ADVANCED LABORATORY CHARACTERISATION OF LONDON CLAY

Thesis submitted to University of London in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and for the Diploma of Imperial College London

By

APOLLONIA GASPARRE July 2005 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Imperial College London London SW7 2BU

ABSTRACT
New findings about the geology of London Clay (King, 1981) have highlighted the importance of investigating the relationship between geology and engineering behaviour for stratified soils. Recent events, such as the Heathrow tunnel collapse in 1994 and the poorly predicted ground movements at St. James Park during the construction of the Jubilee line extension have also highlighted a local need to revise the general proprieties of the material with which engineers in London deal. This research aimed at finding a framework for the London Clay relating the engineering proprieties of this material to its geological features.

High quality samples from different depths in London Clay were tested in their intact and reconstituted states using oedometer and advanced triaxial apparatus. The lithological units of the London Clay at the site have been

accounted for in analysing the mechanical response of the clay.

The structure and the nature of the clay from different strata were investigated microscopically and correlated with its large and small strain mechanical response. Shallower units showed a more open structure and higher clay content than deeper units. Samples from the same units had the same mechanical

behaviour and engineering parameters, regardless their depth within the stratum, but differences were found between the different units, which reflected the differences in the nature and structure of clay from each stratum. The behaviour in both compression and shearing seemed to be dominated by the structure of the clay as well as by its nature, so that clay from units having a more packed and orientated structure showed a stiffer response and higher strengths than the clay from units with a more open structure. The behaviour of the clay was also investigated in the elastic region and the elastic parameters confirmed the effects of lithology on sample behaviour.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I share the success of this research w with my supervisor Dr M.R. Coop, ork who is a great teacher and an enthusiastic supporter. His continuous presence has been precious throughout this project.

I would also like to thank all the research group involved in the London Clay Project. In particular, thanks to Prof. R.J. Jardine for his advises and suggestions, to Will, who helped me through the difficult process of understanding the geology of London Clay and to Satoshi and Minh, who shared with me many experiences on site and in the laboratory. I would also like to thank Akihiro and Pedro for their help in the sampling process.

I am grateful to Prof. D. Hight, Prof. Chandler, Dr. M. De Freitas, and Dr. J. Standing for sharing with me some of their knowledge on London Clay and to Dr. J. Huggett for her analysis on the microstructure of the clay.

Special thanks to the technicians Steve, Alan and Graham, because this research would not have been possible without their constant assistance. I also express my gratitude to the MSc students Ana, Naeem, Jimmy and Eduardo, who performed some of the tests used in this research and to Giovanny, who often supervised my tests while I was away and helped with the interpretation of the bender element signal.

Working at Imperial College has been a great experience and I would like to thank all the research staff and students in the Soil Mechanics Section for making this place so special.

TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF SYMBOLS i ii iii xi xiii xxxiii

1

INTRODUCTION

1 1 1 2 5 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 12 14 16 17 18 19 20 iii

1.1 Background of the research 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Structure of the thesis 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Structure 2.1.1 Fabric 2.1.2 Bonding 2.1.3 Anisotropy 2.1.4 Destructuration 2.1.5 Sedimentation and post-sedimentation structure 2.1.6 Degree of structure 2.2 Large strain behaviour 2.2.1 Normalising parameters 2.2.2 The Sensitivity Framework 2.2.3 Post yield behaviour 2.2.4 Anisotropic destructuration 2.2.5 Destructuration in swelling 2.2.6 Effect of weathering 2.3 Large strain strength 2.4 Yielding behaviour

2.4.1 Y1 surface 2.4.2 Y2 surface 2.4.3 Y3 surface 2.5 Small strain behaviour 2.5.1 Elastic parameters (a) Shear modulus (b) Interpreting bender element signals (c) Other elastic parameters 2.5.2 Influence of recent stress history 2.6 Creep 2.6.1 Effects at small strains 2.7 Strain rate effects 2.8 The influence of fissures 3 LONDON CLAY

