
OF TEST
TYPE
PROJECT
SOIL TYPE
%-
LOCATION
I~~~~n~~(,.
T-r
tc(Day
e
I
39.0
Preshear I
I
Initial
Final
I 353
TIME
STRAIN
(Hr. )
(%)
0.00
0.00
--
I
I
|
vc
,vc
n lOl
o..2q1
loo
O.
0o0
o ooo
- d. t0
- 0L
.__l
3
Q.e1
o.oi
C.of0.
0.30
0.o31
0.O3
O0.o4
o IH
0.o50
o.0o6
.3
.02
coO
.00oo0 O 13_
o.0r
A.ooo
i. ool
o.$1H
0.1S'
1.0031
0.070
O.'f
1.031
REMARKS
Ov
'vm
0.o00
J,0
0oo
.oa
0
....
2.
-
Stress
rh
Su
1.031
O. OU
0.50D
0.5o00
O.Sbo
O.$'o
0.S03
Q..
I. O.
.o3
.207
0.75'
0.2D74
-O.D'3
I.O'13
0.&96
0,111
O..
1.00
0.25
- O.03b
1.036 _ 0.7bI
A.12
0.5
I.25'
o.2bl
- 0. Oq1
0. IAO
2.00
o.2q3
-o.'4
i. 4,
o.1qs
O.$Am
o. ;Iq
3.0
O-IS
-0.0b
Lb
.
0.i53
005
6.60
o0..
ol80
0.
Ol
.so
o.31
i ....
aOf1
_
.300
.290
iQ
I.O
ao.po o0
OJllI
0.304
0.bb
o0.210
o0.st
0.
°2
-0.
O
__
_
.6S
SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE
_
_S
ce K
q67
o.
_
___
,
.. S13O...
o.(L.
.1*f7
)
Rate (1/ / r.)
T
|
oo
| I
7.03
DURING SHEAR
~.23LS4.T
-3
I
'I - '
I
!vc
2.11
DATE 10/82
tc(Day
Controlled Strain
2.:sa,
o.t,
O.o
I.
Cl/. ) I1~@'
c(%)_
)
H (
I
ooo
n.
0.__
.
oag6
)
.~~~~~~~
I
1
Th
o
OCR
DEVICE •e.,o.n
P&
.
.
r
0q50.9
0. I
oit
o.lq
0.2
S,%/
,
f
I w.
AO
CONSOLIDATION (Stresses in %k' )
-th
3.5
vc
olqr tl4,i
_
BY
TESTED
.
NO.
CKouS5
0.156
0.LS
0.14
0.316
0.l
°
o.87
REMARKS: Ev,
-a
3'
S'
'.i*
OF TECHNOLOGY
- A+ omx,m~,wlIad,
,
e,
dys
0·81
* 12.6
267
A
5
0
I0
V
z
-
15
-j
20
25
3n
vv
0.2
0.5
CONSOLIDATION
'Depth
oiL-<
67.0f~I4S
Soil T'ype
-uc
Sampl
e No.
'
5
2
1
STRESS
WN(/)
wL(%)
0WL (%)
0 At to or
eAt (
hr
Estimated
3t0
vo:
CR
wpp(%)
Remarks
)
&vc ( KY/cp
P. 1.(%)
£v°ol)
20
10
.
.,s,
vvm
RR
Gs eo
based on dieo ra
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
DS-20
S (%)
)gnfLcrve
50
268
_·
_!_
_:-_....
L---(r--:;L;L;'fII
_
--- I
T
":.
.. -
-4--
·-
-
.
-
-- r
--
.
,c·-.
ici
-'
.
.
I
-
_
_
L,-'t
.
=t--~-1-c
It) ,
-
-
- .
i
w
-i-----
--
T
.
T
i---
_
.
_
_
_
_
_ :::3=-
, .
__
___s
I
_ .___.-
__
.
I-~=i
-T-
.
.
I
I
z
rh
TI
t
cr
0.3
0.1
'i
0.1
n
0
5
-~
I.-
E
10
_
20
15
40
30
tz_.=-t-
I
.o
-
O.Y
·
·~__..=,
-~:-?,-:z_
_4_
+._w__
,_ _'
_
.
'|
i
I
_
.-
+-_
_
,
i
.
_
_
44
__
-0.1
b-?.
I
I
_ _
Il
I
-'
-1.- --- --f -- 4--- .; --. -r-
.
i
.I
4----_l
I
.
. --
r
L
:__ -tL-----
.~
~
_
- --- _-+_r-·--- -
-.--.
,_____--_i_________
___________.
__.
......-.--..
ii
-
'-'
'
I
.
~~-F·F;I~~~~~~~F,
~
~
~
Et. . =_'**'.
~.-i
r
,-.
-
ir
41
i-I/ ii /iiI
1-_
.
--
-..
0
5
10
STRAIN
SHEAR
Sample No.
b7.o-
Depth
Soil Type
.
voe
- 61
20
15
30
40
2' (/)
) 3-s tc(Days) .o
wN(%) 3.
&/"i
wL(%)
6vm('CKo
/
)
wp(%)
Estimatedv1o( /
.) L.
STRESS VS
STRAIN
v.C(
703
OCR :.
_
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
NORMALIZED
CKoUDSS
TEST
NO.
ao
FIGURE
269
cr
oouzJ
4-,
J
0ICooO
Z
I
I
x
0 a
c,
(n
u0
o
U-
l)
C.
O
(n
0
W
N
4
z
I
0
0
0
2
f-lie
FIGURE
c
o
a]
270
2000
.7
7
11
T
U
U-
.
.
U
c
_. _
zt:1
I
1000
U
E
_
IC__
._
|
._
U
3M
B7
1
U
to
. ._
. Xr ._
H
j
._
_
--.
_
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
l
l
l
.
t l
I. .
.
..
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
E_
,
.
+F
..
.
..
.
.
,
I
I
I IITIhtt
.. ..
....
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I I
I--I
,
,
I
,
I
I.
..
..
.
.
I .I .
..
..
.
.
.
.
I
I I
Th
111 111 11
I I.. I I.
,
.
.
.
I
~~~I .
I.I..
... . . . .
I
.
.
i
I
I
_ E . - - . - ..C
l
.
I
11 11 111 1
II
-
.
.
.
l
l
|
|
-|
2=8 :
f t
E
N
I
7
-I
t to
to·
.
....
....
800
600
to
t
UIP
...
.
C
c
F
11
... . ..
I
. ...
.
.
.
1
,
,
i.
-
.
.
i.
,
i.
-
.
I
I
I
z
S3
.
E
400
_
U _
i .^
s
.
z
..
r +
I
..
.
=
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
.
I
.
.
I
.
I
I
I
II
.
.
.
II
Eu
----
Su
I"
l
I I I i.1 -.iK i0I i1. M
M i
1
M 0 1
I
,
,
I-,
,
-'- i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . .
i.
I
K.
