See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252629754

Laboratory Study on Soil Shear Stiffness and Strength Under Unloading

Conditions

Article  in  Journal of Testing and Evaluation · September 2011

DOI: 10.1520/JTE103427

CITATIONS READS

2 1,264

2 authors:

Junping Yuan Viet Hoang Nguyen

Hohai University Hanoi University of Civil Engineering
4 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Viet Hoang Nguyen on 18 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This paper has been modified from the original to correct the pagination. No other material has been changed.

Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 39, No. 5

Paper ID JTE103427
Available online at: www.astm.org

Junping Yuan1 and Hoang Viet Nguyen2

Laboratory Study on Soil Shear Stiffness and

Strength Under Unloading Conditions

ABSTRACT: In excavated earth structures (e.g., deep excavation, cut slope, and underground construction etc.) unloading is the most predomi-
nant factor that affects the behavior of soil mass. However in engineering practice, the influence of unloading factor has not been really considered.
For example, the soil shear strength characteristics are often investigated from the conventional triaxial shear test, consequently it leads to some
doubts when applying the shear strength properties under loading condition to analyze the stability and displacement problem of unloading cases. In
this study, a comparison of soil shear deformation and strength between loading and unloading conditions was carried out, which was based on two
series of tests for remoulded clay conducted on the Advanced Stress Path Triaxial Testing System. The test results showed that the unloading factor
affects soil behaviour significantly. The differences in friction angle, collapsibility, excess pore-water pressure, and shear modulus during shear under
unloading condition are remarkable from under loading condition.
KEYWORDS: shear strength, shear stiffness, unloading, stress controlled, triaxial shear test

Introduction On Soil Shear Strength Characteristic

In excavated earth structures, unloading is the most predominant
factor that affects the behavior of soil mass. Excavation activities
result in the decrease of horizontal stress in soils at the sides or the
decrease of vertical stress in soils at the bottom of deep excavation
(or tunnel, cut slope etc.), which is illustrated in Fig. 1. The change
of stress state following the unloading stress paths might induce
plastic failure in the soils during or after construction stage. In
order to analyze the soil behavior (deformation or stability) under
this situation, the conventional triaxial shear test is normally per-
formed to determine the shear strength parameters in laboratory.
However, it is obviously that the stress path is quite different for this
situation from the loading stress path in the conventional triaxial
shear test, and this difference might result in different shear behav-
ior (stiffness and strength) of the soil between loading and unload-
ing stress paths.
The problem of unloading factor influencing excavated earth
structures has already been addressed in some research papers. For
example, the lateral unloading due to excavation is one of two cru-
cial external factors inducing landslides in unsaturated soils [1]. Ng
[2] mentioned that in order to improve design and analysis of soil-
structure interaction associated with deep excavation, it is impor-
tant to understand the effective stress changes around excavations
caused by both horizontal and vertical stress relief.
In the last decade, some test series have been done with respect
to loading and unloading stress paths in both conventional triaxial
and true triaxial test systems [3–7]. The differences in shear
strength, stress-strain curve, elastic modulus, and failure character-
istics during shear have already been studied [3–6].
Manuscript received September 29, 2010; accepted for publication May 24,
2011; published online June 2011.
1
Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geome-
chanics and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, Xikang Rd. 1#, Nan-
jing 210098, People’s Republic of China, e-mail: yuan_junph@163.com
2
Postgraduate Student, Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geome-
chanics and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, Xikang Rd. 1#, Nan-
jing 210098, People’s Republic of China, e-mail: nhvdhxd@gmail.com
Triaxial compression and extension tests are two fundamental tests
in a conventional triaxial apparatus. During a triaxial extension test,
the confining pressure is kept constant and the axial stress is re-
duced or, alternatively, the axial stress is kept constant and the con-
fining pressure is increased. Since the introduction of the triaxial
apparatus in soil mechanics, numerous triaxial compression and
extension tests have been conducted. There has been global agree-
ment in the literature concerning the behavior of granular material
in triaxial compression tests. With regard to the triaxial extension
tests, however the disagreement seems to be more striking. The
controversy whether the friction angle in extension is greater than
that in compression remains unclear [7].
Bishop [8] investigated the shear strength of isotropically con-
solidated remolded and reconstituted samples under compression
and extension tests. The result indicated that the Mohr–Coulomb
compression and extension friction angles differ only slightly.
However under anisotropic consolidation condition, for example
K0 normally consolidation case in the research of Atkinson et al.
[9], the Mohr–Coulomb friction angles are ␾C⬘ = 22° and ␾⬘E = 29°
for compression and extension respectively.
Some published results of triaxial extension tests and compres-
sion tests in literature for sandy soils collected by Wu and Kolym-
bas [7] are shown in Table 1. Other results for clayey soils collected
by Siddique and Clayton [10] are shown in Table 2. From the two
tables, it is shown that the friction angle of triaxial extension tests is
greater than that of triaxial compression tests in most cases. In
order to explain this situation, Wu and Kolymbas [7] proved that the
factors such as accuracy of the axial force measurement, axial force
carried by the rubber membrane surrounding the specimen, gravity
of the sample, and inhomogeneous deformation have a much larger
influence on the results in triaxial extension tests than in triaxial
compression tests.
Friction effects can be eliminated by measuring axial force with
a submersible load cell inside the triaxial cell. The force carried by
the rubber membrane might be accounted by a tension test for a

