SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 51, No. 2, 203–213, Apr.

2011
Japanese Geotechnical Society

SAMPLE DISTURBANCE EFFECTS ON UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTHS

—STUDY FROM TAKUHOKU SITE, SAPPORO—

VUTHY HORNGi), HIROYUKI TANAKAii), HIROSHI HIRABAYASHIiii) and RYOUZO TOMITAiv)

ABSTRACT
The eŠects of sample disturbance on undrained shear strength were investigated from samples with various qualities,
retrieved by diŠerent types of samplers at the Takuhoku site, Sapporo. Sample quality was evaluated by three types of
shear tests: unconˆned compression, fall cone and triaxial recompression tests. Similar to a previous study conducted
by Horng et al. (2010), in which the sample quality was evaluated by two nondestructive tests, the residual eŠective
stress (suction) by ceramic disc and the shear modulus by bender element under unconˆned conditions, the present
study shows that the small edge angle of a tube sampler is important to obtain high quality sample. In addition, the ex-
istence of a piston does not have a signiˆcant eŠect on the strength properties. The recompression technique in the
triaxial test, where the specimen is consolidated back to the in situ stresses, was able to duplicate undisturbed soil be-
havior except when the structure of a soil sample was signiˆcantly destroyed. The unconˆned compressive strength is
apparently governed by the residual eŠective stress. From the two types of tests simulating sampling processes,
however, it was found that a reduction in the unconˆned compressive strengths of low quality sample was brought by
the loss of the residual eŠective stress as well as destruction of soil structures.

Key words: residual eŠective stress, sample disturbance, sample quality, sampling, soil structures, undrained shear
strengths (IGC: C6)

sampling tube, and the existence of the piston. Sample

INTRODUCTION quality was assessed by two nondestructive methods: the
The sample quality of soil samples is of great impor- values of the residual eŠective stress and shear wave ve-
tance when its mechanical behavior is determined by locity measured by bender element under unconˆned con-
laboratory tests. Especially in Japan, where the un- ditions. It was concluded that sample quality of soil sam-
drained strength for design is essentially measured by the ples is strongly aŠected by the designs of tube sampler, es-
unconˆned compression test (UCT), sample quality pecially, the edge angle. In this paper, the eŠect of sample
strongly aŠects its strength as there is no conˆning pres- quality on the mechanical properties, speciˆcally the un-
sure in this test. Many researchers study sample quality drained shear strength, were investigated.
from the viewpoint of suction in the sample (Okumura, Three kinds of laboratory tests were carried out: un-
1971; Mitachi et al., 2001; Shogaki, 2006). Sample quali- conˆned compression test (UCT), fall cone test (FCT),
ty can be evaluated by the residual eŠective stress (suc- and triaxial recompression test (CKoUC). Tanaka (2000)
tion) after sampling, compared with the in situ conˆning studied sample quality of cohesive soils from three diŠer-
stresses before sampling. Indeed, some researchers have ent sites and concluded that the reduction of unconˆned
proposed correction methods for the unconˆned com- compressive stress of UCT is attributed to two indepen-
pression strength (qu) using suction. Alternatively, dent components: loss of residual eŠective stress and the
Leroueil et al. (1979) and Hight et al. (1992) have insisted damage to soil structures. From the viewpoint of the two
that the destruction of the soil structures due to sample separate eŠects, the authors carried out two kinds of
disturbance shrinks the yield surface, which has been triaxial tests to separately simulate the residual eŠective
created by ageing eŠects or cementation since the soil was stress and soil structures.
deposited.
Horng et al. (2010) studied sample quality obtained by
tube samplers with diŠerent geometric dimensions, i.e.,
the thickness of the wall, the cutting edge angle of the
i)
Institute of Technology of Cambodia (formerly PhD Student, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan).
ii)
Professor, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan (tanaka＠eng.hokudai.ac.jp).
iii)
Toa Corporation.
iv)
Koa Kaihatsu Incorporation, Japan.
The manuscript for this paper was received for review on April 12, 2010; approved on December 7, 2010.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before November 1, 2011 to the Japanese Geotechnical Society, 4-38-2, Sengoku,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0011, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.

203

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

204 HORNG ET AL.

Table 1. Main characteristics and dimensions of tube samplers used in this study

Field Edge angle Tube thickness Area ratio Piston Sampling depths Sampling depths
samplers (9) (mm) (z) (upper layer) (m) (lower layer) (m)

