Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237
DOI 10.1007/s40098-013-0063-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Estimation of Critical State Parameters from One-dimensional
Consolidation and Triaxial Compression Tests
K. Lini Dev • Rakesh J. Pillai • R. G. Robinson
Received: 10 December 2012 / Accepted: 2 May 2013 / Published online: 14 May 2013
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2013
Abstract Determination of critical state parameters are
essential, when critical state soil mechanics based soil
models are used for the analysis. Isotropic consolidation
test and triaxial tests with accurate measurements of vol-
ume change and pore pressure are essential for the direct
measurement of critical state parameters. However, in the
conventional geotechnical engineering practice, isotropic
compression tests are usually not conducted but only one-
dimensional consolidation test are performed. The usual
parameters reported in most of the soil investigation reports
are the shear strength parameters c0 and /0 and the con-
solidation parameters such as compression index (Cc) and
the recompression index (Cr) apart from, the overburden
pressure r00 and the corresponding void ratio e0. The crit-
ical state parameters are seldom reported in most of the soil
investigation reports. This paper explains a procedure to
estimate the critical state parameters, in the absence of
isotropic compression test data, based on one-dimensional
consolidation tests and triaxial compression tests, using the
equations of Modified Cam clay state boundary surface.
Comparison of the calculated values from the suggested
method with the measured values, on three reconstituted
soils and one undisturbed soil, lends support to the validity
of the proposed procedure.
K. L. Dev  R. G. Robinson (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras, Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: robinson@iitm.ac.in
R. J. Pillai
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Keywords Critical state parameters 
Modified cam clay model  Isotropic consolidation 
Triaxial test
Introduction
Plasticity theory based soil models became an integral part
of geotechnical engineering practice. These soil models are
essentially based on critical state soil mechanics concept
[1–3]. The five critical state soil parameters are: k, slope of
the normal compression line (NCL) in the specific volume
(t)—natural logarithm of the mean effective stress ln (p0 )
plot; j, slope of the swelling line in the t - ln (p0 ) plot; M,
value of specific volume when p0 = 1 kPa on the normal
compression line; L, slope of the critical state line in the
q0 - p0 plane; C, value of specific volume when
p0 = 1 kPa on the critical state line.
In the above definitions p0 is the mean effective normal
stress, defined in triaxial condition as
ðr01 þ 2r03 Þ
p0 ¼ ð1Þ
3
and q0 is the deviatoric stress defined as
q0 ¼ r01  r03 ð2Þ
where r10 , effective major principal stress and; r30 , effec-
tive minor principal stress; t, specific volume, which is
equal to void ratio (e) plus 1.0.
The parameters k, j and N can be determined by per-
forming isotropic consolidation test on normally consoli-
dated samples. The remaining parameters L and C are
determined from either consolidated undrained or consol-
idated drained triaxial tests. The positions of NCL, critical
state line and swelling line are shown in Fig. 1a, b. The
123
230
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 1 Positions of Normal compression line, K0 line and critical
state line in a q - p0 plane, b v - p0 plane, and c v - ln(p)0 plane
