EVALUATION OF SHANSEP STRENGTH-DEFORMATIONPROPERTIES
OF UNDISTURBED BOSTON BLUE CLAY
FROM AUTOMATED TRIAXIAL TESTING
by
Axel Christian Luc Angliviel de La Beaumelle
B.Sc. in Civil Engineering,
The University of California at Berkeley (1988)
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June, 1991
© Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1991.All rights reserved
Signature of Author:_
v
\
Department of Civil Engineering
May 17, 1991
Certified by:
Prof. Charles C. Ladd
Thesis Supervisor
Certified by:
Dr. John T. Germaine
Thesis Supervisor
/
Accepted by:
Chairman,Department
.
Prof. Ole S. Madsen
Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Students
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE
OFTECHNn'OGY
J U L 1 i 1991
LIBRARIES
t ARCHIVES
,,/I,
2
EVALUATION OF SHANSEP STRENGTH-DEFORMATION PROPERTIES
OF UNDISTURBED BOSTON BLUE CLAY
FROM AUTOMATED TRIAXIAL TESTING
by
Axel Christian Luc Angliviel de La Beaumelle
Submitted to the department of Civil Engineering
on May 17, 1991 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
in Civil Engineering
ABSTRACT
This thesis presents the results of SHANSEP triaxial testing performed on
undisturbed samples of Boston Blue Clay (BBC) obtained at the Central Artery/Third
Harbor Tunnel Special Testing Program sites in South and East Boston. Background is
given about the sites, the sampling program and the laboratory testing program. The
automated stress path triaxial apparatus implemented for this research program and the
laboratory procedures used are described in detail. Data are summarized from the various
types of consolidation testing employed (CKo-TX consolidation, standard oedometer tests,
and constant rate of strain consolidation tests) and the stress history of each site is
evaluated.
The SHANSEP reconsolidation technique was used for a comprehensive program
of Ko consolidated-undrained (CKoU) triaxial compression and extension tests at
overconsolidation ratios (OCR) ranging from one to eight. Forty six tests were run on fixed
piston tube samples from South and East Boston and 13 tests were run on South Boston
Sherbrooke block samples. The consolidation phase of these SHANSEP tests provided
most of the preconsolidation pressure values used to establish the stress history at the two
test sites. These tests, plus nine Lateral Stress Oedometer tests, also were used to estimate
the in situ Ko and how it varies with OCR. The undrained shear phase of the tests provides
3
detailed information on the values of S and m for use in the SHANSEP undrained strength
equation, cu / o'vO = S (OCR)m, plus variations in modulus, effective stress failure
envelopes, etc. The same parameters were obtained at both test sites, but these differ
significantly from Resedimented BBC.
A companion thesis by Anne Estabrook presents results from a comprehensive
program of CKoU Recompression tests and compares her results to the SI4ANSEP data in
this thesis.
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Charles C. Ladd
Title: Professor
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. John T. Germaine
Title: Geotechnical Laboratory Director
4
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the following people:
Professor Charles C. Ladd, my thesis supervisor, for his valuable comments and
the intensive review of my thesis.
Dr. John T. Germaine, for his assistance in assembling the automated stress path
triaxial cells.
The sponsors of this project, Haley & Aldrich, and Bechtel / Parsons Brinckerhoff,
for funding my research.
Anne H. Estabrook, my laboratory partner. We performed a total of 113 triaxial
tests in a little over a year, and we are still friends!
My friends in the department for making life a little easier: Chris, Chuck, Coleman,
Dianne (bonne chance), Doug C., Doug L., Octavio (Jack-of-all-trades) and others.
All the additional friends I made here: Nikola, Nikos, Charis, Hayat, Yaniv,
Gebran, Riad, Babis and all the ones I may have forgotten. Thank you for the good times
and let's keep in touch.
Annabel, we had a great year despite all the adversities, thank you for always being
there.
Finally, I would like to express gratitude to my family for their love and support,
Maman, Papa, Laurent, Kerstin:
"Merci pour tout, un jour nous serons de nouveau reunis"
5
Table of Contents
Abstract
2
Acknowledgements
4
Table of Contents
5
List of Tables
11
List of Figures
13
1. Introduction
21
i. 1 Description of Central Artery / Third Harbor Tunnel Project
and Special Testing Program
1.1.1 Background
21
21
1.1.2 Approach for Determining the Engineering
Properties of Clay Deposits
22
1.1.3 Objectives and Scope of Haley and Aldrich
Special Test Program (STP)
2.
24
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the MIT research program
26
1.3 Organization of thesis
28
Background
37
2.1 General Test Site characteristics
37
2.2 Sampling Program
39
2.3
aboratory Testing Program
2.3.1 Radiography and Sample Quality
40
40
6
3.
4.
2.3.2 Classification and Index Properties
41
2.3.3 Consolidation Testing
42
2.3.4 Undrained Strength Testing
43
2.3.4.1 Strength Testing Issues and Types of Shear Tests
43
2.3.4.2 Scope of Strength Testing Program
49
2.4 Scope of Testing Program Conducted Under MIT Contract with H&A
50
MIT Automated Stress Path Triaxial Apparatus:
Equipment and Testing Procedures
61
3.1 Equipment and Software
61
3.2 Testing Procedures
64
3.2.1 SHANSEP Tests
64
3.2.2 Recompression Tests
65
3.3 Data Reduction
66
3.4 Comments on Testing Problems and Quality of Test r ita
67
3.4.1 Equipment Problems
67
3.4.2 Procedural Problems
69
3.5 Estimated Success Rate
70
3.6 Overall Quality of Test Data
71
Sample Characteristics and Distribution of Engineering Tests
78
4.1 Sample quality and Macrof.bric
78
4.2 Classification and index properties
79
4.2.1 Natural Water Content, Atterberg Limits, Plasticity Chart
80
4.2.2 Strength Index
80
4.2.3 Grain Size Distribution and Specific Gravity
81
4.2.4 Salt Concentration, Carbonate Content and pH
81
7
82
4.3 Distribution of Engineering Tests
5.
Evaluation of Stress History and Consolidation
Properties
5.1 Introduction
97
97
5.1.1 Extrusion Technique
97
5.1.2 Continuous versus Incremental Loading
98
5.1.3 Methods for Estimating a'p
99
5.2 Typical FResultsfrom CKo-Triaxial Tests
101
5.2.1 Typical Compression Curves
101
5.2.2 Typical Ko Data
101
5.3 Stress History Profiles
102
5.3.1 South Boston Stress History
103
5.3.2 East Boston Stress History
104
5.4 Compressibility and Flow Properties
104
5.5 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko)
106
5.5.1 Normally Consolidated Ko
108
5.5.2 Overconsolidated Ko
110
5.5.3 Internal Leak Effects on Ko
115
5.5.4 Estimated Ko versus OCR Relationship Used
for Recompression Triaxial Testing
6. Results of SHANSEP CKoU Triaxial Strength Testing Program
6.1 Introduction
116
157
157
6.2 CKoU Normally Consolidated Triaxial Compression
Results for South and East Boston
6.2.1 Undrained Strength Ratio at Peak (TC)
160
161
6.2.2 USR at Maximum Obliquity and Effects of Strain Softening (TC) 163
8
6.2.3 Effective Stress Failure Envelope (TC)
163
6.2.4 Other parameters (TC)
163
6.3 CKoU Normally Consolidated Triaxial Extension
Results for South and East Boston
6.3.1 Undrained Strength Ratio at Peak (TE)
164
166
6.3.2 USR at Maximum Obliquity and Effects of Strain Softening (TE) 167
6.3.3 Effective Stress Failure Envelope (TE)
167
6.3.4 Other parameters (TE)
168
6.4 CKo U Overconsolidated Triaxial Compression and Extension
Results for South and East Boston
6.4.1 Overview of Effect of OCR on Undrained Shear Behavior
170
6.4.2 Undrained Strength Ratio
171
6.4.3 Effective Stress Failure Envelopes
174
6.4.4 Other Parameters
177
6.5 Summary and Conclusions
7.
170
177
6.5.1 Normally Consolidated Results
178
6.5.2 Overconsolidated results
179
Comparison with Prior SHANSEP Triaxial Data on
Resedimented BOSTON BOSTON CLAY
221
7.1 Introduction
221
7.2 Preparation Technique
222
7.3 Index Properties
222
7.4 Consolidation Phase
223
7.5 Comparison with SHANSEP Triaxial Tests Results on BBC III
224
7.5.1 Normally Consolidated Triaxial Tests
in Compression and Extension
224
9
7.5.2 Overconsolidated Triaxial Tests
in Compression and Extension
7.6 Summary and Conclusions
8.
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
8.1 Summary and Conclusions
227
239
239
8.1.1 Background
239
8.1.2 Equipment and Procedures
242
8.1.3 Sample Characteristics and Distribution of Tests
242
8.1.4 Stress History and Consolidation Properties
242
8.1.5 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko)
243
8.1.6 SHANSEP CKoU Test Results
243
8.1.7 Comparison with Resedimented BBC III
246
8.2 Recommendations
9.
226
List of References
Appendix A. Equipment and Procedures
A. 1 Components of the MIT Automated Stress Path Triaxial Apparatus
247
250
253
254
A.1.1 Triaxial Cell and Pressure Control Cylinders
254
A.1.2 Control Motors
256
A.1.3 Motor Control Box
256
A.1.4 Personal Computer
256
A.1.5 Central Data Acquisition Control Unit
257
A.2 Control Algorithm
257
A.2.1 General Operation
257
A.2.2 Pressure Up
258
10
A.2.3 Back Pressure Saturation
259
A.2 4 B Value Check
260
A.2.5 Consolidation
260
A.2.6 KO Swelling
262
A.2.7 Hold Stress
262
A.2.8 Shear
263
A.3 Triaxial Testing Procedure
264
A.3.1 Specimen Preparation and Setup
264
A.3.2 Pressure Up
266
A.3.3 Saturation and B value
266
A.3.4 Consolidation
267
A.3.5 Shearing
268
A.3.6 Takedown
268
A.4 Data Reduction
269
A.4.1 Calculations
269
A.4.2 Corrections
269
A.4.3 Changes to Input File
272
A.4.4 Plotting of Results
273
A.5 Documentation of Tests
274
Appendix B.
Plots from SHANSEP CKoU Triaxial Tests
321
Appendix C.
Plots from Lateral Stress Oedometer Tests
493
11
List of Tables
1-1 Geotechnical
ssues to be Evaluated (Modified from H&A, 1990)
1-2 List of Special Testing Program Subcontractors
30
30
1-3 Summary of Tests to be Performed at MIT and
by H&A at the South Boston Test Site
31
1-4 Summary of Tests to be Performed at MIT and
by H&A at the East Boston Test Site
32
1-5 Summary of Contents of SM Theses by de La Beaumelle
and Estabrook on MIT Research Project with H&A
33
2-1 Overview of Consolidation Test Program
51
2-2 Scope of MIT Triaxial Testing Program (Contract with H&A)
52
4-1 Distribution of CKo-TX and LSO Tests:
South Boston Tube Samples (Page 1 of 3)
83
4-1 Distribution of CKo-TXand LSO Tests:
South Boston Tube Samples (Page 2 of 3)
84
4-1 Distribution of CKo-TX and LS'O Tests:
South Boston Tube Samples (Page 3 of 3)
85
4-2 Distribution of CKo-TX and LSO Tests: East Boston Tube Samples
86
4-3 Distribution of CKo-TX and LSO Tests: South Boston Block Samples
87
12
5-1 Values of a'p Used for South Boston Stress History Profile
117
5-2 Normally Consolidated Ko from SHANSFP
CKoU Triaxial Tests (Page 1 of 2)
118
5-2 Normally Consolidated Ko from SHANSEP
CKoU Triaxial Tests (Page 2 of 2)
119
6-1 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Shear Data (Page 1 of 3)
182
6-1 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Shear Data (Page 2 of 3)
183
6-1 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Shear Data (Page 3 of 3)
184
6-2 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Shear Data (Page 1 of 2)
185
6-2 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Shear Data (Page 2 of 2)
186
6-3 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUC and CKoUE Triaxial Data at OCR = 1
187
6-4 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUC and CKoUE Triaxial Data at OCR = 1
Excluding Tests with In Situ OCR > 1.5 or 2
7-1 Index Properties of Resedimented Boston Blue Clay III (From Seah, 1990)
188
229
7-2 Summary of SHANSEP CKoUC and CKoUE
Triaxial Data at OCR = 1 for BBC III (From Sheahan, 1991)
230
A-1 Formulae Used in Data Reduction Program
275
B-1 SHANSEP CKo-TX Specimen and Consolidation Test Data (Page 1 of 4)
322
B-1 SHANSEP CKo-TX Specimen and Consolidation Test Data (Page 2 of 4)
323
B-1 SHANSEP CKo-TX Specimen and Consolidation Test Data (Page 3 of 4)
324
B-1 SHANSEP CKo-TX Specimen and Consolidation Test Data (Page 4 of 4)
325
13
List of Figures
1-1
Location of Test Sites (after H&A, 1990)
34
1-2 Proposed Layout of Field Program at South Boston Test Site
35
1-3 Proposed Layout of Field Program at East Boston Test Site
36
2 1
Special Test Program: Soil Profile and Sample Locations at South Boston
53
2-2
Special Test Program: In Situ Stresses and
Approximate OCR Profile at South Boston
54
2-3
Special Test Program: Soil Profile and Sample Locations at East Boston
55
2-4
Special Test Program: In Situ Stresses and
Approximate OCR Profile at East Boston
56
2-5
Sample Radiographs
57
2-6
Consolidation Procedures for Laboratory
CKoU Testing (after Ladd et al. 1977)
2-7
Stress Systems Achievable by Shear Devices for
CKoU Testing (modified from Germaine, 1982)
2-8
58
59
Undrained Strength Parameters for Assessing Bottom
Stability for Excavations in Boston Blue Clay
60
3-1
Schematic of the MIT Automated Stress Path Triaxial Apparatus
73
3-2
Example of Poor Stress Path Affected by System Noise
74
3-3 Example of Good and Bad Axial Load Rate Control
75
3-4
76
Example of Effect on Stress Path of Rate Change (Extreme Case)
14
3-5 Example of Poor Compression Curve
resulting from Incorrect axial Load Gain Rate
77
4-1
South Boston STP: Elevation vs. Water Content and Torvane Strengths
88
4-2
East Boston STP: Elevation vs. Water Content and Torvane Strengths
89
4-3
South Boston STP: Elevation vs. Plasticity Index,
Liquidity Index and Pore Fluid Salt concentration
4-4
90
East Boston STP: Elevation vs. Plasticity Index,
Liquidity Index and Pore Fluid Salt concentration
91
4-5
South and East Boston STP: Plasticity Chart
92
4-6
South Boston STP: Elevation vs. Grain Size Distribution
93
4-7
South Boston STP: Elevation vs. Specific Gravity
94
4-8
South Boston STP: Carbonate Content Profile
(by DeGroot, U. Mass., Amherst)
4-9
South and East Boston STP: Elevation vs. pH
95
96
5-1 Compression Curve from Early Standard Oedometer Test by H&A
120
5-2 Example of Continuous Compression Curve from CKo-TX Test
121
5-3
Example of Continuous Compression Curve from CRSC Test
122
5-4
Example of Arthur Casagrande o'p Construction From CKo-TX081
123
5-5
Example of Strain Energy o'p Construction From CKo-TX081
124
5-6
Comparison of Estimation of oY'p
from Strain Energy and
Casagrande Methods from South Boston Consolidation Tests
5-7
5-8
125
Comparison of Compression Curves from South Boston
Tube Samples at Different Elevations
126
Typical Ko Data from CKo-TX Test
127
5-9 Typical Ko vs. OCR Data from CKo-TX Test
128
15
5-10 South Boston Stress History
129
5-11 East Boston Stress History
130
5-12 South Boston Elevation vs. Virgin Compression Ratio for CKo-TX Tests
131
5-13 East Doston Elevation vs. Virgin Compression Ratio for CKo-TX Tests
132
5-14 South Boston Elevation vs. Axial Strain at Overburden
Stress from CKo and Typical Oedometer Tests
133
5-15 East Boston Elevation vs. Axial Strain at Overburden
Stress from CKo and Typical Oedometer Tests
134
5-16 Project Elevation vs. NC Ko and CR from CKo-TX Tests
135
5-17 NC Ko vs. CR from Seven Tests
136
5-18 NC Ko vs. Plasticity Index
137
5-19 NC Ko vs. 1 - sin
138
'm
5-20 NC Ko vs. Friction Angle at Maximum Obliquity, 'm
139
5-21 Log Ko vs. Log OCR for TX092 and TX097
140
5-22 Log Ko vs. Log OCR for TX067
141
5-23 Log Ko vs. Log OCR for LSO16 and LSO18
142
5-24 Log Ko vs. Log OCR for All CKo-TX Tests
143
5-25 Log Ko vs. Log OCR for All LSO Tests
144
5-26 Value of n vs. Plasticity Index, Includind Data from Ladd et al. (1977)
145
5-27 Value of n vs. OCR
146
5-28 Value of n vs. NC Ko Value for CKo-TX and LSO Tests
147
5-29 Ko vs. Log OCR for LSO10-11
148
5-30 Ko vs. Log OCR for LSO15-16
149
5-31 Ko vs. Log OCR for LSO017-18
150
5-32 Possible Variations in n value During Unloading for LSO Tests
151
5-33 Ko vs. OCR for Haney Sensitive Clay Durind
Unloading and Reloading (Campanella and Vaid, 1972)
152
16
5-34 Reloading Ko values vs. OCR from LSO Testing
153
5-35 Effects of Leakage on Strain Behavior During
Secondary Compression in Four CKo-TX Tests
154
5-36 Ko vs. OCR Relationship Used for Recompression Tests
155
5-37 Ko vs. OCR relationship
156
6-1
Typical Effective Stress Path from NC SHANSEP CKoUC
Triaxial Test as Illustrated by Test # 55
6-2
Typical q/O'vm, Au/O'vm and 4D'vs. axial Strain from SHANSEP
CKoUC Triaxial Tests as Illustrated by Test # 55
6-3
189
190
South Boston Project Elevation vs. Kc, USR and (D'mfrom NC
SHANSEP CKoUC and CKoUE Triaxial Tests
191
6-4 East Boston Project Elevation vs. Kc, USR and 'm from
NC SHANSEP CKoUC and CKoUE Triaxial Tests
192
6-5
USR and 'f at Peak vs. Kc from NC SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
193
6-6
USR and )D'm
at MO vs. Kc from NC SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
194
6-7
Strain at failure vs. Kc from NC SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
195
6-8 Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. Kc from
NC SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
6-9
196
NC qf/'vc vs. In Situ OCR from SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
197
6-10 Normalized Stresses at Peak from SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
198
6-11 Normalized Stresses at MO from SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
199
6-12 SB and EB Project Elevation vs. NC Young's Modulus
from SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests
6-13 Young's Modulus vs. Kc from NC SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
200
201
6-14 Typical Effective Stress Path from NC SHANSEP CKoUE
Triaxial Test as Illustrated by Test # 81
202
17
6-15 Typical q/('vm, Au/C'vm and 1' vs. axial Strain from SHANSEP
CKoUE Triaxial Tests as Illustrated by Test # 81
203
6-16 USR and 'f at Peak vs. Kc from NC SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
204
6-17 NC qf/a'vc vs. In Situ OCR from SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
205
6-18 Normalized Stresses at MO from SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
206
6-19 Strain at failure vs. Kc from NC SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
207
6-20 Young's Modulus vs. Kc from NC SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
208
6-21 Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. Kc from
NC SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
209
6-22 Typical Effective Stress Path from NC and OC SHANSEP CKoUC/E
Tests as Illustrated by Tests # 34, 55, 67, 81, 92 and 94
210
6-23 Typical q/t'vm and Au/a'vmvs. Axial Strain from NC and OC SHANSEP
CKoUC Triaxial Tests as Illustrated by Tests # 34, 55 and 94
211
6-24 Typical Friction Angle vs. Axial Strain from NC and OC SHANSEP
CKoUC Triaxial Tests as Illustrated by Tests # 34, 55 and 94
212
6-25 Typical q/o'vm and Au/c'vmvs. Axial Strain from NC and OC SHANSEP
CKoUE Triaxial Tests as Illustrated by Tests # 67, 81 and 92
213
6-26 Typical Friction Angle vs. Axial Strain from NC and OC SHANSEP
CKoUE Triaxial Tests as Illustrated by Tests # 67, 81 and 92
214
6-27 Undrained Strength Ratio vs. OCR from SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
215
6-28 Undrained Strength Ratio vs. OCR from SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
216
6-29 Normalized Stresses at Peak and MO from Overconsolidated
SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
6-30 Axial Strain at Failure vs. OCR from SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests
217
218
6-31 Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. OCR from
SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests
219
18
6-32 Young's Modulus E50/d'vcvs. OCR from
SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests
7-1
Compression Curves for BBC(`III from Oedometer Tests (From Seah, 1990)
7-2
Log USR vs. Log OCR for Natural BBC and BBC III from
SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
220
231
232
7-3 Log USR vs. Log OCR for Natural BBC and BBC III from
SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial 'rests
7-4
Effective Stress Envelopes at Peak for Natural BBC and BBC III
from SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
7-5
234
Effective Stress Envelopes at MO for Natural BBC and BBC III
from SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
7-6
233
235
Effective Stress Envelopes for Natural BBC and BBC mIfrom
SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
236
7-7 Axial Strain at failure vs. OCR for Natural BBC and BBC III from
SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests
7-8
237
Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. OCR for Natural BBC and BBC III
from SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests
238
A-1
Detail of MIT Triaxial Cell
276
A-2
Preparation of Block Samples - Block Sample in Protective Cover
277
A-3
Preparation of Block Samples - Removal of Protective Cover
278
A-4 Preparation of Block Samples - Outermost layer scraped off;
one side flattened
A-5
279
Preparation of Block Samples - Wax paper on flat surface;
preparing to lay sample down
A-6 Preparation of Block Samples - Laying Block Down
280
281
19
A-7
Preparation of Block Samples - Slicing off one layer
282
A-8
Preparation of Block Samples - removing top layer
283
A-9 Preparation of Block Samples - Halving layer
284
A-10 Preparation of Block Samples - Covering block with wax and plastic wrap
285
A-11 Preparation of Block Samples - Evidence of disturbance
286
A-12 Diagram of Specimens Cut from Block Sample
287
A-13 Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Trimming specimen in mitre box
288
A-14 Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Measuring diameter of specimen
289
A-15 Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Specimen installed on pedestal
290
A-16 Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Filter strips in place
291
A- 17 Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Menbranes in place
292
A- 18 Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Cell filled with oil - test begins
293
A-19 Application of Filter Strip Correction for Triaxial Compression Tests
294
A-20 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Data Sheet - Page 1 of 3
295
A-21 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Data Sheet - Page 2 of 3
296
A-22 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Data Sheet - Page 3 of 3
297
A-23 Example of Typical Recompression Triaxial Test Worksheet - PDage1 of 3
298
A-24 Example of Typical Recompression Triaxial Test Worksheet - Page 2 of 3
299
A-25 Example of Typical Recompression Triaxial Test Worksheet - Page 3 of 3
300
A-26 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 1 of 4
301
A-27 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 2 of 4
302
A-28 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 3 of 4
303
A-29 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 4 of 4
304
A-30 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Plot - Page 1 of 3
305
A-31 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Plot - Page 2 of 3
306
A-32 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Plot - Page 3 of 3
307
A-33 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 1 of 7
308
20
A-34 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 2 of 7
309
A-35 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 3 of 7
310
A-36 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 4 of 7
311
A-37 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 5 of 7
312
A-38 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 6 of 7
313
A-39 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 7 of 7
314
A-40 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot.- Page 1 of 6
315
A-41 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot.- Page 2 of 6
316
A-42 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot.- Page 3 of 6
317
A-43 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot.- Page 4 of 6
318
A-44 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot.- Page 5 of 6
319
A-45 Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot.- Page 6 of 6
320
Appendix B Figures
321-492
Appendix C Figures
494-499
21
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Description of Central Artery / Third Harbor Tunnel Project and Special
Testing Program
The Central Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/T) Project is a $5 billion, multiyear project currently underway in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary objective of the
project is to decrease congestion in the Boston area by: 1) depressing a portion of Interstate
93 (called the Central Artery) through the downtown; and 2) extending Interstate 90 (the
Massachusetts Turnpike) via a tunnel below the Boston harbor to provide a third tunnel
connection with Logan airport. A joint venture of Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff (B/PB)
are managing the CA/T project for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works.
One early phase of the project consists of geotechnical investigations. The total
alignment of the project was divided into five areas for purposes of geotechnical
investigations, with contracts for each area being awarded to geotechnical consulting firms.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (H&A) of Cambridge, MA has responsibility for two of the five
areas (Areas 01 and 02).
1.1.1 Background
Most of the alignment within Areas 01 and 02 includes a marine clay deposit,
known locally as Boston Blue Clay (BBC). A representative stratigraphy consists of: 15 to
40 feet of miscellaneous fill, organic soil and/or marine sand; from 25 feet to 100 feet of
Boston Blue Clay; various types of glacial deposits, including glacial till; and argillite
bedrock. The upper portion of the BBC deposit is generally quite firmndue to desiccation,
22
but becomes progressively softer with depth and may be near normally consolidated within
the lower portion. The roadway elevations vary significantly, and include a sunken tube
tunnel under Boston harbor, cut-and-cover tunnel sections, U-shaped "boat" sections, at
grade sections, embankments and viaducts.
Construction involves a wide variety of geotechnical problems. Examples include
the design of temporary and permanent lateral support systems and assessment of bottom
stability for deep excavations, and predictions of both short and long term deformations for
the boat sections. Moreover, the overall size and cost of the project, combined with
unprecedented excavation depths within the BBC, warrant use of the most advanced design
analysis rather than reliance on empirical techniques. This in turn requires highly reliable
estimates of the engineering properties of Boston Blue Clay.
H&A identified a list of geotechnical design issues and the corresponding
engineering properties of BBC that are summarized in Table 1-1. Accurate determination of
these parameters, especially undrained stress-strain-strength properties, was recognized as
being vital to the safe, timely and economical completion of these sections of the CA/T
project.
1.1.2 Approach for Determining the Engineering Properties of Clay
Deposits
The common approach for a project of this type always includes a combination of
laboratory tests run on undisturbed samples and in situ testing. However, the exact nature,
scope, and objectives of each component vary considerably depending upon local
conditions, the experience and expertise of the geotechnical firm, and the challenge of the
project. For example, typical practice for characterizing Boston Blue Clay has generally
focused most heavily on conventional laboratory testing (e.g., standard oedometer and
23
triaxial tests), the Standard Penetration Test, and perhaps another in situ test such as the
Menard pressuremeter or field vane.
As a general rule, laboratory testing is best suited for determination of most of the
engineering properties listed in Table 1-1. However, this requires specialized testing in
order to minimize the adverse effects of sample disturbance and to properly account for
stress-strain-strength anisotropy. Also, such laboratory testing is both expensive and time
consuming and hence is restricted to representative samples. On the other hand, in situ
penetration testing can obtain essentially continuous data at relatively low cost and is
therefore best suited to assess spatial variations in the general nature of clay, i.e., how its
"strength" changes with depth and along the alignment. But in situ penetration tests cannot
produce reliable strength-deformation properties due to the empirical nature of existing
intrepretation techniques. However, some specialized in situ tests may be better suited to
measure certain properties such as the in situ coefficient of earth pressure at rest (Ko).
Because of the unusual scope and complexity of the CA/T Project, Haley & Aldrich
developed th Special Testing Program (STP) described in Section 1.1.3. The following
gives a brief summary of its objectives and rationale:
1. Develop a very comprehensive set of soil properties at two representative sites
using state-of-the-art sampling techniques and a variety of advanced laboratory
testing devices, including automated triaxial stress path cells. This new data set
will be compared to existing information (mostly obtained at MIT on
Resedimented BBC) and to results from conventional lab testing programs. And
most importantly, correlations between Normalized Soil Properties (NSP) and
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) can be used throughout the alignment with
minimal additional testing.
24
2. Use special in situ testing devices to assess those properties that are difficult to
obtain from laboratory testing, such as initial modulus and Ko. This includes
earth pressure cells (EPC) and self-boring pressuremeter (SBP) tests.
3. Evaluate the capability of new in situ penetration devices, such as the piezocone
penetrometer (CPTU) and Marchetti dilatometer (DMT), to assess spatial
variations in strength and/or stress history.
1.1.3 Objectives and Scope of H&A Special Test Program (STP)
The three main objectives as outlined by H&A's report entitled "Overview of
Planned Special Laboratory and Field Testing Program" ( February, 1990) are as follows:
1. Measure the engineering properties of the BBC using both Recompression and
SHANSEP testing methods to develop Normalized Soil Properties (NSP)
correlations using very high quality samples.
2. Attempt to develop correlations between engineering properties obtained from
state-of-the-art laboratory testing on very high quality samples and properties
obtained from more routine tests on conventional piston tube samples.
3. Attempt to develop reliable correlations between clay engineering properties
determined
from laboratory and in situ tests.
The scope of the STP as initially defined by H&A in February of 1990 involved
nine subcontractors
and hundreds of field and lab tests. Table 1-2 summarizes
organizations involved with each testing activity. The sampling and field testing programs
were to take place at two sites, called South Boston and East Boston, whose locations are
shown in Fig. 1-1.
25
Field Testing Program
At South Boston, the program called for two borings to obtain fixed piston tube
samples at 8 - 10 foot intervals through the clay layer plus one 24 inch -- 30 inch slurry
stabilized caisson from which 9 inch diameter undisturbed block samples would be taken at
the same elevations as the tube samples. Piezometers were to be installed in the boreholes
for measurement of in situ pore pressures and for possible use in hydraulic fracturing tests
to estimate K0 . Multiple tests of each method were specified to evaluate repeatability and
provide some redundancy in case of questionable data. Figure 1-2 shows a plan of the
proposed field program at South Boston as well as a list of types of test and approximate
numbers.
At East Boston, the testing program was similar except that no block samples were
to be taken. Figure 1-3 shows a plan and list of the East Boston field program.
Laboratory Testing Program
All of the laboratory testing specified was to be performed either by H&A, J.T.
Germaine & Associates, or MIT. Haley & Aldrich was responsible for the bulk of the
"conventional" triaxial and oedometer tests as well as most of the index tests. J.T.
Germaine & Associates radiographed all of the samples and performed a program of Ko
consolidated-undrained
direct simple shear (CKoUDSS) and constant rate of strain
consolidation (CRSC) tests on the samples. MIT refers to a contract between H&A and
MIT's Office of Sponsored Research Programs. Under this contract, MIT would construct
several automated stress path triaxial cells and then conduct special Ko consolidatedundrained (CKoU) and drained (CKoD) triaxial tests to develop strength-deformation
properties of BBC as a function of OCR, the applied stress system, and the drainage
26
conditions during shear. Tests to estimate the in situ Ko and how it varies with OCR would
also be run using the automated triaxial cells and/or lateral stress oedometers.
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 summarize the laboratory tests outlined for H&A and MIT on
samples obtained from the South Boston and East Boston sites, respectively. Note that in
these tables tests performed by J.T. "Germaine& Associates are included under the MIT
heading.
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the MIT Research Program
The first objective of the MIT Research Program was to design and construct four
automated stress path triaxial cells. This task represented most of the initial we'k on the
project and was absolutely essential for successful execution of the unprecedented number
of planned triaxial tests. The second task was to perform an experimental program having
the following objectives:
1. Conduct Ko consolidated-undrained triaxial compression and extension (CKoUC
and CKoUE) tests using the SHANSEP technique to obtain undrained stressstrain-strength parameters as a function of overconsolidation ratio (OCR). These
tests would provide data showing how Normalized Soil Properties (NSP) varied
as a function of: type of shearhig (compression or extension); type of sample
(tube versus block); deph within BBC; and site location (South Boston versus
East Boston). The results would also be compared to prior data obtained at MIT
on Resedimented BBC and with data from conventional UU and CIU triaxial
compression tests.
2. Conduct CKoUC/E tests using the Recompression technique in order to compare
these NSP vs OCR relationships with those obtained from the SHANSEP test
program and from conventional strength tests.
27
3. Conduct several Ko consolidated-drained triaxial compression and extension
tests (CKoDC and CKoDE) using both the SHANSEP and Recompression
techniques in order to determine the effects of drainage on stress-strain-strength
behavior. Some special stress path tests would also be run to simulate conditions
during installation of diaphragm walls and subsequent excavation.
4. Perform tests using the automated stress path triaxial cells and/or MITs Lateral
Stress Oedometer (LSO) to estimate the in situ Ko and how Ko varies with
overconsolidation ratio.
The scope of the MIT testing program as originally proposed by H&A is
summarized in Tables 1-3 and 1-4, as previously mentioned. This summary gives a general
idea of the numbers of tests performed, though significant changes in the original numbers
and types of tests were made during the course of the testing program. These changes were
made with H&A's approval due to: lack of sufficient soil samples (mainly at East Boston);
addition of more tests of a certain type because of unexpected results or experimental
problems; and elimination of some tests considered less important. An exact listing of the
tests performed is provided later in Chapters 2 and 4, but suffice it to say that the number
of triaxial tests performed was unprecedented.
The MIT Research Program started March 15, 1990, and is due to expire June 15,
1991. Dr. Charles C. Ladd, Professor of Civil Engineering, and Dr. John T. Germaine,
Senior Research Associate and Director of the Geotechnical Laboratory, acted as CoPrincipal Investigators. Dr. Germaine was responsible for design and construction of the
four automated triaxial cells and daily supervision of the two Graduate Research Assistants
who performed the triaxial test program, Ms. Anne H. Estabrook and Mr. Axel A. de La
Beaumelle. Mr. Octavio J. Ortega assisted Dr. Germaine with development of the four
triaxial cells and ran several tests as an Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program
28
(UROP) student. Dr. Ladd was responsible for checking and presenting the experimental
results. Ms. Gretchen Young of Haley & Aldrich then took over most of this responsibility
in December, 1990 as a MIT Visiting Engineer. She also provided vital coordination
between the H&A and MIT testing programs.
1.3 Organization of Thesis
This thesis is closely linked with a companion thesis written by Anne Estabrook.
Table 1-5 summarizes the contents of both theses for convenient reference.
All of Chapters 1 through 4 are common to both theses. These Chapters include the
introduction (Chapter 1), detailed background information about the testing sites, sampling
program, and objective and scope of the laboratory program (Chapter 2), details about the
automated triaxial equipment and testing procedures used (Chapter 3), and sample
characteristics and distribution of MIT tests (Chapter 4).
Most of Chapter 5, which presents a summary of the stress history and
consolidation properties at the two sites, is also in both theses. However, this thesis
contains additional material in Section 5.5 concerning the measurement of the coefficient of
earth pressure at rest (Ko).
Chapter 6 in each thesis is different. Estabrook covers the results of the
Recompression triaxial testing program. She presents her results and then compares them
with results from MIT's SHANSEP triaxial tests and from H&A's UU and CIU triaxial
tests in Chapter 7. This thesis presents the results of the SHANSEP triaxial tests in Chapter
6 and compares them with previous data obtained from testing programs performed on
Resedimented BBC in Chapter 7.
Chapter 8 consists of summary, conclusions, and recommendations, and is
obviously unique to each thesis.
29
Appendix A in each thesis expands on the Chapter 3 (equipment and procedure).
Appendix B in Estabrook includes the Recompression test data. Appendices B and C in de
La Beaumelle include data from all of the SHANSEP tests run and Lateral Stress
Oedometer test data, respectively.
The actual computer printout of the data reduction program from both the
SHANSEP and Recompression triaxial test programs can be found in MIT Research
Report R91-10.
Although Estabrook and de La Beaumelle performed CKoDC/E and special stress
path triaxial tests using the SHANSEP and Recompression techniques the results are not
presented in the theses due to time constraints. These data will be furnished to H&A in MIT
Research Report R91-1 1.
30
Table 1.1: Geotechnical Issues to be Evaluated (Modified from H&A. 1990)
Geotechnical Issue
Engineering Properties
Excavation Bottom Stability
Design Lateral Pressures
Strength
Ko, K., Kp
Excavation-related Soil Displacements
Soil/Wall Adhesion
Short-term Settlement. Heave
Long-term Settlement. Heave
Strength. Stiffness. Ko
Strength
Stiffness. Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction
Stress History. Compressibility, Permeabilitv
Bearing Capacity
Strength
Slurry Wall Trench Stabilitv
Strength. Ki
Table 1.2: List of Special Testing Program Subcontractors
Lab
Field
Planned Subcontractor
J.T. Germaine and Associates
Testing Activities
See Tables 1.3 and 1.4
MIT
See Tables 1.3 and 1.4
Halev & Aldrich. Inc.
Applied Research Associates
See Tables 1.3 and 1.4
Cone Penetrometer.
University of New Hampshire
Self-Boring Pressuremneter,
Field Vane
Dilatonieter
New England Foundation
Co., Inc.
University of Massachusetts
Sherbrooke Universitv
Halev & Aldrich. Inc.
Guild Drilling Co., Inc.
Drill Caisson for
Block Sampling
Earth Pressure Cells
Block Sampler
Menard Pressuremeter
Control Borings for
Piston Tube Sampling,
Piezometers and assist
SBP. MEN, FV, and EPC tests
31
Table 1.3: Summary of Tests to be Performed at MIIT and byv &A at the South
Boston Test Site
____IT
Test
Tube
Radiography
Index
Triaxial
tI&A
Block Total
Tube
Total
20
70
90
0
0
0
Standard Handling
0
0
0
20
10'
30
Hydrometer
Specific Gravity
Salt Concentration
0
0
0
10
10
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
10
5
5
11
15
UUC
0
0
0
20
10
30
('IUC
0
4
4
20
10
30
10
14
O
0
0
4
10
14
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
4
6
10
4
8
12
*Recomp. a' . = a'
0
6
6
0
0
0
*Recomp.
0
8
8
0
0
0
CKoUC
eRecomp.
al. c =
oReconlp.
*Recomp.
ao
-a
o4
O
U/R
· SHANSEP
CKoUE
o,
c
= 0.1 - 0.5o'. o
*SHANSEP
4
5
9
0
0
0
CKoUD
0
6
6
0
0
0
eRecomp.
0
6
6
0
0
0
eSHANSEP
0
3
3
0
0
0
· Reconlp.
0
6
6
0
0
0
*SHANSEP
0
:3
3
0
0
0
(Recomp.)
CKoDC
CKoDE
Oedoineter
DSS
Standard
0
0
0
30
25
55
CRSC '
10
15
25
0
0
0
0
4
10
10
10
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
eRecomp.
0
4
4
0
0
0
eSHANSEP
0
4
4
0
0
0
oRecomp.
0
4
4
0
0
0
· SHANSEP
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
15
15
0
0
0
CKoUDSS
eRecomp.
*SHANSEP
CKoUDSS
@ 900
CKoDDSS ( 900
Test to Evaluate
Ko
0
* By Germaine and Associates
32
Table 1.4: Sumniary of Tests to be Performed at MIT and bv H&A at the East Boston
Test Site
Test
MhIT H&A
Radiography
Index
Triaxial
20
0
Standard Handling
()
0
20
Hydrometer
0
20
Specific
0
10
Gravitv
Salt Concentration
0
UU C
1)
CIUC
!
CKoUC
*Recomp. a', = :'o
*Recomp.
'(7
I
30
(
C-
0
*Recomp. !U/R
0
0
o SHANSEP
15
0
0
6
0
0
CKoUE
*Recomp.
cr,.= ya'
*Recomp.
r'c = 0.1 -
*SHANSEP
CKoUD (Recomp.)
0.5o'0
12
0
0
0
· Recomp.
0
0
,SHANSEP
3
0
*Reconmp.
0
0
*SHANSEP
3
0
Standard
0
25
CRSC
10
0
CKIoDC
CIoDE
Oedonieter
DSS '
'
CKoUDSS
*Recomp.
0
0
*SHANSEP
12
0
*Reconmp.
0
0
*SHANSEP
4
0
5
0
CKoUDSS
Test to Evaluate l(
*
By Germaine and Associates
90o°
33
Table 1.5: Sumnmaryof Contents of SAI Theses by de La Beaumelle and Estabrook
on hIIT Research Project with H&A
('hapter
Number
_-_
2
:3
Contents
Introduction
Background
Automated Triaxial Equipment
and Testing Procedures
I
Sample C('haracteristics
r
SStress
Historv and Consolidation
t;
Conulon
to Both
x
,,
.<
de La
Beauumelle Estabrook
Properties
ii
.,
.
, (Added information on K;n)
Results of' SHANSEP Triaxial
Strength Testing Program
Comparison with Triaxial Data
on Resedimented BBC
6
8
<
Results of' Recompression Triaxial
<
Strength Testing Program
Comparison with SHANSEP Triaxial
and IUTTC
and ('ItTC Data
X
<
Sumiiary. Conclusions and
Recommendations
9
Appendix
List of References
A
Automated Triaxial Equipment
and Testing Procedures
B
SHANSEP Consolidation and
B
Recompression Consolidation
and Strength Plots
Lateral Stress Oedometer Data
<
<
x
Strength Plots
C
x
X
Note: Tabulated data for all SHANSEP and Recompression tests are included in MIIT
research report R91-10.
34
Figure 1-1: Location of Test Sites (after H&A. 1990)
35
SCHEMATIC OF SOUTH BOSTON SITE
CPT
CPT
EPC
LCEG N
CPT - P1leueee
MEN
SoP
DMT
EPC
FV
a -i
BLO
B-o
MEN
EPC
SBP
MT
EPC
CPT-
CPT
Teat
EPO- Earth Presure Cll
sop - loll-oeting Presaurlmeer
MI11EN
' Mlssr Preseuremelr
PV - Ple1 Vas
0'
typ
OMT - Fit Plate 011Itemeter
-1 ld I- - 'Control' brinsp
with
P'e,
plton tulb smpiles.
aId *Isometers.
ELO- Leolien of drilled Shaft
where bleek amm1ie will
be ebtelned
20 tp.___
FIELD TEST
NUMBER LOCATIONS
(TESTS
PER LOCATION)
:-ressuremeter
Menara
fSelf-Eoring
i
2
(4)
2 (10)
Piezocone
4
Dilatometer
2 (150)
Earth Pressure Cell
4 ()
Field Vane (possible)
1 (20)
Figure 1-2: Proposed Layout of Field Program at South Boston Test Site
36
SCHEMATIC OF EAST BOSTON SITE
CPT
FV
B-1
8SP
CPT
B-f
OMT
1.1EOE#OD
CPt
- Plesoenme
PC -
Test
lsth Pressure Cell
ip - ltOll-Bring Prefoeurineser
EPC
EPC
DMT
EPC
EPC
CPT
MEN * mneofl Proesurfeotof
PV - 1Fiel Ve
O1T - Ploo Plate Olatameler
-1 nd1
l - 'Control' borinle
CPT
-
witll
20' tP
plstOn tube *piles.
P".
II IIIi
ilIl
1
NUMBER LOCATIONS
(TESTS PER LOCATION)
FIELD TEST
Pressuremeter
Menar
,S.elf -or ing
1 (4)
(10)
Piezocone
4
Dilatometer
2 (150)
Cell
4 (1)
Field Vane (possible)
1 (15)
Earth Pressure
Figure 1-3: Proposed Layout of Field Program at East Boston Test Site
37
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
2.1 General Test Site Characteristics
The Central Artery/Tunnel project includes the construction of a large number of
underground structures that will require extensive excavations to unprecedented depths and
widths into Boston Blue Clay (BBC). Therefore, in order to satisfy the design
requirements for such a large scale project, a thorough knowledge and understanding of the
site's soil conditions, especiaiiy the BBC, are necessary. This section will therefore
concentrate on factors especially important to clay behavior.
Haley & Aldrich (1990) states: "the subsurface soil conditions along the proposed
roadway alignment vary, but are dominated by glacial and marine deposits having
combined thicknesses which exceed 200 feet locally. Subsurface conditions along much of
the alignment in Geotechnical work areas 01 and 02 consists of 15-40 feet of fill and
organic deposits overlying up to 100 feet of marine "Boston Blue Clay" (BBC). Glacial till
and Argillite bedrock typically underlie the clay".
From previous experience in the greater Boston area, the top portion of BBC
exhibits relatively high overconsolidation ratios due to desiccation, becoming less
overconsolidated with depth and perhaps reaching an almost normally consolidated
condition. Near the bottom of the clay, overconsolidation ratios of less than 1.5 have
previously been measured by H&A and were also observed at the two test sites. Kenney
(1964) stated that for the Boston area : "The soils making up the lower clay deposit would
be expected to have a common consolidation history and might be overconsolidated,
38
depending on the amount of erosion and subsequent soil deposition which occurred".
Therefore, overconsolidation could be due to a prior unloading from erosion greater than
the subsequent deposition.
In order to investigate representative soil conditions, the program devised by Haley
& Aldrich included extensive testing at two sites. The sites are located in South and East
Boston (see Fig. 1-1) and were chosen for several reasons: significant clay thickness,
ready access (including after construction if possible), lack of prior deep foundations which
may have affected the clay, and lack of underground obstructions. The South Boston site
comprises the bulk of the testing program, while the East Boston site is intended to provide
information on the applicability of the Special Testing Program results to other locations.
To verify the suitability of these sites, pilot borings and piezocone testing were used
to confirm stratigraphy. Fixed piston tube samples were obtained and radiographed to
confirm appropriate test elevations, while piezometers were installed to measure in situ pore
pressures. These data provide soil stratigraphy and profiles of unit weight, pore pressure
and effective overburden stress. Note that the CA/T Project Elevation equals NGVD plus
100.00 ft.
Figure 2-1 represents the soil profile for the South Boston (SB) test site. About 20
ft of fill and 17.5 ft of sand overlie 103 ft of BBC. Within the BBC, SPT N values
decrease with depth from about 10 to usually zero for the bottom 50 ft. Figure 2-2 shows
the in situ state of stress for SB. The total vertical stress ((vo) was computed for the total
unit weight (t) values listed in Fig. 2-1. The pore (water) pressure u was obtained from an
observation well in the fill and four piezometers in the BBC. The u profile (and equation) in
Fig. 2-2 accounts for some salt in the pore water and reflects a piezometric water elevation
that increases and then decreases with depth (i.e., PWE = 102, 104 and 99 ft at El. = 74,
25 and -30 ft, respectively). The effective stress profile o'vo (and equation) in Fig. 2-2
39
were obtained by substracting u from ovo. Figure 2-2 also shows the approximate variation
in overconsolidation ratio (OCR) with depth based on data contained in Chapter 5. The
substantial decrease in OCR with depth make the site ideal for specialized testing since the
soil varies from a desiccated stiff clay at the top to "soft" clay with the lower 50 ft.
The typical soil profile for the East Boston (EB) site is represented in Figure 2-3.
About 18 ft of fill and 5 ft of sand are underlain by 91 ft of BBC. The SPT N values again
vary from around 10 at the top to essentially zero for the bottom 40 ft. As for the SB site,
Fig. 2-4 illustrates the state of stress in situ at EB. The various profiles were calculated in
the same fashion as for the SB site, except for the pore pressure u which was derived using
a linear PWE (PWE
108 and 104.5 ft at El. 87.7 and -3.3 ft, respectively).
Some
difficulties were encountered in defining an approximate OCR profile, because values of
preconsolidation pressure
'p from some constant rate of strain tests (CRSC) were
inconsistent with the Ko- triaxial consolidation and standard oedometer results.
2.2 Sampling Program
Figure 2-1 shows the tube locations from two borings at the South Boston (SB)
site. A total of 37 two foot long samples were obtained with a 3in (76mm) diameter fixed
piston sampler; 12 of them from boring SB2-21 at intervals varying from 8 to 10 feet, and
25 samples at intervals of 2 and 6 feet for SB2-23. For East Boston, a total of 8 tubes at
intervals of 10 feet were extracted from the ground to a depth of 105 ft (See Fig. 2-3).
In addition, nine-inch diameter block samples of the clay were obtained, using
sophisticated sampling techniques developed at Sherbrooke University, Quebec. The
sampling was performed within a 24-inch to 30-inch diameter caisson drilled under
bentonite slurry. Using this method, two holes were drilled at the South Boston site, and a
total of 11 samples were recovered at the locations shown in Fig. 2-1.
40
The quality of the tube sampling was evaluated using Radiography,
an
indispensable part of the overall testing program.
2.3 Laboratory Testing Program
The laboratory testing program can be divided into four major parts: radiography
and sample quality, classification and index properties, consolidation testing, and
undrained strength testing.
2.3.1 Radiography and Sample Quality
Radiography has been a standard procedures at MIT for the last 13 years. Based on
this experience, radiography can show the following (Jamiolkowski et al. 1985):
"1. Variations in soil types, especially granular versus cohesive materials.
2. Macrofabric features resulting from bedding planes, varves, fissures, shear planes,
etc.
3. Presence of "intrusions" such as sand lenses, stones, shells, calcareous nodules,
peaty materials, drilling mud, etc.
4. Voids and cracks due to gas pockets.
5. Variations in the degree of sample disturbance, ranging from barely detectable
curvature adjacent to the sample edges to gross disturbance as evidenced by a
completely contorted appearance and large voids and cracks (most often occurring at
the ends of the tube)."
"Many of these features may not be readily identified from visual inspection of the
extruded samples, at least without trimming or breaking it apart. Hence radiography
provides a nondestructive means for selecting the most representative and/or less disturbed
portions of each tube for engineering tests. It also helps in planning the overall testing
41
program based on the amounts of suitable material". The low cost of radiographs ($65 per
tube), compared to the cost of running consolidation tests and sophisticated strength tests
on disturbed and/or nonrepresentative soil specimen warrant the use of radiography for
every tube samples being considered for engineering tests. Radiographs for block samples
could not be obtained, as no resolution of the features was available from such thick
samples. An example radiograph can be seen in Fig. 2-5.
The amount of recovery and quality of all tube and block samples is given in Tables
4-1 through 4-3 and discussed in Chapter 4. Once the amount and quality of soil available
for testing was known, the testing started by performing (quick) "index" tests.
2.3.2 Classification
and Index Properties
The next phase of the testing program is to determine the classification and index
properties of the soil. To obtain an adequate knowledge of these properties, the following
measurements were made:
· Water contents and torvane strengths taken at the end of each sample, and also from
material adjacent to soil used for all engineering tests;
· Atterberg limits tests on each sample;
· Grain size distribution (using hydrometer analysis) and specific gravity tests
performed on approximately 10 tube samples.
In addition, "special" tests such as carbonate content (done at U. MASS, Amherst), salt
concentration and pH tests were run on a limited number of samples.
The approximate number of tests performed at MIT and H&A, plus specific
procedures and results, are presented and discussed in Chapter 4.
42
2.3.3 Consolidation Testing
The first column in Table 2 1 lists the consolidation parameters to be obtained from
the consolidation test program, namely:
. The preconsolidation pressure ('p), which equals the "yield stress" measured during
one-dimensional (1 -D) drained loading.
· The compressibility parameters defined as de / dlog dvc measured during virgin
compression (CR), during recompression (RR) and during swelling (SR).
· The coefficient of consolidation (Cv)for both normally consolidated (NC) and
overconsolidated (OC) clay during loading and unloading.
· The coefficient of permeability or conductivity (k) versus void ratio (e), wherein e vs.
log k is usually linear with a slope defined by Ck = de / dlog k.
· The coefficient of earth pressure at rest (Ko) for NC clay and how it varies with
overconsolida.ion ratio (OCR).
Table 2-1 also lists the four types of consolidation tests that were run for the Special
Test Program, along with their planned and actual utilization in providing information
regarding the different consolidation parameters. As discussed in Chapter 5, the clay below
the upper portion of the drying crust often exhibited pronounced "S-shaped" compression
curves. This unexpected behavior caused substantial changes in the test program because
essentially continuous compression curves were required for reliable estimates of the
preconsolidation pressure. Fortunately, MITs automated stress path triaxial cells generally
produced excellent 1-D compression curves during SHANSEP testing that served as the
prime data base for determining p values throughout most of the clay at both test sites.
The SHANSEP triaxial tests also provided excellent Ko data for both NC clay and
as a function of OCR for tests that were rebounded prior to undrained shear. Consequently,
43
less emphasis was placed on the use of MITs Lateral Stress Oedometer (LSO) that
measures the horizontal effective stress ('hc) during incremental loading and unloading.
However, the triaxial tests did not measure pore pressure gradients during consolidation
and thus incremental oedometer and constant rate of strain (CRSC) tests were used to
measure flow characteristics, i.e., Cvand k.
2.3.4 Undrained Strength Testing
Parameters from undrained shear testing that are relevant to the CA/T project
include the following:
· Undrained shear strength (cu) as discussed below.
Stiffness, such as Young's modulus at 50 % of the stress increment causing failure
(E50).
·Excess pore pressures developed during shearing, which can be obtained from
Skempton's A parameter [ A = (Au - Aa 3 ) / (Acrl - A3) ].
· Effective stress failure envelope defined by a cohesion intercept (c') and friction angle
(0').
2.3.4.1 Strength testing issues and types of shear tests
The undrained strength of cohesive soils such as BBC varies with the mode of
failure and as a function of the stress history of the soil. Stress history refers both to the
initial in situ condition (i.e., the profiles of a'vo and a'p and hence OCR) and how the
vertical consolidation stress ('vc) may change during construction. Loading problems,
such as with embankments, generate positive excess pore pressures during construction
and hence drainage will cause strenghtening of the foundation soils. In contrast. unloading
problems generate negative excess pore pressures during construction and hene drainage
(swelling) will cause a reduction in undrained strength. The areal extent and depth of
44
excavations along the CA/T alignment make the latter problem especially important.
Moreover, if a failure occurs during construction, such as from bottom instability, the
deformations are likely to occur rapidly, i.e., essentially undrained. Consequently, the
laboratory strength testing program emphasized development of relationships between
cu/o'vc and OCR = a'p/a'vc, where a'vc refers both to the initial in situ O'vo and changes in
the vertical consolidation stress with time.
The strength of soft clays such as BBC has been extensively researched at MIT for
the past 25 years. Ladd and Foott (1974) presented a new method for evaluating the
undrained strength of clay foundations : the SHANSEP (Stress History And Normalized
Soil Engineering Parameters) technique. Their paper pointed out three of the most
important factors affecting the undrained strength and deformation characteristics of
cohesive soils: sample disturbance, time effects, and anisotropy. The following discussion
of these three topics is abstracted from material presented in Ladd (1991) and Jamiolkowski
et al. (1985).
Sample Disturbance and Reconsolidation Techniques
Ladd (1991) states that sample disturbance from conventional tube sampling alters
the in situ soil structure, cause internal migration of water, frequently lead to substantial
reductions in the effective stress of the sample, and often produces highly variable
strengths from unconsolidated-undrained (UU) type testing. He advocates the use of
consolidated-undrained (CU) tests to minimize these adverse effects. However, CIU tests
are deemed inappropriate since shearing starts from isotropic rather than the in situ Ko
stress conditions. Therefore, CKoU tests using a consolidation stress ratio, Kc= G'hc
o'vc,
/
approximating the in situ Ko are needed, both to help restore the in situ soil structure
and to give more meaningful stress-strain-strength data. The two distinct reconsolidation
45
techniques
used for CKoU tests, the SHANSEP (Ladd and Foott 1974) and
Recompression (Bjerrum 1973) methods, are now discussed.
The two techniques are illustrated by Fig. 2-6. Hypothetical in situ and laboratory
Ko compression curves for a slightly overconsolidated soft clay are presented. Points 1 and
2 designate the in situ condition and the preshear effective stress for a UU test, respectively
(the latter assuming no change in water content during sampling). In the Recompression
technique, the test specimen is reconsolidated (ideally at Ko) to ',vc= c'vo shown by point
3. Points A through D correspond to typical stresses used for a SHANSEP test program.
The SHANSEP technique is part of a design procedure for estimating the in situ
undrained properties of a clay deposit and involves the following basic steps:
1. Establish the initial stress history (i.e. the profiles of a'vo and G'p)and also possible
changes in the u'vc due to construction, which also determines the range of OCR values
for which data are required.
2. Perform a series of CKoU shear tests on specimens consolidated well beyond the in situ
preconsolidation pressures (to o'vc greater than 1.5 to 2 times G'p) to measure the
behavior of normally consolidated clay (points A and B in Fig. 2-6), and also on
specimens rebounded to varying OCR to measure overconsolidated behavior (points C
and D).