69F1.5 6 1.5 8.2 Yes 13 22

69F10 6 10 60.4 Yes 12 21

909F1.5 90 1.5 8.2 Yes 14 23

909F10 90 10 60.4 Yes 11 20

69F1.5(O) 6 1.5 8.2 No 15 24

Fig. 1. Soil proˆle of Takuhoku site

SAMPLERS USED IN THIS STUDY AND
SAMPLING SITE
Samplers
The samplers used in this study are the same as those
used in our previous study (Horng et al., 2010) and their
geometric dimensions are indicated in Table 1. The ˆrst
sampler, which is the standard tube currently used in
Japan, consists of an inside diameter of 75 mm, a length
of 1.0 m (the sample length is 0.8 m), and an edge angle
of 69. The thickness of the tube wall is 1.5 mm, which
corresponds to an area ratio of 8.2z. The sampling tube
is made of stainless steel. More details of this sampler
may be found in the JGS article (1998) and in Tanaka et
al. (1996). In this study, more geometrically diŠerent tube
samplers consisting of the same inside diameter of 75 mm
were designed. The fourth tube sampler, 909F10, has an
edge angle of 909and a wall thickness of 10 mm, result-
ing in an area ratio of 60.4z. The last sampler,
69F1.5(O), is the 69F1.5 without using ˆxed piston (an
open drive sampler) during sampling. The sampling
method and procedures in this study were reported by
Horng et al. (2010).
Sampling Site
Sampling was carried out at the Takuhoku site, Sap-
poro, Japan. For details of the properties, refer to Horng
et al. (2010). They are otherwise only brie‰y mentioned in
this paper. The main geotechnical properties of this site
are shown in Fig. 1. The deposits consist of 5 m ˆll and
peat followed by a 4.5 m silty sand deposit, overlying the
clay layers investigated in this study. A sandy silt layer at
a depth of 15 to 18.5 m separates the soil proˆle into the
upper and lower clay layers. Sampling was carried out at
two diŠerent depths: the upper (10¿15 m) and lower
(20¿24 m) clay layers as indicated in Fig. 1. The ground
water table is located about 3 m below the ground sur-
face. The natural water content varies between 60 and
70z and the plasticity index (Ip) is about 45¿53 and
50¿63 for the upper and lower clay layers, respectively.
The yield consolidation pressure ( p?y), which was meas-
ured by CRS oedometer at a strain rate of 0.02z/min
(3.3×10－6/s), is somewhat lower than the in situ eŠective
overburden pressure (s?vo), which is calculated by assum-
ing that the pore water pressure distribution is hydrostat-
ic. Since the ˆll material at ground surface was placed in
the 1960's, it is believed that the sampling clayey soil is
still undergoing consolidation. For more details of this
investigation, readers can refer to Horng et al. (2010).
 SAMPLE DISTURBANCE SHEAR STRENGTHS
The ˆeld vane test (FVT), using a vane blade of 40 mm
in diameter and 80 mm in height and the piezocone test
(CPT) were carried out to measure mechanical properties
of the site. From the CPT test, the undrained shear
strength was calculated using the relation su(CPT)＝(qt-svo)/
Nkt, where qt is the point resistance of the piezocone, svo
is the total overburden pressure, and Nkt is the cone fac-
tor. By equating the undrained shear strengths of CPT
and FVT, the cone factor Nkt was able to be calculated. In
this site Nkt was estimated to be 11.5. The undrained
shear strengths from the unconˆned compression test
(UCT) are also plotted in this ˆgure, where the soil sam-
ples were retrieved by the Japanese standard ˆxed piston
sampler (69 F1.5 in Table 1). The mean undrained shear
strengths for the upper and lower sampling depths are ap-
proximately 20 kPa and 40 kPa, respectively.
LABORATORY TEST METHODS
Unconˆned Compression Test (UCT)
The undrained shear strength (qu/2) from the UCT is
widely used for stability designs in geotechnical engineer-
ing, and this type of test is believed to be the most sensi-
tive to sample disturbance (Lacasse et al., 1985; Tanaka
et al., 1996; Mitachi et al., 2001). The UCT was carried
out by the Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS A 1216:
2009): the specimen was trimmed by a wire saw to a di-
ameter and height of 35 and 80 mm, respectively. The
specimen was compressed at a constant strain rate of 1z/
min.
Fall Cone Test (FCT)
The FCT has been used to measure the undrained shear
strength mostly in Scandinavian countries. The FCT is
not used in Japan for measuring the undrained shear
strength, but for determining the liquid limit, also ob-
tained by the ``Casagrande test''. In this study, the FCT
was used to measure undrained shear strength, following
the standard of the Japanese Geotechnical Society (JGS
0142–2009) by using a cone with a tip angle of 609and
mass of 60 g. The cone was allowed to fall freely under its
own weight from a position at rest with the cone tip just
touching the surface of the soil sample. The undrained
shear strength of FCT was calculated following the equa-
tion of su＝ka(mg/d 2), where m is the mass of the cone
(＝ 60 g), g is the earth gravity acceleration, d is the depth
of penetration of the cone tip into a soil specimen after 5
seconds, and ka is the cone factor depending on the angle
of the cone tip. The value ka＝0.29 was assumed accord-
ing to Wood (1990) for the cone angle of 609in this
study.
Triaxial Recompression Test (CKoUC)
The triaxial test specimen size was the same size as that
of the UCT in this test. A back pressure of 200 kPa was
