applied

sciences
Article
Undrained Pore Pressure Development on Cohesive
Soil in Triaxial Cyclic Loading
Andrzej Głuchowski 1, * , Emil Soból 2 , Alojzy Szymański 2 and Wojciech Sas 1
1 Water Centre-Laboratory, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Life
Sciences-SGGW, 02787 Warsaw, Poland
2 Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Warsaw
University of Life Sciences-SGGW, 02787 Warsaw, Poland
* Correspondence: andrzej_gluchowski@sggw.pl; Tel.: +48-225-935-405




Received: 5 July 2019; Accepted: 5 September 2019; Published: 12 September 2019


Abstract: Cohesive soils subjected to cyclic loading in undrained conditions respond with pore
pressure generation and plastic strain accumulation. The article focus on the pore pressure
development of soils tested in isotropic and anisotropic consolidation conditions. Due to the
consolidation differences, soil response to cyclic loading is also different. Analysis of the cyclic
triaxial test results in terms of pore pressure development produces some indication of the relevant
mechanisms at the particulate level. Test results show that the greater susceptibility to accumulate
the plastic strain of cohesive soil during cyclic loading is connected with the pore pressure generation
pattern. The value of excess pore pressure required to soil sample failure differs as a consequence of
different consolidation pressure and anisotropic stress state. Effective stresses and pore pressures are
the main factors that govern the soil behavior in undrained conditions. Therefore, the pore pressure
generated in the first few cycles plays a key role in the accumulation of plastic strains and constitutes
the major amount of excess pore water pressure. Soil samples consolidated in the anisotropic and
isotropic stress state behave differently responding differently to cyclic loading. This difference may
impact on test results analysis and hence may change the view on soil behavior. The results of tests
on isotropically and anisotropically consolidated soil samples are discussed in this paper in order to
point out the main features of the cohesive soil behavior.

Keywords: cyclic loading; triaxial test; resilient modulus; undrained conditions; pore pressure;
plastic strains

1. Introduction
The cyclic loading sources can be distinguished into two categories. The first one is natural sources
as ocean waves or earthquake. The second one is the anthropogenic sources. This type of excitation is
different because of the loading amplitude and the frequency [1,2]. Cyclic loading can cause rapid
failure due to high level repeating stress imposed on the structure or liquefaction when certain soil
conditions are met [3,4]. When the load is small enough, the repeating loading can last longer. In that
case, the bearing capacity failure will not be reached but excessive settlements can occur [2,5,6]. In this
case, post-construction settlements may put out of service further construction. Regarding foundations
or road constructions the weakest link is subgrade soils [6]. The traffic loading is a good example
of a certain choice, which geotechnical designers need to take [7–9]. When thick embankments are
designed, the repeating loading can be transmitted to the subgrade soils, which will result in unknown
settlements. The solution to this problem is to increase the embankments thickness and therefore to
prevent the cyclic loads to be imposed on the subgrade soils. Nevertheless, this solution generates
extra costs to road construction due to longer embankment construction and settlements of subgrade

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821; doi:10.3390/app9183821 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 2 of 23

soils as a result of static embankment load. What is more, the current practice converts the cyclic and
dynamic loads to an equivalent static load, which is combined with the weight of the embankment.
The cyclic loading is, therefore, the main reason that impacts the soil respond in such constructions.
The traffic engineers have reported long-term cyclic loading settlement effects. The excessive settlements
and uneven settlements were the reason for withdrawal from the use of road constructions as well as
buildings. Currently, researchers and scholars have focused on road construction problems [2,7–13]
as well as on pore pressure development of excess pore water pressure under irregular seismic
loading [14,15]. The cyclic loading phenomena were divided into few categories where the attention
of researchers is focused. The permanent strain development was studied in order to appoint the
threshold stress under which the permanent deformation will stop and the plastic shakedown will
occur [2,7,8]. The second main focus subject is pore pressure development during undrained cyclic
loading. The pore pressure generation models were developed in order to characterize the soil respond
under seismic loading based on the damage concept [15,16]. Extensive studies have been devoted to the
coarse-grained soils in unsaturated conditions [17,18] among which most recent studies concentrate on
the effect of strain localization on the response of granular materials with geostatistical analysis [19,20].
Last decade brought attention to cohesive soils tested in drained and undrained conditions. The test
results have shown non-cohesive soils’ different responses to cyclic loading [21–24].
The cohesive soil loaded by long-term cyclic loading, which will not lead to cyclic failure, will suffer
the irrecoverable strains and permanent pore pressure [23,25–27].
The cohesive soil tested with the use of cyclic triaxial test apparatus was mostly the isotropically
consolidated one [27–32]. The soil in natural conditions is the anisotropic stress state and therefore,
the consolidation should be conducted in the K0 stress state. The soil response is also different when
the isotropic and anisotropic condition is applied. The aim of this paper is to capture the difference
between cohesive soils consolidated in isotropic and anisotropic stress conditions.
Previous studies on the cohesive soil in undrained conditions, which was isotropically consolidated,
have shown a rapid increase of pore pressure in the early stage of cyclic loading [33–35]. The long term
cyclic loading has shown, that the axial strain tends to stabilize, which gives time to stabilization of
pore pressure.
The mean effective stress in cyclic loading decreases because of pore pressure development.
Nevertheless, when the cyclic loading is low enough the stress path never will reach the critical
state line and the failure of the soil is not observed. The development of permanent strain increases
nonlinearly but is very similar under different confining pressures and different cyclic deviator stress
conditions [36].
The centrifuge tests on a shallow skirted foundation in normally consolidated kaolin clay have
shown that two-way cyclic loading in average compression leads to continuous accumulation of the
foundation settlement. The mode of failure for a skirted foundation under two-way vertical cyclic
loading depends rather on the average vertical stress than on the maximal vertical stress [37].
The K0 -consolidated marine natural soft clays were tested by Sun et al. [38]. The conducted cyclic
triaxial tests were followed by monotonic loading in undrained conditions. The aim of this work
was to study the accumulative behavior, as well as the influence of the frequency of cyclic loading.
The results of the tests have shown that under a certain increase of the applied cyclic deviator stress
level, the initial excess pore water pressure also increases in the first cycle. The pore pressure will
then develop with further cycles and will decrease at failure. The soil response to cyclic loading in
regards to plastic strain accumulation shows that under a certain level of loading the deformation of
soft clay increases slowly and the plastic strain rate stabilizes after numerous cycles at a small value.
The increase of the deviator stress is triggering the failure mechanism, which occurs with extensive
plastic strain and the soil collapses abruptly.
The authors reported that the reason for such a phenomenon in the great value of stress
reversal during cyclic loading. This behavior was not observed in isotropically consolidated samples.
The post–cyclic loading of cohesive soils have shown the reduction of soil undrained shear strength in
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 3 of 23

comparison to monotonic tests. The reduction was between 0.98 to 0.66. The greatest reduction of
undrained shear strength was observed in the case of samples, which exhibited the greatest excess
pore water pressure increase in relation to initial mean effective stress p0 0 .
The conclusion is that the soft clay responds to cyclic loading in a similar manner in terms of
plastic strains, which gradually decreases with an increasing number of cycles. The cyclic confining
pressure was recognized as a significant factor that affects the permanent strain accumulation. In the
case of compacted cohesive soils, their response to cyclic loading should be also analyzed in a matter
of specific values such as the cyclic deviator stress level and type, soil type, specific test conditions,
and consolidation pressure and consolidation history.
The primary objective of this study is to present the differences between isotropic and anisotropic
consolidation in response to cyclic loading. The cohesive soil response to cyclic loading is analyzed in
terms of excess pore pressure development and permanent strain accumulation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Index Properties

The cohesive soil in this study was taken from a road construction site. The cohesive soil tested
in this study is typical soil, which represents primary deposits, left behind by a glacier. This type of
glacial till is common for the northern and central part of Poland. The clay was recognized as one of
the problematic soils due to low permeability and low bearing capacity. The soil has a brown color and
is characterized by heterogenic soil diameter distribution with a dominant fraction 0.05–0.1 mm [39].
The soil is normally consolidated and often natural moisture content places it in soft rarely firm
consistency. This type of soil has also a low plasticity index (10% < IP < 30%). The soil in the natural
state has low to medium strength (undrained strength cu in the range 20 to 60 kPa) based on CPT
(Cone Penetration Test) and DMT (Dilatometer Test) tests [40]. The index properties were established
including the soil grain composition, Atterberg limits, and optimal moisture content. The results of the
tests present in Table 1. The cohesive soil was recognized based on the Eurocode 7 [41,42] classification
as sandy silty clay (sasiCl).

Table 1. Index properties of tested sandy silty clay.

Index Properties Value

Specific gravity, Gs (g/cm3 ) 2.67
Optimal moisture content, wopt (%) 12.3
Maximal dry density, ρd max (g/cm3 ) 1.96
Liquid limit, wL (%) 42.0
Plasticity index, IP (%) 18.4
Clay fraction, fCl (%) 19
Silt fraction, fSi (%) 41
Sand fraction, fSa (%) 40

2.2. Monotonic Triaxial Tests

Figure 1 presents the result of monotonic triaxial tests with different confining pressures.
The parameters on the figures are the deviator stress q = σ0 1 − σ0 3 , mean effective stress p0 =
(σ0 1 + 2σ0 3 )/3, axial vertical strain ε1 , and excess pore water pressure ∆u. On Figure 1a the effective
stress paths on the p0 –q plane are presented. The slope of the critical state line (CSL) is given as
M = 1.33. The monotonic triaxial tests results indicate the typical compacted soil behavior. This type
of soil response can be called quasi-overconsolidated due to the reverse curvature of the stress path.
The failure points were estimated based on the intersection between the stress path and the CSL.
The deviator stress at failure qmax was 46.04, 93.66, and 153.55 kPa for confining pressures of 45, 90,
and 135 kPa respectively. The pore pressure presented in Figure 1c shows peak values of the pore
pressure and therefore indicates the maximum axial strain ε1, max achieved by sample when failure
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 4 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 4 of 23

occurred
valuethe
of εvalue of ε1, max was
1, max was 1.102%,
1.102%,
2.277%, 2.277%,
and 3.439% andand 3.439% and
the maximal the
excess maximal
pore excess Δu
water pressure pore
waswater
pressure ∆u was 27.39, 47.83, and 71.32 kPa for confining pressure 45, 90, and 135
27.39, 47.83, and 71.32 kPa for confining pressure 45, 90, and 135 kPa respectively. kPa respectively.

