Effect of Sampling Disturbance on Properties

of Singapore Clay
Thiam-Soon Tan1; Fook-Hou Lee2; Poh-Ting Chong3; and Hiroyuki Tanaka4

Abstract: This paper examines results from triaxial unconfined compression tests and undrained compression tests on reconsolidated
samples of a Singapore marine clay retrieved using two sampling methods that offer differing quality of samples. Both local internal strain
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

measurements using a Hall-effect transducer and external strain measurements using LVDTs were employed in the triaxial tests. Bender
elements were embedded in some of the samples to establish the maximum shear modulus. If the samples are not reconsolidated, the shear
strength and stiffness determined from triaxial tests are found to be sensitive to the quality of the samples, and generally lower than that
determined by in situ tests. However, if the samples are subjected to isotropic or K 0 consolidation to the estimated in situ condition, there
is little difference between the shear strengths of samples retrieved using different samplers, and also consistent with results from vane
shear tests. However, for the maximum shear modulus, even with reconsolidation, there is still a 10% difference between the results from
samples retrieved using different samplers. Further, the laboratory determined maximum shear moduli are about 10% lower than the value
determined in an in situ seismic cone test.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2002兲128:11共898兲
CE Database keywords: Sampling; Sample disturbance; Shear strength; Clays; Singapore.

Introduction 1984; Graham et al. 1987兲. Sampling disturbance is attributed to

In situ tests are normally used to provide information of soil at the
in situ stress condition, with minimal disturbance to the ground.
However, as the condition around an in situ probe tends to be
nonuniform, an in situ test, therefore, measures an integrated re-
sponse of the ground, and soil parameters are determined based
on empirical or semiempirical correlations. On the other hand,
stress and strain conditions are better controlled in laboratory
tests, and these are often used to study the stress–strain behavior
of soil elements under different strain and stress paths.
Disturbance to a soil specimen is inevitable in the sampling
and preparation processes. Such disturbances to the structure and
in situ stress state of soil may result in a sample exhibiting be-
havior in the laboratory that is different from its in situ behavior.
The effects of sampling disturbance in tube-sampled soils have
been extensively studied 共for example, Kirkpatrick and Khan
1 siderably different. In the two papers quoted above, stress-release
Associate Professor, Centre for Soft Ground Engineering, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, National Univ. of Singapore, Kent Ridge Crescent,
Singapore 119260. E-mail: cvetants@nus.edu.sg
2
Associate Professor, Centre for Soft Ground Engineering, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, National Univ. of Singapore, Kent Ridge Crescent,
Singapore 119260.
3
Research Engineer, Centre for Soft Ground Engineering, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, National Univ. of Singapore, Kent Ridge Crescent,
Singapore 119260.
4
Chief, Geotechnical Survey Laboratory, Port and Harbour Research
Institute, Japan.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2003. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on May 8, 2000; approved on February 6, 2002. This paper is
part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, Vol. 128, No. 11, November 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2002/11-898 –906/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
two components, damage to the soil structure and a loss of effec-
tive stress.
Kirkpatrick and Khan 共1984兲 and Graham et al. 共1987兲
showed that reconsolidating a sample back to its in situ condition
could largely compensate for the effect of stress release on
strength, especially if the sample was stored in an ‘‘undrained’’
condition. Other researchers have suggested similar reconsolida-
tion procedures to determine the ‘‘in situ’’ strength 共Davis and
Poulos 1971兲.
However, on the effect of sampling disturbance on the stress–
strain behavior, there is some variance in the findings to date. For
instance, Kirkpatrick and Khan 共1984兲 reported that stress–strain
behaviors of reconsolidated samples are similar to those that were
not subjected to any stress release. On the other hand, Graham
et al. 共1987兲 reported that Young modulus E 50 of reconsolidated
samples is only about half that of control samples that were not
subjected to any stress release. The strain at failure is also con-
disturbance is induced on reconstituted samples prepared in the
laboratory. Thus, their findings may not necessarily apply to in
situ soils, in which structure often plays an important role.
According to Hight 共1985兲, as sampling modified the effective
stress state in an element of soil, important differences in stress–
strain characteristics and peak strength could occur. Results on
young sedimented clays showed that due to sampling, the peak
undrained shear strength under triaxial compression may be re-
duced by as much as 30% but the ultimate strength is little af-
fected. Clayton et al. 共1992兲, using simulated strain paths on
Bothkennar clay, concluded that the maximum shear modulus,
usually defined as the shear modulus measured at strain level less
than 0.001%, could not be fully recovered by reconsolidation.
Many of the studies to date were on reconstituted samples,
with the principal focus on shear strength. There were fewer stud-
ies on shear strength of in situ clays, and little data on effect of-