applied in order to obtain high saturation. To estimate
the in situ strength, a recompression test was employed,
where the specimen was consolidated under the same
eŠective stress condition as that of the in situ. Note that
205
the soil proˆle in Fig. 1 shows that the objective sampling
clay layers are under consolidation caused by the ˆlling.
Thus, consolidation was done in the vertical direction by
a pressure 0.8 times the yield consolidation pressure, p?y,
which was measured by the constant rate of the strain
oedometer (CRS) test under a strain rate of 0.02z/min.
A coe‹cient of 0.8 was speciˆcally chosen to avoid the
overestimation of p?y from the CRS under a relatively high
strain rate and possibility overestimating the strength due
to large consolidation pressure. The coe‹cient of lateral
earth pressure at rest (Ko) was estimated to be 0.55 from
the Ko-consolidation triaxial test at the normally consoli-
dated state. The consolidation stresses were kept for
about 24 hours. After complete consolidation, the speci-
men was sheared under the undrained condition at an axi-
al strain rate of 0.1z/min. The shearing was done until
the axial strain reached 15z.
Other types of triaxial tests were also conducted to
simulate the eŠects of the residual eŠective stresses and
soil structures. More details of these triaxial tests will be
discussed later.
EVALUATION OF SAMPLE QUALITY BY THE UCT
AND FCT
Test Results from the UCT
Figure 2 shows the typical test results of the UCT on
samples from various types of samplers. The vertical axis
(s/2/p?y) is the unconˆned compressive stress normalized
by the yield consolidation pressure at the depth of the
specimen. The normalizations are done to take into ac-
count the slightly diŠerent depths of the samples for com-
parative purposes. The horizontal axis is the axial strain,
ea(z). From both the upper and lower layers in the ˆgure
it can be seen that the stress-strain curves of the samples
retrieved by the 69F1.5, 69F10, and 69F1.5(O) tube sam-
plers are very similar and their peak shear strengths are
larger than those of the other two tubes, 909F1.5 and
909 F10. The 909 F10 samples show unusual stress-strain
patterns, implying severe disturbance by the geometric
design of the blunt edge angle and thick wall thickness
(909and 10 mm). Their stress-strain curves move to the
right hand side and harden up to a ˆnal axial strain of
15z without showing any peak strength and the curves
are completely diŠerent from other tube samples. The
909 F1.5 samples show stress-strain curves similar to those
of the other 69samplers, but their peak strengths are
somewhat smaller than those of the 69 F1.5, 69F10, and
69F1.5(O) samplers.
The UCT results for all samples are shown in Fig. 3,
where Figs. 3(a), (b) and (c) show the eŠect of diŠerent
geometric designs of the tube samplers on qu/2, E50
(secant moduli at 50z strength), and ef (the axial strain at
the peak stress), respectively. These test results show the
same features as those in previous studies: if a sample is
disturbed, its stress-strain curve exhibits a small peak
strength, small E50, and large ef (Lefebvre and Poulin,
1979; Oka et al., 1996). It is interesting to note that E50 is
much more sensitive to disturbance than the peak
206 HORNG ET AL.
Fig. 2. Typical test results of UCT
strength. The test results show that sample quality is
reduced when a large edge angle tube sampler is used. The
diŠerence in the sample quality resulting from the edge
angle is more signiˆcant if the wall thickness of a tube
sampler is larger ( see 69 F10 and 909 F10). The 69F10
tube, with an area ratio of 60.4z, which is higher than
that of standard samplers (8.2z), does not aŠect the
sample quality for the small edge angle, but the diŠerence
in the sample quality is signiˆcant for the large edge angle
( see 909F1.5 and 909F10). It can be concluded from these
results that if the edge angle of a tube sampler is kept
sharp and small, a large area ratio can be permitted up to
60z without aŠecting the sample quality; on the other
hand, once the angle becomes large the area ratio must be
as small as possible. Thus, the area ratio is strongly de-
pendent on the edge angle. Unexpectedly, there were no
signs of disturbance by collecting samples with the open
drive sampler. The stress-strain curves of both ˆxed
piston standard and open drive tube samples show no
clear diŠerences in sample quality. These results are con-
sistent with the measurements of suction and shear wave
Fig. 3. Summary of test results of UCT
velocity in the previous study performed by Horng et al.
(2010).
Test Results from the FCT
The same trends as those from the UCT can be seen
from the test results of the FCT as shown in Fig. 4.
However, the diŠerence in quality between samples of
69F1.5 and 909 F10 is less profound than that of the
UCT. The strengths from the FCT are larger than those
from UCT (Fig. 3(a)). It should be noted from Hansbo
(1957), who used the FCT to study the shear strengths of
soil collected by diŠerent samplers, that the cone factor
(ka) also depends on the degree of disturbance from
diŠerent samplers. However, ka in this study was as-
sumed to be constant and dependent only on the angle of
the cone tip (Wood, 1990). As a result, the diŠerence in
 SAMPLE DISTURBANCE SHEAR STRENGTHS 207