-
200
:i
111 I
I I I ,r
I I
I
- I I I I I
IIL
7 CD
C.I I
i i i i i i
I I I I I I
I I I
I
-
. I
:
IA .. L l
I
1 1 1I F I I
I I I
I IIII I
I
I I
I
I
TI I I I I I
I
I I
ITT11
I TlTI
I I
I
I
100
zZ
80
w
-_
+F 4
3:
60
0
40
I,-
0.
0
a
(L
0
4.
0m
-J
-J
0
.4
I:
c)
x
u
U
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.0
h /Su
Test
WN
No.
Sample No.
I
luD 1-5'
ao
i
Depth
b7.o
(%)
3.o|
N
(4
OCR
3.so
2.01
Symbol
l
iI
0
Z
Qm
w
I-
0LiCD
NORMALIZED
MODULUS
BORING
I
/Ao
FROM
SOIL TYPE
CKoUDSS
TESTS
13Gc.
FIGURE
271
DIRECT - SIMPLE SHEAR TEST
SOIL TYPE
BBC
TESTED BY
LOCATION
osa
-Sor
( '". Z.-r.
CONSOLIDATION
--
in
(Stresses
h
3.95
OCR
DATE 7/g2
DEVICE c.or--
se&
2.70.
VcF
1l
NO.
OF TEST CKuO5.
TYPE
PROJECT
=%)
1m
0.6b
-
tc(Day) 0.73 E/o) 3uc(%) tc(Day)
I w/.
I
3..9
I Initial
Preshear
Finali
TIME
I
1 3S.
.
STRAIN
(%)
rh
22.SS6
__
o.o0
oo
0.IO'7
0.12.
0.114
c
Ovc
o.
.
-0.0
i
.
o.172
n.7
-o02&z
_
Su
O'vm
o.odo
L
o
022a
.
/.°
0.273
aom
-320
.
-0O.z
0.521
-aoo
0.
0L-~
-0 1
.:n
-0.079
I.
0-_23
I.O
os
0 Ss
Q.2
O.
.1S.'
o.6'
R7
0.'30
0.013
-0.6Ag
-0.1iO
.
0.o
-0.!
a
1.13
2.3
_2--7
O.4
o-q3l
3.71L
V.."!j
H.9
O.OO
.13
0.oA
095
b17
0.777
0.272
JD?
0.1
0.29T
.96
.303
0.312
.321
i7,/
0.132
a3zq
0.13:
0.32
0-136
o.13,
0.3Q
,303I
.1
0..
0.20
o.OlI.
~'t
9.6D
1.~7
0s
0.¢29
<.7
-o.0
1.n
1.210
o.
O.,2
0.S7q
'.H7
-o.
1
1l
0. ?D
i,7
O. q,ISl
SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
o.t12
!
_
t.17H
-0.2*
_-$lb
1.23W
-. 22
MASSACHUSETTS
.i6
0.
0-11
.120
0.127
o
t.
113
lb.67
..
o
0.'71
.
.7
_
!
1.131
1-17
l Z01
7.o
.5
___
1
-0.131
-a7$
-0.Z2.z
-0.23
-a2'- t
4.2"
tb
_E37
o26j
o61
.r7L :O.M
Q
.7I
0.L2
.OS6
L.2b.
.. AL...
-060 / 0 .6 .
0.220
_
I
0.2sy'
/,
0.85
0
J
s3
e.
0./
REMARKS
d2S2.
0.2E3
.
0.027
0.2o0
0.4 1
0..,J
___ 7
I
1.f-
.v3L
JL
Stress
o / Hr.)
rh
1.024
-O3. 6
1 Rate
v
1.000o
.!oo.1'¥7 -.
'
I
v
AU
O'vc
o.1.
,.27
I
i
0.12
.t
2 5qy' | Controlled Strain
I
I
SHEAR
DURING
H (..,)I
I
I
I
0.2q' '
_J10
S,°%
I
( Hr. )
O.oo
e
.
.
.
.
P>q
REMARKS: Eu , 3
Su
'S%'r
OF TECHNOLOGY
- 4A naxIlu, l Load,
c' 2.3 ks.
C'%' q.
272
0
Z
0-
.J
<{
0
m
C-,
w
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
CONSOLI DATION STRESS
Sample
No.
muo -a
-
Soil Type
3 c
)
Estimated
34j
o At tp or--
WL (%)
C5o
wp (%)
CR
P. 1. M)
.
(
&vc
( q/C-
20
wL
Depth
* At
wK, (%)
10
hr
Remarks
YZ
/bO
rn7
.mam
Gs
RR
eo.
35~
basa6
l ,N e vt,-
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
()55-))
S(%)
/ola cvrvv
50
273
F==
-1
i--
)-r
.--
I
o.b
-I
. L-=
r--
· ·· 3
'1-
Ij---I
f
LL-
=1~ · -----!
--+-·
f
i
.
. =L
... JLL..
-- ''I-------·---TC----
---- r- f=`-- --:-: .---i- i- -;
I
I.
I _·
---
:
-
I - )-~
T
--
-- ·I-
----
_r
I
I~
T'-T'
i-.=
IC · C·
-- ·
=; .
---
1. .,
_ .
1::
=t+-".
=..ttII--nI-.t
-,
_
-
, ------- ]-'-'.. 77'-'1
----
1-
I
-'
'~ e ~
III
'-T ---
l
I
i----CI· ·---CI
.{
--
:f
6C
Vu
rvc
0.1
04
0
0
5
- mum
20
10
I
40
30
-okUE~·F~f.
Au
-0.'
ovc
- U.-j
0
t= -t=-
r":!!
IIICL-Lir·I
~f=-
tr~ rf-'
--
I
;.
:--
-i.-.
't~l
-·-f·
r-·-LICI-C-(-11
?-L
'-Clt"l.f·
I
.
-
e
· - · ·. 1---;
·--
-I·--·
- -
-
i
0
5
I0
Sample No. mvul-a wN(%)
qb.o f
Depth
r3C.
wL(%/)
wp(%1)
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
STRAIN
3...
,--
&vc(
T
;----r.-
----
-r--- C-
-rc·
CI--·-
-~~~~~~~~--
-;.
20
15
SHEAR
Soil Type
r·--n--
··
-
-
40
30
Y (%)
)
K/Gv
VCm C
-5
)I
oa tc(Days).p. ?
..
OCR
Estimated vo( 5/'"'
NORMALIZED
--
I-
STRESS
CKoUDSS TEST
VS
NO.
3.WL%
) '*6c
STRAIN
IL
FIGURE
274
I
Ii11
00
clI
0
IU)
0~
Cc)
w
cc
0
I,)
cn
0
N
4
0
z
c1
FIGURE
CP
0.
o0
.
._
275
2000
I
m
E
1111
I I
1000
I
0
I
I
U
*'PPU
EI!IIU
U U U U U
U
w
L
i
e
IL:
C.. _
I__
L
W
I
I. . . I
+
I I T T
. . .
lr rl fil iI
800
_
I
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
____ _
600
I
7.