898 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Soil profile at test site

disturbance on shear modulus at small strain, an increasingly im-
portant issue in urban geotechnical engineering. This paper exam-
ines the effects of tube sampling on the undrained shear strength
and shear modulus of an in situ marine clay found in Singapore,
typically referred to as the Lower Marine Clay. In this study,
results from laboratory tests on samples collected using two dif-
ferent sampling methods will be compared to each other and also
to results from some in situ tests.
The Singapore Lower Marine Clay is a member of the Kallang
Formation, which covers much of the coastal plain and immediate
offshore zone in Singapore. It is a recent Holocene deposit and
consists of soil of marine, alluvial, littoral, and estuarine origins.
Marine clay is the main constituent of this formation. Fig. 1
shows the soil profile at the site where the current study is con-
ducted. The marine clay is deposited in two layers, typically re-
ferred to as the Upper and Lower Marine Clay, separated by a
stiffer intermediate layer, widely considered to be the desiccated
crust of the Lower Marine Clay. The marine clay formation varies
in thickness; it is usually between 10 and 15 m near the estuaries,
but in some instances, it can be as thick as 40 m. The basic soil
properties of the Singapore Lower Marine Clay are given in Table
1 and show that it is a high plasticity, inorganic clay of medium to
low sensitivity, with a friction angle much lower than many other
soft clays.

Table 1. Comparison of Basic Properties of Singapore Lower Marine Clay with other Clays
Singapore Lower Marine Clay Ariake Bothkennar
Liquid limit, LL 共%兲 63– 80 107–122 40– 85

Plastic limit, PL 共%兲 22–24 45–50 25– 40

Sensitivity, S r 3– 6 5–16 5–13

Activity, A c 0.9 1.2–2.0 0.25–0.75

Specific gravity, G s 2.62–2.78 2.62–2.64 2.60–2.70

Mineralogy Illite, kaolinite, smectite, and quartz Smectite, illite, kaolinite, and chlorite Illite, kaolinite, quartz, and feldpar

Compression index, C c 0.72–1.01 1.0–1.5 0.75–1.40

Swelling index, C s 0.15–0.22 ¯ ¯

K 0 ⫽␴ ho /␴ v o 0.57–0.62 0.50–0.54 0.40–0.70

OCR 1.30–1.45 1.28 –1.60 1.40–1.60

Friction angle, ␾ 22–25 35– 40 34

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 899

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.