21 22 23 24 24 28 30 31 33 38 40 41 43

3.1 Introduction 3.2 The London Clay formation 3.2.1 Depositional processes: London Basin and Hampshire Basin (a) Lithological units 3.2.2 Post-depositional processes (a) Influence of the Alpine orogeny (b) Erosion (c) Weathering 3.3 Mineralogy of the London Clay 3.4 Macrofabric 3.5 London Clay proprieties in west London 3.5.1 Geology (a) Lithological units 3.5.2 Index proprieties 3.5.3 In situ stresses and ko 3.5.4 Permeability

87 87 88 89 91 91 92 92 92 93 94 94 95 95 96 97

iv

3.5.5 Cone penetrometer tests at T5 3.5.6 Shear strength 3.5.7 Anisotropy and stiffness 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 APPARATUS Introduction Oedometer Triaxial apparatus

97 97 100 129 129 129 130 130 131 132 132 132 132 134 135 136 137 151 151 152 152 152 153 154 154 154 154 155 155 157

4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.2 Conventional stress path cell 4.3.3 Stress path apparatus for 100mm samples (a) Axial and radial LVDTs (b) Mid-height probe (c) Bender elements 4.3.4 The medium pressure apparatus 4.3.5 High pressure triaxial apparatus 4.3.6 Calibration and accuracy 4.3.7 Load cell connection 5 5.1 5.2 TEST PROCEDURES Introduction Sampling

5.2.1 Rotary Core Samples 5.2.2 Block samples (a) Sampling process 5.3 Natural Samples- triaxial tests

5.3.1 Trimming (a) Rotary cores (b) Blocks 5.3.2 Preparation of the cell 5.3.3 Preparation of the sample 5.3.4 Expected effective stress

v

5.3.5 Test procedures (a) (b) Unconsolidated undrained tests Consolidated drained or undrained tests from isotropic state

158 158 159 160 161 164 166 166 166 166 167 167 167 167 168 168 168 168 168 169 169 172 172 173 195 195 195 196 196 197 198

(c) Investigation of the influence of the recent stress history (d) Tests from the in situ stress state 5.3.6 Effect of temperature 5.4 Natural samples –oedometer tests

5.4.1 Sample preparation 5.4.2 Testing procedures 5.5 Reconstituted samples 5.5.1 Triaxial tests (a) Consolidation

(b) Sample preparation (c) Test procedures 5.5.2 Oedometer tests 5.6 Analysis of the data 5.6.1 Calculations and corrections (a) Water content (b) Specific volume (c) Area correction (d) Membrane correction (e) Volumetric and shear strains 5.6.2 Shear plane analysis 5.7 Nomenclature of the tests 6 6.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL Introduction

6.2 Sample descriptions 6.3 Microstructure of the London Clay 6.3.1 SEM analysis (a) Unit A3 (b) Unit B2 vi

(c) Unit C (d) Comparison between different lithological units 6.3.2 Chemical micro-analysis 6.4 Sample characterization 6.4.1 Specific gravity Gs 6.4.2 Water content distribution 6.4.3 Atterberg limits 7 7.1 LARGE STRAIN BEHAVIOUR Introduction

198 199 200 201 201 201 202 231 231 231 231 233 234 235 235 235 237 237 238 239 239 242 243 245 246 247 249 250 250 251 251 254 vii

7.2 Intrinsic proprieties: reconstituted samples 7.2.1 Behaviour in compression 7.2.2 Shearing behaviour (a) Critical state line (b) Normalised shearing behaviour 7.3 Natural samples 7.3.1 Behaviour in compression (a) Stress Sensitivity (b) Swell Sensitivity 7.3.2 Lithological units and compressibility 7.3.3 Normalised compression behaviour (a) New normalisation 7.3.4 Destructuration due to swelling 7.3.5 Shearing behaviour (a) Shear plane characteristics (b) Pore pressure distribution (c) Shear strength (d) Sample size effect (e) Sample quality 7.3.6 Strength envelopes and lithological units 7.3.7 Influence of pre-existing fissures (a) Fissures due to drying (b) Strength on fissures