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Copyright © 2011 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 821
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
822 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

loading stress paths from those under loading stress paths, the shear
strength at extension failure is less than that at compression failure,
and the maximal axial strain at extension failure takes only 1/3–1/2
of compression failure.
We might question that when the influence of rubber membrane,
gravity of sample, and inhomogeneous deformation factors is taken
into account, whether the fiction angle and cohesion in extension
test are equal to those in compression test? Whether there is any
influence from unloading factor to soil shear strength?

On Soil Shear Deformation and Excess Pore Water

Pressure Characteristics
Based on a series of triaxial stress path tests for undisturbed
samples of silty clay taken from an excavated construction in
Wuhan, the stress-strain curves deduced from the test result on un-
loading stress paths are hyperbola, which are similar to those on
loading stress paths [3,4].
However, excess pore water pressure during shear under unload-
ing stress path is much different from that under loading stress path.
Many published researches [5,12–14] showed that the appearance
of negative excess pore pressure in soil mass is caused by unloading
factor. Yang et al. [5] conducted tests on normally consolidated
soils under both the unloading and loading conditions on both the
conventional triaxial testing and the true triaxial testing systems.
The results revealed that the soil sample under unloading shear test
is often accompanied with negative pore water pressure, while
under loading condition is often accompanied with positive pore
water pressure.
In this paper, the differences in soil shear deformation and
strength between loading and unloading stress paths are investi-
gated based on two series of triaxial stress path test for remoulded
clay on the Advanced Stress Path Triaxial Testing System.
FIG. 1—Unloading stress path in engineering practice.

strip of rubber membrane used in the triaxial extension tests [7].
However the influence of gravity of sample and inhomogeneous de-
formation is still difficult to account correctly.
On other respect, Ma and Chang [11] found that the yielding
strength under unloading stress path is obviously less than that
under loading stress path and the difference of the yielding strength
between these two stress paths increases with the confining pres-
sure, but the failure strains under the two stress paths do not differ
significantly.
Zhang and Sun [6] showed that there are much difference in be-
haviors of shear strength, deformation and failure mode under un-
Soil Material and Specimen Preparation
The soil used in this study was taken from a cut slope construction
of highway project in Zhenjiang City, China. The soil was air-dried
in laboratory and the water content was about 3% before further
treatment. A wooden hammer was used to beat the soil lumps and
then the amount of soil grains larger than 2 mm in size were dis-
carded by dry sieving. This process was used to obtain soil speci-
mens with the original soil structure thoroughly destroyed. The
basic physical properties of the soil were determined in accordance
with the procedures given in GB/T 50123–1999 [15]. The specific

TABLE 1—Test results of triaxial extension tests collected by Wu and Kolymbas [7].

␴r ␾C ␾E ␾E − ␾C

Author Initial Density Type of Tests kPa degrees degrees degrees

Green, 1971 Dense Cube, cylinder 207–276 39 44 5
Loose Cube, cylinder 207–276 33 33 0
Reades, 1971 Dense Cube, cylinder 207 40.8 43.8 3
Loose Cube, cylinder 207 34 34 0
Darve and Thanopoulos, 1982 e0 = 0.55 Cylinder 200 39.5 43.8 4.3
Lade, 1982 Dr= 20% Cube, cylinder 400 36 34 −2
Loose Cube, cylinder 35 41 6
Lam and Tatsuoka, 1988 e0 = 0.7 Cylinder 98 38.4 46.4 8
Cylinder 98 38.4 48.4 10

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 YUAN AND NGUYEN ON SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH UNDER UNLOADING CONDITIONS 823

TABLE 2—Test results of triaxial extension tests collected by Siddique and Clayton [10].