 Table 2. Type and Schedule of Tests Conducted in Laboratory
Type of test Type of loading and sample’s dimension
Consolidation Load ratio⫽1
NUS-(H⫽20 mm, D⫽50 mm)
Consolidation Load ratio⫽1
NUS-(H⫽20 mm, D⫽50 mm)
Constant rate of strain Strain Rate⫽0.02%/min
PHRI-(H⫽25 mm, D⫽60 mm)
UCT Shear rate⫽1%/min
NUS-(H⫽76 mm, D⫽38 mm)
PHRI-(H⫽80 mm, D⫽35 mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CIU Shear rate⫽0.1%/min
NUS-(H⫽76 mm, D⫽38 mm)
PHRI-(H⫽80 mm, D⫽35 mm)
CK0 U 共compression and extension兲 Shear rate⫽0.1%/min
NUS-(H⫽76 mm, D⫽38 mm)
PHRI-(H⫽80 mm, D⫽35 mm)
Note: D⫽diameter of the soil sample; H⫽height of the soil sample.
Test Program
In situ Tests and Sampling
The site where the clay samples were retrieved is located at the
southern coast of Singapore and is the site for the Singapore
National Arts Center. The Lower Marine Clay samples were taken
from a depth of about 18 m below ground surface, between PH-2
and PH-3, where the thickness of the stratum is about 10 m, as
shown in Fig. 1. Since the water table is located at a depth of 2.5
m, this clay is likely to be saturated. Undisturbed samples were
retrieved using a Japanese thin-walled piston sampling tube
共JSSMFE 1977兲 and the Shelby tube 共ASTM D1587 1994兲. The
Japanese thin-walled piston sampling tube has an internal diam-
eter of 75 mm, an area ratio of 7.5%, inside clearance ratio of 0%,
inside cutting-edge angle of 0°, outside cutting-edge angle of 6
⫾1°, and a diameter to thickness ratio of 52. The Shelby tube has
an internal diameter of 73 mm, an area ratio of 11.5%, inside
clearance ratio of 1%, inside cutting-edge angle of 0°, outside
cutting-edge angle of 20°, and a diameter to thickness ratio of
46.2.
For an independent measure of the in situ shear strength and
shear modulus at very low strain, field vane tests and seismic
cone test tests were also conducted. These two tests are chosen as
they do not depend on some factors that need calibration, such as
in a cone penetration test. A summary of the tests conducted and
samples collected from this site is given in Table 2.
Baligh et al. 共1987兲 and Clayton et al. 共1995兲 had shown that,
in tube sampling, disturbance increases with smaller diameter-to-
thickness ratio and larger outside cutting edge angle. Tanaka et al.
共1996兲 reported that unconfined compressive strengths of samples
collected by the Japanese thin-walled piston sampling tube were
comparable with those collected by the Laval sampler and higher
than those collected by the Shelby tube, and suggested that the
Japanese sampling tube is likely to inflict a lower degree of dis-
turbance on soil samples than the Shelby tube. Tanaka et al.
共1996兲 also suggested that the presence of the piston had an im-
portant influence on sample quality.
900 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.
Number of tests Remark
19 With and without lateral
pressure measurement
4 With bender element
17
21 With local strain measurement
10 With local strain measurement
5 With local strain and Bender
element measurement
Laboratory Tests
Triaxial tests in this study were conducted at two institutions. At
the National Univ. of Singapore, soil samples with 76 mm height
and 38 mm diam were used, while at the Port and Harbour Re-
search Institute, Japan, samples with 80 mm height and 35 mm
diam were used. Only the central portion of the extruded sample
was tested. A digital controller that has a minimum increment of
0.1 ␮m is used to actuate the axial loading on the sample, housed
within a Bishop-Wesley triaxial cell. For a 76-mm-long triaxial
sample, this is equivalent to a minimum strain increment of 1.3
⫻10⫺6 . Stress-controlled ram loading, and cell and pore pres-
sures are applied using pneumatic regulators with a minimum
pressure increment of about 0.01 kPa.
A pair of bender elements were embedded into the opposing
ends of each sample and wired in a transmitter–receiver configu-
ration as recommended by Dyvik and Madshus 共1985兲 to measure
G max , the maximum shear modulus. This is typically defined as
the shear modulus measured at strain level below 0.001%. Each
element was mounted in such a way that 3 mm of its length
protruded through the filter disk, into the soil sample as recom-
mended by Viggiani and Atkinson 共1995兲. Since the dynamic
stresses generated by the shear waves are much smaller than those
applied by the triaxial loading, the former may be considered to
be small shear stress perturbations about the mean value applied
by the triaxial loading. Thus, the measured shear modulus may be
regarded as a ‘‘local’’ value corresponding to the current stress
state of the sample at which the measurement was made.
In reality, the situation is more complex since the soil may be
anisotropic. Furthermore, the mobilized shear modulus also de-
pends on the stress path of the shear perturbation and its relation
to recent stress history. The stress path caused by the dynamic
shear wave from a bender element is likely to be different from
that experienced by a sample in a static triaxial compression test.
According to Atkinson and Stallebrass 共1991兲, whenever there
was a drastic change in stress path direction, the shear modulus
was able to recover its initial maximum value. Thus, using a
bender element within a static triaxial test would ensure that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Stress–strain curves for samples retrieved using different
samplers under unconfined compression test
G max measured is likely to reflect the initial maximum value at
that stress state. Jardine et al. 共1985兲 had also similarly observed
that the initial shear modulus determined from triaxial tests was
similar to the G max obtained from high quality in situ tests.
Besides the unconfined compression test 共UCT兲, isotropically
consolidated 共CIU兲 and K 0 -consolidated (CK0 U) undrained tri-
axial compression tests were also conducted. For isotropic con-
solidation, step loading with a load ratio equal to unity was ap-
plied until the all around effective stress p ⬘ of the sample is equal
to its estimated in situ mean effective stress. For K 0 consolida-
tion, an axial stress rate of 0.1 kPa/min was applied until the
estimated in situ vertical effective stress is reached, while a con-
dition of zero radial strain was maintained using a volume change
feedback loop. During the shearing stage, a shear strain rate of
1%/min was used in the unconfined compression tests and 0.1%/
min was chosen for consolidation compression tests as suggested
by Head 共1986兲.
Test Results
Undrained Shear Strength
A principal consideration in the study of shear strength is the
quality of the sample on which the test is carried out. Figure 2
shows typical stress–strain curves from unconfined compression
tests of samples retrieved by the two different samplers used in
this study. As can be seen, both samples appear to reach the peak
strength at nearly the same strain level, but with obviously differ-
ent values. However, the ultimate strengths seem to converge.