(c) Lithological units and fissures 7.4 Structure and destructuration of natural samples 7.4.1 Normalised strength 7.4.2 Destructuration in swelling 7.4.3 Destructuration due to anisotropic compression 8 8.1 SMALL STRAIN BEHAVIOUR Introduction

255 255 256 257 258 341 341 343 344 344 345 346 347 347 347 348 349 350 350 350 353 353 354 354 355 356 357 357 358 360 361

8.2 Lithological Unit C 8.2.1 Bender element tests 8.2.2 Static probes 8.2.3 Monotonic loading tests 8.2.4 Elastic parameters 8.2.5 Kinematic surfaces (a) Y1 surface (b) Y2 surface 8.2.6 Stiffness degradation 8.3 Unit B2 8.3.1 Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) Bender elements tests (b) Static probes (c) Elastic parameters (d) Kinematic surfaces (e) Stiffness degradation 8.3.2 Sub-Unit B2(a) (f) Bender element tests (a) Static probes (b) Elastic parameters (c) Kinematic surfaces (d) Stiffness degradation 8.4 Unit A3 8.4.1 Bender elements tests

viii

8.4.2 Static probes 8.4.3 Elastic parameters 8.4.4 Kinematic surfaces 8.4.5 Strain rate dependency 8.4.6 Stiffness degradation 8.5 Influence of the lithological unit 8.5.1 Elastic parameters 8.5.2 Kinematic Surfaces (a) Y1 surface (b) Y2 surface 8.5.3 Strain energy 8.6 Effect of fissures on the elastic parameters 9 9.1 EFFECTS OF RECENT STRESS HISTORY Introduction

361 363 363 364 365 365 365 368 368 369 370 372 473 473 474 474 475 477 480 480 480 482 482 507 511 513

9.2 Case 1: short approach stress path 9.2.1 Creep allowed 9.2.2 Creep not allowed 9.3 Case2: long approach stress path 9.4 Effects of angle of rotation on the kinematic surfaces 9.4.1 Shear modulus 9.4.2 Elastic surface 9.4.3 Y2 surface 9.4.4 Effect of creep 10 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Suggestions for future work REFERENCES

APPENDIX 5.1 Calculations of the in situ stress state and approach stress path

A1

ix

APPENDIX 5.2 Measurements of the elastic parameters APPENDIX 7.1 Shear planes

A9

A14

x

2: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on Lias clay samples (Costa-Filho.1) Table 8.5: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) Table 8. 1977) Table 2. data from Maguire.1: X-ray analysis on samples from different lithological units Table 6.3: Yield stresses and Stress Sensitivity for samples from different lithological units Table 8.1: Parameters for reconstituted samples isotropically compressed Table 7.2: Summary of key features of typical laboratory instrumentation used in this project Table 5.1: Index proprieties of London Clay at Wraysbury (Skempton et al. data from Sandroni...3: Division of the borehole sample into lithological units Table 6.2: Coordinates of borehole and block samples Table 5.4: Shear modulus during the approach stress paths for samples from SubUnit B2(c) (*refer to Figure 8.6: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) xi . 1984..3: Strain energy at the in situ and yield stresses for Unit C Table 8.2: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit C Table 8.1: Shear moduli during the consolidation stress paths for samples from Unit C (*refer to Figure 8.2: Specific gravity of grains at T5 and Ashford Common Table 6.1: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on London Clay samples (Costa-Filho.2: Parameters of reconstituted samples one-dimensionally compressed Table 7.18) Table 8.1: Summary of all tests performed in natural samples Table 5.2: Index proprieties of London Clay at Ashford Common (Bishop et al.3: Index proprieties Table 7. 1969) Table 3. 1965) Table 3.3: Shear modulus ratios for London Clay (Wongsaroj et al.1: Details of bender elements Table 4. 1975) Table 3. 2004) Table 4.LIST OF TABLES Table 2. 1984.