I
_ _ _ = =I
=
=
_
400
=
=
_
=
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
_
=
_
_
=
_
=
_
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
=
=
=
_
_
=
.
Eu
=
su
=
_
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
_
_
_
=
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
=
=
=
_
=
=
=
=
=
=
_
_
_
_
. _._=.
.
.
t
LU
k
I
z
I
t--
=
=
=
=
=
=
____ _
____ _
200
.
_
=
_
=
_ __ __ __ __
____ _
_
.
_
_
=
==== =
_
. . .
_
_
_
_
. . . . .
I
I T I
_
_
_
I
I
w~
I
--
-
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
-
.
.
I
I
I
I
II .. .I II
I. . .
I
...........
............
.
I . . I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
k I
I
I
L.
I. . .
. . I
I . .1
I - --
1
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
5
9
1
11"
I
'I
I
4, I II
I I&N
I
14--Al I
I
N.
I
I 1z
I I I -
I
I
I I
____ _
I _
.
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
I I I I
I
I
I
I
__- _ _
:,
z
U
C
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-3
.. I . . .
I
i i i i i
I I I I I
, I I - , I.I .I. . ..I .
I.
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
I
II
I
II
---
100
80
-j
60
I
0
40
0.
0
0
CLJ
r:
I I
0
0.2
-'(,2.70
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Th/SU
Test
No.
o0
II
-D
4
!1
wNVC
Sample No.
Depth
"
1b.
,No.p
uo -
J
%
()
OCR
_
.
__/__.
.9
2.7
S.
Symbol
_)
I-
'
.4
z
0
<D
NORMALIZED
BORING
/Uvo
MODULUS
FROM
SOIL TYPE
CKoUDSS
TESTS
Vrlc
FIGURE
I
276
SHEAR TEST
DIRECT - SIMPLE
SOIL TYPE
CONSOLIDATION (Stresses in -.-
LOCATION SoCr,-goS
I
Final
I
I
w/
I
I 33.0
.0
.o
o
o.13
O-10
__
_.
.12 0 2
_
_
O.'iq
0.2
.ll
.lqL
o.1
0.31
I
1
v
a
Rate (
/ Hr.)
h
rh
Su
Ovc
'vc
o19.
I.Wo7
0.:_
.
0.0o2
0.21
I0O3 0..11
o.0
0.2Si
°o.oig
I.oIgq
0.037
o.25.
o
.o
0_26|
oao_
0 273
o.
..
0.A
0.a25L.
-0.12.
LI
O,
o.Z7S
-o.ti
til
6. 23S
o
-o.0
0.58O
0.o76
I.IF1
0.6Jq
o.o0
.i6
0.30
0.l
o_40
0.372
-0. 2m
.07
0.700
203
0.397
-o.02
L.233
.
0
1.i,
0.,4
-0.23
2
123
0.g
o./
o.'tlj
0..lg'
OlO
°llb
I32.
o .
o.___
b
.AS'
- o.
Q
.o
1
0.
0.2193
0.092
1.22
L.
0.2771
o.052
1.29
I2
..
5:5_
qb
.A'5
'0.~
0.t
-0.322
.L2
.O8 0. o
o
.
-o.13I
L312
o.13)
o.
-Zl
1.307
IL43
0.¢2
-0.2'0
.Z9O
0.131
0.131
0b.0
-0.,,
1.232
IS.5_
8.-71
.
O.'13-
o
-ooj,-
tSt
,o
-0.o-1
102r
_
_
SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
D 32
.J
o.:
_
0.$Z3
0.3/
_0.30
0 .12,
0g8
.%.
.Isb0.327
J. 3
.I
_
i
0
0.3'7
0.321
123 0.
L .
15.01
l
O 02.;
.^
O.b.o.o6
.02 .
J0
-0.
0.tl
0,.17
"0.171 .
_ _oo
I
- .o3
/.103
3.'H
vm
ao
- 0Q/3
_1
REMARKS
'v.
v-
c'o
/.ooO
.
0.oO1
Stress
Strain
0. 22
.02
75
23.072
-W.
I3.Do
SHEAR
DURING
I
7/2-
c(%)-tc(Day )
(,)I
I
DATE
Ovm
o
I.3_
-
3.68
H
IControlled
I 25z.36
'Y.OH
)
-
9.
./)
I
|a~
O'vc
(%)
O.
o.3
I
|Th
TIME
STRAIN
tc(Day)
i
~---
(Hr. )
-
I S,%I
e
3La1
I Initial
I Preshear
"vc
:
&-r,
Thc
OCR
6co
DEVICE
SP6
BY
TESTED
'BC
13
NO.
C.uDSS
OF TEST
TYPE
PROJECT
j
0.253
REMARKS:Eu . 3.
load,
-Ae m4liv
{t.s Ik
fTv 10.3
:
277
C)}i
( I
ti
-
I
II
I I
I
I ...
-
S5
0
IC
1'
z
Ir i
C)
-j
-
5
I
I
I-
PL
W.
w 2C
I
I
25
3CQ2
0.5
O.2
2
I
CONSOLIDATION
Sample No.
1wCV
Depth
_
o At tp or -.. hr
eAt (
STRESS
W N (%)
)
Estimated
3'.
vo . v
CR
P. I.(%)
Remarks
20
10
&v ( X3/c
WL(%)
wp(%)
Soil Type
_
I--
5
Gs
w((/,
m
RR
S(%)_
eo
b5seco0
d,0 O
fro t log
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
055-13
Ca)CVe
278
l-
!1
_.=I
-
.K
1.=.
-!c.-.
LE
---~U
;r-T-
F-r
M
.
^-t
_-
-
-: !I 1
I
,~.__
_
_
_
=
_-r
..
,_
w
- -
,--.
e _.
_~.~
--
-
-
-
I-
: IH-:I -D :
.
~ ~I
L
I
'U
-
_--l
--T
.......
. -
r-
C~
F
-
-
.
·
I-·-
I
*'
--
4-
_t
act___:
~-.....,.
:I
v-l--
-
~~
-
..
.
---- 1
-
IIr
.
ding__
__.-
..
, : , ,
a--
. - f--
-:z->+== -
.__
.: i
=t~-
.
__+b_·
=11 .
II I
- l *1:=-i-H
"H:
.__--
: , _ t= "I.:~~
.__.-~ _
I
I-
I
l
P
T'"
-
---------
-
e
--
-
AL
-
-
^
f---4----
l
I
h
v
17vc
o0.
9.3
0.2 %
rO.I r'-
0
r
I
5
(O
15
10
r-
't
I4,
by;.. A
Au
4
°VC
I ,!t -
.
t c--
-I
--
'
------
40
30
20
-_
L1t!
I
-t
--
-
.t-. ,
I__.
-o.4,
·. O.4
"!
- 0.1
--=r
r
-----t-.