3. Express the results in terms of normalized soil parameters (NSP), and establish NSP vs.
OCR relationships. e.g., log cu/o'vc vs. log OCR to obtain values of S and m in Eq. 2-1
Cu/ o'vc = S (OCR) m
(2-1)
4. Use these NSP relationships and the stress history information to compute profiles of cu
as a function of time.
46
Much as been debated about the relative merits of the two reconsolidation
techniques. Ladd's (1991) opinion can be summarized as follows.
The Recompression
technique:
1. Is clearly superior for highly structured deposits (e.g. brittle, sensitive Canadian clays),
and for strongly cemented soils.
2. Is preferred whenever block quality samples are available and for testing weathered and
highly overconsolidated deposits where SHANSEP is often difficult to apply: and
3. Should always be accompanied by a thorough evaluation of the in situ stress history.
The SHANSEP technique:
1. Is strictly applicable only to mechanically overconsolidated and truly normally
consolidated deposits exhibiting normalized behavior.
2. Is probably preferred for testing tube samples from deep deposits of low OCR
"ordinary" clays.
3. Has the distinct advantage of forcing the user to assess the in situ history, and of
developing normalized stress-strain strength parameters that can be used on subsequent
projects.
Very little data exist to compare undrained strength-deformation properties from the
SHANSEP and Recompression technique (and none for BBC). H&A's STP therefore
specifically addressed this important issue by obtaining both tube and block samples and by
running both SHANSEP and Recompression CKoU tests.
Time Effects
Two types of time effects influence the behavior of CKoU tests: the time allowed
for consolidation prior to shear; and the strain rate (or rate of load application) used during
47
shear. The first type concerns the effects of "aging" at constant effective stress (i.e.,
secondary compression ). Aging increases the stiffness and preconsolidation pressure, and
therefore, the undrained strength of low OCR clays. Ladd (1991) recommends a
standardized amount of aging to obtain consistent CKoU data, and suggests one log cycle
of time. If log(t / tp) is much less than one, significant pore pressures may develop during
undrained shear due to preventing secondary compression. More than one log cycle of
secondary compression will take too long and the cu data will need a correction for the
increased a'p.
The strain rate applied during undrained shearing is known to affect the stress-strain
behavior of cohesive materials. Laboratory UU and CU tests show higher strengths with
increasing strain rate and hence decreasing time to failure (tf). Although no rational
framework exists for selecting strain rates for CKoU testing, general experience based on a
balance between practicality and limited case histories has resulted in the following practice
at MIT: axial strain rate of 0.5 %/hr for triaxial tests; and shear strain rate of 5 %/hr for
direct simple shear tests. In addition, H&A ran its UUC tests at an axial rate of about 0.5
%/hr rather than using ASTM's standard rate of 60 %/hr.
Stress Systems for CKoU Test Programs and Undrained Strength
Anisotropy
The differences in the applied stress system for laboratory strength tests can be
described by two variables: the relative value of the intermediate principal stress, as defined
by b = (
2 -Ca
3 )/(a 1-a 3);
and the direction of the applied major principal stress relative to the
vertical (depositional) direction denoted by the 8 angle. Changes in the value of b and 8
lead to different stress-strain responses due to the effects of (a2 and anisotropy,
respectively. Ideally, CKoU testing should shear specimens at representative b values and 8
angles. Figure 2-7 illustrates the combinations of b and 6 that can be achieved by laboratory
48
shear devices. A detailed discussion of these devices can be found in Jamiolkowski et al.
(1985). The text will first define anisotropy and then focus on the types of laboratory shear
tests selected for the STP.
There are two kinds of anisotropy: initial and evolving. Jamiolkowski et al. (1985)
and Ladd (1991) use initial anisotropy to denote the changes observed in the stress-strainstrength response of a soil with variations in the applied principal stress direction during
monotonic shearing. This initial anisotropy has two components: inherent and initial shear
stress anisotropy. Inherent anisotropy arises from the "soil structure" developed at the
micro-level (preferred particle orientations and interparticle forces) and also at the macrolevel for certain soils such as varved glacial-lake deposits. The initial shear stress
anisotropy is the directionally dependent undrained strengths exhibited by clays whenever
shearing starts from a Ko different from one condition. Evolving anisotropy denotes the
changes in the initial cross anisotropic properties of a Ko consolidated clay due to plastic
strains caused by stresses (both shear and consolidation) applied during construction.
Ladd (1991) describes the methodology for conducting an Undrained Strength
Analyses (USA) that has been largely adopted by H&A for assessing stability for the CA/T
project. This approach calls for CKoU tests using either the SHANSEP or Recompression
technique. Due to the effects of anisotropy and the intermediate principal stress, correct
estimates of cu must consider the in situ modes of failure. For bottom stability, which is a
prime design concern, the three principal modes are Plane Strain Compression (PSC),
Direct Simple Shear (DSS) and Plane Strain Extension (PSE) (see Fig. 2-8). Since the
PSC/E modes of failure are difficult to model in the lab, they were replaced by triaxial
compression (TC) and extension (TE) tests. Ladd et al. (1977) and Ladd (1991) state that
triaxial tests will generally underestimate the peak cu for plane strain problems, e.g., by
about 8 +±5 % in compression and by about 18
2 % in extension. However, the peak
plane strain strengths cannot be mobilized in situ due to the effects of progressive failure.
49
Based on experience with using the strain compatibility technique (Koutsoftas and Ladd
1985) to account for this adverse effect, Ladd (personal communication) concluded that
these two effects would roughly offset each other. That is, peak strengths from TC and TE
tests would approximately equal strengths from PSC and PSE tests treated for strain
compatibility. However, Ladd's preliminary conclusion needs to be verified.
2.3.4.2 Scope of strength testing program
Based on the above strength testing issues and objectives, H&A developed the
planned laboratory strength testing program that was presented in Tables 1-3 and 1-4 for
SB and EB, respectively. In addition to conventional UUC and CIUC tests by H&A, it
includes a very comprehensive set of CKoU TC,TE and DSS tests that:
. Employ the SHANSEP technique to develop NSP vs. OCR relationships using tube
samples from both sites and the SB block samples.
. Employ the Recompression technique to develop NSP vs. OCR relationships,
primarely using the SB block samples, but also including some tests on tube samples
for comparison (those planned for EB were eliminated due to lack of soil).
More specialized aspects of the overall program also included some:
· CKoUDSS tests run on "90°" specimen to simulate vertical shear through BBC (i.e.,
the cut portion in Fig. 2-8) and adhesion to diaphragm walls.
·CKo triaxial compression tests to simulate installation of diaphragm walls and
subsequent excavation.
· Ko consolidated-drained (CKoD) unloading tests in TC and TE to simulate drained
conditions in the active and passive portion, respectively,
excavation.
of a laterally supported
50
2.4 Scope of Testing Program Conducted Under MIT Contract with H&A
Table 2-2 lists the number of "useable" SHANSEP and Recompression CKoU
triaxial tests that are presented in the two SM thesis. For the SHANSEP tests, no
distinction is made between tests run on tube samples from SB and EB or on the SB block
samples since test data do not indicate significant differences in the normalized strength
parameters. About 35 SHANSEP tests yielded "good to excellent" consolidation data, this
meaning reliable estimates of O'p,a well defined compression curve and high quality Ko
data (including Ko versus OCR for the OC tests). About 25 "fair to poor" SHANSEP tests
provided less reliable and/or incomplete consolidation data. Most of these tests reflected
initial problems with the automated control system or internal leakage in one of the cells, as
discussed in Section 3.4. About 35 SHANSEP tests gave "good to excellent" shear data,
meaning reliable stress-strain curves and effective stress paths throughout undrained shear
to large strains. And about 20 tests yielded useful, but either less complete or definitive,
results.
The Recompression CKoU program (item B in Table 2-2) encountered fewer
experimental problems, with about 32 tests considered "good to excellent". The other tests
generally had values of Kc that differed from the estimated K0. About half of the tests were
reconsolidated to the effective overburden stress. The other half had a'vc values less than
or greater than a'vo in order to study the effect of changing OCR on normalized behavior.
Item C in Table 2-2 summarizes the tentative scope of other triaxial tests that are not
included in the two theses.
Finally, MIT conducted nine Lateral Stress Oedometer (LSO) tests in order to check
the Ko versus OCR data obtained from the SHANSEP triaxial tests and to evaluate Ko
during reloading of overconsolidated clay.
51
0
0
U,
C)
©l
C)
C
u
0
W)
4)4):
9
cnU
C)
I
E,
Co
0
Q
52
Table 2-2. Scope of MIT Triaxial Testing Program (Contract with H&A)
A. SHANSEP CKOU Triaxial Tests [ ( ) = # of tests on Block Samples
Quality and
Type of Test
Consolidation Data
OCR 1.5 OCR = 2-8
Undrained Shear Data
OCR < 1.5
OCR = 2-8
1. Good-Excellent
TC
12
4(2)
13 (1)
6 (3)
TE
10 (3)
8 (4)
9 (3)
10(5)
10 (1)
4 (2)
10(1)
2 (1)
5
5 (1)
5
2
37
21
37
20
3 (1)
2
3
3
2. Fair-Poor
TC
TE
3. Number of Useful Tests
4. Data not Useful
B. Recompression CK U Triaxial Tests (All for SB)
Test Quality
TC
Tes Tube Block
Tube
TE
Block
1. Good-Excellent
8
13
2
9
2. Kc * Ko or Leakage
1
6
0
2
3. Number of Useful Tests
9
19
2
11
4. Data not Useful
0
0
0
0
C. Other CU and CD Triaxial Tests
1. Planned SHANSEP CKoU Tests that provide3 useful Stress Path data: 2
2. CK U C/D Tests: Details still being formulated
3. CK DC Tests: Recompression tests planned at OCR = 1.3,2.0,4.0
4. CK oDE Tests: Recompression tests planned at OCR = 1.3,2.0,4.0
.
53
Fixed Piston
Tube Samples
G.S.E.:111.2±(ft)
(Pcf)
U
0
STP N (6"- 18")
2 4
6
10 1
2
4
7
6
8 10 12
SB2
-21
SB2
-23
Block
Samples
I
7-
r
25
Marine SAND
..... : .
El.
120
;",.
:,:'::,":
,:..::::.......
-7A
,-
I?
3,4
2
50
x
x
_5
;f75
M
3
4
5
arine CLAY
x
6
I
5,6
2
7,6
3,1A
9,10
11,12
4
2A
5
3A
13,14
cD
7
e
100
X
x
Boston Blue Clay
9
10
x
El.
-29
15,16
7
17,18
19,)0
21,22
11
23,24
12
25,26
13
27
9
10
.-::::..:-Gl:: aciomarine
150.....
.-----..............
-
FIGURE 2-1
SPECIAL TEST PROGRAM: SOIL PROFILE ond SAMPLE LOCATIONS at SOUTH BOSTON
54
:w
I
I
V ............. .........................................................
............. ............._
:
:
,
,
.....
..
CO
S ... .
.
..
.
Or
~-
Cr3
.
....
',.s,
:.........................
............. .
,
............
.............
C=>F
A: ··.........
::
:
I.
. .
.
,
..
.0:1
l~
,
C
, ,
,
,
_
............. ............. ............. .............
.............
.............
.
.
........-, .............-, .............-.........................................................
.
. .......... .............I...........................
.
.............
.
C))
,C1
:
:Q
*- · · ·- ·- · r..................,..
· ·..........
.
t
.
...........*............._
.............. ............., ........
... ......
\
_
,
.
.
.............
.
'
, . ..........
........
............
.
, .,,,_,,,
,
I......
. -- -. -- -----,J '-----'-----'--'1
*
I
i
i
i, i
i
4.
'I
i
I
I
CN
[,,
l
a
0
U,
IU,
L
Cu
-o
i
._
0
ow
Cr
c)
G,
.'
U.
IQ,
eB
CC
CI.,1.
0
cO
0
CO
0
'O
0
O
0
O
(34) uo!leel:;3 lfOJd
0
Cj
0
O
55
Fixed Piston
Tube Samples
STP N (6"- 18")
G.S.E :110.7 ± (ft)
Yt
(pcf)
0
2
4
6
EB2-162
EB2-162
8 10 12
Ia-
0
0
.......................................
~~.............
......
-:,,-Glaci omari ne ....... ,,:,-:,-........................................
,........ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
FIGURE 2-3
SPECIAL TEST PROGRAM : SOIL PROFILE and SAMPLE LOCATIONS at EAST BOSTON
56
i' ,
I,
,
!
-
.''
,
i'-
!
i
. ..........~ ............. ............., .............~............. .............i.............,............., ............., ............. .............,...........
0
LC
............. ............................................................................ ..........
........................................,...........
.......... .....................
......;iiii
C=
\......................
............. .............
~
........
............ ............
. .......... ............ .......
................
.
CL>
.................. ............. .............
co
........... .....
.............
. ........... ............ ........
Cs
.............
.............
............
ew
............. ............. ............. .........
.....................................................................................................
~~~~~~~~~~·······i
i.....
· ·....-.
·.·. ·
.......................... ............................................................
................................................................
_,__.--...---------...............
..........
.......-~ --------X
...
,.
i
oW
.....................................................................................................................
....... . ...............
o
0
,...
I
----Ii
'-?--.:
e0
o
-......
. .i
i
i
i
,i
L.
l.CL
(0
r-
C..
U)
to
am
-
C
Ca
c
0-
.
-
cn
SG
c'
to
(1) uo!el3
CM
ef'oJd
C
57
J!.c;,q--A
-
.
EB2.162
Boring
U4
Disturbed
Boring
# SBZ-21 U10
Layered
Boring
Uniform
Figure 2-5: Sample Radiographs
SB2-21 U10
58
z
:
I
(
(I)
0
U)
In Situ Stress
1O uuc
Test
-. 1
(3) Recompression
P
CKo U Test
Q:
[-[0
SHANSEP
CKoU Tests
I
__
VERTICAL CONSOLIDATION STRESS,
Ic(log scale)
Figure 2-6: Consolidation Procedures for Laboratory CKoU Testing (after Ladd et
al. 1977)
59
o)
r)
n
-J
z
0
bI
-
e
It
a
2
.0
cc
MAJOR PRINCIPAL STRESS DIRECTION, 8(degrees)
Figure 2-7: Stress Systems Achievable by Shear Devices for CKoU Testing (modified
from Germaine, 1982)
60
q
q
4
444s
C
Figure 2-8 :
Undrained Strength Parameters for assessing
Bottom Stability for Excavations in Boston Blue Clay
61
CHAPTER 3. MIT Automated Stress Path Triaxial Apparatus:
Equipment and Testing Procedures
In keeping with the goal of running "state-of-the-art" tests during the course of this
program, development of improved testing equipment and procedures were an integral part
of MITs participation in this project. Most significantly, new automated stress path triaxial
testing capabilities were implemented during the course of the research. Additionally, great
emphasis was placed on developing consistent laboratory and data reduction techniques in
order to remove as much operator-induced uncertainty in the results as possible. Also,
special care was taken in the handling of the samples, to avoid causing additional
disturbance, especially in the preparation of the block samples. This chapter describes in
very general terms the equipment, testing procedures, and data reduction used for all of the
triaxial tests performed at MIT. Specific details are provided in Appendix A.
3.1 Equipment and Software
A significant aspect of the MIT research program was the implementation of four
fully automated stress path triaxial testing cells which combined existing testing equipment
with some innovative new components. Figure 3-1 shows a schematic diagram of the
testing apparatus.
The existing cells were developed at MIT in the mid- 1960's. The bases were made
by Wykeham Farrance, with customized features such as linear ball bearing bushings and
rolling diaphragms to eliminate piston friction, fixed top cap, and both top and bottom
drainage. The cells are mounted on Wykeham Farrance load frames and attached to an
62
external load cell. The cells test cylindrical specimens with approximate volumes of 80 cm3
(8 cm high and 10 cm 2 cross sectional area). The specimen can be mounted on the pedestal
and the piston placed on the specimen before the plexiglass cell chamber is installed,
ensuring proper seating.
This basic cell was connected to two new pressure control devices equipped with
electric motors. The systems were tied together with a combination of commercially
available and MIT-designed electronic components, and control was provided via a
personal computer which used software tailored to our needs. MIT's Geotechnical
Laboratory Director, Dr. Germaine, and Thomas C. Sheahan, a research assistant, created
this improved apparatus and greatly enhanced our testing capabilities by reducing the
number of operator hours required to run sophisticated tests. Section 1 of Appendix A
descriDes the mechanical and electronic equipment required for each of the four cells.
Automated control of the MIT triaxial cells is carried out by a control program
written by Mr. Sheahan and Dr. Germaine. The program, written in BASIC, runs on a
Hyundai personal computer (one dedicated computer per cell). The computer sends signals
via a Strawberrytree
12 bit digital to analog converter and an MIT-designed motor control
box to three motors. Two motors drive pistons in hydraulic pressure controllers which
regulate the pore and cell pressures, and the third motor drives the load frame to regulate
either axial load or displacement. Signals from pressure and displacement transducers and
the load cell are then converted via an analog to digital converter designed by Mr. Sheahan,
read by the computer, and used by the control program to calculate subsequent control
signals. The control program runs at 40 Hz, and is capable of controlling pressures to
within 1 kPa (= 0.01 ksc) and strains to better than 0.01%.
At regular intervals (predetermined by the tester), transducer readings are also taken
by the Hewlett-Packard 3497A Data Acquisition Control Unit which serves as the Central
63
Data Acquisition System for the entire geotechnical laboratory. The resolution of this unit is
0.1 mV for the DCDTs, and approximately 1 pV for the pressure transducers, which
translates to resolution of strain to = 0.0005%, and pressures to about 0.0001 ksc, which
far exceed the sensitivity of the triaxial control program.
The readings are collected into a data file and used to calculate the stresses and
strains in the sample with the help of a reduction program (described in Appendix A).
The program is flexible and user-friendly. It performs all phases of a triaxial test:
initial application of a cell pressure to establish a positive pore pressure in the specimen;
back pressure saturation; B value check; consolidation along any stress path or Ko
consolidation; and shear in either compression or extension. After installing the specimen
and inputting initial dimensions and transducer calibration factors and zeros, the operator
need only be present to start up each phase of the test and thereafter occasionally check the
progress of the test.
An additional benefit is that, throughout the test, the program calculates and
displays, on a continuously updated screen, the current progress of the test and current
state of the specimen. Information displayed includes not only voltage readings from all
transducers and the input channel, but also the corresponding values of axial and
volumetric strain (in %), axial load (in kg), and axial, cell and pore pressure (in ksc).
Additionally, during timed phases of the test, such as application of saturation increments,
the number of minutes elapsed out of the total number of minutes requested are displayed
and during the strain controlled portions of the test, such as consolidation and shearing, the
target and actual rates of strain are displayed. This continuous display allows the operator
to monitor the progress of the test at a glance, and quickly spot any problems.
The control program achieves its versatility by employing one basic motor control
loop for several steps of the test, supplemented by appropriate subroutines. The general
64
operation of the program's main control loop, as well as details of the specific phases of the
triaxial test, are described in Section A.2 of Appendix A.
3.2 Testing Procedures
All of the triaxial tests run as part of this program were performed using either the
SHANSEP methodology developed by Ladd and Foott (1974), or the Recompression
technique formalized by Bjerrum (1973). The reader should refer to the Terzaghi Lecture
by Ladd (1991) for detailed explanations of the theory behind the two techniques.
Preliminary steps for each type of test were identical. Tube samples were first
radiographed to identify the best areas for testing. Once selected, a portion of the tube was
cut off with a band saw and the soil extruded. Alternately, samples of the approximate size
needed were cut off the large block samples. The specimens were trimmed in a mitre box
and installed in the cell with porous stones, filter strips and two thin membranes. Each
specimen was subjected to a small cell pressure (0.5 ksc +) overnight to establish a positive
pore pressure, then back pressure saturated prior to consolidation. These preliminary steps
are described in detail in Appendix A. This section will briefly mention the differences
between the two methods as they relate to the consolidation phase of triaxial tests.
3.2.1 SHANSEP Tests
The laboratory tests used in a SHANSEP program consist of both CKoUC and
CKoUE tests. Ko consolidation is specified to model the one-dimensional consolidation
which has occurred during deposition. Tests on normally consolidated specimens were
done at different depths, and tests at selected elevations were run with OCRs from 2 to
about 6.
Each test consists of two main parts - consolidation and shear - but only the
consolidation phase is significantly different from the Recompression type tests. Both parts
65
are controlled automatically by the computer as mentioned previously. Ko consolidation is
achieved by controlling the amount of water leaving the sample so that the volumetric strain
always remains equal to the axial strain, thus maintaining a constant cross-sectional area.
Another requirement of the SHANSEP method is to reconsolidate the sample to two
to four times the in situ preconsolidation pressure,
'p,
which experience has shown, can
usually be achieved by straining the specimens at least 10%. The specimen at the end of
consolidation, then, is normally consolidated (NC), and the resulting Ko corresponds to the
in-situ, one-dimensionally
normally consolidated value. The strain rate used is
approximately 0.1 %/ hr, which results in consolidation times of 4 (NC) to 7 (OC) days. At
this point in the test, the specimen is allowed to sit for 24 hours at the final stress state to
allow some secondary compression to take place and restore a bit of the structure of the
clay which was altered during consolidation. The sample can then either be sheared, or Ko-
rebounded to a chosen overconsolidation ratio (OCR), allowed to sit for another 24 hours,
and sheared from there. The undrained shearing is done at a rate of 0.5%! hr., and usually
takes 1 to 2 days.
3.2.2 Recompression Tests
The Recompression method ususally involves consolidating the specimens to the in
situ vertical effective stress, o'vo, before shearing. For this research, some of the tests
were also consolidated to lower or higher value of d,vc (but never exceeding o'p) to study
the effects of OCR on the shear results. The horizontal consolidation stress, cO'hc,is
determined by choosing a value of Ko which corresponds to either the in situ OCR of the
sample when a'vo = a'vc, or the test OCR when a'vo : a'vc. A major difference between
SHANSEP and Recompression consolidation, then, is that prior knowledge of Ko is
required for Recompression, while a Ko value actually results from the SHANSEP test.
66
In any case, once the final consolidation stresses desired are determined, the stress
state is controlled by the computer in such a way that
'vc and 'hc are reached by
travelling along a straight line stress path. Like the SHANSEP tests, the Recompression
tests are allowed to undergo 24 hours of secondary compression prior to undrained shear.
Aside from the consolidation phase of the test, all other portions, including
shearing, are essentially identical to SHANSEP. The procedure used in the laboratory is
described further in Section A.3 of Appendix A.
3.3 Data Reduction
The use of a data reduction program written by Mr. Sheahan saves the repetitive
calculation of stresses and strains during the consolidation and shear portions of the triaxial
tests. The program converts the voltages read by the Central Data Acquisition System into
values of stress and strain which are written to a printout and a data file which can be easily
imported to Lotus 1-2-3 or similar software program, in order to produce plots.
Inputs to the data reduction program include type of test (drained or undrained,
compression or extension), initial dimensions of the specimen, transducer zeros and
calibration factors, and information relating to the corrections to be applied (such as filter
strip perimeter, number and type of membranes, and area correction to be used). The
outputs for a drained test (or the consolidation phase of any test) are: volumetric and axial
strain (v and £a), vertical and horizontal effective stress (', and &'h), q= 0.5 ('v - G'h),
P' = 0.5 ('v + O'h), Kc = oh/O'v, and cross-sectional area (A). Outputs for the ndrained
phase of the test (shear), are: Ea, A parameter, friction angle ('),
and normalized values of
q (q/o'vc), p' (p'/G'vc), Young's modulus (E/o'vc), and pore pressure ((Au -Ao3)/'Vc for
compression tests, Au/a'vc for extension tests). As these calculations are all fairly standard,
they are covered briefly in Appendix A, along with the corrections used in the calculations,
67
an explanation of a few changes made to the data file and examples of typical output and
plots.
3.4 Comments on Testing Problems and Quality of Test Data
As may be expected for a testing program which utilized new equipment and
included such unprecedented numbers of tests, a certain number of problems were
encountered. The problems can be roughly categorized as either equipment problems
(mechanical or el-ctrical) or procedural problems (including operator errors). Listed below
are the primary problems of each type, their effects on the data, and their resolution.
3.4.1 Equipment Problems
Leaks
Leaks are always a concern during triaxial tests, and particularly so for tests which
run for extended periods of time, as the SHANSEP CKoUC/E tests performed at MIT. The
two possible types of leaks are internal (i.e., cell fluid leaks into the sample), or external
(i.e., pore fluid leaks out of the system, outside of the cell). While there were no detectable
external leaks in the cells during the research program, several tests were affected by
internal leaks. In particular, several early SHANSEP tests performed on cell MIT04 yielded
results inconsistent with tests performed in other cells. Even though precautions are taken
to discover the presence of leaks (such as the preshear leak check), at that stage of the
project there was inadequate basis for comparison, and the leak went undetected through
several tests. Later, as experience increased, a better standard was established, and
subsequent leaks were spotted and quickly repaired, with less loss of data. In most cases
the degradation of the plastic tubing serving as the top drainage line was the culprit.
Ironically, silicon oil, which was used to eliminate internal leakage through the membrane,
68
was "unfriendly" to the plastic tubing, and may have actually caused a certain amount of
leakage.
Noise
Towards the beginning of the testing program, problems were encountered with
"noise" in the electronic systems. Among other things, it was found that the motors
behaved erratically when the central data acquisition system took a reading on the specified
channel. This led to generally poor quality stress-strain data, as illustrated in Fig. 3-2. By
rewiring some of the connections and grounding some of the wires in the motor control and
channel switch boxes, Dr. Germaine was able to eliminate most of the noise problems,
though subsequent problems with the load motors (described below) may be at least
partially attributable to interference or noise in the system.
Erratic Loading Rates
The axial load motors seemed particularly sensitive, and were responsible for
loading rates which were more variable than desired. The strain rates specified for
consolidation and shear were 0.1% /hr and 0.5% /hr (positive or negative), respectively.
Figure 3-3 shows the shear rate for a test with the load motor in good working order, and
one for a test when the rate varied. In extreme cases, the load motor sometimes stopped
completely. One of the load motors was replaced during the course of the research, which
eliminated the problem in that cell.
The other motor which behaved erratically was used through the whole program,
with mixed results. Since slow rates were more problematic, the problem was partially
alleviated by changing the gear ratio on the load frame to permit the motor to run at a higher
rate. Nonetheless, control of the loading rate on cell MIT03 was generally inferior to the
other three cells, though still within reasonable limits.
69
The effect of the variable rate on the test results was probably negligible, except in
extreme cases, as shown in Fig. 3-4.
Variable Stiffness
As explained in Appendix A, the application of load to the sample is controlled by a
"gain" rate which is input into the control program, in engineering unit (e.g., ksc, or %)
per volt-second, and which is dependent, among other things, upon the stiffness of the
system and the sample. Some problems were encountered during the consolidation phase
of the SHANSEP tests, when the stiffness of the sample changed during the course of
consolidation, leading to an oversensitive load response, and erratic loading, as illustrated
in Fig. 3-5. This problem was overcome by entering the control program file and adjusting
the gain rate manually until the desired response was achieved. Future improvements to the
program will enable one to account for varying stiffness more directly.
3.4.2 Procedural Problems
Extension Test Filter Strips
The first extension tests were performed using 1/4 inch wide, spiral strips of a
porous filter paper. Results from these early tests showed unreasonably high values of
peak friction angle, <(', which was attributed to a strength contribution of the filter strips at
large strains. Subsequent extension tests were performed using spiral filter strips 3/16 inch
wide, which eliminated the problem.
Unintentional Overconsolidation
Some of the early SHANSEP tests which were specified to be sheared normally
consolidated were actually slightly overconsolidated (OCR < 1.2). This was due to a
combination of mechanical probems and procedural errors by the testers. What usually
70
occurred in these cases is that, for various reasons, there was a slight unloading during
final consolidation or during the 24 hour period of secondary compression. The specimens
were then sheared at the lower stresses, leading to slightly overconsolidated tests. The
procedure was subsequently changed so that any unloadings were followed by
reconsolidation to the virgin compression line.
Incorrect Kc
As described in Appendix A, the stresses input into the computer for stress path
consolidation of Recompression type tests are calculated by choosing a O'vc and an
appropriate Kc from which to calculate O'hc. For tests where o'vc =
a'Vo,
the Kc selected is
simply the in situ Ko. However, for the tests which were performed with 'vc
ca'vo,the
test OCR is different from the in situ OCR, and a different Kc is needed. For several of the
early Recompression tests having u'vc : a'vo this adjustment in Kc was erroneously
neglected by the tester. The interpretation of the resulting data was made more difficult by
the use of the incorrect Kc.
3.5 Estimated Success Rate
Despite the problems mentioned above, the overall success rate of the tests was
considered reasonable. After the results of each test were plotted and summarized, a
judgement on the quality of the test was made and the test was assigned either an Excellent,
Good, Fair, or Poor rating (see Section 2.4). For the SHANSEP tests a separate
assignation was made for the consolidation and shear phases, while the Recompression
tests were given only one rating per test.
For the SHANSEP consolidation phase, approximately 54% of the tests were rated
Good to Excellent, 38% were rated Fair to Poor, and 8% were unusable. The large number
of tests performed made it possible, for analysis purposes, to exclude all of the Poor tests.
71
For example, a Fair test may have produced a reliable estimate of c'p (a very important
parameter), but with an incomplete virgin compression curve or erratic Ko values (less
important parameters). In general, most of the consolidation tests were of higher quality
than routinely obtained, and thus even the Fair tests, by some standards would be
considered Good to Excellent.
For the shear portion of the SHANSEP tests, approximately 59% of the tests were
Good to Excellent, 31% were Fair to Poor, and 10% were unusable. The Good to
Excellent tests notably include significant numbers of Triaxial Extension (TE) test results,
which, until this research program, were notoriously difficult to achieve.
The success rate of the Recompression testing program benefitted greatly from the
lessons learned during the SHANSEP testing, which was done first. Of the Recompression
tests performed, 75% were rated Excellent, 9% were rated Very Good, 9% were rated
Good, 3% were rated Fair, and a mere 3% (or a single test) was classified as unusable.
This phenomenal success rate is not only a function of experience gained during
SHANSEP testing, but also an indication that the Recompression tests are less prone to
errors because of their reduced testing time (4 - 7 days, as oppposed to 8 - 12 days for
SHANSEP tests).
3.6 Overall Quality of Test Data
The majority of the data resulting from this test program were of extremely high
quality. In particular the -D compression curves obtained from the Ko consolidation phase
of the SHANSEP triaxial tests were exceptional. They provided the primary means for
estimation of the in situ O'p of the deposit at the two sites. The consolidation phase also
provided the most extensive and reliable estimates of the Ko of the samples, an essential
input for the Recompression testing program.
72
The undrained shear data obtained were also, in general, unusually good. The
results of the TE tests are particularly pleasing as this marks the first time that Good to
Excellent extension data were routinely obtained at varying OCR.
73
Cell
Pressure
Controller
Pore
Pressure
Controller
ric
i
Figure 3-1: Schematic of the MIT Automated Stress Path Triaxial Apparatus
74
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
- TX002
Depth: 129' Test by:ALB
Project: CA/T Boring: S2-21
Somple: U12 Specimen Location: 7 - B Date: 5/31/90
0.4
0.3
d
0
,.
V)
0.2
O
Z 0.1
0.0
............. ...I..................
r
Axial Strain (percent)
U,
rq
0
co
V)
LS
0
0.2
E
...
...............
0.2......................-------..............
a)
................................
O:
E
L
F
0.0
0.4
0.6
08
02
Normalized Mean Effective Strecss
Figure 3-2: Example of Poor Stress Path Affected by System Noise
75
Comparison of Shear Rate Control
Axial Strain (%)
25
Poor Control
--.
Good Control
I
I
20 -
/
15
rate
0.468 %/hr
r2 · 0.99998
,
F
10
rate*
r,2
I
,
I
I
,
/
!'
0
0.9768
,
I
i
O
0.436 %/hr
I
10
20
I
I
30
40
Time (hrs)
Figure 3-3: Example of Good and Bad Axial Load Rate Control
50
76
TX080S
STRESS
PATH
RECOMPRESSION CKoUE
0.3
Q/SIGVC'
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
I
-0.3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P' /SIGVC'
S82-23
U1 - ELEV. 21.8'
Figure 3-4: Example of Effect on Stress Path of Rate Change (Extreme Case)
77
TX031C
COMPRESSION CURVE
'2
STRAIN
F~~
~ ~(%)
~
-
n'
I
_
-~~~~~~~_
I
I
I
I~
---
I
VOLUMETRIC
I
L
__
\\
I
I
I I
'I
I~
r
I
I
I
0.1
: :
i
I
Il
i
I
l
I)
f
I
:~~~~~~~II
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
H
I
ii
I
I
I
STRAIN
-10
-14
I
i
Hi i
1
II
-8
I
T
1
1%
AXIAL STRAIN
-6
l T
d
I~~~ I
I
-12
i
,I
0
[
I
i
IIT
·
I
i
.
I
: _._.
10
1
(ksc)
SB2-21 U11 - 120.3'
Figure 3-5: Example of Poor Compression Curve Resulting From Incorrect Axial
Load Gain Rate
78
CHAPTER 4.
Sample Characteristics and Distribution
of Engineering Tests
4.1 Sample Quality and Macrofabric
The quality and macrofabric of the Boston Blue Clay tube samples are assessed
through the use of radiography using the procedures and equipment as described in detail in
Sauls et al. (1984). MIT received a total of 45 tube samples for the Special Test Program,
all of which were X-rayed 10 inches at a time for a total of 135 radiographs.
The radiographs generally showed clay layers of different density, indicating a
certain non-uniformity. Radiographs from the SB and EB borings had essentially the same
basic features, with the upper material being fairly uniform, and more pronounced layering
being observed with depth. The inclination of the layers ranged from 0 to 10 degrees. The
various layers are basically clay type material, occasionally containing of very fine lenses of
silt or sand (or sand pockets). These lenses were usually visible on the radiograph provided
they were approximately perpendicular to the vertical axis of the tube. Upon trimming,
additional fine lenses of silt were often observed more or less parallel to the tube's vertical
axis. These very fine layers appeared to be a characteristic of the clay as they were apparent
in many of the samples from both South or East Boston.
Table 4-1 shows the total recovery and the amount of material available for
engineering tests (i.e., of sufficient quality) from the South Boston borings (SB2-21 and
23). The overall quality of the tube sampling at SB was generally excellent. The use of a
heavy weight drilling mud (yt > 70 pcf) to prevent bottom failure, as recommended by Dr.
79
ladd, enabled the samples to retain much of their structure, and also resulted in very high
recovery ratios. Table 4-2 presents the same information for the East Boston boring (EB2162).
The SB block sampling analysis is summarized in Table 4-3. From this table, one
notices that the quality of the block samples varied and some samples were remolded,
apparently the result of the soil being disturbed before the sampling. According to Dr.
Lefebvre from Sherbrooke University, for depths of 90ft or less (above EL. 20), the
disturbance was due to the contractor's cleaning bucket and was solved by cleaning the
bottom of the hole with Sherbrooke's flat auger. At greater depths no undisturbed soil was
obtained. Dr. Lefebvre attributes this problem to bottom failure and claims that, "intact
block samples of the highest quality could be obtained if the bottom of the hole can be kept
undisturbed and stable" (letter from Dr. Lefebvre to Haley & Aldrich, October 16, 1990).
The block samples were too large to be radiographed. Therefore the quality and
quantity of soil available for engineering tests was estimated from direct observations upon
opening the samples, and from the field sampling log. After MIT received the samples,
they were visually inspected and cut to smaller sizes (approximately 5in. in height) to
facilitate handling. The samples were then waxed to prevent water loss during storage and
placed in a humid room. The macrofabric for most of the samples contained some silt and
sand layers. Surprisingly a few very distinct shear planes were also observed; a
phenomenom not understood and difficult to explain since these were found in very high
quality samples of stiff BBC.
4.2 Classification and Index Properties
Following the radiography process, classification and index tests were run on
samples from SB2-21 and 23, and EB2-162. The natural water contents and torvane
strengths were determined from the ends of each tube, both at MIT and H&A. Additional
80
water contents and torvane strengths were obtained from soil located directly around every
sample used for engineering tests. Atterberg limits, grain size analysis and specific gravity
tests were also performed on representative samples. Finally, salt concentration, pH and
carbonate content tests were run to investigate pore fluid properties and soil composition.
4.2.1 Natural Water Content, Atterberg Limits, Plasticity Chart
Figure 4-1 presents project elevation versus natural water content, plastic and liquid
limits for the clay deposit at South Boston and Fig. 4-2 does likewise for East Boston. The
data r7-eboth from standard oedometer testing at H&A and from some MIT triaxial
trimmings. The natural water contents generally range from 30-40 % within the top 30ft of
the clay, to approximately 40-45 % for the remaining clay. The plastic limits are generally
around 22 % + 2 SD throughout the clay deposit, while the liquid limits are more dispersed
with values of 50 % + 6 SD (Note: liquid limits are sensitive to oven drying, which might
explain the higher SD). There is no evidence to indicate any significant difference in these
properties from the South Boston (tube or block samples) and the East Boston sites.
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show both the plasticity index (Ip) and the liquidity index (IL)
variations within the clay. The Ip is fairly consistent, ranging from 20 to 35 % with a mean
around 28 io. The IL values on the other hand are dispersed, ranging from 0.3 to 0.9. IL
decreases at shallower depths due to increasing preconsolidation pressure.
The plasticity chart is represented in Fig. 4-5. The samples plot above the A line, as
is typical of marine illitic clays (CL-CH). Once again, there is no difference between the SB
and the EB results, and there is also no trend versus elevation.
4.2.2 Strength Index
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 also show the torvane strengths for the clay deposit. The
values are very consistent, both for MIT and H&A, generally forming a rend similar to the
81
stress history profile presented in Chapter 5. The strength values start high from 1.5 to 2
ksf at EL. 60 ft, they reach a low of approximately 0.8 at El. 25 ft, and increase again to
about 1 at EL. -20 ft.
4.2.3 Grain Size Distribution and Specific Gravity
Figure 4-6 shows the grain size distribution profile. The grain size analyses
obtained from eight (only six are shown in Fig. 4-6 for two were repeated) hydrometer
tests is very consistent throughout the clay and gives approximately 53 % clay size (less
than 0.002 mm), 44 % silt and 3 % sand (greater than 0.075 mm). The mean activity of the
clay (defined as Ip /% clay) is 0.53 and ranges from 0.38 to 0.66. A series of 10 specific
gravity tests gave a value of 2.785 + .009 SD which is reasonable for BBC (see Fig. 4-7).
Both series were performed at MIT on soil material located around engineering test
specimens.
4.2.4 Salt Concentration, carbonate content and pH
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 also present the pore (water) fluid salt concentration measured
at MIT for tube samples from the three borings. The salt content (expressed as equivalent
NaCl concentration in grams per liter) is fairly high at the top elevations, starting at 30 g/l at
El. 70 to 15 g/l at EL. 55, and reaching a steady value around 12 g/l for the lower portion
of the clay.
Figure 4-8 represents the results of carbonate content tests done on soil from boring
SB2-23 by Professor DeGroot at the University Of Massachusetts at Amherst using the
Chittick method. The results are consistent, with dolomite and calcite contents around 3%
and 1%, respectively. However, the relatively high carbonate content is rather surprising
(Ladd, personal communication).
82
Figure 4-7 plots elevation versus pH from tests run at MIT. Although most of the
values are near seven (neutral), a significant number of tests gave significantly higher
values.
4.3 Distribution of Engineering Tests
Tables 4-1 through 4-3 present the distribution of CK-triaxial and lateral stress
oedometer tests done at MIT under it's contract with H&A. The tests are listed according to
the actual test number used during the program (i.e., TX001-TX104). A total of 33 triaxial
tests using the SHANSEP technique (19 Triaxial Compression and 14 Triaxial Extension,
TC and TE, respectively) were run on the South Boston tube samples (Table 4-1). An
additional six triaxial tests were run using the Recompression technique (4 TC and 2 TE).
For the East Boston site (Table 4-2), 11 SHANSEP (6 TC and 5 TE) tests were run, but no
Recompression tests were performed due to a lack of soil.
The South Boston block samples were extensively tested with a total of 13
SHANSEP (5 TC and 8 TE) tests, and 35 Recompression (24 TC and 11 TE) tests
performed (Table 4-3). In addition, a total of nine Lateral Stress Oedometer (LSO) tests
were run, four on SB, two on EB and three on block samples.
83
0
0
l
.. 1
.-
II
---
I
___ __
I
_
II
-l
0!3
-- -
X
Co 2.
:i: bs
Y.
9I
u &n0
-..
0
fi~
__
Z .2C; MU
aEu
uHD
C,
coi
H) 0
F
_
I_
II
o
0r
Cl
0
X
0
X
z
3:I -
V)
<
vr=
0o
H
Zi
H
H
8X
X
8
Xx
-0
o
U3
Uo
.A~~
U
E
u
oc
o
-
:,-
O.
o
il
_
-0
N
W
O%tr¢e
r
(
I
r-
E-
_
N
ct
r-
I,
g
(
N
fn
_
-F
CS
Cl
fn
5 -.
^
N
00
0%
_
0C
(N
t--
60Os
0%c 00
_
00
_(
-
(N
(N
( r-
>
n
(N
-
0%
-
N
(N
(
(N
r
00(
0
(N
N
(N
P r-X
roS
<e
0
(N
r-
-
CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tn
D
(c)
ZD D
0
D
V
c-
D
V
V
c
c
I~CI
n
84
-
-
0oj
e
J,
©l
_H
X
'0
Cv)
m
--·1111111
W.
ee
x
U Ca
C
4)
CO
AU
C:
U
.2
C:
0H
o
z
E
4)
H
P,
C,
0
Ct
..r_
q0
o0
eq
0
H
a.
Xs
7 SL_ 04
zU
::
W,
Cl
r
;
H
m
all
O
H
"
H
O
X
(-(.
W
o
H
0
~s
-,
u
a
M
M
M
M
0
.0
-
,0
C
-
:4
H
E
I.-A
e
D
O
=
.4
O
l
C
Cl
t
<?
o'
Cl
-
C
cr
f \
Cl
l
Cl
Cl
.
0%
t
oE
'=u4
o a
0 4.
~
.
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ilr
o
(Cl
Ch
83
I
-
Ill ·
__
0c)
J4
x
.-
00
m
0
X
4)49
to
4)
0
H
-
q
9,
0
z
x<1
o U
xe
0%
W
w
4)
_
C4
oS
CI,
MX
41
U4
c
9CD
o
(4
. .
o
<Ch
=:
V)
o
X
00
H
_
I--t
S4
HH
F- F
x-x
00-F x x
H
H
HHF
10
s
C
_
E
M
o
4)
.0
o
*3
H2
e~
CX
:4)M Z
-
Ug
WI.
's
-4
4)
0
~~~
~ ~
M
w
;Ilg
0
.
Uv
,tn
- r)
*n
C3CJ
CCIN00
- a%
0x
r
.5
u
-C
0
o
,A
4
). ,4)
cV
"
eiI
C
n
4
l~
CU
-~11
-V
_ CI(
_ <N C·
cs cs, oCV
c cvq_ cvN_~~~~~W ·W
;
:
4
7
,
LC
L
I
ea
ei
U
CY
Y
°\
0%
°
:>
L.
CI
N
eJ
(
CI
CI
(V
_
_
ea
CV
e l
es
cV
N
0
r
EOS
0%
Oq~
CZ
*Q~1
C,,
cu
o H
m
U
o
°°°
CD
-,
\O
O0
CS
-C
3
-I
oo
C
3~3
-
h:
O
-
V
_
6
ON
_
:D
e
(S
d
(N
m
9(U
CV
3
C
r
86
I
II-
00
0-,
Un
J
-
e U
U
O
C1
I
CN
n
NH
o-
H 0,.JI
3.8
U
oQ F
t-
U7
u
6-
--
o
9x t->xx
~ xC
0
t_ oo~
C-,
J.
\O
°
kn
f00Xcn Xo Xo
V)
H H H
-~\
--
---
-
zo
vi
t0
x<
FU,
xX
HH
0
U
U
oF0
co
3)
4H0
0% c
2
--3
_~
tn
3C
-
m
0--
Eo
mW
C,
c
02
_
r
'IT
3 _X
cn
C
-1
'0c
3(1
ot
0
87
-
0C')
r-
-- 3
.3
v
W)
c)
0
x
'05
~c-(o~i
V
.ot
FLZ
a r.90
r~-
cm
i
M0
0
o )
z
U,
H
2
9H;U
III
'rwv'- 0.
0000
i ,,0i_
xx
xxx Hx x
--
6
00
H xxxxxx-xx
(xxX
x
x
-
--
T,
&n
t-
so
000
X
o XXX
- 0
Xx
LL
0o r-
v
*C
rr-_ r-o0
z o
0
g"
00
IX
xHH
x xHH
x
F-
c
.5
0
a,
"~
000%
00
XH
X-
XX
--
--
oo
oo
oo
oo
_
o
0X
X
H--
t
CO
o
XF
x
CA
.
0
.)d
E
u
W
0·
Xt t t
-C:
~0
00
o o o s
o
o
cou
- o C:
elY
·c£ t
E:
_
.2
.0
o
os
o
Vn
U
_
12
W~h
E O x
C O\
L:2
0\
O\
cj~~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ _~0
~~~~
fS ~
~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
.
uD
Vn
m
v,
vl-
@
l ,-c
vl
C1
<
o
t
_
o
C
R*
0
v
'aJ
c Pda
y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dm 0
m
mP
m
ECD
azC m
V:
va
uj
88
c3
r
4.
-
.
.
.................... .........................................................................
0
(A
t 5
oD
0
-
U) clcLn
!
a
C
4..
U:
m
CA
.............................................
. ..
-
o !
i
C
o
C
C
i
0
a6
0O-
0:
lo
C
;>
-
....................................
. I'd
x-
Q0
_: X
: X
............ ................
.....
_......o
. ...... .. .......
- CZ
rL
r
..........
._
C
40
40
rC
;O
o
-
C
_
. 4
.
x
4
u
4
co
I
I
I
I
I
II
....
. .. ..
..........
. .....
. .....
.. . .. ... . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . ... .. .. . . .. ... . . .. . . ... .
- -~~~~~~~~~~
1*
W
..
a
E,
rA
0
0
o
F 4c)
4a
.C
;e: af
60
o
W
O
.4
CC
4
w
_t.
C
Co
co
o1-cC
(Ij) tzoT~enala t aro1,j
C
-cr
89
C',
-
C,
I-
.
CMl
cV
On
14
3
C.)
CL
0
co
la
C
O
E
C
0
-.
4=3
,_
040
U,
ci
C=3
-
IF
o
l]
J
CP
5e II
co
c::
CMj
(IJ) tXCUolrA3l 1J3oG3
90
X
Ga
'
. .... ..... . . ...
c11
LW"
.. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ......
. ..........
...................................................
C,,
... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ..
..............
C%A
L"
I
I
~
-4O
I
--
e
.-
o
:
:
eme
emO
~U
0c'
;o
C,
_IZ ~~ ~
· · · · · · ·· · · ·- · · · C·s
j "' .j
_'o
j.
.
j.
_
*0_
U'-
C
·
·
'
*lU
i
ill
Ir
·
I
I
.
.................
................
-
:
-
i
lz
..........................................
............
.
.
_
.
0
ae
_-
_--
nO
®I
o
E-
o
-4-0
..........................
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
1
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
~ II
. .
. .
I
I. I.
.
.
.
_-
mO
.......... *_
e
.................
...............
...........
~.............i...~.........,..........................
. . .
L I .*I .
I=X °
·
.
.
.
.
I
·
_I
rc=
!
I
*~4
,
_
L-
~
:
~
:
.§
-o.....................
_
_
_
..........
:. .0.
;& .....
i,
00
..
i..........
%p.....1
1
~~:
®
-o-
------;O-
-i;.......
-4-e.0
s
_Y
S;
:
.-
.o
O,
vlO
o~~~~
:4
O
-C
o
S......................:
...........................
...........................
......................
o
:.
_......
_
_
..................
I
I
0
.
'
_
C(J)
·
.
Xo A3 VT 0[l-
.~
*
.
3o
:
7 -ac
0n
U:
..........................
O
.
C
91
c
,
x
Q
l
cCo
a
u"C
c
Z -W
Lu
._
.r
Fs
at
MhO
C
.,°
xu
0
· o
c:>
C-.&
-
.0 *
CY
-CQ
w
-- Fl
AM
S
.
-
_
.
o7-......
&
. _.. _
_
,
_
e;w
I
o.._
_
o
_
i
i,
. _o
_
.
,
_ · · · · · · · · · __--·-·-
_
:
:
.
_···-·-----
_
· ·- ·- · · · ·-
·· :-·- · ·
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
· ·3·········
e, _ _ _ ; ; ; , _X~~~~~~~~~~~.
o
I
_
.
'
U:~~~~~~~
'
* !
'!..
'
·
'
'
'
-_
_
8
0
0
..
........ ................................................................................................
..................... .................'~......
Cg
4"
.
ae
C
W
_
_~~~j
:
CL.
..... ........................................
...................--
.................--------.....................
-......................
_.
..........
_-
:
:
i
:
:
:
:
_-
C
......
.............
..........................................
.
_-m
·
r
·
1
r
r
r
(~lJ)a
(as)
LA
I
W
I
O
m13
a C3, gap rlc
O
1
1
r
-
U
d
-
2u
ZsL
92
C
Co
Q
Ca
.......................
................................
L.
w
ew
Il
tt'
................................
...........
..........
t3C
0
-.
-
c0
.... .... .I. ..... .. ... .... .... ...
LOS
C
-
000,
o O
.., ,, - , , ,,,
,, .,,, ............................
..............................
.
o
..
. . ..
0
........
...,.................
......................
......
Cu
m
0
~j-oo
II*
.
_
i,
,3
I
0
(O
I I
I
I
0
LO
I
I I I
0
I
0
O
(°6) dI 'XapuI
II I I I
I
I I
0
O
;;!!1Sld
0
-
0
m
1o
93
(%)
Grain Size Distribution
0
-
20
-
-
-
-
60
40
-
.
.
.
.-
.
80
.
.
.
100
.
31
26
'"
Lo
0
0
........................................................
--
A
...........................- 4
...............................................................
IU
2
t
,,~.
w
o
a.
-10
............................. -........................................................................
-18
.% Sand
m
%Silt
I*
% Clay
Figure 46. South Boston STP: Elevation versus Grain Size Distribution
94
Specific Gravity, Gs
2.77
2.75
60
....
2.79
i' '
' ''
I
2.81
I
i'
'
I
2.83
I
I'
'
!
2.85
'
G =2.785 .009; n=10
oi
45
C
30
0,
.
15
0
PwL
0
.0
0
...............
_
..........................
--'··-'-'·'·· '·-"'"'-·"-·-"'-"·--·~~~~~~~~.
-15
-30
I
_ I.
I
I.
I.
I
.
.
...........
1
.
I
. .......
.
I
I
.
I Ii
.
I
.I
.I
Figure 4-7. South Boston STP: Elevation versus Specific Gravity
95
Carbonate Content (%)
0
70.3
1
2
,V,\\\\\\\\\\\`IQB
I'
-------------
III
54.3
At
45.6
\\\\\\\\\-rL
,,,i,,\\\\\\,sl
r rr Ir
,,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ r-_llp
r
------------
>
23.3
16
·
-
II
r
-
~---
MIIINIINII
I-
i
5
lUB
leh4
s
-2,1 Id PI101=111
NNIME"
\\\
MMM"
\ NI
.o 37.6
-=8
4
-
ml
I
L
62
3
IM
a
;
WIII
INIIII
_
_
III
M1111011
M
------------_
I
+
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\:1C·"l 1788
P-l
01
lls
EIIII
k
NINWINWWN\\\IWIINI
011l
Llb·-
8.6
-"a\U.
-
0
0.3
-7.7
-16
-25
NON
\ MN I WN,
NNEM
MINIBB
~\NEINNIMEM\
L0
111111011
.
rni\\\\\\\\\\\\
_
_
__
I I
W11111
_~~Il
I
I
q
U
*
Ul
I!/
I
%Dolomite
W\\
%Calcite
Figure 4-8. South Boston STP: Carbonate Content Profile
(by DeGroot, U. Mass, Amherst)
96
pH
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
80
.
..
.
.
.,
.
I..
.....
I
.
.l]
.
.
,,
.
l [
,
,
[
,
O _
60
;0
-
0
'
0
*
:
:
O
O
40
om'I
Nr,,
20
z
O
0
I
I
I
--· ·--····
0· ·· ··-· · ·- ·--·-·r ·I·-
......................_
'O-
-.
.....................................
-20
.
0
c)1
:~~~~~~~~~'
i;··:······i· ·- · ··
0
I
I
I
I I
I
-40
e
EB pH
o
SBpH
Figure 4-9. South and East Boston STP: Elevation versus pH
97
CHAPTER 5. Evaluation of Stress History and Consolidation
Properties
5.1 Introduction
As previously emphasized, establishing the stress history of the sites was an
important priority. The bulk of the consolidation data was obtained from the consolidation
phase of SHANSEP triaxial tests, but supplemented by standard incremental oedometer
tests performed by H&A and several CRSC tests performed at MIT (by Germaine and
Associates). The CKo-TX test also provided information on the Ko of the soil, with
additional data being provided by several LSO tests. This chapter presents a collective
summary of consolidation data from all types of tests, as well as some "typical"
compression curves and Ko data. First, however, a few issues relating to the testing
technique are covered.
5.1.1 Extrusion Technique
Sample disturbance can severely affect consolidation data. Typically, a disturbed
specimen yields a flattened compression curve which results in a higher estimated
recompression ratio (RR), a lower estimated virgin compression ratio (CR), and a lower
(and/or obscured), preconsolidation pressure a'p. Some of the early results from H&A's
oedometer tests, and MIT's CKo-TX tests run on South Boston tube samples showed
values of
'p at the lower elevations that were actually less than the calculated 'vo. This
apparent "underconsolidation" could not be explained by excess pore pressures at the site
and was thus attributed to incorrect dp measurements due to sample disturbance.
98
Specifically, it was felt that the extrusion of the clay from the tubes was causing
excessive disturbance, especially for triaxial specimens which were considerably longer (4
inches compared to 1.5 inches) than the oedometer specimens. Accordingly, a new
extrusion method developed by Werner (1991) during a test program on stiff Arctic silt,
was adopted. The method consisted of inserting a wire saw into the tube near the edge and
cutting around the perimeter of the soil to remove the adhesion between the clay and the
tube before attempting to extrude the soil. Subsequent results on samples which did not
appear visibly cracked or disturbed were much more reasonable.
5.1.2 Continuous versus Incremental Loading
Another source of ambiguous o'p results occurred from the use of incremental
loading in the standard oedometer tests. This was especially true for deeper samples that
often had slightly S-shaped compression curves. Figure 5-1 illustrates an early oedometer
test performed at H&A. Even though the test used a load increment ratio (LIR) of about 0.7
at the higher stresses, the resulting curve is poorly defined in the neighborhood of a'p. In
fact, the original estimate of o'p = 2.4 ksc was less than the overburden stress of
'vo =
3.0 ksc. Figure 5-1 also shows a possible S-shaped compression curve (the dashed line
between 2.4 and 4.0 ksc) that would yield a higher and more reasonable value of o'p.
Figure 5-2 shows the continuous compression curve from a CKo-TX test run on a
tube sample slightly deeper than used for the oedometer test used in Fig. 5-1. This figure
illustrates two important points:
1. The deeper BBC often has a highly non-linear, S-shaped virgin compression
curve; and
2. Adequate definition of such curves, and hence reliable estimates of dp, will
99
require oedometer test having very small increments (say a LIR of only 0.1 near
GO'p).
Figure 5-3 shows the curve resulting from a CRSC test. In terms of producing well
defined compression curves, the CRSC test is as good as CKo-TX tests and it has the
added advantage of obtaining continuous measurements of permeability (k) and hence
coefficient of consolidation (cv). However, some of the CRSC tests performed on samples
taken from the East Boston site gave anomalous results as discussed later. For this reason,
and due to problems with the incremental oedometer tests, most of the a'p data used to
develop stress history profiles at the two test sites came from the numerous compression
curves obtained from the SHANSEP tests.