55) Table 8.9: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) Table 8.5) Table 9.38) Table 8.7: Shear moduli during the approach stress paths for the samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (*refer to Figure 8.3SH xii .10: Shear moduli for samples consolidated along the approach stress paths used for Unit A3 (*refer to Figure 8.3-L30o e and 17.3: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.13: Incremental strain energy for samples from Unit A3 and Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 Table 8.2: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.14: Average of the independent elastic parameters measured in the static and dynamic probes on samples from different lithological units Table 9.11: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit A3 Table 8.1) Table 9.8: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) Table 8.9) Table 9.3-105o c (refer to Figure 9.3-L150o e (refer to Figure 9.4: Elastic parameters for probes on Samples 17SH and 17.12: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 Table 8.Table 8.3-75o c and 17.1: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e (refer to Figure 9.

Figure 2.3: Schematic diagram showing enhanced resistance of natural clays in compression Figure 2. 1996) Figure 2. 1990) Figure 2. 1991) xiii . 1991).8: (a) In situ states for normally consolidated clays (Skempton.7: The intrinsic and sedimentation compression lines (Burland.13: State boundary surface of reconstituted and undisturbed Pappadai clay consolidated to stresses before yield (Cotecchia. Figure 2.9: Geometrical definition of the strength sensitivity (Cotecchia & Chandler. 1998).15: Normalised SBS for samples compressed before and beyond gross yield: (a) Bothkennar Clay (Jardine & Smith.11: Stress and Strength Sensitivity relationships for clays having in situ states on the left of the ICL (Chandler 2000).14: Compression curves of (a) clay with a stable structure (Coop & Cotecchia. 1970) Figure 2.LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.4: Typical compression curves for (a) clays with sedimentation structure and (b) clays with post-sedimentation structure (Cotecchia & Chandler 1997) Figure 2. 1990) Figure 2.2: Classification of fabric (Sides & Barden. 1996).5 Influence of structure: proposed normalising parameters Figure 2.16: Unique SBS for Pappadai Clay normalised by structure Figure 2. 1995) and (b) clay with a meta-stable structure (Burland.18: Destructuration of Bothkennar Clay (a) isotropic and k0 compression (b) shearing behaviour (Jardine & Smith. data from Callisto 1996) Figure 2. 1996). 1970) and (b) interpretation of the data indicating sensitivity (Cotecchia and Chandler.1: Structure of the main clay units (Veniale.10: Stress and Strength Sensitivity relationships for clays having in situ states on the right of the ICL (Chandler 2000). 1997) Figure 2. Figure 2.6: Sedimentation compression curves for normally consolidated clays (Skempton. 1970) Figure 2.12: The Sensitivity framework (Cotecchia & Chandler 1997) Figure 2. 2000) Figure 2. 2004.17: Isotropic and k0 compression for Pisa Clay (Baudet & Stallebrass. Cotecchia. 1983. Valericca Clay (Amorosi & Rampello. Figure 2. (b) Pappadai Clay (Cotecchia.