Cj~~~b
- I:=tF-- -!4
.
. t:.*
=|
. ..
I
_-
.
,
AceI
,:: -
_
::7
I t,:=
- ---- :1
- I -a-r--
t~'.
' I _"
'
' _
0
0
5
STRAIN
SHEAR
Sample No. M'vo -a
WN(%)
Depth
WL(%
,16.o
Soil Type
-
+.
M. I.T.
.
)
3
)
-,.:z2
ni ) .3-D
Kg2
Estimated r
NORMALIZED
CK oUDSS
40
30
I2 (/)
yC(KLf%
_vm(
wp((%/)
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
20
I15
10
tc(Days)
-o-T
OCR
JYoY
b/"' ) /L.
"vo(
STRESS VS
STRAIN
TEST
13
NO.
FIGURE
279
0
0
C,
i-0,
cri
C,
0co
0
6
o
0
6
E
1b
w-
o
CZ
00
I)
r4,
z
N
0d
d
o
0
d
0
0
Iltb
FIGURE
m
%
280
2000
I
I
1000
800
600
400
Eu
Su
200
1
Z
z
80
0
U.
0
60
b
a
f
100
I
CD
O.
t
40
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Th/Su
>,.
0
0D
-J
-J
L)
0
CD
NORMALIZED
MODULUS
BORING Auo
I
FROM
SOIL TYPE
CKoUDSS TESTS
GGc
FIGURE
281
DIRECT - SIMPLE
PROJECT
TYPE
SOIL TYPE
13
LOCATION
BY
C4US055
SP&
CONSOLIDATION
v.s.
Solar
OF TEST
TESTED
...
SHEAR TEST
(A ,.. r)
7vc
NO.
GeAor
DEVICE
Trhc
-
go3
DATE
/8;a
in %i'c')
(Stresses
1-7
OCR
lb
-
vm
-0°
tc(Day
',/o) I!2
(%)-tc(%
(Day
)
)
f
w;¥o I
I '.8I
TIME
STRAIN
0.oo
_
·
Final
Hr. )
e
I·
· 3q.
Preshear ·
Initial
J
,
,
I
~
i
S,%
I
I
I·
I|.ql4
I 23.
I
I
rh
A
()
O'vc
'vc Ovc
°0.00
6000
0
00.oo
0o/6
0.1
170
-. o
0.18
o l
- o.o,
o.lq
-0o
*A10
Su
o27
-1.
SOIL
DEPT.
Cvm °vm
o
6.oa1 .
D.o
L.Y
021
.os .oEH
6.21
a
0oo A
I. Z.
I.1
0.3l
0.31f
0.03
6003
0.93
080o
-.Qm
I.tL
O
0.
0.S1
.2.
0.Z
0..
-oa2l
1.
0
-..
zQ
1..1L
0.75
-0aS q
J.
],f 5l
0. I1g
0 .!q
-063p.1.
I.4
T03
1J
43
t.51
ioqS .&
.S6L 0.a63
63
0.072
o.s
a
.3
a3.
'.7$
___
gtm
..3
1
0.
_
-C21
1I.li O.gj -o.Jq IX406
o.011
0.111
Ii'lso./O!
1
0.15
o.128
2t.Do
o.n
-o6t
I.&l3
0.67
-c3'?b
. 396
0.135
ol._3
'.i! 1
o.
0.161
6.17_
o.: l
0.177
MASSACHUSETTS
1
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
_
_
D.17
.
a:S"
2.2
o.QAak
RN
_.,,
___"
. 201
MECHANICS LABORATORY
OF CIVIL
_
.30
-411
l.2~
.120
o.
R E MARKS
_
-0_.1Q
-0.II3
Iq
-__
-
o. o o.
.7S
-Q0..23
J
.=s 00L']
' 7 -o.U4
.
2a9L.
3.79
h
.
Q241
JLL
Stress-
1 Rate ('// Hr.)
I
:.-21
/
Controlled Strain
I
7,r
0,z3
_0._Z
SHEAR
DURING
H (%)
LQ08Y .1r
REMARKS: E
St
I_
, 3'n
Sv- rin
OF TECHNOLOGY
fv% 12.3
-
282
o
'
10
z
15
15
-I
, 20
25
30
wv
0.2
1
0.5
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
Samplee No.
Depth
WN(0/)
wvo
s*
Soil T,ype
-
eAt (
hr
Estimated
WL(%)
Cvo D.,c
wp(%)
CR
Remarks
bo
_vm
RR
S (%)
eo
Gs -
6v4o
di,
,,'
ooo Jm
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
50
20
&vc ( K16/c2 )
398.
P. 1.(%)
0 At to
or
r
10
5
2
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
S$-/b
l
283
I
!
.0
At
11.
..
..
:.r
.
.
I
--
.
.-
._
-
l
A-...
I
II_.
-
-
-1·.)e-
.C-
__
l
--Z.-.-. IEJ.----.
T=-.:
,
_-
_.-~
E--P
I.-f
_=._
.-
=
-t'
I_
__:
::
.
,
!
-1
~
_*_
NRN
i--
__.
4.
An__
r
__·
_
--
. r~it-ad-Sta.
----t --t
- -- c
.
4
I
; I?!
,
,A.
1--
'c
.
_
,,
·-
I
:
l___
o.7
'th
&vc
0.5
l
0.1
0
1v
0
5
- .j vi
o s
20
15
I
-1
40
30
---"
I-
'.--.tt--
i~_;
f
L.
t
_ A_
tvd
Au
a6c
I
10
-oJ
~
,Lli)L-r~c~;,
i.*f
i;F
-;;
-o.'
-
;;
;;;F
,
-;F
-Zi
.
-1
0.2.
-
f
1---·
"F.,*
..
4.
--·
-·
--·
p_
t3L·~
t
0
0
--I
~
---
1.--4
HiCi .
r
--
..
-01.11
5
--~ccJ5-~ e'=tr~
~'c-~ .-rc·
i. .
E..;%It,,:=#tcte~-l
t1=, 1---r
-r
r-!--"
I
.
·
.1
10
Depth
tL-LL
1 ..s .
Soil Type
.
i-
- 4 --- . f -;_
I ---
i-
.
s
1. .,!rL·I
.
.
STRAIN
-
-
. --- - ---
i -- ---: I-
:Ir
ill "
30
20
15
SHEAR
Sample No.
i
40
(/%)
WN(%)
&.vc(%/.-
)
WL(%)
6vm('K /c
)
wp(/o%)
Estimatedyv
1.2L
tc(Days)
an OCR &03
KLMo(
I
) .Io
-
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL
M. I. T.
NORMALIZED
STRESS VS
ENGR.
CKoUDSS TEST
NO.
STRAIN
_
284
0
i
'..
_-
i:;J
:
!o 3
'iZ
= _ = _ = _en, ::,
IL :
--
- _: 'I
O=
I
D
m
__
w
_iS9
.w.. ...