figure also depicts the definitions of all the critical state
parameters. The NCL and CSL plots as straight lines with
the same slope k in the t - ln (p0 ) plot (Fig. 1c).
In the conventional geotechnical engineering practice
one-dimensional consolidation tests and triaxial compres-
sion tests are widely performed. The usual parameters
reported in most of the soil investigation reports are the
shear strength parameters c0 and /0 and the one dimen-
sional consolidation parameters such as compression index
(Cc) and the recompression index (Cr). In addition, the
overburden pressure r00 and the corresponding void ratio e0
are also reported. The critical state parameters are seldom
reported in most of the soil investigation reports. It is often
necessary to estimate the critical state parameters from the
conventional parameters such as /0 , Cc, Cr and the one-
dimensional consolidation test data.
The values of k and j are directly related to the com-
pression index (Cc) and the recompression index (Cr) as
follows [1, 4]:
123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237
Cc Cr
k¼ and j ¼ ð3Þ
2:303 2:303
In the absence of any consolidation test data, the usual
empirical relationships with index properties and Cc may
be used to estimate k. Anderkin and Bryson [5] translated
the well-established correlation between Atterberg limits
and compression index to the respective critical state
parameters for Kentuky clay. Santamarina and Cho [6]
suggested a simplified procedure to determine the critical
state line for sandy soils using a simple CS test. The
procedure can be used to determine L, k and C in sandy
soils. However, the method is not suitable for clays.
The value of L has direct relation with the angle of
internal friction (/0 ) at critical state as follows [1, 4]:
ð6 sin /0 Þ
M¼ ð4Þ
ð3  sin /0 Þ
Therefore, knowing Cc, Cr and /0 the three soil
parameters k, j and L can be directly determined from
Eqs. (3) and (4). For the determination of N, isotropic
consolidation test data is necessary. In the absence of
isotropic consolidation tests and complete triaxial test data,
procedure for estimating M and C needs to be developed.
This paper details a procedure to estimate the additional
critical state parameters M and C based on one-dimensional
consolidation test data using the Modified Cam clay model
developed by Roscoe and Burland [2]. The validity of the
proposed method is verified by performing a series of
experiments on three reconstituted soils of varying
plasticity characteristics and one undisturbed soil sample.
Proposed Method
It has been established in the literature that the compression
lines in the t - ln (p0 ) plot are parallel with a slope k when
the stress ratio (g = q0 /p0 ) is constant. Therefore, the one-
dimensional consolidation line (K0 line) also plots parallel
to CSL and NCL [7] in the t - ln (p0 ) plot as indicated in
Fig. 1c. The position of K0 line in the q0 - p0 plane and
t - ln (p0 ) plane are shown in Fig. 1a, b, respectively. The
swelling lines from one-dimensional consolidation tests
and isotropic consolidation tests also have the same slope.
Guided by this the value of k and j can be determined
using Eq. (3). Knowing /0 at critical state, the value of L
can be calculated using Eq. (4). The procedure for deter-
mining M and C is detailed below.
In the critical state frame work, the stress invariants q0
and p0 are commonly used. Instead of void ratio (e), the
specific volume (t = 1 ? e) is often used. An element of
soil in one-dimensional consolidation undergoes only ver-
tical deformation. As lateral strains are not permitted, the
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237 231