25: Effect of clay particles on the critical state friction angle and on the residual friction angle (Lupini et al. Chandler.21: Variation of water content with different levels of weathered strata (Lias Clay. 2004) Figure 2. 1972) Figure 2. 1972) Figure 2.. 1997) xiv .32: Bounds for the elastic parameters and planes and lines representing special types of materials (Pickering. 1/12.Figure 2. 1992) Figure 2. 2005) Figure 2.26: Idealised undrained shearing behaviour of overconsolidated clays with (a) low plasticity and (b) high plasticity (Jardine et al. 1977) Figure 2.23: Shear behaviour of London Clay samples at different levels of weathering (a) Undrained triaxial compression tests.31: Normalised undrained stress paths for triaxial compression tests on Lower Cromer till samples consolidated to different values of K (Gens.20: Fissuring in the London Clay (Chandler & Apted.24: Effects of weathering on Pappadai clay (a) Normalised state boundary surfaces of both the natural and the reconstituted samples (b) isotropic and one-dimensional compression behaviour of both the weathered (yellow) and the unweathered (grey) clay (Cafaro & Cotecchia.19: Behaviour of London Clay swelled to 1/6.30: Definition of Y2 for Bothkennar Clay from drained cyclic tests (Smith et al. (b) normalised stress paths (Chandler & Apted. 1982) Figure 2. 1981) Figure 2. (c) stress paths in constantheight direct shear box tests (Takahashi et al.27: Strength of stiff plastic clays (Jardine et al.22: Idealised relationship between effective overburden pressure and water content during the geological history of an overconsolidated clay (Chandler. 1988) Figure 2. 1970) Figure 2. 1992) Figure 2. 2004) Figure 2. 1988) Figure 2. 1/16 the initial vertical effective stress (a) destructuration in one-dimensional swelling (b) normalised shear stress-horizontal displacement.28: Localization of strains and pore pressure distribution in London Clay (Sandroni.29: Scheme of multiple yield surfaces (Jardine. 2001) Figure 2.33: Configuration for measurement of stiffness of a cross-anisotropic soil under axi-symmetric loading (Pennington et al.

1998) xv . 1992) Figure 2. (b) small strain Young’s Modulus of Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris.Figure 2.38: Stress dependent stiffness of a single Bothkennar clay specimen subjected to two different loading paths (Clayton & Heymann.48: Effect of strain rate change on Chuba Gravel (Tatsuoka et al. 1990) Figure 2. 1998 and Tatsuoka et al. Tatsuoka et al.35: Stiffness response for tests for recent stress history of reconstituted London Clay (Atkinson et al. 1998) Figure 2. 1997).40: Stiffness degradation curves of London clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann. 1998) Figure 2. 1998) Figure 2.. 1998 and Tatsuoka et al. 1998) Figure 2..37: Stress probes and normalised elastic parameters for Gault clay (Lings et al.34: Effect of recent stress history on current stiffness (Atkinson et al.49: Effect of strain rate change on Vallericca clay (Tatsuoka et al. 2000) Figure 2.. 2001) Figure 2. 2001) Figure 2.43: Effect of undrained creep on the shearing behaviour of Fujimori clay (Momoya. 1998) Figure 2. 1998.41: Schematic behaviour in compression after ageing (Tatsuoka et al. 2001) Figure 2.36: Compression paths and small strain stiffnesses for natural and reconstituted London Clay samples (Jardine. 1998) Figure 2.. 1990) Figure 2.44: Effects of drained creep on subsequent undrained shearing for undisturbed Vallericca clay and Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris.47: Development of the kinematic yield surfaces with time (Tatsuoka et al.46: Influence of time on (a) the shear stiffness of carbonate sand samples (Jovicic & Coop. 1977) Figure 2.39: Stiffness degradation curves of a Bothkennar clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann. 1998) Figure 2.42: Stress-strain curves after restarting loading at a constant strain rate (Tatsuoka et al.45: Creep effect on fast rate shearing of undisturbed London Clay (Sandroni.

6: Main features of the lithological units in the London Clay (King.11: Stratigraphical variation in lithology and clay mineralogy (<2µm).51: Effect of strain rate on the very small strain Young’s Modulus (Tatsuoka et al. 1981) Figure 3. 1981) Figure 3. 2004) Figure 3. 1998) Figure 3. 2003) xvi .Figure 2. data from Santucci de Magistris.10: Envelope of particle sizes for London Clay (King.9: Correlation between boreholes at different sites in the London Basin (BGS.3: Eocene stratigraphy of the London Clay Formation in Southern Britain (King.8: Correlation between the informal lithological division suggested by the BGS (2004) and King (1981) (BGS.4: The London Clay formation: idealised depositional sequences linked to sea level changes (King.7: Identification of lithological units by water content (Hight et al. 1998) Figure 2. 1967) Figure 2. 1964) Figure 3. 1972) Figure 2.12: Geology of the London Clay at Heathrow T5 (Hight et al. 2004) Figure 3.1: Late Palaeocene geology (King.52: Stress-strain curve of Vallericca Clay at very small strains during (a) loading and (b) unloading at different rates (Tatsuoka et al. 1998. at Whitecliff Bay in the Hampshire Basin (Hugget & Gale. 1998) Figure 2.54: Strengths of samples of different diameters and samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures (Marsland & Butler. 1981) Figure 3. 1981) Figure 3. 1998) Figure 2. 1981) Figure 3. 2003) Figure 3..50: Effect of strain rate change on Hostun Sand (Tatsuoka et al.55: Stress-strain behaviours of intact samples and samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Webb.53: Strength envelopes on London Clay samples of different dimensions (Bishop. 1981) Figure 3. 1991) Figure 3.5: Palaeocene and Eocene sections of the London Clay Formation (King.2: The North Sea Basin and London Clay formation (King.