5.1.3 Methods for Estimating
'p
Although several methods have been proposed for estimating a'p (e.g.,
Schmertmann, 1955 and Butterfield, 1979). The most widely used is the construction
developed by Casagrande (1936). According to the Casagrande technique, a'p is defined
by the intersection of two lines: 1) the bisector of the angle defined by a horizontal line
through the minimum radius of curvature on the curve and a line tangent to the curve at that
point, and 2) the extension of the virgin compression line (VCL). An example of this type
of construction is shown in Fig. 5-4. One disadvantage of this method is that it often
requires considerable judgement on the part of the engineer, and different interpretations of
the same curve are common.
Recent work by Becker et al. (1987) makes use of strain energy considerations to
estimate the preconsolidation pressure. To use the strain energy (SE) method, one plots the
strain energy, or work per unit volume of each increment, calculated as:
W = f 'v d£v = I ('vcave x AEv)
(5-1)
100
where (C'vcaveis the average vertical effective stress on the specimen during the given
increment, and A£v is the change in natural strain (i.e., AH/H) over the increment versus
',vc, the final consolidation stress for each increment. The resulting curve resembles an
inverted compression curve and o'p is defined by the intersection of a line extending the
initial "straight line" portion of the curve with the line defining the maximum slope of the
virgin compression line (VCL),as demonstrated in Fig. 5-5.
This new method was applied to most of the high quality compression curves for
the upper crust of the two deposits. The results for South Boston are compared with o'p
estimated via the traditional Casagrande method in Fig. 5-6. As shown, there is very good
agreement between o'p estimated from the two methods, though in general, the strain
energy yields slightly lower values as presented in Fig. 5-6.
There are advantages to both methods. The strain energy method has a sounder
"theoretical" basis, can be easily computerized and probably requires less judgement when
applied to curves on stiff clay. But the Casagrande construction is simpler,much more
widely used, and has a strong "empirical" basis. For the consolidation tests performed at
MIT, the Casagrande construction was used on all of the tests, and the strain energy
method on about half of the tests. When the two methods yielded different estimates of G'p,
an average of the two values was generally selected.
Table 5-1 summarizes the values of
G'p
used to develop the stress history profile
for South Boston that was needed for interpretation of the CKoU triaxial tests performed
with the Recompression technique. The complete results from the consolidation phase of
the SHANSEP triaxial tests at both sites are available in Appendix B, while H&A (1991)
presents the results from the oedometer and CRSC tests.
101
5.2 Typical Results from CKo-Triaxial Tests
5.2.1 Typical Compression
Curves
Figure 5-7 shows triaxial 1-D compression curves from three normally consolidated
tests on SB tube samples from different elevations. These curves illustrate the different
shapes encountered; linear VCLs, like TX029, or S-shaped like the other two. The curve
labeled TX029, from El. 52.4 ft, has a constant virgin compression ratio (CR) of 0.19 and
a preconsolidation pressure (a'p) of 6.35 ksc (13.0 ksf). Test TX060, from El. 14.6 ft
shows a distinct double curvature and CR decreases from a maximum of about 0.6 near (Y'p
= 3.0 ksc, to a minimum of 0.24 at 'vm. The deepest sample is TX015 at El. -20.8 ft. The
CR just beyond c'p = 4.2 ksc is about 0.5, decreasing to 0.21 at G'vm.
Both of the lower curves are distinctly S-shaped. While there is no clear trend of
increasing CRMax with depth, most of the tests performed on specimens taken below El.
20 (which is just above the bottom of the desiccated crust) at SB yielded S-shaped curves.
Similarly, the compression curves of the tests performed at East Boston tend to change
from linear to S-shaped at El. 40, corresponding to the bottom of the crust at that site.
5.2.2 Typical K Data
Figure 5-8 shows a Ko versus log
'vc plot from a typical, high quality,
overconsolidated SHANSEP test. Ko starts from a value of approximately one and
decreases during loading to near the preconsolidation pressure. Ko then increases and
remains more or less constant during virgin consolidation (typically about 0.56). When the
sample is allowed to swell one-dimensionally to the specified OCR, the Ko value increases
as the OCR increases. Figure 5-9 plots the value of Ko versus log OCR during this
unloading.
102
Each overconsolidated SHANSEP test yields two important aspects about Ko: the
normally consolidated Ko value, and a relationship between Ko and OCR. Knowledge of
this second relationship is crucial for the performance of Recompression triaxial tests since
each test is consolidated to stresses determined by the Ko corresponding to the OCR
selected for each test. Another way to determine this relationship in the laboratory is by
using the lateral stress oedometer (LSO), which is covered in Section 5.5.
It should be emphasized that one-dimensional reconsolidation of overconsolidated
clay to the in situ OCR will result in values of horizontal stress O(hcthat are generally much
too low. This is illustrated in Fig. 5-8 by the very low values of K0 during recompression.
This is why Recompression tests require an estimate of the in situ Ko versus OCR
relationship.
5.3 Stress History Profiles
One of the first and most important tasks of the laboratory portion of H&A's STP
was to establish reliable stress history profiles at both sites. The stress history of the
deposit is needed for at least three important reasons. First, strength of the clay at any point
in the deposit is directly related to its in situ OCR via the SHANSEP equation:
cu / 'vc = S (OCR) m
Secondly, the in situ OCR and
(5.2)
'p are needed both to properly run and to interpret results
from Recompression strength test. And thirdly, the same information is essential for
evaluation of the various in situ tests conducted as part of the STP.
Thus knowledge of the preconsolidation pressure of the clay at every elevation is
vital, and as discussed above, the greatest care was taken to achieve the best possible
103
estimates of o'p through use of continuous loading consolidation tests, high quality soil
specimens, and different graphical estimation techniques.
As covered in Chapter 2, the Boston Blue Clay found at both the South and East
Boston sites is a marine clay deposited after the most recent glaciation of the area.
According to Kenney (1964) the clay deposit would be expected to have an eroded and/or
weathered top surface, while the lower part of the deposit might be slightly
overconsolidated depending upon the amount of erosion and deposition which occurred.
As is shown in the following sections, this prediction fits very well with the stress history
profiles developed for each site.
5.3.1 South Boston Stress History
Figure 5-10 shows results from CKo-TX, CRSC and standard oedometer tests
performed on both tube and block samples at the South Boston site. The points on this plot
include only the Good or better quality tests with the exception of three Fair quality TX
tests, and one Fair oedometer test. The preconsolidation pressures for each type of test and
sample are shown with a different symbol. The lines resulting from a linear regression of
the points are also shown. Linear regression on 31 tests from El. 18 ft gave
a'p (ksf) = 3.45 + 0.170 El.(ft)
(5.3)
with r2 = 0.72 and linear regression on 17 tests from below EL. 15 ft gave
aO'p(ksf) = 7.37 - 0.050 El.(ft)
(5.4)
with r2 = 0.73. Calculations of (o'pfor use in the Recompression testing program used Eq.
5.3.
As shown in Fig. 5-10, there is a fairly sharp definition of the bottom of the
desiccated crust near El. 20 ft. Below that elevation the clay is very lightly
104
overconsolidated, indicating that over the years, erosion has slightly exceeded deposition in
this area.
5.3.2 East Boston Stress History
Figure 5-11 shows the stress history at the East Boston site based on a'p data from
oedometer and CKo-TX tests. The profile of cr'p is similar to South Boston, and fairly well
defined despite the fact that there are significantly fewer data points than for the South
Boston site. At East Boston El. 30 marks the approximate bottom of the desiccated crust,
and results from five SHANSEP triaxial tests indicate that the ower clay is slightly
overconsolidated.
The reason there are fewer data points for East Boston is mostly due to the
organization of the testing program: tests on East Boston were meant to be primarily for
confirmation of the more extensive South Boston results, and thus far fewer tube samples
and consolidation tests were planned. Moreover, some of the results from tests on East
Boston samples are not shown. In particular, several CRSC tests gave extremely
inconsistent results, with values of 'p from adjacent specimens in the same tube different
by a factor of two in some cases. These differences have not yet been resolved, and thus
the results are not presented.
5.4 Compressibility and Flow Properties
In depth discussion of the compressibility and flow properties is beyond the scope
of the MIT contract and of this thesis. However, the maximum virgin compression ratio
(CRmax) and the value at a'vm (CRP'vm) were obtained for each triaxial test and are plotted
versus elevation in Fig. 5-12 for South Boston, and in Fig. 5-13 for East Boston. In these
figures, where a single vertical mark is shown, the CR was constant at that value, and
105
where there are two tick marks, they indicate CRmax and CRa'vm. Thus the longer the
horizontal line connecting the two marks, the more pronounced the curvature of the VCL.
As indicated in Fig. 5-12, the highest CRmax values (hence most pronounced Sshape) occur between El. 20 and 0 ft, approximately. For reference, typical CR values for
low OCR sedimentary CL and CH clays are 0.25 + 0.10 and 0.35 + 0.10, respectively.
Hence the existence of CRmax values that frequently exceed 0.4, combined with strong
curvature of the VCL suggest that the lower portion of the deposit has a significant
"structure" in spite of having a relatively low liquidity index (0.8 + 0.1 - See Fig. 4-3).
Most previous test on soft BBC in South Boston have not shown this "structured"
behavior, perhaps because these data came from incremental tests on samples of lower
quality.
The East Boston data in Fig. 5-13 show a similar increase in CRMaxand curvature
below the crust, though less pronounced than for South Boston. This may reflect either a
less structured clay or fewer tests being run on samples of somewhat lower quality.
The next figures present information on measured axial strain at the overburden
stress. Figure 5-14 plots data at South Boston from CKo-TX tests and from typical "Good"
and "Disturbed" oedometer tests, and Fig. 5-15 does likewise for East Boston. Four
important conclusions can be surmised from these data:
1. There is a consistent trend of increasing strain with depth, as would be expected
from the larger stress relief during sampling.
2. The axial (vertical) strains at a'vo from the oedometer tests are consistently
higher than those from the CKo-TX test. Much of this difference is probably due
to the larger specimen size which reduces disturbance due to trimming.
106
3. "Excessive" strains at the overburden stress is a good indication of excessive
sample disturbance that usually gave low o'p values. This occasionally occurred
for the triaxial tests (specimens taken from high quality zones of the tube based
on the radiography records) and more frequently from the oedometer tests
(specimens sometimes taken from the ends of the tube to expidite testing).
4. The tube and block samples taken within the crust of the South Boston deposit
are both of high quality based on the CKo strain data, and the block samples are
not significantly stiffer than the tube samples.
Based on preliminary data from oedometer and CRSC tests provided by Ms. Young
of H&A, the normally consolidated value of the coefficient of consolidation (cv) at both
sites decreases with depth within the crust, and then becomes more or less constant.
Typical values of c, (NC) are:
1. Within the crust, c, (NC) = 20 + 10 x 10-4 cm 2 / sec
2. Below the crust, cv (NC) = 7 + 3 x 10-4 cm 2 / sec
For swelling of clay below the crust, cv values on the order of 50 + 20 x 10- 4 cm2 / sec
appear typical.
5.5 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko )
The determination of Ko is necessary to estimate in situ horizontal stresses for soil
deposits having a one-dimensional stress (strain) history. The CA/T Project, which
involves many excavations in clay, is especially dependent on accurate values of Ko. As
presented in Table 1.I, estimates of Ko are needed for the following geotechnical
predictions: (1) lateral earth pressures, (2) excavation-related soil displacements; and (3)
slurry wall trench stability.
107
MIT used results from 55 CK,,U triaxial tests performed using the SHANSEP
technique to evaluate the normally consolidated (NC) Ko for Boston Blue Clay at the two
test sites. Eighteen of these tests were also used to determine the behavior of Ko during
unloading at various overconsolidation ratios (OCR). In addition nine lateral stress
oedometer (LSO) tests were performed to evaluate the NC and OC values of Ko, as well as
the reloading behavior (i.e., after unloading). Lastly, the analysis of these data was used to
estimate the approximate Ko profile with depth and OCR needed for the Recompression
CKoU triaxial testing performed by Anne Estabrook.
The determination of Ko from a SHANSEP CKoU test is obtained from the Ko
consolidation phase, during which the lateral to vertical stress ratio is continuously
monitored. As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, Ko consolidation is achieved by controlling the
confining pressure c'hc on the specimen so that the volumetric strain (£v) always remains
equal to the axial strain (Ea), thus maintaining a constant cross-sectional area. The process
is controlled automatically by the MIT automated triaxial testing system and is described in
Appendix A.2.5.
The mean values of Ko (NC) obtained during virgin compression and the maximum
and minimum (final) compression ratios (CR) are listed in Table 5-2. As discussed in
Section 5.2.1 and 5.4, most compression curves for BBC below about El. 40 ft exhibited
S-shaped virgin compression curves. Hence CR changes and this might cause changes in
Ko. Typical one-dimensional compression curves and a plot of Ko versus log vertical
effective stress (',vc) are represented in Fig. 5-7 and 5-8, respectively. As illustrated in
Fig. 5-7, CR maximum values occur near the preconsolidation pressure ('p) and decrease
to minimum CR values at the maximum test vertical consolidation stress (vm).
The
resulting Ko was sometimes affected (generally slightly higher values near O'vm). This
108
behavior is discussed in the following section, while for the rest of the analyses a mean
value of Ko is used.
Finally, six tests experienced internal leakage that caused the measured values of Ko
to be too low. These tests are identified in Table 5-2 with further discussion in Section
5.5.3.
5.5.1 Normally
Consolidated Ko
Figure 5-16 presents the mean values of Ko from all CKoU triaxial tests for the
South and East Boston sites plotted versus Project Elevation. Included in Fig. 5-16 are the
results from six tests where an internal leak (from the cell to the sample) is known to have
occurred. These tests gave very low Ko values and were excluded from the estimate of
mean values. A thorough discussion of the effects of internal leakage is presented in
Section 5.5.3.
There appears to be a slight trend of decreasing Ko with increasing depth, with
typical values for El. 70 to El. 40 ft ranging from 0.56 to 0.61, down to typical values of
0.53 to 0.57 for the bottom 40 ft (El. 20 to El. -20 ft). Excluding the tests affected by
leakage, the mean Ko for BBC is 0.557 + 0.025SD (n=49), with a maximum value of
0.613 and a minimum of 0.516.
Also shown in Fig. 5-16 are the values of virgin compression ratio (CR). For Sshaped curves, both the CRmaxand CR at c'vm (CRmin)are plotted. At first glance, there
appears to be a slight trend of decreasing mean Ko with increasing CR, especially from El.
40 to El. 0 ft. However, analysis of the individual Ko versus CR data in Table 5-2 (i.e., the
Ko values at the maximum and minimum CR, rather than the mean Ko values) do not show
a consistent trend. This lack of correlation between Ko and CR is further supported by
representative data plotted in Fig. 5-17 from seven tests.
109
Figure 5-18 presents Ko values versus plasticity index (Ip) for the clay deposit.
Only those Ip values measured directly on trimmings from triaxial test specimens are
reported in this plot. For these data, the mean Ko is 0.548 + 0.020, with values ranging
from 0.515 to 0.590. The average Ip is 28.3% ± 1.7 and varies from 26 to 31%. These
results for the BBC agree relatively well with other soils reported in the literature (e.g.,
Fig. 30 of Ladd et al. 1977).
Jaky (1944) proposed the following equation to estimate Ko for NC soils:
Ko = 1 - sin 4)'
(5-5)
Figure 5-19 plots the measured Ko versus 1- sin 4D',and Fig. 5-20 shows values of Ko
versus friction angle. In both figures, 4O'm is the friction angle at maximum obliquity from
OCR = 1 CKoU TC or TE tests. Most values fall above the 1- sin 4D'+0.05 line, but are
well within the range of scatter reported in the extensive summary by Mayne and Kulhawy
(1982). For cohesive soils, they obtained Ko = 1 - 0.987 sin 4)' (with r2 = 0.73 from 81
sets of data) which is essentially the same as given by Eq. 5-5. Surprisingly, the tests with
leakage reduced Ko in such a way that the results fall within the ± 0.05 range of Jaky's
equation.
Based on mean values of D'm from Sections 6.2.3 (TC) and 6.3.3 (TE) and the
mean Ko = 0.557, one obtains the following comparison:
Type of Triaxial Test
<'m
(Degrees)
(1 - sin W) 'm)
Difference
TC
31.2 + 1.3SD
0.482 + 0.019SD
-0.075
TE
32.7 + 2.9SD
0.460 + 0.042SD
-0.097
110
Hence, 'm from triaxial compression tests predicts values of Ko closer to those that were
measured than do triaxial extension tests. If one used the friction angle measured at the
peak strength in TC ('f
= 22.20 + 1.2), this would predict a much higher Ko of 0.62.
However, 1'f is not a real "material parameter". Therefore it is very important to state the
nature of the tests and 1' ansie considered when reporting testing data used for empirical
correlations (a fact often neglected in the available literature for Ko correlations).
Throughout this analysis, no difference in NC Ko values has been observed for the
South and East Boston sites. This observation also applies to Ko for OC BBC.
5.5.2 Overconsolidated Ko
Schmidt (1966) and Alpan (1967) suggested the following empirical equation to
relate the increase in Ko with OCR during rebound:
Ko (OC)/ Ko (NC) = (OCR) n
(5-6)
Since then values of n have been calculated and reported by the profession as a useful
parameter for representing the overconsolidated behavior of K0 . An analysis of the
overconsolidated behavior of Ko was done for 17 SHANSEP triaxial tests that were
rebounded to OCR's ranging from 2 to 8. An additional nine LSO tests were performed of
which three were discarded due to disturbance or leakage problems (LS012, 13 and 19).
The other six tests were utilized to compare results with the triaxial testing and also to
determine reloading behavior.
Figures 5-21 and 5-22 illustrate the behavior of Ko during unloading for typical
CKoU triaxial tests. Figure 5-21 shows two tests, TX092 and TX097, with approximately
linear log-log relationships, i.e., constant n values. However, test TX097 shows a large
increase (jump) in Ko at low OCR, while TX092 experiences no such "jump". Figure 5-22
111
presents results from test TX067 which displays a concave downward trend, i.e.,
decreasing n with increasing OCR. This behavior was frequently observed and further
analysis of the behavior of n is presented later in this section. Typical LSO results are
presented in Fig. 5-23 The same general observations from CKOU tests apply as plots
exhibit either approximately linear log-log relationship (LS018) or concave downward
trends (LSO16). All 17 triaxial test results are plotted in Fig. 5-24, while all six LSO tests
are in Fig. 5-25. Finally, it should be noted that the reported values of n in this section
were all obtained from linear regression, although measured n values are used to analyze n
versus OCR and to determine the Ko unloading behavior in Section 5.5.4.
Figure 5-26 presents n values versus the plasticity index Ip. The results are reported
for tests with Ip values either: ()directly measured on trimmings from the same triaxial test
specimen (Meas Ip ), or (2) from Atterberg limits performed on soil coming from the same
tube (denoted as Tube Ip). Figure 5-26 also shows results from the LSO testing and from
Fig. 32 of Ladd et al. (1977). The mean value of n from all BBC tests (0.390 + 0.045SD)
versus Ip (29.7% ± 5.6SD) is also plotted and is very consistent with the resilts previously
reported. It should be noted that the mean value of n from the six LSO tests' was slightly
higher at 0.405 ± 0.042SD than the n of 0.385 + 0.046SD from 17 CKo-TX'tests.
Mayne and Kulhawy (1982) compiled and studied values of n and proposed the
following empirical correlation for cohesive soils ( r2 = 0.45 for 82 data sets)"
n = 0.018 + 0.974 sin A'
1
(5-7)
which is approximately the same as using n = sin 0'. Based on the mean friction angles at
maximum obliquity 'm for CKoU tests from Section 6.2.3 for TC and 6.3.3 for TE, and
a mean n of 0.385 for CKo-TX and 0.405 for LSO tests, one; obtains 'the following
comparison:
112
Type of Triaxial Test
'1'm (Degrees)
sin D'm
Difference:TX / LSO
TC
31.2 + 1.3
0.518
0.133 / 0.113
TE
32.7 + 2.9
0.540
0.155 / 0.135
A friction angle of 22.60 (for CKo-TX) or 23.90 (for LSO) would be required to obtain the
measured n values. In other words, the measured n values corespond to
'm values
significantly less than measured in the triaxial shear portion of the SHANSEP tests. The
same conclusion also holds for the mean Ko (0.557) measured from CKo-TX testing
versus the 1 - sin
'm relationship as discussed in Section 5.5.1.
The concave downward trend observed in many of the tests both for CKo-TX and
LSO triggered a thorough analysis of n behavior. As seen in Fig. 5-27, there is a definite
trend of decreasing n values with OCR. The various n values are mean values of linear
regressions (L.R.) at approximate OCR's of 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (depending on the
final OCR) for the 17 CKo-TX tests. The results at high OCR (> 6) do not quite follow the
trend, but this is probably due to the small data set (three tests for OCR = 7 and only one at
OCR =8). The LSO tests also show the same trend, but with higher n values.
Another interesting finding was the apparent correlation between Ko (NC) and n
presented in Fig. 5-28. Plotted are both the measured values of Ko from either the CKo-TX
or LSO testing, and Ko from linear regression (generally higher due to the curvature effect
discussed earlier). The values of n (calculated from L.R.) decrease with increasing Ko,
which might be expected as both parameters are empirically related to sin ' by Eq. 5-7
and n = 1 - Ko using Eq. 5-5. Hence the Ko versus OCR experimental data tend to
converge at higher OCR as seen in Fig. 5-24 based on the CKo-TX tests.
113
The remaining analysis of OC Ko used results from six lateral stress oedometer
(LSO) tests: LSO10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The Ko versus OCR results from each LSO
test are represented in Fig. 5-29 through 5-31, with the data tabulated in Appendix C. The
mean NC Ko was 0.503 + 0.027SD, with values ranging from 0.541 to 0.467. This is
considerably lower than the triaxial mean of 0.557 + 0.025SD. The reason is not well
understood, although the MIT LSO has been known to give low Ko values, principally due
to leakage. In fact, for this project the measured Ko values were constantly decreasing with
time, initially from test LSO1
to LSO13 the values decreased from 0.492 to 0.183 when a
significant leak was discovered. The whole apparatus was then deaired and monitored for
leaks, and upon further testing, values of Ko once again showed a declining trend from
LSO15 to LSO19. Another experimental problem was the continuous drifting of the LSO
zero (voltage reading with no stress applied), and the sensitivity to temperature. The zero
reading value has been decreasing through the years, and hence low Ko values will result if
the zero is not properly monitored and also taken at actual testing temperatures (very
important). The effect of side friction has also been evaluated and could possibly account
for low NC Ko values. The applied vertical effective stress during loading is somewhat
lower than the actual average stress, therefore O'vis too high and Ko too low. Side friction
has the reverse effect during unloading, leading to calculated values that are too high.
For this reason, the above effect of side friction may be responsible for the higher n
values measured from the LSO testing compared to the CK-TX testing. During unloading,
the actual vertical effective stress is greater than the measured a'v (at the top of the sample),
which increases the measured value of Ko since C'v is too lo... Thus underestimates of Ko
(NC) and overestimates of Ko (OC) would obviously lead to higher values on n. This is
illustrated in Fig. 5-32 showing measured n values greater than "actual" values that might
be obtained from typical LSO tests (Note: this is a hypothetical example since the "actual"
values are not known).
114
The most important information provided by the LSO testing was the behavior of
Ko during reloading. Figures 5-29 through 5-31 show plots of Ko versus log OCR for the
six tests, all of which (except LS017 maybe) clearly exhibit a behavior similar to that in
Fig. 5-33 for Haney sensitive clay: a substantially lower Ko measured during reloading
than during unloading. These results clearly demonstrate the importance of stress history
on Ko. Therefore, as stated in Ladd et al. (1977), values of Ko for reloading cannot be
calculated from Eq. 5-6. An analysis of the hysteresis effect was performed for BBC
leading to the reloading Ko values versus OCR presented in Fig. 5-34. The BBC LSO data
of Fig. 5-34 is in the same format as in Fig. 5-33. The dashed line is based on the mean Ko
(NC) and n from six tests unloaded to OCR values of eight, and the solid line represents a
mean of four tests for reloading from OCR = 8.
Two possible cases were studied to quantify the possible effects of hysteresis on
the in situ Ko of the South Boston BBC:
Case A: The clay is unloaded to the present OCR.
Case B: The clay is unloaded by A'v = -1.5 ksf (before placement of the fill), and then
reloaded as the fill is placed.
One obtains the following Ko results for the BBC at Project Elevation 70, 50 and 30 ft:
Case B
Case A
El. (ft)
Present
OCR
Ko
Unloaded
to OCR
Ko
Reloaded
to OCR
Ko
70
5.72
1.11
12.95
1.50
5.72
0.8
50
3.21
0.88
5.38
1.09
3.21
0.75
30
i.8
0.69
2.63
0.81
1.8
0.6
115
The values of Ko for case A and of the unloaded Ko for case B are from Fig. 5-36, while
the reloaded Ko is estimated from trends presented in Fig. 5-34. These preliminary
calculations suggest that the in situ Ko may be less than-estimated from unloading data,
particularly within the upper crust.
5.5.3 Internal Leak Effects on Ko
From a total of 55 triaxial tests using the SHANSEP technique, six tests
experienced an internal leak, i.e., leakage of oil from the cell chamber into the test
specimen. Four of these tests were triaxial compression tests: TX007, 10 and 17 that were
normally consolidated; and TX088 that was overconsolidated. The remaining two were
normally consolidated extension tests, TX013 and TX065. The problem was discovered
when oil was found in the drainage lines and also from comparing the behavior of
volumetric and axial strains (£v and Ca) during secondary compression. At the end of
consolidation, secondary compression is allowed to occur as the sample is held at constant
horizontal and vertical effective stress (a'vc and T'hc), and hence Kc for 24 hours. If Ko
stays constant during secondary compression, then the dEv/dEa ratio will equal one. From
the data in Fig. 5-35, one can see that tests number 7, 10, 13 and 17 had much higher
ratios, i.e., correct Ea, but £v too large due to leakage. Also note that Kc decreases with an
increasing ratio, i.e., greater leakage. This is due to the increase in £v during the
consolidation phase, which forces the computer controls to reduce the horizontal effective
stress (to decrease the amount of £v in order to keep the cross sectional area constant, see
Appendix A). Therefore the final measured value of Kc is substantially lower than it should
be.
It should be noted that the tests affected by leakage produced very interesting data
on the effect of Kc on undrained shear parameters, especially the undrained strength ratio
and the friction angle (Note: the leakage rate was too small to seriously affect the undrained
116
shear phase of these tests). The data from these tests are analyzed in detail and presented in
Chapter 6.
5.5.4 Estimated Ko versus OCR relationship used for Recompression
Triaxial Testing
Figure 5-36 presents the Ko versus OCR relationship
selected for the
Recompression tests. These values were selected by Dr. Ladd before most of the
overconsolidated CKo-TX testing data were available. The OC Ko estimates were based on
results from two CKo-TX tests (TX019 and 22), three LSO tests at other sites and also
from prior data on the unloading behavior of BBC from Ladd et al. (1979) and R.S. Ladd
(1965).
The new estimates of Ko versus OCR are plotted in Fig. 5-37. Two different
relationships are presented, one for the LSO data and another from the CKo-TX analysis.
Interestingly, the relationship selected by Dr. Ladd happens to fall in the middle, except at
high OCRs where it is slightly higher (Ko = 1.27 at OCR= 8 compared to 1.20). The writer
believes more weight should be placed on the CKo-TX results since the NC Ko from the
LSO testing is probably too low due to the experimental problems mentioned in Section
5.5.2. It should be noted that the two relationships converge at high OCR, due to the
higher n values from LSO testing.
117
Table 5.1: Values of a, Used for South Boston Stress History Profile
No.
1
CRSC
CKo-TX
Oedometer
(ksf)
oaksf) No. I El.(ft)
No. El.(ft)
El.(ft)
oao(ksf)
Tube Samples - Elevation> 15 feet
7.1±0.1
22.6
11
8.7
30.7
004
18.5±1.0
65.9
2
3
14
15
57.6
47.9
63.4
55.8
11.2±1
8.5±0.5
13.0±0.5
14.3±0.5
005
008
009
011
30.3
33.6
19.3
26.0
8.7
9.2±0.2
7.1
6.65
16
17
46.1
38.1
10.3±0.3
9.5±0.3
012
014
46.7
48.8
12.5±0.2
9.45±0.1
18
19
31.8
22.8
10.4±0.3
6.45
023
026
19.8
28.2
7.3
9.5
029
52.4
13.0±0.6
034
39.4
10.65
11.0±0.2
39.0
035
Tube Samples - Elevation < 15 feet
12
21
-26.4
6.1
8.4±0.4
6.6±0.1
___
001
002
006
015
016
018
019
020
022
030
031
l060
2.0
-17.9
3.2
-20.8
5.5
-20.3
-16.4
-20.1
12.3
-9.2
-9.0
7.3
7.9
7.6
8.6
7.6
8.3
7.7
9.0
6.35
7.4
7.8
14.6
6.15
9
10
19
-17.5
9.8
4.0
8.8±0.2
6.8
6.75±0.15
24
30
55.1
55.1
11.05
11.65
Block Samples
27
28
29
30
45.0
54.5
41.6
34.3
10.4±0.6
15.9±:0.5
9.0±0.2
11.5:±0.3
067
071
072
081
20.2
20.2
20.2
41.8
6.6
6.5
6.45
9.7
118
[-
a0
U)
0o
LcI
Um
c o
U
ul
o
-|
-
|
ian
U)
U)
cnllel
c.I
c
0
It
c
c
m
/
Z
w
ei
z
0
3:
lr
I
aiZcU"
o0 0
0
aUC
i
0
a
0I
I',
-
i
e
N||
al
mi m U)m
m
aC'
L
m-
ci
m rl
0
:2
U
a ), C')
C
N
N
0
m
1V61
a
U
i11
c'
I'
_
r~
L
I
0
:20
i0
s
I
m
I
I
0 C
OO
0 m
'1 n
{D
:
inYoCIr-
I
0
I
I
N I UpI
XC
Nb~
)
N
C'
a
0 _i
ci
oH
11C N
m
n
ri
2
i
0
u
lB
---
-III-1
a
or
o
-I-
-'0o
g
_~lQ
i
I,
m
0
D
')
D
o
m0cn
LC
oo
0
1)
Pmlmlzlmlmlm
O- I u2zllmlu
i
N CNIIc
OC
c
Co C
NIN
Co
mi m
COr
i
I
to
cm C
-'l
D
i
0No
'j,
II
II
i
...a
I
. I
I
I
1
, Icn c
c
0 )o1
olold
I.1
a
(V1
I
UO
c
m
N
N
I
C'
00
-
I
O
C'
c.: N
c
m
0
C
cc
a N
c
r,
cu
kiC cU,
In
6
.~
1li
V601
l-
a
C,
O
P
3
_
-
cu
m
c
w
'q!UZILn
N
o i mo
0
j
m
c,
c
-
ci
IL
c
n
o
w
m 0 0
i
i
i
I
-
U
C
c
il
. .
c
U
Iu
I'
c
m
-
tlo a
nco
[.co
P-
Ic'
C
C
l
S-
l
!.
Een
;....
c
_
.q
u-
-
I.L
O oilc
O
.!..
m
c
I
-
I
Co10
i
m
l
c
a
m
-I'U
m
-
-
U UC'
C U U
C o C
Le
F
461
k
C/U,
Cu0
a
U) a
0
--
-
N AD
W: w
I
G i'
U
c C
c
c
I
I
"lw
C1
C~
U
I
·
.....i
- __
.__
!
I
·f
lIi
.....L - ....2
I..
-...
I
I
I
r) C')
I
CY
cl
119
I-
0
ei!
Iu
c~
N:
an
[-
0
i
l u0
to
In
o-
On
0;
u,
0 In cI
ur
oW0 0 0e U,
0 0 0a) 0i
d/ 0
am c°
VW
0
U
a,
0o
!°
0
to
N
Cr V
to
°O
0
0
U,
0
0
0
n
0
0
to
0
IN
IN
N
0u Ow
C.
UE
to
'I0
0 N 46 N
N6
0
z
0
9
u,
a
w1
a2
N,
0
ul$
co Wn to
to
0
U
Ln
_o
o0 0
CMto o
to 0 in
0 to 0
to Wd
06
a-.
I
Coltlo
u3"
N0 0
N 0N N
N
N a4. to
0 I,*lo0 O0,q
0 lo0
o
O
uo
0
cm
-
ON
o
n In
NIt
I
i .
oI
ot
to
tU
o
t
I
m c
_I ct
I
L ii')
to i0ll_
N
N) N N
1 ! I
NIN
m
I
cm No
N
0
0I N C.
N-
C Lo C01 0O
olo ioi lno o
o
I
I
0
0o
0 ic!
a 0
in
0 Ul
i i j I 0 Il~ IOwIo ' o
N CM co cm rc I to t _c l
N
o co0 4. CY
cm o N
4. ao4. ,,.lo4 Cto
I0
0 to in6 io I to .to
W
0
0 0 0 i 6 1 0, 0 to0 0 0 0 0 0
la
0 i1
INIcm to
01 0
Cv, 0
-ol tci
o
U,
0
cm
U
co
Cn
N
,6n1
0
i ' I I I
to
to
C,
Co
0
U)
co
I0N0 c
oo o jo o 1 °o 0 0
0 0 a
I
-j
W
.to
Cd
0i
to
Cv,
5
to
"R
t! | N
(0
N
N 1N
to
V0C Nito
to N
4. C..
N
N
[0
10
IN
LuC4
N 0 0 N
N
0
m
0
I-
I-
--
C13Icc
ch
Cl
E
z.:
.a
V,
v
I--
m m
Co
N-
0
|-
im
mw
Cl) c',
Mv c, Cv
0
I-
i- I-- I- i- I--
V
I-4
tn
I
4,
u0
n
to
|s
R.
I
I
|.
L-
NtV
Cv
,
.
Im
mm mo mlmm Ic
)l c) C!Dl:
lClD( co
nu)cn
F WoIr
clC"Io cN
I
to i r J~zo
co
Iwilal-
0co
S
N toPIN
I
0
m
0 0
cu m m m Im
M
w w w w
W C'c12uC, U) Cuo
t 4.let
.C 1
©
u,~~ ~l~
.
I.- I-
c
0
00
_
cm SIII.........eI
- .
. .
I
t
..
. .
.
. .
-
. 0 N
e Ifs a sII
. -.
-
.
TITITI-1-1-1-1-1t-I
_
I
120
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-on0.01
0.01
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
Figure 5-1: Compression Curve from Early Standard Oedometer Test by H&A (Note:
End of primary (EOP) strains plotted for test with one day increments)
121
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
MIT - TX028
SB2-23 U18
_
ELEV.
12.3'
I
_._
-18
-20
.0.01
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
Figure 5-2: Example of Continuous Compression Curve from CKo-TX Test (o
2.79 ksc; oa,= 3.1 ksc; OCR = 1.11)
=
122
CRSO9
Compression Curve
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0.01
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
100
SB2-21 U12 - El. -17.6'
Figure 5-3: Example of Continuous Compression Curve from CRSC Test ('o
ksc; ap,= 4.3 ksc; OCR = 1.19)
= 3.62
123
(%)
STRAIN
0
2
Arthur Casagrande Cons
-4
1. Draw horizontal
line thrc
point of maximum curvatu
2. Draw tangent to curve
-6
-8
h6e6 nnint
L11vW
Ill
UI L
'\
\
3. Bisect lines 1 & 2
\
4. Extend VCL
6. Preconsolidation pressure defined
by Intersection of lines 3 & 4
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A
ELEVATION 41.8'
-10
_I
-12
0.1
·
_
I
·
·
·
I
I
I·
·
I_
_
·
I_ I I
I
I
II
I
I
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
Figure 5-4: Example of Arthur Casagrande ao: Construction From CKo-TX081
100
124
STRAIN ENERGY (ksc)
120
Strain Energy Cbnstructlon
1. Plot strain energ'y v. final vertical
100
b
consolidation stres
2. Draw line througlh initial linear
portion of curve (alpproximately
up to overburden sttress)
3. Extend VCL
4. Preconsolldatlon
80
intersection
pressure defined by
of Ilne.sl&2
60
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A
ELEVATION 41.8
40
_
2.1 ksc OJ
0'o
20
f
a
4.7 ksc
_
0
I:
0
2
_
4
6
I
I
I
I
8
10
12
14
SIG'vc(ksc)
Figure 5-5: Example of Strain Energy op, Construction From CKo-TX081
16
125
20
I
11
I
I
-.
I I I
_
I
.I
.
.
I
II
.
I
.
.
I I I I
_
.
.
·
-r
I
I I
0
-.
5
a
0
..
IJ.....................................
J.......................................I
I.
1
0/_
E
rn
-6-
_
0
, -'' - 1- "I - I`,- ,-,6
F
t0
00
0O
*
C
co
C
w
0)
._
C
LL
1
I
-. 4-
o:
.....
......................
. ......
:
w-·-
I
. . .........
·
_
_
.
m
_
_
_ ""'"~~""'"'""~~-~"'"~^~
X v
wF;
...
_i
5
I I I Il I._ II I
. . . .
10
.
I
]
I
-TX 1 '(Tube)
-
- -u
I
. . I
I
.
.
.
mv
r__-"
__r
~"~'~"'~
_
_
Ss
s
`-'-~c--
-^'_
I
i
,i
I
~
)
Figure' 5.6: Cofmparisn 6f 'Estimati'on f &,fromr Strit
'
T
lid
l Co
Methodls' from S6outh
i·-
--LCI
.ll
20 I
15 1'
' f(
ti
Casagrlndl Etifiket'dd
Oq.N
tit
· -_* I·1Ih~Wr~LI*Urtl·
I
q
CRSC(8obk)P',i
I
. . . .
_uP
mc. Odom tdr;(Blbdk)
4
C
---
_
l(Thbb)
CRSC'(fibe)i
cn
_
'
._
5
.
Inc. Obdometdt
i
I1
o
.
0()
',
Eifg~
aftd Ca!ba*andit,,'t "1
126
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
( ) = Value of CR
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
0.1
1
10
100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
Figure 5-7: Comparison of Compression Curves from South Bostor Tube Samples at
Different Elevations
127
Ko vs. Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
Ko
1.4
I
1.2
1
0.8
I
~ IDIOL
a
I
'1
,
I
.~~.
I~
a
·
0.6
.
,.
·
,
--
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
SB2-23
U26 - El. -16.4
Figure 5-8: Typical Ko Data from CKo-TX Test (ado = 3.59 ksc)
10
128
TX019C
Ko vs. OCR (Unloading)
Ko
,. .
1.4
1.2
7:7
,---o
PI
3fL
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
n'
v
--
-
-
10
1
OCR
SB2-23 U26 - El. -18.4'
Figure 5-9: Typical Ko vs. OCR Data from CKo-TX Test
129
e%^
OU
60
40
z
20
-J
-20
An
-- 1 u
0.0
5.0
Stress
10
History a v
15
' and (p'
Figure 5-10: South Boston Stress History
20
130
80
60
.40
z
_20
dO
-20
-40
10
15
0
5
Stress History Cv 0 ' and cp'
Figure 5-11: East Boston Stress History
20
(ksf)
131
r
8C
.....
I I I I I I II i I I~i.I.I.1......
I 1I I I
I
;
I.....i
6C
................................. ?.................... ........................................................
-I . .........
IH
.....
I.
;..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..................
.........................
4C
i
0
I
:ll
I
I
i
1
I
::!
J
)
-- I·r
w
IJ
2C
r
_.w
iIi
i | ll~till
I
I
__~__: I___~~:
)
c
a.
_
_, H
0
_.
,
[
I-- I ---
I ;
!. . ..........
i
I
-2C
-
_
~ .
.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
.................... I.....................
.····-
..................
.............
....................
)
-4C
.
I I I
.
.
-
ill
-
-.
II II
-
-
-
-
I 'I 'I. I
I-
I-
I.-
I
-I
I-
I-
I-
.I
.I
.I
.I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Compression Ratio (CR)
Figure 5-12: South Boston Elevation vs. Virgin Compression Ratio for CKo-TX Tests
132
80 j|I I Ii I,I III JI I I I I' I I I'...I IJ"',I1!I"1"'1"
I I
.~ .......
....... I I.I ....
60
............
..............
...............
........... .......................... ............
I
...........
i
II
40
0
w
UJI
ii~~~~~~~~~
20
_
0
.)
Q.
a-
.
..............
.. .. ........
. ........
F.... ...... . o.o
....
...... o.o
...
J
.
o .
. ....
_
-20
.
,, .........................
.. .
...
. o.............o-.-...--.---------...................
......................
I
:I- ,
. .
:
,
0
....
:
!
I 11111
I
.
................
. ....... .............
... _
...
............
_.....
::*
:
!~
*-
II- I I!IIIIIIIII
II!III
-40
0 0.10 .2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Compression Ratio (CR)
Figure 5-13: East Boston Elevation vs. Virgin Compression Ratio for CKo-TX Tests
133
80
.
. . .
I''
I
.
~~~~~~~~IIIII
.
.
I
I I
1
i
I
o
*
60
A
A
O
._
I
I
II
III
I
II
I
II
SHANSEP Tube
SHANSEP Block
Recomp Tube
Recomp Block
"Good" Oedometer
Dist. Oedometer
........................................
40 -JJ ..Ir_.!.
J
-
o
LU
i
-
a
0a
I
x
20 *- _ , _: _o
0
:
0
...................
:.............................. . .
0
A.
-
,
Dist
00:ESDist-
it-
-20
-40
I
0
I
i
I
2
I
.
i1 ,
4
I
6
I
I
8
,
10
Axial Strain at Overburden Stress (%)
Figure 5-14: South Boston Elevation vs. Axial Strain at Overburden Stress from CKo
and Typical Oedometer Tests
134
80 -I61. .i
.
i.
I
I
i
I
i
.._I
I
i
I
i
70
II
'
'
CK<
-TX
I
-
'
'
.....
"Good" Oed
60
-o
x
o:
l
"Dist" Oed
. .
.
. ..
.....
.
................................
-0 0
-40
0
-
30
4
oP3Q -
oC
o
.
20
-
x
_ LS
O
.....................................................
. .................................
10
]
0
0
2
1
I
- I°,I:I
0
4
6
8
10
12
Axial Strain at Overburden Stress (%)
Figure 5-15: East Boston Elevation vs. Axial Strain at Overburden Stress from CKo
and Incremental Oedometer Tests
135
-
- -
- -
--
-
-
- -
CD
,o
3
E
C;eemSrc
C>
I0
E
CJ
zCor
Lcr
c>
UC
m
Co
CD
m,
LU)
"r
C3
Cm
CD
(:I)
U01:111Aa la
:Iaalro.
!
136
K
0.52
0.5
0.54
0
0.58
0.56
0.6
0.7
*
CR
0.6
Ma x
c
.00
-
i~~
i~ CR
{22
0.5
U
0.4
a
.
X
co
:_._i
_
0.3
XJ
!
_
i
i
ii
i
I__{i i
i
i
_
__
i
i
Test
I
j
{
55{.
{
{ 1
;
j
;
j
i
i~~
i
j
0.2
0.1
Figure 5-17. NC Ko vs. CR from Seven Tests
137
Ip(%)
p
24
0.6
26
I
I
I
28
I
I
I
30
I
I
32
I I
I
34
I
I
o
I
SB K
I
o
.. _EB K o
0.58
i
o
0.56
.................................................
............................-
8
0
0.54
_ .......................... ..... .....................
................0............
0
o
o
0.52
o
I
I
I
0.5
·
·..........................
I
II
I
I0
i
I
I
I
I...........................................................
I~~~~~~
-
1
I
l
I
I
I
I
-
..-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5-18. NC Ko vs. Plasticity Index
138
1- sino'
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
m
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Figure 5-19. NC Ko vs. 1 - sin
'
m
0.65
139
Frict1i525Ang1,4nl
15
'20
'25
,'"G0
t
, (5
(ege
t'40
t ts)
, t(45
1!f50O !)
0.80
0.70
0.60
0
0j0
0.40
0.30
0 20
._lV
FigutHVtt29:.
i4
MC
vl. Frictli
g
Maxiiaut('2bli4itlpj
t/Ang6latl
¢X'!lM
;It
140
LOG OCR
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.05
0.00
-0.05
1=
-0.10
o4
-0.15
0
-0.20
-0.25
A MA%
-U.3
Figure 5-21. Log Ko vs. Log OCR for TX092 and TX097
1
141
LOG OCR
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
U.U
0
-0.05
~=
-0.1
0
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
An
-V.a
Figure 5-22. Log Ko vs. Log OCR for TX067
142
LOG OCR
-0.2
A
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
A
U.Z
0.1
sO
0
00
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 5-23. Log Ko vs Log OCR for LS016 and LS018
1.2
143
LOG OCR
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
U.2
0.1
~=
0
0o
04
-0.1
-0.2
n)
-V.%.
Figure 5-24. Log Ko vs Log OCR for All CKo-TX Tests
1
144
LOG OCR
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Figure 5-25. Log Ko vs Log OCR for All LSO Tests
145
Ip (%)
0.8
0.7
40
20
0
·_
_
,,-
-
=-
.l..
I
I
I
100
__
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
i
I
I
*
Fig.32 Ladd et al. (77)
o
CK -TX Meas I
o
CK -TX Tube I
x
LSO Tube I
......................
0.6
0.5
80
60
OP
0
...........................;T...............................
P
:i
=
,
0.4
.......................................
..........
.o.*"~~"~"-"L
O
0
- \0
.......................... .......................... ........................
-- ---- -------
0.3
0.2
....................... ....................
Mean Value for BBC from All Tests
...
[
0.1
0
LLILIJ1LLLJWW11
Figure
5-26.
Value of n vs Plasticity
I
I
I
~............................~
ll
Index,
Including Data from Ladd et al. (1977)
146
0.6
l
I
-
i...........
0.55
........................... ..................
nO.s
......................
L
i
(.
; 0.45
.........
_........................
=
1
I
.............;
...........i...................
F--............
_ ...................... I
0.4
.......
;..
...
.....
I
I
;
.
.... ... .... ...... ........... ... ...
0.35
,
-S
.I
CK -TX
.................
0.3
o
LSO
.
!
0.25
1
I
.
.I
OCR
Figure 5-27. Value of n vs. OCR
I ._
10
147
Ko(NC)
0. i45
__
I
U.1
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
_
_ _
ifl
0.5
m
o0I
I
0
*
___
I
·
TXK Meas
I
(D' =1-]
ooXoooo~oooooo
1
I
I I
o
0.55
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
A
XK LR
0
o
LSOK Meas
*
LSOK LR
0
.
0 #
A
.............
...6......
c 0.45
o. 0
I...... ................. .....
o
.... . ...... .. ........
0.4
-
0.35
0.3
o0
. - .........................
....
..
oo..
9
0
O. +
e,
'\
....................... . ............------
..
,I I. i,,
. . I-
I
I
I
I
Figure 5-28. Value of n vs. NC Ko Value
for CKO-TX and LSO Tests
148
-I
i
I
I
. .........
I
...............
0
0
Y'rX
Co
........................-..............
II
00
-
o
0
_
_-
cn
r
CD
r
co
Q
t
o
'1
I
o
c.
0
u)
.....
...
......ii
.... .....
I)
34
;
®m,
.........*......-.-.·.·.
_;;
.
.........
.
0
0C
0
C-
-J
co
cM
I.:
o0
Co
6
149
...... ... ...............
..............
!
._..............
*
...................
i
.........;._
_,
'
.
.......... ...................
:. ; .......
o0
I
,
.................
...........................
0
co
.. I
I.................
I-oc2
x.
H
.............. ,
0lm
N_
I,
:
. _[,,
co
cM
o
1:
o
o
Ci
0o
N1
en
0
C-
Uw
0
0
In
C)
o
co
r
q -:
-
cm
-
0 a~
D
CD
o
o.
C
150
4=
Ci
0
co
0
a
CA
Lu
o
C4
co
co Ir
c
Co
0
Co
D
0
C
'I
;0-
0
en
0
Lu
)
®m
_a
c0
C..
co
-j
I
cl
o
_5
0
d6
d
<6
151
^
A 1
U.10
0.05
:
-0.05
0
-0.15
-0.25
_n )
-V.%J
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
LOG OCR
Figure 5-32. Possible Variations in n Value
During Unloading for LSO Tests
1
152
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Ko
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
I
2
4
6 810
20
OCRQ
/CI Iv
=CR:Tvc
Figure 5-33. K o vs. OCR for Haney Sensitive Clay
During Unioading and Reloading
(Campanella and Vaid, 1972)
153
t
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
4
.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
I
0.4
10
1
OC
Figure 15,34. Rbloadig,Kio'
illue§
Eiso,
)( 'Il
'OGR
fMit LSO T
10
g' - Ii ltg
154
0.4
K
0.5
0.45
C0.4
0.55
0.6
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.45
I'
.........
1.8
.13
.,
7-
I
I
I
....................... 1
............ ............. ...........
.
i
1.6
.......
.......
.
.
.
e.
.............
.........
i
_......................
r-
7-
7-
.
i
i
............
:.............
N...............................
............
............
.............!.........-
............
1/
j
A
i
.
.
1U
1.4
.........
............
I
........... .......... ............ ............ ............1........A. ................... 1............
7...........
V
0
7
O
I .
1z
A I
V.O
_
~~~~~~~~~~~.
AVG Value
.
I.
I
I
.
.
.
I
.
I
Figure 5-35. Effects of Leakage on Strain Behavior During
Secondary Compression in Four CKo-TX Tests
155
1
10
_
&
OCR=
J
. Mean K =
.
_
_
.I
_
J.
_
I,
1
2
4
8
0.525
0.725
0.97
1.27
0.50-0.55
0.71-0.74
0.97
1.27
_
0
.
Range
............................................................................................ .............. ....................... ......................
1
1
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!i!!
-----------. ......-----------
····-··--------------··--·---
II
------ I--··--------
7----
................. : .....
C
........................
-·--·--····--·· ···-.-....-.......
........ . ..
.....
~~.
:
.
0.1
1
.
i
_
I
OCRa' /o'
p
:
!
i.
i.
i.
i!
10
vo
Figure 5-36. Ko vs. OCR Relationship
Used for Recompression Tests
156
Mean From CK -TX
~.~···~
............
o.2
LO .~-D:
.....
OCR=
K =
o
A
la
Dr.La
*
1
2
4
8
0.555
0.76
0.94
1.2
.................. ................... ......................................................
·
. c···············
.
.
.4...4..
.................
1.2
1.2
............
0...... .
0 .8
...
.....
.....
.................................... ....................... ....
-e--CK
1
.
TX
...
.
/
_......
....
....................................
. ...........................................
ill
............ .......... ..............
i
!
.....
.........................
.....................................
....................................................................................................................
..................................... ................... .............................................................
0.6
I
·······-...-.. ...............;.. ,
..
.
..
......................
n
...
A
I
U."
OCR
:.......:...
........
.:.....
...............
I
:......:......
....
I
I
...
.....
I
'
Figure 5-37. Ko vs. OCR Relationship
.......
I
I
1o'
157
CHAPTER 6. Results of SHANSEP CKoU Triaxial
Strength Testing Program
6.1 Introduction
The MIT CKoU triaxial strength testing program for the CA/T project used two
reconsolidation techniques, SHANSEP and Recompression, as explained in Sections 2.3.4
and 2.4. The remainder of this thesis presents and evaluates the SHANSEP data for BBC
in this chapter and then compares the results to MIT data on Resedimented Boston Blue
Clay in Chapter 7. The Recompression results are analyzed in Chapter 6 of Anne
Estabrook's thesis, and her Chapter 7 compares SHANSEP and Recompression results.
The SHANSEP strength testing approach was used for a total of 56 tests, of which
51 produced fair to excellent results and are used in this chapter's analysis. Twenty-nine of
these tests were sheared in compression: 24 for the South Boston test site (with five of
these on block samples), and five tests at East Boston. For extension, a total of 27 tests
were performed: 22 at South Boston (eight on block samples), and five at the East Boston
site. Thirty two tests were sheared normally consolidated, while 24 tests were sheared at
various overconsolidation (OCR) ratios: 12 overconsolidated tests in both compression and
extension modes. This chapter will first analyze and discuss the normally consolidated
(NC) behavior of BBC in triaxial compression (TC), then in triaxial extension (TE) and
finally the overconsolidated (OC) behavior. Throughout the discussion, results from the
South and East Boston sites are compared, as well as results from tube versus block
samples. In addition, a thorough analysis of the effects of internal leakage (which caused
low preshear Kc values) on shear behavior is presented.
158
Tables 6-1 and 6-2 present detailed results from the shear phase for TC and TE,
respectively, for 51 tests. The reader is referred to Appendix B where tables summarize
results from the consolidation phase of the 56 SHANSEP CKo-TX tests.
The data from Tables 6-1 and 6-2 are presented as follows:
Test Number (Page 1) All triaxial tests, including both SHANSEP and
Recompression tests, were numbered consequently. Therefore gaps in the
numbering sequence are generally not significant.
Sample Number
The samples for SHANSEP testing were taken from all five available
boreholes: tube samples from SB2-21and SB2-23, and EB2-162 for the South and
East Boston test sites, respectively, and block samples from two borings at the
South Boston site, holes No. 1 and 1A.
Elevation
Elevation was calculated by substracting the depth of the specimen from the
elevation of the top of the borehole (111.3, 110.9, 110.7 and 111.2 ft for SB2-21,
SB2-23, EB2-162 and the block samples, respectively). The elevations are CA/T
Project Elevations which are defined as NGVD + 100 ft.
OCR
Both the in situ and test OCR are calculated. The in situ OCR is defined as the
measured preconsolidation pressure from the consolidation phase divided by the
effective overburden stress (p /dvo). The test OCR is defined as the maximum
vertical effective stress applied during the test divided by the vertical effective stress
at the end of consolidation (,'vJ'vc).
Consolidation Phase
Some of the consolidation phase parameters most relevant to the
shear data are presented here: the maximum vertical effective stress Ovm, the axial
159
strain Ea (%) at a'vm and the final compression ratio (CR). More detailed data
from the consolidation phase are provided in Appendix B.
Other Parameters Two additional parameters are tabulated: the B value of each test at
the end of back pressure saturation and Young's modulus E0/o ,vc.Adequate
saturation of the soil sample is verified by a B value close to unity with
B = (Au / A 3). Young's modulus is calculated by the data reduction program as
the secant modulus. The value tabulated here is taken at half of the maximum
incremental stress (0.5 Aqf) and normalized to aXvc.
Kc (Page 2) This column tabulates the preshear Kc ratio defined as C hc /Ovc
Peak Data The peak is defined as the point where q/a'vc (q = 0.5 (v
- 'h)) is
maximum. The first column tabulates the axial strain at which the peak occured
(straining during consolidation is neglected, i.e., the specimen is at zero strain at the
beginning of shear). The next two columns, q/Xvc and p'/a'vc (p' = 0.5 ('v +
o'h)), are automatic outputs of the data reduction program, while q/o'vm and
P'/a'vm are calculated by dividing q/o'vc and p'/o'vc by the test OCR (vm/dvc).
Af is the pore parameter at failure and "PHI" (or 0') is the friction angle, both of
which are automatically calculated by the data reduction program.
Maximum Obliquity Data (Page 3)
The maximum obliquity (a' 1 /'
3
max) is
chosen at the highest value of 0' reached. The data tabulated for the maximum
obliquity are the same as for the peak, with the exception of Af.
Sample Information The location, type and elevation of each sample are tabulated in
the final two columns. The location is abbreviated as SB (for the South Boston site)
or EB (for East Boston), and the type as T (tubes) or B (block samples). The
elevation was defined at the beginning in page #1 of the tables.
160
6.2 CKoU Normally Consolidated Triaxial Compression Results for South
and East Boston
The analysis of normally consolidated BBC in triaxial compression evaluated 17
tests which were divided into the following three data sets:
A. Thirteen OCR = 1 tests of acceptable quality used in the final evaluation, of
which 12 are tube samples (9 from SB, 3 from EB), and one block sample.
B. Three OCR = I tests with leakage (K1 too low); tests # 7, 10 and 17, all SB
tube samples.
C. One poor test that was excluded; test # 3.
The typical behavior of normally consolidated (OCR = 1) TC tests is illustrated in
Fig. 6-1 and 6-2 for test # 55. From these figures, the following two principal observations
can be made:
1. A small axial strain (0.355% + 0. 15SD) is required to reach peak failure, which
results in a small peak friction angle, accompanied by;
2. A large amount of strain softening until the maximum obliquity (MO) condition
is reached, resulting in a friction angle at MO much greater than at peak.