180 180
45 kPa
160 160
90 kPa
140 135 kPa 140
deviator stress q (kPa)

deviator stress q (kPa)

120 120
M = 1.33
100 100
1
80 80

60 60

40 40 45 kPa
20 90 kPa
20
135 kPa
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 2 4 6 8
mean effective stress p' (kPa) axial strain ε1 (%)

(a) (b)
80
excess pore water pressure Δu (kPa)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10
45 kPa 90 kPa 135 kPa
0
0 2 4 6 8
axial strain ε1 (%)

(c)
FigureFigure 1. Results
1. Results of the
of the statictriaxial
static triaxial test
test for
forsandy
sandysilty clay
silty under
clay confining
under pressure
confining of 45 kPa,
pressure 90 kPa,
of 45
kPa, and 135 kPa and under the isotropic consolidation: (a) The deviator stress–mean effective
90 kPa, and 135 kPa and under the isotropic consolidation: (a) The deviator stress–mean effective stress stress
relationship,
relationship, (b) deviator
(b) deviator stress–vertical
stress–vertical strainrelationship,
strain relationship, and
and(c)
(c)excess
excesspore water
pore pressure
water versus
pressure versus
vertical strain characteristic.
vertical strain characteristic.

2.3.Sample
2.3. Soil Soil Sample Properties,
Properties, Preparation,
Preparation, andandOrigin
Origin.
Thein
The soil soil in study
this this study
waswastakentaken
from from a road
a road constructionsite
construction siteplaced
placedininWarsaw.
Warsaw. The
The depth
depth ofof soil
soil deposition was at 1 m below the ground and the soils were classified as Pleistocene moraine
deposition was at 1 m below the ground and the soils were classified as Pleistocene moraine deposits
deposits of the Warta Glaciation.
of the Warta Glaciation.
The soil was stored and dried. The soil past used for sample preparation was in optimal moisture
The soil conditions
content was storedand andthe
dried. The then
soil was soil past used for
compacted sample
with respectpreparation wasmethod
to the Proctor in optimal
[43]. moisture
The
content conditions
energy and the was
of compaction soil was
equalthen compacted
to 0.59 J/cm3. Thewithsoilrespect to the
paste was Proctor method
compacted [43].two-part
in a scaled The energy
of compaction
aluminumwas moldequal to 0.59
with the J/cm3 . The
dimensions soil paste
of a triaxial soilwas
samplecompacted in a scaled
(7 cm diameter and 14two-part aluminum
cm height). The
mold with the dimensions of a triaxial soil sample (7 cm diameter and 14 cm height). The sandy silty
sandy silty clay sample properties in this study are presented in Table 2. The initial void ratio e 0 was
constantproperties
clay sample during the in undrained
this study cyclic
aretriaxial test and
presented was in2.the
in Table Therange between
initial void 0.333
ratio to
e0 0.414. The
was constant
duringinitial density ρd ofcyclic
the undrained testedtriaxial
soils wastestinand
the range
was inofthe1.89range
to 2.10 g/cm3. 0.333 to 0.414. The initial density
between
ρd of tested soils was in the range of 1.89 to 2.10 g/cm3 .
Table 2. The cyclic triaxial test soil sample index properties.

Index Properties 1.1 triaxial

Table 2. The cyclic 1.2 test 1.3 2.1 index
soil sample 2.2 properties.
2.3 2.4 2.5
Moisture content, w (%) 14.75 12.62 14.33 12.34 11.14 12.66 6.07 9.38
Index Properties
Dry density, ρd (g/cm3) 1.11.89 1.2 1.95 1.3
1.89 2.1 1.92
1.96 2.2 1.942.3 2.10 2.41.91 2.5
Void
Moisture ratio, w
content, e0 (%)
(−) 0.414 12.62
14.75 0.345 14.33
0.412 0.333
12.34 0.399
11.14 0.379
12.660.276 6.07
0.400 9.38
Dry density, ρd (g/cm3 ) 1.89 1.95 1.89 1.96 1.92 1.94 2.10 1.91
Void ratio, e0 (−) 0.414 0.345 0.412 0.333 0.399 0.379 0.276 0.400
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 5 of 23

2.4. Test Procedure

The compacted soil was installed in triaxial apparatus and the saturation process had started.
This stage of the triaxial test was performed so full saturation conditions can be achieved. The saturation
step was terminated when the Skempton parameter B was equal to 0.95, which has been assumed from
a technical point of view and indicates full near saturation conditions.
The second stage was consolidation. The consolidation was conducted in isotropic and anisotropic
stress (K0 -consolidation) conditions. For isotropic consolidation, the stress in cell pressure remained
constant and the leakage of pore water pressure was measured. The isotropic consolidation was
stopped when the pore water pressure effluent was less than 5 mm3 per five minutes.
The anisotropic consolidation set up was designed to achieve pointed effective stress of
consolidation σ0 k0 . The sample was loaded by the deviator stress q and the radial stress during
the K0 consolidation was automatically controlled by the triaxial equipment system. The cell pressure
compensated the effect of deviator stress loading.
After the consolidation step, the cyclic loading test was conducted. The cyclic deviator stress
components were the maximal and minimal deviator stress denoted as qmax and qmin respectively and
two supplemental values of the cyclic deviator stress: Deviator stress amplitude qa and deviator stress
median qm . The cyclic triaxial test program presents Table 3. The soil specimens were tested in the
constant frequency of loading equal to 1 Hz. The loading wave-form was the semi-sin wave type.
The number of cycles was from 10,000 to 50,000 cycles. The tests were conducted in different effective
confining pressure levels. The cyclic stress ratio is taken as the ratio of the maximum cyclic deviator
stress qmax to the initial effective confining pressure σ0 3 .

Table 3. The cyclic triaxial test program.

Stress Component 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Maximal deviator stress, qmax (kPa) 43.6 46.0 43.2 117.3 100.9 101.5 169.9 79.6
Minimal deviator stress, qmin (kPa) 35.4 37.0 35.2 96.0 74.0 80.7 138.3 53.1
Deviator stress median, qm (kPa) 39.5 41.5 39.2 106.7 87.5 91.1 154.1 66.4
Deviator stress amplitude, qa (kPa) 4.1 4.5 4.0 10.7 13.5 10.4 15.8 13.3
Effective confining pressure, σ0 3 (kPa) 45.0 90.0 135.0 65.0 125.0 139.7 94.2 44.9
Cyclic stress ratio, CSR (−) 0.484 0.256 0.160 0.902 0.403 0.363 0.901 0.886

The test equipment was the cyclic triaxial apparatus—an electrodynamical system produced by
GDS Instruments. The cyclic load was applied by the servo-loading system. The pressures in this
study were applied by the oil pressure system. This kind of triaxial apparatus was equipped with a
real-time data acquisition system, which enables long term cyclic loading.

3. Results and Discussion

Test results were discussed separately in order to explain the phenomena that occurred during
cyclic loading. The discussion concerns the pore pressure behavior, axial strain accumulation,
the deviator stress–axial strain characteristics, and the stress paths. The second part of this chapter will
discuss the comparison between the isotropic and anisotropically (K0 ) consolidated samples.

3.1. Isotropically and K0 Consolidated Samples Test Results

On Figure 2 the undrained cyclic triaxial test results for sample 1.1 are presented. The isotropic
confining pressure was equal to 45 kPa. The soil sample was loaded with the deviator stress q,
which their components were as follows qm = 39.5 kPa and qa = 4.1 kPa. The soil response to such
a loading program could be divided into three stages. The first one is the first loading cycle. In this
stage, the soil is accumulating a high amount of permanent strain, which is accompanied by a high
generation of excess pore water pressure. The stress path (Figure 2e) rises to planned deviator stress
level and mean effective stress p0 starts to move towards the deviator stress axis, which indicates a
decrease of radial stress due to the mobilization of excess pore water pressure.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 6 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 6 of 23

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure
Figure 2. 2. Results
Results of theofcyclic
the cyclic triaxial
triaxial testfor
test forsandy
sandy silty
siltyclay
clayunder a confining
under a confiningpressure of 45 kPa
pressure of 45 kPa
andthe
and under under the isotropic
isotropic consolidation,
consolidation, initialvoid
initial voidratio
ratio ee0 ==0.414—sample
0.414—sample 1.1: (a)
1.1:Excess pore water
(a) Excess pore water
0
pressure versus vertical strain characteristic, (b) excess pore water pressure characteristic versus
pressure versus vertical strain characteristic, (b) excess pore water pressure characteristic versus number
number of cycles, (c) vertical strain characteristic versus number of cycles, (d) deviator stress–vertical
of cycles, (c) vertical strain characteristic versus number of cycles, (d) deviator stress–vertical strain
strain relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last 10
relationship,
cycles;and
arrow(e) the deviator
color—violet: stress–mean
Saturation effective
phase, green: stress relationship
Consolidation (red
phase, orange: color—last
First 10 cycles;
cycle of cyclic
arrow color—violet: Saturation
loading, blue: Cyclic phase,
loading green: Consolidation phase, orange: First cycle of cyclic loading,
program).
blue: Cyclic loading program).
After the first cycle, the second type of soil response began. The pore pressure rose to a local
maximal
After the firstvalue equal the
cycle, to around
second 17 kPa
typeinofthesoil
4th response
cycle (Figure 1a) andThe
began. thenpore
dropped to 15 kPa
pressure in the
rose to a local
11th cycle. After this circumstance, the pore pressure rose with decreasing increment. During this
maximal value equal to around 17 kPa in the 4th cycle (Figure 1a) and then dropped to 15 kPa in
phase, the permanent strains were also accumulated. This phase ended around the 350th cycle. In the
the 11th cycle. After this circumstance, the pore pressure rose with decreasing increment. During
first cycle phase and in the second one, most of the permanent strains occurred. The excess pore
this phase, the permanent
pressure reached moststrains were
of its value also accumulated.
in these two stages. This phase ended around the 350th cycle.
In the first cycle phase and in the second one, most of the permanent
The second phase characterized with decreasing strain and excess strains occurred.
pore water Thevalue
pressure excess pore
pressureincrement. Nevertheless,
reached most permanent
of its value in thesestrain
twoaccumulation
stages. and the pore pressure build-up process
Thedependence are more
second phase complex and needs
characterized with to be investigated
decreasing further.
strain andThis can be
excess easily
pore noticed
water by the value
pressure
Figure 2b,c analysis. Strain accumulation lasted longer than the pore pressure build up or the pore
increment. Nevertheless, permanent strain accumulation and the pore pressure build-up process
dependence are more complex and needs to be investigated further. This can be easily noticed by the
Figure 2b,c analysis. Strain accumulation lasted longer than the pore pressure build up or the pore
pressure increment slowed down faster than permanent strain accumulation. On Figure 2a after the
local minimum, stabilization of the pore pressure increase was observed to a certain point. When axial
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 7 of 23