Fig. 4. Summary of test results of FCT

sample quality among samples of diŠerent samplers in

the FCT measurements is less signiˆcant than that in the
UCT test.

Relating to the Residual EŠective Stress

Horng et al. (2010) measured the residual eŠective
stresses ( p?r) for the samples used in this paper. Relations
between p?r and UCT parameters, qu/2, E50, and ef are
plotted in Figs. 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c), respectively. The rela-
tion between p?r and strengths of the FCT is also plotted in
Fig. 6. The important points from the ˆgures are as fol-
lows:
(1) Both Figs. 5(a) and 6 show that strength is strongly
related to p?r. The qu/2 of the UCT, however, corre-
lates better than it does in the FCT. This means that
the strength from the UCT is more signiˆcantly
governed by p?r.
(2) E50 also correlates with p?r, but it exhibits much more
scatter than those between p?r and qu/2. Horng et al.
(2010) tried to correlate p?r with maximum shear
modulus of bender element (GBE). In addition, even Fig. 5. Relations between p?r and UCT parameters
though the past maximum stress was considered in
the relation of p?r and GBE, scatters still existed in the
same manner as the relations between E50 and p?r.
(3) ef is not in‰uenced by p?r unless p?r/p?y is smaller than
0.1. The lowest boundary that ef does not change due
to sample quality is p?r/p?y＝0.1.
(4) Figures 5 and 6 indicate that strength and E50 values
have strong relations with p?r, i.e., the reductions of
strength and E50 may be partially explained by the
decrease of p?r. However, strains at the peak strength
of UCT are constant with p?r, except for those of
909F10 whose values were assumed at large axial
strains.
Shogaki (2006) experimentally obtained the relation be- Fig. 6. Relations between p?r and strengths of FCT
tween qu/2 and p?r by qu/2cu(I)＝1－0.285 ln ( p?m/p?r),
where cu(I) is the undrained shear strength from CKoUC
triaxial, p?m is the mean in situ eŠective stress, and p?r is the by considering the ratio of strength and compensating for
residual eŠective stress. His relation is plotted in Fig. 5(a) the diŠerent strain rate eŠects between the UCT and the
by assuming Ko＝0.55 from NC state of triaxial test to triaxial tests (1z/min and 0.1z/min, respectively), as
calculate p?r/p?y from p?m/p?r. qu/2cu(I) can be converted to will be shown later ( see Fig. 10). It can be seen that the
qu/2p?y by multiplying qu/2cu(I) by cu(I)/p?y, which is taken test results in this study apparently follow Shogaki's esti-
as 0.35 from the strength by the recompression test and mation, although his relation in general underestimates
208
the present test results, especially at small p?r/p?y, for ex-
ample, less than 0.05.
TRIAXIAL RECOMPRESSION TEST (CKOUC)
Stress-strain Relation and Stress Path
As already indicated, strengths from the UCT and FCT
are strongly in‰uenced by the current eŠective conˆning
stress, p?r, because these tests are carried out under uncon-
ˆned conditions. Therefore, when the in situ eŠective
conˆning pressure is applied to the specimen, the strength
should be recovered. In triaxial test, this idea is called the
``Recompression method'' and was introduced by Berre
and Bjerrum (1973). Lacasse et al. (1985) conˆrmed that
the triaxial technique is able to correct large portions of
sampling disturbance. Of course, there is also criticism
that the recompression technique overestimates the
strength caused by decreasing the void ratio due to the
recompression. This may become signiˆcant when the
sample is heavily disturbed.
Comparisons of typical stress-strain curves for speci-
mens collected by diŠerent types of tube samplers are
shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the stress-strain
curves and stress paths of all samples from the tube sam-
plers, 909F1.5, 69F10, and 69 F1.5(O) do not diŠer
remarkably from those collected by the standard
Japanese sampler. On the other hand, the stress-strain
curves of the samples collected by the thick wall and large
edge angle, 909 F10, diŠer radically from those of other
tube samplers. The noteworthy unusual patterns of
909 F10 samples compared with those of other tubes are
observed as follows: 1) 909F10 samples show the behav-
iors of strain hardening up to axial strain of 10z, which
are similar to their UCT counterparts, whereas other tube
Fig. 7. Typical results of recompression CKoUC triaxial
HORNG ET AL.
samples show the behaviors of strain softening after well-
deˆned peak shear stresses at small strains; 2) 909F10
samples show lower shear stresses at strains where the
other samples reach the peak stress, but higher shear
stresses at large axial strains (À5z) than those of other
samples. Tanaka (2000) also compared test results from
the recompression triaxial test for Bothkennar clay
retrieved by JPN standard and ELE 100 samplers and he
made the same conclusions: i.e., the behavior of the ELE
100 samples is the same as that of 909F10 in the present
study, while the JPN sample shows the same tendency of
69F1.5, 909F1.5, 69 F10, and 69F1.5(O) samples. Similar
hardening behavior can also be observed from test results