For the overconsolidated behavior of BBC, the reader is referred to Section 6.4 1 where
figures having varying OCR's are presented.
The normally consolidated behavior in triaxial compression will be presented in
four separate analyses of the following issues: 1) the undrained strength ratio at peak
(qf/'vc), 2) the undrained strength ratio at MO (qm/a'vc), 3) the effective stress failure
envelope; and 4) other parameters such as £, Af and E50 .
161
6.2.1 Undrained Strength Ratio at Peak (TC)
Figures 6-3 and 6-4 show the,variations in the peak undrained strength ratio (USR
= qf/a'vc) for data sets A and B witmh
project elevation for the South and East Boston sites
(SB and EB), respectively. Also shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 is the preshear Kc (the ratio
of horizontal to vertical stress at the end of consolidation just before shear,
'hca'vc)
versus project elevation. The mean preshear Kc for data set A is 0.562 ± 0.026SD. From
Section 5.5, the mean NC Ko value (which included the OC tests) was found to be 0.557 ±
0.025SD, therefore the mean preshear Kc for OCR = 1 tests is a representative value of the
SHANSEP tests.
Effects of Leakage
Due to the internal leakage effects on Kc and the resulting consequences on shear
results, a thorough analysis of how Kc affects the USR and other parameters was
performed. It should be noted that although the leakage affected the Kc value, the leakage
rate was not high enough to increase the pore pressures during the undrained shear portion
of the tests.
Correlations between Kc, USR,
' and possibly Af and Ef were developed while
analyzing the "fortuitous" data collected from five tests (the three tests of Data set B for TC,
and two in TE) that experienced internal leakage. As discussed in Chapter 5, there is a
substantial lowering of Kc with internal leakage, with K values ranging from 0.434 to
0.504 depending on the sample and on the amount of leakage. Figures 6-5 through 6-8
illustrate the effects of Kc on; 1) the USR and ' at peak, 2) the USR and 4' at MO, 3) the
strain at failure Ef, and 4) the pore pressure parameter at failure Af. The following
observations can be made:
162
1. At peak, the decrease in Kc results in a large increase in q/odvc. This strength
increase is due to a higher cD'f and a lower Af, and occurs at a smaller £f.
2. The maximum obliquity results are not affected by the decrease in Kc values, and
therefore by the internal leakage.
3. The same trends are observed for both South and East Boston samples.
Another interesting issue is the possible correlation between the USR and the in situ
OCR (defined as O'p measured for each test divided by the in situ value of a'vo) seen in
Fig. 6-9. If one eliminates TX 1 (low K = 0.502 and Af = 0.66) the rest of the results,
despite the scatter at low OCR, might show a trend of increasing USR versus in situ OCR.
It should be pointed out that TX 29 and 43 had very high Kc ratios of 0.592 and 0.607,
respectively. This possible behavior needs to be verified, especially when considering the
fact that the triaxial extension USR does appear to depend on the in situ OCR (Section
6.3.1 and Fig. 6-17).
Table 6-3 summarizes the values of Sc (i.e., the values of qf/a'vc at OCR = 1 for
shear in compression). For data set A, qf/o'vc = 0.279 + 0.010SD with no difference for
tube samples from the South or East Boston sites (nine tests at SB, three tests at EB), and
also from one test on a block sample (qf/'vc = 0.279). In addition, there does not appear
to be any significant trend of USR versus depth as seen in Fig. 6-3 and 6-4.
Table 6-4 presents the same shear data summary as Table 6-3 excluding results
from tests with in situ OCR greater than two. No significant difference can be observed
which seems to imply that the in situ OCR does not affect the TC undrained strength ratio,
despite the previous supposition.
163
6.2.2 USR at Maximum Obliquity and Effects of Strain Softening (TC)
For shear in triaxial compression, substantial straining is required to reach a
condition of maximum obliquity (i.e., the maximum value of ola/o' 3 or the corresponding
maximum value of 0' = arcsin q/p'). Straining well beyond the peak strength causes large
decreases in the effective stress and therefore the shear stress. For data sets A and B (the
leakage effects on MO results were found to be negligeable in the previous section), the
mean value of qm/a'vc is 0.2065 + 0.021SD and it occurs at 10.2% ± 2.0 axial strain
(Table 6-3). Thus strain softening gives a strength at maximum obliquity that is about 25%
less than the peak strength. Further discussion on the effects of strain softening is
presented in Section 6.3.2.
6.2.3 Effective Stress Failure Envelope(TC)
The results for shear in compression at the peak strength gave a very low
'f =
22.20 + 1.2SD due to the small strain at failure. The effective stress failure envelope is
defined for peak and maximum obliquity (MO) conditions in Table 6-3 and in Fig. 6-10
and 6-11, respectively. At MO, a much higher O'm = 31.2°
+
1.3SD is observed
corresponding to a large strain condition. Figures 6-3 and 6-4 also presented the friction
angle at MO ('m)
with depth for the South and East Boston sites. No trend can be
observed and there is no significant difference in results from the South and East Boston
sites.
6.2.4 Other Parameters (TC)
Three other important parameters were evaluated to characterize the shear behavior
of BBC: the axial strain at failure Ef, Young's undrained modulus at 50% of the stress
increment to reach failure (0.5 Aqf) and the pore pressure parameter at failure Af.
164
The strain at failure (peak) was discussed earlier and is 0.355% ± 0.15SSD.Low
values of Kc (from leakage) resulted in low values of £f, as seen iil.Fig. 6-7, and were
excluded from the mean value.
Figure 6-12 plots project elevation versus the normalized undrained Young's
modulus E5soW'vc.There is no consistent trend with depth, and the mean value of E 50 is
273 ± 55. Changes in Kc apparently do not affect the results for Young's modulus as
shown in Fig. 6-13. Therefore tests with leakage were included in the E50/'vC values
presented in Fig. 6-12 and Table 6-3.
The pore pressure parameter at failure (peak), Af, is 0.86 i 0.09SD (Table 6-3).
The relatively large scatter results from the fact that A = (Au - Aah) / (Ash - Aav) increases
rapidly with strain and the variation in Ef. Figure 6-8 presents Af versus Kc and shows that
low Kc values result in low Af values.
In conclusion, for triaxial compression tests on normally consolidated BBC:
(1) Results from tests on tube samples at South and East Boston are essentially
identical.
(2) Results from one test on a block sample are about equal to the mean of the
tube samples results.
6.3 CKoU Normally
Consolidated
Triaxial Extension Results for South and
East Boston
The analysis of normally consolidated BBC in triaxial extension evaluated 15 tests
which were divided into the following four data sets:
165
A. Seven OCR = I tests of acceptable quality used in the final evaluation, of
which five are tube samples (three from SB, two from EB), and two block
samples.
B. Two OCR = 1 tests with leakage (Kc too low); tests # 13 and 65, all SB
tube samples.
C. Four OCR = 1 tests of acceptable quality, but that required estimation of the
results: Tests # 5, 31, 60 and 72.
D. Two OCR = 1 tests which were excluded: one excellent test (TX 27) not
presented because it was performed on a disturbed sample, and one poor test
TX 6.
The typical behavior of normally consolidated (OCR = 1) TE tests is illustrated in
Fig. 6-14 and 6-15 for test # 81. From these figures, the following two principal
observations can be made:
1. The peak and maximum obliquity (MO) conditions occur more or less
simultaneously due to the large axial strain (12.1% ± 2.6SD) required to reach
failure;
2. Hence a much greater friction angle at failure is obtained.
For the overconsolidated behavior of BBC, the reader is again referred to the start of
Section 6.4.1.
The normally consolidated behavior in triaxial extension will be presented in a
similar format as for TC with the following analyses of: 1) the undrained strength ratio at
166
peak (qf/o'vc), 2) the undrained strength ratio at MO (qm/a'vc). 3) the effective stress
failure envelope; and 4) other parameters such as £f, Af and Eso.
6.3.1 Undrained Strength Ratio at Peak (TE)
As for the CKoUC behavior, the undrained strength ratio at peak and preshear Kc
for the CKoUE tests (from data sets A, B and C) are shown for the deposit in Fig. 6-3 and
6-4 for the South and East Boston sites (SB and EB), respectively.
The preshear Kc values for the extension tests fall within the scatter of the
compression tests and have a similar mean value of 0.565 ± 0.029SD for data sets A and
C. The influence of Kc on the USR and other parameters was analyzed in the same fashion
for CKoUE as for the CKoUC tests. There also appears to be a correlation between the
undrained strength ratio and the friction angle D'f with the value of Kc for the extension
tests as can be seen in Fig. 6-16. The low values of Kc from two tests experiencing internal
leakage (data set B) result in a lower USR at peak. This trend would be expected in contrast
with higher values for CKoUC tests. In addition, the friction angle at peak seems to have
been greater for these two tests. In any case, these two tests were excluded in determining
the average parameters for NC BBC.
Figure 6-17 plots the USR versus the in situ OCR (as in Fig. 6-9 for the
compression tests). As maybe observed in TC results, CKo UE tests exhibit an increasing
USR with OCR. Interestingly the trend seems to be present for both tube as well as block
samples, but the latter having a lower strength by 10%. As per the compression results,
this apparent behavior of BBC needs more investigating.
Table 6-3 summarizes the values of Se (i.e., the values of qf/ca'vcat OCR = 1 for
shear in extension). For data sets A and C, qf/ovc = 0.1495 ± 0.014SD with no significant
difference for tube samples from the South or East Boston sites (six tests at SB, two tests
167
at EB). Results from three tests on block samples gave aslightlyi lower strngthli(qf/Wve ,
0.1425 ± .015SD),. Contrary to TC, theTE behavior is more complexsince the
is:at,a ,,
l
trend of decreasing USR with depth as seen in Fig. 6-3 and with inlsitu OCR (sdeiFig64 ;
17).
Table 6-4 presents the shear data summary forTE tests having an insitu OCRless l: ;,,
, .t
than one and a half. One'obtains a slightly lower collective Sd of 0,143 ± 0.009SDObutla
much lower value of 0.126 for the one block sample tesLt.Befor deciding that the,block I, i
samples generally have a lower USR than the tube samplesJone needs to, look, at the i
7!~.
overconsolidated behavior of. tube versus block samples (see Section 6 . 4)J,, I, t
Ratio lat Maii.m.nl Obiquity
6.3.2 Undrained Srength,
Softening(TE)
Lad Efett
rOftStran
Iit.Ist
I I
In contrast to triaxial tests sheared in, compression, due to,the 90 degree change in ; (ldirection of shearing in the triaxial extension tests, and hence the large strain required(
t i t,
reach the peak strength, the maximum obliquity and peak strength conditions occur morefor, ,
,
I,
less simultaneously. The combination of the verylow, strain atifailure:and subsequent 19Sb: ;, .
of strength due to strain softening for shear in compression, and, the very large strain
required to reach the peak strength in extension, meansthat the in situ clay cannot mobilize ' ,i i/
the peak undrained strengths along a failurei surface havingdifferen modes ofsheaing4,
The strain compatibility technique (Ladd 1991) should beapplied tthe
,
CIKbUtsv.SEs-strain ,l
data (for the triaxial testing at all OCR,test conditions) in order to select design paramters
that account for the adverse effects of progressive failure .:,
6.3.3 Effective Stress Failure, Envelope (TE) , I
Essentially the same friction angle
',is found at,both thepeak.
andmnaximum:,,I.r,}
obliquity conditions land;it occurs at about 13%,strain. Theeffective stress failuretelope
,i il,qlv'
168
for triaxial extension is represented in Fig. 6-18, while Fig. 6-3 and 6-4 showed the
friction angle variation within the deposit for the South and East Boston sites. The results
are scattered ranging from 27 to 36 degrees, with no apparent difference for tube samples at
the two sites. On the other hand, values from three tests run on block samples are lower,
with a mean (O'= 30.40°
1.6SD compared to a Q' = 33.50°
2.9SD for the tube samples.
The resulting ' for all the triaxial extension tests was 32.650°
2.9SD, which is slightly
larger than for shear in compression and is also more scattered.
The apparent increase in undrained strength ratio for BBC having an in situ OCR
greater than 1.5 has a very important impact on the analysis of BBC in TE. For these
reasons the three factors which could affect the USR, Kc, 0' and Af were compared both
for both tests with in situ OCR's greater and smaller than 1.5.
The friction angles are the same (32.70 versus 32.50 for samples with in situ OCR
> 1.5). The pore pressure parameter Af is slightly greater for the tests with in situ OCR <
1.5 (1.20 versus 1.16 for the in situ OCR > 1.5 tests), which could be part of the reason
for the lower USR. The other remaining parameter Kc happens to be substantially higher
for the tests having in situ OCR greater than 1.5 (0.583 compared to 0.565). As covered in
Section 6.3.1, high values of preshear Kc were associated with increases in USR for TE
tests (see Fig. 6-16). Therefore, the higher values of Kc for samples above El 25 ft (in situ
OCR greater than 1.5) are probably most responsible for the ensuing increase in USR.
6.3.4 Other Parameters (TE)
The strain at failure Ef was discussed above and has a mean of 12.1% ± 2.6SD.
There is no apparent correlation with the preshear Kc can be seen from Fig. 6-19.
The profile of Young's undrained modulus versus elevation was presented in Fig.
6-12, and no trend can be observed with depth, or with the preshear Kc as per Fig. 6-20.
169
There is no observed difference between the East or South Boston values or the tube versus
block samples. The mean value for the triaxial extension Eso/a'vc of 109 ± 18SD is
substantially lower than for compression, which is mainly due to the larger strain required
to reach 0.5 Aqf.
For triaxial extension, where A = (Au - Aa) / (Ah - Arv), Af is much larger and
also less scattered (1.19 ± 0.06SD) than for triaxial compression (see Table 6-3). This is
expected due to the larger strain level and the increased value of b = (
2
- a3) / a - a 3 ).
There is no apparent trend of Af versus preshear Kc if one excludes the two tests with
leakage as seen in Fig. 6-21.
In conclusion for triaxial extension tests on normally consolidated clay BBC:
(1) Results from tube samples at the South and East Boston sites are essentially
identical.
(2) Results from three block samples give lower undrained strength ratios (by
about 10% as per Fig. 6-17), mainly due to a lower friction angle (Table 6-3).
The small differences could very well be attributed to better testing procedures. Triaxial
tests in extension are very difficult to perform, and the results are easily influenced by
numerous factors (piston friction, filter strips, etc...). The writer believes that the main
cause of differences is probably due to the changes in filter strips for the second part of the
program (when the block samples were tested). Results from the initial extension tests
often gave high friction angle values (> 40°). Therefore, approximately half way through
the program the filter strips were reduced in width to increase their flexibility (see Section
3.4.2). This produced well defined peak strengths with reasonable friction angles. It
should be pointed out that the improvements with experience in the installation of these
filter strips might also have been part of the reason behind better results.
170
6.4 CKoU Overconsolidated Triaxial
Compression and Extension for South
and East Boston
6.4.1 Overview of Effect of OCR on Undrained Shear Behavior
Figures 6-22 through 6-26 illustrate the typical behavior of overconsolidated BBC.
Three tests sheared at OCR's of 1, 2 and 5.8 are presented for both modes of shearing,
tests # 55, 94 and 34 for TC and tests # 81, 92 and 67 for TE. The effects of OCR on the
behavior of BBC can be sumrmarized as:
1. A greater axial strain to failure with increasing OCR, especially for TC.
2. Lower pore pressures with increasing OCR (Fig. 6-23 and 6-25), (Note: The
tests were sheared by decreasing the axial strain, which explains the small values
of Au).
3. A smaller peak strength with increasing OCR, but q/a'vm tend to converge at
larger strains (Fig. 6-23 and 6-25).
The analysis of overconsolidated BBC evaluated 24 tests ( 12 for TC and 12 for
TE) which were divided into the following data sets:
For TC:
A. Eleven tests with varying OCR's of high quality used in the final evaluation; of
which seven are tube samples (five from SB, two from EB), and four block
samples.
B. One poor test that was excluded; test # 9
171
For TE:
A. Eleven tests with varying OCR's of high quality used in the final evaluation; of
which six are tube samples (three from SB, three from EB), and five block
samples.
B. One poor test that was excluded; test # 20
The overconsolidated behavior of BBC in both TC and TE will be presented in
separate analyses of the following issues: 1) the undrained strength ratios at peak (qf/a'c),
2) the effective stress failure envelopes at peak and MO; and 3) other parameters such as Cf,
Af and Eso.
6.4.2 Undrained Strength Ratio
Figures 6-27 and 6-28 plot log qf/a'vc vs log OCR for the TC and TE tests,
respectively. It should be pointed out that the values at OCR = 1 were obtained from the
previous sections on NC behavior and are available in Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
Two of the principal objectives of the OC testing were:
1) Evaluate and recommend the most appropriate values of S and m to use in the
SHANSEP equation:
CU/ a'vc = S (OCR) m
(6-1)
2) Compare the values of S and m with the Recompression test results.
Triaxial Compression
To investigate the OC behavior of BBC, five analysis were performed for TC tests
run on tube and block samples and yielded the following results:
172
Analysis
No. of Tests
Parameters
SD
S
m
r2
19
0.280
0.659
0.9915
0.017
SB (T)
9+5= 14
0.281
0.638
0.9905
0.015
3
EB (T)
3+2=5
0.277
0.685
0.9941
0.024
4
SB (B)
1 +4=5
0.274
0.730
0.9906
0.026
5
All TC
0.2795
0.681
0.9903
0.0196
No.
Description
1
All Tube Samples
2
NC + OC = Total
12+7=
13+ 11 =24
LogUSR
These results show that although the block samples gave a slightly lower S and a higher m,
the values of S and m are approximately equal for all five analyses. Therefore, the values of
S and m obtained from all TC tests (analysis # 5) are recommended for use with Eq. 6-1
and to compare with the Recompression testing, namely: S = 0.2795, m = 0.681 and the
standard deviation for log qf/ vc is 0.0196.
Triaxial Extension
Two of the conclusions from the analysis of normally consolidated behavior in TE
were that: 1) the NC undrained strength ratio is dependent on the in situ OCR, and 2) the
block samples seem to exhibit a lower strength than the tube samples. In order to check
these observations, a thorough analysis (six different data sets) of the OC behavior of BBC
was performed. The first five analyses evaluated tests having an in situ OCR less than 1.5
(below El. 25 ft.), and the sixth one the tests with in situ OCR greater than 1 5 (soil above
El. 25 ft).
173
The results from all analyses are reported in the following table with discussions below:
I
I
Analysis
No. of Tests
I
Parameters
SD
No.
Description
NC + OC = Total
S
m
r2
LogUSR
For OCR < 1.5
1
All Tube Samples
6 + 6 = 12
0.1444
0.8435
0.9940
0.026
1A
SB (T)
4 + 3= 7
0.1437
0.8703
0.9985
0.017
2
Block Samples
1+ 4 = 5
0.1333
0.8340
0.9936
0.030
3
Tubes and Blocks
7 + 10 = 17
0.1422
0.8301
0.9904
0.031
4
Only OC (T)
6
0.1352
0.8842
0.9837
0.035
OnlvyOC (T + B)
10
0.1399
Ii
0.8404
0.9769
0.035
2+1=3
0.1510
0.8596
0.9996
0.005
5
Illl~-
For OCR > 1.5
6
Block samples
The following conclusions can be made for BBC having OCR < 1.5:
1. The tube samples from South and East Boston give similar parameters (analyses
# 1 and
1A)
174
2. The analyses evaluating only OC samples (# 4 and 5) give essentiallyidentical
results as the analyses of both OC and NC tests.
3. The block samples gave a lower S and a slightly lower m compared to the tube
samples. For OCR greater than two, the USR is about 10% lower for the block
samples.
4. For BBC having an in situ OCR less than 1.5 (below El. 25 ft), the values of S
and m obtained for analysis #3 (all tube and block samples) are recommended:
S = 0.142, m =0.830 with a standard deviation of 0.031 for log qf/ovc.
The following conclusions are made for BBC having OCR > 1.5:
Unfortunately, detailed analysis is not possible for BBC having an in situ greater
than 1.5 since only one OC test was run on a sample above El. 25 ft (i.e., having an in situ
OCR greater than 1.5). From the NC analysis, one observed an increase in USR with in
situ OCR, and also that the results from block samples yielded a lower strength than the
tube samples (see Fig. 6-17). Despite the lack of information, the values from analysis # 6
are recommended (although being uncertain): S = 0. 15 and m = 0.86.
It should be pointed out that for the CAT project, the main interest was in extension
shearing below the depth of the excavations, so MIT focused on the deeper clay.
6.4.3 Effective Stress Failure Envelopes
Triaxial Compression
Fig. 6-10 and 6-11 presented the effective stress failure envelopes for BBC at peak
and MO, respectively, and Fig. 6-29 combines these plots for OC tests. Various analyses
were performed for both the peak and MO conditions
analyses # 1 and 2 for samples tested
175
at OCR less than 1.5, analysis # 3 for samples tested at an OCR greater than or equal to
two at peak condition, and # 4 for MO conditions for all tests. The various results are
presented below:
(Note: c' = a' /cos 0')
I
Analysis
NO.
Description
No. of
Tests
Tests
Parameters
' or
a/vm
'a
C'/O'vm
r2
SD 0' or
sin '
q/'vm
1
Peak OCR< 1.5
16
22.70
1.
2
MO OCR < 1.5
17
31.20
1.1
3
Peak OCR > 2
8
0.0604
0.0641
0.335
0.9738
0.005
4
MO All OCR
22
0.0146
0.0166
0.4776
0.9536
0.006
The following conclusions are made:
1. From analyses # 3 and 4, the peak envelope for OC clay has a much smaller
friction angle
'f = 19.60 ( 'm = 28.5° ) and a larger cohesion intercept (0.064
compared to 0.017) than at maximum obliquity.
2. There is no difference between the South and East Boston sites and between
block and tube samples (Fig. 6-29).
3. The results at MO from analysis # 4 are recommended for the drained effective
stress failure envelope.
176
Triaxial Extension
Fig. 6-18 presented the TE effective stress failure envelopes for BBC at MO (As
discussed earlier there was basically no difference between the MO and peak conditions).
Four analyses were performed: analysis # 1 for all OC and NC tests, and analyses # 2, 3
and 4 for samples with in situ OCR less than 1.5.The various results are presented below:
I
Analysis
NO.
Description
No. of
Tests
All Tests
SD
a'/'vm
C'/a'vm
sin ('
r2
22
0.0438
0.0461
0.371
0.8058
0.0104
--
1
Parameters
-
q/ v.n
In situ
OCR < 1.5
2
Block samples
5
0.0428
0.0455
0.342
0.7628
0.010
3
Tubes
12
0.0620
0.0650
0.299
0.7501
0.010
4
Both samplcs
17
0.0520
0.0550
0.323
0.7414
0.010
The following conclusions are made:
1.There is a lower envelope for the block samples than for the tube samples, which
is surprising.
177
2. The envelope for the tests having an in situ OCR less than 1.5 (analysis # 4) is
used for the linear regression in Fig. 6-18.
Section 6.3.3 (NC analysis) suggested that the increase in USR with samples
having an in situ OCR greater than 1.5 was due to a higher preshear Kc. Unfortunately no
further information can be provided for this apparent behavior of BBC, for there was only
one OC test run on a sample having an in situ OCR greater than 1.5.
6.4.4 Other Parameters
Figure 6-30 plots axial strain at failure from the TC and TE tests. For TC,
f
increases substantially with increasing OCR; for TE, there is no obvious trend with OCR
(maybe a slight increasing trend). These results are consistent with prior SHANSEP CKoU
data [e.g., the AGS CH marine clay results reported in Fig. 6 of Koutsoftas and Ladd
(1985)].
Figure 6-31 plots Af vs OCR and shows results consistent with prior SHANSEP
CKoU data (e.g., Fig. 6 of the above reference); i.e., Af decreases with OCR for both
modes of shearing. In addition, the TE Af is always greater than the Af from TC tests.
Figure 6-32 plots Es0/o'vc vs OCR. The scattered results indicate, if anything, a
slight trend of decreasing modulus for OC tests. This is somewhat surprising as one would
expect Es50/'vc to increase with OCR. In addition, the modulus of the block samples is
essentially the same as for the tube samples.
6.5 Summary and Conclusions
MIT performed 56 SHANSEP tests of which 46 gave good results used in the final
analysis. The tests were as follows:
178
TE
TC
Sample
Location
Type
NC
OC
NC
OC
SB
Tubes
9
5
6
3
EB
Tubes
3
2
2
3
SB
Blocks
1
4
ii
Total
6.5.1 Normally Consolidated
3
ii
13
11
5
Iol
11
11
Results
Figures 6-1, 6-2 and 6-14, 6-15 presented typical effective stress paths and stressstrain curves for the normally consolidated behavior of BBC in TC and TE, respectively.
The results from the analyses of 24 NC tests are reported below (also in tabulated form in
Tables 6-3 and 6-4):
For triaxial compression:
1. At the peak strength, Sc (qf/ovc) = 0.279 ± 0.010, (Z'f= 22.20°
1.2,
Ef = 0.355% ± 0.15 and Af = 0.86 ± 0.09.
2. For the USR, no variation with sample locations and type (Fig. 6-3 and 6-4).
Three tests with leakage resulted in low Kc values which increased the USR
(Fig. 6-5).
179
3. There is significant strain softening witt qm/Ovc = 0.2065 ± 0.021 at maximum
obliquity and an axial strain em = 10.2% ± 2.0.
'm = 31.20 ± 1.3.
4. Young's undrained modulus E50/a'c = 273 ± 55 with no trend for location
and/or type of sample (Fig. 6-12).
For triaxial extension:
1. At the peak strength, Se (qf/dvc) = 0.1495 ± 0.014,
Sf=
0
'f = 32.650 ± 1.2,
12.1% ± 2.6 and Af = 1.20 +0.06.
2. The USR is a function of the in situ OCR (Fig. 6-17). The USR increases with
greater in situ OCR. The higher USR is probably due to the high values of
preshear Kc measured for samples having an in situ OCR greater than 1.5
(above El. 25 ft). See below for the effects of Kc on TE tests.
3. Two tests with leakage resulted in low Kc values which decreased the USR
(Fig. 6-16).
4. Peak and maximum obliquity conditions occurred simultaneously.
5. Young's undrained modulus Es0/a'vc = 109 + 18 with no trend for location
and/or type of sample (Fig. 6-12).
6.5.2 Overconsolidated Results
Fig. 6-22 through 6-26 presented effective stress paths and stress-strain curves for
the overconsolidated behavior of BBC. The conclusions for the analyses of 22 tests can be
summarized as follows:
180
For USR versus OCR:
1. For TC, the log USR versus log OCR relationship is presented in Fig. 6-27. The
values of S and m were very constant (i.e., no difference between location and
types of sample) with S = 0.2795 , m = 0.681, r2 =-0.9903 and a standard
deviation of 0.020 for log USR.
2. For TE, Fig. 6-28 presented log USR versus log OCR. The behavior is more
complex as USR is a function of the in situ OCR (see Section 6.4.2). For BBC
below El. 25 ft, i.e., in situ OCR < 1.5; S = 0.142, m = 0.830, r2 = 0.9904 and
the standard deviation is 0.031 for log USR. For BBC above El. 25 ft (in
situ OCR > 1.5); S = 0.15 and m = 0.86 are recommended (but are uncertain as
based on only three tests).
For the effective stress failure envelope:
1. For TC, the effective stress failure envelope at maximum obliquity is presented
in Fig. 6-11, giving c'/'vm -- 0.0166, sin
' = 0.478 and a standard deviation
of 0.006 for q/c'vm.
2. Figure 6-18 presented the effective stress failure envelope at maximum obliquity
for TE, giving c'/a'vm = 0.0550, sin 4)' = 0.323 and a standard deviation of
0.010 for q/'vm.
For the other parameters: E. Af and Ev
c
1. Figure 6-30 plots axial strain at failure from the TC and TE tests. For TC, Ef
increases substantially with increasing OCR. For TE, ef is much larger and there
is no obvious trend with OCR.
181
2. Figure 6-31 plots Afvs OCR. Af decreases with OCRf
bo*nmdsofi
shearing. In addition, the TEAf is always greater than Atfom,'TC tst
t
i
3. Figure 6-32 plots ESo/dvc vs OCR. heoscatteredresults indicate if anything, a , ,,
slight trend of decrasing modulus for;O testa. The modulus foriTC is much t , :
larger than for TE In addition, the modulus of the block
samloiesessenialyly
il, i ,,
the same as for the tube samples.,...
As a final point, one can say that the BBC SHANSE paam
rs at SouthbBoston,
i.
are identical to those at East Boston. Furthermore, soil, samplesfrom very good quality ;.> ,
tube sampling (as was the case for this project) are as good as soilsamples from block
sampling for use with the CKO-TXSHANSEP testing technique. .. .
,
182
•!c
U
0 /) V 0 0
a/l
co
I%
c I 0 0 0 c I tc:o
o0
C 0
n
ott-
Y~tU~~
0
CiC~
a,IQO
C 0.e~c
U
[-u
x
OO
O
~
~c0
I.
c
cO
mo O
~
C
oo
i
O OOoOO
O
..
I
0C
C
=c cniC
" N
c
U)
_r
-~_'_
_--_-v . c.-o
Co
9/
_
<_
_
9
__* .Nw..?*. o C
)o
w.goonO
U,
rN
-
Nc
- -
4(00-"
d - -
_n__
.3
_o
.
C)
N
Nw
CWi
Y)
o
V
_
NN
V
Cl 0 NO
t-
NC
C
0
o
4
4nW
0) N
toD
0'v
v
c
NN 0
_
(V
N
Ws
i CY
N
CY
C)
W
V
VM
) C
)C
1(.NNN
-
":
N'.N
. ,.
.NN
_
Vn _
·
b·
Em
c
M
~., CM
C .1 aq
I--
c
m
r,
0
.NN
-
0
NN
4
WN
CY- in N )
Vo
NC.J( . U)
C
CY.......M
w c coco
m
" ~lr
0 I~
V) C~ tr,~ ~
oacoco.o
~
0 CM ~
cO
C C
tr
q~
~
d
~
183
IIII
ii
cr
C~~~~~~~~C
ua~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
C!
(IIO'-NC
en
O4
0
:.6.
ut I,
.-
-i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~C.....
O Cy . . .,
co .
.
,,.
., .r.
~
o 1
m
0 ..
WC W l NCY f%, n C I~,,
0 M -'
cmCYCYCYCY...e...cCC
C
~~)
ocU0~
N 3 c~
o U))
Co co cO)
cY c~
cc
~
*c
a
f~.. f~
. I'~
f~ I~io~
fC ~
I~l~ ~
f~f o~
'
l
~g
'"
~--~,.,,,,,
(
c~. ~ . ~-fc,,
-, fPf
c.)
u
cn:
Z
C-t
C/)
z-,
W'(..,'I~%
to .1
W.to
o~
.-~ N co.....6
9I-CC..
CyC
a 06
¢
)09
Cc9 )t Li Nq
CY
CY
6 66 6cici
.
C*Yaaao"-·-'·.(3N
:~~l~uiL,~jyiyjl~~h
'f'0U)
IA~.~
i
c
IC;Ui0C
U)
aD )
C
CO..
C)
O
~oa
- a0
-, U)U)
U)
t U)o°"c q c°)U
)U U
)
coc~ c~
cc U)
~c
c )U c~)Uc 0 r.
cN c~~c
:~cY c o
cN c~Cycl c) cY C C C
PI-cY c o c(N ca CYo
t
-E31
E
cc,
C'j
-
.I '
c
0.~
. 0
O) lj, Y
vtUU)ci ~~~V
ci
(V
t
::s.!:.,,..N
1i
~
O
O
ovowwoom
NON
Wm
iS3P
~~~~~~~~~~~~Ilto
0000009-0~~~00CDt-000
V)
..,
0
,2
0
D~
C' 0"
CY C"'CYCY CO), CY ,
o~~~~~~~~~
0 U) 1 %U)U)U
a cV)
c~ 4'-@0@C')
a
o
o
w
V) a
CY,-, CYCY
co
CCY
9 CY-e l - Ua a )
C
C,,) 04 F00 OO
.&
I,, .'C,,.Cs
7'
-
rt O C og-c us O~~~~~~~~~~~~~t
I
Oc
c
9
) V)
o)0
m~
' 0
Cycmc~ ~
N t-.
C'
CY
C
C,N
-9
'"
CO)
-
9-
)r
' i ' c' ')C)C)C)q
icicii
i Uio0cici
a
CYC'
0
ic
184
_
N Ln.
1
ow O J
-
'-*CZ
N
'-M.0
ii
t_
N,
s,,i_,,,_ qt ,t
O
0
DN
U
qt
Ct
N
-
...
mmm
N
D 0
t
-O
NV
*
V
0 0
I
0
_u O
0
:
ii
NO
N
mmmmmmmmmm.mmm.
m
'-
o
eI
-
R
>_*
m
-(D
in
N _ tD
.0-.
..
oi
m In CY
t
O
tN O
%0
*
O
) o0o oooo-
o3
_ Oo>
o
^O
_U)
DXNn
r
ood
oo N
O
)
C,_
I-d
o
;iha
-i
_ O_o0
0
a,W
r--
_
0
0
O. .cm
OO
ododddoo
a
0
ooooo
o
- CDa
t
r
N0
oo o
0
.
._
cn
CJ N
N
N
cc
°
I
o oOoo
NvMcNna)
a
. . to 1o
ddodddddoddoo. O.N
h0
M.
_
0
La
0 00
o O0c01
o
.)
0
~ f._~ruQ
SN
o
0
cn
.0
Is
Y
0
o
~
m
CM
C
C)
Ot~~
00000000000000
r
r
_tONP
'P.
C
-
M
V0
o
O
0,0
0
dddodd~
v
~~QtQ~~
_
U
0o
-6.4
*i
ddddd
_
cm
s
0
o°
185
I
(4
E
o
0
z-= ·
.
c S
a
In VI w
coD
cr
O0*
VI
.
·
b~oN0
a P. to
* o
O(')U)d
Oo
iz
CD)e0
X
CY C
0
.s
=
-.
O
ddddd
O
N
C
o
o
,'
d
O
O o_ 0 ,c o_
Is
On
X
~° c
X-
a d-0 0. -O
O
°
° °
0 0 0 9-
0 0 O
'a
uz
-Z
x
('00_N
ss(04~'66a
N
CA
to
ui
- C.N (C
_ 0a0_
0
-
N
(/)
o
0
to o c
ccc
8
S:
__N * *
CN .) 60U)
9-W
-
i N co _
9-
- _Nin-
9-
9co9)
C'
·
_
In -
...
cN
i
a
ii·
N
N N
W N N
N
P
C
N
. COCOCo
C.)C.)
N N Ct) C) o4 n4c U)
Yco 0
O C.)_
o OCoCoC
0 ww
0w 1) o o o o L L u u
N
.
°
l
Cl
c60(0
lic P cwdcm
u
CY r q)
d w~((~
idc 0
~~m~~~~~~~mmmm~~~~~m,,,,~~~
CYco
4 a U C r
I.,
11
Ix·
I:
N
°
-60
Is
A
CY
,·
--
NCc)
(0O O
0N
0
_0
i0
_
#Afl
U
-CYr.
-4
N 1- _-
CMP
N r.
186
II
·
i
l--a
M
·
E
i
o"
M-
I -
'
0
q-.
(
U
o
C:
-.
.q°
_
Z
u
-
c*
._
o .-*c
o.i *_ -" ..
wN
N
I
VI
e
o 0. o_ _ ·A
v
N
N
cm
- aV
N
N
Cl
;D
.
_.~
-i.
- j,.
L..
Me
.
.
,O
O O
,.Om
z
0
O
Nvt4Nv-.
*:.:
0
C_. _
*
cn.<CCSnY
o coN ao N
_v
cl
.
Y.0
NN
CO
.Dvw
0
n
.
N
0
-vC_ -._.
°vo10 oCy
° ol oV CY
N'c o
t
i Co G
U
0t ) i
N -w
Stv
N
o
0
C
40N
.
o
In C
00N
0
I(y
0t
00~~~~~0
0
:..:..
O" °O0
.'8I)_0 _c 4___o
_
S
_'
~V) co~
--N --c;
'O
_ N c__c_do 0 U _Nco
4 _
_ _S _v-v-v-v-NNNC
Cn cO
N YN
O
~
~
Cl-
t -tO 0S
)04SICSO
v
t~~O
N-U
N-N NO
N _0
O
O
CY
N)
ON N0
1>
187
I
I
ID
'I
~E
I
1
=
I,
e0
0 4 1
· -,
o
II
u0
4
a
(N
N
*d
-
-
%d-
%v
mo
2
a.
c-
_u,
D
r
U
z
c
F-0
C,
u
,3 ___
0
.4
,
-
L;
ot
_
> 0
f..
F-~
___
_
~:
_
~ 0w o
30
"
t
O~
LI
v,
C~ __
O
V
F-
__
___________O
VI h
_
_
_
M~~~~L
O
188
N
'.
UP, u)
ad
v~~~,
-
. r?~
P,
&3
S
*0
S
g
S
l
t
'
,:
-:
o -a '
LLt
.,
2 e
u0
C--
-
i
Li
000So0 0o
0*
-;
Oj
£
Z
'-
o
r
wn
O
Se
,
e_ t
'
c~~c
m
a.
U '
_
I ,.
_
_
O.
0
__
o
_%-
CNCN
Un
C( -4
189
o0
_,,,,L,, 1,1,1,,i, ,,i,,,,
........
..........
.....................
' ........
_.............
......
'.
.......
.
. _.............
.........
i
.i.............. ............
.i
t
~~ ~ ~ ~~i
To
pZ
~~~
~~~~~~
-----------'. ..........
. .............
.............
............
............
......... ............ ............. .............' .............' .............
............ ......... .
------,--,---............ .......
.
.... ............. .............
.............. .......................... ,:
............
~~~~~~~~..
:i'".!
.......
........
.
Z00
@
To
=
.
.....
~~~~~~~i.............i
.
.............
.............
...................
.. .............. .....
r .......... .. ... . .. . .... ."''........ . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . .............. . . . . .
........ ... ....................... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... ..
. .....
..........
..
ge-
............ ............. .......I...............................
LO
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .........
...........
&.............~
............
........................
ii.iii i.iii
. .....
.
.........
................................................................
.
.........
i
.............
.............
.
..
o
...........
4 ..........
.............
..
....
E.,
a
5
.........
s
w
i .......................................................
... ... ...... ..
.
.... ..
~~~~~~....
. ...........
........... ,.............i.......
.. .... i
..........
¶3'
.I......... ............. ............. ..........
.............................................
AS~~~,
............... ............ ..........
...........................
......
...........
........ ,.............
.........
.....
. ....
.....................
... ......
..............
..... ,.............
Cv)
.............................
........................ ..........
..........
..
.
..................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
........... ............
...... ........
...
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
~ ........................
....... ... ................... ..........
...... ............
..................
........ ..........................
..........................
...-....
Nli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...........
,........
.............. ......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..................
...........
.
. ..........................
...............................
.........................
o
6~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i...........
.. . . .
..
. ......... ............ ....
: ...........
..........
........... .. .. .............. ...............
....
....................................
'
LA M
~~~
0N
o
.............
...
..........
.............
.........
L, T C
o
lA
/
.................
..........
.
...
, ~~~~~so
.
"=
~~~~~~~~..
..................................
LA N
o
o
~u
.. . . .. . .. . ...... ... . .. . .. . . . .... . . ..
~~~~~~~~~
............................
.1.........,-*,
..
.
...........
o
r.T.
0
0
o
190
!l:
i ie :iiii
-
0.4
--
' ~' 'f
i
I
:
-----
'
!! i ' ! i i
i .... i' ~'
I
i
I
i
7
.~--,'-"'!
i
I
i
i
I
0.3
2
go
V
V
i.....
-'
i, i..... !..........-
0.2
_.F....i....i...i....i....l....l...i..
.;....i.....i....i..... :... ~.i..i..
C
0.1
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....;.....~,.....;.....-.....-......-
C'
1-F-
,~~r~m~fl~rn
0
A-·
- · · i-·r···*·····r·
+ · ·· ·
I
I I
-
I
--
u/Y'vm
-
- - - -- ---
- - - -
-0.1
II
35
L
m
40
In
30
..... ...
~~~~~~~~....
lb
.............. ......
.........
lt..
........
..... ....... ..
.I
i
... . ..
..........~.............._
..........
. .... . ........
. ....
. ....
25
..... .. . .....
..
'"'~'"'*
"'*'"'t
·--.·....
i...+'''""""'"'"'"t'
....r. . . " *........";"'"''
el
20
:
,
i
Lo
la
:i
I
I:~
I
Ii
15
-5
0
5
i
i
:i
i
i
I
I
i
i
10
I
I ,
15
,
,
:..
20
Axial Strain a ( % )
a , Au/c'
and 0' vs. Axial Strain
Figure 6-2. Typical q/o'
from NC SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
as Illustrated by Test # 55
191
CI
...........
............
............
.....
............
........... .. ...
"~~~
ga
~ ~ ~~.g
.r--
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ............
~~.........................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............
............
.............
............
; ..............
:................
U,
............440I
........... ........... ............ . ......
'
(..·..
· · ·
. ............
·
· ·.
·
. ·~~~·~~~",~~~"b~.
. .~. ..................
.........
.......
~~~.~~~.~~~~~............
. ........... ...........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cu
_
C-I
' ~"
.......................
. .........
. . .. . .. . .
.............
............
_
............
...........
.................................
I
. ....... i............
.................. ......... ............. ............' ............ .................................
............ .................... ..............
........... ...................... ........
...
........................
~~~~~~~~~~~...........
................................
.......
.......................
........
.... ........
~......
..........
............
,...........
............
............
..........
.............
,......
.. ...............
............ ......
.............
..........s
i ......
.................
........ ...........
......0................
...... i.........
.4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.oo
.4.4.4.4.00,.
II~ cl~
.........·. ............._............
......
;
............
............:
............ ............~........
_.
: 4.........................a...&..........
:
:
..........
.............
............
...............
~
...........
:..........................~............. ............
c3 ...................
·
·
·
·
·
i............·.i"6"·"·~""""
·
·
·
i·······?····
··
· ?............,............
.......)
....
........
····
i
!
i
i
~ ~~~~~~~~
'+"
"""?
·
·
·
40~~~~~~~~~,
.............
. ...1········,~ ...... 4 ...... 1.....** ...... I ...... ,. ...... ,.......00..
....................
~ ...... ~.............~.............
......~ ............
. ............................................
~ . . ....... .............
:.
.... .............
i
'
. .......... ........... ,
............. .................. ..................... ............
~.......
~ ~:..~~~~~~~!.....
.....:
...........
.,.....?
......................
...........
. .......... ......................... . .................... ,.....
...... ,......
............. . ~......
cr
*4""
A
C=,
........
L
C=
.
.
.................
.
.
,.....
..................
..
.......
..... ............
~
.4
4
.
. .....
.
.......
,..............
...
!..... ..
..........
i
......................
.
.............
............
4
J
4
4
.
r,.)
* -p
................
z
.
.
...........
...... ...........
......... .............
..........
!....,............
... ..... .........
......
.... .......;
&Ar
4=
..
....... ...... ..... ........... ....... ........................ . ............~...... .......... i.....
.. .................. .... 4.
. ...........;.
4M.
. CO
Lf3
11=
..
.. ,
............
.
....~~~
.....~
-- - ...........i................. i....
........
;...
.....
L ..............
................
~..
........
.....
... ......
......'..................
..i..............
i i......~
...........
i.......
i...;..
. ~...................4
~~.4
......
........
4..~.
......
....................
C
C %J
C-01.
...
............
.. .......... ..
..
.............
~......
... .........................
..
4
*······.·..······1C.
....
4
......................
..........-...
:I~~~~~
...
; .. ; ..
~
......
.....
.......... . ..... ..................
.............
.
.........
. ..... ......................................... ._.......~.. :..........
......
I .... .....
~...
.........
............
'·........' ·.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
................ i...:
.....
;·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i.-;.....i
· .....
.........-..
L-···.·...
.. ··.....·......·
;- ...... .........
.. :...·.!
t_,
. ........
........... . ................
..........
got............ ..... ........ . ... .............
....
......
, .....
.....
......
....,.-............
....
.....
.....,
. ........
4....i...i.....i...,..
. ... ...... i............ L.................... ................. ~"..
.....
!...........
.... ............ ...
... .....
, ;
....
. :...... i..... !......i......i..
...
................. .........
............
.
;..; .....
: ............. .... ~
......
..... '.......i1 ...L...i.
..............
......i.....
......! -
.
........... i.....
U
I-
......... ......... ..4 ..... ~..........
;..... .
....................
. ..........
......
6E
0.T.,
.............................
...
............
........
..
......
... ; ........... ........................ .........................
............,............4
...................
~............,............~........
0:
o:,.............................
i
.
.. ............
:3
LAM
L
:
........:'.........*
,...:........~**.*-.--,o,
.........
.....
...........
..........
T...
..............
................................................. ............
......
4=0
v
W~7
.......
c
...........:
..............................................................................................................
......*...... ................
*
............................. * ......
...;·...........-.......
.............. ..............
;........
i& I
I
-
I
.......
I
.............
; ......- ...... ~.......;......
I
__
CACO
c
ao
co
TT
..........
C%.C
Cj>:j-*v~743~zc
I
i
I
C
i~~rc
192
~~~~~~
La's
4.~
.
4 *
...............
...............
. .........
....... ........
.
.......
. ..............
.............................
........................................
...............
.........................
.
..........
fl.
. n..............
. . ....................
. . .
..............................
........
...............
.........................
.......................
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.....................
.............
~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
o.oooo..........o........o....o
,.oo.....oo
.....
o.
......
........ o
.. ...........
o,.................
..
..
o.....
o. oo.....6.
3-
. ......... +,....
.......... ?.....
..........
!.. .........................................................."'..............
l
.............., ...........
.......... . ............... ............... ~............... ~ ............ i...............;...............'........''.;...............~..............
.
..............
, ..........*..
..
..............................
.............................-.
............
... ....
............
......- ...
. .............' .............. ...............?.............................. ................................!............... ..............?.............
E.D
........... ,.........................
,m
;,....... .....................................
...............~............... ..............,............
. ........ ...;............... ..................................... ......................................................... ............... ............
cl-
g·
;
a
,.
$mi
Cli
.
... +···+···r.
i., ,.......
......
. ......
+
~·
· ·· ·
.....
~,..........
,'T
)....
...
.... .......
I
'I......
!.......i.......
.
' I.......4.· ?
, ..............
,
'
1e.......
..........
,I
. .....
,...!: .. . . .. . .
O:
o
........... . ........ ........ ...... ......
. .. .....
...... ....... ..... . ............... ........................... ........... ...:....;.
. .....
. ..':. . . . . .. .. . .. .. . .... . . .. . .... . . . . . . .... . . . ..... . .... . . ... .... .. . . . .
'b
_ .+
......
......
. . ...
. .......
. . ,
.......
.... ...
........
..................
4= I)
C
CN%J
4d 4I
~~ ~
...-.· ·.-..4..
.
c.
·
· ·..
·· ··
. ...... . ...... .......
..........
..
.
..................... ¢..
.
~·~~
...
.......
'
............
.. .~ .
.. .............
. ...
........
. . .......
......
..
4
.
.................
...............................................
..
......................
...............
--
',e
~~~~~~~
~~~'
.....
. ....
.......
,.
......
.......
.......
........
..............
,.......,.......,.......
.......
,.......
......
......
......
. 4.
......
......
.,. .......
.. ,......
~~~~~~~~~:
I-..
Cu
- . .......
....
...
:....
...............
~....... ........ ..............i .......
!
................-..-......-..-......T'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.........
. ......................... .............. ........:
.......
........-.
...
~..·~..· .........
· ~······~···-··...~·······.
·······
.................
. ............
........................ .~............... ..... ,.....,.....
............... ...............
...................... ............-
..
. ...............:... ... .. ...
C1=
43a
.C9
I-
o
....
·
..........
....
...........- ...
.... I ....
..........
~
,
·
--
-
7-
....
.... I
,
;
-I;
c;
I
·
' .......
....
CO
.:...
~. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. ....... ... ........ .... . . ... . . .
. .............. ......:.........
. .. ............--' . ....... ..... ....... '. ......:
. ......
·-"-"~~~~
. . ..............
. .. .. :....................
. . .. "''"'·"-'·.
. ...................
.'
. ·.... : . . .......'......
. . .......'
ci
.... I ....
.... ~ ....
;...................................;..................~
,
.... ~ ....
,
(
....
4
,
...
e-....4
...
4..........
.....
U0
,.,
I
,··--····-·
·
.'.....
........
........
PI
. ..............
..-.........-.........
·r... ..........................................
.......
·..
.......
...............
.......
.....
'A,
........... ............... ..............................................................~.............................. ~................ ..........
............... .............
.............. ~................................................ ............... ....................................
4==
.........
:W4 ..
. ..............
,4 ................
...............
...............
·.................
................
...............
. .............
~......
. ............ ,............... ...............~...............................i............................................. .............................
=I
ii
C..
. .........+............... .............. ..............................................i................................ ............. !.
. .............T.............. : ....... ...................................................
...............T............... .............................
........................... ....... ...............................................
.. ...........
-......····
.i.. .
........... ........
:..........
:..........
.........:....................................
. ............
...............
...............
...............
...............................
...............
..............
..............
............
CE~
c3
.e,
~...
........
............
. ...............
.. .........
........
...............
............
f_.1
C;
:a c=
4.0
Cu
.4.......
F.-.
L rl co
CN.
,-
'cU
_
.
C=
..........
.4...............
...............
, ..............
~...............
~...............
~...............
4................
.....................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.............
............................
..............................
...........
...............
4...................
.....
: -'- - ---'
~J
-,.
r-
<4.j>
A -3 1
CM 11 3
-'- QP1 al
kCO 30r43k 9
193
u,
00
:a
Ux,
C=
a
1*
U
U
u
U1,
wm
'Kr
Z06
SC
C3
'U)
7
CJ
co
rl
CJ
D
C
u
'
CJ
C
CJ
C
C
CJ
-O
(%
CJ
5
(saallaI)
lJb e J,0
U,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cD
;
cD
a
L()
C4O
*m
LA,3
S.
!
C*J
CC
cN
4=;
-
c
C3,
'a NUCC
o
Cj
==
A .o/Jb
'ISfl
*
Cj
i
Cj
A
194
u,
Lt)
1
- I I
II I
I I
I
I
I
I
.
:0
I
t
.
CAD
........
.........
.........
.........
r;
F-
.
..... ......... .......... ......... .. ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
...
0
0
Ull
.........
m
U
0
_-
O
:
-
......................
.......
.......
. .'....................
...................................
. ....................
,
........
_--
...
_·
.
· · · · · ·· ·. · *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· · ·
A·
.
0
..
.
.
.
... ,··········
.
0
CD
_
-::
......
.............
.
..............
...........
....................
........
............ ..........................
........
C,
.
,
_···~·'
.
.X.
· ·· ·
~~····~,,··~~~,~
.
.
.
.
,'~~ ,_
.
.
'~"~"
~~
.
.
.
.
"
.
~
.
.
'~""'~'"~~~'"
"
" "
Z
...
U
- . - - - - I- -. - .- .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - .- I- - -. I
-ICr
CV2
Cj
C4
CV12
C.)
CV1.
CCi
(saaJSaO)
Z
II
¢C
Ub :{]
o,,
-
e
I
LI,
.O
.
.I0
.
.................*.....................................................................................
LA,3
O o
u
W.0
;
':
......................................
_
I
.... .,
...a
. _
....................................
-_ o... I....I, c x '
,,,j
,
-c
C
CJ
CC
Cj
;
0
Cj
A;
..................
-
.
CVII
..
i....i....i....:
...
,
LA"30
Cj
x
...........
=
I&C)1/1b
.
.
..
-
CJ
C=
'
'"Usa
.................
J....
CVO
C
f
co
C
195
K
0.4
0.8
0.45
-I -I I-
- -I
I
I
o
0.55
t
I
I
I
|
I
I
W
I
0.6
s
I
I
I
I
0.65
I
I
I
I
I J
.......................
EB TC
0.6
w'
0.5
SB TC
0.7
p' 0.5
C
o
B.S TC
x
Leakage
............................
..............
0.4
............
...........................-
0
-TJ, ......................!- --- --- -..............
........................
C
... . . . ... . . . . . .
0.3
I.........
..... .... .
....... ....... ....... ......
,....X...........................
0
0
n
0.2
X
0.1
I
I
---- --
i
I
X
I
V I
*x
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6-7. Strain at Failure vs. Kc from NC
SHANSEP CK UC Triaxial Tests
196
K
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
.
A
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
n
V.,
Figure 6-8. Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. K
from NC SHANSEP CK UC Triarial Tests
197
In Situ OCR= a' I
p
VO
10
1
0o
0.32
'b
1cl
a,
6
0.3
(U
4.
0.28
0
ITC
M
a.
L
(U
I
L.
0.26
cn
0.24
Figure 6-9. NC qf/'
v
C vs. In Situ OCR from
SHANSEP CKo UC Triaxial Tests
198
,
I-
U. )
0.4
2
0.3
0.2
0.1
n
U
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
p'/e
Figure 6-10. Normalized Stresses at Peak from
SHANSEP CK0 UC Triaxial Tests
199
0.5
_
0.4
2
o
SB NC
i i
A
SB OC
*
EBNC
L.R. All Data at MO
c'A/'
,L A
........
EBOC i
2
B.SOC
.i
=0.0166
..........
' = 0.4776
sin
r2 =
0.9536, SD=0.006
.....i'"'i'"'i'"'i'"'J""i"'i
.....
\
0.3
.....................
0.2
:.........
_
'"'i" i'"'i'"'i'"'!'"'.
!
................................. .
0.1
Triaxial Compressionl
i
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
- vYm
Figure 6-11. Normalized Stresses at MO from
SHANSEP CK 0 UC Triaxial Tests
0.6
200
ESol
5
100
0
200
vc
300
400
60
.
4.
~ ::
! ..
i ..
i .....
i ......
i
..........................
............ .............
40
*._,
20
.
.
.
.
;
i
i
... ......
i ! i
.
. . . : .
i
i..; , , + . ,....
.
: ..
..........................
i
i
.
i
*i
* .
. i
i
..............
. ... .
..................
I
.....--..
j.
j
'EE
0
, ,,
$No
-20
i*.
i
'
i
T.
:
iE
i.
.
TE
.
0
I
Ao
1i
B.STE
STC
B
O
B.S TC
_iit:
, 0?l°,sZ-*--Xii
--·-4 -;
-40
.
i
. i
-' -............*
:
600
.. --
80
_/0%
500
4'.....................
.................;..... .........................
i
Figure 6-12. SB and EB Project
Elevation
0o
S
SBOCC =
vs. NC Young's
Modulus from SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests
201
K
0.4
0.45
450
o
0.5
0.55
11111111
I II
I
0.6
I
I
I
0.65
I
I
I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
I
I
I"""'
~'
-
-
I
SB TC
EB TC
400
o
B.STC
x
Leakage
350
.........................................................................................
0
o
0
300
_..........................
............................
I...............................
X
250
...............................
C
x
.........................
. ............... .......
0
200
........................
................
0
150
I
I
I1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6-13. Young's Modulus vs. Kc from NC
SHANSEP CKo UC Triaxial Tests
202
1-
cI1o
CI E.
I-u
(O
0
cJ
E
0It
cJ
0
0
C
d
C
d
-
O
d
WA
D/b
r
NC
6
o
a
C~
203
u.
E
0.2
,
0
-0.1
n
W.&.
20
rO
W
Lo
10
0
D
,
-10
0c
<.L -30
.Lu
._A
-3
an
--'U
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Axial Strain (%)
Figure 6-15. Typical q/O'vm, Au/' m and )' vs. Axial Strain
from NC SHANSEP CKUE Triaxial Tests
as Illustrated by Test # 81
204
!
!
!
I
.
I
III
I
I
I
[
l
I[
Il
I
l
I
. . .
i
l
CA
.........
...
................
.....
*-
.............
: .0
co
4>
LC)I
........
f.......
LC)
o
a.
Co
............
..........
......
....
.............
-
£,
.. . X.. ..
...
Z
. C-
*t
3
M
.
oO
.
. '~~~~~~~~o
.
.
.
.
et
C%!~~~~~~~~~C1
0V1
~.
'.
.