strain reached a value

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, xof approximately 0.5% (about the 350th cycle), the pore pressure 7increment of 23 had
a constant value when related to the axial strain.
pressure increment slowed down faster than permanent strain accumulation. On Figure 2a after the
The last
localphase
minimum, wasstabilization
the long term of theloading phase.
pore pressure In this
increase wasstage, thetopore
observed pressure,
a certain as well as the
point. When
permanentaxial
strain,
strainrose withaconstant
reached value of increment.
approximatelyThe 0.5%soil reached
(about a stable
the 350th cycle),response
the pore to cyclic loading.
pressure
increment
In this study, 20,000had a constant
cycles werevalue when related
applied. to the axial
The excess porestrain.
water pressure was rising slightly between
The last phase was the long term loading phase. In this stage, the pore pressure, as well as the
cycle 350 and the last cycle.
permanent strain, rose with constant increment. The soil reached a stable response to cyclic loading.
The cyclic triaxial
In this study, testcycles
20,000 results
werein isotropic
applied. consolidation
The excess conditions
pore water pressure where
was rising effective
slightly between confining
pressure was
cycleequal
350 andto the90 kPa
last present in Figure 3. The soil in this test had initially the void ratio
cycle.
equal to 0.345,Thewhich cyclic triaxial testaresults
represents moreincompacted
isotropic consolidation
sample inconditions
comparison whereto effective confining
the previous test sample.
pressure was equal to 90 kPa present in Figure 3. The soil in this test had initially the void ratio equal
The cyclic loading performed as well as in the previous test high pore pressure and permanent strain
to 0.345, which represents a more compacted sample in comparison to the previous test sample. The
accumulation
cyclicin the first
loading cycle.asNevertheless,
performed excesstest
well as in the previous pore
highwater pressure
pore pressure andreached
permanentroughly
strain 11 kPa
(17 kPa in accumulation
the previous test).
in the firstUnlike the previous
cycle. Nevertheless, test
excess the
pore axial
water strainreached
pressure increment
roughly was greater
11 kPa (17 than in
kPastep
the previous in the(0.65%
previousintest).
testUnlike the previous
1.2 and 0.16% in test the 1.1).
test axial strain
This increment
differencewaswasgreater than in
clearly the
caused by the
previous step (0.65% in test 1.2 and 0.16% in test 1.1). This difference was clearly caused by the
difference between the initial void ratio and in the radial effective confining pressure. In the second
difference between the initial void ratio and in the radial effective confining pressure. In the second
stage of loading, the pore
stage of loading, thepressure roserose
pore pressure in aingreater
a greater amount
amount thanthan in the
in the previous
previous test. test.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 3. Results of the cyclic triaxial test for sandy silty clay under a confining pressure of 90 kPa
and under the isotropic consolidation, initial void ratio e0 = 0.345—sample 1.2: (a) Excess pore water
pressure versus vertical strain characteristic, (b) excess pore water pressure characteristic versus number
of cycles, (c) vertical strain characteristic versus number of cycle, (d) deviator stress–vertical strain
relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last 10 cycles;
arrow color—violet: Saturation phase, green: Consolidation phase, orange: First cycle of cyclic loading,
blue: Cyclic loading program).
 and under the isotropic consolidation, initial void ratio e0 = 0.345—sample 1.2: (a) Excess pore water
pressure versus vertical strain characteristic, (b) excess pore water pressure characteristic versus
number of cycles, (c) vertical strain characteristic versus number of cycle, (d) deviator stress–vertical
strain relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last 10
cycles;
Appl. Sci. 2019,arrow
9, 3821color—violet: Saturation phase, green: Consolidation phase, orange: First cycle of cyclic8 of 23
loading, blue: Cyclic loading program).

Figure 4 presents
Figure presents test
testresults
resultsfor
forthe
thesoil
soilsample
sample under
undera confining pressure
a confining equal
pressure to 135
equal kPa kPa
to 135 and
an initial
and voidvoid
an initial ratioratio
e0 equal to 0.412.
e0 equal In theIn
to 0.412. first
thecycle
first stage, the soil
cycle stage, response
the was stiffer
soil response than inthan
was stiffer test
1.2test
in but1.2
pore pressure
but rose to 11.5
pore pressure rose kPa, which
to 11.5 kPa,was closewas
which to the response
close observed observed
to the response in test 1.2.in
The same
test 1.2.
conclusion
The could be formed,
same conclusion could bewhen thewhen
formed, excessthe pore water
excess pressure
pore versus axial
water pressure strain
versus plots
axial (Figures
strain plots
3a and 4a)
(Figures 3a were compared.
and 4a) were compared.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure Resultsof
Figure 4. Results ofthe
thecyclic
cyclictriaxial
triaxialtest
test
forfor sandy
sandy silty
silty clay
clay under
under confining
confining pressure
pressure of 135
of 135 kPa kPa
and
and under the isotropic consolidation, initial void ratio e = 0.412—sample
under the isotropic consolidation, initial void ratio e0 0= 0.412—sample 1.3: (a) Excess 1.3: (a) Excess pore water
water
pressure
pressureversus
versusvertical
verticalstrain characteristic,
strain (b) excess
characteristic, pore water
(b) excess pressure
pore water characteristic
pressure versus number
characteristic versus
of cycles,of(c)cycles,
number vertical
(c) strain characteristic
vertical versus number
strain characteristic of cycle,of(d)
versus number deviator
cycle, stress–vertical
(d) deviator strain
stress–vertical
relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last 10 cycles;
arrow color—violet: Saturation phase, green: Consolidation phase, orange: First cycle of cyclic loading,
blue: Cyclic loading program).

In the second stage of the soil response, the pore pressure rose as well as the axial strain in the
same pattern. The permanent strain accumulation to ∆u characteristics was almost linear in both cases,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 9 of 23

which means, that for the same amount of pore pressure increment, the same amount of accumulated
plastic strain was observed. Nevertheless, the magnitude of this phenomenon was different in each
stage. In both cases, the limit between the second and third stage of the soil response could not be
distinguished. The excess pore water pressure level and its increment rise with initial effective confining
pressure growth. The stress paths in all cases moved towards the deviator stress axis, which indicates
undrained conditions.
On Figures 5–9, results of the cyclic triaxial test in K0 consolidation conditions are presented.
The soil response to cyclic loading differed when compared to previous tests. The excess pore water
pressure in test 2.1 rose rapidly, which was accompanied by moderate axial strain accumulation.
When the ∆u increment started to decrease, the permanent axial strain began to develop.
That process of the soil reaction to cyclic loading indicates that the pore pressure triggered plastic
strain accumulation. This was true since the excess pore pressure decreased the effective stress in
the soil skeleton and therefore is weakening the soil contacts. During test 2.1 excess pore water
pressure reached a maximum value equal to 35 kPa after around 2500 cycles of loading and then slowly
decreased to 33 kPa after 3000 cycles. The excess pore water pressure remained after the previous
event at a constant level and equaled 32 kPa up to 33 kPa.
The soil response can be divided into two stages, the pre-maximal excess pore water pressure
stage, where rapid pore pressure generation and permanent strain accumulation was observed, and the
second stage—the post-maximal pore pressure stage where permanent axial strains suddenly stopped
and pore pressure decreased to a constant level.
It is clear that the decrease of pore pressure would result in an increase of effective mean stress
and therefore would increase the soil stiffness and the permanent strain accumulation would rapidly
decrease. The reason for this phenomenon is the critical soil state, which was achieved during the
first part of cyclic loading. The soil accumulated 4% of axial permanent strain during the first 2500
cycles of loading. The pore water pressure development has led to soil failure. After the failure,
the pore pressure dropped and therefore, the soil was able to sustain further loading. Furthermore,
almost a constant high level of pore water pressure was observed, which was accompanied by a
slight permanent strain accumulation. Figure 5e presents the abovementioned behavior. The stress
paths moved towards the deviator stress axis and when the stress state reached the soil critical state,
pore pressure decreased, and the stress path turned around.
On Figure 6 triaxial test results on the K0 consolidated sandy silty clay sample is presented.
The K0 stress state was equal to 0.71, which was close to the previous K0 stress state for sample 2.1,
which was equal to 0.67. The initial void ratio in the case of sample 2.2 was around 0.07 greater than
in the case of the 2.1 sample and was equal to 0.399. The type of loading in this study was a sin
wave as in previous cases but it was performed in another manner. The soil was loaded with the
deviator stress, which was oscillating around the point where the consolidation phase was terminated
(qm was on the deviator stress level reached after K0 consolidation). For example, the 2.1 test was
performed in such a manner where the minimum deviator stress qmin was on the deviator stress level
after consolidation. In the first cycles, negative excess pore water pressure was observed. After 10,000
cycles the excess pore pressure had raised to 30 kPa. The pore water pressure was building up with
a decrease of its increment. This type of soil response caused almost no plastic strains (0.134% after
10,000 cycles). It seems that the type of loading has a great impact on the K0 consolidation samples
response. The soil in which the negative pressure occurred would suffer much lesser plastic strains.
This was a result of another pore pressure generation model. In the previous tests of isotropically
consolidated samples, the pore pressure rose rapidly in the first few cycles, this was accompanied by
plastic strain accumulation. Sample 2.1. also generated excess pore water pressure but was much faster
than in the case of sample 2.2, which was the reason why the plastic strains were accumulated with a
much slower rate.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 10 of 23