by Lunne et al. (2006) for Scandinavian clays retrieved by
NGI 54 mm.
The stress paths are also plotted in Fig. 7, using dia-
gram [(s?a＋s?r)/2, (s?a－s?r)/2], where s?a and s?r represent
the axial and radial eŠective stresses, respectively. Similar
to the stress-strain curves above, the stress paths of
69F1.5, 909 F1.5, 69 F10, and 69F1.5(O) show no
profound diŠerence in sample quality. On the other
hand, the stress paths of the low quality samples, i.e.,
909 F10, rise up without any peaks until the end of test
and excess pore water pressure does not signiˆcantly
build up. These patterns of the stress path are somewhat
diŠerent from those of the poor quality samples of
Bothkennar retrieved by ELE 100 sampler or of Nor-
wegian marine clays retrieved by NGI 54 mm as reported
by Tanaka (2000) and Lunne et al. (2006), respectively.
Reasons for this diŠerence may be attributed to soil char-
acteristics of the sampling site or the features of samplers.
At present, it is not possible to identify which factor is
dominant.
Volume Change due to Recompression
Lunne et al. (1997) used the parameter De/e0 to quanti-
fy sample disturbance as shown in Fig. 8, where De is the
change of void ratio during the reconsolidation back to
the in situ eŠective stress and e0 is the in situ void ratio.
Figure 8 shows the relation between De/e0 and p?r from
the recompression test, indicating the existence of a
strong correlation between them, i.e., De/e0 decreases
Fig. 8. Relations between p?r and volume change De/e0
 SAMPLE DISTURBANCE SHEAR STRENGTHS
with the increasing p?r. Tanaka and Tanaka (2006) also
studied the relations between p?r and De/e0, and found
that correlation of the two parameters cannot be recog-
nized for eight diŠerent sites. It should be noted that
De/e0 was measured by the oedometer test in their study,
whereas De/e0 in this study was measured by the triaxial
recompression technique. It may be anticipated that in
the case of the oedometer test, there is a gap between the
specimen and the oedometer ring so that the measure-
ment of De is not as accurate as in the triaxial test.
Another possible reason is that the soil properties are
diŠerent. In this study, the ground is underconsolidated,
exactly normally consolidated, but Tanaka and Tanaka's
data contains various OCRs.
Figure 8 shows that most of the samples retrieved by
the Japanese standard sampler are classiˆed as ``Very
good to excellent'', whereas the samples from 909 F1.5,
69F10, and 69F1.5(O) are ``Very good to excellent'' and
``Good to fair''. De/e0 ratios for 909 F10 are so remarka-
bly large that the samples are classiˆed as ``Poor'' ac-
cording to Lunne et al. (1997).
As already mentioned, the most noticeable concern for
the recompression test is the overestimation of the
strength due to decrease in the void ratio brought by
reconsolidation to the in situ stresses. Especially, if a
sample is heavily disturbed and large De is observed,
there is possibility that the strength from the recompres-
sion might be larger than the in situ strength. The nor-
malized strengths (su/p?y) for all recompression test results
in this study are plotted with De/e0 in Fig. 9, where two
strengths from the case of 909 F10 samples are deˆned:
the strengths at the strain where the other samples show
the peak strength (about 2 to 3z) by the symbol (); the
strengths at an axial strain of 15z by (). It can be seen
that su /p?y does not increase with increasing De/e0, but su /
p?y is nearly constant. Considering Figs. 8 and 9, it may be
concluded that the recompression technique can restore
the soil behavior if the samples are at least ``Good to
fair'' or better in terms of sample quality by Lunne's
criteria. In other words, the recompression technique is
applicable when De/e0 is less than 0.07 or when p?r /p?y is
greater than 0.10. Therefore, there is no possibility to
overestimate the strength for poor quality samples by the
recompression test, as long as the strength is not taken at
a large strain.
Fig. 9. Relations between De/e0 and su /p?y of CKoUC triaxial
209
SIMULATED TESTS IN TRIAXIAL
Testing Method and Direct Comparison
As already shown in Fig. 5(a), UCT strength is strong-
ly governed by p?r value. Realizing the importance of p?r on
undrained shear strengths of UCT, Mitachi et al. (2001)
and Shogaki (2006) proposed correction methods for qu/
2 value based on the residual eŠective stress. On the other
hand, Tanaka (2000) compared the test results from three
geologically diŠerent sites and concluded that the loss of
p?r and the damage to soil structures by sampling and sub-
sequent disturbances do not always take place concur-
rently and the two phenomena should be considered
separately. He further stated that if only the residual
eŠective stress is lost, the sample can be recovered by the
recompression technique; however, if the soil structures
are damaged, this technique will not be able to reproduce
the undisturbed soil behavior. Considering the two diŠer-
ent viewpoints governing sample quality, the present
study carried out following two types of simulated tests:
1) Test 1: Keeping soil structures. High quality samples