.....
i=
o
=.=
. .
O
=F=::
n
-5
.0
2E
U
0
=
. . . . . . :.
|..
'4
-1
:
1
=
!.........
t
=
. ;
:
;-
IbQ IM 12
1*r
18
i==g::
=#! 1
V
s
g
.
u
1
1
i-'.;11iT
~iLi-:!:::_,.
....... ii~i: i;ci :{:
~ ;~!~
:'l
.
I;!!
_::t=h>',.
!;::~!;~
__1_ii
!; eI
. ..
:1
1:
ii
.
. .. .. :
.
,
..
Z
0
E
c
14
I",
4.
.
~!~l ili-:1;i
.s
.
.
.
.
['
. ... ....
..
o
,
.... ....
Oi':i
,:
E 1I
EF
'1l'l'
{
!:
ti_
rO
:
Pg9
=Z
I,:
,,
toi
00
-.*W
Ll
o
a
0
= T =$ :1 iF .2 O~
l
t=
I:'
0,
: t:=
1T5 O
..
i
:''1' ¢i !t
(il ifiiii!!i
l ;Ii: , ~~(:=t ii
}
..
.
=
4~~~~~
I
d
" ' _i1 _3:=11=
= I
i:1 ' ;il ;':.
=
l
!: i7
t2
d
O0
llbc
FIGURE
o
285
2000
lI
I
I
|
.
.
.
I
l-
._ ._
I
l-
_ ._
I
l-
__
._
I
w
_
l-
-|
._
_
w
lW
a
-F
I
I
r
I
C
H
II
7
-r
I
1000
E
E
:
.
Eiz
3
3
--·I
I.
600
--
C
:!
c
JI
400
Ti
Zi
7
7
=j
i
r-
>-
j
j
c
I-
-
I
5
Eu
t-
-r
i
i
C
L
_1
I3
I
3
I3
I3
j
j
L
80O
l
.l.l
. .l.l
i
II
II
l
l
I
3
i
i
=I
z_-
:
x
Ej;
3
Su
200
ii
II
I
-
II
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
- --
II
II
S.
=7
:I=
I
71=
I LN
0-Al.
. I .1-
I I I I
I
-
1=
I I I
100
S.
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
-
I I I I II I I I
I I
-
_
L
I
I
I
I
-
K
w
w
SI
LL II
z
w
-
-
9
3
E
b-
tt
:LLt:r_
L 1111
-
-
-
A
-tttt-tttttt-tl
1I I
I
11 I
I
80
-J
60
44
0o
IL
40
.
w
Iz
t
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Th
..
m
.
Test
Sample
/6
,AuO -I
No.
&vc
Depth
1.5
1.0
/ Su
wN
No.
0.8
OCR
1 37.s
17 ~/
Symbol
_.0
0
-J
z
I
U
w
0
w
u3
NORMALIZED
BORING
/wuo
MODULUS
FROM
CKoUDSS
TESTS
SOIL TYPE
FIGURE
286
DIRECT - SIMPLE SHEAR TEST
PROJECT
TYPE
OF TEST
BY
SOIL TYPE
38,C
TESTED
LOCATION
So/qr ,Js
.r 7
CONSOLIDATION
7vr
179
4
I(Day)
-
I
Initial
Presheor
I wo
| 353
I
I
|
I
e
e
O,
I
STRAIN |rh
(%)
'vc
0-
0.83
0.371
-o.71
2qz
,
_
__
_
_
SHEAR
Sqtrcs
_
v
O'vc
(v
Ovm
0.211
1.10
1.4i
1.171
3S
0.366
0.023
o.o26
0.033
.o00o
° 138
o. 3
.3
o.,f
026
oO7
0.17
0.053
.-
|
aS3
-0.3t
1.'3a O.
a6
a 67
-D?5
I
0.073
0.66c
o.
17S'
3
.53
b
O.O
-.
1.5'30 0.7q
/611
ao0b
Oga_2
-o0.
0bl
O
0.20 L
1.
Lll L
0.100
allb
.7q3
.Q
1.04
.
pas7
3
- 0.2
-ajA b
0.70
j.
-W.s
f-3.
-0.67
/bo
o.7
-0o.51i I
==DO
-O-.
_
;.S'
o
,713
I.7b
l-
0
____
/ Si to
- 5n21f
12.o
io.90
.'t
Lb
-_
o
t
MECHANICS LABORATORY
OF CIVIL
MASSACHUSETTS
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
_
0.00
O-. 0126
6o
i.oqg
I.J213
.1o0
af.:.rj
. a ii
......
| RE MARKS
Su
.
-0.01oq
I
Hr.)
Rate (C/
I
l
0.5sa
5.63
6. 7
DEPT.
__gw
2.I9
1.6
SOIL
1,.2q
Strnin
Cnntrnlled
oo
0 2
-o0.1/3
-o.lsr
1I.__ o._
l25'
7,r
_ _h
__
0. 1f
:-211
o0.26
0.318
j'
DATE 9/8.2
m)
DURING
i
.......
'vc
0.38
o.L
o
1.
07 .
e to
in W-
797
OCR
%
A"
00 °0°
0.33
(Stresses
7r
25's2
,
TIME
( Hr. )
DEVICE
sP&
nH,
I
I
I
Final-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
I
I
/9
O-q-7 VW iax ~,M)-t,(Day
U
,-/o
NO.
CKUU05S
OF TECHNOLOGY
0
8.10-7
0
.21
_
& 22S
l
o.jo
o.7
**2j
.211
. 1
6
P K
0.1
REMARKS: -u . 3rh.
5, S.frjwt
- 4f &4,x~t
1ad,
4.i 0.70 d4y5
., ¢(,,)s 19
287
-
w
>
0.2
0.5
1
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
~SA
vc
(0/)
Denth
~
w
r
f
.
LO6.o IQ.
qb.'t
g-~.
.
Soil Type
I-
At (
hr
rj /C,
~VO /4° ~.
wp(%)
CR
Gs
tAo\
vm
RR
Crm---
eo ..
bqv-d on C/ow
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
50
)
WL (%)
Remarks
20
Estimated
P. .(%)
o At tp or
(
(%)
w NN36
Sample No.
10
5
2
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST
No.
os0s-
S (%)
lov
/tj
Cvrvw
-
-
.
.*
b--!
_-_
_
0-q
!
:=I.0.4
: ---
. _
I-
. .
*, . _-
Il--t---·--t;
1_,
-;---I '
-t- L
_-7-·
--- - -- -
I
-
1--'_T--I---Ti
--,
_
_
~ 5·--
,
T-I-
:-
I,
_
.
7
+
·
-
T'-
.|
I
0.7
-c,
-rh
I-
*--·--`
r-'.
._,'·
_*
st
*- _-
._-_
_._,
.
,
i
=:I~--E..
_-
._-_
_
--
!:
-4. -
9
._
-.
=1*'--.
.