0
stress in the horizontal direction is the earth pressure at rest K0 ¼ ð1  sin / Þ ð13Þ
with coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0).
By definition, the invariants, q0 and p0 under one- where /0 is the angle of internal friction of the normally
dimensional conditions are: consolidated soil which is equal to the angle of internal
0 0 friction at the critical state. Knowing K0, the value of gK0
q ¼ ð1  K0 Þrv ð5Þ can be calculated using Eq. (7).
0
0 ð1 þ 2K0 Þrv For the case of one-dimensional consolidation,
p ¼ ð6Þ !
3 M 2 þ g2K0
N0 ¼ N  ðk  jÞ ln ð14Þ
The position of one-dimensional consolidation line or M2
the K0 line in the q - p0 plane and t – ln (p0 ) plane are
shown in Fig. 1a, c, respectively. The positions of NCL and The only unknown in Eq. (14) is N and knowing N, the
CSL are also shown in the figures. The K0 line of normally value of C can be calculated using Eq. (12). Therefore, all
consolidated soils lies between NCL and CSL. In other the parameters can be determined using the procedure
words, the positions of NCL, CSL and K0 line in the t - p0 outlined above.
plane depends on the stress ratio g = q0 /p0 . For NCL and The summary of the suggested procedure is as follows:
CSL, the values of g are 0 and L, respectively. The value (1) Determine Cc, Cr and /0 using the conventional
of g for K0 line (gK0 ) is given by procedure. Calculate the value of N0 from the void
3ð1  K0 Þ ratio pressure data.
g K0 ¼ ð7Þ
ð1 þ 2K0 Þ (2) Calculate the values of k, j and M using Eqs. (3) and
(4).
The equation of NCL, CSL and K0 line can be (3) Using Eqs. (7) and (13), determine the value of gK0 .
generalized as: (4) Knowing N0, k, j, M and gK0 , determine the value of
t ¼ tk  k ln ðp0 Þ ð8Þ N using Eq. (14).
(5) Knowing all other parameters, the value of C can be
The value of tk for NCL and CSL are M and C, defined
determined using Eq. (12).
earlier. The value of tk for the K0 line is denoted as M0.
The value of M0 can be readily obtained from the The validity of the proposed method is verified by per-
conventional one-dimensional consolidation test data of forming a series of one-dimensional consolidation tests,
the soil in the normally consolidated state or knowing any isotropic consolidation tests and triaxial compression tests
point on the e - log rv0 curve and the compression index on three reconstituted soils of varying plasticity charac-
Cc. teristics and an undisturbed soil.
The equation of state boundary surface in the Modified
Cam clay model is given as [2, 3]:
 2  Experimental Work
M þ g2
v ¼ N  ðk  jÞ ln  k lnðp0 Þ ð9Þ
M2 Three soil samples such as commercially available Kao-
It is rewritten as: linite, IIT lake clay from the lake of IIT Madras campus,
Chennai and a silty soil from Gujarat were selected for the
t ¼ tk  k ln ðp0 Þ ð10Þ study. An undisturbed soil sample from Kakinada, Andhra
where, Pradesh was also used for the study. The undisturbed soil is
  a marine clay taken from a depth of 10.0 m. The water
M 2 þ g2 table at the site was present at the ground level itself. The
vk ¼ N  ðk  jÞ ln ð11Þ
M2 natural moisture content of the soil is found to be 73 %.
For CSL, g ¼ M and tk = C. Therefore, from Eq. (11) The physical properties of these soils are tabulated in
Table 1. The liquid limit of the selected soils vary from 26
N  C ¼ ðk  jÞ ln 2 ð12Þ to 82 % representing soils of low, medium and high plas-
For one-dimensional consolidation, ticity characteristics, as per Indian Standard Classification
system, which covers soils of different characteristics
tk ¼ N0 and g ¼ gk0
encountered in practice.
The value of the coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0 One-dimensional consolidation tests, isotropic consoli-
can be calculated from Jaky’s approximation [8] for dation test and consolidated undrained triaxial tests were
normally consolidated soils as conducted on normally consolidated soil samples