␾C ␾E ␾E − ␾C

Reference Soil Type PI K0 Value degree degree degree

Koutsoftas (1981) Marine silty clay 18± 5 0.5⬃ 0.53 29.2 31.7 2.5
Parry and Nadrajah (1974) Spestone kaolin 32 0.64 20.8 28.0 7.2
Gens (1982) Lower Cromer till 13 0.50 30.0 30.0 0
Ho (1985) Speswhite kaolin 30 0.67 22.8 36.7 13.9
Ho (1985) Speswhite kaolin 30 0.63 24.8 27.5 2.7
Jardine (1983) London clay 38 0.60 22.5 22.5 0
High et al. (1987) Magnus clay 17 0.50 30.0 30.0 0
Atkinson et al. (1987) Speswhite kaolin 30 0.66 22.0 29.0 7
Allman and Atkinson (1992) Bothkennar clay 38 0.50 34.0 37.0 3
Siddique and Clayton (1999) London clay 45 0.64 19.6 33.9 14.3

gravity is 2.7. The liquid and plastic limits of the particles finer than is depicted as the stress path OC in Fig. 1. During shearing,
500 µm are 32.39 and 20.11 %, respectively. The grain size distri- the total confining pressure decreases gradually with a con-
bution curves of the soil are shown in Fig. 2. The percent by dry stant rate while the total axial stress is kept unchanged. It
weight of the soil grains finer than 2 mm passing the No. 200 simulates the unloading process of soil elements behind re-
共75 µm兲 sieve is 81 %. According to the Unified Soil Classification taining wall of deep excavation.
System (USCS), the soil is classified as clay of low plasticity (CL).
The maximum dry density and optimum water content determined Each group consists of four tests consolidated at different effec-
from the standard Proctor test are 1810 kg/ m3 and 16 %, respec- tive confining pressures of 100, 200, 400, and 800 kPa. See the
tively. summary of these tests in Table 3.
Moist-tamping method was used to reconstitute 12 cylindrical
specimens 39.1 mm in diameter and 80 mm in height. The dry soil
Extension Test
material was thoroughly mixed with distilled water to achieve the
water content of 14 % by weight at first, after that it was sealed in Triaxial extension test is conducted in a different way to triaxial
plastic bag for 24 h to ensure uniformity of soil moisture, then com- compression test. In order to conduct this test, it is necessary to use
pacted to the required dry density of 1738 kg/ m3 inside a mould in the triaxial extension testing device. The schematic of GDS exten-
five layers using a flat-bottom tamper. The vacuum method was sion testing device is shown in Fig. 3. The device prevents cell pres-
used for saturation procedure: first the specimens were applied the sure from acting vertically on the top cap resting on the specimen.
vacuum pressure over 90 kPa to evacuate air bubbles for at least 45 Therefore the axial stress can be reduced below the cell pressure,
min; then, water was slowly filling into the voids of specimens. i.e., the axial stress is decreased or increased with the cell pressure
independently.
Because the Vylastic Sleeve is made of plastic, the extension top
Test Procedure cap must be pushed to overcome the friction resistance induced by
the contact between the extension top cap and the top cap during
docking. It means that there is an unexpected axial force exerted on
Test Scheme specimen from the top cap. This situation only occurs in triaxial
extension test, not in triaxial compression test. However, in this
A testing program was designed to investigate the differences in
study, only the influence resulting from different stress paths on soil
shear strength characteristics under loading and unloading condi-
shear strength is focused. Therefore, in order to get rid of the influ-
tions; it included three groups of triaxial stress path tests carried out
ence of the docking manual of extension cap on the top cap of
on GDS—Advanced Triaxial Testing System.
specimen, a little deviator stress was applied on the sample before
• Compression Loading Group (CL): The type of stress path of
the first group is compression loading stress path that is de-
picted as the stress path OA in Fig. 1. During shearing, the
total confining pressure is kept unchanged while the total
axial stress increases gradually with a constant rate. This
type of stress path simulates the loading process on ground
such as embankment constructions.
• Extension Unloading Group (EU): The type of stress path of
the second group is extension unloading stress path that is
depicted as the stress path OB in Fig. 1. During shearing, the
total confining pressure is kept unchanged while the total
axial stress decreases gradually with a constant rate. It simu-
lates the unloading process of soil elements at the base of
deep excavation or tunnel.
• Compression Unloading Group (CU): The type of stress path
of the third group is compression unloading stress path that FIG. 2—Grain-size distribution.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
824 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 3—Testing program.