_ __
.·~
.
_
;
.
---
*__e__w
T
|,
-
-·
-
_
,
_,_---
II
-
._
-
.I
-
-
_-
I
z
_
.
+
_
__
.
-- ----- _'t
!-: _::1
--
--
-T-
_
___
s__
.
-
..
:3=
* If l
__
_
__
L-
LI.
__.
:
--
---
1I·
C,
v
I -_ _ _ .o
_
·F_*_ t -- ._ . --. -
-,
._e
I·- -
1
I
_4__
_
*--r
r.7,
288
-
. - -b
:
, +
_
,
--
-
05
cvc
0.3
I
0.2
0.1
0
0
5
- L.o
.
-.
-
f
10
I.
-fE-
.
I
1
!
,,·
i
-
,
-1,- -1 - i - i~-Li--i-iiJL-tI;~--)·;
r;
h-
to4-
Au
=.-
40
30
II-
20 -E
M5,I
-04
20
15
.1
-oh
..1 - -
- IF'
.
-;-
.
ovc
-cQ
'
-n.
::;I
.
-z·-tc?--t-·!-te--·-i
.= =:t.--- - -=7---z t .-lct~~
I
oI
0
5
10
Sample No.
un-
WN(%)
Depth
-/6-o 0+.
WL(%)
Soil Type
- 19Or
wp(%)
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.i .T.
.;. .
20
15
SHEAR
STRAIN
35.3
vc(
----
2'
+I-
t
...............
40
30
(%)
w.-
vm('K/,
)
1.79
tc(Days) -17
) i' 2'
OCR
Estimated &vo( 4/'
NORMALIZED
CKoUDSS
.iL7
) .. o
STRESS VS
STRAIN
TEST
IL
NO.
FIGURE
289
o
w WZ
O WV
00
J
d
.
l
, a.
U,-
0
V
8iao
U,
0
a:
0
0.
C
U
1o
w
N
_:
CP
0
z
0
0
6
b
~- ll~
FIGURE
O
290
2000
wI
I
._
I-
._
l
._
R.lm
i
._
.
:_
3
I
I
_--
_
I
I
I
I
_
I
t
I
I _ _-rr t :
n
._
:_
r
L-L.L..L.
=T-i-,
I
800
II
.
_
._
:i
I
i I
a
.e
:-
I
K.r
-W
I
I
3 3 3
t
-
I :- C_:_ : :_ . :_ r
--
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r 1 i i7
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
_ _ - :_: _ S_ _ _
r_E
.
._ ._
.
_
E_
_ _ _ E_ . ._._
._
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
1 11 11 11 1
11 1111
i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i o
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .I .I
I .I
.
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I.
.
I .I
.
.
I
I
I
c
z
600
|-
I I
Iic
I
n
IE t
I I I
1000
FE
z
z
I .
I .
-r
3
=I
3
400
I
E
7
=
=1
=1
Eu
3
3
-
Su
200
.
I
I
3
I--
.
I
I
I
I
I
E
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
L-
- ia
-I
-r
-1
---
=1
q;
j
i
:i
z
2
3
7ttt--
0
II X- a
I-
T..S:
-
E;
(L
zZ
100
-j
80
5
L)
60
w
I
I
I II
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
-
-.-.. L L. L.J-- - -.-.1. ..L L-
t- -
I I I I' *riyI
I I1 l
I
+1
rl I
11
+
+i
1-±
LA-
O
40
1(L
0
w
0
0
4
4
0.4
0.6
trh /
Test
19
Sample
I
al
vo
No.
Depth
|%
-
D
0.8
1.0
u
WN
No.
0
-
0.2
N
Vc
(N)
35. 3
OCR
I.71
Symbol
7.7
-J
1I,
z0w
0o
NORMALIZED
BORING
Avo
-
MODULUS
I
FROM
SOIL TYPE
CKoUDSS
TESTS
rM3C
FIGURE
291
SHEAR TEST
DIRECT - SIMPLE
TYPE
PROJECT
ROlL
TYPE
_ _ ....
BB
LOCATION
OF TEST
TESTED
BY
rvc
w/o
,
Initial
Presheor
Final
TIME
( Hr.)
- .
e
I
I
I
I
I
1.o3 v/o )
I
12.o
o.s'
,
o .O
0.26
o.o
o n7A
o.1ol
0.02
o.j
0.9g$
0.337
o.'oo
o.Do
0.0o3
0..
.
0o
o.o. 6
.Ob
t,11
oj
Iqo.
66
0.075
o.2s'
0.124
o.;74
O.5
0.s
1.g
O. g2
n l1q
,f
0.qO
aO..2
.
0.735
3.3.
.
S. o.s7 0.1 L . 0.
h.So
o.
7_
10
D.Qi3
o 70.
rl
o.
o.Jl
J.6'0
.L
O.3
0. f9
OIb3
.oo
o, o.q,
.
731
.2
)
.
_
(0
.
.
trnin
~ g
·_ g _
_
_
.
.
_
.
_
Ctress
M
g
_
.
.
__
/ Hr.)
h
RMARKS
REMARKS
--
C-vm
v
_
_0.%_
,___
__,
_
b2.
_
0.$30
.
_
o.$1_
0
0. i
_i
0.407
.370
.
o
.37
INSTITUTE
vmm
0.86
SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASSACHUSETTS
)
-
_
ao_ b2-
.
.00
in Yk.
Ob
0.671
0.s2
.Jg o. 7
Z.0oo0
O._
$3Z
o. o
_,
o.'tsq
o.0o
0.1
7'
DATE uI/A
o.g'o
om
0
.
. 7
I
.
.....
.ooo
0
/.00
/
Rate
ooo
2.00
.62.
.
a.oof
0.70
3.76
J
T
_.
Su
,,ml
I
_._
~
_
C-vc
oo3;
o.o 0.0.51
0.2.
0.31
s,
Cnntrnlled
V~~ggff
~g
O'vc
vc
(%)
o0.3
O.1
l
I
I
,
Geoor
/.
DURING SHEAR
I
25.39
I~
24.
I _
. 25'
~ ~~i
,
rh
ALL
(Hr.
-- ) (%)F
-- I " ~ --
STRAIN rh
.o,,I
H
OCR
X-l
c(%)_tc(Day
,
I
,
rhc
-
-
.
S/O
I
t3.c,
I
DEVICE
(Strtsses
-j'2
tc(Day)
.,i
i i
SP_
,,,_ CONSOLIDATION
/,mT s
NO.
CKol055
OF TECHNOLOGY
_
I
I
REMARKS:u , 31
Su
5; mrin
_
_
_
292
0-f
0
z
ILV)
-j
I
WI
nv
)o
CONSOLIDATION STRESS
Sample No.
Denth
-- U-...
qO- q
I
-8
/"uo
-.