123
232
Table 1 Properties of the soils
Property Kaolinite
used
Liquid limit (%) 52
Plastic limit (%) 24
Plasticity index (%) 28
Specific gravity 2.65
% Sand 40
% Silt size 26
% Clay size 34
IS classification CH
reconstituted from clay slurry having water content of 1.5
times the liquid limit water content, as per relevant Indian
standard specifications. One-dimensional consolidation
tests were conducted on consolidation rings of 60 mm
diameter and 20 mm thickness. The inner surface of the
consolidation rings was smeared with silicone grease to
reduce side friction. Consolidation tests were carried out at
least to a consolidation pressure of 400 kPa. The loads
were applied incrementally in steps with a load increment
of 1.0. Sufficient time was allowed between each load
increment for the consolidation to be over. After reaching a
maximum consolidation pressure, the samples were
unloaded in steps so as to obtain the swelling curve. During
unloading, the swelling of the sample was carefully mon-
itored. Using these data the void ratio (e) of the sample
under each pressure increment during loading and
unloading stages were computed.
The isotropic consolidation tests were conducted on
reconstituted samples of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm
long which were initially consolidated from slurry to a
consolidation pressure of 25 kPa in cylindrical moulds of
50 mm diameter and 150 mm long. The clay slurry with
initial water content of 1.5 times the liquid limit was
carefully poured into the mould without air entrapment.
The slurry was consolidated in steps to a pressure of
25 kPa. Consolidation pressure of 25 kPa was found nec-
essary for handling the samples for trimming and setting-
up in the triaxial apparatus. Once the consolidation under
25 kPa was over, the samples were ejected and trimmed to
cylindrical samples of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm long
and assembled in the apparatus. In order to accelerate the
consolidation, filter paper side drains were used. As sug-
gested by Sivakumar et al. [9], double filter paper drains
were provided, as double filter papers are more effective
than single drains in terms of increased drainage capacity
and reduced clogging. The sample was saturated by
applying back pressure saturation technique. A minimum B
value of 0.98 was ensured for all the tests. The back
pressure required to achieve a B value of 0.98 was found to
be in the range of 100–150 kPa. The confining pressure
was increased in steps with a load increment ratio of 1.0.
123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237
Silty soil IIT Lake clay Kakinada clay
26 49 82
16 23 35
10 26 47
2.67 2.69 2.68
47 39 11
41 27 37
12 34 52
ML CI CH
After reaching the maximum confining pressure of
400 kPa, the samples were unloaded in steps. During
consolidation stage and unloading stage, the volume
change of the samples was recorded to an accuracy of
1 mm3 using the GDS make advanced pressure–volume
controllers so as to compute the specific volume at different
consolidation pressures.
Consolidated undrained triaxial tests (CIU tests) were
also conducted on reconstituted samples of 50 mm diam-
eter and 100 mm long. Double filter paper side drains were
used to accelerate the consolidation during consolidation
stage and for better pore pressure equilibration during
shearing stage. The testing procedure and rate of shearing
were adopted as per the guidelines given in Head [10]. The
axial deformation was measured using an LVDT and the
pore pressure developed during shearing was measured
using a pore pressure transducer connected to the bottom of
the sample. The axial load on the sample was measured
using a submersible load cell. Both isotropic consolidation
tests and CIU tests were conducted using the GDS make
Bishop–Wesley type stress path apparatus. Tests were
conducted with different effective confining pressures of
50, 100 and 200 kPa.
The same procedure described above for performing
one-dimensional consolidation, isotropic consolidation and
triaxial tests for the reconstituted samples was adopted for
the undisturbed soil samples. For the undisturbed samples
also B value of 0.98 was ensured. Higher back pressure of
250 kPa was found necessary to achieve this B value. One-
dimensional consolidation test was conducted up to a
consolidation pressure of 800 kPa. After reaching 800 kPa,
the sample was unloaded in steps to obtain the swelling
curve.
Results and Discussions
The void ratio (e)—logarithm of consolidation pressure
(log rv0 ) curve during loading and unloading stages from
the one-dimensional consolidation test for the reconstituted
samples are given in Fig. 2a, b, respectively. The values of
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237 233