case of sample 2.2, which was the reason why the plastic strains were accumulated with a 10
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821
much
of 23
slower rate.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
5. Results
Figure 5. Results ofofthe
thecyclic
cyclictriaxial
triaxialtest
testforfor
sandy
sandy silty clay
silty clayunder a confining
under pressure
a confining of 65ofkPa
pressure 65 and
kPa
under the Kthe
and under 0 consolidation,
K0 consolidation,initial void
initial ratio
void e0 =e00.333,
ratio = 0.333,K0K=0 =0.67—sample
0.67—sample2.1:2.1:(a)
(a) Excess
Excess pore water
pressure
pressureversus
versusvertical
verticalstrain characteristic,
strain characteristic,(b) excess pore water
(b) excess pressure
pore water characteristic
pressure versus number
characteristic versus
of cycles,of(c)
number vertical
cycles, strain characteristic
(c) vertical versus number
strain characteristic of cycle,of(d)
versus number deviator
cycle, stress–vertical
(d) deviator strain
stress–vertical
relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last
strain relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last 10 10 cycles;
arrow
cycles;color—violet: Saturation
arrow color—violet: phase, green:
Saturation phase, Consolidation phase, blue:phase,
green: Consolidation Cyclic blue:
loading program).
Cyclic loading
program).
A similar response to cyclic loading can be observed in test 2.5 where the sample was consolidated
to σ A
0
3 equal to response
similar 44.9 kPa. toThe soil loading
cyclic was loadedcan with 13.3 kPa in
be observed deviator
test 2.5stress
where amplitude
the sampleand was
the
excess plastic strain was observed. The pore pressure, in this case, had not reached
consolidated to σ’3 equal to 44.9 kPa. The soil was loaded with 13.3 kPa deviator stress amplitude and maximal value,
which indicates
the excess plasticno failure
strain was in this test.
observed. TheThe
poresoil tendedintothis
pressure, stabilize its not
case, had response
reached tomaximal
cyclic loading.
value,
The
whichpore pressure
indicates noafter 5000
failure in cycles increased
this test. The soilattended
a slower
to rate and plastic
stabilize straintoascyclic
its response well accumulated
loading. The
with
pore apressure
decreasing
afterrate.
5000The excess
cycles pore water
increased pressure
at a slower had
rate greater
and plasticamplitude than accumulated
strain as well in test 2.1 butwith
this
phenomenon
a decreasing wasrate.caused by greater
The excess pore deviator stress amplitude
water pressure qa . Samples
had greater amplitude 2.3 than
and 2.4in (Figures 7 and
test 2.1 but 8)
this
were consolidated in K stress conditions and with a confining pressure σ0 equal to 139.7 and 94.2 kPa
phenomenon was caused by greater deviator stress amplitude qa. Samples 2.3 and 2.4 (Figures 7 and
0 3
respectively. The pore pressure response to cyclic loading in the case of sample 2.3 (qa equal to 10.4 kPa)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 11 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 11 of 23

8) were consolidated in K0 stress conditions and with a confining pressure σ’3 equal to 139.7 and 94.2
kPa respectively. The pore pressure response to cyclic loading in the case of sample 2.3 (qa equal to
10.4 higher
was kPa) wasthanhigher thanofinsample
in the case the case2.4 of
(qa sample
equal to2.4 15.8(qkPa).
a equalThetocause
15.8 of kPa).
this The cause of was
phenomenon this
phenomenon
the lower initialwasvoid
the lower
ratio einitial
0 in void
the ratio
case of e 0 in the 2.4
sample case (eof
0 =sample
0.276) 2.4 (e
than =
0 in0.276)
sample than
2.3in(e =
sample
0 2.3
0.379).
(e = 0.379). The greater density of sample 2.4 resulted in lower
The greater density of sample 2.4 resulted in lower pore pressure generation. Nevertheless, plastic
0 pore pressure generation.
Nevertheless,
strain plastic
accumulated instrain
sample accumulated in sample
2.4 with a higher rate 2.4
than with a higher
in sample rate
2.3. Inthan
sample in sample
2.2 (on 2.3.
FigureIn sample
6 with
e2.2
0 = (on
0.399 σ 0 =6125.0
Figure 3 with e 0 = 0.399
kPa, and qσ’
a =
3 = 125.0
13.5 kPa,
kPa), theand q =
plastic
a 13.5
strainkPa), the plastic
accumulation strain
was accumulation
close to what was
could
close
be to whatincould
observed be observed
the case of samplein2.3.the case of sample 2.3.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
6. Results
Figure 6. Results of
ofthe
thecyclic
cyclictriaxial
triaxialtest
testforfor
sandy
sandy silty clay
silty under
clay a confining
under pressure
a confining of 125
pressure of kPa
125 and
kPa
under the Kthe
and under 0 consolidation, initial
K0 consolidation, void
initial ratio
void e0 =e00.399,
ratio K0K=
= 0.399, 0 =0.71—sample
0.71—sample2.2: 2.2:(a)
(a)Excess
Excess pore
pore water
pressure
pressureversus
versusvertical strain
vertical characteristic,
strain characteristic,(b) excess pore water
(b) excess pressure
pore water characteristic
pressure versus number
characteristic versus
of cycles,of(c)
number vertical
cycles, (c) strain characteristic
vertical versus number
strain characteristic of cycles,
versus number (d) deviator
of cycles, stress–vertical
(d) deviator strain
stress–vertical
relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last
strain relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last 10 10 cycles;
arrow
cycles;color—violet: Saturation
arrow color—violet: phase, green:
Saturation phase,Consolidation phase, blue:phase,
green: Consolidation Cyclic blue:
loading program).
Cyclic loading
program).
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 12 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 12 of 23

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 7. Results of the cyclic triaxial test for sandy silty clay under a confining pressure of 139.7 kPa
and under thethe K consolidation, initial
K00 consolidation, initialvoid ratioee00 =
voidratio = 0.379, K00 ==0.67—sample
0.67—sample 2.3:
2.3: (a)
(a)Excess
Excess pore
pore water
pressure
pressure versus vertical strain characteristic, (b) excess pore water pressure characteristicnumber
versus vertical strain characteristic, (b) excess pore water pressure characteristic versus versus
of cycles,of(c)
number vertical
cycles, strain characteristic
(c) vertical versus number
strain characteristic of cycles,
versus number (d) deviator
of cycles, stress–vertical
(d) deviator strain
stress–vertical
relationship,
strain and (e)and
relationship, the(e)
deviator stress–mean
the deviator effective
stress–mean stress relationship
effective (red color—last
stress relationship 10 cycles;
(red color—last 10
arrow color—violet:
cycles; Saturation
arrow color—violet: phase, green:
Saturation Consolidation
phase, phase, blue:phase,
green: Consolidation Cyclic blue:
loading program).
Cyclic loading
program).
The axial strain, which was measured in this study, could be divided into two categories based on
the plastic strain
The axial accumulation
strain, which wasrate. The first
measured in one
this is steady
study, exponential
could be dividedgrowth in which,
into two the plastic
categories based
strain
on the increment decreases
plastic strain with each
accumulation rate.cycle. In this
The first one case, the soil
is steady might suffer
exponential extensive
growth deformation
in which, the plastic
due toincrement
strain accumulated plasticwith
decreases strains
eachafter numerous
cycle. cycles.
In this case, Thismight
the soil type of response
suffer was deformation
extensive observed in
samples 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. The second type of plastic strain development represents
due to accumulated plastic strains after numerous cycles. This type of response was observed samples 2.1 and
in
2.5 where2.2,
samples the2.3,
extensive
and 2.4.plastic strain was
The second typeaccumulated in the
of plastic strain first phase represents
development of cyclic loading due2.1
samples toand
the
imposed
2.5 wherehigh value of the
the extensive deviator
plastic strainstress. After a few thousands
was accumulated in the firstrepetitions, the steady
phase of cyclic loadingresponse of
due to the
the cohesive soil was observed, which characterized the lower rate of plastic strain accumulation.
imposed high value of the deviator stress. After a few thousands repetitions, the steady response of
the cohesive soil was observed, which characterized the lower rate of plastic strain accumulation.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 13 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 13 of 23

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 8. Results of of the
thecyclic
cyclictriaxial
triaxialtest
testfor
forsandy
sandy silty clay
silty under
clay a confining
under pressure
a confining of 94.2
pressure kPa kPa
of 94.2 and
under
and the Kthe
under 0 consolidation,
K 0 consolidation, initial void
initial ratio
void e
ratio0 =
e0 0.276,
= 0.276,K 0K=
0 =1.07—sample
1.07—sample 2.4:
2.4: (a)
(a) Excess pore water
pressure
pressure versus
versusvertical
verticalstrain characteristic,
strain (b) excess
characteristic, pore water
(b) excess pressure
pore water characteristic
pressure versus number
characteristic versus
of cycles,of(c)
number vertical
cycles, strain characteristic
(c) vertical versus number
strain characteristic of cycles,
versus number (d) deviator
of cycles, stress–vertical
(d) deviator strain
stress–vertical
relationship,
strain and (e)and
relationship, the(e)
deviator stress–mean
the deviator effective
stress–mean stress relationship
effective (red color—last
stress relationship 10 cycles;
(red color—last 10
arrow color—violet:
cycles; Saturation
arrow color—violet: phase, green:
Saturation phase,Consolidation phase, orange:
green: Consolidation First cycle
phase, orange: of cyclic
First loading,
cycle of cyclic
blue: Cyclic
loading, blue:loading
Cyclic program).
loading program).