(33c-
Soil Type
W
N (10/10)
* At
(
hr
ec (
5/c,
)
Estimated
1-13.0
WL (%)
6kvo
wp(%)
CR
P. I.(%)
o At tp or
3
Gs
b
RR
eo
Remarks
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
COMPRESSION CURVE
TEST No.
_-_
S (%)
I
S-
--
, -::t;-t-'
-~-
-
_
. : _:_:t t : t:
__;
...
..
c
· II~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _
l.. 1I
I
, ; . -
1----*$--~·----
;-::_i!
E . . .1 _ L-- --I
=
- 4t--.
-
..
f
%-,
.
. _
n
-
-i
_
IE
__l
-ill_
--t~..:e
$_7 _= _ :~:~-rsi:{~ ~ -:ri"l-,i~~
i
.
I
d4--d---p-d
e
293
· I-t.
!
-
i
.
Th
7vC
Iy
.3
0
f
T
0
5
--
I
o.%
rrvc
- - --
-
il
.1
Au
-
-
!
t
~ ~.,..-.
.2 a,
10
20
15
40
30
Zr--a;-·
II .
,-...._
.... .
-- I-_rr
_
.
,,.
__
--
o.b
_~e-
---.
-----. --
0.L
-
- .. --
- -
o.%¸
_
_· __
0
2~~~
0
_
i
-~-.- *.
--ir
:----.-- tH--i
C" ~~
~ r
_- _ ---t--__
!...
--
:
_
--- --_ ---
~
--- __-_ . ---
.-
10
Depth
Soil Type
wL(%)
9o-q2
--Mc
wp(%)
'--.'
_.
i
-------.-----
-
_
i
20
vm(
----- , ...-- '-
ii3
iiiii/i
40
30
X' (%)
VC (
,
-- -----
__-'-------'-
STRAIN
wN(%)
-8
_
-
;-_ _-_--
E-~
15
SHEAR
Sample No. /"o
------.--_
,j
5
-t
~
)
.sc
s. tc(Days)
) 2.
OCR
Estimated vo( -z.6
I
)
.
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M. I. T.
NORMALIZED
STRESS VS
CKoUDSS TEST
NO.
STRAIN
-I
FIGURE
294
CO
,6
^
_
_
__
r
_
Ft
b.
( X_O
_ffi
___i:=
i......
===
-a
I~
K
............................................
__
iii:
'.iii
Ctt--
ii:J
iiii~
r
ii~:
'.i!!
'-'SJ
s-
:,!!
!:
i. 1.. . . .
! i-
,_I
........
sCi-;rl -
c)
...
E
r,
I
In.
I
Ib I
M'
I 4
IIrI
*":
......
i;:':
..::,; ......
.... .' .
a.1
Z-
..
. ::
I0
4
O>
t =g it;5 1--1,t
[
t
.11'
I
oE
o6
,l
1;.
T
=
i
:
":;
,
:
-
.1.
I
' ,'
=
.
:
; '..
:...
....
1
:i ... 1. . .1 il..
'
_
_
,.
_
.
'
. . ..! ! ;
_a;~~~
C
w
z=
l:
I0+ _
_~~
IZ
Io
d
o
4 IIb
FIGURE
1
295
2000
--
I
IIi
III
IiI
I
i
't i
I
III
i
II
1 , .I ,
.i ~ .
i
I;
.. : ! .
Ir
!I- .
I
.
I
.
,l
1,.
Su
Z-I
j
, ,
Tti i t
.'
jT
r
'
I 7I
I I I I
·1.
E
I<
,
!i
.
.
1
T
r
,
:
|
i
.
t:
i
I
.
i
iJ
i
=tt=
:
111
:
.
EiEFE
i
1
--
I
I
i
;
I
I
I
I
;I
iI
ii
fi
II
i1
iI-
I
I
=I-
I
Ir-
I
t
.Ii
.iI
IIi
[
Ii
i
I
I
II
I1
iI
I
l
I
L
!
+
i .
,
'
i
F-
,
Li
'
E
I
t-
i1 1
li!
L
I
I
1
,,i
'
I
L-
i! !
-
i I
i
-1I,
--
I
L
I I
100
(D
1-
,,|
I
..
i
I
i-
, .i
-I
I
i
I I i
-4-
I
rg
-
,
i-i-
'
rx
..
i
tE
II
- ; I.
'
I
iI
iT# FB-c1
E
.,-
j
. .
E2
i
!. II i
I
i
iI
iI
I
1
.
I.,,1
!
I
i
I
1 '
i I T;I!;I'
.If.
I.
I II
1
,
.
l '
.
E
I
.
1
N I
-i'-,iI
7
T.ff,
I
200
1 TT
L
!i' i
I
t;
-- t-,
iII
III
..I.. I
III
III
I
;
"-
.
I.I
.II
III
Eu
II
!
I
.
1
400
iI
701
I -~
!
i
I
i II
'
I
i''
rn~~i
I~~ ~
i,frT~r
- iT
I~. tI Ir
m lI'-1
i'.
r .
I. i,
I
I
I
I
I
,-i
ITT11IT
!II
IIIIL
600
;
TT 1 TrrIT
l
II
800
i
i
II
1000
I
80
-J
i +
60
.1I
.i.
II
t
Ir
40
0
0
4.3
0
i,
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Th /Su
o
Test
No.
4
-No.
0
m
4
-J
L
(-I
No.
|Sample
M
Depth
I
f-9
Avo-
i!
__-Z
N
&vc
N)
v
3
E
z
Symbol
L(%)
4s-
'3.0 Z.n
-J
4
OCR
J'
_,
ii
w
I-
0
LAJ
NORMALIZED
BORING
MODULUS
/i uo-
FROM
SOIL TYPE
CKoUDSS
TESTS
13iC.
FIGURE
296
DIRECT - SIMPLE SHEAR TEST
TYPE
PROJECT
SOIL
TYPE
_ _ ....
68C
TESTED
LOCATION
.,IIr 5~v~
C.uo0s55 NO. x-
OF TEST
BY
DEVICE
SP&
OCR
Geo-
DATE
100
/fz
CONSOLIDATION
(Strasses in,rGI*)
tc(Day
T
-/.67 s
vc
o..
)
E/l
hc
)
O'vm
mo.
-c(%)_
tc(Day )
....
Iw'/ I
I1/'.
i
Initial
Preshear
_ s,%i
e
Il
Final
.
(%)
.00
000
0.o3
I
I
I
.3-ii
TIME |STRAIN
(Hr.)
0.000
.
h
Su
t 15
o 0.o0o
o_0 o
/.oo
._9_
0.66
o.979
0.16
o.726
0.975
0.21
0.L
0.o97
0.o2
oQ$s8
O-
O.b
.0
0911
°.b53l
t.?
o.a'35
ao7
o.0s
ojb
0.147
L.
2.6o
o.l'
a2s
0z q
3.o
3.
o,
0.18
03J70
0290
0. 6
0.720 _
0.
_6
as
t'
013
aiq6
o y1is
Oe o
0.5I
o..62
Pz
o.