End of Consolidation Stage Shearing Stage

␴⬘a
Number Group ␴r⬘ ␴⬘a ␴r⬘ Test ID Loading/Unloading Compression/Extension ␴a ␴r
1 100 110 1.1 CL100
2 200 220 1.1 CL200
3 400 440 1.1 CL400
4 CL 800 880 1.1 CL800 Loading Compression Increasing Unchanged
5 100 110 1.1 EU100
6 200 220 1.1 EU200
7 400 440 1.1 EU400
8 EU 800 880 1.1 EU800 Extension Decreasing Unchanged
9 100 110 1.1 CU110
10 200 220 1.1 CU200
11 400 440 1.1 CU400
12 CU 800 880 1.1 CU800 Unloading Compression Unchanged Decreasing

shearing stage of the extension and compression tests. The effective
stress ratio, which is defined by the effective axial stress—␴⬘a over
the effective radial stress—␴r⬘ in soil sample at the end of consoli-
dation stage, is 1.1 to guarantee the identical stress state before
shearing stage between the extension and compression tests. Figure
4 shows picture of one soil specimen at failure state of triaxial shear
test under extension unloading stress path. The triaxial apparatus,
the extension top cap device used in this study is also depicted in-
tuitively in this figure.
Test Procedure
The whole testing procedure can be divided into three main stages.
First is the saturation stage in which the soil specimens were re-
saturated again by applying a back pressure of 200 kPa that has
been found sufficient to dissolve all the air bubbles [16]. The
Skempton’s pore-pressure parameter 共B = ⌬u / ⌬␴r兲 measured at the
end of the saturation stage were almost greater than 0.95, which
proved that all samples can be considered as complete saturation
according to the standard: GB/T 50123-1999 [15].
Second is the consolidation stage in which the loading system in
the triaxial apparatus was equipped with a computer-controlled
feedback system to ensure the process of increasing axial and radial
stress exerting on specimen simultaneously; thus, they reached the
required targets at the same time. In this testing series, the duration
of consolidation stage varied from 2 to 7 days depending on the
confining pressure exerted.
Third, the shearing stage; because the time duration needed to
fully dissipate the excess pore-pressure in clayey soil is very long
relative to the time for construction activities, therefore the un-
drained condition was imposed to all the tests during shearing stage
in order to simulate the failure condition of the triaxial shear tests
similar to the condition existed in the field. The axial and radial

FIG. 3—Extension testing device (after GDS hardware handbook). FIG. 4—A soil specimen at failure state of extension unloading test.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 YUAN AND NGUYEN ON SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH UNDER UNLOADING CONDITIONS 825

FIG. 5—Schematic diagram of determining deviator stress at failure condition.

stresses exerted on specimen were stress path controlled by com- FIG. 6—Total stress paths.
puter with constant stress rate of 0.655 kPa per minute.
The loading rate 共␴˙ 兲 was calculated to ensure the time duration
for shearing 共⌬t兲 of test EU200 in about 250 min by equation, ␴˙ Test Result and Discussion
= 共qi − qf兲 / ⌬t where qi is the deviator stress at the end of consolida-
tion, which has been designed in test scheme; qf is the deviator Shear Strength Characteristics
stress when the soil specimen fails; and the time duration for
The effective stress paths of three groups are shown in Fig. 7. On
shearing—⌬t is of 250 min, which is deduced based on the strain
each effective stress path, one “failure point” is indicated. The
rate of 0.08 % proposed for triaxial consolidation undrained test on
meaning of “failure point” here is not the same as the peak point
clayey soils according to the standard: GB/T 50123-1999 [15]. determined by maximum deviator stress—qmax criterion on stress-
The deviator stress at failure condition 共qf兲 was estimated based strain curve, but based on the maximum of stress ratio—␩max
on the intersection point of the extension unloading stress path of = q / p⬘ criterion from effective stress path. Thus the four “failure
test EU200 with the assumed failure envelope in the plane of devia- points” in each group enable the Kf-line (Mohr–Coulomb failure
tor stress 共q兲 versus effective mean stress 共p⬘兲 shown in Fig. 5. At line in p⬘ − q space) to be determined by the linear least square fit-
the beginning of the testing program, the failure envelope was not ting method.
exactly determined, but it could be estimated based on the test re- For triaxial compression tests, the Mohr-Coulomb failure line in
sults of some conventional triaxial compression test under p⬘ − q space has formula as Eq 1 [17]
displacement-controlled mode on the same soil.
q 6 sin ␾⬘
Consequently, the duration for shearing is different from each = (1)
test done in the series. The stress state at the beginning, at the end of p⬘ + c⬘ cot ␾⬘ 3 − sin ␾⬘
shearing stage, and the time duration for each test are shown in Equation 1 can be rewritten as follows:
Table 4; the total stress paths of three groups are also plotted in Fig.
6; they show that the purpose of test scheme has been satisfied. q = a + Mp⬘ (2)
where:
M = 6 sin ␾⬘ / 共3 − sin ␾⬘兲, and a = Mc⬘ cot ␾⬘.