This suggests that sampling disturbance affects the peak strength
more than the ultimate strength. This result is in agreement with
Hight’s 共1985兲 finding on the young sedimented marine clay.
Figure 3 shows that the undrained shear strength determined
from unconfined compression tests for samples retrieved by the
Japanese piston sampling tube are generally higher than the cor-
responding results from the Shelby tube samples, the average dif-
ference being roughly 30%, consistent with the findings of Hight
共1985兲, and also the findings of Tanaka et al. 共1996兲, who had
shown that for the Ariake clay samples collected by Japanese
thin-walled piston samplers, the undrained shear strengths were,
on average, 40% higher than those collected by the Shelby tube.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 901
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.
Fig. 3. Undrained shear strength from laboratory and in situ tests
Thus, because of its dimensions, the Shelby tube generally inflicts
a higher degree of disturbance to the soil sample than the Japa-
nese piston sampler.
It can also be observed from Fig. 3 that there is a small dif-
ference of less than 5% between the undrained shear strength
determined from the CIU and CK0 U tests, but both values are
significantly higher than the corresponding undrained shear
strength determined by unconfined compression tests. Thus, with
reconsolidation, the undrained shear strengths for samples re-
trieved using the two different samplers show a significantly
smaller difference. This suggests that the effect of sample quality
on strength is largely eliminated through isotropic or K 0 recon-
solidation to the in situ state. This observation is in line with
Clayton et al. 共1992兲, who showed that the in situ undrained shear
strength can be approximately recovered, to within about 10%, by
reconsolidation to in situ stress levels, an observation also made
by others 共Chen and Kulhawy 1993兲. Figure 3 also shows the
results from the field vane shear tests. In general, the strength
determined by the field vane shear test is higher than that from
unconfined compression tests, but much less than those subjected
to reconsolidation. This lower value for shear strength determined
by the field vane shear tests is likely to be caused by the slightly
higher disturbance during the preboring process.
Shear Modulus
In addition to the LVDT, a Hall-effect strain transducer 共HET兲
共Clayton et al. 1989兲, was also employed to measure the defor-
mation at the middle one third of the sample. Through appropriate
amplification of the analog signal and using a 16 bit analog–
digital converter, a quantization error of less than 0.8 ␮m was
achieved. Figure 4 shows the stress–strain curves for a typical
sample, with the strain measured using the two different transduc-
ers. As can be seen, a significant difference in the measured strain
was obtained between the two transducers. In particular, the HET
reflects a much stiffer response than the LVDT in the early part of
the loading, an observation noted by others 共Jardine et al. 1984;
Tatsuoka et al. 1994兲, and also consistent with the finding in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Stress–strain curves from UCT using external LVDT and
local HET
1960s by Rowe and Barden 共1964兲 and Kirkpatrick and Younger
共1970兲 that strains and stresses may not be uniform in the vicinity
of the end platens owing to the platen–soil friction.
The shear modulus of the Lower Marine Clay was determined
under a number of different conditions in the laboratory, just as in
the case of shear strength 共Fig. 5兲. The maximum shear moduli of
two samples, retrieved using the two different sampling tech-
niques used in this study, were first determined in unconfined
compression tests. The strains were determined using Hall-effect
strain transducers, and the shear modulus obtained corresponds to
that at the start of loading when the strain in the sample is around
0.001%. Subsequently, to evaluate the effectiveness of the recon-
solidation technique to ameliorate the negative effect of poor
sample quality, K 0 consolidation of the samples, retrieved using
the two different sampling methods used in this study, were first
carried out before undrained compression tests were carried out.
In these K 0 -consolidation tests, the maximum shear modulus was
measured using a pair of Bender elements. Finally, to provide an
independent value for the maximum shear modulus, G max in the
in situ condition, a seismic cone penetration test was carried. In
Fig. 5. Maximum shear modulus from in situ and laboratory tests
902 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.
Fig. 6. Ratio of maximum shear modulus from laboratory tests over
in situ shear modulus versus normalized mean effective pressure
this test, a cone with a receiver was pushed down a hole while a
heavy roughened platen resting on the ground surface is hit to
send a pulse of shear wave propagating down the soil. The ad-
vantage of this approach is that no correlation factor is needed,
and the shear modulus is measured directly from the differences
in arrival times of waves emitting from the surface when the cone
moves down a hole.
Fig. 5 shows the changes in G max with depth, measured by the
two laboratory tests and the seismic cone penetration test. Fig. 5
shows that G max estimated from local strain measurements in un-
confined compression tests conducted on soil samples retrieved
using both samplers is both lower than the field-measured G max at
the corresponding depth. This suggests that G max has also been
affected by sampling disturbance in much the same way as the
undrained shear strength. Equally important is the observation
that G max obtained for the sample retrieved using the Shelby tube
is clearly lower than that determined for the sample retrieved
using the Japanese tube. This indicates that the sample quality
does play an important role in the determination of G max when
tested in unconfined compression tests.
Fig. 7. Variation of secant shear modulus, G s with axial strain
 To evaluate the effectiveness of reconsolidation, the values of
G max , measured by Bender elements for K 0 -consolidated samples
are shown in Fig. 6. This shows that with reconsolidation, the
G max values are to a large degree recovered, although they remain
consistently about 10% lower than those from the in situ cone
penetration test.
To examine in greater detail the effect of reconsolidation, und-
rained compression tests were carried out on samples, retrieved
using the two different methods used in this study, and subjected
to isotropic consolidation to different mean effective stress, p ⬘ .
G max was measured using a pair of Bender elements and the re-
sults are plotted against the mean effective stress applied during
consolidation, p ⬘ , normalized by the estimated in situ mean ef-
fective stress, p 0⬘ , and shown in Fig. 6. The results show that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