Burland.28: Variation of elastic shear modulus with p’ (Wongsaroj et al. 1990: data from Bishop et al. 1990.30: Identification of the lithological units using the stiffness ratio (Hight et al.13: Profile of London Clay at Ashford Common (a) geology of the site and (b) index proprieties (Bishop et al. 1965) Figure 3.1: Schematic design of the oedometer cell xvii . 1965..27: Ashford Common: normalised state boundary surfaces for different depths (Burland. 2003) Figure 3.Figure 3.15: Unit boundaries at T5 identified by water content (Hight et al.. 2004) Figure 3.21: Triaxial compression and extension failure points from rotary cored and thin-walled samples (Hight et al. 1965) Figure 3.19: Cone penetrometer tests at T5 (BRE 2002.24: Post-rupture and intrinsic failure lines of London Clay at Ashford Common and strength envelope for samples failed along pre-existing fissures (Bishop et al... 2003) Figure 3.26: Peak and residual strength envelopes for natural London Clay samples from different depths in Central London and strength along fissures (Hight & Jardine. 2002) Figure 3. 2003) Figure 3.17: Suction measurements at T5 (Hight. 2003) Figure 3.. 2003) Figure 3.29: Shear wave velocities and maximum shear stiffness at T5 (Hight et al. 1965) Figure 3. 2003) Figure 4..22: Strength envelopes from triaxial tests on London Clay samples from Ashford Common (re-plotted from Bishop et al 1965) Figure 3. 1977) Figure 3. 1993) Figure 3. 2003) Figure 3.. data from Bishop et al. 2003 Figure 3.23: Strength envelope of samples consolidated from slurry and of natural samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Skempton..25: Strength envelopes of reconstituted and natural London Clay samples from different depths (Burland.16: ko profiles for the London Clay at T5 and Ashford Common (Hight et al.20: Results of consolidated undrained tests on rotary cored samples from T5 (Hight et al. 2003) Figure 3.14: Index proprieties of London Clay at T5 (Hight et al. 1990) Figure 3.18: Horizontal permeability of London Clay from different sites in the London area (Hight et al. Hight et al..

2005) Figure 4. 2005) Figure 4. Figure 5.16: Load cell connections (a) half ball (b) suction cap (c) rigid connection (d) new suction cap connection for 100mm diameter samples Figure 5.8Sample preparation: (a) preparation of the membrane.3 Sketch of the boreholes divided in lithological units and sub-units Figure 5. (f) block sample closed in the wooden box and sealed with polyurethane foam.1: Map of Heathrow T5 Figure 5.14: The motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi.10: Schematic diagram of the lateral bender elements Figure 4. (b) block roughly shaped by pneumatic clay spade. (e) wax layers applied on the block. 1983) Figure 4.5: Electrolevel inclinometers Figure 4.8: Radial strain belt (Coop..2: Map of sample locations Figure 5.4: Volume gauge Figure 4.3: Schematic diagram of the hydraulic triaxial apparatus Figure 4. (d) cling film layer applied on the block.Figure 4. Figure 5. 2005) Figure 4. (b) set up of the bender elements.7Bench saw and block sample trimming. (c) sealing of the bender elements and mid-height probe. 2005) Figure 4.9: Mid-height pore pressure probe (Hight.6Trimming devices for 100mm diameter samples Figure 5. 2005) Figure 4.12: Schematic diagram of the high pressure apparatus (Qadimi. 2003) xviii . Hight et al. 2005) Figure 4.6: Bishop &Wesley triaxial cell for 100mm diameter samples Figure 4.9: Suction measurements and initial effective stresses measured in the triaxial apparatus for all samples tested (Ridley.11: Schematic diagram of the medium pressure triaxial apparatus (Qadimi.5 Sampling process: (a) strip of soil excavated by the digging machine.15: Schematic diagram of the motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi. (d) sketch of the sample with full instrumentation Figure 5.2: Oedometer apparatus Figure 4.4 Sketch of the excavation where the block samples were recovered Figure 5.13: The high pressure apparatus (Qadimi. (c) block shaped by hand. 2002.7: Axial LVDT with adjustable screw Figure 4.