The pore
The pore pressure
pressure response
response toto cyclic
cyclic loading
loading was
was also
also influenced
influenced byby the
the deviator
deviator stress
stress value.
value.
The
The samples that failed or were close to failing (2.1 and 2.5) generated higher pore pressure infirst
samples that failed or were close to failing (2.1 and 2.5) generated higher pore pressure in the the
2000 cycles than the other three K -consolidated samples. Nevertheless, here could be also
first 2000 cycles than the other three K0-consolidated samples. Nevertheless, here could be also seen
0 seen that
after after
that reaching maximum
reaching valuevalue
maximum by excess pore water
by excess pressure
pore water the increment
pressure was much
the increment waslower
muchthan in
lower
samples
than 2.2 to 2.4.
in samples 2.2 to 2.4.
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, x3821 1414of
of 23
23

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Results of the
Figure 9. Results
Figure the cyclic
cyclictriaxial
triaxialtest
testfor
forsandy
sandysilty clay
silty under
clay under a confining pressure
a confining of 44.9
pressure kPa kPa
of 44.9 and
under
and the K
under 0 consolidation,
the K0 consolidation,initial void
initial ratio
void e0 =
ratio = 0.400,K0K0==1.00—sample
e0 0.400, 1.00—sample2.5: 2.5: (a) Excess pore water
water
pressure versus
pressure versusvertical
verticalstrain
straincharacteristic, (b) excess
characteristic, pore pore
(b) excess waterwater
pressure characteristic
pressure versus number
characteristic versus
of cycles,of(c)
number vertical
cycles, strain characteristic
(c) vertical versus versus
strain characteristic numbernumberof cycles, (d) deviator
of cycles, stress–vertical
(d) deviator strain
stress–vertical
relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last
strain relationship, and (e) the deviator stress–mean effective stress relationship (red color—last 10 10 cycles;
arrow color—violet:
cycles; Saturation
arrow color—violet: phase, green:
Saturation Consolidation
phase, phase, blue:phase,
green: Consolidation Cyclicblue:
loading program).
Cyclic loading
program).
3.2. The Effect of Consolidation on the Soil Response to Cyclic Loading
3.2. The
ForEffect of Consolidation
the purpose on the Soilthe
of establishing Response to Cyclic
difference Loading
between the soil response to cyclic loading for
samples consolidated in isotropic and K0 conditions, the plots of distinct cycles are presented in
For the purpose of establishing the difference between the soil response to cyclic loading for
Figure 10. Figure 10a presents the cycles 1000 and 20,000 where the ∆u–ε characteristic for one cycle
samples consolidated in isotropic and K0 conditions, the plots of distinct cycles are presented in
of isotropically consolidated sample is presented. The plot shows, that the hysteresis curve had the
Figure 10. Figure 10a presents the cycles 1000 and 20,000 where the Δu–ε characteristic for one cycle
same shape. The 1000 cycle was characterized by a hysteresis curve in which the area of the hysteresis
of isotropically consolidated sample is presented. The plot shows, that the hysteresis curve had the
and its inclination changed. The pattern of hysteresis curve evolution was similar for tests 1.1 and 1.3.
same shape. The 1000 cycle was characterized by a hysteresis curve in which the area of the hysteresis
and its inclination changed. The pattern of hysteresis curve evolution was similar for tests 1.1 and
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 15 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 15 of 23

The inclination and the area of the hysteresis curve rose in both cases. The different responses could be
1.3. The inclination and the area of the hysteresis curve rose in both cases. The different responses
observed in the case of sample 1.2 wherein cycle 20,000 the inclination, as well as the area, was smaller.
could be observed in the case of sample 1.2 wherein cycle 20,000 the inclination, as well as the area,
The unloading process in this test showed that sample tended to decrease excess pore water pressure
was smaller. The unloading process in this test showed that sample tended to decrease excess pore
much faster than the recovering of strain. This difference of the response to cyclic loading was caused
water pressure much faster than the recovering of strain. This difference of the response to cyclic
by the initial void ratio difference since there was no distinct difference in deviator stress conditions.
loading was caused by the initial void ratio difference since there was no distinct difference in
The impact of the initial void ratio could be seen in terms of the generated excess pore water pressure
deviator stress conditions. The impact of the initial void ratio could be seen in terms of the generated
in one cycle. The excess pore water pressure in the case of tests 1.1 and 1.3 had risen up to 1.8 and
excess pore water pressure in one cycle. The excess pore water pressure in the case of tests 1.1 and
1.7 kPa. In the case of sample 1.2, the excess pore water pressure built up to 1.1 kPa, which was less
1.3 had risen up to 1.8 and 1.7 kPa. In the case of sample 1.2, the excess pore water pressure built up
when comparing the amount of generated pore pressure. On the other hand, the axial strain in one
to 1.1 kPa, which was less when comparing the amount of generated pore pressure. On the other
cycle caused by cyclic loading seemed to be independent of the initial void ratio. The axial strain
hand, the axial strain in one cycle caused by cyclic loading seemed to be independent of the initial
in one cycle was equal to 0.0216%, 0.0177%, and 0.0146% respectively for the initial consolidation
void ratio. 0The axial strain in one cycle was equal to 0.0216%, 0.0177%, and 0.0146% respectively for
pressure σ 3,0 equal to 45 kPa, 90 kPa, and 135 kPa and seemed that the σ0 3,0 was the governing factor
the initial consolidation pressure σ’3,0 equal to 45 kPa, 90 kPa, and 135 kPa and seemed that the σ’3,0
in this phenomena.
was the governing factor in this phenomena.

(a)

(b)
Figure 10. Pore
Figure Porepressure
pressureversus the the
versus axialaxial
strainstrain
for selected cycles from
for selected the from
cycles triaxialthe
tests: (a) Isotropically
triaxial tests: (a)
consolidatedconsolidated
Isotropically samples, andsamples,
(b) K0 -consolidated samples.
and (b) K0-consolidated samples.

The excess
The excessporepore water pressure
water pressure theof K
in theincase 0 consolidated
case samples hadsamples
of K0 consolidated differenthad
characteristics.
different
The ∆u in one cycle was greater for test 2.2 where the deviator stress parameters
characteristics. The Δu in one cycle was greater for test 2.2 where the deviator stress parameters were smaller in were
terms
of the stress
smaller median
in terms andstress
of the greater in terms
median andofgreater
deviator instress
termsamplitude.
of deviatorTest 2.2 amplitude.
stress was characterized
Test 2.2bywas
the
excess pore water pressure equal to 4.5 kPa after 10,000 cycles. The same excess
characterized by the excess pore water pressure equal to 4.5 kPa after 10,000 cycles. The same excess pore water pressure
valuewater
pore was observed in the was
pressure value caseobserved
of samplein2.5.theThe
casevalue of ∆u/q
of sample a ratio
2.5. The was
value equal to 0.257,
of Δu/q a ratio0.333, 0.240,
was equal
0.190,
to and
0.257, 0.338
0.333, respectively.
0.240, 0.190, andThe difference
0.338 between
respectively. Thethe ratios was
difference caused
between byratios
the different
was initial
causedvoid
by
ratios and different median levels of deviator stress. The impact of e shows that the
different initial void ratios and different median levels of deviator stress. The impact of e0 shows that
0 bigger the initial
void
the ratio the
bigger value was void
initial the greater valuewas
ratio value the∆u/q
of the a ratio
greater in one
value of cycle
the Δu/qwould be.inAlthough
a ratio one cyclethe deviator
would be.
stress amplitude
Although was greater
the deviator in the case
stress amplitude wasof greater
sample in 2.2, while
the case the qm value
of sample 2.2,was otherwise.
while Another
the qm value was
otherwise. Another way of loading, in the case of sample 2.2 results in different characteristics of the
excess pore water pressure generation.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 16 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 16 of 23

way of loading, in the case of sample 2.2 results in different characteristics of the excess pore water
The excess
pressure generation.pore water pressure in cycle 1000 had different characteristics than the cycle observed
in cycle 20,000 or
The excess pore 10,000.
water The cycle in
pressure in the
cyclecase
1000ofhad
sample 2.1 and
different 2.3 had a small
characteristics than the area andobserved
cycle greater
inclination than in the last cycle of loading. Sample 2.2 and 2.5 were characterized
in cycle 20,000 or 10,000. The cycle in the case of sample 2.1 and 2.3 had a small area and greater by high excess pore
water pressure
inclination thangeneration, the big
in the last cycle area of the
of loading. hysteresis
Sample 2.2 and curve in comparison
2.5 were characterizedto previous tests and
by high excess pore
the same inclination after 10,000 cycles of loading. The same phenomena
water pressure generation, the big area of the hysteresis curve in comparison to previous tests andcan be seen in sample 2.4’s
response
the sameto cyclic loading.
inclination after The lesser
10,000 pore
cycles of water pressure
loading. The samevalue might be caused
phenomena can beby a low
seen initial void
in sample 2.4’s
ratio. In Figure 11, the comparison of laws cycle of loading for excess
response to cyclic loading. The lesser pore water pressure value might be caused by a low initialpore water pressure and the
deviator stress increment in one cycle was presented. The tests on the
void ratio. In Figure 11, the comparison of laws cycle of loading for excess pore water pressure andisotropically consolidated
samples showed
the deviator stressthat for the same
increment in oneinitial
cyclevoid
wasratio, the excess
presented. The pore
tests water
on thepressure generated
isotropically in one
consolidated
cycle
samples showed that for the same initial void ratio, the excess pore water pressure generated lower
had the same value for equal stress conditions. Sample 1.2, which was more compact, had in one
generated
cycle had excess
the same pore water
value forpressure
equal stressin comparison
conditions. to deviator
Sample 1.2,stress
whichconditions
was morethat corresponds
compact, had lowerto
the previously
generated excessobserved
pore water phenomena. The Δu/qmax toratio
pressure in comparison was stress
deviator equalconditions
to 0.195, that 0.122, and 0.200
corresponds to
respectively.
the previously observed phenomena. The ∆u/qmax ratio was equal to 0.195, 0.122, and 0.200 respectively.
The
TheKK00-consolidated
-consolidated samples
samples behaved
behaved in inaasimilar
similarway.
way.Sample
Sample2.1 2.1with
withanane0 eequal
0 equal to 0.333 had
to 0.333 had the
the Δu/q max ratio equal to 0.108, which corresponds to sample 1.2 where e0 was equal to 0.345. The
∆u/qmax ratio equal to 0.108, which corresponds to sample 1.2 where e0 was equal to 0.345. The sample 2.2
sample
with an2.2 withvoid
initial an initial void ratio
ratio equal equal
to 0.399 hadtothe
0.399 hada ratio
∆u/2q the Δu/2q
equala ratio equal
to 0.170. to 0.170.
This This relationship
relationship was almost
was almost linear for all five samples. Based on this test the conclusion
linear for all five samples. Based on this test the conclusion could be formed, the excess pore could be formed, the excess
water
pore water pressure in one cycle in long-term cyclic loading test depended
pressure in one cycle in long-term cyclic loading test depended on the deviator stress amplitude and on the deviator stress
amplitude and the
the initial void initial
ratio. Thisvoid ratio.that
indicates Thistheindicates that the
consolidation consolidation
type type would
would not impact on thisnot impact on
characteristic.
this characteristic.
Nevertheless, Nevertheless,
the differences couldthebedifferences
seen in thecould be seen
inclination in the
of the inclination
stress–strain and of excess
the stress–strain
pore water
and excess pore water
pressure–strain characteristics.pressure–strain characteristics.