.
cO
.io
ci
f4~
dc
i
-r
I
C%!1
3 I
I
C
4=
M
co
i
O
o
0E
4.-
AcUu
o~~~~~
.............................
_'
_
LC
i~~~~
--.....
1
.......................................
;P.............................
~~~~
~~
~~~
~ ~~
_
-.............................
......................
.................
C3
. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. ................
-
i
i
'
.
!
!
'
'
'
!
....
............ ...
'
!
'
Cu
'
I"J
'
co
_ ........................................ ............................................-............................................................
CA
C,
~~~~~~
.
L()
_
C
1
cr
U
3o
0
-
.....................................
.
I
CO
11
~
cq~
_
f
......................
O
^ .o/Jb
.
LA
-.
d
.................
.
:
I_
m
.....................
.
f
o::
-.
o. . l_
*
-m
,,.
C
-
-
205
In Situ OCR= a' / a'
p
vo
10
1
0.2
b
6
0.18
.i
(-
,c
4
:
C
72
_
L
a
.......................
j-
--........................---................
...................
...........................
..............
0.16
_
_ i
i __··-·--
·
· ·
:
· ·
·-----
· ·-
:
. ..
:
,
:
,
:
,
:
:,:
'
'.
72
0.14
0.12
Figure 6-17. NC qf/a' v c vs. In Situ OCR from
SHANSEP CK UE Triaxial Tests
206
,,
U.J
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
A
V
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 6-18. Normalized Stresses at MO from
SHANSEP CKo UE Triaxial Tests
207
K
C
0.45
0.4
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
16
31
14
72
-
.
.
o
12
w
cj-
10
o
SB TE
o
B.STE
x
Leakage
8
50
12LW1LWL..W
W.
6
Figure 6-19. Strain at Failure vs. K from NC
SHANSEP CK UE Triaxial Tests
208
K
0.4
0.45
- - -
160
I
I
I
0.5
-
I
C
I
I
I
I
0.6
0.55
._
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.65
I
I
I
I
I
i
140
........... .... .... .... ................
-
So
120
I
b
72
0
cU}
tn
60
100
...................
x .................. .............. ......................... 0·E...........................
...... (i .............
80
o
SBTE
*
EB TE
o
B.STE
31
Leakage
60
I
I
I
I
II
I
.
1
I
I'
I'
'
_'~
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
Figure 6-20. Young's Modulus vs. Kc from NC
SHANSEP CKOUE Triaxial Tests
209
K
c
0.4
0.45
1
1.35
I
.
1.3
1.25
.
I
I
.
I
.
I
1
0.5
·
I
o
SBTE
.
EB TE
0
B.S TE
x
Leakage
· _
I
0.55
_
_
I
I
I
0.6
-I I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
....
..... I...............................
0.65
............................
_........................... .........................
72
1.2
]...........................
.......................
60
0
0
31
1.15
5
...........................
x
1.1
I0
1.05
!
I
I
I
I
I
l
I I , ....
II
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
.
Figure 6-21. Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. Kc
from NC SHANSEP CK o UE Triaxial Tests
210
Overconsolidated Behavior
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
E
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
p '/(
Figure 6-22. Typical Effective Stress Paths from NC and OC
SHANSEP CKoUC/E Triaxial Tests as
Illustrated
by Tests # 34, 55, 67, 81, 92 and 94
211
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Cr
0.1
0.05
nw
0.4
0.3
E
0.2
b
41
0.1
0
-n 1
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Axial Strain a (%)
Figure 6-23. Typical q/o' vm and Au/o' vs. Axial Strain from
NC and OC SHANSEP CKoUC Triaxial Tests
as Illustrated by Tests # 34, 55 and 94
212
35
30
... .......
....
....
.......
U.
...........
I
I
r\
.......
.......
.... I...
1 ....
........
25
20
a,
'If"0
.- 4-4- ......
15
..
.......
....
*......
*.-.**
10
OCR =1
OCR =2
5
Lllii
l l It!
-
OCR =5.8
0
-5
0
5
Axial Strain
15
10
20
(%)
Figure 6-24. Typical Friction Angle vs. Axial Strain from
NC and OC SHANSEP CK 0UC Triaxial Tests
as Illustrated by Tests # 34, 55 and 94
213
0.3
0.2
E
0.1
-0.1
An
_V.r.
0.2
0.15
0.1
O-
0.05
0
-0.05
ra
-U.
.
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Axial Strain a (%)
vs. Axial Strain from
Figure 6-25. Typical q/o'vm and Au/o'
NC and OC SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
as Illustrated by Tests # 67, 81 and 92
214
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Axial Strain ea (%)
Figure 6-26. Typical Friction Angle vs. Axial Strain from
NC and OC SHANSEP CK UE Triaxial Tests
as Illustrated by Tests # 67, 81 and 92
5
215
0
I
!
_
_ _
I
p.....,..q
!
I
I
I"""""
rm...
I
I
I|
o
SBTC
*
EBTC
o
B.S TC
I
.......
.......
!-....
.......
.......
.......
4........
4.......
p.......
,+------
Jo............
.
. ..
-0.2
O
a-
10
1-
...............
....... .......
........
.2
-0.3
,.t......T... ·
.........
.:..
...
........
.J
.......
I......Id'-..J_..l
/
/
...... ....... ........
/
.................
I
/
/i/
/AY.
_.......
/!/
I
e
.......
.
_.......
..
......
/.
I/
..... ......._......._.......poe~
/.I
........
.......
.......
.......
......
Z'
i /Y
I
i/
.
....
........ ....... ....... ......I
..............................
"'-"'
I
.
.....'
.
/
-f
f
....... ....
~..o..I
.......
mu;'''''
S = 0.2795, m = 0.681
I
V.iZ.
._/w/
--.,.
L.R. on all data, r2 = 0.9903
,,,
!
A/16
,.
-0.1
|
l
I
.........
...........
......
....
I....... ....... ......
.......
....... .......
-0.4
....... .......
[ SD =0.0196
.
-0.5
.. ....
-0.6
-0.2
.....r. . .,
.......
,
0
..
.
....... ..
....... ....... ......
.......
0.2
LOG (OCR =
....... ......
0.4
6'
0.6
0.8
vm/I' vc)
Figure 6-27. Undrained Strength Ratio vs. OCR
from SHANSEP CKUC Triaxial Tests
216
II
0.2
I
NC Mean B >1.5
NC Mean B < 1.5
NC Mean T>1.5
a
*
0
-0.2
-
o
NC Mean T <1.5
0
SB OCR <1.5
A
EB OCR <1.5
a
BS OCR <1.5
*
BS OCR >1.5
.
I
-0.4
oo·o
···'·
. .........
.............. ......
....... ............
C3
o.o.....o...
l
I.o.........
o°°°.~°°~.q
be.....i·
. .4... . .
l
|
oo o o..'-I...
.oo,,*.oo.o
···r·
...........
°ooe.eee.o...
I......... .......... _...._
q
.
.. SD+0.031
.J
,
"
I./../
..........
····
,.............
I.....N
-I
............
...............
://_yl.....
..
V%......VX
/
e
/:/
/7A7
.
I/
.. 7.
---------
7 4 *-111'0-l-
"." //
--- ····-··········-··-···-···-··········
40
9"
04
--
II
~.............
_........
_..........
I
.
_...........
....
o......
_...oo..i_
...........
I........
..........
...........
..
-0.6
InSitu OCR < 1.5
. ...................
-0.8
,...............
i*/
-.................
- .....................................
7..*
....... L.R.,
. . r2 = 0.9904
0-_. 4
S =0.142, m = 0.830
-1
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
LOG (OCR =
0.6
'
0.8
1
vm'Ovc)
Figure 6-28. Undrained Strength Ratio vs. OCR
from SHANSEP CKoUE Triaxial Tests
217
A
I
U.3
.
*
r
w
-
U
I
,
-
--
-
Triaxial Compression
I
I
.......
... .........
·
B.S MO
o
SB Peak
i
EB Peak
!
i
........
..........
oooo
....
.
.....
IV
A
.n
* '.
0.2
-i
i ,j,,,
j ;j ...........-
;
..... ...........
·
i...
;·i·
...
.-- ...-.J.--.--....-.i........................ i
...
.......
....
.. ...
0.1
..............
.....................
....
...
0.1
0.2
.
.
.
.
..........
_
:
0.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
:
:
:
.
.
:
:
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
I.i
....
.
.
_.
S,
.
..............
:
_
i:
z.......,. ,. ., ...
,....
l
0
p ii
...
I.. .. ......
-1 r-A
............
0
. Al
..p ..;...-.....
.....
i.... .&
A
.0
.........
....
.mO.
B.S Peak
\i
r
.........
........
............
..............
0.3
o
P
-
I
I
EB MO
A
E
I
SB MO
A
0.4
l
I
. I
.
:
.
.
.
-:
-
0.4
0.5
-
0.6
Figure 6-29. Normalized Stresses at Peak and MO from
Overconsolidated SHANSEP CKUC Triaxial Tests
218
16
I-
w k.
12
c
8
,.
r,/
4
0
1
OCR = a'
/'
vm
10
vc
Figure 6-30. Axial Strain at Failure vs. OCR from
SHANSEP CKO UC/E Triaxial Tests
219
1.4
I1
.
I
I
i
I
.........
I
S..T...........C................
1.2
o
r ..................... .................... ............................................. ..........
B.STC
SB TE
SBTE
............
1
~
B 1[E
U*
,,
B.STE
0.8
I.
......................................
.
.
..
............
0.6
0.4
''..............
..............
711.....
.........
,.
.
..
...
0.2
.
.
n
r!,~~~ao
0
10
1
OCR = '
vm
/a'
vc
Figure 6-31. Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. OCR
from SHANSEP CK UC/E Triaxial Tests
220
600
'!I
!
I
b
o
.....................................................................................................
500
o
.
o
SBTC
i
..........
..................
=I
0
I
EB TC
B.S TC
SBTE
A
*EB
i
400
*
TE
B.S TE
N
2
.r
300
(
Z
'' ' ' ' '''''' ''-'' --; - --s-----.............................................
..................
i........., . . ; . j ............................
j
.._
. ...........................................
........
o..................
...............................................................
200
.......................
............
........
. TC
O
....
................................
........................... .............. ............ .......... ........ ........
.N
100
C
LMeanSD
.
.
i
i
._
.:
.............................................
..........................................
..........
0
10
1
OCR =
a'
vm
/'
vc
Figure 6-32. Young's Modulus E5s 0 /a'
vs. OCR from
SHANSEP CKo UC/E Triaxial Tests
221
Chapter 7. Comparison with Prior SHANSEP Triaxial Data on
Resedimented Boston Blue Clay
7.1 Introduction
This chapter compares the natural Boston Blue Clay (BBC) results reported in the
first six chapters of this thesis with the most recent results from SHANSEP triaxial tests
performed at MIT on resedimented Boston Blue Clay by Sheahan (1991). The first part of
the chapter reviews the preparation technique, index properties and consolidation behavior
of resedimented BBC, while the second half compares the undrained shear behavior of
both soils.
Boston Blue Clay has been the primary soil used by MIT to develop an
understanding of the behavior of clay. In the early 1960's, a resedimentation process was
introduced at MIT in order to reduce the cost of obtaining samples, and to improve the
uniformity and consistency of the tests because it reduces variability of sample properties
found in natural clay. Since then, a substantial number of laboratory tests have been
conducted on resedimented clay for the developing and understanding of clay behavior
under different testing conditions. There were at least four different series of resedimented
BBC used at MIT over the last 25 years by various testing program: BBC IA, IB, II and
III. Seah (1990) compared and analyzed the various batches of resedimented BBC with
natural BBC and concluded that the latest series, BBC III, had the most representative
properties of the natural material. Therefore, this chapter will focus on comparing results
from BBC III to the results previously reported in this thesis. For reference, BBC III has
previously been studied: (1) by Walbaum (1988), DeGroot (1989) and Seah (1990) for
222
direct simple shear (DSS) tests, (2) by Sheahan (1988, 1991) and Seah (1990) for
SHANSEP CKoU triaxial tests in compression and extension.
7.2 Preparation Technique
The Boston Blue Clay used for the resedimentation process was originally from
Kendall Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was oven-dried and crushed to form a
powder in which 97% passed the no. 100 sieve. The index properties of this material are
described in the next section. The specifications of the resedimented BBC for laboratory
testing are:
a. a salt concentration of 16 gram/liter to control segregation of the soil particles;
b. 100 % saturation, which is essential for undrained tests.
c. KO-consolidated to 1 ksc and rebound to 0.25 ksc to give an overconsolidation
ratio of 4 before extrusion and trimming; at this ratio, the stress state of the soil
is close to hydrostatic ('v = ah); and
d. a final water content of about 40 % to roughly control the consistency of the
sample properties.
The batch preparation process can be divided into four stages: sedimentation,
consolidation, extrusion and trimming. The various stages will not be discussed in this
thesis, the reader being referred to Seah (1990) for a detailed description of the equipment
and procedures. Reference tests were performed to verify that the soil satisfied the
specifications discussed previously and to obtain basic engineering properties needed to
characterize any cohesive soil.
7.3 Index Properties
The water contents and Atterberg limits of BBC III were run on eight batches of
resedimented clay and results are summarized in Table 7-1. The value of the liquid limit
223
was 45.2 ± 0.44% and the value of the plastic limit 21.74
0.44%. The final water content
was 40.59 ± 0.57%, which gives a liquidity index of 0.82. The plasticity chart for the
natural BBC was presented in Fig. 4-5 and resedimented BBC falls in the middle of the
scatter between the A and C lines. In addition, salt concentration determination expressed in
terms of sodium chloride (NaCI) varied between 14 and 22 g/l, which is similar to values
from natural BBC as seen in Fig. 4-3 and 4-4. Finally the specific gravity of resedimented
BBC III ranged from 2.75 to 2.78, which agrees well with the natural BBC value of 2.785
± 0.009SD (Section 4.2.3).
7.4 Consolidation Behavior
There were basically two stages of consolidation; the first occurred during batching
in the large consolidometer, and the second during oedometer tests on smaller samples.
Figure 7-1 presents typical compression curves from oedometer tests, and the following
observations were made:
(1) The compression curves were very slightly S-shaped, but never as pronounced
as often observed for the CA/T project (see Chapter 5).
(2) The compression ratios (CR) varied from 0. 132 to 0. 187, which are
considerably smaller and less scattered than the CR for natural BBC where
values ranged from 0.15 to 0.75.
(3) The mean values for recompression ratios (RR) and swelling ratios (SR) were
0.013 and 0.016, respectively.
224
7.5 Comparison with SHANSEP Triaxial Tests Results on BBC III
Throughout the rest of the chapter, the triaxial tests results reported for BBC III are
from CKo-TX SHANSEP tests performed by T.C Sheahan as part of his doctoral research
on the influence of "rate effects" on the behavior of cohesive soils (Sheahan, 1991).
7.5.1 Normally Consolidated Triaxial Tests in Compression and Extension
Table 7-2 presents results from normally consolidated SHANSEP tests in TC and
TE on BBC III and Table 6-3 presented the same for tests on natural BBC.
Undrained Strength Ratio at Peak and Maximum Obliquity
Results from two SHANSEP CKo-TX triaxial compression tests on normally
consolidated (NC) BBC III gave an undrained strength ratio (USR or qf/o'vc) at peak of
0.322 ± 0.004SD, and at maximum obliquity (MO) of 0.250 ± 0.004SD. Both results are
quite a bit higher than results from 13 tests on natural BBC with q/o'vc = 0.279 + 0.01OSD
and 0.207 + 0.021SD at peak and MO, respectively. The values for two tests in triaxial
extension gave a USR at peak of 0.1305 + 0.005SD, which is lower than results from 11
tests on natural BBC with a mean USR = 0.150 ± 0.014SD (the mean USR was 0.143 +
0.009 for tests on samples with in situ OCR < 1.5).
Interestingly, the preshear Kc for both compression and extension tests was
considerably lower for BBC III than for natural BBC (Kc = 0.562 for TC and 0.565 for
TE) with values of 0.481 + 0.012SD and 0.475 ± 0.006SD for TC and TE, respectively.
The effects of the preshear Kc on strength behavior were discussed in Sections 6.2.1 for
TC and 6.3.1 for TE tests. In those sections, it was pointed out that qf/a'vc increases with
lower preshear Kc values in TC, while the opposite effect is observed in TE tests. The
225
results from tests on BBC III agree amazingly well with the BBC data plotted in Fig. 6-5
and 6-16.
The axial strains to failure from TC tests on BBC III were 0.155% ± 0.04SD and
11.6% ± 0.85SD at peak and MO, respectively. These values are lower at peak than natural
BBC (0.36%) but identical at MO (10.2%). For TE tests, BBC NI had an axial strain at
failure of 12.2% ± 0.5SD compare to 12.1% ± 2.6SD for natural BBC. Therefore, BBC
III exhibits the same behavior as natural BBC, with considerable straining required to reach
a condition of maximum obliquity in compression, and a very large strain required to reach
peak in extension.
Effective Stress Failure Envelopes and Other Parameters
The effective stress friction angles in TC and TE are given for BBC III in Table 72. The TC D' at peak strength and maximum obliquity were considerably higher for BBC
III, 250 versus 22.20 and 33.40 versus 31.20 for peak and MO, respectively. For TE, BBC
III also gives a higher D' at MO, 350 versus 32.70.
The only other parameter reported by Sheahan (1991) beside the axial strain at
failure is the pore pressure parameter at failure. In concordance with higher strengths in TC
tests, the Af for BBC III was much lower than for the natural clay, 0.436 ± 0.12SD
compared to 0.86 ± 0.09SD. The TE tests give Af = 1.15 and 1.19 for BBC III and natural
BBC, respectively.
From the above, one sees that BBC III has a lower qf/a'vc in TE in spite of also
having a higher friction angle and lower Af. Thus the lower Kc of BBC m causes its lower
undrained strength ratio. This suggests that Kc may have a more consistent and important
effect on the undrained strength in extension than was evident from the data presented in
Chapter 6.
226
7.5.2 Overconsolidated Triaxial Tests in Compression and Extension
Undrained Strength Ratio and Effective Stress Failure Envelopes
Figures 7-2 and 7-3 plot log qf/a'vc versus log OCR for the TC and TE tests for
both natural BBC and BBC III. Figures 7-4 through 7-6 similarly compared plots of q and
p' normalized by the maximum past vertical consolidation stress, OI'vm,for TC and TE at
peak and MO.
In comparing the behavior of natural BBC versus resedimented BBC III, one
obtains the following:
ESE at MO
USR vs. OCR
m
r2
sin
)'
c'/'vm
r2
SD
For TC:
S
Natural BBC
0.280
0.681
0.9903
0.478
0.0166
0.9536
0.006
BBC III
0.322
0.711
0.998
0.536
0.0006
0.9635
0.007
For TE:
S
m
r2
sin
c'/G'vm
r2
Natural BBC
0.142
0.830
0.9904
BBC III
0.1305
0.818
0.998
q/a'vm
'
SD
q/'vm
0.323
0.0550
0.7414
0.010
For triaxial compression tests on BBC III, the results from eight tests produced a
very consistent relationship between log qf/O'vc and log OCR (Fig. 7-2). Section 7.5.1
mentioned that the NC USR of BBC III was considerably greater than the natural BBC
227
USR. Similarly the S value is higher for BBC III (0.322 vs 0.280), and the m value is also
slightly greater (0.711 vs 0.681). BBC III has a significantly higher effective stress
envelope (ESE) at the peak strength (Fig. 7-4). But at MO (Fig. 7-5 and preceding
summary table), the differences become insignificant.
For triaxial extension tests, only one OC test was performed on BBC III at a strain
rate of 0.5 %/ hr (rate used for the CA/T project). Although the resulting values of S and m
are slightly lower than for natural BBC (see Fig. 7-7), the data fall within the scatter of the
natural BBC results. The latter also applies to the ESE.
Other Parameters
Figures 7-7 and 7-8 present the axial strain and pore pressure parameter at failure
versus OCR for resedimented and natural BBC. Both parameters exhibit the same trends
versus OCR as natural BBC. The major difference occurs in the TC values of Af, with
BBC III being lower at low OCR.
7.6 Summary and Conclusions
Comparison
of SHANSEP CKoU TC and TE data for natural BBC with
resedimented BBC III (which has a much lower virgin compressibility) led to the following
conclusions. For normally consolidated clay, the results in Tables 6-3 and 7-2 show that:
1) In TC: BBC III has a 15% higher peak qf/dvc that appears to result from the
lower preshear Kc of only 0.48 (versus 0.56 for natural BBC). The low K in
turn led to a higher
'f and a lower Af in a fashion consistent with trends
observed in Section 6.2.1 for natural BBC. At the large strain maximum
obliquity (MO) condition, BBC III has a higher
softening.
'm and underwent less strain
228
2) In TE: BBC III has a lower qf/t3vcby about 10%. This is due solely to the
lower preshear Kc since the resedimented clay also has a higher
'f = W'm and
a lower Af.
For overconsolidated clay, the results in Section 7.5.2 show that:
1) In TC: BBC III has a 15 to 20% higher log qf/a'vc versus log OCR
relationship (Fig. 7-2) resulting both from a higher peak ESE (Fig. 7-4) and
lower values of (Fig. 7-8). However, the ESE at maximum obliquity is very
similar (Fig. 7-5).
2) In TE: The limited results for BBC IIIfall with the scatter observed for natural
clay (e.g., Fig. 7-3, 7-6 and 7-8).
229
o
0%
0%
ON
aC
UM
2
0
02-00
Et
C
I-
0E
-
LX-W
I l
-
-
to
hOI"1ec a
O.)
cs
11
co
CZ
n
C
0
L
...
L-
.2
cu
0
coO
°t
".1-:.
,_tt,~I '~
_4 ,
CA
o
w
2
;>
; c> -
_
, C,
tO
.
o
I e cU
o1 ,U
3
2a.)
la
(0
0
r-
I",0
_°
I 0-
C
0Ct
C
U
C'
U
.
E
C;
'= "
C'e
II
CD
o -o '-C
r-
c
s c°
*I'
,,
,
II '"0
'
>s
c)
4)
!
,~
-o
0_
I _0
I
n CDSJ
CCtO S
.65U e-
C
-)
Ct
C-,
11
4n4
00
.o
..-
ce
0
(A
'11lC
f-H I ~C4
CC2
C-
'
-H
a.)
.t:
I 11
C)
I ooD
cs
I rc
C>
I
C0
C-CH
I
-0
l _)C)
or
F 1
u
C
00 2-0 (
C0
.-C
,o
IC
25
I ~o I Iil0 IIOaf"
I D2 I 51
-II So I1 °
I 0
5 I00
CS4
C3
|44C
|- C3
H
C
CS 44
-
C
C1 4
-
C)
_d
C
OtD
C)
=
CI
4
1
(.3 P C)· c~
*-,U Cf
Cc
VJ c C
l5t Ct
a
Ii =
11
,
C
rz
O F
~or
--
.
I
I CDED
u
cs 1 x
_-1
00
c
I
IoI ,,o
I
I O
I,Ino3
-o
I
I
1I -oC
)I
I
No
I) onO
*O
I
no III
I I re
O
I
l
_oI-oIo
D
II C
C00
.
o
0n
I e
I c0
I 0C"
cs
I
1
11
.
1
O13
IF
-o 1
.2
-0
-U
0).
C.'*
rQt
C_ -e
W
c~ -
O) C^
2
6Utc
-0 24
11
'4-
o °
c
0
I
i 1 on
o
Io
(
c~~~~~fn~m
II
I
+ |O I IF
I4
I
I
I0
o
0
I
I
I
U,
o
C.)
4i
C
2-1
I
I
m
1
mm
c
U U
0Z
U)
230
as i
II
11
U
U
X
i
O'
j
~o
O_l
E
;D
O
.E
.:2
II
U
.<
0.
ot
cI
098
:4
-
A
1-2
E
C
*OO
_ uO
O
.. 43
_,
w
-0
w-.0
Oev
U
q
"
I..
q
0Ou
U
0.
S
"-
t- O -
crlS
d .
1-1%a
.0
oD
aa
0°
,,
en
._
em
r4-
.2
2
4)
VI
£
-
* Yi
Io.
04)s
o_
ZF 0
0
EN
(N
11
0
0
8CZ
I.-.o
10
*
/Wc
S
231
CONSOLIDATION BEHAVIOR
(OEDOMETER TESTS FROM BATCH 200 TO 207)
0.00
5.00
10.00
,rC
.,
.-
,5.00
i
20.00
25.00
0.1
0.2
0.4
1
2
4
10
20
40
100
Effective Vertical Stress, o (c)
SYMBOL BATCHNO.
a
*
A
+
X
0
X
200
200
200
201
202
202
203
POSITION
1ST TEST
2NDTEST
3RD TEST
Top
OSS
OSS
SYMBOL BATCHNO.
POSITION
As
X
*]Z
C3
O
204
204
205
205
206
Top
Bottom
Top
LS
Top
6'*
206
Bottom
+
207
Top
Figure 7-1. Compression Curves for BBC III from Oedometer Tests
(From Seah 1990)
232
0.2
0.1
10
c
0
.~
.-0.1 t
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
.n
-.v
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
LOG OCR
Figure 7-2. Log USR vs. Log OCR for Natural BBC and
BBC III from SHANSEP CK O UC Triaxial Tests
233
I'
U
-0.2
-0.4
b
1-
0C3
-0.6
04
-0.8
.1
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
LOG OCR
Figure 7-3. Log USR vs. Log OCR for Natural BBC and
BBC III from SHANSEP CKo UE Triaxial Tests
234
0.6
!
''
~
I
I
I
-...
IX
I
----
I.
I
i
BBC
i:
.-.......
. -*
0.4
III
- . BBC
BBCIII
-
i
I---l-
I
i
i
.. ,. .. ........ .. .. . ...
. .....
:
.
.
:
:
O
DDX
~~~~~~~~i
.
'1
:: , ,!..
: , ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
_
I
i
.............. .. .
. ..
...... ..............................................................................
:
:
0.5
I
I
~
/
:
:
ii
~
!
:
,
;
:
j~~~~~~~~~~
E
...
b
.
............
.
...
A
-._~~~~
.....
....
.....
......
b , , ............
0.3
.
i.
i.
i
i
!.
i
i
:..
,,
i
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
0.2
......,:.....
......
.... . ... .... ...
.?....
.........
...
?....
............
.....
......
:
:..
e
.:'::C s
0.1
TC Comparison atPeak
,
0
0
,
,
I
0.2
i
i
i
0.4
ii
i
0.6
i
i
j
0.8
i
i
i i
1
Pla'vm
Figure 7-4. Effective Stress Envelopes at Peak for Natural BBC
and BBC III from SHANSEP CKO UC Triaxial Tests
235
a
0.6
-
I
I
o
BBC
-,+
-
BBCIII
·
..........
0.4
....
~
.....
[ [,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I......
:
............................
,.
.........;.........I............................
-11,1111,111
.......... I.......!........I.......
0.3
I
........................................
,
......... ......... ....................
~~~~~
...........
I
TC Co mparison at MO
.
_-· B C I
0.5
b
'
......... -........
I ........ ...............-
I····~
·-· · ····· · · ·i · ···...............
· ·
r
0.2
. .
........
.........
......... I.............-
· ·..............i ........I
0.1
*
:
: :
:
:
:
I
i
i
:i
i i i
:
i
:
:
i~~
i
...........
:
:
i
~~~~~~~~~~
i
i
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
p/a' vm
Figure 7-5. Effective Stress Envelopes at MO for Natural BBC
and BBC III from SHANSEP CKo UC Triaxial Tests
236
Ift
^
B.
U.
0.3
0.25
E
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
A
u
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
P/yvm
Figure 7-6. Effective Stress Envelopes for Natural BBC and
BBC III from SHANSEP CK O UE Triaxial Tests
237
16
,
iI
I
14
:
A:
12
10
w
8
BBC .TC
TEBBC
·
B
B
C
....
............
,..................................................
.............
...................
............
TC BBC III
6
*
TE BBC III
....
t.......
.......
. ...............
. ............
..............
..........
..
4
0
2
0
I
,o,
_(.
2 ......
W
.
1
OCR
_
.
'
-.
TC
.
.....
:
'
10
Figure 7-7. Axial Strain at Failure vs. OCR for Natural BBC and
BBC III from SHANSEP CKo UC/E Triaxial Tests
238
-
1.4
h
I
I
l
0
1.2
I I.....
........
TEBBC
r1-e.... .
TC BBC III
II
..*
.......................................... I
1
AL
TE BBC III
I
(1
0.8
TC BBC
rr
..........................
.
U .................
- ----
...........................
.
·..........................................
U
-L
A
4W
i........... ..........................
,...
0.6
, I Cn
0.4
. ............
. ... .
IrrJ
I
I
I
I:
........................ ...........
-1
T.""
a
......7_-
0
I........................
...................
0.2
..
..
........4.......
..
19
I
A
_
.................................................................
0
...............
TCi
.i
-0.2
1
K
L~
n
s
................................................
I
i
......
I
Iii
iii
i
OCR
10
Figure 78. Pore Pressure Parameter at Failure vs. OCR for Natural BBC
and BBC III from SHANSEP CK o UC/E Triaxial Tests
239
Chapter 8
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
8.1 Summary and Conclusions
8.1.1 Background
The CA/T Project and STP
The multi-year, multi-billion dollar Central Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel Project
is now starting construction. The scope of the work on this project demands thorough
knowledge of the properties of the Boston Blue Clay (BBC) which underlies not only the
project alignment, but much of the Boston basin as well. Preliminary geotechnical
investigations have already been performed by local geotechnical consulting firms,
including Haley & Aldrich. As part of its investigations, H&A developed the Special
Testing Program (STP) to try to improve the body of knowledge of the BBC.
H&A outlined several specific objectives for the STP:
1. Measure the engineering properties cf the BBC using both Recompression and
SHANSEP testing methods to develop Normalized Soil Properties (NSP)
correlations using very high quality samples.
2. Attempt to develop correlations between engineering properties obtained from
state-of-the-art laboratory testing on very high quality samples and properties
obtained from more routine tests on conventional piston tube samples.
240
3. Attempt to develop correlations between clay engineering properties determined
from laboratory and in situ tests.
These objectives were carried out via an extensive program of field testing and
sampling at two sites (South Boston and East Boston), and laboratory testing carried out by
H&A, J.T. Germaine & Associates, and MIT. The objectives of the MIT research, which
was conducted under an OSP contract with H&A, were:
1. Conduct Ko consolidated-undrained triaxial compression and extension
(CKoUC and CKoUE) tests using the SHANSEP technique to obtain undrained
stress-strain-strength parameters as a function of overconsolidation ratio (OCR).
These tests would provide data showing how Normalized Soil Properties (NSP)
varied as a function of: type of shearing (compression or extension); type of
sample (tube versus block); depth within BBC; and site location (South Boston
versus East Boston). The results would also be compared to prior data obtained
at MIT on Resedimented BBC and with data from conventional UU and CIU
triaxial compression tests.
2. Conduct CKoUC/E tests using the Recompression technique in order to compare
these NSP vs. OCR relationships with those obtained from the SHANSEP test
program and from conventional strength tests.
3. Conduct several Ko consolidated-drained triaxial compression and extension
tests (CKoDC and CKoDE) using both the SHANSEP and Recompression
techniques in order to determine the effects of drainage on stress-strain-strength
behavior. Some special stress path tests would also be run to simulate conditions
during installation of diaphragm walls and subsequent excavation.
241
4. Perform tests using MIT's newly developed automated stress path triaxial cells
and/or MI's Lateral Stress Oedometer (LSO) to estimate the in situ Ko and how
Ko varies with overconsolidation ratio.
Tables 1.3 and 1.4 summarize the extent of the laboratory testing undertaken. This
thesis presents the data from the SHANSEP tests performed, then compares these results
with SHANSEP CKoUC/E tests run on Resedimented BBC III at MIT. Table 1.5
summarizes the content of the companion thesis by Estabrook.
General Site Characteristics and Laboratory Testing Program
Figure 1-1 shows the location of the test sites. Haley & Aldrich (1990) describes
the area stratigraphy as follows: "the subsurface soil conditions along the proposed
roadway alignment vary, but are dominated by glacial and marine deposits having
combined thicknesses which exceed 200 feet locally. Subsurface conditions along much of
the alignment in Geotechnical work areas 01 and 02 consist of 15-40 feet of fill and organic
deposits overlying up to 100 feet of marine 'Boston Blue Clay' (BBC). Glacial till and
Argillite bedrock typically underlie the clay". Figures 2-1 and 2-3 are representations of the
soil profile at the SB and EB sites, respectively, and also outline the sampling program at
each site.
The laboratory testing program included: radiography, classification and index
testing, consolidation testing and triaxial testing, with the most time being devoted to the
last two. Because issues such as anisotropy, sample disturbance, and time effects cannot be
properly accounted for in conventional triaxial testing, a program of CKoUC/E triaxial
testing was undertaken, using both the SHANSEP and Recompression testing techniques.
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the scope of the consolidation and strength testing
programs, respectively.
242
8.1.2 Equipment and Procedures
A major portion of the initial research by MIT involved automating four of MITs
existing triaxial cells. Figure 3-1 shows a schematic diagram of the apparatus which
includes: the triaxial cell and load frame, two pressure control cylinders to control cell and
back pressure, three electric motors to drive the pressure controllers and the load frame, a
control box containing a motor drive unit, and a personal computer equipped with A/D and
D/A converters, upon which the customized control software runs. A detailed description
of the automated triaxial apparatus is included in Appendix A.
With the help of the automated equipment, over one hundred triaxial tests were
performed. The quality of the results was generally outstanding,
and included
unprecedented numbers of successful extension tests.
8.1.3 Sample Characteristics and Distribution of Tests
The first phase of the lab testing program involved radiography of all tube samples,
followed by classification and index tests to characterize the general nature of the clay.
Tests performed included natural water content, Atterberg Limits, torvanes, grain size
analysis, specific gravity, salt content and pH. Results of the first three types of test are
summarized in Fig. 4-1 and 4-2 for SB and EB, respectively.
Tables 4.1 to 4.3 summarize the distribution of CKo-TX tests on South Boston
tube samples, East Boston tube samples, and South Boston Block Samples.
8.1.4 Stress History and Consolidation Properties
Establishment of reliable stress history profiles at the South Boston site was a very
high priority. Some of the issues addressed during this experimental work included the
merits of continuous versus incremental loading, the reduction of sample disturbance
243
through development of a new extrusion technique, and the use of the strain energy as well
as the Casagrande method to estimate a'p. The resulting stress history profiles are shown
in Fig. 5-10 (SB) and 5-11 (EB).
Most of the reliable consolidation data came from the Ko-consolidation portion of the
SHANSEP tests. The high quality S-shaped compression curves resulting from the
SHANSEP tests were the first indication that the soil might be "structured".
8.1.5 Coefficient of Earth
Pressure
at Rest (Ko)
Another important issue was the determination of the coefficient of earth pressure at
rest, Ko. The analysis of 55 CKoU triaxial tests performed using the SHANSEP technique
yielded a mean NC Ko = 0.557 ± 0.025SD (Section 5.5.1).
Eighteen of these CKo-TX tests were also used to determine the behavior of Ko
during unloading at various overconsolidation ratios (OCR). In addition several lateral
stress oedometer (LSO) tests were performed to evaluate the NC and OC values of Ko, as
well as the reloading behavior (i.e., after unloading). The analysis of these collective data
was used to develop the Ko versus OCR relationships shown in Fig. 5-37. The "Dr. Ladd"
curve was based on preliminary data and was used for the Recompression CKoU triaxial
tests performed by Anne Estabrook. It is quite close to the author's recommended
relationship based on CKo-TX data.
8.1.6 SHANSEP CKoU Test Results
Tables 6-1 and 6-2 summarize shear data from 29 SHANSEP TC and 27
SHANSEP TE tests done on both block and tube samples from the South and East Boston
sites. Additionally, Appendix B presents plots for each test, and MIT Research Report
R91-10 presents the computer printout of the data reduction program for each test.
244
Based on consideration of the best quality CKoU TC and TE tests, the following
conclusions were drawn in Chapter 6.
Normally Consolidated Results
For triaxial compression:
1. At the peak strength, Sc (qf/dvc) = 0.279 + 0.010, W'f= 22.2 ° + 1.2,
Ef = 0.355% ± 0.15 and Af = 0.86 ± 0.09.
2. No variation in the udrained strength ratio (USR) with sample location and type
was evident (Fig. 6-3 and 6-4). Three tests with leakage caused low Kc values
that increased the USR (Fig. 6-5).
3. There is significant strain softening with qm/a'vc = 0.2065 + 0.021 at maximum
obliquity and an axial strain Em = 10.2% + 2.0.
'm
= 31.20 + 1.3.
4. Young's undrained modulus Es5/'vc = 273 + 55 with no trend with location
and type of sample (Fig. 6-12).
For triaxial extension:
1. At the peak strength, Se (qf/dovc)= 0.1495 + 0.014, d'f = 32.650 + 1.2,
Ef = 12.1% + 2.6 and Af = 1.20 +0.06.
2. The USR is a function of the in situ OCR (Fig. 6-17). The USR increases with
in situ OCR. The higher USR is probably due to the higher values of preshear
Kc measured for samples having an in situ OCR greater than 1.5 (above El. 25
ft). See below for the effects of Kc on TE tests.
245
3. Two tests with leakage resulted in low Kc values that decreased the USR
(Fig. 6-16).
4. Peak and maximum obliquity conditions occurred simultaneously.
5. Young's undrained modulus Eso/dvc = 109 ± 18 with no trend with location
and type of sample (Fig. 6-12).
Overconsolidated Results
For USR versus OCR:
1. For TC, the log USR versus log OCR relationship is presented in Fig. 6-27. The
values of S and m were very constant (i.e., no difference between location and
types of sample) with S = 0.2795 , m = 0.681, r2 = 0.9903 and a standard
deviation of 0.020 for log USR.
2. For TE, Fig. 6-28 presented log USR versus log OCR. The behavior is more
complex as USR is a function of the in situ OCR (see Section 6.4.2). For BBC
below El. 25 ft, i.e., in situ OCR < 1.5; S = 0.142, m = 0.830, r2 = 0.9904 and
the standard deviation is 0.031 for log USR. For BBC above El. 25 ft (in
situ OCR > 1.5); S = 0.15 and m = 0.86 are recommended (but are uncertain as
based on only three tests).
For the effective stress failure envelope:
1. For TC, the effective stress failure envelope at maximum obliquity is presented
in Fig. 6-11, giving c'/'vm = 0.0166, sin O' = 0.478 and a standard deviation
of 0.006 for q/a'vm.
246
2. Figure 6-18 presented the effective stress failure envelope at maximum obliquity
tor TE, giving c'/O'vm= 0.0550, sin ' = 0.323 and a standard deviation of
0.010 for q/a'vm.
5Fand EsWc
For the other parameters: E Af
1. Figure 6-30 plots axial strain at failure from the TC and TE tests. For TC, Ef
increases substantially with increasing OCR. For TE, Ef is much larger and there
is no obvious trend with OCR.
2. Figure 6-31 plots Af vs OCR. Af decreases with OCR for both modes of
shearing. In addition, the TE Af is always greater than Af from TC tests.
3. Figure 6-32 plots E50/avc vs OCR. The scattered results indicate, if anything, a
slight trend of decreasing modulus for OC tests. The modulus for TC is much
larger than for TE. In addition, the modulus of the block samples is essentially
the same as for the tube samples.
One can say that the BBC SHANSEP parameters at South Boston are identical to
those at East Boston. Furthermore, soil samples from very good quality tube sampling (as
was the case for this project) are as good as soil samples from block sampling for use with
the CKo-TX SHANSEP testing technique.
8.1.7 Comparison with Resedimented BBC III
Comparison
of SHANSEP CKoU TC and TE data for natural BBC with
resedimented BBC mII(which has a much lower virgin compressibility) led to the following
conclusions in Chapter 7.
247
For normally consolidatedclay, the results in Tables 6-3 and 7-2 show that:
1) In TC: BBC III has a 15% higher peak qf/dvc that appears to result from the
lower preshear Kc of only 0.48 (versus 0.56 for natural BBC). The low Kc in
turn led to a higher ('f and a lower Af in a fashion consistent with trends
observed in Section 6.2.1 for natural BBC. At the large strain maximum
obliquity (MO) condition, BBC IfI has a higher W'mand underwent less strain
softening.
2) In TE: BBC III has a lower qf/o'vc by about 10%. This is due solely to the
lower preshear Kc since the resedimented clay also has a higher 4 )'f = 'm and
a lower Af.
For overconsolidated clay, the results in Section 7.5.2 show that:
1) In TC: BBC III has a 15 to 20% higher log q/',vc versus log OCR
relationship (Fig. 7-2) resulting both from a higher peak ESE (Fig. 7-4) and
lower values of Af (Fig. 7-8). However, the ESE at maximum obliquity is very
similar (Fig. 7-5).
2) In TE: The limited results for BBC III fall within the scatter observed for
natural clay (e.g., Fig. 7-3, 7-6 and 7-8).
8.2 Recommendations
Compressibility
1. Additional analysis of the compressibility properties (CR, RR, and SR) of BBC
is recommended. Also of interest are the possible effects of compression ratio
on Ko.
248
2. More study on the apparent "structure" of BBC is needed. As stated in
Estabrook's thesis, the determination of whether or not a soil exhibits
normalized behavior is a prerequisite for the use of the SHANSEP testing
method. From past experience with Resedimented BBC, it was assumed that the
STP BBC samples would al;o exhibit normalized behavior, however, this was
never formally established during the testing program. In light of the
observations of "structure" in the clay, it is possible that the BBC samples do
not strictly adhere to normalized behavior, and therefore it would be useful to
test the assumption using the method suggested by Ladd and Foott (1974), i.e.,
consolidating the specimen to 1.5, 2 and 4 times dp, and verifying that Su/a'c
remains constant.
Ko analysis
1. The Ko results from the SHANSEP triaxial testing program need to be compared
to the in situ tests results, namely the Self Boring Pressuremeter (SBPM) and
Earth Pressure Cells (EPC) data.
2. The lateral stress oedometer apparatus (LSO) at MIT needs to be either replaced
or repaired; in particular the teflon ring which registers lateral pressures needs to
be replaced. Otherwise LSO results cannot be used to check the adequacy of Ko
from the SHANSEP triaxial testing NC K0 . Nevertheless the behavior of Ko
with unloading, reloading and therefore OCR can still be investigated by the
LSO.
Undrained Strength analysis
1. Investigate the in situ OCR effects on the USR in TE and also in TC. Additional
triaxial tests on the BBC located above EL. 25 ft are necessary to confirm the
249
apparent increase in strength with higher in situ OCR. These tests should be
performed in both compression and extension, since the writer does not believe
that only one mode of shearing can be affected.
2. The results from Recompression tests should be investigated to analyse the
previous supposition. It should be pointed out that SHANSEP tests on soils
which have an in situ OCR greater than two generate cell pressures that exceed
or dangerously approach the equipment's limits of 12 ksc (which is the
theoretical limit on the plexiglass surrounding the cell). This is due to the larger
preconsolidation pressures of such soils, and the 10% strain required for the
consolidation part of the SHANSEP tests. Therefore, one might have to
perform Recompression tests to study the effects of in situ OCR on strength.
3. In the same context, additional tests could enable one to establish better estimates
of S and m values in TE for BBC having an in situ OCR > 15 (above El. 25 ft),
since only one OC TE test has been performed on such soil.
4. Another interesting finding was the apparent strong influence of Kc on the USR,
)'and Af. TC and TE tests having significantly different preshear Kc ratio could
be performed on natural or resedimented BBC to further study the effects of Kc
on strength.
5. Finally, an analysis of the Recompression and SHANSEP undrained strength
data in terms of strain compatibility (Ladd 1991), i.e., evaluation of q/dvc at
various strain levels is desired.
250
Chapter 9.
List of References
1. Alpan, I. (1967). "The empirical evaluation of the coefficients Ko and KOR."Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 31-40.
2. Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G.(1987). "Work as a
criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in clays." Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 24(4), 549-564.
3. Bishop, A.W., and Henkel, D.J.(1962). The Measurement of Soil Properties in the
Triaxial Test. 2nd Ed., Edward Arnold Ltd., London.
4. Bjerum, L.(1973). "Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays: SOA
report." Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Moscow, U.S.S.R., 3, 111-159.
5. Butterfield, R.(1979). "A natural compression law for soils (an advance on e-log p')"
Geotechnique, 29(4).
6. Casagrande, A.(1936). "The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical
significance." Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Cambridge, MA, 3, 60-64.
7. DeGroot, D.J.(1989). "The multidirectional direct simple shear apparatus with
application to design of offshore arctic structures," thesis presented to MT, at
Cambridge, MA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Science.
8. Germaine, J.T., and Ladd, C.C.(1988). "Triaxial testing of saturated cohesive soils:
SOA paper." Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, 421-459.
251
9. Haley & Aldrich (1990). "Overview of planned special lab and field testing program for
the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, Geotechnical Areas 01 and 02, Boston,
Massachusetts", prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works.
10. Jaky, J. (1944). "The coefficient of earth pressure at rest." Journal Soc. of Hungarian
Architects and Engineers, Budapest, Hungary, Oct., pp. 355-358.
11. Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T., and Lancellotta, R.(1985). "New
developments in field and laboratory testing of soils: Theme Lecture 2." Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San
Francisco, 1, 57-153.
12. Kenney, T.C.(1964). "Sea level movements and the geologic histories of the postglacial marine soils at Boston, Nicolet, and Oslo." Geotechnique, 14(3), 203-227.
13. Koutsoftas, D.C., and Ladd, C.C. (1985). "Design strengths for an offshore clay."
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111(3), 337-355.
14. Lacasse, S., and Berre, T.(1988). "Triaxial testing methods for soils: SOA paper."
Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, 264-289.
15. Ladd, C.C.(1991). "Stability evaluation during staged construction." Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117 (4), 542-615.
16. Ladd, C.C., and Foott, R.(1974). "New design procedure for stability of soft clays."
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 100 (7), 763-786.
17. Ladd, C.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H.G.(1977). "Stressdeformation and strength characteristics." State of the Art Report, Proc. of IX
ICSMFE, Tokyo.
18. Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T., Baligh, M.M., and Lacasse, S.M.(1979). "Evaluation of
self-boring Pressuremeter tests in Boston Blue Clay." Research Report R79-4, No.
640, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
19. Ladd, R.S. (1965). "Use of electrical pressure transducers to measure soil pressure."
Research Report R65-48, No. 180, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT,
Cambridge, MA, 79 pages.
252
20. Lefebvre, G. (1990). Letter addressed to Sweeney B.P. of Haley and Aldrich. October
16, 1990.
21. Mayne, P.W., Kulhawy, F.H. (1982). "Ko-OCR relationships in soil." Journal of
geotechnical engineering Division, ASCE, 108(6), 851-872.
22. Sauls, D.P., Germaine, J.T., and Ladd, C.C.(1984). "Strength deformation properties
of Harrison Bay Arctic Silts," Research Report R84-18, No. 773, Department of Civil
Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 318 pages.
23. Schmertmann, J.H. (1955). "The undisturbed consolidation of iay." Trans., ASCE,
120, 1201-1233.
24. Schmidt, B. (1966). Discussion of "Earth pressure at rest related to stress history."
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 239-242.
25. Seah, T.H. (1990). "Anisotropy of resedimented Boston Blue Clay," thesis presented
to MIT, at Cambridge, MA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Science.
26. Sheahan, T.C.(1988). "Modification and Implementation of a Computer Controlled
Triaxial Apparatus," thesis presented to MIT, at Cambridge, MA, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
27. Sheahan, T.C., Germaine, J.T., and Ladd, C.C.(1990). "Automated testing of soft
clays: and upgraded commercial system." Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 13(3),
153-163.
28. Sheahan, T.C.(1991). Doctoral Thesis in preparation, at MIT, Cambridge, MA.
29. Walbaum, M.(1988). "Procedure for investigation of sample disturbance using the
direct simple shear apparatus," thesis presented to MIT, at Cambridge, MA, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
30. Werner, R.J.(1991). "The influence of load history on the response of Arctic Silt to
undrained cyclic and monotonic direct simple shear," thesis presented to MIT, at
Cambridge, MA, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science.
253
APPENDIX
A
254
APPENDIX A. Equipment and Procedures
A.1 Components of the MIT Automated Stress Path Triaxial Apparatus
The MIT automated triaxial system was developed by Dr. Germaine and Thomas C.
Sheahan. The evaluation of a commercially available computer controlled triaxial apparatus
was the topic of Mr. Sheahan's thesis (Sheahan, 1988; Sheahan et al. 1990). Mr. Sheahan
then developed new software and electromechanical control devices that were used to
automate two of MITs "standard" triaxial cell-load frames (MITO01-02)for his doctoral
thesis research on "rate effects" of Resedimented BBC. The design of the four automated
triaxial devices (M1T03-06) constructed for this research is based on Mr. Sheahan's work.
Hence Appendix A will only briefly describe the major components of the system, their
role and their mutual interaction, referring the reader to Mr. Sheahan's thesis for a more
thorough explanation.
A schematic diagram of MITs Automated Stress Path Triaxial Apparatus is shown
in Fig. 3-1. The diagram can be separated into five main components: the triaxial cell and
pressure control cylinders, the three control motors, the motor control box, the personal
computer, and the Central Data Acquisition Control Unit.
A.1.1 Triaxial Cell and Pressure Control Cylinders
The triaxial cells were manufactured by Wykeham Farrance (England) and modified
at MIT in the mid-1960's to facilitate operation and to better fit its research needs. Fig. A-1
shows the cell in more detail. The chamber consists of the load piston to which the top cap
is fixed to facilitate specimen set up, a base pedestal upon which the specimen is fitted, a
255
plexiglass tube which surrounds the chamber and a stainless steel cover and base. The cell
is connected to the control system by four valves and is monitered by a load cell, two
pressure transducers and a direct current displacement transducer (DCDT).
The load piston is a linear ball bearing bushing type which maintains alignment and
eliminates friction. A frictionless rolling diaphragm is connected at its bottom and provides
an impermeable seal between the piston and cell chamber. The load cell, located on the load
frame outside the cell directly above the piston, registers the force acting on the piston. In
addition, some accessories are connected to the piston such as a long arm in contact with
the axial DCDT, connecting rods which permit extension tests, and a steel ball or "bullet" to
produce a point load with no eccentricity on the top of the specimen. The top cap is
designed to provide an internal connection for the drainage line.
Double drainage is provided by copper tubing to both the base pedestal and top cap.
Each drainage line is controlled by a valve to allow various drainage configurations.
Another valve allows one to isolate the pore pressure transducer in order to measure
pessures either in the lines or in the specimen when drainage is closed.
The remaining valve connects the cell to the cell pressure controller and another
pressure transducer is used to measure the cell pressure. Each pressure transducer is
installed next to the chamber which makes for a moie rigid system.
The triaxial cell is placed upon a load frame which can be moved up or down to
cause vertical deformations. A load cell and DCDT connected to the piston allow one to
conduct tests with either stress or strain control.
The pressure controllers consist of two hydraulic cylinders, one containing silicon
oil and one containing distilled, deaired water, connected by plastic tubing to the cell
256
chamber and copper specimen drainage lines, respectively. A second DCDT is attached to
the pore pressure controller to measure volumetric strains in the specimen.
The cell and the pressure controllers are enclosed in an insulated case equipped with
a device which automatically maintains a constant temperature over the course of the test.
A.1.2 Control Motors
The three motors are manufactured by Robbins & Myers Electro-Craft Servo
Products. They are direct current servo motors with a gear box. For the pore and cell
pressures, the motors drive a piston into a cylinder full of fluid. The third motor controls
the vertical strain by raising or lowering the load frame. The motors are connected to the
control motor box which serves as the nerve center of the system.
A.1.3 Motor Control Box
This component is the indispensable relay between the personal computer and the
motors. Depending on the required stress or strain change requested by the computer,
digital signals in binary mode are converted to analog signals and relayed to the control box
which then regulates the motor rates.
A.1.4 Personal Computer
A Hyundai Super 16TE computer is used with each triaxial unit, and with the use of
a digital to analog (D/A) card, manufactured by Strawberry Tree Incorporated. and Mr.
Sheahan's AiD card, sends signals to the motors. The computer receives voltage signals
from the pressure transducers, DCDTs and load cell, converts them to digital signals using
the A/D converter card. Using the different software programs installed, these binary codes
are then converted to engineering units. These engineering units are compared to target
values calculated by the program, and the difference is used to calculate digital correction
257
signals, converted to analog signals by the Strawberry Tree D/A card, and transmitted to
the control box which then creates the signal to the motors. The computer uses programs
written by Dr. Germaine and Mr. Sheahan and provides the users with the ability to
monitor and control the triaxial tests.
A.1.5 Central Data Acquisition Control Unit
Throughout the test, the voltage signals from the transducers, DCDTs and load cell
are also periodically sent directly to the Hewlett-Packard 3497A Data Acquisition Control
Unit. Each sensor is hooked to a six channel switch box with each channel comprised of 12
pins. 10 pins for the sensors (5 for the Central Data Acquisition System, 5 for the personal
computer) and two for the power supply. The data acquisition unit has a reading rate of one
second and a resolution of 0.1 mV on the DCDTs and 1 mV on the pressure transducers.
The readings from the various channels are stored in a data file at the Data Acquisition
Control Unit. The file can then be retrieved and used for generating results and plots.
A.2 Control Algorithm
A.2.1 General Operation
Before beginning a test, the operator must type some basic data into a setup file.
The data required includes physical information about the test, such as the initial
dimensions of the specimen (height and cross sectional area), filter strip perimeter,
membrane type, and type of area correction. Additionally, zeros and calibration factors for
each of the pressure transducers, direct current displacement transducers (DCDTs), and
load cell, are entered. After filling out the input file the data are read automatically by the
control program and used for converting voltage readings to engineering units.
The other important input to the control program are "gain" rates. These are written
directly into the code and are equipment specific, so generally do not need to be changed
258
from test to test. The gain rate is input in engineering unit (e.g., kg, cm, or ksc) per voltsecond and used by the program to calculate the amount of voltage which needs to be sent
to the motor for a specified time period (1 second) to achieve the required change. For
example, a gain rate of 0.1 kg/volt-sec on the axial load motor signifies that one volt
applied for one second will result in an increase of one-tenth of a kilogram of load on the
specimen. The axial motor and pressure controllers require two gain rates each; one for the
stress controlled parts of the test (pressure up, saturation and B check), and one for the
strain controlled parts of the test (consolidation and shear).
The motor control loop takes readings from the transducers or load cell and
converts these to engineering units. This current reading is subtracted from a target value
and this difference is divided by the gain rate. The signal is sent in one-second bursts to the
control motors which increase or decrease the pressures or load accordingly. The system
frequency is 40 Hz, the pressures are controlled to within 0.01 ksc ( 1 kPa), the strains to
better than 0.01%.
The target values sought by the control program are determined differently for
different phases of the test, as outlined below.
A.2.2 Pressure
Up
The "pressure up" phase is the first performed i each test and consists of applying
a small cell pressure to the specimen (with drainage valves closed) and allowing it to sit for
approximately twelve hours in order to induce a pore pressure greater than zero. The
control of this phase of the test is straight forward; the operator inputs directly the cell
pressure required (usually 0.5 to 0.75 ksc) and a deviator load (usually 0.1 kg) to provide a
slight seating load, and the control program uses these values as "target values", invoking
the motor control loop repeatedly until they are achieved.
259
A.2.3 Back Pressure Saturation
After the pore pressure has stabilized in the "pressure up" phase, the specimen is
saturated by increasing the cell pressure and back pressure equally to maintain a constant
effective stress. In this phase of the test, the tester inputs a cell pressure, a pore pressure,
and a holding time. In this manner the specimen can be back pressured in small increments
spread out over several hours; the tester need not be physically present in order to increase
the pressures.
The control program reads the values input and uses these to calculate the pressure
increment required. This large increment is then divided by ten to yield small increments
which are applied to the specimen by the cell and pore pressure controller motors. After
each small increment is applied, the compliance of the pressures to the intermediate target
value is checked. Only when both the cell pressure and the pore pressure are within 0.01
ksc (approximately 1 kPa) of the intermediate target value, and the axial load is equal to
zero (plus or minus 0.10 kg), will the next small increment be applied, ensuring that the
effective stress in the specimen never deviates from the intended value by more than 1 or 2
kPa.