when little or no reconsolidation stress is applied, G max for a

sample retrieved using a Shelby tube is lower than the value of
G max of a sample retrieved using a Japanese tube by as much as
30%. However, this difference reduces as the reconsolidation
stress increases. Nevertheless, a difference of about 10% still per-
sists between the two samples even when the reconsolidation Fig. 8. Stress–strain curves for CIU and CK0 U tests
stress reaches the in situ level (p ⬘ /p ⬘0 ⫽1). However, when plot-
ted against the shear modulus obtained from the seismic cone
penetration tests, the results show that G max for samples retrieved solidation. Thus, it is important to examine the nature of this loss
using the Shelby and Japanese tube samples are lower than the in structure that allows the shear strength to be recovered by
seismic cone value by about 30 and 20%, respectively. Clearly, reconsolidation.
for determining G max , the above result means that reconsolidation The structure of a soil can be classified into two main compo-
can recover, to a large extent, the difference in disturbances be- nents, termed bonding and fabric. Bonding enhances the strength
tween the two types of samplers, but not totally as indicated by and stiffness of a soil by the formation of physical attachments
the difference when the samples are reconsolidated to the in situ between soil grains. Jardine et al. 共1991兲 suggested that if a soil is
level. But more importantly, the results indicate that G max cannot loaded monotonically along a stress path, the stress space sur-
be fully recovered in the laboratory even when the samples are rounding the initial point is divided into three zones:
reconsolidated, when compared to G max measured in situ using 1. Zone I corresponds to the region where behavior is perfectly
seismic cone tests. linear elastic;
2. Zone II corresponds to the region where the stress-strain be-
havior is nonlinear but complete load–unload cycles show
Discussion of Sampling Disturbance on Undrained fully recoverable behavior, that is, nonlinear elastic; and
Shear Strength and Shear Modulus 3. Zone III corresponds to the region where the soil will expe-
rience irrecoverable strain.
Undrained Shear Strength Jardine 共1992兲 also suggested that the linear elastic zone I behav-
ior might be extensive for strongly cemented materials, indicating
Two factors are known to contribute to sampling disturbance,
that the linear elastic zone is connected to bonding. Hence, dam-
namely, effective stress release and destructuring 共Hight 1985;
age to bonding is likely to be exhibited by the fact that zone I has
Graham et al. 1987兲. ‘‘Destructuring’’ is taken to mean the ero-
been exceeded. Fig. 8 shows the changes in secant shear modulus
sion of that component of resistance that is related to the bonding
with strain. The estimated position of the limit of zone I is
and fabric of the soil. Clayton et al. 共1992兲 had shown that sig-
nificant loss of effective stress and some loss of structure occurred
even in very high quality samples of Bothkennar clay. Therefore,
in the present study, it is likely that some loss of structure would
have occurred, including in Japanese thin-walled piston tube
samples.
Graham et al. 共1987兲 had evaluated the effectiveness of the
reconsolidation method using reconstituted samples, which have
no structure. Without the influence of structure, their results
showed that the difference in undrained shear strength after re-
consolidation is very small, about 4 –9%. For the Singapore
Lower Marine Clay, the previous section has shown that shear
strengths determined from undrained compression tests on isotro-
pically and K 0 -consolidated samples were nearly the same for
samples retrieved using the two different samplers. However, the
shear strengths determined from unconfined compression tests,
which do not recover the loss of effective stress, are markedly
lower. What is interesting is that although the samples would have
Fig. 9. One-dimensional compression behavior of remoulded sample
suffered some degree of loss of structure, in the case of Singapore
and one retrieved using Japanese sampler
Lower Marine Clay, such loss is still recoverable through recon-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 903

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.