(a)

(b)
Figure11.
Figure Excess pore pressure
11. Excess pressure and
anddeviator
deviatorstress
stressversus axial
versus strain
axial forfor
strain the the
lastlast
cycle of loading
cycle from
of loading
the triaxial tests: (a) Isotropically consolidated samples, and (b)
from the triaxial tests: (a) Isotropically consolidated samples, and (b)K -consolidated samples.
0 K0-consolidated samples.

For K0-consolidated samples’ Δu/qmax ratio had a linear relationship with qm/qa, which indicates
that the excess pore water pressure value in one cycle impacted the deviator stress characteristics.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 17 of 23

For K0 -consolidated samples’ ∆u/qmax ratio had a linear relationship with qm /qa , which indicates
that the excess pore water pressure value in one cycle impacted the deviator stress characteristics.
Appl.
TheSci.inclination
2019, 9, x 17 of 23
of the hysteresis loop can be described by the modulus conception. The stress–strain
characteristics in cyclic loading are often explained with the resilient modulus definition. The resilient
The inclination of the hysteresis loop can be described by the modulus conception. The stress–
modulus Mr is a quotient of cyclic stress and resilient strain and for the purpose of this study can be
strain characteristics in cyclic loading are often explained with the resilient modulus definition. The
defined as:
resilient modulus Mr is a quotient of cyclic stress
qmax ∆q strain
and resilient
− qmin 2·qa and for the purpose of this study
can be defined as: M r = = = . (1)
εmax − εmin εr εr
∆ ∙
The deviator stress difference is the𝑀cyclic
= stress in=one =cycle.. Therefore, the cyclic stress can be defined
(1)
as a double deviator stress amplitude in one cycle. The resilient strain is accordingly the maximum
The deviator stress difference is the cyclic stress in one cycle. Therefore, the cyclic stress can be
and minimum strain observed in one cycle.
defined as a double deviator stress amplitude in one cycle. The resilient strain is accordingly the
Another type of soil modulus that can help to understand how excess pore water pressure impacts
maximum and minimum strain observed in one cycle.
on the soil stiffness in one cycle is the excess pore water pressure modulus M∆u , which can be defined
Another type of soil modulus that can help to understand how excess pore water pressure
as the quotient of excess pore water pressure in one cycle to resilient strain:
impacts on the soil stiffness in one cycle is the excess pore water pressure modulus MΔu, which can
be defined as the quotient of excess pore water pressure
umax − umin in one
∆u cycle to resilient strain:
M∆u = = . (2)
𝑀∆ = εmax − ε= εr
∆
min . (2)
The Thepresented
presented relationship
relationshipbetween
betweenstrain
strain and stress components
and stress componentscan canbebeused
usedfor for the
the evaluation
evaluation
of of
thethehysteresis curve inclination change. On Figure 12 the resilient modulus and excess
hysteresis curve inclination change. On Figure 12 the resilient modulus and excess pore water pore water
pressure
pressure modulus
modulus for
forisotropically
isotropicallyconsolidated
consolidated samples are presented.
samples are presented.ForForthe
thesample
sample consolidated
consolidated
σ0 3σ’equal
in in toto4545kPa,
3 equal kPa,thetheresilient
resilientmodulus
modulus characteristic wasvery
characteristic was verysimilar
similartotothe
theexcess
excess pore
pore water
water
pressure modulus. The M value first rose and then around cycle 50 reached
pressure modulus. The rr value first rose and then around cycle 50 reached its maximum value. Theits maximum value.
TheMM value
value
Δu ∆u hadhad a similar
a similar characteristic,
characteristic, although
although thethe maximum
maximum value
value waswas achieved
achieved around
around cycle
cycle 40. 40.
In In
thethe case
case ofof samples1.2
samples 1.2and
and1.3,
1.3,the
theresilient
resilient modulus
modulus also
alsoreached
reachedaamaximum
maximumvalue value around
aroundcycle
cycle
50 50
and and then
then decreased.The
decreased. Themaximum
maximumM Mrr was equal
equaltoto45.0
45.0MPa,
MPa,64.5 MPa,
64.5 MPa,and
and70.3 MPa
70.3 MParespectively.
respectively.

(a)

(b)
Figure 12. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 18 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 18 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 18 of 23

(c)
Figure
Figure 12.12. Resilient
Resilient modulus
modulus andand excess
excess porepore
water (c)pressure
water pressure modulus
modulus change
change duringduring the cyclic
the cyclic loading
forloading forconsolidated
isotropic
Figure 12. isotropic
Resilient consolidated
samples:
modulus (a) σ 3,0 =
0
andsamples:
excess pore 3,0 = 45
water(b)kPa,
(a)45σ’kPa, 0 (b)=σ’
σ 3,0
pressure 90 = 90 and
3,0kPa,
modulus kPa, (c)
change
0
andσ(c) σ’=3,0135
during
3,0 = the
135 kPa.
kPa.
cyclic
loading for isotropic consolidated samples: (a) σ’3,0 = 45 kPa, (b) σ’3,0 = 90 kPa, and (c) σ’3,0 = 135 kPa.
TheThe excess
excesspore porewater watermodulus
modulusfollowed followed the same pattern.After
same pattern. Afterreaching
reaching thethe maximal
maximal value,
value,
M∆uMΔu decreased,
decreased,
The excess this
this
pore characteristic
characteristic
water modulus was followed
was linear in the the semi-logarithmic
the semi-logarithmic
same pattern. After after
after cycle
cycle
reaching 100100
theinmaximal
allall
in three
threecases.
cases.
value,
On On Figure
Figure 1313 results
results
MΔu decreased, this characteristic of
of M
M r and
and M
r was linearMΔu calculations
∆u calculations for K
for0 consolidated
in the semi-logarithmic K 0 consolidated samples are
samples presented.
are
after cycle 100 in all three cases. The
presented.
Themodulus
modulus characteristics
On Figure 13 resultswere
characteristics Mdifferent
ofwere MΔufrom
different
r and
the characteristics
from
calculations the characteristics that were
for K0 consolidated that wereobserved
samples in presented.
observed
are the incase
theofcase
the of
The
samples
themodulus consolidated
samplescharacteristics
consolidated were in an isotropic
in an different manner.
isotropicfrom manner.Both modulus
Both modulus
the characteristics valuesthat first
values rose
were first to around
rose to
observed the
in around 10th
the case thecycle
10th
of the
and
cycle thenthen
samples
and started
consolidated
startedto decrease.
toindecrease.When
an isotropic Whenthe local
manner. minimum
Both minimum
the local modulus was values
reached
was reached in cycle
first roseinto800 for800
around
cycle sample
the 2.1cycle
for10th
sample and2.1
andin
and thethe
in 500th
then 500th cycle
started to
cycle fordecrease.
sample
for sample 2.2
Whenthethe
2.2 soilsoil
the resilient
local minimum
resilientmodulus was
modulus started
reached
startedto increase.
intocycle Thefor
800
increase. M Δu followed the
sample
The M∆u 2.1 and
followed
same pattern but it preceded the M r value change. This is helpful information when performing the
theinsame
the 500th
pattern cyclebutfor it sample
preceded 2.2the
theM soil
r resilient
value change.modulus This started
is helpful to increase.
information The M Δu followed
when the
performing
stiffness
same change
pattern but forecasting.
it preceded The
the Mhardening
value process,
change. This which
is is indicated
helpful information by the when resilient modulus
performing the
the stiffness change forecasting. The hardening process, which is indicated by the resilient modulus
r
growth,
stiffness was
changein both cases going
forecasting. The to hardening
end. The question process, was
which if in is
example
indicated testby 2.2thethe resilient
resilient modulus
modulus
growth, was in both cases going to end. The question was if in example test 2.2 the resilient modulus
would
growth, decrease
was inagain.again.
both cases going to end. The question was if in example test 2.2 the resilient modulus
would decrease
would Similar
decrease phenomena
again. could could be observed in the case of sample 2.5 where after numerous cycles,
Similar phenomena be observed in the case of sample 2.5 where after numerous cycles,
the soil resilient modulus
Similar phenomena could was reaching
be observed its lowest
in the case valueof(around
sample 2.5 cyclewhere3000)afterandnumerous
then rose cycles,
again.
theDuring
soil resilient
the test modulus
2.3 the was
plastic reaching
strain rate its
was lowest
the valueTherefore,
lowest. (around cycle the 3000) and
modulus then rose was
characteristic again.
the soil resilient modulus was reaching its lowest value (around cycle 3000) and then rose again.
During
less the
obvious test 2.3
than2.3 the
in the plastic
the plastic strain
previously rate
mentioned was the lowest. Therefore, the modulus characteristic was
During the test strain rate was test. Nevertheless,
the lowest. Therefore, two the localmodulus
minima characteristic
of modulus value was
less obvious
could than in the
be observed. previously mentioned test. wasNevertheless, two local minima of modulus value
less obvious than inTest 2.4 in which
the previously the CSR value
mentioned the highest
test. Nevertheless, two shows
localthat minimathe resilient
of modulus modulus,
value
could
as be
wellbe observed.
asobserved.
the excessTestTest 2.4
pore in which the CSR value was the highest shows that the resilient modulus,
could 2.4water
in whichpressure
the CSR modulus,
value was decreased.
the highest The shows
local characteristic
that the resilient change might
modulus,
as be
well as
spotted the excess
around pore
cycle water
5000 pressure
but there modulus,
was no decreased.
stiffness increase
as well as the excess pore water pressure modulus, decreased. The local characteristic change might The local
after characteristic
this event. Sampleschange withmight
high be
spotted
CSR around
value had cycle
a 5000
similar but
pattern thereof was
respondingno stiffness
to increase
cyclic loading.
be spotted around cycle 5000 but there was no stiffness increase after this event. Samples with highafter this event. Samples with high CSR
value had
We a similar
can see pattern
that the Mof responding
Δu value started
CSR value had a similar pattern of responding to cyclic loading. to cyclic
to loading.
decrease, which meant that for the same amount of
strain
WeWe thecan
can pore
seesee pressure
thatthat the theMgrowth
∆uΔuvalue
M value was smaller
started
started to than in previous
to decrease,
decrease, which meant
which cyclesthat
meant andfor
that which
for the meant
thesame that the
sameamount
amount of of
effective
strain the stresses
pore pressure would increase.
growth was This
smaller mightthanresult
in in another
previous
strain the pore pressure growth was smaller than in previous cycles and which meant that the phase
cycles and of softening
which meant or might
that indicate
the effective
that
stresses the
effective soil
would achieved
increase.
stresses would some
This state
might
increase. of
Thisequilibrium.
result
might in another
resultNevertheless,
in phase
anotherofphase itsoftening
is worth to
or note
of softening might that the previous
or indicate
might that the
indicate
phase
soilthat of
achieved softening
the soilsome achieved and
statesome hardening
of equilibrium. took around
Nevertheless,
state of equilibrium. 1000 cycles
it is worth
Nevertheless, and now
it istoworth the
note that repeating
to notethethat of
previousthe process
phase of
the previous
would
phase of
softening take
and many
softening
hardening more
and cycles
hardening
took to occur.
around took 1000around
cycles1000 and cycles
now the andrepeating
now the of repeating
the process of the process
would take
would take many
many more cycles to occur. more cycles to occur.