After the ten intermediate steps have been applied, and compliance with the final
incremental target value is achieved, a prompt appears that enables one to check the B value
of the specimen. If the B value check (described below) is not chosen within one minute,
the program holds the current stress state for the specified time, and then begins
automatically to apply the next increment of stress. After the last increment has been
applied, the program holds the stresses indefinitely.
260
A.2.4 B value Check
Skempton's B value (B = Au/ Adc) is used to determine whether the specimen is
saturated. As mentioned above, the B value can be checked at the end of each increment, or
at any other time during the test. To check the degree of saturation, the operator either
chooses the B value check item from the main menu or simply pushes "Enter" on the
keyboard at the B value check prompt. The computer then prompts the operator to input a
cell pressure increment (usually 0.2 - 0.5 ksc) and close the drainage valves to the
specimen before restarting the program by hitting "Enter" on the keyboard. The control
program takes an initial set of readings, and then calls the motor control loop to apply the
cell pressure increment. Pore and cell pressure readings are taken and the B value is
automatically calculated and displayed on the computer screen continuously for two
minutes; the final value is recorded and used to check the degree of saturation. After the
final B value is displayed, the control program returns the pressures to their original values,
and the operator opens the drainage valves and chooses the next phase of the test (either
continued saturation or consolidation).
A.2.5 Consolidation
This control program provides automated control for two types of consolidation: Ko
consolidation or stress path consolidation. Both portions of the program can also be used to
control swelling of the specimen simply by inputting a negative strain rate. Each type of
consolidation is described in more detail below.
Stress Path Consolidation
This phase of the control program consolidates the specimen along a straight line
between the point representing the current stress state and the final stress state input by the
operator. The axial motor is strain controlled, while both pressure controllers are stress
261
controlled. At the beginning of consolidation the tester choses an axial strainrate (typically
0. 1% /hr) and values for the final vertical and horizontal effective stresses. The first thing
the program does is calculate a gradient,
[ = Av / Aah
:
(~vf - Ovi) / (;hf - hi)
(A. 1)
and a horizontal reference stress, ahr:
ahr = h - Cvp
(A.2)
to use in the following control equation:
ah = Ghr +
a
Ov
(A.3)
where Ohiand Oviare the initial values of stress after back pressure saturation and (ahfand
ovf are the target values of stress.
The program strains the sample at a constant rate, thus slowly increasing (or
decreasing if unloading) the axial load, maintains a constant back pressure, and adjusts the
cell pressure to increase the horizontal effective stress according to the preceding control
equation. Once the target stresses are reached the program switches automatically to the
hold stress subroutine, and will maintain the stresses until the operator chooses the next
phase of the test.
Ko Consolidation
Two of the inputs for the Ko consolidation phase are identical to the stress path
consolidation; axial strain rate and final vertical effective stress. In this case however, the
final horizontal effective stress is determined by the control program as it consolidates the
specimen maintaining a zero lateral strain condition. In this phase of the test both the axial
motor and the pore pressure controller are strain controlled.
262
Ko consolidation is achieved by controlling the volumetric strain so that it is always
equal to the axial strain, ensuring that there is no radial strain (i.e., the cross-sectional area
remains constant throughout). The axial motor receives a constant signal and strains at a
steady rate, and the back pressure is held constant to within 0.01 ksc of the value at the end
of back pressure saturation. The control signal to the cell pressure controller is calculated
by dividing the change in volume (Area x AHeight) by a volume gain rate. This signal
causes the cell pressure controller to push oil into the cell chamber, displacing more
volume, and causing pore water to flow out of the specimen. Compliance with the final
axial stress is checked continuously, and when it is reached the program jumps to the "hold
stress" loop described below. This feature is especially useful for SHANSEP type tests
during which the specimen is consolidated beyond the in situ preconsolidation pressure and
rebounded to a specified OCR.
A.2.6 Ko Swelling
For SHANSEP tests on overconsolidated specimens it is necessary at the end of Ko
consolidation to allow the specimen to rebound to a specified vertical effective stress. The
control of this portion of the test is essentially identical to Ko consolidation, the only
difference being that a negative axial strain rate is input. This causes the axial strain to
decrease, and the computer responds by moving the volumetric strain controller so that
water flows into the specimen, rather than out as during consolidation.
A.2.7 Hold Stress
During several phases of the test it is necessary at times to hold the existing state of
stress in the specimen constant. For instance, at the end of the application of a saturation
increment stresses are held for some specified period of time to allow the air in the
specimen to dissolve into solution, and at the end of Ko consolidation the final
263
consolidation stresses are held for one log cycle of time (or 24 hours) to allow the specimen
to undergo secondary compression.
In both of these cases the "hold stress"' loop is called by the program when
compliance with a final state of stress is achieved. For the saturation phase of the test a
timer is invoked so that the stresses are held for a specified period before the next saturation
increment is applied. For the consolidation phase of the test the stresses are held
indefinitely until the tester chooses the next phase of the test.
When the hold stress subroutine is called, the computer first takes a set of readings,
and these stresses become the target values. The program then maintains these values by
continuously calculating the difference between the subsequent readings and the target
values, dividing the differences by the cell pressure, pore pressure and axial load gain
rates, and sending the appropriate signals to the control motors.
A.2.8 Shear
The final phase of the test is shearing. The specimen can be sheared in compression
or in extension, using the same portion of the control program, simply by specifying a
positive or negative strain rate. This portion of the program, as it is currently Written, is
limited to only two total stress paths; triaxial compression loading (TC(L)) or triaxial
extension unloading (TE(U)). However, it is possible, by using the stress path
consolidation portion (see Section A.2.5) of the program and inputting final values of (v
and O'h well beyond the failure envelope, to control stresses along any stress path,
including TC(U) and TE(L) for drained shear. This is, in fact, how the CKoDC/E tests
were performed during this research program.
For undrained shearing, the control program simply maintains a constant cell
pressure, and applies a steady axial strain rate. The pore pressure is not controlled, and the
264
motor is generally turned off entirely to prevent drift. The operator also inputs a final axial
stress, though for the shear phase this is usually merely a safeguard against overloading the
load cell.
A.3 Triaxial Testing Procedure
A.3.1 Specimen Preparation and Setup
For tests run on tube samples, each tube's radiographic record is first reviewed to
find high quality "undisturbed" sections. Once the decision is made, a four inch portion of
the tube is cut with a band saw. Torvane strengths are taken from one of the tube's
extremities, and the remaining portion of the tube is sealed using wax and a layer of plastic
wrap. Before extruding the soil sample, a wire is inserted through the soil near the edge of
the tube, attached to a wire saw handle, and drawn around the perimeter of the tube in order
to diminish the adhesion between the soil and the metal tube. The soil is then pushed out
and taken to the humid room for trimming.
The block samples arrived in the MIT laboratory covered with a thick layer of wax
and gauze and packed in individual crates full of sawdust or straw. The first task in the
preparation of the block samples was to remove the protective coating. Next, the outermost
layer of clay, which is imbedded with sand and gravel picked up during the sampling
process, is scraped off to reveal the natural clay underneath. At this point, photographs and
notes are taken to try to quantify any visible disturbance of the sample. The larger samples
were then cut into more manageable sizes. This is a delicate process involving making one
side of the cylindrical sample flat, carefully laying the block on its flat side on a wax papercovered glass plate, and slicing the block into two to three 4 inch - 6 inch layers. Each layer
is then typically cut in half vertically, and these semi-circular pieces are labelled, tightly
covered with paraffin and plastic wrap, and stored for in the humid room future use. In all
steps of the preparation process, the greatest care is taken not to squeeze or jolt the sample,
265
and thus cause disturbance. Figures A-2 to A- 11show steps in the preparation of the block
samples.
When a test is specified on the block samples, a piece is cut off of the waxed soil
block to the minimum dimensions needed for the test (about 9 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm for triaxial
tests), then the remainder of the block is rewaxed and returned to storage. Fig. A-12 shows
how the semicircular pieces are divided up to yield specimens for triaxial, oedometer, or
DSS tests.
The sample is then trimmed with a wire saw to final dimensions of approximately 8
cm in height and 3.55 cm in diameter using a mitre box. The exact measurements of
diameter and height are obtained using an optical device. The trimmings are used for water
content measurements while the excess is kept in a jar in the humid room for possible
future testing (e.g., Atterberg limits).
The prepared specimen is weighed and then placed on the base pedestal with filter
paper and a porous stone covering each end. The porous stone and filter paper had
previously been boiled in distilled water for cleansing and deairing while system
compliance was checked and pressure, displacement transducer and load cell zeros were
recorded.
Filter strips are then installed on the surface of the specimen to increase the rate of
consolidation and to equilibrate pore pressures during shear. For triaxial compression tests,
eight vertical strips 1/4 inch wide are used. For extension tests five or six 1/4 inch strips,
spiralled around the sample so as to allow them to stretch without tearing during the
shearing process, were initially used, but the width of each strip was later reduced to 3/16
inch when early extension tests yielded unrealistically high values of t'. The filter strips
are connected at both ends to the porous stones by sliding them underneath the rubber
sleeve used to protect the membranes from the contact with the stones. Two prophylactics
266
are used as thin membranes, and are sealed using three rubber o-rings and vacuum grease
at top and bottom. The plexiglass cylinder is then slid over the sample, the top plate
installed, the cell chamber filled with silicon oil and the test begins. Photographs of various
steps of the setup process are shown in Fig. A- 13 through A- 18.
A.3.2 Pressure up
The first task is to inform the computer program of initial conditions: 1) height and
area of the specimen, 2) zeros and calibration factors for the pressure transducers, DCDTs
and load cell. Following this step, an initial cell pressure is applied while the drainage lines
are closed and the pressure transducer is reading the pressure inside the specimen, in order
to monitor the pore pressure response as described in Section A.2.2. The magnitude of the
cell pressure is considered high enough when positive pore pressures are measured after at
least 12 hours (when they have equilibrated). The value of the cell pressure was usually
betweem 0.5 and 0.75 ksc, but occasionally higher for stiffer specimens. During the whole
process, the deviatoric load is maintained constant at a low value (around 0.1 kg). The
initial effective stresses ('v and O'h) are recorded and the second part of the process
begins.
A.3.3 Saturation and B value
The pore pressure transducer is connected with the pore pressure controller and the
system's back pressure is equilibrated with the specimen's pore pressure before opening
the drainage lines. In order to saturate the specimen, the back pressure is increased by
increments of 0.2 ksc while maintaining the same initial c 'tive
stress as described in
Section A.2.3. B values are measured every 0.4 ksc or so and are obtained by closing the
drainage lines, increasing the cell pressure and measuring the pore pressure response (see
Section A.2.4). The saturation process is repeated until a B value of 0.95 or above is
obtained which indicates adequate saturation of the specimen.
267
A.3.4 Consoliaation
Before beginning stress path consolidation for Recompression tests, a final vertical
effective stress, ca'vc, is chosen (often equal to the in situ vertical stress, a'vo, but
sometimes higher or lower as outlined in Section 1.2), and depending upon the OCR of the
specimen, an appropriate Ko is used to calculate ihc. These stresses are calculated with the
help of a worksheet shown in Fig. A-23 and input into the computer for control of the test.
Additionally, for both Ko (for SHANSEP tests) and stress path (for Recompression tests)
consolidation, the volumetric DCDT zero is changed in the setup file so that the volumetric
strain equals the axial strain. This enables the computer to ignore the small amounts of
strain which occur during pressure up and saturation, and begin control of the
consolidation phase with the two strains equal (see Section A.4 for an explanation of how
this is accounted for during the reduction of the test data).
An axial strain rate of 0.1% /hr is used for both the SHANSEP and Recompression
tests. Primary consolidation is usually stopped around 10% vertical strain for SHANSEP
tests and as required to achieve the proper stresses for Recompression tests (typically
between 1% and 5%). The sample is then held at the same stress state for 24 hours to allow
secondary compression to occur as described in Section A.2.5. For an overconsolidated
SHANSEP test, swelling is allowed after the secondary compression (see Section A.2.6).
Throughout the process, the computer displays current values of stress and strain, which
allows the operator to monitor the progress of the test by producing a manual plot of the
compression curve.
268
A.3.5 Shearing
Undrained
When shearing undrained, the drainage lines are closed and a leak test is performed.
The pore pressure changes are monitored while maintaining the state of stress constant for
30 minutes. If the pore pressure difference is less than 0.03 ksc, there is no indication of a
leak. For shearing, the drainage lines are kept closed and an axial strain rate of 0.5% /hr is
applied by the computer. The test is stopped when failure planes are noticed in compression
tests or necking occurs in extension tests, which usually requires an additonal 10% vertical
strain after consolidation.
Drained
The stress path consolidation algorithm is used for drained shear. Final vertical and
horizontal effective stresses well beyond the envelope are input, the drainage lines are kept
open, and a rate 0.10% /hr is applied until the specimen fails.
A.3.6 Takedown
Once the test is finished, the computer program is turned off, and the cell pressure
and load are decreased manually while drainage lines to the specimen remain closed. The
cell fluid is then drained and the cell disassembled. The sample is photographed and
weighed, final height and area are measured, and the soil is split into four sections and
oven dried for final water content and dry weight measurements. The cell is cleaned and
drainage lines are emptied partially to look for oil (indication of an internal leak) in
preparation for the installation of another specimen.
269
A.4 Data Reduction
A.4.1 Calculations
Table A-i lists the formulae used by the data reduction program to calculate the
various parameters which are obtained from each test.
A.4.2 Corrections
Area Correction
The first type of correction used in the data reduction is an area correction. During
the consolidation phase the specimen is assumed to remain cylindrical, and the area is
corrected according to the following formula (Germaine and Ladd, 1988):
A
- o(1-
(A.4)
1 - AL/Lo
where Ac is the corrected area, Ao is the initial area (at the beginning of the test), AV and
AL are the change in volume and length respectively, and Vo and L. are the initial volume
and height of the specimen. The corrected area is then used in calculation of the axial stress
and change in volume (AV = Ac x AH) for the Ko consolidation control program.
During undrained shear in compression, the specimen is assumed to deform
parabolically and the equation used is the following (Germaine and Ladd, 1988):
1
A = Ao -
/25 - 20
+(A.)
AL
I2
_ 5( At
4(1-~)
For undrained extension tests, the cylindrical correction is used, i.e., Eq. A.4.
270
Filter Strip Correction
The second type of correction used is for the increase in axial stress due to the load
carried by the filter strips during the consolidation and undrained shear phases of
compression tests. The equation used to calculate the stress increase is:
= K'f AP
Ac'
(A.6)
where Kfp is a correction factor which varies between 0.13 and 0.19 kg/cm (0.16 was
selected), Pfp is the filter strip perimeter, calculated as the number of strips times the width
of the strip (typically 8 x 1/4 inch = 5.08 cm), and Ac is the cross sectional area of the
sample. The value of ofs calculated is the maximum correction applied. The actual
correction applied increases linearly from zero to ofs as the axial strain increases from 0 to
2%, as shown in Fig. A-19. After 2% axial strain the filter strips are assumed to buckle and
their load contribution remains constant. The filter strip correction is as recommended by
Bishop and Henkel (1962) in their book on triaxial testing procedures.
For extension tests, spirnl filter strips are used, and no correction is applied during
consolidation or shear.
Membrane Correction
The next correction to the stresses is a membrane correction. All of the tests were
performed using two prophylactics as thin membranes. The membranes contribute
additional axial stress and radial stress. The corrections for membranes are based on shell
theory as follows (Germaine and Ladd, 1988):
4tE,
A' - D
2
(
(A.7)
3
V4t~E,
E,
(A.8)
271
where Er is the modulus of the rubber, t is the thickness of the rubber, and Di is the initial
sample diameter. If the diameter of the membrane is less than the diameter of the specimen,
Aor should be increased by the following amount:
ari = 2tE,( D
D )
(A.9)
where Dm is the initial diameter of the membrane. In this program, however, the diameter
of the specimen and membrane are essentially equal and this adjustment is neglected. These
membrane corrections are suggested by Lacasse and Berre (1986).
The net result of these formulae is a constant membrane correction factor of 1.942
ksc /100% axial strain for the two prophylactics used on all of our tests. Again, this
correction is automatically applied by the data reduction program.
Piston Correction
The final correction applied to the vertical stress is to account for the area of the
piston and the weight of the piston and the attached accessories. The weight of the piston
plus accessories (Wp) is added to the load registered by the load cell to get the total point
load acting on the top of the sample. In addition, the cell pressure contributes to the axial
load by acting over the area of the top cap (At) minus the area of the piston (Ap) to which it
is attached. Typically Wp equals 0.8 to 1.0 kg, Ap is about 3.6 cm3 , and At is taken to be
the same as the initial cross sectional area of the specimen (Ao), or about 10 cm3 .
272
A.4.3 Changes to Input File
The voltage readings from the Central Data Acquisition System are read directly by
the data reduction program, but one additional line is input manually by the operator for
both the consolidation and shear portions of the program.
Small amounts of axial and volumetric strain occur during the pressure-up and
saturation phases of the test. The volumetric strain is typically between -0.5 and -2% and is
a combination of water flowing into the sample and air dissolving into solution during
saturation. The axial strain is typically less than +0.5% and is due to initial application of a
seating load during pressure-up. To remove these small strains from the consolidation
results from each test, a first line is input which forces the axial and volumetric strains to
equal zero on the first line, and to equal each other on the second line. The zero recorded
for the axial DCDT is input into the initial information file as well as on the first line of data
read by the reduction program, effectively forcing the axial strain to equal zero. The
operator then converts the difference between the axial DCDT zero recorded during the
setup of the test and the first DCDT reading taken by the data acquisition system into an
axial strain, and back calculates a voltage reading which will give an equivalent amount of
volumetric strain. This voltage is entered into the initial information file as the zero for the
volumetric strain DCDT, and is also inserted in the first line of data in the data acquisition
file.
In a similar manner, a first line of data is inserted into the shear data file. In this
case, however, the object is to ensure that the initial vertical and horizontal effective
stresses are equal to the average values held over the 24-hour secondary compression
portion of the consolidation phase. The value of the initial vertical stress reading during
shear is particularly important as it is taken as the vertical consolidation stress ('vc) to
which the stresses calculated during undrained shear are normalized. Inputting a mean
273
value gives a more accurate vertical effective stress and Kc value, eliminating the effects of
small pressure fluctuations during the pre-shear leacL
A.4.4 Plotting of Results
The output from the data reduction program consists of printed file containing a
heading summarizing the input information and the list of data and an ASCII file containing
only the data which is saved on a floppy disk. This ASCII file has the advantage of
versatility in that it can be easily imported to almost any spreadsheet or graphics program,
either on IBM or Macintosh systems.
For each test a standard set of plots was produced to aid in analysis of the data.
These plots included:
For consolidation
The compression curve (a and £v vs. log a'vc), Ko vs. log 'vc,
stress path (q - p' diagram), and for overconsolidated SHANSEP tests, Ko vs. log
OCR
For shear
The normalized stress path (q/a'vc vs. P'/dvc), normalized stress and pore
pressure (q/o'vc and u/dvc for TE or (Au - Ad3) /a'vc for TC), A parameter, and
friction angle ((') vs. axial strain (a), log normalized modulus vs. log axial strain
(log Es/a'vc vs. log dq/dqm).
These plots were produced by first importing the data reduction results file into
Lotus 1-2-3 and then using templates created on Harvard Graphics to produce final copies.
Examples of both the printed data output and the standard plots produced are included in
the following section which covers documentation. Additional plots, such as those used to
calculate the preconsolidation pressure by the Strain Energy (SE) method, were produced
using Lotus 1-2-3 directly, and some of the plots included in this thesis were produced on
the Macintosh, using the KaleidaGraph software.
274
A.S Documentation of Tests
In order to standardize the tests and obtain as much information as possible from
each, a set of data sheets was developed to use during each test. An example of a set of
completed data sheets, along with the printed data output and the standard plots from a
typical Recompression test are included in Fig. A-20 through A-45. Except for the
worksheet labelled "Recompression Test Stress Worksheet" (Fig. A-23), the data sheets
and plots presented are identical for SHANSEP tests.
275
Table A.1: Formulae Used in Data Reduction
Basic conversion
froin volts to
engineering units
Axial strain
(3
-)
reading = transducer reading
zero = initial transducer zero
i
input voltage
L = current specimen height
Lo initial specimen height
(different for consol. and shear
V = current specinen volume
Vo = initial specimen volume
(different for consol. and shear)
A V = change in volume from
beginning of test
AL = change in height from
beginning of test
a = cell pressure
U = pore pressure
Ao, = radial membrane
correction
P = load (from load cell)
x calibrationfactor
7
, = L/L o x 100%
E = V/1,'ox 100%
Volumietric strain
Area
A=
Horizonral
Effective
Stress
= a, - U+ ao,
-
Vertical
d=
Effective
= weight of piston
u
-Ap
(A-p
P+
Program
Ap = area of piston
Stress
Aof, = filter strip correction
-ao'rft - a,
Aha = axial membrane
correction
Shear stress
Ave. effective stress
Laterai stress ratio
1
Friction Angle
q=
p = +
he = a /.,
= sin ( !.)
AaO = change in major
A parameter
Normalized pore
pressure
stress'
u-principal
=
Aa 3 = change in niinor
principal stress'
1'. = vertical preshear
consolidation stress
.
Normalized q
ql
Normalized p'
Normalized secant
pp'la/,
_
I
'°'
mlodulus
For rC. A-l = A,,
3
= A¢h
For TE. Aol = ;ah,, Aa =
a,
276
Figure A- 1: Detail of MIT
Triaxial Cell
277
Figure A-2: Preparation of Block Samples - Block Sample in Protective Cover
278
Figure A-3: Preparation of Block Samples - Removal of Protective Cover
279
Figure A-4: Preparation of Block Samples - Outermost layer scraped off: one side
flattened
280
Figure A-5: Preparation of Block Samples - Wax paper on flat surface: preparing to
lay saminie down
281
Figure A-6: Preparation of Block Samples - Laying Block Down
282
Figure A-7: Preparation of Block Samples - Slicing off one layer
283
Figure A-8: Preparation of Block Samples - Removing top layer
284
Figure A-9: Preparation of Block Samples - Halving laver
285
Figure A-10: Preparation of Block Samples - Covering block with wax and plastic
wrap
286
o
Sample - Evidence
Block
of
Figure A-ii: Preparation
287
i5
: 1
/
3
~ii
/~~~~~~
< II
I,
`r~~~
\. r
,\8,
,
1
:
. _
IIIll
8' - 10 ' typ.
II
=
-
Il
ORDER OF CUTS
TRIAXIAL TEST
SPECIMEN
a OEDOMETER
/
OR DSS TEST
SPECIMEN
Figure A-12: Diagram of Specimens Cut from Block Sample
288
Figure A-13: Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Trimming specimen in mitre box
289
Figure A-14: Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Measuring diameter of specimen
290
Figure A-15: Setup of Triaxiai Specimen - Specimen installed on pedestal
291
Figure A-16: Setup of Triaxiai Specimen - Filter strips in place
292
Figure A-1I: Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Membranes in place
293
Figure A-18: Setup of Triaxial Specimen - Cell filled with oil - test begins
294
.-----------------,1·
A(ksc
(k so
I
7,//
I
I
EC(
i)
Figure A-19: Application of Filter Strip Correction for Triaxial Compression Tests
295
MIT
CEOTECIINICAL LABORATORY
TRIAXIAL TESTING REFEIENCE DATA SIIEET
Project CA Ir
Test
Depth . 5
Boring-U on
Saple
o.7X6R
J,-tA
~ ~
II
.
.
Calib
1.
Factor
Make/No.
INSTRUMENTS
PP Transducer
CP Transducer
Load Cell
Axial DCDT
Vol DCDT
010344
e4.47 "
o60
38
-2. /~
A9o
-f21
U"^X
'-3c,oo
o:.
Membranes
8
.=
o Cnn
/4":
2 -k'In
Location
O.D12'
O.01 "
Tare &k et Soil
Tare k Dry Soil
vi n=
Cell Fluid 5
4Z
cc/ksc
mv
OIL
Pore Fluid PDsrlu.iPH20
TRIMMIN
IRIMMIN'5 TUMMIN4'
JZC.
3,
Tare No.
'
Z.7.3I
11A.
7
l
414b
-.
WC()
-
Torvane
(ksc)
Z3 w/Dummv,Stopes,FP z
2._37___
2.4-21
"
Z.42 1"
3 2.42 0
3
2..37"'
6=G.o36cmAve(Zs )-1
Ave(Zd)257(/
2
?n
Dummy Ht(Hd)8.c %
I
AVE:
AV6:
4...2 2.7 to
42
_
3_._2
_.3
_
w/specimen Specimen Diameter
3
1
Z.371"
.4"1
24.
i. 1b7
(ILo-
Tare
2
TFp
oRg
,[
Weights and Measures
2. SPECIMEN DATA
1
0.14mVVi n
.O421
-Z.oZ/#Vvi n= C6-4.2.V
o. z5 VVi n= 5.e4Z1
O.56(t Vi n = 5. 642t
T.
.[
Vi n =
Vi n=
Vi n=
Vi n =
=
Compliance=ADCDT x DCDTCF= .oOZ4
APP x PPCF
12
PP response to push =
System Compliance(to 2 ksc)
START
FINISH
-o.2MD
Vol. DCDT -0'oZ
Filter Paper
[
Weight of Accessories - DCDT Arm
0
Extension3.bc an
Homent break
0.46 9
=
0:o1 I
Total (W,)
D
Cell No.
Piston rea(Ap)
Piston Veight(pW)
V
= p
PP Trans
.I
[
Zero at Finish
Zero at Start
703. Z2"/v
PICC4-2
3/;/I
Testby/date
A
Y3 Test Type 9.anpm. 7"
Specimen Locm
Top.4+-.Moe
= 1.'B
Mid5 .4*-.oeb
= t.,
Bot.-
= .404.
4.co
Tare+Speciment
./,
0o<
.
' Tare
Specimen(VWi)165.1i8
Ave(di ) 1.09)
If Yes Tcor=Ta+TFP
after membranes Yes or(0
if No Tcor=0
3. CALCULATIONS
i
B.D1
Di=di-Tcor = .6..4-"
4.
-
mmm
ii
Hi=i[d-zd+zs=
cm I A=rD 2 /4=
cm
l
-
i
l
I-9&
Vi =Hi x Ai=8o-4o
cm2
cm3
e
o,,
'
= Iw=VWiYi
93 7.
est= 1.70
SPECIMEN DESCRTPTION & NOTES
Figure A-20: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Data Sheet - Page 1 of 3
ksc
rI
.L
296
I1T
CEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
TIAXIAL TESTING I:EFEINCE DATA SIIEET
5.
Test -XoS
PROCESS DOCIUENTATION
--
.
I ,-4r4
I(A)
I
--
I
S
_
DCDT lob
Cell Pres
Load Cell
Pore Pres
102
107
Date
.
-o.09p
5
0 .94
W
UI
D )
End of
--
-U
_
L 'l
f-·------r.JLU
IT
--ur
DVM
Eng
eM.I+
I. oor--U
o.44%
u
.
va~n
S
vu;IJ
WFs
Volts Eng
DVM
O."A
ZI.o7
2·'.Io
.4 0
7.827
W. 'o
I.o2X
og7
*
rMnv1t,+a
7.11
-t.o
v
I
1.8Z
·SW
S-rb,5
8:o0
SATIIR ATr
.ly
I
Volts
I.,
I (C)
r
( rfmvr,+
-o..
5.3c.
ltD
rL
1
l
--O(Us
D- 1
3l4
Time
I
I
0.02.k'.$C
- 1.,L7 -o.4b1
-·o3
io
.
-0.01 /.
2.oZv,
o.72Z
-1.51
4
Vol DCDT
V in.
ETUP
Computer
Volts Eng
ZoZ
2I
Z
I
.
at
Values
-----r the
.,
..
m
u
o : DVM
Axial
,
-011!y~
5."o
o.ot,,
I-00-- 1.Doe5
C.-66&
sj-7
b5-o
_
i.
I.
!
i
·
Pressure
Date/Time Back Pressure
3to
Saturation
4. C,
6e:+
o.
Values
(D)
Couter
Volts
DCDTI1.14
Axial
Cell Pres
Load Cell
31. I
I(.(,1
1bci
5
Date
_
0
I
Eng
Volts
-o.bo
|
I
7
32./L>
^ 31.b1 31
0-1 .%7
0.
7|5
71
S7
Eng
15. %
4711 s%
z7t
1
|14
14|
14
.42,Ie
3J31
DATA ACQUIST10ION FILES
File
Same
TX08& i'I
rxo8b
rc 8c c
-txoBsc
x 05'
TX4t
DVl
4o.Z8 |.o-b
Time
6.
SHEARING
- Computer
e
-° 8I
5I'i
o .4o20. i*4
.9)
- O.Z
(F)
Comuter
tDYMVolts
-o.7
-
I
SELLING
O.'%/ I
7Zc |S
.-4S/
| 31
Pore Pres
Vol DCDT 1q42
V in.
Eng
Vol. Strain
0.
.4
at the End of
.(E)
CONSOLIDATION
DVM
B value
o.78
Z10
z.4o
l
Check
17
Increment
1o4
7?7
Time / Date
3
Process
0
315
4
3FMI
' -4%
I l.oo
| l1 3
pree
Remarks
f'
$bOC
rs
17| cansidatton
l
31e
,
1Ckc 1-1
| shcaf
TX - Triaxial
Test number (sequential)
77 - sequence number
=
I - Pressure up
B - Back Pressure
C - Consolidation
S - Shear
P - Preshear
L - Leak Check
Figure A-21: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Data Sheet - Page 2 of 3
297
YIT
GEOTECIINICAL
LABORATORY
TRIA1LUL TESTING iEFERENCE DATA SHEET
Test rTo8C
SPECIAL NOTES
7.
=
B compute initial effective stress '
=
C change vol DCDT zero to have e
New Zero = Zero+ (
SHANSEP test
4 D for
ea
CF = 0o.24
be sure
> 107.
'v,,x
D or E
:
o
_0
vol
vol) x V1 /100/Vol
-
=
c-u
(for OC test) or shear
is on for 24 hrs prior to unload
prior to undrained shear
close drain line for 30 min and monitor P.P.
P.P. 30 min
P.P. open '2.4' P.P. cl'osed 24b'
EASUREMENTS
POST SHEAR
8.
49
Weights k Measures
Location
Tare No.
Vc
6(o
A4
4.?.) W
Tare k wet soil
Tare k dry soil
Tare
9.be7
%o04
SEZ.2
1
EL
DONPALJ
S.11
2oZ. 8
4-2.9 1
4.4-17
; bj4- b
t[.?-Z
1Z.12
+. 1
*.e
B
t2-ol1
4b. ' -*
(%)
Z 3 v/specimei
.0oo
2
2.
- 9.
Tave
.o0
3
3.
139. 7
Tare +Specimen
2.000
1.
1
Specimen(VTf)
.77
Ave Z 2.-002i
P
Radiograph
Yes ore,
Yes or
Picture
Description:
5e
*fr-*1-4
5heez-
oer
-
W s
Side
Front
9.
(I P .24-
CALCULATIONS
HI =d - Zj +Z5 =
Dr =d
-
Tcr
=
'1.
Oi
cm Af =, Df 2 /4=
cm Vf =if
x A=
Cm
cm
3
2
= VT
7re
Vs
f=
_
=
Figure A-22: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Data Sheet - Page 3 of 3
g/cc
298
-
-
,
· ·r
'Z '' . -I, ' - } °&
- -x
.~l~
rz~-,CoAr-'s,~c
-1 IrrP;-~-1~
Jo ,e~~
;
c^aS~
S
02
p'C
_
' @ -
- :"J,
-vo
.I
-
-CC
1
"4- -
r.~.£
CY
-__
'
-
-?.
C-.
7--
II
-14
:--
-"7
:'
2-
_
_
-C-'-
-vC
-
-
!- I
L/
- I
,
?S
G
,;c.
,
"r
. A2JL(rt,
4
/
--
'
r
zr
-
"
-
/r
,
te(
. $J
L:,
/ M.J
·.
F-7_A ,JAL
Pj_,
JrJ<,
--
f
.
-i 1,.%,
:rC
:,''/
-
:.( -,--
-f-
7.
·
".1
,I
.',
--
-..
,
.,
k ../'_.- :,
'
" -,
' Sr ? ' - _ if
Figure A-23: Example of Typical Recompression Triaxial Test Worksheet - Page 1
of 3
299
/ -
-,1r -~C
!-
C
6
_
ZT
, ,r17t
"t,7C
- --"
!
/-
,
,,
:_;._/..y
y--
7-~/I .
ec/,rl
-
.'//~ --.
L,
P.
-
'- !rE
A
IA
.',
;17'
O
A-L
.A.
. P1-
,
-
7
- \ ./, .. _
:
,J.,'
_
w.A-Vr~oj,
/
:'-
-
'
K
;,
_______2
I
(i
-
eIry
-
:'
~11
0 -- !)
rflec
2v
L'", : - !
(
__
,
--
-
E6). H'
Czn o , aP
t/ 7'
(cc)
~.)
..-
- -LL
.4:
a*
?
I
-
I
-
C
I
11
.
;
.
_
_
I
-M
.
_
-
.
'I '4
=.. --~.c 7,',
,
':b
,
-
;
c/
11-.
,
:_
I'
f
v.
-J
C -vc 7. '.-
Lhec*i5:-6.
.trP
,- '
Figure A-24: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Worksheet - Page 2 of 3
300
L
--:n`'I-ar"
c- -- -C:,~/
--c
"
-'-
-L
,,w
:6
,.
'~-A
t+'-
4.2:
i
ittCt~o~,
r;
=,.- 2,,.
-
.
3
1- -
e"
- A
, . .':.
;
- , I
.'A'
,,
rc
. -/ :.
.
;7
r
:-
)
/A L./FCOC_.
-mAL
i:v.1),:
2AF LJF-ATrOCQ
,-t
~o.
- ,_._
_..*
..... VOL
-'"
_
:~g '
^
-
;
m
Knn
:r-J-. 7-
11
I
:
-
--
_
'~
'-
_ _--,,..
-
_
on_
.-
.,eaae
-urc
':,,.4e d 1
.ir I
I
f
,
r
,I
·-
.e
r
;
-LWal1P;ij1ua
-
I
I
_
sn
je·-
;
r
£Ws :X~es
-c s7 t.
£24 '
z-
-@i
L~~~clS;~~
-. ,,
'
-)
AL
JC
,I
-.
' / rr,
i
.
Figure A-25: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Worksheet - Page 3 of 3
301
PROGRAN
RESUtS Of TRIAXIAL REDUCTION
NIT GEOTECHNICAL
LAB
*-,-------
tlllt-t-----fil--tlt-lt
-
tl---t--
--
DATAFILEAME : triaxtx085c.dat
(Reduction program : TXRED3.BAS)
. ....................
-
.......................
-
REDUCTIONDATA
INITIALS :AHE
TYPE :C
DATE :3-11-91
DRAINAGE:D
EA : 9.92
INIT ARI
WT : .901
PIST/HANIGER
INIT HEIGHT : 8.105
PISTON AREA: 3.6
ORS
TRANSDUCER
ZEROSANDCALIBRATIONFACTI
LC ZERO : .00018
LC CALIBRATION
:- 7844.042
DCDT ZERO:-2.025
DCDTI
CALIBRATION: 2.433
2nd DCDTZERO: 0
CPT ZERO :-.00068
PPT ZERO :-.00015
CPT CALIBRATION:-688.7
LIBRATION:-703.2
PPT CAI
VOL CHANGE
ZERO:-1.2326
VOL CHANGE
CALIBRATION: 9.262999
CORRECTIONS
AREA CORRECTION
: RIGHT CYLINDER
MEMBRANE
CORRECTIO: 1.942
FILTER STRIP CORRECTION
: .16
UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH: 0
INITIAL CONDITIONS:
SIGBARVC= .8077542 ,SIGBARNC= .8321341
VERTSTRO
a
P'
SIGV'
0.000
0.457
0.457
-0.012
-0.022
-0.024
q55
-0.022
0.820
SIGH'
Ko
1.030
1.057
0.000
0.457
9.920
9.920
0.464
0.463
9.919
9.919
0.810
0.808
0.787
0.832
0.832
0.806
0.809
0.783
0.787
0.830
1.060
0.831
1.056
VOLSTR
AREA
Figure A-26: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 1 of 4
302
0.458
0.463
0.467
0.472
0.476
0.480
0.485
0.488
0.492
0.498
0.505
0.509
0.514
0.520
0.525
0.531
0.534
0.550
0.570
0.607
0.625
0.645
0.666
0.684
0.659
0.666
0.694
0.717
0.725
0.744
0.769
0.791
0.805
0.804
0.801
0.822
0.848
0.829
0.872
0.873
0.873
0.873
0.875
0.876
0.877
-0.012
-0.004
0.003
0.011
0.017
0.024
0.029
0.036
0.041
0.048
0.053
0.059
0.065
0.072
0.080
0.089
0.092
0.114
0.140
0.162
0.178
0.206
0.225
0.251
0.281
0.304
0.323
0.343
0.365
0.388
0.406
0.405
0.404
0.405
0.406
0.409
0.403
0.403
0.401
0.403
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.403
0.402
0.847
0.880
0.914
0.940
0.970
0.994
1.020
1.044
1.066
1.096
1.118
1.144
1.166
0.835
0.876
0.917
0.951
0.987
1.018
1.049
1.080
1.107
1.143
1.172
1.203
1.191
1.263
1.307
1.347
1.227
1.258
1.279
1.364
1.471
1.558
1.635
1.734
1.824
1.916
2.036
2.129
2.213
2.298
2.383
2.487
2.560
2.560
2.560
2.559
2.562
2.564
2.561
2.564
2.562
2.560
2.556
2.559
2.562
2.560
2.559
1.231
1.371
1.478
1.611
1.720
1.813
1.940
2.049
2.167
2.316
2.433
2.536
2.641
2.748
2.874
2.966
2.966
2.965
2.964
2.968
2.973
2.963
2.967
2.963
2.963
2.958
2.962
2.963
2.963
2.961
0.859
0.884
0.911
0.930
0.952
0.970
0.991
1.009
1.024
1.048
1.065
1.085
1.102
1.119
1.148
1.169
1.186
1.249
1.331
1.395
1.457
1.529
1.599
1.666
1.755
1.825
1.890
1.955
2.019
2.099
2.155
2.155
2.156
2.154
2.156
2.155
2.158
2.160
2.161
2.157
2.154
2.157
2.160
2.158
2.157
1.030
1.009
0.993
0.978
0.965
0.954
0.945
0.934
0.925
0.917
0.909
0.902
0.895
0.886
0.878
0.868
0.865
0.845
0.826
0.811
0.804
0.788
0.781
0.769
0.757
0.750
0.745
0.740
0.735
0.730
0.727
0.727
0.727
0.727
0.726
0.725
0.728
0.728
0.729
0.728
0.728
0.728
0.729
0.728
0.729
0.468
0.476
0.483
0.492
0.500
0.509
0.515
0.527
0.536
0.547
0.560
0.563
0.582
0.594
0.608
0.623
0.631
0.675
0.730
0.781
0.817
0.861
0.901
0.950
0.997
1.051
1.104
1.144
1.187
1.242
1.297
1.324
1.339
1.344
1.344
1.365
1.378
1.387
1.401
1.406
1.413
1.417
1.420
1.422
1.424
9.919
9.919
9.918
9.918
9.918
9.917
9.917
9.916
9.916
9.915
9.915
9.915
9.913
9.913
9.912
9.911
9.910
9.907
9.904
9.903
9.901
9.898
9.896
9.893
9.886
9.882
9.879
9.877
9.874
9.870
9.867
9.867
9.867
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.867
9.864
9.867
9.867
9.866
9.866
9.865
9.865
9.865
Figure A-27: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 2 of 4
303
0.877
0.877
0.878
0.880
0.880
0.881
0.882
0.882
0.883
0.883
0.883
0.883
0.885
0.884
0.883
0.885
0.885
0.885
0.885
0.885
0.885
0.885
0.886
0.885
0.887
0.889
0.889
0.890
0.891
0.890
0.890
0.403
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.403
0.403
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.400
2.560
2.560
2.563
2.559
2.559
2.562
2.559
2.560
2.560
2.560
2.559
2.559
2.557
0.401
2.560
0.403
0.402
0.400
2.554
2.557
2.567
0.401
0.402
2.559
2.560
0.402
2.555
2.552
0.400
0.400
0.401
0.402
0.401
2.557
2.561
2.559
2.559
0.402
0.402
2.558
0.403
2.558
0.402
0.402
2.561
0.403
2.561
2.559
2.562
2.561
0.892
0.402
0.890
0.892
0.892
0.892
0.892
0.892
0.893
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.895
0.401
0.402
0.402
2.559
2.560
0.402
2.562
0.402
2.560
0.401
2.560
0.400
0.402
2.560
2.555
2.963
2.962
2.965
2.961
2.961
2.965
2.962
2.962
2.962
2.961
2.961
2.961
2.957
2.962
2.957
2.960
2.967
2.960
2.961
2.957
2.952
2.957
2.962
2.960
2.960
2.960
2.964
2.961
2.963
2.963
2.964
2.961
2.961
2.962
2.957
2.964
2.962
2.962
2.960
2.961
2.960
2.962
2.960
2.157
2.158
2.161
2.158
2.156
2.159
2.157
2.158
2.158
2.158
2.157
2.157
2.157
1.427
1.430
9.865
1.434
9.865
9.865
9.865
1.436
9.864
1.437
1.439
9.864
9.864
9.864
1.439
9.864
1.439
9.864
9.864
1.432
1.438
1.439
1.439
9.864
0.729
1.438
9.865
0.729
1.437
9.865
0.727
9.865
1.433
9.865
2.159
0.728
0.730
0.729
1.435
1.434
1.432
9.865
2.158
0.729
1.431
2.152
2.152
2.156
2.160
0.728
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.728
0.729
0.728
0.728
0.729
0.728
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.728
0.728
0.728
0.729
0.730
0.728
0.730
0.729
1.429
1.428
9.865
9.866
2.159
2.151
2.155
2.167
2.157
2.158
2.155
2.160
2.156
2.158
2.160
2.159
2.157
2.158
2.158
2.153
2.159
2.158
2.159
2.160
2.157
0.401
2.559
2.561
2.560
0.401
0.400
2.559
2.557
2.957
2.159
2.158
2.157
0.403
2.561
2.963
2.158
0.400
0.728
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.728
0.728
0.728
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.728
2.161
0.729
0.729
0.728
1.426
1.425
1.423
1.423
1.424
1.429
1.432
1.435
1.436
1.437
1.437
1.438
1.438
1.438
1.438
1.435
1.435
1.436
1.437
1.438
1.438
1.438
1.436
1.431
9.865
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.865
9.865
9.865
9.865
9.865
9.865
9.865
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.866
9.865
9.866
9.866
9.866
Figure A-28: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 3 of 4
304
0.894
0.895
0.894
0.894
2.560
2.963
2.157
2.561
2.963
0.404
2.561
2.559
2.965
2.561
2.964
2.561
2.560
2.963
2.159
2.158
2.155
2.158
2.159
2.961
2.560
2.561
2.561
2.562
2.558
2.559
2.561
2.559
2.558
0.403
0.403
0.402
0.401
0.401
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0..895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.895
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.894
0.895
0.897
0.896
0.897
0.898
0.898
0.896
0.403
0.402
0.402
0.401
0.401
0.401
0.401
0.401
0.400
0.401
0.401
0.401
0.400
0.401
0.401
0.728
1.432
9.866
0.728
1.431
9.866
2.159
0.729
1.430
9.866
2.961
2.159
0.729
1.429
9.867
2.964
2.159
0.728
1.426
9.867
2.963
2.159
0.729
1.425
2.964
2.961
2.961
2.160
2.156
2.157
2.159
2.157
2.157
2.160
2.158
2.159
0.729
0.728
0.728
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
1.423
1.422
9.867
9.867
2.962
2.960
2.959
2.962
2.555
2.955
2.961
2.959
2.958
2.960
2.961
2.962
0.402
2.558
0.402
0.403
0.402
0.402
0.402
0.403
2.562
2.961
2.960
2.964
2.563
2.560
2.561
2.562
2.560
2.962
2.963
2.965
2.963
FINAL AREA =
9.866
9.866
9.866
2.961
2.961
2.560
1.434
1.434
1.433
2.560
2.560
2.559
2.558
2.561
0.402
1.435
0.728
2.962
2.561
2.560
2.558
2.557
0.728
0.729
0.728
2.966
2.155
2.160
2.157
0.729
2.157
0.729
2.159
2.156
0.729
2.160
2.159
2.156
2.160
2.159
2.157
2.159
2.160
2.157
0.729
0.728
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.729
0.728
0.728
0.729
0.729
0.728
9.866
1.419
1.417
1.415
9.867
9.867
9.868
9.868
9.868
1.411
9.868
1.411
9.868
1.406
1.404
1.402
1.399
1.395
1.393
1.390
1.388
9.869
9.869
1.421
1.381
1.386
1.390
1.394
1.397
1.401
1.403
1.400
9.869
9.870
9.870
9.870
9.870
9.871
9.871
9.871
9.871
9.870
9.870
9.870
9.870
9.870
9.869569
Figure A-29: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Output - Page 4 of 4
305
TX085C
COMPRESSION CURVE
RECOMPRE881ON
n
STRAIN (%)
S
V
CKoUC
r
L
|-
-w
;
i
I
-0.5
"
.
I
he -
w-
-q
-
--
-
--
-
--
:
w-
i
l
l
l
I
-1
I
- 1.5
!
!
I
s-
I
Rl
-w
-
z-
I
,
0.1
I
I
S
!
-w
_
.
i
!
I
S
I-
-
S-
-
I
STRAIN
-AXIAL
-2
w
- - VOLUMETRIC
I I IL I i I
I
1
STRAIN
I
-
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
BLOCK S-1A ELEV. 54.7'
Figure A-30: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Plot - 1 of 3
306
TX085C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE
RECOMPRESSION
STRESS
CKoUC
Ko
1.2
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I~~~~~~~~~~~~
VI
i~
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~·
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
I
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK S-1A ELEV. 54.7'
Figure A-31: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Plot - 2 of 3
307
TX085C
STRESS PATH
RECOMPRE881ON
CKoUC
Q (KSC)
.
1.5
.
1
0.6
-a
sOfi
,,-
0
I
I
Ii
0.6
1
I
.~
~ ~~ ~
1.6
2
I
J1
2.6
3
P'(KSC)
BLOCK S-1A - ELEY. 54.7'
Figure A-32: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Consolidation Plot - 3 of 3
308
RESULTSOF TRIAXIAL REDUCTION
PROGRAM
MIT GEOTECHNICAL
LAB
DATA FILENAME triax\txO85s.dat
(Reduction program: TXRED3.BAS)
REDUCTION
DATA
DATE :3-11-91
DRAINAGE:U
INITIALS :AHE
TYPE :C
INIT HEIGHT : 8.032
INIT AREA : 9.87
PISTON AREA: 3.6
PIST/HANGERWT : .901
TRANSDUCER
ZEROSAND CALIBRATIONFACTORS
LC ZERO : .00018
LC CALIBRATION:-7844.042
DCDTZERO:-2.025
2nd DCDTZERO : 0
DCDTCALIBRATION: 2.433
CPT ZERO :-.00068
PPT ZERO :-.00015
CPT CALIBRATION:-688.7
PPT CALIBRATION:-703.2
VOL CHANGEZERO :-1.2326
VOL CHANGECALIBRATION: 9.262999
CORRECTIONS
AREACORRECTION
: PARABOLIC
MEMBRANE
CORRECTION: 1.942
FILTER STRIP CORRECTION
:
.16
UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH: 1.506817
INITIAL CONDITIONS:
SIGBARVC= 2.95179 ,SIGBARHC: 2.155275
VERTSTR O/SIGV'
P/SIGV'
dJ/SIGV
0.000
0.002
0.135
0.134
0.865
0.865
0.000
-0.003
dO/dQm
0.000
-0.002
Esec/SIGV
0.000
-74.034
A
#2dU/SIGV phi
0.000
0.536
0.000
0.000
8.973
8.921
Figure A-33: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 1 of 7
309
0.002
0.003
0.009
0.014
0.019
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.041
0.046
0.051
0.057
0.063
0.069
0.075
0.081
0.087
0.093
0.099
0.105
0.111
0.116
0.122
0.128
0.134
0.140
0.146
0.152
0.159
0. 165
0.171
0.177
0.183
0.189
0.195
0.201
0.207
0.214
0.220
0.227
0.233
0.239
0.245
0.251
0.257
0.134
0.151
0.171
0.188
0.204
0.217
0.229
0.240
0.250
0.259
0.267
0.276
0.284
0.292
0.3uO0
0.307
0.314
0.321
0.327
0.333
0.338
0.343
0.348
0.353
0.358
0.364
0.369
0.373
0.378
0.382
0.387
0.391
0.395
0.399
0.402
0.405
0.409
0.413
0.416
0.419
0.423
0.426
0.429
0.432
0.435
0.864
0.873
0.881
0.887
0.893
0.896
0.898
0.902
0.904
0.907
0.908
0.910
0.912
0.915
0.916
0.918
0.919
0.921
0.922
0.923
0.925
0.925
0.926
0.927
0.929
0.929
0.930
0.931
0.933
0.933
0.935
0.935
0.936
0.936
0.937
0.938
0.938
0.938
0.938
0.940
0.941
0940
0.941
0.942
0.942
·0.004
0.006
0.017
· 0.002
0.117
0.122
0.126
0.043
0.096
0.142
0.183
0.218
0.250
0.279
0.305
0.329
0.353
0.375
0.398
0.419
0.439
0.459
0.477
0.495
0.131
0.511
0.136
0.526
0.141
0.145
0.541
0.029
0.040
0.049
0.056
0.065
0.072
0.080
0.086
0.093
0.099
0.105
0.111
0.149
0.554
0.567
0.153
0.581
0.157
0.595
0.609
0.622
0.635
0.647
0.659
0.161
0.165
0.169
0.173
0.176
0.179
0.183
0.185
0.188
0.191
0.195
0.198
0.199
0.204
0.207
0.210
0.212
0.214
0.217
0.220
0.671
0.681
0.692
0.702
0.712
0.720
0.730
0.740
0.749
0.758
0.766
0.774
0.783
0.790
0.798
-73.345
959.511
821.853
776.542
710.516
665.993
626.802
595.913
563.055
534.374
516.197
493.628
476.652
457.356
437.924
424.938
410.150
399.450
387.636
376.989
366.447
358.303
348.831
341.011
333.310
327.063
320.119
313.547
305.983
300.119
294.337
288.636
283.798
278.874
273.475
268.646
264.400
260.051
255.635
251.223
247.114
243.474
239.900
236.233
233.031
-0.102
0.267
0.279
0.297
0.298
0.313
0.324
0.326
0.332
0.331
0.338
0.340
0.342
0.342
0.345
0.346
0.349
0.351
0.352
0.354
0.352
0.356
0.357
0.358
0.358
0.360
0.36?
0.361
0.361
0.362
0.362
0.363
0.364
0.365
0.366
0.366
0.367
0.369
0.370
0.369
0.369
0.371
0.372
0.371
0.372
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.939
9.964
11.182
12.264
13.183
14.000
14.756
15.417
16.034
16.570
17.127
17.641
18.159
18.635
19.104
19.545
19.986
20.385
20.757
21.125
21.427
21.772
22.073
22.386
22.704
23.036
23.344
23.635
23.902
24.192
24.446
24.698
24.967
25.202
25.425
25.620
25.853
26.108
26.341
26.513
26.696
26.913
27.134
27.290
27.476
Figure A-34: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 2 of 7
310
0.264
0.270
0.276
0.283
0.289
0.295
0.301
0.307
0.313
0.319
0.326
0.333
0.339
0.346
0.352
0.359
0.365
0.372
0.378
0.386
0.392
0.398
0.405
0.411
0.418
0.426
0.432
0.438
0.442
0.493
0.544
0.595
0.649
0.703
0.757
0.814
0.870
0.928
0.986
1.047
1.108
1.172
1.236
1.297
1.356
0.438
0.440
0.442
0.445
0.446
0.450
0.447
0.452
0.455
0.457
0.460
0.462
0.465
0.467
0.468
0.470
0.472
0.474
0.476
0.474
0.477
0.479
0.481
0.483
0.484
0.486
0.487
0.488
0.489
0.497
0.503
0.506
0.509
0.510
0.510
0.510
0.510
0.509
0.509
0.508
0.507
0.505
0.504
0.501
0.498
0.942
0.942
0.943
0.942
0.942
0.943
0.939
0.941
0.942
0.944
0.943
0.943
0.944
0.944
0.945
0.944
0.944
0.945
0.944
0.943
0.943
0.943
0.943
0.944
0.944
0.944
0.944
0.943
0.943
0.942
0.940
0.936
0.932
0.929
0.924
0.920
0.918
0.913
0.909
0.906
0.902
0.899
0.895
0.891
0.886
0.221
0.224
0.227
0.229
0.230
0.233
0.234
0.237
0.240
0.242
0.244
0.246
0.247
0.250
0.252
0.253
0.254
0.256
0.257
0.258
0.261
0.263
0.265
0.266
0.268
0.269
0.270
0.271
0.273
0.282
0.290
0.297
0.304
0.309
0.312
0.316
0.320
0.324
0.326
0.329
0.331
0.333
0.335
0.336
0.337
0.806
0.813
0.818
0.825
0.829
0.839
0.830
0.843
0.851
0.858
0.865
0.871
0.878
0.883
0.888
0.893
0.898
0.903
0.908
0.902
0.911
0.917
0.922
0.927
0.931
0.935
0.938
0.940
0.942
0.965
0.980
0.989
0.996
0.998
1.000
1.000
0.998
0.997
0.995
0.994
0.990
0.985
0.982
0.974
0.966
229.475
226.083
222.829
219.437
215.510
213.665
207.171
206.441
204.557
201.811
199.604
196.699
194.283
191.603
189.283
187.035
184.667
182.436
180.214
175.732
174.759
172.972
171.098
169.226
167.090
164.994
163.299
161.314
160.063
147.057
135.197
124.728
115.234
106.689
99.205
92.299
86.243
80.672
75.785
71.343
67.059
63.129
59.665
56.400
53.488
0.372
0.373
0.373
0.375
0.376
0.376
0.381
0.380
0.380
0.378
0.380
0.380
0.381
0.381
0.381
0.382
0.383
0.383
0.384
0.385
0.386
0.387
0.387
0.387
0.387
0.388
0.389
0.389
0.389
0.394
0.398
0.405
0.411
0.415
0.422
0.427
0.430
0.436
0.441
0.445
0.451
0.455
0.459
0.465
0.471
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
27.667
27.844
27.956
28.169
28.274
28.490
28.403
28.663
28.864
28.969
29.184
29.336
29.493
29.619
29.732
29.868
29.995
30.114
30.253
30.143
30.396
30.547
30.669
30.782
30.875
30.989
31.092
31.161
31. 204
-
31.871
32.324
32.751
33.104
33.299
33.537
33.709
33.761
33.917
34.026
34.130
34.186
34.178
34.241
34.217
34.173
Figure A-35: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 3 of 7
P619L
311
1.417
1.478
1.543
1.606
1.669
1.732
1.795
1.858
1.920
1.981
2.045
2.095
2.146
2.200
2.260
2.322
2.388
2.456
2.511
2.575
2.639
2.704
2.772
2.844
2.915
2.989
3.060
3.135
3.196
3.257
3.308
3.366
3.422
3.485
3.536
3.585
3.633
3.679
3.732
3.785
3.839
3.895
3.954
4.007
4.067
0.497
0.884
0.339
0.965
51.167
0.497
0.882
0.341
0.964
0.496
0.880
0.963
0.495
0.877
0.343
0.344
48.969
46.872
0.492
0.875
0.345
0.492
0.871
0.346
0.957
0.951
0.950
42.805
41.200
0.490
0.868
0.867
0.347
0.947
39.616
0.350
0.944
38.149
0.864
0.350
0.939
36.727
0.487
0.862
0.860
0.937
0.935
35.550
0.486
0.351
0.353
0.480
0.854
0.352
0.480
0.852
0.354
0.920
0.918
32.968
32.134
0.481
0.481
0.852
0.355
0.356
0.922
0.481
0.850
0.849
0.847
31.457
30.657
29.784
28.862
0.489
0.487
0.851.