TABLE 4—Stress State and Time Duration of Shearing Stage

Begin of Shearing End of Shearing

Total Stress Effective Stress Total Stress Effective Stress

␴a ␴r ␴⬘a ␴r⬘ ␴a ␴r ␴⬘a ␴r⬘ Duration

Test ID kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa min
CL100 334.4 319.0 116.3 100.9 391.4 320.0 103.0 31.6 196
CL200 431.0 413.0 213.9 195.9 545.6 414.0 197.8 66.1 275
CL400 674.9 631.0 442.8 398.9 902.4 632.0 411.0 140.6 442
CL800 1114.0 1028.0 874.8 788.8 1616.4 1030.0 913.5 327.1 850
EU100 322.6 319.0 101.9 98.3 257.8 318.0 15.9 76.1 195
EU200 430.2 421.0 208.0 198.8 326.7 419.0 40.2 132.5 298
EU400 653.4 619.0 433.4 399.0 463.5 589.0 109.8 235.3 473
EU800 1113.4 1032.0 864.5 783.2 660.9 987.0 224.4 550.5 917
CU100 344.3 335.0 108.2 98.9 336.4 250.0 120.9 34.5 213
CU200 454.1 434.0 220.7 200.6 441.6 283.0 235.3 76.7 300
CU400 673.7 633.0 442.3 401.7 665.8 370.0 439.9 144.1 458
CU800 1172.0 1089.0 869.1 786.1 1157.2 518.0 932.4 293.2 906

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
826 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 7—Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes of the three groups.

For triaxial extension tests, the Mohr-Coulomb failure line in
p⬘ − q space can be expressed in another formula as Eq 3 [17]
q − 6 sin ␾⬘
= (3)
p⬘ + c⬘ cot ␾⬘ 3 + sin ␾⬘
Equation 3 can also be rewritten as follows:
q = a ⴱ + M ⴱp ⬘
where:
Mⴱ = −6 sin ␾⬘ / 共3 + sin ␾⬘兲, and aⴱ = Mⴱc⬘ cot ␾⬘.
Consequently, the value of shear strength parameters c⬘ and ␾⬘
corresponding to each group are deduced and shown in Table 5.
The values of effective cohesion c⬘ of three groups are bigger
than zero. It means that there exists weakly bonding and interlock-
ing among soil particles. The effective cohesion of group EU is
obviously greater than those of groups CL and CU. It can be ex-
plained by the influence of the strength of the rubber membrane
surrounding the specimen, and the gravity of sample, which exist in
triaxial extension tests but not in triaxial compression tests [7].
It is obviously that the axial force carried by the rubber mem-
brane, and the gravity of sample are independent of the effective
confining pressure; they contribute the same quantities to deviator
stresses of the four extension tests at different confining pressures.
It means that the influence of the membrane and the weight of the
sample result in the increase in cohesion of extension tests, but do
not result in any difference in friction angle between extension tests
and compression tests. Thus, the friction angle in extension tests
greater than those in compression tests may result from the necking
phenomenon and the friction issue between the unlubricated ends
of the test specimen and the end platens of the test apparatus.
However not only the friction angle in extension unloading tests
(32.70°) but also in compression unloading tests (31.18°) are
greater than that in compression loading tests (28.32°). The inho-
mogeneous deformation factor of extension tests is not adequate to
explain this phenomenon. In this situation, the unloading factor
may be the reason to explain why the friction angles in unloading
tests are greater than in loading tests.
(4)
Deviator Stress Against Axial Strain Relationship
The stress-strain curves of all tests are shown in Fig. 8. This figure
shows that the stress-strain curves of extension tests are much dif-
ferent from those of the compression tests. In extension group, the
stress-strain curves yield when the deviator stress is small, and drop
at the axial strain of 13 %, which do not occur in the two compres-
sion groups. From the yield points on stress-strain curve, the yield-
ing strengths of tests are also determined, and illustrated against the
effective confining pressure as Fig. 9. It is realized that the yielding
strength of extension tests are less than those of two compression
tests, and the difference in yielding strength between the two cases
increases with the increase of effective confining pressure. This
finding is in accordance with that reported by Ma and Chang [11].
The maximum value of effective mean stress before shearing
共p⬘c 兲 is used to normalize the stress-strain curves 共q / p⬘c 兲 as Fig. 10.
This figure reveals that the strain-softening behavior exists on the
stress-strain curves of groups CL and EU, but does not on those of
group CU.
To describe strain-softening behavior, brittleness index is often
used after it was defined by Bishop [18]