2 3
(a) IITM clay
IITM clay

1.6 Kaolinite Kaolinite

2.6
Void ratio (e)

Void ratio (e)

Silty Soil Silty Soil

1.2 2.2

0.8 1.8

0.4 1.4
1 10 100 1000 0 2 4 6 8
Consolidation pressure ( v' ), kPa ln(p')
1.2
(b) Fig. 3 One-dimensional consolidation results in v - ln (p0 ) plot
IITM Clay
Kaolinite
Void ratio (e)

Silty Soil
Table 3 Calculated values of k, j, M and C
0.8 Property Kaolinite Silty soil IIT Lake clay

k 0.137 0.049 0.208

j 0.011 0.006 0.02
M 2.655 1.766 3.011
0.4 C 2.57 1.736 2.880
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure ( v' ), kPa

Fig. 2 e-log rv0 curves during a loading stage and b unloading stage Validation of the Method

The results of isotropic consolidation tests on the recon-

Table 2 Values of conventional soil parameters for all the recon- stituted soils in t - ln (p0 ) plots are presented in Fig. 4a, b.
stituted soil samples Figure 4a shows the loading part while 4b shows the
Property Kaolinite Silty soil IIT Lake clay unloading part. The values of k, j and M obtained from
isotropic consolidation test for all the three soils are tabu-
Cc 0.316 0.113 0.479
lated in Table 4. The critical state lines obtained from the
Cr 0.025 0.014 0.046
CIU tests in the t – ln (p0 ) plane are plotted in Fig. 5. The
/0 30° 26° 29°
values of C are also listed in Table 4.
N0 2.614 1.753 2.95
The values of k and j computed from the oedometer test
results, and M and C obtained from the proposed procedure
using the modified Cam clay model are compared with
compression index (Cc) and recompression index (Cr) for those measured from isotropic consolidation and triaxial
the three soils are tabulated in Table 2. The values of angle tests in Fig. 6. The comparison is satisfactory lending
of internal friction (/0 ) corresponding to the critical state support to the validity of the proposed procedure. However,
were determined by constructing Mohr circles, which are the calculated values of j are found to be slightly less
also listed in Table 2. In order to determine the values of compared to the measured values.
M0, the one-dimensional consolidation results are plotted in The validity of the proposed method is further verified
the form of t – ln (p0 ) in Fig. 3. The values of p0 were from the data obtained from the undisturbed samples. The
calculated using Eq. (6). The values of M0 for all the soils e - log rv0 curves obtained from the one-dimensional
are also tabulated in Table 2. consolidation test is shown in Fig. 7. The preconsolidation
From the values of Cc, Cr and /0 , the values of critical pressure (rc0 ) of 50 kPa is obtained based on the log
state parameters k, j and L are computed using Eqs. (3) (1 ? e) versus log rv0 method [11]. The effective over-
and (4). Knowing the values of M0, k, j and L, the values burden pressure (r00 ) at the site is estimated as 55 kPa. The
of M and C were determined based on the modified Cam soil is expected to be normally consolidated, as it is close to
clay model as per the proposed procedure, described ear- the sea shore. Slightly lower value of preconsolidation
lier. The calculated values of k, j, L, M and C are tabu- pressure than the overburden pressure may be attributed to
lated in Table 3. the error involved in the estimation and the sampling

123
234 Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237

3.4 10
(a) IITM clay
Kaolinite
Specific Volume (v )

3
Silty Soil
2.6 1

Calculated values
2.2

0.1
1.8

1.4
0 2 4 6 8
0.01
lnp'

2.6
(b)
IITM Clay
0.001
Specific volume (v )

Kaolinite 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

2.2 Silty Soil Measured values

Fig. 6 Comparison of measured and calculated values

1.8

2.1
45 kPa

1.4
0 2 4 6 8 1.8
lnp'
Void ratio (e)

Fig. 4 Isotropic consolidation test results during a loading and Cc = 0.60

1.5
b unloading stages
Cr = 0.083

1.2
Table 4 Measured values of k, j, M and C
Property Kaolinite Silty soil IIT Lake clay 0.9
1 10 100 1000
k 0.137 0.052 0.196 Consolidation pressure ( v'), kPa
j 0.018 0.008 0.039
M 2.806 1.776 3.16 Fig. 7 e-log (rv0 ) of undisturbed soil
C 2.62 1.77 3.05
disturbance. If r00 and rc0 are equal within ±20 %, the soil
is considered normally consolidated [12]. Therefore, the
soil is considered as normally consolidated. The values of
compression index and recompression index are obtained
2.5
as 0.60 and 0.083, respectively. The corresponding values
2.3 of k and j are calculated as 0.26 and 0.036, respectively.
Specific volume, v

IITM clay As the CIU tests were conducted for confining pressures
2.1
Kaolinite of more than the preconsolidation pressure, the results
correspond to the normally consolidated state. The value of
1.9 Silty soil
angle of internal friction is obtained as 29.5°. The corre-
1.7
sponding value of M is 1.18 using Eq. (2). From the one-
dimensional consolidation test results, the value of N0 is
1.5 determined as 3.724. The values of C and M obtained as
per the proposed procedure are tabulated in Table 5.
1.3 The positions of the normal consolidation line based on
2 3 4 5
ln(p')
isotropic consolidation test and the critical state line based
on CIU tests on the Kakinada clay are shown in Fig. 8. The
Fig. 5 Critical state lines of reconstituted soils in v – ln (p0 ) plot swelling line is also shown. The measured values of k, j, M