0.356
0.922
44.784
34.325
0.357
0.921
0.918
0.843
0.358
0.360
0.913
0.907
0.478
0.476
0.844
0.360
0.913
0.841
0.360
0.475
0.361
0.908
0.905
0.473
0.473
0.472
0.840
0.837
0.838
0.836
0.835
0.362
0.362
0.902
0.901
0.471
0.831
0.365
0.898
0.895
0.470
0.466
0.831
0.366
0.367
0.893
0.882
0.366
0.368
0.369
0.873
0.870
0.875
0.370
0.371
0.872
0.877
19.149
18.906
0.369
0.371
0.867
18.414
0.862
0.372
0.861
0.859
0.857
18.063
17.803
0.480
0.478
0.476
0.474
0.463
0.462
0.464
0.826
0.822
0.820
0.820
0.363
0.364
0.463
0.464
0.819
0.460
0.816
0.459
0.458
0.813
0.812
0.458
0.457
0.456
0.811
0.810
0.373
0.807
0.808
0.807
0.807
0.807
0.808
0.374
0.375
0.374
0.375
0.376
0.375
0.455
0.456
0.456
0.456
0.458
0.821
0.375
0.899
0.854
0.854
0.854
0.855
0.856
0.860
27.931
27.124
26.618
25.836
25.133
24.438
23.790
23.168
22.565
21.974
21.391
20.724
20.126
19.763
19.534
17.544
17.249
16.947
16.699
16.476
16.247
16.045
15.8
0.474
0.477
0.480
0.484
0.486
0.491
0.495
0.498
0.502
0.504
0.507
0.516
0.518
0.519
0.520
0.521
0.523
0.527
0.532
0.531
0.536
0.537
0.541
0.540
0.543
0.545
0.550
0.551
0.559
0.566
0.569
0.568
0.571
0.567
0.575
0.580
0.582
0.584
0.586
0.590
0.589
0.591
0.591
0.591
0.589
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
34.245
34.295
34.355
34.338
34.231
34.356
34.389
34.377
34.344
34.400
34.390
34.230
34.242
34.364
34.419
34.415
34.377
34.370
34.338
34.471
34.466
34.412
34.437
34.375
34.431
34.459
34.516
34.475
34.348
34.251
34.265
34.429
34.403
34.457
34.328
34.331
34.352
34.343
34.344
34.370
34.325
34.399
34.432
34.453
34.560
Figure A-36: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 4 of 7
312
4.128
4.198
4.270
4.355
4.437
4.518
4.616
4.717
4.799
4.885
4.984
5.087
5.173
5.276
5.376
5.469
5.550
5.655
5.759
5.866
5.963
6.057
6.146
6.242
6.342
6.439
6.534
6.627
6.718
6.751
6.844
6.938
7.037
7.137
7.209
7.256
7.323
7.416
7.513
7.615
7.719
7.826
7.925
8.024
8.123
0.457
0.456
0.456
0.458
0.455
0.455
0.456
0.455
0.446
0.452
0.449
0.450
0.448
0.446
0.443
0.443
0.443
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.436
0.436
0.435
0.434
0.434
0.433
0.430
0.428
0.429
0.428
0.426
0.427
0.426
0.424
0.414
0.414
0.418
0.422
0.422
0.420
0.420
0.419
0.416
0.417
0.414
0.804
0.806
0.805
0.806
0.803
0.804
0.803
0.802
0.794
0.796
0.793
0.794
0.790
0.788
0.785
0.782
0.781
0.780
0.778
0.776
0.772
0.771
0.769
0.768
0.767
0.766
0.763
0.760
0.759
0.758
0.756
0.756
0.755
0.752
0.743
0.740
0.743
0.747
0.746
0.745
0.744
0.743
0.740
0.739
0.736
0.377
0.377
0.377
0.377
0.377
0.378
0.378
0.378
0.380
0.383
0.381
0.383
0.384
0.385
0.386
0.387
0.388
0.388
0.390
0.390
0.390
0.392
0.392
0.392
0.394
0.395
0.394
0.394
0.396
0.396
0.396
0.397
0.398
0.397
0.399
0.401
0.402
0.402
0.401
0.402
0.402
0.403
0.404
0.403
0.404
0.856
0.855
0.855
0.859
0.853
0.852
0.854
0.851
0.827
0.843
0.837
0.839
0.833
0.829
0.821
0.820
0.821
0.814
0.814
0.812
0.801
0.802
0.800
0.796
0.797
0.793
0.786
0.781
0.782
0.781
0.776
0.776
0.776
0.770
0.743
0.743
0.755
0.765
0.763
0.759
0.759
0.756
0.749
0.750
0.743
15.579
15.302
15.043
14.820
14.436
14.166
13.895
13.559
12.945
12.964
12.611
12.387
12.095
11.799
11.473
11.265
11.105
10.805
10.613
10.403
10.090
9.945
9.775
9.576
9.439
9.250
9.032
8.847
8.741
8.686
8.512
8.407
8.283
8.108
7.743
7.691
7.739
7.753
7.633
7.483
7.386
7.255
7.098
7.020
6.870
0.594
0.592
0.594
0.591
0.596
0.596
0.596
0.598
0.615
0.609
0.614
0.613
0.620
0.624
0.631
0.634
0.636
0.640
0.642
0.645
0.655
0.656
0.660
0.663
0.663
0.666
0.673
0.679
0.681
0.683
0.687
0.688
0.689
0.695
0.718
0.724
0.715
0.706
0.707
0.710
0.712
0.714
0.723
0.724
0.731
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
34.577
34.476
34.533
34.574
34.513
34.484
34.551
34.530
34.145
34.565
34.482
34.528
34.512
34.483
34.408
34.480
34.553
34.402
34.466
34.526
34.370
34.445
34.465
34.401
34.461
34.395
34.298
34.290
34.372
34.384
34.300
34.364
34.383
34.3'8
33.849
34.021
34.241
34.436
34.390
34.286
34.360
34.289
34.237
34.319
34.219
Figure A-37: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 5 of 7
313
8.217
8.321
8.414
8.508
8.604
8.702
8.804
8.912
9.013
9.127
9.237
9.340
9.446
9.535
9.644
9.748
9.862
9.978
10.052
10.123
10.219
10.274
10.368
10.473
10.556
10.663
10.768
10.889
10.999
11.081
11.153
11.242
11.315
11.414
11.505
11.609
11.688
11.763
11.851
11.945
12.039
12.127
12.222
12.319
12.4,19
0.414
0.413
0.411
0.411
0.410
0.410
0.408
0.408
0.407
0.406
0.403
0.403
0.401
0.401
0.399
0.399
0.399
0.397
0.387
0.393
0.390
0.386
0.393
0.393
0.391
0.389
0.389
0.388
0.388
0.383
0.384
0.380
0.384
0.384
0.382
0.382
0.375
0.379
0.378
0.378
0.379
0.378
0.376
0.377
0.376
0.736
0.735
0.732
0.731
0.729
0.729
0.726
0.726
0.724
0.724
0.719
0.718
0.716
0.715
0.713
0.712
0.712
0.710
0.700
0.702
0.702
0.695
0.701
0.702
0.698
0.698
0.698
0.696
0.696
0.691
0.690
0.688
0.689
0.690
0.688
0.687
0.682
0.683
0.683
0.683
0.683
0.681
0.680
0.680
0.679
0.406
0.404
0.406
0.407
0.408
0.409
0.408
0.409
0.410
0.411
0.410
0.410
0.412
0.412
0.413
0.414
0.413
0.416
0.414
0.417
0.414
0.417
0.418
0.417
0.417
0.417
0.418
0.419
0.418
0.418
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.422
0.420
0.421
0.422
0.422
0.422
0.423
0.422
0.743
0.740
0.736
0.736
0.732
0.733
0.727
0.728
0.725
0.722
0.713
0.714
0.708
0.709
0.703
0.703
0.702
0.698
0.672
0.686
0.680
0.669
0.686
0.687
0.681
0.676
0.677
0.675
0.675
0.660
0.664
0.652
0.664
0.664
0.658
0.657
0.638
0.650
0.649
0.648
0.649
0.647
0.642
0.645
0.642
6.787
6.678
6.567
6.499
6.391
6.331
6.205
6.136
6.040
5.946
5.801
5.740
5.626
5.589
5.475
5.417
5.346
5.258
5.019
5.091
4.997
4.891
4.9Z2
4.927
4.845
4.761
4.722
4.654
4.608
4.475
4.472
4.359
4.406
4.371
4.296
4.251
4.103
4.151
4.111
4.075
4.052
4.006
3.946
3.932
3.883
0.732
0.735
0.742
0.743
0.748
0.748
0.754
0.755
0.760
0.761
0.773
0.774
0.781
0.781
0.788
0.790
0.791
0.795
0.828
0.816
0.820
0.838
0.817
0.816
0.826
0.829
0.829
0.834
0.834
0.852
0.850
0.861
0.853
0.851
0.857
0.860
0.882
0.873
0.875
0.875
0.873
0.878
0.884
0.881
0.885
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
34.231
34.191
34.198
34.269
34.210
34.284
34.192
34.241
34.233
34.153
34.096
34.139
34.032
34.128
34.009
34.068
34.050
34.010
33.597
33.980
33.799
33.733
34.046
34.0
34.016
33.850
33.897
33.926
33.914
33.671
33.825
33.516
33.900
33.862
33.706
33.725
33.327
33.700
33.678
33.663
33.694
33.674
33.574
33.653
33.611
Figure A-38: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 6 of 7
314
12.513
0.376
0.678
0.424
0.643
3.860
0.886
0.000
12.615
0.376
0.678
0.424
0.641
3.818
0.888
0.000
33.699
33.650
12.699
0.374
0.675
0.424
0.636
3.760
0.898
0.000
33.613
12.801
0.374
0.675
0.423
0.638
3.742
0.896
0.000
33.677
12.887
13.008
0.375
0.375
0.676
0.677
0.425
0.424
0.639
0.640
3.724
3.698
0.893
0.892
0.000
0.000
33.656
33.710
33.769
33.358
13.107
0.377
0.678
0.426
0.643
3.688
0.888
0.000
13.189
0.368
0.670
0.425
0.621
3.538
0.919
0.000
13.275
13,380
0.374
0.373
0.674
0.673
0.426
0.637
3.605
0.900
0.000
33.736
0.426
0.635
3.566
0.902
0.000
33.681
13.489
0.373
0.672
0.426
0.633
3.524
0.906
0.000
33.661
13.592
0.365
0.666
0.425
0.613
3.388
0.931
0.000
13.682
13.794
0.370
0.369
0.668
0.668
0.427
0.428
0.626
0.623
3.437
3.395
0.919
0.920
0.000
0.000
33.223
33.640
33.515
13.896
0.363
0.664
0.425
0.608
3.285
0.941
0.000
33.184
13.996
0.367
0.665
0.429
0.618
3.315
0.931
0.000
33.487
14.064
14.144
0.360
0.364
0.657
0.659
0.428
0.428
0.599
0.611
3.198
3.243
0.964
0.948
0.000
0.000
33.230
33.532
14.243
14.336
0.364
0.362
0.660
0.658
0.430
0.430
0.609
0.604
3.212
3.164
0.949
0.957
0.000
0.000
33.462
33.371
14.357
0.363
0.659
0.432
0.607
3.174
0.953
0.000
33.414
FINAL AREA =
12.38029
Figure A-39: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Output - Page 7 of 7
315
TX085S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
RECOMPRESSIONCKoUC
A PARAMETER
2
1.5
I
0.6
0I
,
0
I
2
.. I
I
I
4
6
~-.-
I
---
8
-I'""
10
12
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
B.8.-1A - ELEV. 64.7'
Figure A-40: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot - 1 of 6
14
316
TX085S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
RECOMPRE881ON
4
CKoUC
PHI'
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK S-1A - ELEV. 54.7'
Figure A-41: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot - 2 of 6
14
317
TX085S
E/SIGVC' VS. AXIAL STRAIN
RECOMPRE88ION CKUC
Es/SIGVC'
1000
100
10
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK S-1A - ELEV. 54.7'
Figure A-42: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot - 3 of 6
100
318
TX085S
STRESS PATH
RECOMPRE881ON
0.6
CKoUC
Q/SIGVC'
0.6
0.4
I
0.3
0.2
I
L
0.1
0
0
i_
0.1
1
0.2
--.
I
i
0.3
0.4
0.6
.
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
P'/SIGVC'
BLOCK S-1A - ELEV. 54.7'
Figure A-43: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot - 4 of 6
1.1
319
TX085S
E/SIGVC' VS. d/dQf
RECOMPRE8SION
1000
CKoUC
EISIGVC'
-- 4
II
I
I
i
i
I
I
-
lIl
100
.1
-~~~~~~~~~,
l
I
I
.
I
·
I
I
i
I-
i
I
l',
i
.1
4x
I
".4
10
I
,
II
!~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- iIII -
T
.a.-io--
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
0
I
I
0.1
0.2
T
0.3
I
0.4
I
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
dQ/dQf
BLOCK S-1A - ELEV.
i4.7'
Figure A-44: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot - .5 of 6
1
320
TXO85S
STRESS STRAIN
RECOMPRE881ON
CKoUC
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
Q/SlGVC
-- (dU-dS103')/SIGVC
BLOCK S-1A - ELEV. 64.r
Figure A-45: Example of Typical Triaxial Test Shear Plot -6 of 6
14
321
APPENDIX
B
322
I
iii
_
,
N
co
o
%2 Cc
o-
E _
_! o
i
Ii i i
i
iM
z
co. r.
.o
_
.
,
o
i
0
N * ci ,i
O OOocod
°,
oo
0i i
0
Iu
I
I
N
M
ii
o0* °o N o
90
-i
05N
.....
*
·i-
.:i~'- 0
N00vw"
.
9-
9-
9-
9
.
i-
-,
9-
CYr9-
.
.
9"
.
9-'
.
.
_
"
.
9-
9-
-
0
-
v-
i-
9-
.
$-
*,,
.0
o
CU
0CU
C
aJ^
UX
. (ON
U
:: N4
0
SU
O
O
S
N9 N 0 OP 1O
.::La t
-
aX0
0CY
0
o
*
*.
.
I
N O
[z
C
U
0o NUW
oCNc0'.
_L0
'
.
O-
(NN
-X
)
'N
CLd
E
O
eVC
YC
CZ
j crE
4
ci-
YC
.
YC
4C!
.
YClc
Cl C
3
oc nc otoc ocw
0
M
YC
C C C~ C C
C
YC
12M
M
C
YC
N
ot n oc ot
i-
i
MN
0
c y tnM40 . '
C 0'
. ) o n7
4
Clco
YC
~ ~
otmm
co
Y
CC
M
c)
C
YC
4
I
4
C
l~t~iN
ii~
~
~
~
~~-
,.
C
CO
MC
C C
co
·
N
#
V 14
av
o
i
M
C4C4
a44j 4CdC~
)vAn
>
00 cO
0c. 0C
0
N co
t c 0· tx·
,d"T
US
v-
0
l;~
M
N
tcN
o Nic-
cCRc
o a.
MN
-C1
.
N
~N0 0voC0M 0'' cc-o.ci ' . 4 j
y
"N
NoiidCO 4 ' to
M
.
- ci0c :
*~IB4
ia
Ci0
NN
-7
v v)dNc0
)
'M
-
C!I!coCyt
·
CN00N
. 04 CC0'N '
1N UU
c
-Y 0N
V co N co
c
NO(
?I
iCLa'C;... CYP
0Ci j -Ci
:Z
.-.
tNNNN
-NN
NN0c
co
YC
C
323
"R
CYram4:4
[
q
[[q"
[
qlm
qnm tia
i 0 ~ 0C)00o
=-
[
oi
iN
a0a0N
N00
0
[
to a0
0000
'ii"
t
,S..:C
0
0
N
a-o
N
N
N
iii7
_OOO
O
V O
800
a.2c
-
C
0
C:
c'
O
O__
Iz
0
Q
-
'1 -
:~·
0~
0
amooood
O
OO
CO
O iOO
O
O O
-
_0o
_
0 ,(,
8
~
:,t.,'"
O _i P
_
Od
-'. o
C
0
iO
O0) -',
'
dc:;ccc~oooo
~
t
o C:
coo.,
0
uE
Q0
D
M.
cn
NNNN
N
lnO CY CM C4
:::
t, d
N CV
N CY
N)CY N C
N
' t t
0,1
Xt
N NN
l CC).CMt nNC)r 0ntt0~Oi
D0 MCo4D
: CO):Cl V(
t *Cc'
rh
N0
CC
M
ut
-
L0)
CvN
g~~
M v .
Q'
N
N(w
4
Ccn
z
',. .....
.o(
::o
i-.¢
C,.
w:
o)
aoo'q '.1'
o9Nii
o ,,.uJU
Nooco
. ¢C
. -IO 70
-.- ooo
-1
"c .no
:cic~~~d
Xo
u1
1
u% o
Od Od '
N
'C)
'~ M'
.,CY
C
to co "I
C/)
_
_
St
...
.:. N t0
w
,i
0
N tD 0
N
O%.00 r
CD co co
to O
000) ,
cN
_
l
324
o
e> z'
~
_~~~~~
.I
¢1
..
v_
;5
a,
'C
0m04.
-
c,
I
9
:::
'
en
m
...I
11*· ·
8 to i·i·
0
U
C
O
_.
.i
..ii:
1,
i
W
W
.C)
A
0o
a0o .·.i61
:·
,.·
i g
ic~
m m m '
W"
L- :)
x
.
)W
_ __
_
C
N 0
-
iYi
i
N C
X
I
*'a
7
.
cc
cm
°'
C C°O
9
O
(
iC i)
i Y
i W
')Cin
.
00
C
MI
c
o 00Q
°o
cm
m CY
-
a
Na
00toIn0
iPin
CY
c
U)
0
M
0Y
°
C4
ii
toN
-
c
t
) WI
tn .to
U
WLtn ca /O cmW Ln i- <
m
..Jr.(O
.
.
. .
n Lo
(0
..>
i
UW
x
:
r
2· ·
II
4'
0J
I-
-t
k:
:
::::
'·:
u
:·
a,
__
I11
.~)m
n
Ir0)
;
r
·
9
9,
U
(
_r
Mc 0 0
JN
La
m
C
,
·:
i3
b
o
c4
U
U,
I
bU,
ol
g
9l
tN m
ul W
II
0B
lt)-
O O
v-
_
.
.n W . . .
S
0.t
C
0n
0 0 0 Win
0 0 0 N )0JI 0 IV
°O
u!
0cn ..... ·
0)
'a
t-
_
L
C
i
p
_
,bu'
doAIdtod
z:
· :5'
!i
_
Si6
Q
0
'A
0 ...
ab
_-
0
i .e. o
a.
C)
U
m
.3
cMc
LU)
n
.)
~oc~~0C
i
LiddddCdo
tti
2
.2
_-
ctacc0
cc_c °c
ccn c_
sgoCL
5
e0 _
v--
_-
_i
( 0 0DC
E
ou
U
0
- - - 0N
0
_
.a
.)
0
_-
a
s·
E
_-
,e~n___Nt
I
a
'A
0
o, 90 0 Ui ,
.;
40
I
4'
a,
1
--
Mi A
0
O
C
-----_ __~~~~-
·
X
· r
-
U) (0
-
CJ
L
co
0
nrU
U 4-
U
-
0
..C')
CD
0
U a.
N N N NC
.
N NN
C
W !%0W O
- - - - - - - - cm N N " N " N N N M M
325
CYCCO)
.:0:'
'
00
.
O *M
*
_,
3i
-
la In) Mt
0 '::
Ua
0N J
-0
00
_) O
-f
i1O iO i
,
-
-
NC)
-
-
0C 0
_ UO O i i
... .
,
,
-
-
.
00 to ,-
i
-
-
0
_
Oi_ Oi
i
-
-
-
-
-
O
--
---
0 0 Cy
Oiii i
0
ii I
m
-6
O
0.,
0
0
o
i
i
i
c
C6
_:"_
E >o _
~
l:.
.
,,
-0
ii,
°
iii
C
Sw
o
v
I
iu
t
niV
i'
0
.
.
.
o6o
6o
o6
oo66
C
niW
i i
u
u
E
E.
,
o*
0
-f
U)
tDuO
uU
c-OcN
I
U)i U Ii
u
u
NN
- CW0N iu U
VtW M-
i
0_ W
m
3·
3
c¢
oCo O O
C CY
.
·
C~ o .
0
m4
d
_ 0v. , it)~,-J
~ N~
.-
.....
O Or O O oodo) CY CYi
o
cy kocOn
I
@
CU)
I0::.'!:-
_
_ O
_
-
_..
.. .- -_i
iO
to
·
~
oc
M
. .
0
i
t
_
D
.:Ln
:
i~
OD(C
)t,
i
-
L_d
'
0X '
,,
V
U(CC
N)
N. ,) _
: _
-n CY c I
_N
N
_
N
_OC
a
co
_
N
co
0 N
.
i
i
to..NNN
o
coCoco
a
h
326
Page 1/1
TX001
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION -
f'roject:
Depth: 108' Test by: AHE
CA/T Boring: SB2-21
ample: U10 Specimen Location: 7 - 8 Dote: 5-25-90
0
ir)
I0
-10
.
Oo -1
..M:
Ir
0-.1
2.0
1 .5
- .
- -
I
~
.........
..............
-------- - m
J-
. ..
~
~... -o-~^
.......
10
1
~----
__
m- -... - O -- o-----
- e -
..
.
..
..
.
..
..
.
..
..
.
..
..
. ..
..
..
..
..
.
I-.........o...-..,.........
oo...................
.-.)I
:-
·
'·
:
a
t
!-b
------------------------------------------------------- ----
1.0
.
0
,
L..- ...
.
.
i
:
_.j
................ .................( )--
;.. .4. i..
."
i
,
0i
...
.
$d
;
-r------ 7"
.............. 7------------
0.5
:
.. .-.
---- d,
o. ,
!
.
,
o
! .! ! !
:...-.
"''
--............
~JI---
ii
j
0.0.
1-
1
~
!
i
i
.·-c,
.
1
^-
S
10
-
1
Vertical Effective Stress
3.0
~...L
....-...........-..-
.-.......-
so- w
.I ..............-.-....-.-..
....-.-...-.-
.........
o
m
(kse)
i,.............i........ . .
.............. .............. j________..._-------------
2.0
--..---------.
---
.. . . . .
1.0
----------
·.....--
----- -----
os --....----
.r ------------
*IJ
:
'- - - -
............. · .............. .............
- - -
--
i,...-:
0.0 o
i
I
...
.! . ..
',_.7 ;"{,
-
1.0
II,
-
I
II
is
L
-- b r-L
-
2.0
3.0
II
*
I
I
I
.
It
i&-
I
I
4.0
5.0
p' (ksc)
II
I
wI
I
6.0
II
L'
I
Li
I
7.0
I I I
L r l,
I
i
8.0
327
Page 1/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
-
TXOO1
@
@
e &&~
Project: CA/T Boring: S82-21
Depth: 108' Test by: AHE
Sample: U10 Specimen Location: 7 - B Date: 5-25-90
0.4
-
0.3
--
..
r
CQ
o*o
·-rl
**@sw
-*@*
@***
~ r rl
·-
:
*
r
*
*e***eXe***
rr
pte*w
*P@*@***
***X***o*
-*
0
**
**-
*
@@@@
*
·
·
oss@*o
v*6-@@**-*@
:-rr
:
:
~I
I:
Z-s*ovXX*@v
uI
ru
*jv
r
;I
0.2
**s
I
c,
Z0
**
:
6w****tv9
I
,
l-r
I--@l@
I
I
·
e;
I
I
r
I
0.1
,
I
I
I
·
·
;
·
r
r
I
I
I
I
1
I
,
I
I
I
I
:
·
,
·
I
:
I
:
:
:
I@
1
:
W
0.0
~~
--
4
~
*@-X--
~
@--*-o-
*v-e
x
a
^e@**
:
St
ai
@*
**@Oo***@--
ns
1 :
**-
w-
I
5n
0.4
I
.................. .... . ..............
...
..............
. .
......................
......................
0.3
-a-la
S..
C
0
.. . .. . ... ...... ...................
0.2
...... ...... .....
-----------------------
I
N
0.1
o n
Z v.v"O.C
)
_
I
.
1II
.
.
..
III
. .
.
.
_
I
.
I
I
.
o..2
.i
I
.
II
I
I
I
I
l .
I
l
I l
l
l
Il
'
l
'
l I
'
'
I,,
II,
.
1I,
II,
I
.I
.
,1
I
,
0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
..
,
I
I
...I
], .
1
,
1.0
328
Page
- TX001
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
1
0.5
0.4
to
4a
0
0.3
0.2
I. 0.1
z 0.0
Axial Strain (percent)
5
I
i
.... .... ... .... ...
.......................
-....... . ...... . .
.......................
..................,,
3
/
2
7 .......... ...............
................,-,,,
1
................ .........
......................
0
I I I I I I I t I I I I
ct~~~~1
IrT
Zi
U.
I I
I
I
I It
I I Il
.................... r ..... ... . ............!
.......................
Il ItI
II
ll
I I I
I
I,,,
_
I
1
C
U
LF
I
O
0
Axial Strain (percent)
1000
_
...............
.
s0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
v
\
\.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
.
.
\
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
.
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
^.
.\
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
\.
5
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
\
.
:
:
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
\
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
\
.
.
.
500
.........
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
~0
4)
N
...........
.
.
.
.\
. \
I-----r-----
t~~~~~~~~~~.....
ur·r
.....-
;
;
;
;
!
0
m
n
I
.0
I
I
II I
0.1
I
!
.
I
I
I
1
Axial Strain (percent)
.
.
I
I
10
/2
329
Page 1/1
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION
-
TXO02
Project: CA/T Boring: SB2-21 Depth: 129' Test by: ALB
Sompie: U12 Specimen Location: 7 Dote: 531/90
-5........
0
9J
.................................. ..
=,
-5
,L
L.
mecca0Axioi :
: i!!
i i lii
i
~3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~
1
10
...................... ..................... ........
2.0 5 -............. ......... ...... ..........- -- ::-
.5
oa
L
:
: .
: ·
:
F_~ii iii
~
o.0
0.1
............
1
t0
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
AJ.
. ,-.,7 .
.
.
-- ·----------
. 2.0
.........
.
.·
.....
..............................
·-- . ·-----·-------------------------------"------------
,oo..........
.-
;..........--r--..-.. . .. . . . .. . . . .
:
......
.... .. . . . .. . . .
nn
'
"
' 'O
1.0O
2.0
.....!....:... I ! I ! I ! '... '......
i... .. -. W.
! ! I I!
.
I.;
:,.,..-.n~m...............
:.'......
,; .. .........
''~.../" ..
:~~~~~~~
a' 1.0
?.
~..........................
3.0
!
! I I I
4.0
D' (ksc)
II
5.0
I
6.0
I -
I
7.0
!
f
I
8.0
330
Page 1/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING -
TXOO2
-.
Project: CA/T Borin 9 : SB2-21 Depth: 129' Test by:ALB
Sample: U12
Specimen Location: 7 - B 3ate:
/31/90
0.4
0.3
......
0.2
_
.....
.'
0
.
0
2
4
6
10
8
12
Axial Strain (percent)
Z· O.
......
'°"°'.......
......
= 0.3
0.2 .0.0
-.............
0.2
o
.Normalized
...........................................
0.6
0.8
ean : Effective Sres:
1.0
331
Page 2/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
- 0.5
-
TXO2.O
· · ·· · · ··· · · · ·· · · · · · · ·· · · · · · · ·· · ·······
· · · · · ·· · · ··· · · ···
III
I
· · · · ·. · · · · r··r·····l······r··rr········
^ 0.4
I
o 0.3
·
r
······rr··r······r·········r·····r
·
1
I
, 0.2
·
·
·
·
·
1
,
II
I
1I
II
,I
I
(
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
E
0
r··r·r···L······r·2r)···r··rr···r
N
I
o0.1
z
I
I
i·····r·rrr·r·······r·rr·r·········r··
r
t 11(1
0 .0
C)
u
A
.
Q
0
n
I I
r
V
Axial Strain (percent)
5
L.
0
-
4
.....
.
.
3
.
.
...................
, ................
_~~~~.
. . . . .. . . .. .
.
i
!
.
.
. . . .. . . .
... . .... . . . .................
. . . . . . . . ..................
... . . . . . . . ...................
..............
.. . .
¢o
.. . . . . . . . . . . .:..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
1
0
4
2
10
8
6
Axial Strain (percent)
1000
:
:
:
:::
I
ii
i
: :::
500
0
o
E
::
: :
::
: ::
Lu
z0
4a:
n
,,,}
E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
111111.ll....[.1111.t......l......!.'...
.
lllllllll!!, ll!111ll,...,-...,.........
_ ... ... ..
n
I
;
0.01
I rl
0.1
1
Axial Strain (percent)
10
332
Page 1/1
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION roject: CA/T Borin: -32-23 Depth:
oamole: U7 Soecimen Location: C 3
......i
.............................
--...
------
TX003
57' Test by: AHE
G Dote: 6-8-90
.
---------
.........--............------ ....--
... .. . .. .. . .. ...
L)
-5
I -
. . . . . . .. . . . . .
L.
- 0
C)
,2
;-soec Axiji
-
I
-1L
I
0.1
10
1
2.0
. ..
...
..
.!
..
...
.:---
-
ll-
.........................................................
7- 1-.11
-
o
.~~~~ ~~~~~
"·..
o
o
o
o
1.5
......... ........... . ..... . ....... -..
,_
..
_
,
_
.......
,._.,
,..
...
rrl
4_.
..
An.!
_
....
o
......
_
,......
.........
....
.....
-- _
,....
,
o
...
^-
.,.
_
.'.
1.0
L ...........................
.........
...L..
................
_.
0
...
...
----
---
.:.x .... ... _L..!
,..._....
.I
,
:.
:
.
I
i|
'
i
.
-
.
l
ii
.
.
,
.
,
.
A.
,
. , ,
.
.
,
I
I.
----------------------- :--------------------7 ... !!
7"7-'.'.
_........................
0.0 0o.1
.
*
.
...-------
.
s
_
:
.,
0.5
.X.
.
i
I
I
.
il
f
I
·
I
!
.
I Il iI
10
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
3.0
..............
....
...
..
..
...
...
...
..
..
... 7 --- ---
-- i. ...
..
..
...
...
...
_-------, _
2.0
-
.o.......
..............
.----.--------..-.-.-----..-.........................
--------
4,
-*----------
f--
-·
an
------------------------
1.0
ri -
U.UO
·
i I I
... ""
!
t.,
II
. .....
I.-", I rI
I
1.0
2.0
---
--- ;...............,
7 .
.
-------------------------- ·
II
.
3.0
...
..
I II
I
.
I
.
I
.
4.0 .. ; 5.0
p' (ksc)
.
I
I
6.0
I !l
I
7.0
I
I!
I
8.0
333
Page 1/2
- TX003
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
Project:
CA/T Boring: S82-23
Sample:
U7
Specimen
57' Test by: AHE
G Date: 6-8-90
Depth:
C -
Location:
0.4
Gn
0.3
V
Cn
:
:~
F
:
: °;---
S.
u
r
0.2
:n
0.1
0.0
Axial Strain
(percent)
. .................
.. . .............
........
.^---~-'4'''''
I I I I1 I I
1
I I
I ......
I I I.....................
II
I
_.......
__________II__I________I__I_
I
:~
~ 2~~
6
(percent
a 4 Stai
8
C
n
r
.... ....... "I-,---
0.4
-- 1 --
l---'-
,,-
,-l"
I
11
-1
-lI
--
0.3
0.2
.......
...
. ......
. . . . ...
..
. . ...
Ca-C4
I
----..--....---....-- ---------
....111TI...
_
N
0.1
.
0
k
I_ . . . . . . . . .
. ;Iiii,,
[1fIf111111111111
I
_
I
I
I,',
- .
.
I
I
I
.
.
.
1
I
.
.
II
Il
z.. u .
.
l
.
.
I
.
I
I
.
I
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
I
t!.
ulll.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
1.0
334
Page 2/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
u
-
TXO03
0.5
4)
I..
)
0
M
Q]
0.4
r.,
v6
0.3
...
e..··.·....·. .... · ·...· e.....
.·...................
e. ee..·e.
"1 · ((1~11{ ft·
t
....
t
e
· l e· . .
e.·
~
eeee.............ee
I· I I It11
I I I I II
f
I lI I Il I Il I Il
e e o·
It?{tll
I I III
I
lll··~
I
0.2
Z0N
·r)
s
0.1
a
z 0.0
2
4
6
.
81
0
Axial Strain (percent)
I
5
-~~
4
Axa
~
Si
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
(
p
ecet
;
AxalStan
pecet
.. ... .. .. ........ ..... .. ..;. . .. .. ....... ... .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ....
3
I~I
... . .I . . .I .I . .. ..
III
. . .. . . . .
.. . .
2
1
0
.............T....
... .....................~']'.................. L..". "
?f............
3
1000
0
.Z
0o,
4)
a0
z 500
C)
6.0
0.1
1
Axial Strain (percent)
10
335
Page
- TX004
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION
Project: CA/T Borinc E 2-23 Depth: 80'
Sample: U13 Specimen Location: C - 8
Test
by: ALB
Dote: 6-18-90
0
h
J
O.
-5
0
S"
-,QI
9
t.J
U3
-10
-,I
E
0.
1
1
10
.... ... ... .... ... ...
I.U
.............................
--...... ....-
e..
I
*........---
i i
0
.i
''
........... o
0.5
..-
b*---.....
*---..---e-
e--
b...
he
..............
i:
: .,e
.--.....
J
-- 4.
IiX...
&...
&o....-f-
F..
beJ
-
_
..............
-J
,·
.A
0
.,i
Qe
n
Ir
IS
I
I
0.1I
I_
_S
'
I
10
1
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
3.0
c;
2.0
_
_
_
... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... :.. .. ... ..
__---
-----------
I... ..:t .
I-oQ
I
- .
C,
.. :,. .
------------ ..?..........
1.0
n
\-'.JO.C )
I
- -
--
:
._.
1.0
I I
I I
-
-
-
............
·
-
2.0
..
3.0
I-
I I- --
I!!e
:
I
'
... . ...
I
4.0
5.0
p' (ksc)
I
..II
t.
.
6.0
II...
I
,
............
;
. ------------
............
..............
·I L1I
.
............
I, .i
7.0
I
II.. I .
i.
8.0
I. . I . I
9.0
/1
336
Page 1/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING -
TX004
Project: CA/T Boring: S82-23 Depth: 80'
Sample: U13 Specimen Location: C - 8
Test by:ALB
Date: 6/18/90
0.3
me
.)
so
a)
-3
N
I'
0
z
0.2
Axial Strain (percent)
A
U.4
... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... . .. . . .... .... ....
0.3
z
3)
IV
U
.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
.................-.................
.......
......
I-
------- -------
I
I
. . . . .. . .
0.2
- -
ow
- -o
--
N
0.1
0
nU.VO.
(
I I 1
.
LA
I &I
I 111 III
111111
I I I
lI
. .
.
0.4
0.6- - -. . . . . 0.8
0.2
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
I
lI
I
I
1.0
337
Page
- TX004
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
:}
L
0.5
t
,
on
+
.................. .......................................... .....................
0.4
,
;......................
...
Lw
m
c
0.3
.0
CO
v
!
:I
£ 0.2
...........................
..
.
.
:
.
.....
................
L
N
_.....................................................................................................
0.1
_I
Axial Strain (percent)
.
_~
,
.
o
E
0.0
_~~~
_~
:
.
_~
)
.
_~~
_
_~
,
_~
(
4
-...................
.;::1
3
......................
....
.........................
.
_........................................
......................
................. .............................................
-----r--rr--r·
~---,,,,,,, ~........................
.rrr--r
. ...............
...................... .......................
....................
2
1
0
0
4
2
6
8
10
Axial Strain (percent)
1000
-
0
-
N
500
z0
c)
0.01
0.1
1
Axial Strain (percent)
10
/2
338
Page 1/1
TX005
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION Sample:
0
............................
~~~~T', , i .........cI, ..............
.........
...........
~L......
.~
~~ ~
,
,
~
-5
w
-~~
_
;
:
I
r.
i.
...
Cn
6-19-90
...............
.......
.................
......
......................
.~~~~~~
..
7 Date:
3
Location:
U13 Specimen
81' Test by: AHE
Depth:
B2-25
Project: CA/T Boring:
-10
~~~ ~~~
,
:
i
i
i i
I
i
i
,
,
,
,
I [IIIII
Vou'eti
I.--Voluimetri'
I I I
1 cI~~~~~I
t I
I~
,
,:
:: :
i
::c~
:
[
, Y)!
[
,
i::::
,iiil
I
o====Axidt
-15
0. 1
2.0
..........
....... .....
...
.......
....
!.
· ·...... .. .. .. . .
. ........... .........
1.0
0
..... .. . .
.......
n
..... .. . .
.............;.........
rN
!..........................
-4.b!-
,-11.-11-..
-7--l-.
...
1.5
0
10
1
I....
·m,-mq$,l.mm,.--
.........
·
..........
r-r
m
B
~·ii
1%
I
i
I
0.1
i
I
t
i
-
I
10
1
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
3.0
............................-
... ... ..
------.-
Q
..........
2.0
UI-----
-- r-r
"
I----------I-------------I
_,vf
n
.........
.. .. .. .
1.0
..............
Loo.~
''"
w
U'UO. (0
...... ...... .,...........
I------------I
I
. .......
........
I-
I I_" I I I
I.........
1.0
I
2.0
II [
IIi
3.0
-I - - I -
i
_
4.0
p' (ksc)
_I
_
5.0
I III
I I
_____
6.0
1
7.0
I
tI
8.0
339
Page 1/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
Project:CA/T
Sample:U13
Boring:SB2-23 Depth: 81'
Specimen Location: 3-7
-
TX005
Test
by: AHE
Date: 7/2/90
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
cn
So
-0.0
-0.1
zn
-0.2
-0.3
Axial Strain ( )
0.3
En
U)
0.2
0.1
a
C)
N
-0.0
-0.1
-0.2
Z
6
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
340
Page
- TX005
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
m
en
0
:0
0.5
0.4
............
.........
C.
0
I"
0 0.3
N
r_
,
..........
-·
Z
20
N
to
Ed
W
a3
T1 1 1 1
0.0
11
11
.1
-16 -14
1
............ I
...
,- C5o -a............
...........
. ....... ...........I
0.1
...........
............
.. ..... .......
. . .. .
.-
_.
............ I..........~
Tllilllll
.. .. .
0.2
............ ............
........... ~
............ I
I... .......
.............
............
............ l
............
.............
............
m
11
i oiS
-is-,
I I..I.I
IIIII1III1 I.LaWIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIiI,,,
-10
.............
.........I......
.........
.......
I ..,. IL1
.I ....
I rql
II
I f I ...I.
-6
-4
-2
2I
1
-12
.........-..
~.-
·---.
-8
-I
...
-Ii
S. .-.
Axial Strain (percent)
3
_
2
........
...... ..........
.............
.......................
.....
.........
......................
... . . .
1
.
0
-
-2
-3
-4.
,
-
-
16-14
------
t----------------
-12 -10
-8
-6
-4
-2
-o
2
C
:
Axial Strain (percent)
en
0
-500
mi
0
-1000
-
- 1500
.
_
:
:"~"T""":""?"~
i iii
~ ~ ~ a
~~
t3
-0i
... l
a ; ;
. . .. .
-- i- -:- +,4-4-44
.
I-1I
....... I......rr-~
...... r--·----
ooo.
__
-2500
Z -3000
--
F.....
.....- _.--.
.... ".L .......... I -------
.....
: : I : :
................... --r------l
.--
L...~;..o.-------------------
:....
?~
0
t=
i
-3508.(
"'777'~
,-rl
...I
,--I
: : : :: :
. -... ,/.. _..... ....7.7.7...........
-2000
:
11
·
-- -- -4- -- -;.. :-- ..
_-
:
--
1
D
.
.
.
..
0.1
- -
-
.
., .
-
1
Negative Axial Strain (percent)
II
!
i1ii
10
/2
341
Page 1/1
- TX006
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION
Project: CA/T Boring: 582-21
Depth: 108' Test by: AHE
Samoie: U10 Specimen Location: L - 0 Date: 7-17-90
0
.=-
c
-5
w
co
as
c_
"
-10
._
co
1
i~,
0.
l
10
1
...........................................
2.0
.......
......
....
....
.....
Ir
i
1.5
.......... ..----.
..............
I................ I.........(I......
-
.
.... I-*
9.oooo
0
..............
1.0
I....
.o:d
*es@^
oo
I................
bo?
....
'-
b-
And.
I
00
li
I
I
0'
..............
0.5
n n
-_
: i'.
_,
tt
;
,,
-
:
i
:
:
:
:
i.
.i, ,.
.
,
i.
.
.i.
p .o
....
...............
. l. .
1
.
........
i: :i I.
I
I IlI
it
-
0.
_;
.... !........
i
-'-rrrc-rl--
.i.
i.
i
ii
10
1
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
3.0
...........
"
I..............
" " " "
..............I
C
2.0
.....
1.0
...
....
..
.......
.
...
.......
.......
......... ... --------
......
i.............i--,
M
14
....
...
....
' 0. O
....
...
...
,
n
...
t
IF/2
I
|
1.0
L-
....
-
...
-
-
....
-------------
...
I
-
-I
I I ! I
|
2.0
I
I
I
I
|I
3.0
I I
I
I
I
l
I
I
.--
-
4.0
p' (ksc)
5.0
-
-
I I I I
I I
-
S
6.0
A
-
s
-
I
|
i
I I-
=· ·
7.0
a
I·
I
8.0
342
Page 1/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING Project:
Sample:
CA/T Boring: SB2-21
Depth: 108'
U10 Specimen Location: L - 0
TX006
Test by AHE
Date:
U..3
0.2
..,
O 0.1
O.
0.0
N
-0.3
Axial Strain (percent)
_
Wl
U.
0.O
0.
z -0.
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
-15-90
343
Page 2/2
- TX006
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
= 0.5
· · ·l··rrr····Ur·ir·HH··rr··UI·mW1···*···
(
1
1
I
(I
1
I
)
)
1
"-0.4
I
I
a;
u 0.2
N
r
t
r,
I
.
I
t
I
I
I
I
r
I
r
·
t
I
(
r
0.1
·
Z Cn
V·V
m
1
-
rr
I
·
i
v
.
r
1
,
It
I
I
r
.
.
--eLZI
16 -14 -12 -10
.
,
r
I
I
I
,
.
)
I
·I
v
.
·
)
t
L
t*
r
I
i
I
I
It
;
,
,
,
I
Ulllllf····HY·I·WU···?I··I·;···
1
t
)
I
II
,
)
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
·
e 0.3
(
)
I
I
I
I
-8~
i
r
I
t
t
r
r
:
,
I
I
r
r
)
r
r
.
r
I
·
r
I
I
I
r
r
I
t
r
r
(
·
·
,
t
r
1
·
t
Ch
t
t
I
~ -~ ~ ~-4~ ~
-2
2
Axial Strain (percent)
3
.
.....
................................
..
_-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........
2
4,
1
0
0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
* IL t
_----i--?--:
......
:........* *@-*....***
-l.......o
**
~-'s....?i....-#WWWWILULWILLLLLLaLLLLL
--.*....D...;.i.....
z~--Q^*@
~ .....
so
r.0 -1
-I
-2
*
*
*
*
-14
-12
-10
-8
:
; :
-3
-4
16
-6
-4
-2
-0
2
Axial Strain (percent)
@ b*
0
-
II
-500
-1000
2m
0
o
_
.
.
:
. :
:
:
.
:::
·
:--;-R
---
_
.
ru
.
l
.
i
.I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
*
*
.
.
.
- __
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_I_.
,
wr
..
-·rrm
.
l~~~mr-·~.-
_
-ulr
..
.
*
.
*
*
*
-
---
lu
._ .
.
...
_
,rrurr-------ur
---
rrr
-
6.01
*
t
_
I
--
.
I
.
-3000
;
.
r
:
-" "
.
.....
.
-1500
-2000 j-74
......
-2500
_tn
,
**!
.
.
..
0.1
I
!!
1
I I I
I ·
1
Negative Axial Strain (percent)
;
I I ii i I 1
10
344
Page 1/1
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION Project:
Sample:
03
F.
TX007
CA/T Boring: S82-21
epth: 129' Test by: ALB
U12 Soecimen Location: F - K Date: 7-4-90
..........................
f
. .. !......2jWWwLL...tL
:
6~~.
:
f
n
....... . .. .. . ... . ..n ............. . ........
-
-
'Imt.
I~~~~
:
,rm·wrr···r
1
t
t
111
I
I
I
(
I(
I
~
A
~
.I
._,
e
· r·
1
,
I((
II)
It
1
)(1
I
-5
3C)
-'IN···
ie
·t
1
I I
I
r
I
(
i·L·····
I
t
II*lll
e
~·.*·..
C-
s
eli
Ie ee
6
·.
I
t
.··111
$.ll.
I
...............I .........
... I(
II
I
I
(
)
I
11
(II
I(
I
I
I(
)I
I
I
I
....... I...
· r··
n)
-0
..
!p
c==== Axidl
vIu ,-e--_L__
- L..
o
?,~~c~ volumetric
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II I
I
I
I
.1
0-.0
1.0
!
II
I
II
I
I
I
10
1
I···)··l--LIIIIIIIIIIL··-'
UIIIU IIIIUIU·......·
·I
··
t +·· ·
·
--
.. · r·
irr
·
··
0
'' i,.
··
7;
0 0.5
. . . . .
. .- . . .= . -***
...-o
..
.. . .. ..
,·
v-*
?.o....~
I -- *o
,.
:
i4
-.
*
Ir·
.
i
i
0
0
::
n r
V-V.
I
II
.
-
-
I
i
I
I
l-
i i
I
I
-
Ii'
i
10
1'
1
::i
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
3.0
. ...
..
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
..
..
.
...
..
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
..
...
2.0
1.0
0.0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r-
3.0L0
....
. .
I
i
. . .. ... ... .
__ I I -
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.·
!
I
I
I
Ir~
rI
1.0
I----------~--~~-----
....- .
2.0
p' (ksc)
i
_I
3.0
'
!
4.0
345
Page 1/2
-
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
TX 0/
Project: CA/T Boring: S2-21
Depth: 129' Test by:ALB
Sample: U 12 Specimen Location: F - K Date: 7/04/90
0.4
3CQ
0.3
t
I
I
(
)
I
I
(
I
t
I
t
(
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
·
t
(
III
I
)
I
(
)
I
I
I
(
(
(
(
)
)
I
(
I
(
(
(
I
(
(
I
(
I
I
I
I
(
(
I
I
I
(
(
t
)
3I
I
,.
I
I-
I
I
0.2
N
-Z
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I~~~~~~~~~~
0
§~
t
0.1
0.0
t ft l f
f I
I
I I!! I I!
I
2
C
I tI I! I I
I fl!
I It
4
I
I ,I I I I I I I
:
6
1(
Axial Strain (percent)
4,
,,--,-,,~-........ . ...........
, ....................
0.4
.......................
V
.. .. .. .. . . .. .
0.3
..........
0.2
-
-----
800~e~
. ... . ......... -...
t
N
O
0 0.1
(n
v' r
.'' . .
O.C
)
1
I
I
I
I I
0.2
Y
I I
I I
I
0.4
II III
I
.........
II
I l I... l l I ll
tI
0.6
t i ..
I
..
ii
..
I
, .I.
0.8
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
Y.
T. I II
.
I1I
.
I 1 I
. .
1.0
346
Page 2/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING 0
to
Sw
m
m
0.5
Sw
0.4
04~
4J
TX007
CO
0.3
1; 0.2
N
0.1
S,.
0O
zp
0.0
Axial Strain (percent)
5
.0
4
2 3
S.
co
es
2
1
0
Axial Strain (percent)
1000
-
*
-
@@Z
-
ooo
-
3
-
@
---- e-6^@-
vo*ovs
@
@
Z
*
0
@
@
&
&
|
@
6
§
@
@
§
*
@
@
§
2
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
e
t
t
@
@
K
|
¢
&
K
|
*
&
K
*
w
§
K
*
@\
\
\
e
@
| \
@ \
|
\
X
\
\
@
|
8
4
@
|
8
@
4
|
|
|
@
@
*
|
*
@\
@ \
*
|
§
*
@
X
§
*
@
X
@
@
-
\e
d
@
@
\
*
v
@
j
M
\
E
0
8
e
e
.
e
§
@
0
|
§
0
e
@
w
e
*
@
B
:
z
-
*
-
*
@
@
@
|
e
-
t
e
@s @
& \t
¢
\
|
lo
.
@
8.C )1
@
@
*
2
0
0
a
a
a
0
*
|
*
1 _1
-
----------.---
**^^**
----- ----- ----
**
I,,~~~~
-
**
@
o**9w
-
-
@
*
:
*
*~~~~
:
:
:
::~~~~
:
:
::~~~
@-
@
b
@
: t8_
:
i
::~~
i:
*
a
b
|
w-
^
8
e
\
w
@
-
8
.
.
*-
e
@-ozv-ew****z
e
t
e
·-
@
@
\
-
500
@Z****
@
v
\
0
o
-
@
@
@
1 1 I
I
0.1
..
:.
I ::.
i ;
I
@~~
I
I
1
Axial Strain (percent)
l
!
10
347
Page 1/1
- TX008
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION
0
C-
Project: CA/T Boring: S82-21
Depth:
Sample: U6 Specimen Location: E -
78' Test by: ALB
J Date: 7-17-90
-5
I.
w
0so
00
..a
W
-10
-1 5
0.1
1
---------------,-l---r-rr----rr-r-rrrr-r-rr-rr-rrrrrr
II
I
)
II)
II
I
I
1.0
3
0.5
0
0.0
0.
:......:.....:
: :
; :
A..;..
I
I
::,::::: .
............. ::
: ..
...............
I (III ( III
I
:
' i
10
I
J
i
ii~i
,·-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
,,
.
. . * -~~~
I JJ~i
1
10
1
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
.7"
3.U
----_
-r r ---I--------
-------------
. .....- rrrr--r~r-u
.............
.. . .. I . .. . . .
........................ .............
2.0
. . . .. . . .. . . .
...
.... .....
1.0
nn
I.....
...........
.. ...... nl~;----
I
-'V0.[ 0
.
.
.
I
1.0
I
.
.
.
I
.
I I
i
.
.
2.0
I I
I',
....
I
3.0
..
I..,.......
.. ........
....
.....
----
ilf
I
.
..
I
1& 1
I II
4.0
5.0
p' (ksc)
I
1
.
It....
,
.
I
..
,.
I
..
6.0
I
II
I
I
I
.
7.0
I
I
.
,.
I
i
I
I
i
.
8.0
II
Ii
z
I
Is
9.0
348
Page 1/2
- TX008
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
Project: CA/T Boring: S82-21 Depth:
Sample: U6 Specimen Location: E -
78' Test by: ALB
J Date: 7-17-90
0.4
e
0.3
a,
0.2
C
t
Z
0.1
0.0
Axial Strain (percent)
a,
t'
A
----------------------------
U.*
..........................................
C
L
-0
de",~-,-,,,,
".amounq-m~
.. . .. . . .. . .
0.3
--------------------- ;
C)
V1
I------- -~-~
.. . .. . . .. . .
0.2
10
N
0
---------------
i
0.1
II
__
I
E
0
n .(
Z n,%O
5
~1
I
. . . . . .'
I
I !
I
I
I &{i-lUl. .
I
!
I
I I
I I
I
I I
...................
-
I II
I I I I I
i
I1
fI t
11
&
&
. . .. . ..
I
I
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
-
-
l
I
I
I
l
I'
l
fl
Il
I
1.0
349
Page 2/2
-
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
*~~~~~~~~
0.5
Ax
0
l
Stai
r(
-~~~~~~~~~
0.4
S.
v
N
0.3
0.2
:
(pret
:~~~~~~~~~~~
:: : :
...........................
..................
....................
....................
..................
. ..................
~...................
... ......
0M
s
TXO08
:.....................
. ...............
-:
. . ........
...................
4~
~~~~~~~~~~~
8
1;
5 0.1
z0
0.0
0
. !11..
................................
- 1 . ~. ~~~~i....................i...................
.
.
. . .....................
. . .. .........
5
vLO 4
0
5 3
0
S.
21 1 ~1 1~1 .
0 2
r r
~e~eee..eeeeeeeeee
eeeeleee~eeeeeeeee
I I ,i·eee
II t1
I 12
m
~
i
e
·
e
j·
-----
ee-e-e -e----ee.....e.
..e....e.e.eeee.e.
1
o
1000
o
-
r,,I
~~, ,,!ii,,,,,,
I
,
' '·
.
· ·
.
.I
··
_
ll
I
,t ~
J J ~flttt ~8
Axial4Strain
(percent)
<li
.
.
1
.
.
. . . .
· ........ .
..
.
.s
.
.
.
,
.......
,
.
500
f t
~!
O
.
,
..
.
·.
. . .
..
.
~
·
.
.~·
.
.
.
.
,
·
..........
.
.
t
,
.
.
.
.
_ , ',·....
'..'''i ·
.
I
·
·
i,,,,,,,,,l,,,,,,,,,I ·
.......
~~,i....................
~~~~''
',
a)
N
,~............
',
·
. .·
...
,
·
.
.~·
,
.
.
·
,K,
~f'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......
...
...
.
.
.
..
· I
. r
.
.
U ll
~~~6
1
I
.
.
..
,
.
I
I
.
·.....
.....
.
.·,
11
0
Z
0.1
1
Axial Strain (percent)
10
350
TXOO9C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
1
0
-2
-3
-4
-6
-6
-7
1
0.1
0.01
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
TX09C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
5
Ko
4
3
2
1
0
0.01
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
10
351
Page 1/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
- TXO09
Project: CA/T Boring: S82-23 Depth:
92' Test by: AHE
Sample: U16 Specimen Location: 3 - 7 Date: 7-25-90
0.4
I)
)I
II
I
(
II
I
I
II
I
I
III
01
1\
0.3
a
I
I
1
I
,
\
k
(
(
I1I
I
III
((I
(II
I((
I
I
IIL
II
II
I
(
I
I
)
I
I
I
I
r
1I
I
I
4
6
I
It
I
r
t_.
0.2
r-r·rrrrrrrrrrrrr-rrrrrrr-r-r·r
0
Z
I-
0.1
0.0
To
2
8
10
Axial Strain (percent)
0.4
0.3
Cn
,as
0.2
0.1
t
Li
z0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
1.0
352
Page 2/2
- TX009
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
0.5
0
0.4
I,
m
0
0.,
N
0.3
z0arS,. 0.2
M
0
·5
0l 0.1
cb
0.0
)
Axial Strain (percent)
5
-
-
|n-
-veorrr
II_ Ir
lr-
4.
u
Axial Srain
r--rrrrr*s@
-
|
-
*
@e*jj
**r
-
wZ-
s
X
-- Z
@ e
-*
@
*v---so1Xs*v
@6
s(o-
:~~~
@
P
·
1
I
-
·
·
B
2
O
e--
·--
:
I
1
**
·
=*@**@
v
w*
·.
·
·
£
2
*~~~~~~~~
*
I
:
*s*
o
b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*
-
ve
.- 3
@o
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
·
I
o*
oW-~eeresP
*
a
s
s
w*
e
@
·
co
S.
(percent)
ov
~
·- Z
:
:'
:
·
6
4
10
8
Axial Strain percent)
1000
...........
m
;
N
500
T
'%.
:
:
T 2
;
7
7 -'
7
T
.... L........
.........
._
Ls
n
6.01
Il
IL!
I
0.1
.
:
: : :
I
:
I
I
I
I
. I . : ; I
I I - II
1
Axial Strain (percent)
I
:
: :
-
5-44pughl
II
10
353
Page 1/1
TXO10
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION -
Project: CA/T Boring: S82-23 Depth: 121' Test by: ALB
Date: 7-16-90
Sample: U23 Specimen Location: 1 - 5.5
0
r. .............
I-
- --
-=-
-.I.i!!I.
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ids.
,............
OOO....O......?
I
I
I
I
........ irrur
of
I
._
....·
'
_
!
_
......
@
4:
B-
iI
I
-5
· rrrr
H·
t-.
...........
I.
......
...I
,r·
.. . . .. . .
....
I......
bI-
.C
r. -10
Le
,rr-r
..........
----------------
'
.........
I
I
Axial
-
,rl
Ii
volumetric
i84i
E1
I
0. II
2.0
i ii
!
I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i11
I
I
.
i
.
I--r·
.. . . . .. .: . . .. . . . .