were selected to have the same sample quality with similar
measured p?r values. The specimen was consolidated un-
der various isotropic eŠective conˆning pressures. The
end of consolidation was conˆrmed by a constant volume
change (about 18 hours). The specimen was then sheared
under undrained conditions at the strain rate of 0.1z/
min. The isotropic eŠective conˆning pressures of the soil
specimens in this test were selected to be p?r/p?y＝0.35,
0.25, 0.15, and 0.05. The ˆrst two p?r/p?y ratios correspond
to the good quality samples. A p?r/p?y of 0.05 was simulat-
ed to be the lowest quality sample, i.e., collected by
909 F10. During consolidation, the volume change was
measured. If the consolidation pressure, say ``artiˆcial
residual eŠective stress'', is smaller than measured p?r,
then the volume change is negative (swelling). On the
other hand, if this consolidation pressure exceeds meas-
ured p?r, positive volume change should be observed. In
this test, the soil structures are kept nearly unchanged
since consolidation pressures are lower than p?y. The
isotropic eŠective conˆning pressure and measured un-
drained shear strength in the test will be denoted as p?1 and
su1, respectively.
2) Test 2: Destruction of the soil structures. The speci-
men was consolidated at a normally consolidated state
under Ko-consolidation by an eŠective vertical stress three
times larger than p?y measured by CRS oedometer. In this
test, sample quality was not of concern because the soil
particles are rearranged by the large pressure. After the
end of consolidation, the specimen was isotropically
swelled to a desired eŠective conˆning pressure equal to
diŠerent measured p?r/p?y as in the Test 1 mentioned
above. At the end of swelling, the specimen was sheared
under undrained conditions at a strain rate of 0.1z/min.
Therefore, the soil structures are assumed to be complete-
ly destroyed and the artiˆcial residual eŠective stresses va-
ried. The isotropic swelling pressure and measured un-
drained shear strength and in this test is denoted as p?2 and
su2, respectively, and the maximum vertical consolidation
210
Fig. 10. EŠect of strain rates on shear strengths
(Ko consolidation) as p?max.
Comparisons of the strength from the simulated tests
above are made with those from the unconˆned compres-
sion tests. However, it should be noted that the axial
strain rates of UCT and CKoUC were diŠerent (UCT,
1z/min and triaxial, 0.1z/min). Thus, the undrained
strengths of UCT and simulated tests were corrected to
take diŠerent strain rates of shearing into account. Figure
10 shows test results from triaxial tests at 0.1z/min and
1.0z/min and indicates that their stress-strain curves at
diŠerent strain rates are nearly the same, but the peak
strength is somewhat lower for the low strain rate. The
diŠerence in the peak strengths for 10 times diŠerent
strain rates is about 8z. Therefore, the undrained shear
strengths measured by the triaxial test at 0.1z/min of
strain rate were corrected so as to correspond to those of
UCT.
Figure 11 shows a comparison of the strength ratio
measured by UCT (qu/2 and p?r, normalized by p?y) and
the two simulated tests, Test 1: ( p?1/p?y)－(su1/p?y), Test 2:
( p?2/p?max)－(su2/p?max). If the swelling pressures of the
simulated tests, i.e., p?1/p?y or p?2/p?max, are considered to
HORNG ET AL.
Fig. 11. Comparison of shear strengths of simulated tests and UCT
Fig. 12. Schematic representation of swelling eŠect of simulated tests
be the same as p?r/p?y for UCT, the qu at diŠerent p?r/p?y ra-
tio can be represented by the strengths according to the
diŠerent OCR or strengths at changing the eŠective con-
ˆning pressures. As shown in Fig. 11, these tests can ap-
parently simulate the reduction of qu values caused by the
reduction of p?r. However, it should be noted that there
are two important factors in the relation of Fig. 11: swell-
ing eŠects and stress-strain relations.
Swelling EŠect
Samples in the simulated tests were subjected to
volume change because the specimens were consolidated
under a smaller pressure than they had been previously
subjected. Figure 12 indicates a schematic representation
of the swelling eŠect of the simulated tests between the
void ratio and pressure in the logarithmic scale (e－log
p?). For simplicity, the pressure in the horizontal axis on
the normally consolidated line (NCL) indicates the verti-
cal eŠective pressure, however, inside of the NC state
(Overconsolidated (OC) state), the pressure indicates the
mean eŠective pressure. It is assumed that the swelling
line from the NC state to the OC state can be expressed by
a single line ABC, as indicated in Fig. 12. The in situ soil
sample is subjected to the vertical eŠective pressure of
s?vo, however, as mentioned before, the soil layer at the
sampling site is under consolidation so that, instead of
s?vo, the yield consolidation pressure, p?y, is used.
The stress in the in situ soil sample before sampling is
located along the NCL, as shown in Fig. 12. When this
soil is sampled and exposed to the atmosphere, the in situ
 SAMPLE DISTURBANCE SHEAR STRENGTHS 211