(a)
(a)
Figure 13. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 19 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 19 of 23

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure
Figure 13. 13. Resilient
Resilient modulus
modulus andand
excessexcess
porepore
water water pressure
pressure modulus modulus
change change
during during the loading
the cyclic cyclic
forloading for K0 consolidated
K0 consolidated (a) σ0 3,0 =
samples: samples: (a)65.0
σ’3,0kPa,
= 65.0(b)
kPa, (b)=σ’125.0
σ0 3,0 3,0 = 125.0
kPa kPa 0 σ’=
(c) σ(c)
3,0 3,0 = 139.7
139.7 kPa,
kPa, (d)
(d) 0 3,0 =
σσ’
3,0
94.2= kPa,
94.2 kPa,
and and 0 σ’=3,044.9
(e) σ(e) = 44.9 kPa.
kPa.
3,0

TheThe pore
pore pressure
pressure build-upbased
build-up basedon onstress-controlled
stress-controlled cyclic stress
stresscan
canbebeanalyzed
analyzedbased
based onon
thethe
empirical models. This model is able to analyze
empirical models. This model is able to analyze excess excess pore water pressure with the number of
water pressure with the number of cyclescycles
to atocertain
a certain event,
event, which
which ininnon-cohesive
non-cohesivesoils
soilsisisliquefaction.
liquefaction. In
In the
thecase
caseofofcohesive
cohesivesoils,
soils,the
thepore
pore
pressure analysis can be conducted to maximal pore pressure occurrence. The parameter that governs
this analysis is pore pressure ratio, which can be presented as:
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 20 of 23

pressure analysis can be conducted to maximal pore pressure occurrence. The parameter that governs
this analysis is pore pressure ratio, which can be presented as:
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 20 of 23
∆u
ru = , (3)
∆ ∆umax
𝑟 = , (3)
∆
where the ∆umax is the maximum pore pressure in one cycle. The pore pressure empirical models
where the Δumax is the maximum pore pressure in one cycle. The pore pressure empirical models were
were developed over the years. One of the best known is the pore pressure model developed by
developed over the years. One of the best known is the pore pressure model developed by Seed et al.
Seed et al. [44], which is defined as follows:
[44], which is defined as follows:
"  1/β #
1 1 N
⁄
𝑟 =ru += 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛
+ arcsin 2 −1 ,
2 π 2 NL − 1 , (4)(4)

where the N/NL is

the N/N the cycle ratio, β is the empirical parameter, and NL is the last cycle analyzed in this
where L is the cycle ratio, β is the empirical parameter, and NL is the last cycle analyzed in this
model.
model. On
On Figure
Figure 14
14 the
the results
results of
of the
the calculations
calculations are presented for
are presented for K
K0-consolidated samples.
0 -consolidated samples.

Figure 14.
Figure Comparison of
14. Comparison of measured
measured and
and predicted
predicted pore
pore pressure
pressure ratios for K
ratios for -consolidated samples.
K00-consolidated samples.

The pore pressure ratio for K0 -consolidated samples had similar characteristics. The pore pressure
The pore pressure ratio for K0-consolidated samples had similar characteristics. The pore
ratio rose to 0.7–0.8 of the maximum value in half of the cycle ratio. In comparison to non-cohesive
pressure ratio rose to 0.7–0.8 of the maximum value in half of the cycle ratio. In comparison to non-
soils, presented characteristics rose rapidly towards ru = 1 when the cycle ratio was higher than 0.9.
cohesive soils, presented characteristics rose rapidly towards ru = 1 when the cycle ratio was higher
Nevertheless when N/NL value was equal to 0.5 the pore pressure ratio was equal to 0.4–0.6 [38–41].
than 0.9. Nevertheless when N/NL value was equal to 0.5 the pore pressure ratio was equal to 0.4–0.6
An attempt to fit the seed model was made as well, the β parameter, in this case, was equal to 3.0.
[38–41]. An attempt to fit the seed model was made as well, the β parameter, in this case, was equal
to
4. 3.0.
Conclusions
In this article, the cyclic loading of the compacted silty sandy clay was performed. The soil samples
4. Conclusions
were consolidated in two different manners. The isotropic and anisotropic (K0 ) consolidation impacts on
In this article, the cyclic loading of the compacted silty sandy clay was performed. The soil
soil response to repeated loading. The tested soil stress history was different from the previously tested
samples were consolidated in two different manners. The isotropic and anisotropic (K0) consolidation
ones due to compaction in optimum moisture content. Conducted tests were in a stress-controlled
impacts on soil response to repeated loading. The tested soil stress history was different from the
manner and a minimum of 10,000 cycles was performed to capture soil response to cyclic loading in
previously tested ones due to compaction in optimum moisture content. Conducted tests were in a
undrained conditions. This type of test is preferable when pore pressure characterization is the focus
stress-controlled manner and a minimum of 10,000 cycles was performed to capture soil response to
of the tests.
cyclic loading in undrained conditions. This type of test is preferable when pore pressure
Cohesive soil samples consolidated in isotropic test conditions, behaved abruptly to cyclic loading
characterization is the focus of the tests.
in the first cycle. The deviator stress caused rapid pore pressure generation and permanent strain
Cohesive soil samples consolidated in isotropic test conditions, behaved abruptly to cyclic
generation. The first cycle showed a more severe impact on isotropically consolidated samples.
loading in the first cycle. The deviator stress caused rapid pore pressure generation and permanent
The stress-controlled triaxial tests performed by Yasuchara et al. [45] shows that isotropically
strain generation. The first cycle showed a more severe impact on isotropically consolidated samples.
consolidated samples developed higher pore pressure than anisotropically consolidated samples.
The stress-controlled triaxial tests performed by Yasuchara et al. [45] shows that isotropically
Nevertheless, the soil in this study was Ariake clay with an IP equal to 58%. The compacted sandy silty
consolidated samples developed higher pore pressure than anisotropically consolidated samples.
clay soil tested in this study behaved differently. The response to cyclic loading was more dependent
Nevertheless, the soil in this study was Ariake clay with an IP equal to 58%. The compacted sandy
on the CSR than on the consolidation method.
silty clay soil tested in this study behaved differently. The response to cyclic loading was more
The cohesive soil response in isotropic consolidation conditions could be divided into three stages.
dependent on the CSR than on the consolidation method.
The first one is the above mentioned, the first cycle, the second one is the intermediate zone, and the
The cohesive soil response in isotropic consolidation conditions could be divided into three
stages. The first one is the above mentioned, the first cycle, the second one is the intermediate zone,
and the third one is the long term response. This type of behavior was observed in the sample with
the highest tested CSR. Samples tested in higher CSR that had a two-step response to cyclic loading
were compared to test 1.1, where no intermediate zone was observed.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 21 of 23

third one is the long term response. This type of behavior was observed in the sample with the highest
tested CSR. Samples tested in higher CSR that had a two-step response to cyclic loading were compared
to test 1.1, where no intermediate zone was observed.
The intermediate zone is characterized by the decrease of the permanent strain accumulation
magnitude as well as by the decrease of pore pressure increment in each cycle. As a result, the excess
pore water pressure generation and plastic strain accumulation weaken in each cycle. This behavior is
complex and no direct connection between this to phenomena can be established.
The third phase is characteristic of the long term cyclic loading. In this phase, the tendency
observed in the previous stage is continued. Nevertheless, the changes in pore pressure and sample
deformation may not be observed in one cycle but they might occur after several cycles. It means that
in one cycle no plastic strain is observed. In this type of soil response, the effect of cyclic loading is
fully embraced by the sample. The set conditions were established.
The third phase begins in the first 500 cycles. The long term pore pressure response to cyclic
loading shows that the soil had reached a steady state in which the excess pore water pressure remains
on the same level and changes slightly during loading.
The impact of the initial void ratio on pore pressure was recognized. High e0 value caused a
higher generation of pore water pressure.
The K0 consolidated samples behaved differently to cyclic loading in terms of plastic strain
accumulation and pore pressure development. The excess pore water pressure in the test performed
with the same loading pattern as in the case of isotropic consolidation it rose rapidly in the first few
hundred cycles. When the ∆u characteristic started to decrease, the permanent axial strain began to
develop, which could be explained by the fact that the excess pore pressure decreased the effective
stress in the soil skeleton and therefore was weakening soil contacts.
It was found that the type of loading had a great impact on K0 consolidation samples’ response.
The soil in which the negative pressure occurred in the first cycles of loading would suffer much
lesser plastic strains. This was the result of another pore pressure generation model. The isotropically
consolidated samples generated pore pressure rapidly in the first few cycles, which was accompanied
by plastic strain accumulation. The K0 consolidated soil also generated excess pore water pressure but
much faster than in the case of K0 consolidated soil loaded with another manner, which was the reason
why the plastic strains were accumulated with a much slower rate.
To establish the difference between the soil response to cyclic loading for soil consolidated
in isotropic and K0 conditions the hysteresis curve analysis for a distinct cycle was performed.
The ∆u/qmax ratio was dependent on the initial void ratio in both cases of consolidation techniques.
Nevertheless, the differences could be seen in the inclination of the stress–strain and excess pore water
pressure–strain characteristics.
To describe the inclination change and the resilient modulus value change an excess pore water
pressure conception was utilized. It was found that the M∆u follows the same pattern but it precedes
the Mr value change. This is helpful information when performing the stiffness change forecasting.
The pore pressure ratio ru calculated for samples consolidated in an anisotropic manner indicates
that the pore pressure ratio had similar characteristics, which in comparison to non-cohesive soils had
a higher value in the half of cycle ratio but had a constant rate between the cycle ratio equal to 0.9–1.0
in opposite to non-cohesive soils.