TABLE 5—Shear strength parameters.

c⬘ ␾⬘

Group a / aⴱ M / Mⴱ Converting Formulas kPa degrees

CL 12.45 1.13 5.95 28.32
CU 3.56 1.25 ␾⬘ = arcsin共3M/共6 + M兲兲 c⬘ = a / M . cot ␾⬘ 1.72 31.18
EU −20.48 −0.92 ␾⬘ = arcsin共−3Mⴱ / 共6 + Mⴱ兲兲 c⬘ = aⴱ / Mⴱ . cot ␾⬘ 14.36 32.70

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 YUAN AND NGUYEN ON SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH UNDER UNLOADING CONDITIONS 827

qp − qss
IB = (5)
qp

where:
qp = deviator stress at peak point on stress-strain curve, and
qss = deviator stress at steady state.
Nevertheless, in comparison with the strain-softening behavior
described by Bishop, there is a little difference in the behavior of
stress-strain curves of both groups CL and EU. After the deviator
stress reaches the peak point, it decreases to a smaller value, and
then it gradually increases a little bit when the axial strain in-
creases. The drop in deviator stress indicates that the soil-
microstructure in specimen has been destroyed. The deviator stress
at the bottom point on stress-strain curve (after passing peak point)
FIG. 8—Stress-strain curves. is defined as the failure deviator stress 共qb兲. Therefore, in order to
depict the drop in deviator stress from the peak point to the next
bottom point instead of that from peak point to the steady state
point, a modified brittleness index 共IB mod兲 is defined

qp − qb
IB mod = (6)
qp
Both the original brittleness index and the modified one are cal-
culated for the three groups, and the results are shown in Table 6.
It is noted that:
• The strain softening phenomenon does not exist in the group
of effective consolidation confining pressure of 800 kPa, so
the peak point and bottom point have not been evident. In
FIG. 9—Yielding strength versus effective confining pressures. order to compare with other groups of effective consolida-
tion confining pressure, the deviator stresses at “peak point”
have been selected at the axial strain corresponding to that
one of the group of 400 kPa, and the deviator stresses at “bot-
tom point” have been selected at the realistic peak point
(these points around the axial strain of 15 %).
• In Extension Unloading case: the steady state occurs in a
small range of axial strain before the stress-strain curves
drop at axial strain around 13 %.

The relationship between the brittleness indices against the ef-

FIG. 10—Normalized stress-strain curves.
fective consolidation confining pressure is shown in Figs. 11 and 12
for each group separately. From the figures, the trends of decreas-
ing brittleness indices when increasing effective consolidation con-
fining pressure in Compression Loading and Extension Unloading
cases are evident in both relationships of original and modified

TABLE 6—Brittleness and modified brittleness indices.

Test ID ␧aPeak共%兲 qP共kPa兲 ␧aBottom共%兲 qb共kPa兲 IB mod ␧aSteady共%兲 qSS共kPa兲 IB

CL100 1.259 99.360 9.706 73.234 0.263 18.545 74.713 0.248
CL200 1.603 155.150 9.416 131.726 0.151 18.119 131.642 0.152
CL400 2.130 281.467 9.549 271.701 0.035 19.424 270.439 0.039
CL800 2.066 568.083 14.842 607.400 −0.069 20.711 593.506 −0.045
EU100 −0.831 −72.718 −3.214 −66.656 0.083 −11.521 −67.851 0.067
EU200 −1.447 −127.381 −4.916 −122.427 0.039 −10.997 −126.346 0.008
EU400 −1.418 −222.974 −4.015 −211.221 0.053 −9.332 −216.888 0.027
EU800 −2.011 −397.976 −12.668 −491.649 −0.235 −13.409 −488.960 −0.229
CU100 1.033 84.064 4.148 79.670 0.052 21.782 86.032 −0.023
CU200 1.891 156.344 3.544 153.229 0.020 19.522 163.776 −0.048
CU400 2.449 279.477 3.539 279.008 0.002 20.818 295.842 −0.059
CU800 2.037 603.905 10.788 642.175 −0.063 18.182 639.187 −0.058

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
828 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 11—Brittleness index versus effective consolidation pressure.