 Table 3. Water Contents of Japanese and Shelby Samples
Average Water
Content %
Difference
Japanese Shelby in water
Depth, M sampler tube content, %
18.5–19.5 58.15 共6兲 58.54 共8兲 0.39
20.0–21.0 56.90 共7兲 57.22 共7兲 0.32
21.5–22.5 54.77 共5兲 54.37 共9兲 0.40
23.0–24.0 61.42 共7兲 62.78 共11兲 1.36
24.5–25.5 53.73 共7兲 54.85 共9兲 1.12
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
26.0–27.0 54.51 共7兲 55.3 共6兲 0.79
Average water 56.58 共39兲 57.18 共50兲 0.60
content
Note: Parentheses show the number of samples.
marked in Fig. 8. This shows that the yielding of zone I occurs at
strains of about 0.001–0.002% for Singapore Marine Clay.
The second component of structure is fabric, and this is asso-
ciated with particle arrangement and packing. Jardine et al.
共1991兲 suggested that the end of zone II is related to the initiation
of particle slippage while the end of zone III is related to the
initiation of large scale changes in packing. Clayton et al. 共1998兲
suggested that the large scale yielding of zone III occurred at a
strain of just less than 1%. This means that fabric damage is
initiated at a much higher strain level than bond damage. Fig. 9
shows the typical stress–strain curves of CIU and CK0 U samples.
As can be seen, the peak strength, which is taken to be the und-
rained shear strength, occurs at a strain level of about 1–2%.
Thus, in the case of such a weakly cemented clay, attainment of
peak strength is likely to be associated with significant large scale
fabric distortion and loss of packing. If the above premises are
indeed correct, then bonding would have been largely destroyed
by the time the strain level reaches that which is required to
mobilize the peak strength. Thus, much of the peak strength is
likely to arise from the fabric rather than the bonding component
of structure.
From this perspective, it is important to examine the strain
level induced during sampling for the two types of tubes. Clayton
et al. 共1998兲 have shown that with an AR of 10.14%, ICR of
0.99%, and OCA of 9.9°, the maximum compression and exten-
sion strains experienced at the sample centerline are about 0.25
and 0.5%. For the Shelby tube, with AR⫽11.5%, ICR⫽1%, and
OCR⫽20%, the corresponding strains at the sample centerline
may be somewhat higher owing to the higher OCA, but is un-
likely to exceed the 1–2% level. On the other hand, for the Japa-
nese tube, the strain induced is likely to be lower owing to the
lower AR, OCA, and ICR, as well as the presence of a piston that
helps to hold the sample. Thus, the strains induced during sam-
pling in both cases, are sufficient to cause a loss of bonding and,
perhaps, even some localized yielding of interparticle contacts,
but is unlikely to result in significant large scale fabric distortion
and loss of packing, associated with peak strength. With the fabric
largely intact, the tested samples are able to recover their peak
strengths upon reconsolidation.
However, what remains interesting is the significant difference
between the Japanese and Shelby tube samples when tested in
unconfined compression tests. If it is indeed true that sampling-
induced destructuring is largely due to loss of bonding, whereas
904 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.
sample fabric remains largely intact, then differences in the shear
strength observed between the two methods of sampling can only
be attributed to differences in the residual effective stresses. Table
3 shows the water contents of Japanese and Shelby samples,
which show that, with one exception, the water content of Shelby
tube samples is, on average, about 0.6% higher. This trend is also
evident in the data on St-Simon and Nicolet clays 共Milovic 1971兲,
in which tube samples consistently show slightly higher water
content than block samples; the latter is considered the least dis-
turbed. It thus appears that the loss of strength in UCTs may be
related to an increase in water content, that is, to the swelling in
‘‘undisturbed’’ samples.
For the Singapore Lower Marine Clay, a water content differ-
ence of 0.6% is equivalent to an increase in void ratio of about
0.016 using an average specific gravity of 2.7 for the estimation
共see Table 1兲. Using an average swelling compression index of
0.18 共see Table 1兲, this implies a loss of effective stress of roughly
20%. Although the relation between effective stress and peak
strength is unlikely to be linear, it is not unreasonable to expect
the peak strength to be reduced by roughly the same order of
magnitude. Examination of Fig. 2 shows that this is indeed the
trend. Hence, it appears that the loss of strength in unconfined
compression tests can be accounted for by the increase in water
content due to swelling of the samples.
The next question that needs to be addressed is what can cause
this swelling? Clayton et al. 共1998兲 showed that the compressive
axial strain ahead of a sampling tube is significantly affected by
changes in AR and OCA. However, it is unlikely this larger
compression–extension cycle imposed by the larger AR and OCA
of the Shelby tube can account for the swelling. As shown in Figs.
5 and 9, peak strength occurs only after the strain level exceeds
1%, a level unlikely to occur during the sampling process, at least
not along the centerline of the sample 共Clayton et al. 1998兲. Fur-
thermore, positive, not negative, excess pore pressure is gener-
ated; the dissipation of which is likely to lead to lower, not higher,
water content especially at the outer part of the sample where the
shearing is more significant.
Another possibility that can account for the swelling of the
sample within the Shelby tube is its higher ICR. ICR is incorpo-
rated into samplers to prevent sample jamming due to build up of
shear stresses along the inside wall of the sample. Clayton et al.
共1998兲 results showed that increasing ICR will reduce the axial
extension strain at the sample centerline, by allowing the sample
to expand sideways instead of axially. In other words, increasing
the ICR probably leads to a reduction in confinement of the
sample. If this occurs, the water content along the center of a