Author Contributions: A.G. conceived and designed the experiments; A.G., E.S. and W.S. performed the
experiments; A.G., wrote the paper; W.S. and A.S. edited and audited the content.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 22 of 23

References
1. Guo, L.; Cai, Y.; Jardine, R.J.; Yang, Z.; Wang, J. Undrained behaviour of intact soft clay under cyclic paths
that match vehicle loading conditions. Can. Geotech. J. 2017, 55, 90–106. [CrossRef]
2. Chai, J.C.; Miura, N. Traffic-load-induced permanent deformation of road on soft subsoil. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2002, 128, 907–916. [CrossRef]
3. Andersen, K.H. Bearing capacity under cyclic loading—Offshore, along the coast, and on land. The 21st
Bjerrum Lecture presented in Oslo, 23 November 2007. Can. Geotech. J. 2009, 46, 513–535. [CrossRef]
4. Ishihara, K.; Tatsuoka, F.; Yasuda, S. Undrained deformation and liquefaction of sand under cyclic stresses.
Soils Found. 1975, 15, 29–44. [CrossRef]
5. Abdelkrim, M.; Bonnet, G.; De Buhan, P. A computational procedure for predicting the long term residual
settlement of a platform induced by repeated traffic loading. Comput. Geotech. 2003, 30, 463–476. [CrossRef]
6. Bogusz, W.; Godlewski, T. Philosophy of geotechnical design in civil engineering—Possibilities and risks.
Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2019, 67, 289–306.
7. Chiou, J.S.; Lin, H.S.; Yeh, F.Y.; Sung, Y.C. Plastic settlement evaluation of embedded railroads under repeated
train loading. J. GeoEng. 2016, 11, 97–107.
8. Tang, L.; Chen, H.; Sang, H.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, J. Determination of traffic-load-influenced depths in clayey
subsoil based on the shakedown concept. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 77, 182–191. [CrossRef]
9. Kawalec, J.; Grygierek, M.; Koda, E.; Osiński, P. Lesson learned on geosynthetics applications in road
structures in Silesia mining region in Poland. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1122. [CrossRef]
10. Bian, X.; Jiang, H.; Chen, Y. Accumulative deformation in railway track induced by high-speed traffic loading
of the trains. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2010, 9, 319–326. [CrossRef]
11. Uzan, J. Permanent deformation in flexible pavements. J. Transp. Eng. 2004, 130, 6–13. [CrossRef]
12. Cai, Y.; Sun, Q.; Guo, L.; Juang, C.H.; Wang, J. Permanent deformation characteristics of saturated sand
under cyclic loading. Can. Geotech. J. 2015, 52, 795–807. [CrossRef]
13. Shi, W.; Wang, J.; Guo, L.; Hu, X.; Fu, H.; Jin, J.; Jin, F. Undrained cyclic behavior of overconsolidated marine
soft clay under a traffic-load-induced stress path. Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 2018, 36, 163–172. [CrossRef]
14. Chiaradonna, A.; Tropeano, G.; d’Onofrio, A.; Silvestri, F. A simplified method for pore pressure buildup
prediction: From laboratory cyclic tests to the 1D soil response analysis in effective stress conditions. Procedia
Eng. 2016, 158, 302–307. [CrossRef]
15. Chiaradonna, A.; Tropeano, G.; d’Onofrio, A.; Silvestri, F. Development of a simplified model for pore water
pressure build-up induced by cyclic loading. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 3627–3652. [CrossRef]
16. Park, T.; Park, D.; Ahn, J.K. Pore pressure model based on accumulated stress. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13,
1913–1926. [CrossRef]
17. Xu, C.; Chen, Q.; Luo, W.; Liang, L. Evaluation of Permanent Settlement in Hangzhou Qingchun Road
Crossing-River Tunnel under Traffic Loading. Int. J. Geomech. 2018, 19, 06018037. [CrossRef]
18. Guoxing, C.; Qi, W.; Tian, S.; Kai, Z.; Enquan, Z.; Lingyu, X.; Yanguo, Z. Cyclic Behaviors of Saturated
Sand-Gravel Mixtures under Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Loading. J. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 1–34. [CrossRef]
19. Salvatore, E.; Ando, E.; Proia, R.; Modoni, G.; Viggiani, G. Effect of strain localization on the response of
granular materials subjected to monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests. Ital. Geotech. J. 2018, 52, 30–43.
20. Salvatore, E.; Spacagna, R.L.; Andò, E.; Ochmanski, M. Geostatistical analysis of strain localization in triaxial
tests on sand. Géotech. Lett. 2019, 9, 1–6. [CrossRef]
21. Kucharczyk, K.; Głuchowski, A.; Miturski, M.; Sas, W. Influence of Load Frequency on Cohesive Soil Respond.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 468. [CrossRef]
22. Liu, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Jiang, B. Laboratory testing and analysis of dynamic and static resilient modulus
of subgrade soil under various influencing factors. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 195, 178–186. [CrossRef]
23. Sas, W.; Głuchowski, A.; Gabryś, K.; Soból, E.; Szymański, A. Resilient modulus characterization of compacted
cohesive subgrade soil. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 370. [CrossRef]
24. Mortezaie, A.R.; Vucetic, M. Effect of frequency and vertical stress on cyclic degradation and pore water
pressure in clay in the NGI simple shear device. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013, 139, 1727–1737. [CrossRef]
25. Gu, C.; Wang, J.; Cai, Y.Q.; Yang, Z.X.; Gao, Y.F. Undrained cyclic triaxial behavior of saturated clays under
variable confining pressure. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 40, 118–128. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3821 23 of 23

26. Guo, L.; Wang, J.Y.; Cai, Q.; Liu, H.L.; Gao, Y.F.; Sun, H.L. Undrained deformation behavior of saturated soft
clay under long-term cyclic loading. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 50, 28–37. [CrossRef]
27. Qian, J.G.; Wang, Y.G.; Yin, Z.Y.; Huang, M.S. Experimental identification of plastic shakedown behavior
of saturated clay subjected to traffic loading with principal stress rotation. Eng. Geol. 2016, 214, 29–42.
[CrossRef]
28. Ichii, K.; Mikami, T. Cyclic threshold shear strain in pore water pressure generation in clay in situ samples.
Soils Found. 2018, 58, 756–765. [CrossRef]
29. Krechowiecki-Shaw, C.J.; Jefferson, I.; Royal, A.; Ghataora, G.S.; Alobaidi, I.M. Degradation of soft subgrade
soil from slow, large, cyclic heavy-haul road loads: A review. Can. Geotech. J. 2016, 53, 1435–1449. [CrossRef]
30. Abeywickrama, A.; Indraratna, B.; Rujikiatkamjorn, C. Excess Pore-Water Pressure Generation and Mud
Pumping in Railways Under Cyclic Loading. In Geotechnics for Transportation Infrastructure; Springer:
Singapore, 2019; pp. 371–383.
31. Lei, H.; Li, B.; Lu, H.; Ren, Q. Dynamic deformation behavior and cyclic degradation of ultrasoft soil under
cyclic loading. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 04016135. [CrossRef]
32. Yang, Q.; Ren, Y.; Niu, J.; Cheng, K.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y. Characteristics of soft marine clay under cyclic loading:
A review. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2018, 77, 1027–1046. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, J.; Guo, L.; Cai, Y.; Xu, C.; Gu, C. Strain, and pore pressure development on soft marine clay in triaxial
tests with a large number of cycles. Ocean Eng. 2013, 74, 125–132. [CrossRef]
34. Ren, X.W.; Xu, Q.; Teng, J.; Zhao, N.; Lv, L. A novel model for the cumulative plastic strain of soft marine
clay under long-term low cyclic loads. Ocean Eng. 2018, 149, 194–204. [CrossRef]
35. Zeng, L.L.; Hong, Z.S.; Han, J. Experimental investigations on discrepancy in consolidation degrees with
deformation and pore pressure variations of natural clays. Appl. Clay Sci. 2018, 152, 38–43. [CrossRef]
36. Indraratna, B.; Ni, J.; Rujikiatkamjorn, C.; Zhong, R. A new model for describing the behaviour of soft soils
under cyclic loading. In Proceedings of the 12th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics
(ANZ 2015): The Changing Face of the Earth—Geomechanics & Human Influence, Auckland, New Zealand,
22–25 February 2015; pp. 1–8.
37. Zografou, D.; Gourvenec, S.; O’Loughlin, C. Vertical cyclic loading response of shallow skirted foundation in
soft normally consolidated clay. Can. Geotech. J. 2018, 56, 473–483. [CrossRef]
38. Sun, L.; Cai, Y.; Gu, C.; Wang, J.; Guo, L. Cyclic deformation behaviour of natural K0-consolidated soft clay
under different stress paths. J. Cent. South Univ. 2015, 12, 4828–4836. [CrossRef]
39. Kenig, K. Litologia glin morenowych na Niżu Polskim-podstawowe metody badawcze. Biul. Państwowego
Inst. Geol. 2009, 437, 1–57.
40. Bajda, M.; Falkowski, T. Badania geotechniczne w ocenie budowy geologicznej fragmentu Skarpy
Warszawskiej w rejonie ulicy Tamka. Landf. Anal. 2014, 26, 77–84. [CrossRef]
41. EN 1997-2:2007 Geotechnical Design—Part 2: Ground Investigation and Testing. Available online: http:
//sklep.pkn.pl/pn-en-1997-2-2007e.html (accessed on 14 March 2007).
42. ISO 17892-4:2016 Geotechnical Investigation and Testing—Laboratory Testing of Soil—Part 4: Determination
of Particle Size Distribution. Available online: http://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-en-iso-17892-4-2017-01e.html
(accessed on 18 January 2017).
43. ASTM D698-12e1. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard
Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3 )). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, USA. 2008. Available online:
https://www.techstreet.com/standards/astm-d5254-d5254m-92-2010-e1?product_id=1751704 (accessed on
8 January 2010).
44. Seed, H.B.; Martin, P.P.; Lysmer, J. The Generation and Dissipation of Pore Water Pressures during Soil
Liquefaction; Report No. UCB/EERC-75/26; Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California:
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1975.
45. Yasuhara, K.; Yamanouchi, T.; Hirao, K. Ciclyc strength and deformataion of normally consolidated clay.
Soils Found. 1982, 22, 77–91. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).