FIG. 13—Excess pore-pressures of three groups.

brittleness indices, while that one in Compression Unloading case

is only clearly reflected by the modified brittleness index, not by the their values are still negative until failure achieved. They are in con-
original brittleness index. trary to the positive excess pore pressure in compression loading
The trend is also similar to the result showed in the thesis of Zhai tests. This result indicates that the dilatancy rates of these three
Yang [19]. He proposed that the brittleness index IB can be a mea- types of shearing tests are different each other.
sure of the collapsibility of soils; the increasing consolidation con-
fining pressure reduces the collapsibility of the loose fills. Secant Shear Modulus against Axial Strain
Those figures also indicate that the values of brittleness indices
are the biggest in group CL, intermediate in group EU, and the Relationship
smallest in group CU. It means that the collapsibility of soils under The secant shear modulus 共G⬘兲 is defined as
loading stress path is much greater than that under unloading stress
path when the effective confining pressure is smaller. dq
3G⬘ = (7)
d␧S
Excess Pore Pressures against Axial Strain where:
Relationship • dq—the difference in deviator stress between the current
Figure 13 shows plots of excess pore water pressure against axial value and initial value (pre-shearing);
strain during shear of all tests. The figure shows that it is similar to • d␧S—the difference in shear strain between the current value
the stress-strain curves in Fig. 8, the magnitude of excess pore- and initial value (pre-shearing).
water pressures of group CL highly depends on the consolidation
Here the shear strain is defined as
confining pressure applied. The magnitudes of excess pore-water
pressures of group EU are also dependent on the consolidation con- 2
fining pressure but not as strongly as those of group CL; while the ␧S = 共␧a − ␧r兲 (8)
3
dependence is not evident in group CU.
Furthermore, the excess pore pressures of groups EU and CU where:
decrease very fast to negative value during the short period of time
• ␧a—the axial strain
after the beginning of shearing stage. After that, the excess pore
• ␧r—the radial strain
pressures in the extension tests increase to positive values (Fig. 14),
while the magnitude of negative excess pore pressure in compres- In this test series, the shearing stage was carried out under un-
sion unloading tests decreases when the axial strain increases, but drained condition, it means that the volume change of soil speci-

FIG. 12—Modified brittleness index versus effective consolidation pressure. FIG. 14—Excess pore-pressures of extension-unloading test group.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 YUAN AND NGUYEN ON SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH UNDER UNLOADING CONDITIONS 829

men during shearing period is zero 共␧V = ␧a + 2␧r = 0兲. That corollary
deduces to a new expression for the shear strain under undrained
condition as

2
␧S = 共− 2␧r − ␧r兲 = − 2␧r = ␧a (9)
3
The expression 7 is rewritten as

dq dq
3G⬘ = = = EU (10)
d␧S d␧a
Here, EU is undrained Young’s modulus that describes the slope of
the axial stress–axial strain relationship.
Figure 15 shows the relationships of undrained secant Young’s
modulus against axial strain of all tests in this series. When the
axial stress is very small (less than 0.01 %) the deduced value of
undrained Young’s modulus varies in large range. It might ex-
plained by the limit of accuracy of sensors equipped with the test-
ing system. It will not clear enough if the relationships of undrained
secant Young’s modulus against axial strain of all tests are shown on
the same figure. Therefore, the twelve curves of undrained Young’s
modulus are shown in four figures Fig. 15(a)–15(d). Each figure is
represent three curves of undrained Young’s modulus of three tests
which were consolidated at the same effective confining pressure.
Obviously, not only there exists a trend of increasing the modulus
with increasing consolidation confining pressure, but also the mod-
ules distinguishes between Loading case and Unloading cases. The
modules in the Unloading cases are much larger than in the Load-
ing case.