Table 2. Correction of simulated tests by volume change

(a) Test 1

p?1 (kPa) p?y (kPa) su1 (kPa) De1 p?y1 (kPa) p?1/p?y1 su1/p?y1
6 132 22.9 －0.144 85.4 0.07 0.27

21 132 32.3 －0.098 98.2 0.21 0.33

35 132 37.2 －0.070 106.9 0.33 0.35

47 132 41.3 －0.048 114.4 0.41 0.36

(b) Test 2

p?max (kPa) p?2 (kPa) su2 (kPa) De2 p?y2 (kPa) p?2/p?y2 su2/p?y2
290 15 34.9 －0.216 150.8 0.10 0.23

290 73 74.0 －0.041 255.7 0.29 0.29

290 102 84.7 －0.010 281.5 0.36 0.30

stresses subjected to the soil sample reduce to the residual

eŠective stress ( p?r). If the sample quality is good, the p?r
value is high, alternatively, if the sample is heavily dis-
turbed, p?r is small, as indicated in Fig. 12. Since the sam-
pling process is carried out under undrained conditions,
the volume change should be zero (De＝0): i.e., the stress
change during the sampling process moves along a line
parallel to the horizontal axis (e＝e0). To simulate this
condition by Test 2, the specimen should be consolidated
at A of p?max in the ˆgure, not p?y, and then swelled to p?2.
In Fig. 11, instead of p?2/p?max for showing test results
from Test 2, the horizontal axis of stress should use the
ratio of p?2/p?y2 corresponding to the stress at the void ra-
tio after swelling at p?2. Then, the strength measured by
Test 2 is compatible to the qu value. The relation between
p?max and p?y2 can be correlated to the change in void ratio
(De2) in the ˆgure through the compression index (Cc).
The Cc index is considered to be constant, because index
properties in objective soil layers are nearly the same as
those shown in Fig. 1 and it is equal to 0.76, as measured
by the triaxial test at the NC state.
The test results from Test 1 should also be compared
with the UCT, in terms of p?1/p?y1, not p?1/p?y. The stress
condition of the soil specimen using the Test 1 is located
at point B in Fig. 12. When various eŠective conˆning
pressures ( p?1) are applied to the specimen, the specimen is
compressed (if p?1 is greater than the p?r of the specimen)
or swelled (if p?1ºp?r) as shown in Fig. 12. To calculate the
p?y1 value, the change of void ratio (De1) was used, assum-
ing that Cc is the same as that in Test 2.
Table 2 shows the calculated results. The negative De
indicate that swelling took place during consolidation. In
case of Test 1, De was measured after applying the diŠer-
ent conˆning pressures. In case of Test 2, De was meas-
ured after p?max and p?2. The corrected relations are plotted
and compared with the UCT in Fig. 13. When strengths
from Test 1 and Test 2 are compared in detail, it can be
noted that the strengths from Test 1 are greater than
those from Test 2. This is because the specimen in Test 1
possesses the original structures. As a general trend, the
Fig. 13. Simulated test results after correction by volume change
strength ratio from the simulated tests after considering
the swelling eŠect does not signiˆcantly decrease with
decreasing p?r/p?y. The corrected simulated test results in-
dicate that strength reduces only due to the loss of the
eŠective conˆning stress. Therefore, much more reduc-
tion of strength from the UCT can be considered to result
from another factor, that is, the destruction of the soil
structures. This point can be clearly seen in the compari-
son of the stress-strain curves.
Stress-strain Curve
Figures 14 and 15 show the stress-strain curves of the
simulated tests for p?r/p?y＝0.25 and 0.35, respectively,
compared with those of UCT after the correction of
diŠerent strain rate eŠects. As mentioned in the previous
section, it is preferable to consider the swelling eŠect for
the two simulated tests. However, the correction of swell-
ing cannot be considered in the ˆgures regarding the in-
‰uence of artiˆcial residual eŠective stress and damage to
soil structures on the stress-strain curves. It can be seen
that both peak shear strength and shape of stress-strain
curves up to the peak of the UCT and of the Test 1 are
nearly identical. However, their shapes after the peak are
diŠerent: the UCT shows more strain softening than
those of Test 1. The diŠerence is due to the eŠect of the
212
Fig. 14. Stress-strain curves of simulated tests and UCT, p?r/p?y＝0.25
Fig. 15. Stress-strain curves of simulated tests and UCT, p?r/p?y＝0.35
diŠerent eŠective conˆning pressures, from which the
UCT was conducted under atmosphere; whereas Test 1
was conducted under large constant eŠective conˆning
pressures during shearing (the back pressure of 200 kPa
was applied). If the soil structures of samples are
damaged ( see Test 2 in the ˆgures), even though the soil
specimens are kept under the same eŠective conˆning
pressures, p?r/p?y, their stress-strain curves are moderate
and also their undrained shear strengths are lower, which
manifests the eŠect of soil structures on soil behaviors.
Similarly, the same series of testing were applied to the
poorest quality samples whose measured p?r/p?y＝0.05 as
shown in Fig. 16. It should be kept in mind that this ratio
corresponds to the poor quality samples of the 909F10
tube, which were disturbed due to the geometric design of
the tube sampler during sampling. It clearly shows that
the stress-strain curve of Test 1, has a well-deˆned peak
strength even under the small p?r/p?y ratio, whereas the
curve of 909F10 (UCT) sample is to the far right of Test 1
and strain hardens up to axial strain of 15z. The results
demonstrate that sampling using 909F10 tube samplers
HORNG ET AL.
Fig. 16. Stress-strain curves of simulated tests and UCT, p?r/p?y＝0.05
Fig. 17. EŠect of geometric designs of tube samplers on soil structures
(by Test 1)
seriously destroyed the soil structures, which are natural-
ly inherent by ageing, chemical bonding, and cementa-
tion. On the other hand, the stress-strain curve of the
sample from the Test 2, i.e., its structures were destroyed