123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237
Table 5 Measured and calculated values of critical state parameters
for the undisturbed sample
Property Measured
k 0.268
j 0.046
M 3.81
C 3.67
3 Critical state line
( = 3.645)
2.8
Isotropic compression line
Specific volume, v
(N = 3.831, = 0.268)
2.6
2.4
2.2 Swelling line
( = 0.046)
2 well with the actually measured values lending support to
3 4
ln(p')
Fig. 8 Isotropic compression line, swelling line and critical state line
for the undisturbed soil
and C are also listed in Table 5. The calculated values by
the suggested procedure compares with the measured val-
ues, for the undisturbed sample, further proving the validity
of the proposed procedure. Therefore, if all the informa-
tion, including isotropic compression test data, required for
the calculation of critical state parameters using the tradi-
tional method is not available, the proposed method can be
used using the data from one-dimensional consolidation
test and /0 . The accuracy of the values of k, j and
M depend on the values of Cc, Cr and /0 , respectively, as
per Eqs. (3) and (4). Reviewing Eq. (14), the value of N and
hence C depends on N0, k, j and /0 . However, sensitivity
analysis reveals that the values of N and C strongly depend
on N0 and the influence of other parameters is insignificant.
The main significance of critical state parameters is the
prediction of stress–strain, pore pressure-strain curves and
the stress paths using critical state constitutive models like
Cam Clay model. In order to evaluate the validity of the
parameters determined by the proposed procedure, the
stress–strain, pore pressure–strain and stress paths were
predicted using Cam-clay model and compared with the
measured data. The stress strain behavior of the clays based
on the Modified Cam clay model was calculated as per
Budhu [13]. The step-by-step procedure is given in
Appendix.
235
Typical plots of predicted curves based on calculated
parameters and the experimental data for Kaolinite and IIT
Calculated lake clay are given in Figs. 9a–c and 10a–c, respectively.
The predictions based on the measured parameters are also
0.26
given in the plot. It is seen that the predictions based on the
0.036 parameters determined by the proposed procedure com-
3.797 pares well with those predicted based on measured
3.64 parameters. This further supports the validity of the pro-
posed procedure.
Conclusions
A procedure for estimating the critical state soil parameters
from the conventional one-dimensional consolidation test
and from the value of angle of internal friction is proposed
in the present study based on modified Cam-clay model.
The results obtained from the proposed method are com-
pared with the actually measured values using four soil
samples of widely varying plasticity characteristics. The
results based on modified cam-clay model compares very
5 6
the validity of the method.
Appendix: Prediction of Stress–Strain Response Using
Modified Cam Clay Model
As the behavior under triaxial stress state is only consid-
ered, the stresses and strains are expressed in terms of the
corresponding deviatoric and volumetric components. dp0
and dq are the increments in mean normal effective stress
and deviatoric stress respectively; dev and ded are the
corresponding total volumetric and shear strain increments,
respectively.
(1) The final mean effective stress corresponding to the
initial specific volume (v0 ) for the case of undrained
shearing can be obtained using Eq. (15), for different
effective confining pressures. A number of incre-
ments (dp0 ) between the initial mean effective stress,
(p00 ) and final mean effective stress (p0f ) are taken and
for each increment the corresponding strain incre-
ments will be calculated.
 
C  v0
p0f ¼ exp ð15Þ
k
(2) For each increment of the mean effective stress (p0 ),
the yield surface is updated in the second step. In the
case of Modified Cam Clay model only isotropic
hardening is considered and the evolution of yield
surface depends on the variation of the hardening
parameter (p00 ). The value of hardening parameter for
123
236 Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237

200 200
(a) (a) Measured
Deviator stress (kPa)

Deviator stress (kPa)

Measured Predicted (Using measured parameters)
Predicted (Using measured parameters) Predicted (Using calculated parameters)
150 Predicted (Using calculated parameters) 150
c' = 200 kPa
c' = 200 kPa
100 100

c' = 100 kPa

c' = 100 kPa
50
50
c' = 50 kPa
c' = 50 kPa
0
0 0 3 6 9 12 15
0 3 6 9 12
Axial strain (%)
Axial strain (%)
200
200 (b) Measured

Pore pressure (kPa)

(b) Measured
Pore pressure (kPa)

Predicted (Using measured parameters) Predicted (Using measured parameters)

Predicted (Using calculated parameters) 150 Predicted (Using calculated parameters)
150
c' = 200 kPa c' = 200 kPa