sample will increase while a thin desiccated crust will be formed
adjacent to the sampler wall. Inspection of the Shelby samples
confirmed the presence of this thin crust. Indirect evidence of this
may also be found in the results of some previous researchers.
Tanaka et al. 共1996兲 compared the unconfined compression
strength of samples obtained by the Japanese, Laval, NGI54,
Shelby, and ELE100. The highest unconfined compression
strength came from samples obtained using the Japanese and
Laval samplers, both of which have ICR⫽0. Bozozuk 共1971兲 also
noted that the Osterberg sampler (ICR⫽0.42%) provided less
disturbed samples than the NGI54 sampler (ICR⫽1%).
In summary, when tested in unconfined compression tests,
Shelby tube samples yield lower shear strengths than Japanese
tube samples. The differences can be attributed to the different
degree of disturbance induced by the two samplers. However, the
loss in shear strength in unconfined compression tests can be
 largely recovered by reconsolidating the samples to in situ effec-
tive stress levels. This indicates that sample disturbance is un-
likely to have resulted in large scale fabric distortion although
loss of bonding could have occurred. However, bonding is un-
likely to contribute significantly to the undrained shear strength
for Singapore Lower Marine Clay as this material is a young and
lightly cemented clay. Finally, differences in water content indi-
cate that the loss of shear strength in unconfined compression
tests appears to be caused by a slight swelling of the clay within
the sampler. This swelling is likely to be caused by the higher
ICR of the Shelby sampler.
Maximum Shear Modulus, Gmax
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The fact that samples retrieved using the Japanese sampler are
less disturbed than those retrieved using the Shelby tube is also
manifested in the measurement of maximum shear modulus in
unconfined compression tests. The results consistently show that
samples from the Japanese thin-walled piston sampler have
higher maximum shear stiffness than samples from the Shelby
tube. What is interesting is that reconsolidation to the in situ stress
state indicates significant recovery, especially when the G max val-
ues for samples retrieved using the two different samplers are
compared with each other. However, consistently, the values ob-
tained in the laboratory, even with reconsolidation, are lower than
that from values obtained from in situ seismic cone tests.
Thus, the effect of sampling disturbance on G max is substan-
tially, but not entirely, recovered by reconsolidation. As reconsoli-
dation can only recover effective stress, the above results suggest
that for the Singapore Lower Marine Clay, G max depends to a
large extent on the effective stress levels and, to a lesser extent,
on the bonding of the soil. This is consistent with the earlier
suggestion that partial destructuring, in the form of loss of bond-
ing and local yielding at interparticle contacts, is likely to have
occurred under the strains imposed by the sampling process. The
notion that G max of the marine clay being studied is often strongly
dependent on the effective stress level and less so on the stress 共or
strain兲 history is consistent with the results and findings of previ-
ous researchers. For normally consolidated soils, Hardin and
Black 共1968兲 suggested that
G max⬀F 共 e 兲 p ⬘ 0.5 (1)
where p ⬘ ⫽mean effective stress and F(e) is a function of the
void ratio e. Hardin and Black 共1968兲 also noted that, for nor-
mally consolidated clays, e is related to p ⬘ , and this has been
used by several researchers to relate G max to p ⬘ alone for a nor-
mally consolidated clay. For example, Dasari 共1996兲 showed that,
for normally consolidated kaolin,
G max⬀p ⬘ 0.69 (2)
Comparing Eq. 共2兲 with Eq. 共1兲 shows that the higher exponent of
p ⬘ in Eq. 共2兲 probably accounts for the effect of the reduction in
void ratio with increasing p ⬘ . For overconsolidated clays, Dasari
共1996兲 further suggested that the effects of the overconsolidation
ratio 共OCR兲 can be accounted for by the relationship
G max⬀OCRn p ⬘ 0.69 (3)
However, Dasari 共1996兲 adopted a value of approximately 0.2 for
n. This suggests that for a lightly overconsolidated clay, as is the
case of the Singapore Lower Marine Clay, G max is strongly de-
pendent on p ⬘ and to a much lesser extent on OCR. This is con-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002 / 905
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.
sistent with the results presented that reconsolidation can help to
recover the maximum shear modulus substantially but not com-
pletely.
Conclusion
It is important to recognize that the sampling process causes two
different disturbances, namely, stress release and loss of structure.
Reconsolidation methods are used to negate the effect of stress
release whereas it is not clear whether it can compensate for the
loss of structure. There is also a recent recognition that structure
of the soil is composed of two components, bonding and fabric.
These are in turn related to different types of yielding, as argued
by Jardine et al. 共1992兲.
Bonding enhances the strength and stiffness of a soil by the
formation of physical attachments between soil particles and is
associated with yielding of the linear elastic zone, which occurs at
strain of about 0.002% for Singapore Marine Clay. Fabric is as-
sociated with particle arrangement and packing. It has been sug-
gested that the end of the zone of the recoverable but elastic zone
is related to the initiation of particle slippage while yielding in
zone III is related to the initiation of large scale changes in pack-
ing.
With these ideas as background, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. In general, samples retrieved using the Shelby tube show a
higher degree of disturbance compared with those using the
Japanese thin-walled piston sampler. The undrained shear
strength determined by unconfined compression tests on
samples retrieved using the Japanese sampler are about 30%
higher than those using the Shelby tube. However, in this