.O&
_
_
P_
_
a.s 0.$31
.
°."Il
MECHANICS LABORATORY
MASSACHUSETTS
1
0.69
1
03eZ
l36
<^
- lD.Oo
0.6
OF CIVIL
REMARKS
Ivm
n.=$?
1.Y0
f.00 o
T
i A3
o. 3b1
._41
0.60
a.oo
o.31
3I.fo
o.1
or0
_f. _oo
o./65'
_o
I.o
o.16o
Stress
0.20¥
.o56
o.71
-
_
0.971
O.
SHEAR
-e7
Hr.)
rh
0e,4t
.
/o/
Rate
_s
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.
I
ave
0.08
.o00
DEPT.
6
0.12
as
SOIL
3q
vc
AzL
o.0o,
0.0
DURING
Controlled Strain
I
rh
)
/.
I
Qv
vc
0.07
H (,
I
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
REMARKS:Eu .
5,
OF TECHNOLOGY
S, n4ru
297
Z
3-
J
-
:)
)
CONSOLI DATION
Sample No.
Mu
-q
WN (/)
g5-c7 4.
Depth
STRESS &vc( /cj'
w
Soil Type
L
o At tp or ..
eAt (
Estimated
I/.
(%)
v
Wp(%)
. .(%)
hr
})
.
v
CR
Gs
-
RR
eo
.
Remarks
) hr
GEOTECHNICAL
LABORATORY
COMPRESSION CURVE
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M.I.T.
TEST No.
m-o
S(%)
298
rI
-
-
I
r
I
t
iI
i
t +-+t--+~ ---- ....!* ... .......
~-~-;I--~-t~fr:.
----- ? .
~---
J
* _ - +--?
1 4'
'=L-...----'------
--
_LL I
-
- --
-
jz-z4
::
------
7-
=
--
I
-
Y
7
-+_4r- --
.
.
-
j
_
---·- C---
II
O'C
-
------
.-
_
L,
,
-
0.1
-~-~Zt I`--
: -- 1
--
-.
5
_
_
10
'
=
20
_---F-TlF-l-·t+---lt'
1-,
I
_.
0o.
0,Vc
__
=
--
_t-.L --
+YP
4
0.2
t--------i----
i-
z-
-f-_____
j----i---.~~~~~~~~~~~~
· IF:;--'~~~~~~~
~
:~--
-
_-
~Q~~fliLJ
_
·--- ~~~-c--_-
.i__
*
_;
n---'
.
40
30
I
cc
-____t
-
,-
i
+
-
.,
15
-
Au
,
-
1- -:-t~-"
I
I
3,
-H=-
,
----. =-c----=i
n-- -T--I
II
1.J.1L
,
- -
0
.-.
_ .- .
~---t
W74Z~LC-------Z-----4---~
ZP--~----r-,i-:2T
-1-
-
f
i -----
-.
~~~~4--t~~~~~cz222z~~~~~~
A~~~4wzz~
t--~ ~~+t
- 1-~~1^---t --ft------f-----T
L _I
-- f-=_
I 7~~25-~
-:
I
I
~.t~-~----
0I
5
)
10
20
15
SHEAR STRAIN
Sample
No. MWo-q
De pth
Soil Type
r3c
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
wN (%) '-I
rvc(
(%)
4/,C L )~ .7Jr tc(Days)
w L (%)
vm( ,'4cq/c) .V r OCR ,oo
wp (%)
Estimated vo
(
Z2.,
ks)
c
NORMALIZED STRESS VS STRAIN
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGR.
M .I.T.
40
30
CKoUDSS
TEST
NO.
-2
FIGURE
299
40
~W~~ ~~ ~~~~ii
'!ii!.:'!:i!
i!!::F~i~.',:;i :iii~
:~~~ !h..%
i~..;
o w 00~~~
...i~!!."i;
~~~~~~~~~~
...... !!!i!
_o
4-
--
0
-Jo-~~~~~~~
z
w w
. .. . . . . . . . .
U
=' ;
.
.......
......
...........
;.~:i~i'!17;71!hibi
}::. ......ii ...:!-:F:;
W
0
(3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(
I .,
...... .... ....
'.-
.
.
.
..
:
:.
4.
,~ -:' : : ' ; ::
J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C,,,
:3_
o
b,.
_A
~~
~
.
!5;71
: ,
.,
:.
:::;;;
- --
.
.::
.
.7:;; "".
.
.
:
;;.
C
C
o
zc
I Cl)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
o~~~~~~~~~......
C~~~~~~~~
......
~. .: .". ., :
:.: , :.'.
Z
u,~
~
Z
5;
dCI.......
!: .:!i!. :;;
.-.
.... ..
:
0
~',
. . .: ..:::; ;.
. . .. . . .
:..... :::..:..
:::
..c ·... "......
:: l~~c
.! .; -.- .
..
...
. .
..
. .
. .
...
~
~
oz~~ ~ ~0V~
EO
.
..
..... .. . ... ..
. .
.
..
m~~~~~Ib
. .
.. . . . . . .
~
~
d
..
. .
. .
. . . .
. .. . . . . . . . . .
0~~~~~~~~lb
01
O
.. .
FIGURE
O~~~~~
300
2000
I
--C
-
-
_
|
I
--
-
'
r
_
I
FF
Ir
1000
l
l
l
I
Il
I
i
I
i
II
II
I
.,l :.B
,_
!!
!
l
I
I
T
.I
I_
i
1i
;
I i
iI
l
I
I
i I
l
I
I
i
1
i
_1
,i
l
I T
I II I i I I
; 1I
_
A_
4I
i i
;
r-
i
i
Ai
.m
...
t
t
t
t
,
i
';
t
I
'
iI
F
t
[
I
''·
800
600
400
Eu
Su
200
1
I
-'
i0z
-J
_
_
t
I-
_
4:L.
100
!
I
I
I
I
:t
_
I
i i i
I
II
II II Ii
II Ii
I I I I I I I I I I I
I
t
I
,
Ii
111111111
"IjL
;
I
I,
!I!
IIII
i TLr
iI:
I
-
i11
1iII
I I I I
i
I
1
i
I
i I I
,
i
1 1
-
I I i
1 1
!
I
I
I
6
-I-
I
I
I
ii
I - I
I
i I i I I
II !1 I1 1 I1 I1 I1 ;1i I
i
I I I I , I
41
'
i i i1
.
I
;
!
;
I
i I I. ..
:
I
1111,
I I
!
!;
I I
I I 11
i
11111111111i
[
!
I
1
I
I
: I I I 1 i i
i I i i ! I i !. I
I
i
I i
I
I
I
I
t
I
!
80
60
o
IL
o
40
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Th /S u
0
4
m
o
_J
-J
i)
0
C.
NORMALIZED
BORING
/1
MODULUS
o
/
FROM
SOIL TYPE
CKoUDSS
TESTS
3 c
FIr.IIRF