Conclusions
From the results of the present experimental investigation on tri-
axial stress-path test series for remoulded clayey soil, it can be said
that the unloading factor affects soil behaviour significantly, which
has not been considered before. The differences in friction angle,
collapsibility, excess pore-water pressure, and shear modulus dur-
ing shear under unloading condition are remarkable from under
loading condition. In detail, they are listed as follows:
(1) The friction angle in unloading case is considerable greater
than that in loading case.
(2) The yield strengths of extension case are obviously less
than those of compression cases, and the difference of the
yielding strengths between these two cases increase with FIG. 15—Undrained Young’s modulus against axial strain: (a) effective confin-
the confining pressure increases. ing pressure 共ECP兲 = 100 kPa; (b) ECP= 200 kPa; (c) ECP= 300 kPa; and
(3) The collapsibility of soils under loading stress path is much (d) ECP= 400 kPa.
greater than that under unloading stress path when the ef-
fective confining pressure is smaller. Acknowledgments
(4) Under unloading stress paths, the negative excess pore-
water pressure develops during the short period of time The authors appreciate the support from the National Natural Sci-
after the beginning of shearing stage, then those excess ence of China (Grant No. ID: 51008117), the National Science and
pore-water pressures change to the opposite tendency; and Technology Ministry of China in 11th Five-Year Plan (Grant No.
the dependence of magnitude of excess pore-water pres- ID: 2006BAB04A10), and Hohai University (Grant No. ID:
sure on the effective consolidation confining pressure ap- 2010B04214. The Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for
plied is not as strong as under loading stress paths. Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering and Geotechnical
(5) The shear modules in the unloading cases are much greater Research Institute of Hohai University are acknowledged for their
than in the loading case. support.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
830 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
References
[1] Bao, C. G. and Ng, C. W. W., “Some Thoughts and Studies on
the Prediction of Slope Stability in Expansive Soils,” The
First Asian Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Singapore,
Balkema, 2000, pp. 15–31.
[2] Ng, C. W. W., “Stress Paths in Relation to Deep Excavations,”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 125, No. 5, 1999, pp. 357–
363.
[3] Chen, S. X., Ling, P. P., He, S. X., and Yang, X. Q., “Experi-
mental Study on Deformation Behavior of Silty Clay Under
Unloading,” Yantu Lixue/Rock Soil Mech., Vol. 28, No. 12,
2007, pp. 2534–2538.
[4] He, S. X., Han, G. S., Zhuang, X. S., and Wu, X. G., “Experi-
mental Researches on Unloading Deformation of Clay in Ex-
cavation of Foundation Pit,” Yantu Lixue/Rock and Soil Me-
chanics, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2003, pp. 17–20.
[5] Yang, X. Q., Zhu, Z. Z., Han, G. S., and He, S. X., “Deforma-
tion and Failure Characteristics of Soil Mass under Different
Stress Paths,” Yantu Lixue/Rock Soil Mech., Vol. 27, No. 12,
2006, pp. 2181–2185.
[6] Zhang, M. X. and Sun, J., “Unloading-Induced Deformation
and Strength Properties of Loess During Construction,” Yan-
shilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 13, 2005, pp. 2248–
2254.
[7] Wu, W. and Kolymbas, D., “On Some Issues in Triaxial Exten-
sion Tests,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 14, No. 3, 1991, pp. 276–
287.
[8] Bishop, A. W., “Shear Strength Parameters for Undisturbed
and Remoulded Soil Specimens,” Roscoe Memorial Sympo-
sium, Cambridge University, 1971, pp. 3–58.
[9] Atkinson, J. H., Richardson, D., and Robinson, P. J., “Com-
pression and Extension of K0 Normally Consolidated Kaolin
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 18 00:02:27 EDT 2019
Downloaded/printed by
Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology (Ulsan Nat'l Inst of Science and Technology) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
View publication stats
Clay,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 113, No. 12, 1987, pp. 1468–
1482.
[10] Siddique, A. and Clayton, C. R. I., “Mechanical Properties of
Reconstituted Soft London Clay,” Journal of Civil
Engineering—Bangladesh, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1999, pp. 81–98.
[11] Ma, W. and Chang, X. X., “Influence of Loading and Unload-
ing on Strength and Deformation of Frozen Soil,” Yantu
Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese, J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 23, No. 5,
2001, pp. 563–563.
[12] Barla, M., “Numerical Simulation of the Swelling Behaviour
around Tunnels based on Special Triaxial Tests,” Tunn. Un-
dergr. Space Technol., Vol. 23, No. 5, 2008, pp. 508–521.
[13] Fam, M. A. and Dusseault, M. B., “Effect of Unloading Dura-
tion on Unconfined Compressive Strength,” Can. Geotech. J.,
Vol. 36, No. 1, 1999, pp. 166–172.
[14] Li, Y. Q., Ying, H. W., and Xie, K. H., “Dissipation of Nega-
tive Excess Pore Water Pressure Induced by Excavation in
Soft Soil,” J. Zhejiang Univ., Sci., Vol. 6A, No. 3, 2005,
pp. 188–193.
[15] GB/T 50123-1999, “Standard for Soil Test Method, Ministry
of Construction of P.R. China,” Beijing, 1999.
[16] Balasubramiam, A. S. and Waheed, U., “Deformation Charac-
teristics of Weathered Bangkok Clay in Triaxial Extension,”
Geotechnique, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1977, pp. 75–92.
[17] Wood, D. M., Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechan-
ics, Cambridge University, New York, 1990.
[18] Bishop, A. W., “Progressive Failure-with Special Reference to
the Mechanism Causing it,” Proceedings of the Geotechnical
Conference on Shear Strength Properties of Natural Soils and
Rocks, Vol. 2, Oslo, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 1967,
pp. 142–150.
[19] Zhai, Y., “Fundamental Shear Behavior of Saturated Loose
Fills of Completely Decomposed Rocks,” Ph.D. thesis, De-
partment of Civil Engineering, University of Hong Kong,
2000.