type of tests where the stress release is not restored, the shear
strengths obtained are consistently lower than those deter-
mined by in situ tests.
2. The reconsolidation method can effectively recover the ef-
fect of stress release on the peak strength value. This also
means that the loss of bonding, which would inevitably
occur, does not affect the peak strength in the case of the
Singapore Lower Marine Clay, a lightly cemented clay. It is
argued in this paper that peak strength is affected more by
fabric, which yields at a strain level not likely to be sustained
during the sampling process, and not by loss of bonding,
which occurs at very small strain.
3. However, the reconsolidation method is only substantially
but not completely effective in recovering the G max . The
G max value for a sample reconsolidated to the in situ level is
still about 10% smaller than that determined from the seis-
mic cone penetration tests. It is argued in this paper that
G max for a young and lightly overconsolidated marine clay is
strongly dependent on the effective stress and less strongly
on recent stress history, which is related to bonding. This last
aspect is likely to be disturbed when either of the samplers is
used.
References
ASTM D1587. 共1994兲. Standard methods for thin-walled tube sampling
of soils, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Atkinson, J. H., and Stallebrass, S. E. 共1991兲. ‘‘Model of recent stress
history and nonlinearity in the stress–strain behavior of overconsoli-
dated soil.’’ Proc., 7th Int. Conf. of Computer Methods Advance Geo-
mechanics, Beer, Booker, and Carter, eds., 1, 555–560.
 Baligh, M. M., Azzouz, A. S., and Chin, C. T. 共1987兲. ‘‘Disturbances due
to ‘ideal’ tube sampling.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 113共7兲, 739–757.
Bozozuk, M. 共1971兲. ‘‘Effect of sampling, size, and storage on test results
for marine clay.’’ Sampling of soil and rock, ASTM STP 483, Ameri-
can Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 121–131.
Chen, Y. J., and Kulhawy, F. H. 共1993兲. ‘‘Undrained strength interrela-
tionships among CIUC UU, and UC tests.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 119共11兲,
1732–1750.
Clayton, C. R. I., Khatrust, S. A., Bica, A. V. D., and Siddique, A. 共1989兲.
‘‘Use of Hall-effect semiconductors in geotechnical instrumentation.’’
Geotech. Test. J., 12共1兲, 69–76.
Clayton, C. R. I., Hight, D. W., and Hopper, R. J. 共1992兲. ‘‘Progressive
destructuring of Bothkennar clay: Implications for sampling and re-
consolidation procedures.’’ Geotechnique, 42共2兲, 219–239.
Clayton, C. R. I., Matthews, M. C. and Simons, N. E. 共1995兲. Site inves-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tigation, Blackwell, London.
Clayton, C. R. I., Siddique, A., and Hopper, R. J. 共1998兲. ‘‘Effect of
sampler design on tube sampling disturbance—Numerical and ana-
lytical investigations.’’ Geotechnique, 48共6兲, 847– 867.
Dasari, G. R. 共1996兲. ‘‘Modeling the variation of soil stiffness during
sequential construction.’’ PhD thesis, Cambridge Univ., U.K.
Davis, E. H., and Poulus, H. G. 共1971兲. ‘‘Laboratory investigation of the
effect of sampling.’’ Trans., Inst. of Engineers, Australia, GE.9, No. 1,
86 –94.
Dyvik, R., and Madshus, C. 共1985兲. ‘‘Laboratory measurements of G max ;
using Bender elements. Advances in the art of testing soils under
cyclic conditions.’’ Proc., ASCE Convention, Detroit, Mich., 186 –
196.
Graham, J., Kwok, C. K., and Ambrosie, R. W. 共1987兲. ‘‘Stress release,
undrained storage, and reconsolidation in simulated underwater clay.’’
Can. Geotech. J., 24, 279–288.
Hardin, B. O., and Black, W. L. 共1968兲. ‘‘Vibration modulus of normally
consolidated clay.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
94共2兲, 353–369.
Head, K. H. 共1986兲, Manual of soil laboratory testing, Pentech, London,
3.
906 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2002
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002.128:898-906.
Hight, D. W. 共1985兲. ‘‘Evaluation of geotechnical parameters from tri-
axial tests on offshore clay.’’ Offshore Site Investigation–Advances in
Underwater technology and Offshore Engineering, 3, 253–268.
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
共JSSMFE兲. 共1977兲. Japanese sampling manual, Japanese Committee
of Soil Sampling 共in Japanese兲.
Jardine, R. J., Symes, N. J., and Burland, J. B. 共1984兲. ‘‘Measurement of
soil stiffness in triaxial apparatus.’’ Geotechnique, 34共3兲, 323–340.
Jardine, R. J., Fourie, A., Maswoswe, J. and Burland, J. B. 共1985兲. ‘‘Field
and laboratory measurements of soil stiffness.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2, 511–514.
Jardine, R. J. John, St., Hight, H. W. and Potts, D. M. 共1991兲. ‘‘Some
practical applications of a nonlinear ground model.’’ Proc., 10th Eu-
ropean Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Florence,
1, 223–228.
Jardine, R. J. 共1992兲. ‘‘Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil
stiffness.’’ Soils Found., 32共2兲, 111–124.
Kirkpatrick, W. M., and Younger, J. S. 共1970兲. ‘‘Strain conditions in a
compression cylinder.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. En-
gineering, 96共5兲, 1683–1695.
Kirkpatrick, W. M., and Khan, A. J. 共1984兲. ‘‘Reaction of clays to sam-
pling stress relief.’’ Geotechnique, 34共1兲, 29– 42.
Milovic, D. M. 共1971兲. ‘‘Effect of sampling on some soil characteristics.’’
Sampling of soil and rock, ASTM STP 483, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 164 –179.
Rowe, P. W., and Barden, L. 共1964兲. ‘‘Importance of Free Ends in Triaxial
Testing.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 90共1兲, 1–27.
Tanaka, H., Sharma, P., Tsuchida, T., and Tanaka, M. 共1996兲. ‘‘Compari-
son study on sample quality using several types of samplers.’’ Soils
Found., 36共2兲, 57– 68.
Tatsuoka, F., Sato, T., Park, C. S., Kim, Y. S., Makubi, J. N., and Kohata,
Y. 共1994兲. ‘‘Measurements of elastic properties of geomaterials in
laboratory compression test.’’ Geotech. Test. J., 17共1兲, 80–94.
Viggiani, G., and Atkinson, J. H. 共1995兲. ‘‘Interpretation of bender ele-
ment tests.’’ Geotechnique, 45共1兲, 149–154.