·r
o~
.
10
................
---·
................
...
......
.
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .... .
1.5
i .
1
.·r
.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.-
.....
a
I4
..............
1.0
I....
.....
·r
---·
I
.
-
.v
--- ·
·I·
-r!. i*_._
nn
----- ----~--- ---------
.r
....
-1LI---
.. .. . .. .
0.5
-
I
I
"-"
.... '--- ,'::
..".........
I
.
I
.
.~~~
I
II
10
1
Vertical Effective Sress
(ksc)
3.0
.. ... .. ... .. ... .. . ..
c;
--- -- --
. .... .... .... .. ... . ... .. ...--
2.0
r---........ ........
- r .- ................
.......----- -r - - -........
0-
1.0
I ,
0.00 0
O
. . . . I.
.I . II
1.0
2.0
.1 .I I. . I. .I I. . I . .I I. I. I. . I. I.
3.0
4.0
p' (ksc)
5.0
I I I I
6.0
I
II
. . .I II
7.0
I
.I
-
8.0
354
Page
-
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
TXO10
Depth: 121' Test by:ALB
CA/T Boring: S2-23
U23 Specimen Location: 1 - 5.5 Date: 7/16/90
Project:
Sample:
0.4
0.3
s.,
w
0.2
:J
w
N
._
L.
Z
71
0.1
0.0
)
Axial Strain (percent)
2n
M
.,
L.
U.+A
_ ... 0..... ...... ...... ...... ...... .
.....
.-
--
---
............
e..........·_
......................
*vo
0.3
C)
V
E
C
N
0.2
-----
p""
a
e-------o-i
0.1
nn
v
-t
0.()
l
!
t
i
I
0.2I?
I
I I
1 1 1
III
I I I 11
I
1 1 1 1
I I II
1 1 1 I'
1
I
I II I
0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
I
III
1It
I
1.0
1/4
355
Page 1/1
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION -
TX011
F'roject:
CA/T Boring: S82-21 Depth: 85.5' Test by: OJO
ampIe: U7 Specimen Location: 5 - 9
Date:
-20-,0
0
-5
c
-5
cJ
z
C-
I
ce~
a-
Axil
D-= - -
Voldimetri,
I
-1
L.--1
0.1
10
1
•~
2.0
1.5
..
..
@oo
....
*oooo
:
[ 11111111iiiiiiiii
vw
, - o@v
s
o:
o
:::c·r~~·r
::
: :
' '.
W
~
,* *
:
e
-
....................................
r
l
*e-
:
.. .. . .. .. .
1.0
:;
0
"(
:::
.....
..... . .....
... ..... ..... ..... ....
0.5
7-----I",
.
F............
.......
rI
0.0
ik
i
i
I
m
i
O. 1
I
II
I
!:
I,
i I i i
10
1
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
..____- -.----------------------
3.0
-----
"3
--------
__---------
.........
- - -~---r-r
-..
/t'
.U
ufl
i7 i
.0
n
----------
I
"'" O.CI C3
......-------------
-I 1.0
<-r
----------
1II-11
1
2.0
1
I
3.0
-------------------------
---
1
I I I
. '- 'II
4.0
p' (ksc)
I'
5.0
I-··-·.·-.
I I
I
I
6.0
,,,,----------
I
I
I
I
7.0
I
I
If
·
8.0
356
Page 1/2
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
Project: CA/r
orinq: S82-21
U7
Sample:
TXO1I
-
epth: 85.5' Test by: OJO
Specimen Location:
5 -
Date: 7-29-90
9
0.4
Axial Strain (percent)
@~
@I
§I
(
I
·
I
:
1
,
t
,
.
,
*
#
,
I
@
¢~
oa
*~~~~~~~~~~~
I
.
,
,
I
t
*
,
I
XI
(
.
I
,
,
,
,
.
0.3
rrr@
@
r~r @
*
tr~~~r~l~rr
Is
Cn
..
i
0.2
t
!
;t
l
:
l
l !:~
:I ll
~
l
!
1
!
i
l
:Il
k~
c:
r,|
3
4
Axa
z00
a
Stai
(p
s
re
@
0.1
0.0
6
0
C
8
cn
4.)
M
V1
.-
0.4
-
_
... ............ -
Cl)
-0
W
................. r-r
0.3
En
Cl
._
N
..............
0.2
--- ---------- ---- -OMIP--
0.1
E
Z
z
0.00. 0 I
I.
.
I I
..
I
i t
.
I
Il ll
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
11111
It
'.......l
.
.
. .i
.I.l
. .I I. .
I I
0.6 . - -. . . .0.8
0.2
0.4
Normalized Mean Effective Stress
I
I I
i
1.0
357
Page 2/2
- TXO1I
TRIAXIAL: SHEARING
sf
0.5
0.4
0coI
o
._
0
Al
N
25
al
1w
0.3
0.2
0 0.1
0.0
Axial Strain (percent)
5
3
L.
0
t-
m_
2
0
Axial Strain (percent)
---- ---H·
1000
-----------------I
: :: *:................_
: _ _._...........
:
:
4
.
i .
.
.
.
i
i
C
t-
0
i
..
.
4
..
.
4
..
.
i
..
.
4
.
..
.
4
.
..
.
4
i
....-..
In'
I
2o
500
UII
-----·----·
-
.
-
.....-
i
_....
..
.
.
.
...
zN
E
n
I
.
.0 1
.
-
-
-
.
:::
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.<
l l
.
.
\
.
.
l
.c .-
.
-
0.1
1
Axial Strain (percent)
!i,
Z
10
358
Page
Project:
CA/T Boring: S2-23
Sample:
Ug
Depth: 64.5' Test by: ALB
7-26-90
C Date:
8 -
Location:
Specimen
TXO12
-
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION
0
00
w
-5
0
r,
icsrn
-10
-
0.1
2.0
~~~·
~
..
*
.#
-
1.5
0
. ........
.....
.T.
..
.* .*~:I
I
...
.
.
;-- ;--;I.
...
.....
...
..
...
.i.
..
...
..
......
.,~
. .
:
. ...........
. . . ........
. . . ....
:
. : .. .: ...I
..
...
..
.: . I ..............
I-
1.0
.......
j
...............
o
0.5
............
..........
.......
!--~rr~~---------
i[..'
I
I
L
L
i
. . .....
-.
e;Z
·
........
I
!
)·
I!~
.
tI
10
1
·
-..i
I
[
0. l
- -----
...........
i
I
.
II
_;mm__
-1
---
oo.
I
I
!
-
...- ooo....-o.oe
I
I
10
1
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
5.0
:
."._
:
E_ 1111_11___.11___".-._
;
:
I.........
:
;
. :....................
:....... :..........:......
:
4.0
3.0
, 2.0
1.0
,~--r----~·r.---r--~~------------------.. . .. . .. . . . . ..
. ........
r
......
. ...
E.I-l4,.
<-IIIi
- - --- - - - - -
. . .. . .. . .
I
- ·- ·- -· -· -i
.
I
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
"'~
1
I I
11
5.0
;
............
!....
...
! . .I I..
II
If
i
6.0
I I
7.0
p' (ksc)
I
8.0
I
........ . ... . ..... ...........
I
i
I
f
I
I
I
I
9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
/1
359
TX012S
A PARAMETER V. AXIAL STRAIN
a
A PARAMETER
2.6
u
_
2
_I____~~~~~~~~~~
1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1.6
I
I
I
I
ll
I
I
III
I
I
I
0.6
IliIIIlIIIII
0
-1 12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
-2
0
2
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
TX012S
PHI V. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI (DEGREES)
zO
10
-10
-20
-30
-An
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
360
TX012S
STRESS PATH
a/slavc,
0.2
x
I
0
-0.2
-.,,
11
I
I
-0.4
0
0.1
I
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
I
I
0.6
0.7
I
0.9
0.8
I
1.1
1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
TX012S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
n 2
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
Q/SIGVC'
---
(dU-dSIC3')/SIGVC'
0
2
361
Page 1/1
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION Project: CA/T Boring:
2-23 Oeoth: 104' Test. v: ALS
Scmnpe: U19 Sp,cLoctio
0
-
:.
.
I
.
C.
-5
,
·.
o
Ie
i
Ii
e
II
~
.
*
.
e.I
ii
C
.. ,
. .
~
~~
~ ~
,
·
e
-10
e
ce
e
e
i
:..:.
e
..
. .. , . ,
i.t__, ......._ . . I
.......
i,
,
e
, ,e
' e I~,
'
'
. .,
,
i.I
,
,,t
*
e
e
,
.
I
e
41
..
.
·
.. .
.
.
,r
,
e
,
, ,,,
,
,
e
e
I
e
.
.
e.
.......
i,
S.
e.I
.
i.*
.
.,
.I
,
I
, '
e,
i
,,
,
' ,
,
,
' ·
.
.
.
I
e
.
~
*
..
e I
,
e
.
.
*
e
*
. .,., .
5.
·..· .,
* e
t . i
i
,
.
..
I
e
I
.
i
,
e
e
i
,,,
·
,
,
..
,
e
e
e
·
e
I
e
I~~~~~~~
~I
:!~!~~~~~~~
t!
.
I
.
·
.
.e
.Iei
I .I
· e
I
·
r ·
1
.
I
i
I
·
~
·
.
(·
.
e
(~~·
e
e
i.
e
,, .......
~~
·
~ ~~~~
' :::
i
i /
10
1
r-
,
rr
~~~~~~~~~~~~i
·
·
Ii
,
~~ .... ;
·
t
I
i
'
·
,
. '
e
I
..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
@
I
e,
ouen
,
i
!
!~~
A
'-''~~~~
iii i '~~~~~
iiin'
. ·l
-15
2.0
,··
*
Dote: /7-26-90
0
,,,e, *i
: .
.~~~~~,
.t _.
i
llN~el ·
..
I
*
i
,
V
i
e
.
I
,
I
t
~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~.
~ ~ ~~~
*
.
r-
1,
_ _eI.
I
e
.
,*
: 8 *
,
TX013
---
)IIMII
I
U
_.
·
r
I
0
1.5
II
ul
·I
I
I
II
I
I
LI
I
I
I
I
,l
=,
I
H
I-I'
1.0
I
T,-
··
I
0.5
.
.
.
r
.
........
,
i
Ir
,,:
O
_
0.00.
i
I III
I
I
I
t
1
10
Vertical Effective Stress (sc)
____
3.0
I)
I
I
- --
1.0
;, , ,. i
0.0 0.Ct
.
I
,
t
I
1.0
-
---
..
:
2.0
I
3.0
.I
II
.
.
I
.
II
A.O
p' (ksc)
I .
.
.
I
5.0
I . II
.
.
.
.
6.0
I
I
.
I
.
.
I
.
I
II
7.0
I
.
f
.
I
I
8.0
362
TX01SS
A PARAMETER V. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
2.6
2
1.6
_
_
·......................
_
tl~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
.
_
lu
_
_
__
_
.
I
_
.
0.5
0
-20
-15
-10
-6
0
-6
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
TX013S
PHI V. AXIAL STRAIN
40
PHI (DEGREES)
20
-20
-40
_Ran
-Vv
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
363
TX013S
STRESS PATH
Q/1lavc
0.2
l..........
ii
-~~~o
I I. ......
I I.. ...............
-0.2
-0.4
c0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
P'/SIGVC'
TX013S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-20
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-
Q/SIGVC'
---
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
0
364
Page
- TX14
TRIAXIAL: CONSOLIDATION
Project: CA/T Boring: S52-21
Depth: 62' Test by: ALB8
Specimen Location: G - K Date: 7-30-90
Sample: U4
A
-5
J
a
C.
0
6
Vn
-10
-150
2.0
1.5
V
a
10
1
1
---i----------------- ---- ---- --- ---- 7----.
- -----------
7-
F
. ........... ........... ...........
~......
'WII·
i
II)
1.0
......
... ... ... ... "'.
; ;
I I~~·
........ ...... ..................
...............
ee. :P-q:
C
C
.....
................. .... ...
........
............
o.o...
"°°i
..... Iloan ....!.....
I-i
~"i
..
F-:1
. ...
o
...
11
. . .......... ;
-
io
...........
0.5
nN
I
--- '
...... ...
m........
I
I
0.' 1
.o.o.... .o.e
o '
II
I
I
......
--
II
~a,r
~oeg
oo
I
B
1
I
... o...o..q
I
I
10
Vertical Effective Stress (ksc)
5.0
........r--~
r--- -·~r-~--~-r--··----.
-~----·--r~-··------~~m--· r---~-lr---r-·
4.0
3.0
.... .. .. .... .. . ... .. .. . .. .. .. .. . ... .. .... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. .. .. ..
. . .. .... ....
.. .... .... ....
2.0
.
........
1.0
11
I ..
I
.................
I I
.........-- ,,~,,,,--r
I 11111
- - -
I I I 111IIi
-............
-
- -
~ur-...................................-
----
11111
--
I I I I i I I I I i I I I I i I I I !
.......
I & i I
& &
......
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
p' (ksc)
/1
365
TX014S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
26
A PARAMETER
20
15
10
0
-69
-2
8
6
4
2
0
12
10
14
AXIAL STRAIN (%o)
,
-~~~~
TX014S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
35
PHI
30
1-
25
I
20
_
15
10
5
0
-2
_
I
_
_
0
2
I
4
I_
I
I
_
6
_
_
_
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
10
12
_~~~~~~~~~
14
366
TX014S
STRESS
PATH
a/S8lVC'
0.6
0.6
0.4 ....
,
,
,
0.3
i1
_._,-I;
0.2
0.1
,';
,,
~=
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1
P'/SIGVC'
TX014S
STRESS STRAIN
Q/SIGVC'
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
P'/SIGVC'
Q/SIGVC'
-
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
12
14
367
TX015C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN ()
2
-4
-6
-8
-10
- 1a 0.1
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
TX015C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
,I
1.4
I_
S
1.2
-
S-
r
1
-
i-
|-
.
-
|
.
|
-
I
I
-- o
0.8
cr
0.6
3
i
I
·· ··
0.2
h
·· · · ·CL;
000-
rr
V-
L-
0.4
i]/
-
I
w
0.1
- -
_I
I
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
10
368
TX015S
A PARAMETER V. AXIAL
1600
STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1000
600
-600
-1000
- 1600
-2 !O20
_
_
_
-16
_
_
-10
_
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
TX015S
PHI V. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI (DEGREES)
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
__-_
_
0
6
369
TX015S
STRESS PATH
Q/SlQVC'
0.2
-0.2
.nlVo-l A
0.1
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
P'/SIGVC'
TX015S
STRESS STRAIN
0.3
NORMALIZED STRESS
02
w
ucF
-
l^titi
iri u
...itllii@l
P............
i
IID
-
|
l
I
411A.S.14
-......
44,.
0.1
I
-0.1
-A*
-2 20
-16
-10
-6
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
- Q/SlGVC'
' (dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
5
370
TXO16C
COMPRESSION CURVE
t'
STRAIN (N)
.
,
AI
-2
-8
-10
-14
0.1
li
-
)o
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
AXIAL
VOLUMETRIC
-
TXO16C
Ko V. VERT. EFF. STRESS
Ko
1.2
_
0.8
0.8
_AII
..
V
_______
-~~~oV
O
L
UMRIC
..
ET l___
F.SRS l=IX16
Ko-X-4
0.4
0.2
0
C).1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
10
371
TX016S
A PARAMETER V. AXIAL STRAIN
.
A PARAMETER
.
14
12
10
aa
8
6
4
2
O
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-2
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
TX016S
PHI V. AXIAL STRAIN
0
PHI (DEGREES)
-10
-20
-30
-An
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
372
TX016S
STRESS
PATH
Q/810VC'
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-n
a
- V
0.1
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
TX016S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-12
,
~~~~~~~~I
I
-10
I
_---"-4
-8
-6I
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-Q/SIGVC'
-2
' (dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
0
373
TX017C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
W
,n
an
-0.1
0.1
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
-AXIAL
VOLUMETRIC
TX017C
STRESS PATH
a
1.6
1
0.6
0
0.6
1
1.6
2
2.6
3
374
TX017S
A PARAMETER V. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
--z2u
160
100
60
-60
-
100
- 160
- ,nn
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
TX017S
PHI V. AXIAL STRAIN
de PHI (DEGREES)
_
:::
30
__
I
I
I
7 -. as=
26
-
20
,,
,
, ,
16
10
i
-
2
0
2
4
6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8
10
375
TX017S
STRESS PATH
Q/810vc,
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
TX017S
STRESS STRAIN
A
' m"
NORMALIZED STRESS
U.4i
0.3
0.26
0.2
0.16
0.1
0.06
0
-'
't
- VeV
-2
0
2
4
6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
aQ/SIGVC'
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
8
10
376
TX019C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
_ -1#
0.1
10
1
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
82-23 U25 - 127.3'
TX019C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
1.4
Ko
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
---I.. ---- - -
-
-....
I
0.2
I
1
II
·-1
·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23 U26 - 127.3'
10
377
TX019S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
2
>
~
i
~ ~ ~ ~~~
___
, ii
:._UAl
l
U
ll
l
U
Ull
i
0
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
-64
I
I
-6 III
_ _ __
t~~~~~
-16
-14
-12
"1_ I
-10
-8
_ __
I
I
-6
-4
____
I=
-2
0
2
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U26 - 127.3'
TX019S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
0
PHI (DEGREES)
I
-10
I
IfI
-20
!---/
I
-30
p~~~_
-40
I
1
I
~
'
I...~,,.
I-"
-60
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
802-23
U26 - 127.3'
-2
0
2
378
TX019S
-1*STRESS
Q/81VC'
i.....
0
-0.2
-
-0.8
o
-
- -
IX1
-1
.I .. ......
.....
I ......
-.
-
-0.4
I
PATH
-
i
I
iiI
0.1 0.2
0.3
I!
0.4 0.5
-
\d
.
I
I
I
-\
I
I~~~~~~~t
11
-
--
-
i
t
I
0.6
0.7
I
i
I
I
I
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
P'/SIGVC'
8B2-23 U26 - 127.3'
TX019S
STRESS STRAIN
0
Q/lGVC
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
P'/SIGVC'
aQ/slGVC
8S2-23
U26 - 127.3'
-
(dU-dS13')/SIGVC'
0
2
379
TX020C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
0
-4
-6
-8
-10
AXIAL
iVOLUMETRIC
I
_ 1§
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
TX020C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
0.8
Ko
0.6
o81
0.4
0
,1
0.2--
0.1
.-
_
_
_
--
I__
1
I
-
Att
_
-
_
_
--
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
---
10
380
TX020S
A PARAMETER V. AXIAL STRAIN
3
A PARAMETER
2.6
2
1.6
0.6
0
-16
18
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
TX020S
PHI V. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI (DEGREES)
2
.0
-2
'n
0
so~~....................
==
-4
=
=
;°
-6 10
=
'
,r_.
-8
-10
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-4
-2
0
381
TX020S
STRESS PATH
Q/8$1GVC
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
0.1
0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
TX020S
STRESS STRAIN
0.3
NORMALIZED STRESS
I
0.2
I
I
I
0.1
Ii
I
_
=r l
-.
I~
~
0
-0.1
i_
_
'
_Wv._
X1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4_I
18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
- Q/SIGVC'
-'-
(dU-dS1G3')/SIGVC'
-2
0
382
TX022C
COMPRESSION CURVE
0
STRAIN
(%)
-2
-4
-8
-10
-12
0.1
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
832-23 U20 - 106.2'
TX022C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.2
1
ll
·
'
0.8
0.6
_ 17111111'
____K KFF
I,
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
882-23 U20 - 108'
10
383
TX 022S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
3
A PARAMETER
i
I
I I
I
Iii
i
II
ii
2.5
2
1.5
I
do.md.....
----'
4LJ
0
-20
I
-15
0
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
SB2-23 U20 - 10.2'
TX022S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-60
-80
-70
-AO
ww
-20
,
¥-)o'
812-23 U20 - 106.2'
t
15
15
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-5
384
TX022S
STRESS
0
PATH
Q/8lVC'
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
P'/SIGVC'
852-23 U20 - 1062'
TX022S
STRESS STRAIN
0
a/SlGVC'
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
*,W"ddlk
-1
-20
-16
-10
-6
P'/SIGVC'
Q/SIGVC'
8B2-23 U20 - 106S
-
(dU-d1SQ3')/SIGVC'
0
385
TX023C
COMPRESSION CURVE
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
8B2-23
U1S -
1.1
TX023C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
1.2
Ko
OJ54
*.-r;l
0.8
O If : '
.~
o0
0.4
.
I
· . ...M--.
"
0.2
0
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23
U16 - 91T
386
TX023S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A
60IO
u
A PARAMETER
ww mww
0
-60 0
I
-100 0
-160 n
I
-
V
I
_ s
-VVnn V
I
-
4
2
0I
6
8
10
12
14
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
TX023S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
Am
PHI
3
2
2
1
I
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
10
12
14
387
TX023S
STRESS PATH
Q/81aVc'
I
0.6
I
i
I
uI I
i
:l
-i
I- -
0.2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
?I
I
f1
I'
%O
o
02
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
TX023S
STRESS STRAIN
0.
_
Q/SIlVC'
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
2
4
8
6
10
P'/SIGVC'
Q/SIGVC'
8B2-23 U1 -O9r
i
(dU-dSG3')/SIGVC'
12
14
388
TX026C
COMPRESSION CURVE
0
STRAIN(*)
i
___
_____
r
-2
-t-
-4
AXIAL
-
-6
VOLUMETRIC STRA
-4-
-8
--
ZI
ii
_~
_I
-10
'
I
STRAIN
't
I
.I .2I
I
I
INI
I
I
III
III
I
11
1
11
!I1
l~~IIB
a
_ SO
I-
0.1
10
1
100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
882-23 U14 - 82.7'
TX026C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-238 14 -
27
100
389
TX026S
PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
0
2
1
3
4
5
6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U14 - 82.7'
TX026S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
36
PHI
l
_
u
30
_
-
u
-
UICIIICW
--
i
--
26
20
1
10
.
I
II I
-
2
0
4
6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
882-23
U14 - 82.7'
8
10
390
TX026S
STRESS PATH
Q/sl1VC
0.5
°
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
o
0
v
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
P'/SIGVC'
SB2-23 U14 - 82.7'
TX026S
STRESS STRAIN
A
C
Q/SIGVC'
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.
0.1
0.
0.0
_IVew n
0
2
4
P'/SIGVC'
SB2-23 U14 - 82.7'
6
8
10
391
TX027C
COMPRESSION CURVE
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
- 12
-14
1
0.1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
B2-21 U8 - 93.6'
TX027C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
I
Ko
0.8
s·
0.6
1%
-%-
"
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-21 U8 - 93.6'
10
392
TX027S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
3
2.6
2
1.5
1
0.5
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
6
0
5
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
SB2-21 U8 - 93.5'
TX027S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
20
PHI (DEGREES)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-60
-20
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-21 U - 93.6'
393
TX027S
STRESS PATH
Q/SIGVC'
0.4
0.2
0
-n 0
v
l=
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
SB2-21 U8 - 93.6'
TX027S
STRESS STRAIN
Q/SIGVC'
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-n o
-20
-16
0
-10
P'/SIGVC'
Q/SIGVC'
8B2-21US - 93.6'
-
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
6
394
TX028C
COMPRESSION
STRAIN
CIURVE
(%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
- 12
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
AXIAL STRAIN
VOLUMETRIC STRAIN
--
SB2-23 U18- 98.6'
TX028C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
0.8
Ko
0.6
0.4
0.2
A
v
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23 US - 98.6'
10
395
TX028S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
300
A PARAMETER
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-6
0
10
5
15
20
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U18 - 98.6'
TX028S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
35
PHI
30
.
.,.
26
20
15
10
6
0
-6
I
0
5
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U18 - 98.6'
15
20
396
TX028S
STRESS PATH
Q/SIGVC'
0.6
0.4
________i
0.2
0
I
i
(0
I
0.1
I
0.2
0.3
~
I
0.4
-
i
I
0.5
i
.
0.6
0.7
I
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
382-23 U18
98.6'
TX028S
STRESS STRAIN
Q/SIGVC'
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-6
0
10
15
P'/SIGVC'
- Q/SIGVC'
SB2-23 U18 - 98.6'
-i
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
20
397
TX029C
COMPRESSION CURVE
0
STRAIN (%)
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
- 12
-14
0.1
10
1
100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
SB2-23 U8 - 58.6'
TX029C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
I
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
n
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
862-23 ua - 58.6'
100
398
TX029S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
II3
2.1 $
2
1.8C
15''
I
0.5I-
i
C
0
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.8
1
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U8 - 68.5'
TX029S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
2
225
110
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U8 - 68.6'
0.8
1
399
TX029S
STRESS
PATH
a/SIOVC'
0.6
-
0.4
0.2
0
-
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
U8 - 68.6'
8B2-23
TX029S
STRESS STRAIN
_ _ NORMALIZED
STRESS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.O
0.
0.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
P'/SIGVC'
8B2-23 U8 - 68.6'
Q/SIGVC'
-
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
1
400
TX030C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
S82-23 U23 120.1'
TX030C
KO V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE
STRESS
Ko
I
0.8
0.6
I-._____II--.-~]=-
_______I
0.4
0.2
XItt00
0
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
qB2-23 U23 120.1'
10
401
TX030S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
A__
20
16
10
6
-6
-10
- 16
___t
rl 11
lu
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U23 120.1'
TX030S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
31
3(
5
2C
1c
10c
C
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0
2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4
6
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
SB2-23 U23 120.1'
10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I
12
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14
402
TX030S
STRESS PATH
0.6
Q/SIaVC'
0.4
0.3
0.2
______ ___ __._
l ____
_____ _ ______ __ ____ _____
__ _l
0.1
I
X
I
0
0.2
0.1
0
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
1
P'/SIGVC'
U23 120.1'
8B2-23
TX030S
STRESS STRAIN
Q/SIGVC'
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
4
2
8
6
10
P'/SIGVC'
SB2-23 U23 120.1'
/SIGVC'
--
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
12
14
403
TX031C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-- -4AIt
1
0.1
10
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
SB2-21 Ull - 120.3'
TX031C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
-J
0.2
0
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
882-21 Ull - 120.3'
10
404
TX031S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1.4
1.2
0,8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-26
-20
-15
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
5
3B2-21 Ull 120.3'
TX031S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI (DEGREES)
_-
20
.
10
-
-
-
J
--
/
0
-10
7
-20
-30
TI
-4.
-- v
_An
-26
-
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
82-21
Ull 120.3"
-6
0
6
405
TX031S
STRESS PATH
0.4
Q/SlVC'
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
---,,
-0.1
-
,,,,
,,,
,,
-0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6 0.6 0.7
P'/SIGVC'
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
8B2-21 Ull 120.3'
TX031S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
_n _
-26
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-21 Ul 120.3'
0
6
406
TX032C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
12
0.1
1
10
100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (k8c)
US 60.2'
8B2-23
TX032C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
S82-23 U26 60.2'
100
407
TX 032S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
,A
A PARAMETER
4
3
2
1
-1
-,
-~-t
6
0
10
20
15
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
SB2-23 U6 60.2'
TX032S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
~m
J
l
30
.1
-Li1
~~~-i-~~\
26
20
6
10
$
n0
.
6
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
SB2-23 U6 60.2'
15
20
408
TX032S
STRESS PATH
Q/SIGVC'
0.6
0.4
.
0.3
0.2 ./_
0.1
8~~...
0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
1
P'/SIGVC'
SB2-23 U6 60.2'
TX032S
STRESS STRAIN
'
Q/SlGVC'
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
n
0
5
10
15
P'/SIGVC'
Q/SIGVC'
8B2-23 U6 60.2'
(dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
20
409
TX034C
CURVE
COMPRESSION
STRAIN
(%o)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-
51
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kac)
8B2-23 Ull 71.6'
TX034C
EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko V. VERTICAL
Ko
1.2
I
1
0.8
!
_
I
_1·
:S=-._.-=_._·=
6%
w
o
4I
0.6
0.4
0.2
n
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23 Ull 71.6'
10
410
TX034S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1.E
5
1.4
1.:
0.l
I
0.1
2 . _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.4
O.;
G
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
12
14
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
SB2-23 Ull 71.6'
TX034S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
.1 A,
PHI
4
3
3
2
1
I
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 Ul 7T.6'
10
411
TX034S
STRESS PATH
a/lGovc'
I
0.8
0.6
0.4
I
0.2
_
0
0
I
_
0.2
0.4
II__
__
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
P'/SIGVC'
SB2-23 Ull 71.5'
TX034S
STRESS STRAIN
Q/SIGVC'
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
2
4
6
8
P'/SIGVC'
8B2-23 Ull 71.6'
10
12
14
412
TX035C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
II
I
lB_
-
P
l -.
.-
.
I,.
-2
II
-4
II
I
-
-
III
I
|-
.-
I
ur 4
"Is
- .- .-.
b
_ _
I
N-
AXIAL
I
-6
_
I
z
-
j
e
VOLUMETRIC STRAIN
--
I
- -4P
ktE
STRAIN
- ---
-10
I
I
-
I
I
k- c.
I l l
I
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
0.1
10
8B2-23 Ull 71.9'
TX035C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.4
1.2
I
~~~~~~1;
I~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.8
0.6
0.4
I
0.2
0
T
__
0.1
II_
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23 Ull 71.9'
10
413
TX035S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
12
1
4
2
o,
-
0
0.6
2.6
2
1.6
1
3
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U1l 71.9'
TX035S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
Ae
PHI
3
2
2
1
1
0
2
4
6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 Ull 71.9'
8
10
414
TX035S
STRESS PATH
a/slGvc'
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
8B2-23 Ull 71.9'
TX035S
STRESS STRAIN
Q/SIGVC'
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
P'/SIGVC'
8B2-23 Ull 71.9'
8
10
415
TX037C
COMPRESSION CURVE
0
STRAIN
(%)
-
4-1111
-2
I
'N
-4
i
-6
I-
AXIAL STRAIN
-
--
VOLUMETRIC
1I
i
I
I
STRAIN
-8
-10
-- -
1
I
-12
0 .1
10
1
VETICAL
100
EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
EB2-162 U2 - 43.9'
TX037C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162 U2 - 43.9'
100
416
TX037S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
~A
A PARAMETER
6
4
3
2
1
-. 1I-I
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
EB2-162 U2 - 43.9'
TX037S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI (DEGREES)
36I0
3C I
0
201
1501
10I
a
I
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
EB2-1f 52 U2 - 43.9'
10
12
417
TX037S
STRESS PATH
Q/SlaVC'
r
r
r
0.6
r
--
r
0-1
--
0.4
LLLIL
f·--,
_·
0.2
l
0.1
0
0.2
0.3
f
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
I
-
0.8
-
0.9
1.1
1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
EB2-162 U2 - 43.9'
TX037S
STRESS STRAIN
A
NORMALIZED STRESS
_.
U.Jb
.
..,
iI
I. .
-
0..3
+-'
0.2 5
II-
,
I-
I
.
IdI
0..2
----
0.1 5
0. 1
0.0
5
I
0
2
--
--
I
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
a/SIlvc'
EB2-162 U2 - 43.9'
i
(dU-dS103')/SIGVC'
10
12
418
TX038C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
0.1
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
EB2-162 U2 43.8'
TX038C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.2
I
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162 U2 43.8'
10
419
TX038S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
10
12
14
EB2-162 U2 43.8'
TX038S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
_
2
1
1
II
0
2
EB2-162 U2 - 43.8'
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
10
12
14
420
TX038S
STRESS PATH
Q/81QVC'
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
P'/SIaVC'
EB2-162 U2 43.8'
TX038S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
1
0. 8
0.
0.4
0.
-0.2
0
EB2-162 U2 - 43.8'
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
I
_ __ ___
10
I
12
14
421
TX039C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
0
-2
-4
.6
il__l
i
I_
I
-8
i
I
F
i_I
I
I
-12
AIAL
..
- --
TRAIN
,...,..
I
i
I
_
i
,
,
i
V bv IIUTIClflreIlD
V
.ii l
.....
I
I
TRAIN
I
-
Yl *
...
l
1
-- -
I
II
l_
. _
. _
I
0.1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (k8c)
EB2-162 UT 94.1'
TX039C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
I Ii-1- I ___rid
_
I
I
I I 1
I
1
i
1I1 rl
I 11
l
[
i
~~~~0ij
0.6
fl
0.1V
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162
UT 94.1'
10
422
TX0398
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
3
A PARAMETER
2.6
2
1.6
I
0.61
I
OI
-20
U
EB2-162
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
8
0
6
94.1'
TX039S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
20
PHI (DEGREES)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-An
-20
EB2-162
UT - 94.1'
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
423
TX039S
STRESS PATH
a/8laVoc
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
_
~'
_/__-I--
-0.1
I
'~
-0.2
¢
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
P'/SIGVC'
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
UT 94.1'
EB2-162
TX039S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
A
0.;3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-20
EB2-162 UT - 94.1'
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
424
TX041C
COMPRESSION CURVE
-
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-8
-8
-10
- -do
0.1
0.1
10
1
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (kec)
EB2-162 U 83.2'
TX041C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
0.0
0.8
0.8
I
I
1 0
I11i
0.7
I ·
·
I
0.6
A
-
-
-
I
Uk_
I
·
0.6
0.4
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162 U 83.2'
10
425
TX041S
A PARAMETER V8. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
2
1,
0.
-20
-15
-10
-6
0
-6
0
AXIAL STRAIN ()
EB2-162 US 83.2
TX041S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI (DEGREES)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-Rl
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
EB2-162 US 8.2
426
TX0418
STRESS PATH
Q/810VC'
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-/ Vel%I
-
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
P'/SIGVC'
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
EB2-162 US 83.2
TX041S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.6
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
EB2-162 US 83.2'
-6
0
427
TX043C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
-2
-4
-8
-10
- 2
0.1
1
10
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (kac)
E82-162 U4 64.3'
TX043C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
,_~ jX0
:=
XE-eSX
L~~~~~~~
lA
0.1
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
E82-162 U4 64.3'
10
428
TX0438
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
30C
260
200
160
100
60
-60
-- ,lnn
Wvv
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
10
12
EB2-162 U4 64.3'
TX043S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI (DEGREES)
3f 5
3C
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2C
2C5
6' =- n .-
1t
O5
1C
V
_~~~~~~~~'
I
C
0
2
4
6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
EB2-162 U4 64.3'
8
10
12
429
TX043S
STRESS PATH
Q/SIlVC
A,
UO
III
I II
I
I-
|
-
|
|
I_
|--
s
0.6
0.4
0.3
i
.00-10
onw--"
0.2
-Th
I
0.1
nI
0
I
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
I
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
P'/SIGVC'
EB2-162 U4 64.8'
TX043S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.6
0.4
0.3
0,2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
AXIAL STRAIN ()
EB2-162 U4 64.3'
8
10
12
430
TX044C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-
a
Ir
0.1
1
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (kac)
EB2-162 U5 73.7'
TX044C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
0.9
0.8
0.7
I
.
0.6
,oi?
0.6
A
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162 U6 73.7'
^
431
TX044S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
EB2-162 U6 73.7'
TX044S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
20
PHI
10
0
-10
-20
-30
.____________
____________
/--_______________________
-40
-20
EB2-162 US 73.r
-16
-6
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
432
TX044S
STRESS PATH
Q/SaQVC'
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-no
veelm
0.1
o
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
P'/SIGVC'
EB2-162 US 73.7'
TX044S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZEDSTRESS
0.4
I
-
0.3 -
{
Q/81aslVC'
1
--(dU-d81Q3')/81GVC'
-1
0.2
l
lw'.
;_
0.1
0
-0.1
-0'2
-20
I
-16
-
I
I
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%o
EB2-162 US 73.7'
0
6
433
TX0C10
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
0.1
10
1
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
EB2-162 U6 83.6'
TX051C
Ko V. VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.2
1.1
!JI
I
1
I
0.9
II
I
I
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
ni
A
0.1
"1%, I.
I~~~~~~~
I
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
E92-162 U6 83.6'
10
434
TX051S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-4
-2
0
EB2-162 U 83.6'
TX051S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
0
-10
-20
·<
-30
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN ()
EB2-162 U8 13.6'
-4
-2
0
2
435
TX051S
STRESS PATH
Q/SIGVC'
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-041-
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
P'/SIOVC'
EB2-162 US 83.6'
TX051S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-n A
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (o)
EB2-162 U6 3.6'
-4
-2
0
436
TX054C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN ()
0
-2
-4
-6
-d
-10
- 4I
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
EB2-162 U3 64.W
TX054C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.2
1
II
0.8
·
ai·
0.6
0.4
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162 U3 64.3'
10
437
TX054S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
10
8
6
4
2
a
v
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
12
14
16
EB2-162 U3 64.3'
TX054S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
36
PHI
30
26
20
16
10
6
0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
EB2-162 U3 64.3'
10
12
14
16
438
TX0548
STRESS PATH
a/slQvc'
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
n
0.2
0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
P'/SIGVC'
EB2-162 U3 64.3'
TX054S
STRESS STRAIN
0.7
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
n
-2
-2
0
EB2-162 U3 64.3'
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
10
12
14
16
439
TXG06C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN ()
eld
-
- 1'
- 1
0.1
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (koc)
EB2-162 UT 93.7'
TXO55C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
-
II
|
-
|-
l-
.
|-|
I
IIIIIII
-
I
0..
II
0..8I
|-
-
I
'I
L
0..7
-
7I.
:
1
II
0..6
· · ·.
0..6
A
Ve0
--
0.1
i
moll"
Ii _
0
II
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-1,52 UT 93.7'
_
_
10
440
TX066S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER'
14C10
80
4010
o-
ZO
20)0
I
I
_
·
-20 '°1
-40lo
I-__
I
-
I
--
I
0
2
-
6
4
I
8
'--
I
I
10
12
14
16
AXIAL STRAIN ()
EB2-162 U7 93.r
TX055S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
Rk41lB
PHI
3
23
220
10
I
I_
I0
i.-.
0
2
4
6
8
10
AXIAL STR.AIN (%)
EB2-162 U7 93.7'
12
14
16
441
TX0668
STRESS PATH
Q/SIVC
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0
0.4
P'/SIGVC'
0.6
0.8
EB2-162 U7 93.7'
TX055S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
EB2-162 UT 93.7'
2
4
6
8
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
12
14
16
442
TX060C
COMPRESSION CURVE
0
STRAIN
(%)
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-.
I
0.1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (koc)
8B2-23 U1796.3'
TX060C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
I
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
eIl
.
=~I
S.
...
_
,
0.4
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23 U17 96.3'
10
443
TX060S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
.4
I
1U
8
I
I II
.
I
I
I
IIIIlB
IIII
I
II
II
III
III
I
II
II
6
4
2
n-
--
-20
-10
-16
-6
5
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
882-23 U17 93.6'
TX060S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-An
-20
-18
802-23U7 96.'
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-4
-2
0
2
444
TXO0OS
STRESS
PATH
a/sIGVCe
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0.2
0
0.4
0.6
0.8
P'/SIGVC'
S82-23 U17963'
-
TX060S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
A
U.3
r
Igm
1
-
;
i
"I I
.
I
I
Q/SlGVC'
- (dU-dSIG3')/SIGVC'
0.2 2
C----------
-
|
-
I
-
I
.. \
0.1
0
\ I
-0.1
I-.-
.^ r
-2 !0
802-23 UIT 96.3'
l
l
IT
-16
-- ·
-i
-6
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
5
445
TXOB1C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN ()
0
-2
-4
-8
-8
-10
- "
0.1
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kec)
8B2-23 U19 10.7'
TX061C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
I
1
a
0.9
0.8
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.7
l~~~'TJ----I~~~~~~
0.6
n a
0.1
I---l-·
=_
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23 U19 103.'
10
446
TX061S
A PARAMETER V8S. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
10
8
0
__________
.
.
l~ " ~
. __________
.
4
2
k
l
I_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ J
I
~
0
i
I
-2
I
i
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-16
20
i
0
5
U19 103.7'
8B2-23
TX061S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
20
10
0
-10
-20
rn
-20
-18
-16
-14
-1
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
8B2-23 U19 103.7'
-4
-2
0
2
447
TX061S
STRESS PATH
Q/sIavc'
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0.2
0
0.4
P'/SIGVC'
0.6
0.8
882-23 U19 103.7'
TX061S
STRESS STRAIN
_-
_
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
_._
-20
882-23 U19103.r
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
448
TX066C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-
10
- .iI
10
1
0.1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
B2-23
U24 121.6'
TX065C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
0.9
Ko
i
I
I
i ..
0.8
0.7
0.6
I
J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.6
i
_
___.1.i__
~~~~~~.
.
__
!I....t-
0.4
t -.10.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
8B2-23
U24 121.6'
10
449
TX066S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A
PARAMETER
2
1.6
I
duftmj
0.6
a
-20
-26
-16
0
-6
-10
AXIAL STRAIN ()
U24 121.6'
8B2-23
TX065S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
30
PHI
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-24
-22 -20
8B2-23 U24 12t6'
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-4
-2
0
2
450
TX06SS
STRESS PATH
Q/81QVC'
O_
0
.o
-0.
-n
V._
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
P'/SIGVC'
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
8B2-23 U24 121.6'
TX065S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-26
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
882-23 U24 121.6'
0
451
TX067C
CURVE
COMPRESSION
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
. ,'
-
I
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX067C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
1
11 1I I=
= L1C-
0.8
I
.
I I
I
I
I
0.8
0.7
0.6
'I
0.6
0.4
n
_
C-'
_
_
_
z~i
L
II
1n
0.1
0,1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM
THIRD
10
452
TX067S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
I
A PARAMETER -
-- -I--
-
I
I
0.8
0.6
%ft
--
wwmmd
·IrrrrcslclC1
0*t
0.4
I
0.2
0
-20
II
I
-6
-10
-16
IIII
i
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX067S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
0
-10
-20
-30
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
-4
-2
0
2
453
TX0678
STRESS
PATH
Q/81s(WC
O
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
o
0.1
BLOCK SAMPLE
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6 0.6 0.7
P'/SIGVC'
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX067S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.6
-t.t
-20
-16
BLOCK 8AMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-6
0
454
TX071C
COMPRESS10N CURVE
0
STRAIN ()
-2
-4
-6
-10
- 2
U.
0.1
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kac)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRAD
TX071C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
0.9
I
I
0.8
0.7
'I
0.6
I
0.6
=
"...I
"
"
IiI ri
0.4
0.3
0.2 =________
a ).1
I
__-
"
"
,41
__°._
---- I
___I
-
-I
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK
AMPLE
7 BOTTOM THIRD
10
455
TX0718
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-20
-16
-10
-6
0
6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK 8AMPLE 7 BOTTOM
THIRD
TXO71S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-Af
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK 8AMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
-4
-2
0
2
456
TX071S
STRESS
0.2
PATH
a/81Gvc'
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.8
1
0
6
P'/SIGVC'
AMPLE
BLOCK
7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX071S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.1
I
i
I
I
I
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-20
I
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE
7 BOTTOM THIRD
457
TX072C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
_
-
4
I,
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kc)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX072C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
1
0.9
I
_
Ill1
1
1
I
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
X__
10
1 11111
i~~~~~~~~·
- -I
I
I
I
ll
I
-- 11
I
0.3
0.2
0 t.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
10
458
TX0728
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
-
2
1.6
0.6
0
-26
-20
AMPLE
BLOCK
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX072S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
20
10
0
-10
,---1,
It
-20
-30
-An
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16 -14
-12 -10
-8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK
AMPLE
7 BOTTOM THIRD
-6
-4
-2
0
2
459
TX0728
STRE88 PATH
0.3
a/8SOVC
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0.2
0
0.4
0.6
0.8
P'/SIlVC'
BLOCK 8AMPLE
7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX072S
STRESS STRAIN
0.3
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-in
-26
-20
-16
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
-6
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
460
TX076C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-- 2
.
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
BLOCK 8AMPLE
7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX076C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE
STRESS
Ko
I
0.9
0.8
f
0.7
0.6
I
M·
I
0.6
0.4
d't
I
.
I_
0.1
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
10
461
TX076S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1
1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
2
8
6
4
12
10
14
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX076S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
__
PHI
;3
3
2
2
1
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK AMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
9
10
11
12
13
14
462
TX0768
STRESS PATH
0.7
Q/810VC'
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
wSb
ovce ..
0.2
I=
__t=
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
______
0.1
__
n
0
._______
________
__= __=
0.4
0.2
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM
0.6
P'/SIGVC'
,
________
________
__=__
0.8
1.2
1
THIRD
TX076S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
....I
I
0.1
_ /8t1C'
l
- - (d-dS
S1)/SI1VC
-0.1
0
1
2
3
4
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
6
6
7
8
9
AXIAL STRAIN ()
10
11
12
13
14
463
TX077C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
--
0
.1
0.1
10
1
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
EB2-162 US 103.'
TX077C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
.
.
1.1
1
-I
--·
I
I
0.9
1.I
-·
0.8
i-
0.7
0.6
U
0
I
0.6
AI0.1
7
1.-1
__
i
0.1
-
l-
1.
S
e
1
*
-.
....
-
-
I
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162 U8 103.6'
|
|
S
I
10
464
TX077S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
2
1.6
0.6
0
-20
-25
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN ()
-6
0
EB2-162 U 103.8'
TX077S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
lld.
PHI
1o
-10
-20
-30
-An
-i_
-24
-22
EB2-162 US 103.'
-20
-18 -16
-14 -12 -10 -8
AXIAL STRAIN ()
-6
-4
-2
0
2
465
TXO778
STRESS PATH
Q/810VC'
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
1
P'/SIGVC'
EB2-162 UI 1038'
TX0778
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
_
-0.
-0.
-I
- VeW
-20
EB2-162 U 103A'
-16
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
466
TX081C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
1
0.1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (keg)
BLOCK 8AMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
TX081C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
_'._
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
10
467
TX0818
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1.4
1.2
I
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-20
-16
-10
-6
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK
AMPLE
2A BOTTOM THIRD
TX081S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
zu
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK AMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
-4
-2
0
2
468
TX0818
8TRE88
PATH
Q/81Wvo
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0
02
0.4
0.6
0.8
-6
0
P/SIGVC'
BLOCK 8AMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
TX081S
STRESS STRAIN
A_
NORMALIZED STRESS
u,
0.
0.
-0.
.n
V-.
-20
-16
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
".10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
469
TX0820
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
._1
0.1
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kso)
BLOCK 8AMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX082C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.6
1.6
__IIII.II
1_
I
1.4
1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
I,
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
O1.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK
AMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
10
470
TX0825
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
_
.
_
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
_inn
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%o)
12
14
16
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX082S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
36
-
- ----- ---
_
T
l
I
-
30I
_
I
_
-- 10-"
26
20I(0"16
10I
I
I
0
0
2
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM
6
8
10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
4
THIRD
1
12
14
16
471
TX0828
STRESS PATH
0/810VC'
.
I
U.
I IIIII IIIIIIIIII
I IIII I
III
II
II III
I
IIIIII II III
I III
I
I
I I-
0.4
0.3
___
oo 0
0.2
0.1
0
0.4
P'/SI3VC'
0.2
0
0.8
0.6
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX082S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
./
_a.,sl_-vC../..VC
'~',"-._ I..(dU-d63
-
I
lf/ta/lv
l
0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK 8AMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
10
12
14
16
472
TX086C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
C
-E
-4
-
ic
-O
AXIAL STRAIN
- - VOLUMETRIC STRAIN
- 1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kac)
0.1
10
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX086C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
1
____
0.9
1.
-1...
'=..--
1,
_11_11
0.8
i=-
|
E
reams
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
0.7
0.6
0.6
of=FftH~~~~~~~~~
,1
11
11ll
1
1111llll
1~~~
0.4
0.3
0}.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
10
473
TX086S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
2
1.6
I
0.6
__
___
I
--I
;~~~~~~~~~
IY
ii
I
ii
iii
0
-26
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN ()
0
6
0
6
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX086S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-An
-26
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
-6
474
TX086S
STRESS PATH
' Q/sI1VC'
0.4
IIIII
IIII
-
-
IIIIIIII
·
l
II
II
I
0.3 I
0.2
r
0.1
0
JAr
.
I
PC
-0.1
I___-
l
I
-0.2'
0
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.6
1
P'/SIGVC'
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX086S
STRESS STRAIN
INORMALIZED
0.3; r
STRESS
w
l
Q/SIGYCv
-
-
l
- (dU-ds,03')/SIGVC
I
0.2
0.1
,
I
.j,
\
-o,1
}7
i
I
--
-20
-15
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
-6
0
6
475
TX088C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
II
g
-1
--4
-
.
1
0.1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kao)
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A
BOTTOM THIRD
TX088C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
n'tC
a~e
0
_i~I~
0.1
-
-II
--.-
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
10
476
TX0888
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
i i i i ii
1
i iii
......
i~~~~~~~
i ii i ii
ii i
ii
i
0.8
0.6I
I
I
0.4
·iY
0.2
wommo
LILLI
rA Ii
vr
I
6
0
20
16
10
AXIAL STRAIN {%)
BLOCK 8AMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
TX088S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
_-
PHI
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
14
16
18
20
477
TX088S
STRESS PATH
Q/SlIVC'
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
n
V
0
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.3
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
P'/SIlVC'
BLOCK SAMPLE
2A BOTTOM THIRb
TX0888
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
1
I,
· --
0.8
I!
/leVC'
(dU-d813')/81GVC'
0.6
0.4
0.2
!I
\
I
"I
0
0
2
4
6
BLOCK AMPLE 2A BOTTOM THIRD
8
10
12
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
14
16
18
20
478
TX092C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
- to10
- -in
- 0.1A
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
BLOCK 8AMPLE
3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX092C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
tI
i
i
ItA141
E
i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
I~~~~~
I
·
I
I11 i
..-.....
**.......4............_
1________________
r
_
-- _ _
.
0.6 I
0.4
iiirrr
.1JL
i.L
I_______"_
l
i
:
I
1
I
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK 8AMPLE
3A BOTTOM THIRD
ro
A
_1
10
479
TX0928
A PARAMETER
A
VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PARAMETER
1.4
1.2
nnmm.
I
0.8
I
0.6
"*\
I
%I
0.4 i
0.2 i
0
26
I
I
I
I
I
-16
-10
-20
-6
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX092S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-An
-26
-20
-16
BLOCK AMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
480
TX0928
STRESS PATH
Q/I81VC
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.2
0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P'/SIGVC'
BLOCK 8AMPLE
3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX092S
STRESS STRAIN
0.2
NORMALIZEDSTRESS
0.1
- ~
I
lI --Q/81GVC'
--(dU-813')/81GC'|
I
I
I,,
'd
I
_
.I
."
I
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-26
-....
-20
-16
-10
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK 8AMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
-6
0
6
481
TX094C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN ()
-
U
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
- 2
._
0.1
I
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
BLOCK 3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX094C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
nA
lO.
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK 8AMPLE
3A BOTTOM THIRD
10
482
TX094S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
2
1. 06
I
0.
0
2
6
4
8
10
12
14
16
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX094S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
35
PHI
30
26
20
16
10
6
0
-2
0
2
4
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN ()
10
12
14
16
483
TX094S
STRESS
PATH
a/SaQVC'
0.6
-.- 0007
0.4
e"-
0.3
0.2
I
I
0.1
0
II
-
----
0
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.8
I
P'/SIlVC'
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
TX094S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
n
-2
-2
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 3A BOTTOM THIRD
10
12
14
16
484
TX097C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN
(%)
0
-2
-6
-8
-10
_
12
- Ia
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (kec)
BLOCK BAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX097C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
1
__
__
__
__
1
-11
_
__
__
__
__
-
__
_ _ _ _ _
0.9
j
0.8
|
0.7
_
~~~~~I
I
I_
I
_-
1
+
i
!lS
dl.
hI'f1.
e l
it
7 I
I
I
I
i
0.6
O.6
0.4
1.,l
"-'
...
0.1
I
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK
SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM
THIRD
10
485
TX097S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
I I II II I
I1
I
I
IIII
III
I IIIII
II III
II II
I
I
II I
I
II
III
III
I
IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII
I
III
0.8
0.6
0.4
!
3?ra
0.2
I
iI
I
-16
-220
-6
-10
0
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX097S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
0
-10
-20
-30
-An
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
-6
-4
-2
0
486
TX097S
STRESS PATH
Q/SIGVC'
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0
0.8
0.6
P'/SIGVC'
0.4
0.2
1
1.2
1.4
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX097S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
_n a
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
-6
-4
-2
0
487
TX100C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-- -dI
0.1
1
10
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
BLOCK SAMPLE 1A BOTTOM THIRD
TX100C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
n
0.1
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 1A BOTTOM THIRD
10
4.88
TX100S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
'
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
0
4
6
8
10
12
14
12
14
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE
1A BOTTOM THIRD
TX100S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
36
PHI
30
26
20
16
10
6
0
2
4
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE
lA BOTTOM THIRD
10
489
TX100S
STRESS
PATH
a/SIGVC'
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
v
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
P'/SIGVC'
BLOCK SAMPLE 1A BOTTOM THIRD
TX100S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
vmg
0
2
4
BLOCK SAMPLE 1A BOTTOM THIRD
6
8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
10
12
14
490
TX102C
COMPRESSION CURVE
STRAIN (%)
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
- 1O0.1
0.1
10
1
VERTICALEFFECTIVE STRESS (ksc)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX102C
Ko VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS
Ko
1.1
1
I
____
0.g
I I'I
0.8
0.7
0.6
-
0.6
_
_
0.4
E...
--
__
11
f-t I
I
.
_
0.3
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
10
491
TX102S
A PARAMETER VS. AXIAL STRAIN
A PARAMETER
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-26
-20
-16
-10
-6
0
5
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX102S
PHI VS. AXIAL STRAIN
PHI
10
-10
-20
-30
-An
-24
-22
-20
-18
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
16
-14 -12 -10 -8
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
-6
-4
-2
0
492
TX102S
STRESS PATH
Q/SIGVC'
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P'/SIGVC'
BLOCK SAMPLE
7 BOTTOM THIRD
TX102S
STRESS STRAIN
NORMALIZED STRESS
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-n .4
-26
-20
-16
BLOCK SAMPLE 7 BOTTOM THIRD
-10
-6
AXIAL STRAIN (%)
0
6
493
APPENDIX
C
494
COMPRESSION CURVE
LSO10
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
t1I'>WSi-ii
I 11111111llll tillll
I
-1
-1
-I1
-1
1
1
0.1
0.01
10 0
Ko v LOG STRESS
LS010
Ko
1.4
1.2
1
I
Itlll
1
1--
0.8
0.6
0.4
ii111.0
1
0.
1111
1
10
10
0.2
0
0.01
0.1
1
10
CONSOLIDATION STRESS (ksc)
100
495
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
LS015
VERTICAL. STRAIN (%)
2
0
!~~~
-2
.
-4
_
_l
I
I
I -_
.I
i ==_ __ __ _ __ _ S__ _
-6
S_ __ _ T _ _ __ _ _no _,
-8
-10
-12
-14
- EOI
- -EOP
-16 Ii
0.1
1
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
I I H
I
10
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A
Ko VS VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
LS015
Ko
2
1.5
1
0.6
0
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 2A
10
496
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
LS016
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
0.01
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE IA
Ko VS VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
LS016
Ko
-
-
-
2
I
-1
1.5
N
1
\1
-N,
1%,
0.5
=i;r--
in%
-4- E0
EOP
I
!
' ' '
l
I
I
I
I I
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
0.01
BLOCK SAMPLE
!
A1^
-/
I I
i
10
497
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
LS017
VERTICAL
STRAIN (%)
0
-5
-10
-15
_
-r0.01
\
0.01
10
1
0.1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7
Ko VS VERTICAL EFFECTI VE STRESS
LS017
Ko
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
nv
0.01
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
BLOCK SAMPLE 7
10
498
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
LS018
VERTICAL STRAIN
(%)
0
-5
-10
-15
-2n
0.01
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
10
EB2-162 U4 63.2'
Ko VS VERTICAL EFFECTIVE
STRESS
LS018
Ko
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.01
EB2-162 Uq 63.2'
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
10
499
COMPRESSION CURVE
LS019
VERTICAL
STRAIN (%)
2
0
-4
-2
-4
mq-,!z
-6
i I-,,.- ,c 4,
I-9~
- - EOP
-8
_
-10
EOI
I
0.01
__ _
-0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
10
EB2-162 U2 43.4'
Ko VS VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS
LS019
Ko
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.01
0.1
1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (KSC)
EB2-162 U2 43.4'
10