100
100
c' = 100 kPa
c' = 100 kPa 50
50
c' = 50 kPa
c' = 50 kPa
0
0 0 3 6 9 12 15
0 3 6 9 12
Axial strain (%)
Axial strain (%)
200
200
(c) Measured
(c) Measured
Predicted (Using measured parameters)
Predicted (Using measured parameters)
150 Predicted (Using calculated parameters)
q (kPa)

150 Predicted (Using calculated parameters)

q (kPa)

100
100

50
50

0
0 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 200 250
p' (kPa)
p' (kPa)
Fig. 10 Predicted and measured a stress–strain b pore pressure–
Fig. 9 Predicted and measured a stress–strain b pore pressure–strain
strain and c stress path for IIT lake clay
and c stress path for kaolinite

(5) For the undrained shearing case the total volumetric

strain increment will be always zero and hence the
the succeeding step (ith step) can be obtained using
plastic volumetric strain increment can be obtained as
the following Eq. (16).
in Eq. (19)
 0 j=ðkjÞ
0 0 p j dp0
ðpc Þi ¼ ðpc Þi1 i1 ð16Þ depv ¼ deev ¼ ð19Þ
p0i v 0 p0
(3) The value of deviatoric stress corresponding to the (6) In this step the plastic shear strain increment can be
mean normal stress in each step can be calculated calculated from the equation of flow rule for the
from the equation of yield surface as given below. Modified Cam Clay model as in Eq. (20)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p0c 2g
q ¼ Mp 0
1 ð17Þ depd ¼ depv ð20Þ
p0 M 2  g2
(7) The elastic shear strain increment can be calculated
(4) Elastic volumetric strain increments is calculated
based on Eq. (21), where G is the shear modulus.
based on the Eq. (18). It should be noted that the
value of deev will be negative as dp0 will be always dq
deed ¼ ð21Þ
negative. 3G
j dp0 (8) The total shear strain increment can be calculated by
deev ¼ ð18Þ
v 0 p0 adding the volumetric and shear strain increments as

123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2013) 43(3):229–237 237

shown in Eq. (22). The total shear strain values at 3. Wood DM (1990) Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechan-
each step can be obtained by cumulative summation ics. Cambridge University Press, New York
4. Britto AM, Gunn MJ (1987) Critical state soil mechanics via
of the shear strain increments. For the undrained case finite elements. EllisHorwood Ltd., Chichester
the axial strain will have the same value as the shear 5. Anderkin MR, Bryson S (2010) Critical state parameters for
strain because the volumetric strain will be always Kentucky clay. In: Geoshangai 2010 proceedings, soil behaviour
zero. and geo-micromechanics. Geotechnical Special technical Publi-
cations, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 43–49
ded ¼ deed þ depd ð22Þ 6. Santamarina JC, Cho GC (2001) Determination of critical state
parameters in sandy soils—simple procedure. Geotech Test J
(9) The pore pressure at each increment can be calculated 24(2):185–192
by subtracting the effective mean normal stress from 7. Atkinson JH, Bransby PL (1993) The mechanics of soils—an
introduction to critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill Pub-
the total mean normal stress as shown in Eq. (23). The lications, New York
total mean normal stress for each increment can be 8. Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J Union
obtained based on the equation of the total stress path Hung Engl Arch 355–358
as given in Eq. (24). 9. Sivakumar V, Mackinnon P, Zaini J, Cairns P (2010) Effective-
ness of filters in reducing consolidation time in routine laboratory
du ¼ p  p0 ð23Þ testing. Geotechnique 60(12):949–956
q 10. Head KH (1998) Manual of soil laboratory testing, Effective
p ¼ p00 þ ð24Þ stress tests, vol 3. Wiley, Singapore
3 11. Sridharan A, Abraham BM, Jose BT (1991) Improved technique
for estimation of preconsolidation pressure. Géotechnique
41(2):263–268
12. Coduto CP (1999) Geotechnical engineering—principles and
practices. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
13. Budhu M, (2007) Soil mechanics and foundations. Wiley,
References Hoboken

1. Schofield AN, Wroth CP (1968) Critical state soil mechanics.

McGraw-Hill Publications, London
2. Roscoe KH, Burland JB (1968) On the generalized stress–strain
behaviour of wet clay. In: Engineering plasticity. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 535–609

123