and by keeping the same p?r/p?y ratio as those of the other
two tests, its stress-strain curve shows more disturbance
in terms of soil structures.
Moreover, the eŠects of sampling disturbance by de-
struction of soil structures from various types of tube
samplers were also investigated, as shown in Fig. 17. It
should be noted from the ˆgure that all samples have the
same p?r/p?y＝0.05. Their stress-strain curves show no
diŠerence in shapes or in their peaks. This means that the
structures of the 69F10, 909 F1.5, and 69F1.5(O) samples
were not destroyed by sampling, compared with those of
the standard tube sampler. These results once again pro-
vide more evidence that, by using 69F10, 909 F1.5, and
69F1.5(O) samples, the recompression technique
(CKoUC) has the ability to duplicate the undisturbed soil
behavior as mentioned earlier.
 SAMPLE DISTURBANCE SHEAR STRENGTHS
CONCLUSIONS
Sample disturbance eŠects on the soft clayey soil
retrieved by various types of tube sampler consisting of
diŠerent geometric designs were evaluated by the uncon-
ˆned compression test, the fall cone test, and the CKoUC
triaxial test. The results in this study by the UCT and the
FCT are very consistent with the previous nondestructive
tests: the residual eŠective stress ( p?r) by ceramic disc and
the small strain shear modulus (Gmax) by bender element.
The sharp edge angle of a tube sampler is important to
obtain high quality samples. A large area ratio of a tube
sampler can be permitted and compensated by a sharp
edge angle. Otherwise, the area ratio must be made as
thin as possible when the edge angle becomes large. The
eŠects of the ˆxed piston cannot be clearly recognized on
the sample quality.
The recompression technique in triaxial test, where the
specimen is consolidated at the in situ eŠective stresses, is
used to overcome sample disturbance. However, if soil
structures of a soil sample are strongly destroyed, as was
the case with the 909F10 samples used in this study, the
technique cannot restore the undisturbed soil behavior.
The sample quality must be ranked at least in the category
``Good to fair'' or better from the criteria of Lunne et al.
(1997) or p?r/p?y is greater than 0.10 in order to be able to
duplicate the in situ soil behavior.
It was found that the unconˆned compressive strengths
are apparently dependent on the p?r value. However, the
test results of the simulated test in this study indicate that
sample disturbance should be considered in terms of loss
of the residual eŠective stress and destruction of the soil
structures. This ˆnding can explain the above conclusion
that the recompression technique can be applied to cases
where soil structures are not damaged but p?r is lost.
REFERENCES
1) Berre, T. and Bjerrum, L. (1973): Shear strength of normally con-
solidated clays, Proc. 8th ICSMFE, 1, 39–49.
2) Hansbo, S. (1957): A new approach to the determination of the
shear strength of clay by the fall-cone test, Proc. R. Swedish Geo-
tech. Inst., 14, 1–47.
213
3) Hight, D. W., Boese, R., Butcher, A. P., Clayton, C. R. I. and
Smith, P. R. (1992): Disturbance of the Bothkennar clay prior to
laboratory testing, Geotechnique, 42(2), 199–217.
4) Horng, V., Tanaka, H. and Obara, T. (2010): EŠects of sampling
tube geometry on soft clayey sample quality evaluated by nonde-
structive methods, Soils and Foundations, 50(1), 93–107.
5) JGS (1998): Standard of Japanese Geotechnical Society for Soil
Sampling-Standards and Explanations (English Version), Japanese
Geotechnical Society, Tokyo.
6) JGS (1999): Standards of Japanese Geotechnical Society for
Laboratory Shear Test (English Version), Japanese Geotechnical
Society, Tokyo.
7) Lacasse, S., Berre, T. and Lefebvre, G. (1985): Block sampling of
sensitive clays, Proc. 9th ICSMFE, 2, 887–892.
8) Lefebvre, G. and Poulin, C. (1979): A new method of sampling in
sensitive clays, Can. Geotech. J., 16(1), 226–233.
9) Leroueil, S., Tavenas, F., Brucy, F., La Rochelle, P. and Roy, M.
(1979): Behavior of destructured natural clays, ASCE, 106(GT6),
759–778.
10) Lunne, T., Berre, T. and Strandvik, S. (1997): Sample disturbance
eŠects in soft low plastic Norwegian clay, Proc. Int'l Symp. on Re-
cent Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics, 81–102.
11) Lunne, T., Berre, T., Andersen, K. H., Strandvik, S. and Sjursen,
M. (2006): EŠects of sample disturbance and consolidation proce-
dures on measured shear strengths of soft marine Norwegian clays,
Can. Geotech. J., 43(7), 726–750.
12) Mitachi, T., Kudoh, Y. and Tsushima, M. (2001): Estimation of in-
situ undrained strength of soft soil deposits by use of unconˆned
compression test with suction measurement, Soils and Founda-
tions, 41(5), 61–71.
13) Oka, F., Yashima, A., Hashimoto, T. and Amemiya, M. (1996):
Application of Laval type large diameter sampler to soft clay in
Japan, Soils and Foundations, 36(3), 99–111.
14) Okumura, T. (1971): The variation of mechanical properties of clay
samples depending on its degree of disturbance, Proc. Special Ses-
sion on Quality in Soil Sampling, 4th Asian Regional Conf. SMFE,
73–81.
15) Shogaki, T. (2006): An improved method for estimating in-situ un-
drained shear strength of natural deposits, Soils and Foundations,
46(2), 109–121.
16) Tanaka, H., Sharma, P., Tsuchida, T. and Tanaka, M. (1996):
Comparative study on sample quality using several types of sam-
plers, Soils and Foundations, 36(2), 57–68.
17) Tanaka, H. (2000): Sample quality of cohesive soils: Lessons from
three sites, Ariake, Bothkennar and Drammen, Soils and Founda-
tions, 40(4), 57–74.
18) Tanaka, H. and Tanaka, M. (2006): Main factors governing resid-
ual eŠective stress for cohesive soils sampled by tube sampling,
Soils and Foundations, 46(2), 209–220.
19) Wood, D. M. (1990): Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil
Mechanics, Cambridge University Press.