(b) tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=10kPa. particle contacts xix . Unit A3 (a) orientated fabric.17: Consolidometers for the reconstituted samples Figure 5.1: Schematic description of the samples and lithological units Figure 6.6: London Clay from Unit A3 : particle nature and orientation (a) fracture and orientated domains (b) rough and sharp edges of the particles around a grain Figure 6. (b) fracture through the sample Figure 6.4: London Clay sample from Unit A3 Figure 6.3SH Figure 5.10: Problems in performing shear probes: (a) jump in the load cell and tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=0kPa.9: London Clay from Unit A3.5: London Clay from Unit A3 : orientated domains Figure 6. Figure 5.16: Sketch of the oedometer tests Figure5. (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains Figure 5.18: Specimen with a failure plane at an axial displacement ∆h (Chandler.7: London Clay from Unit A3: Particles around carbonate cement Figure 6.19: Loading frame to measure the membrane extension modulus M Figure 5.20: Extension modulus M calculated for the membrane correction Figure 5.21: Mohr circle of stresses Figure 6. (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains after the cell was wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil Figure 5.12: Sketch of the tests from the in situ stress point Figure 5.2: Schematic diagram of electron microscope (manual of Cambridge 500 SEM) Figure 6.5m depth.14: Variation with time of (a) temperature.Figure 5.8: London Clay from Unit A3: clay particles around pyrite Figure 6.11: Sketch of the stress path rotations for the tests (a) 17SH and (b) 17.3: London Clay from 33.13: Variation with time of (a) temperature. 1966) Figure 5.15: Triaxial cell wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil to prevent temperature oscillation Figure 5.

12: London Clay samples from Unit B2 Figure 6.4: Reconstituted samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.24: Index proprieties and lithological units Figure 6.2: Reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.23: Water content distribution with depth Figure 6.22: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit A3 Figure 6.17: London Clay from Unit C: calcite crystal formed in-place Figure 6.18: London Clay from Unit C: single particles and particle aggregates in a small clayey area at (a) large and (b) very large magnification Figure 6.13: London Clay from Unit B2 Figure 6.10: London Clay from 23.5: NCLs* for samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.11: London Clay from Unit B2 : (a) particle orientation and (b) particle contacts Figure 6.14: London Clay from 7m depth in Unit C (a) very bioturbated structure (b) calcite crystal between grains and clay particles Figure 6.6: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit C: (a) stressstrain (b) stress ratio Figure 7.15: London Clay from Unit C Figure 6.20: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit C Figure 6.21: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit B2 Figure 6.19: Comparison between samples from different units Figure 6.3: Reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.5m.16: London Clay from Unit C Figure 6.7: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) stressstrain (b) stress ratio xx .25: Grading curves Figure 7.Figure 6.1: Reconstituted samples from Unit C (a) isotropic compression (b) onedimensional compression Figure 7. in Unit B2 (a) disturbed structure within the overall bedding (b) homogeneous clayey apparence Figure 6.

13: Normalised stress paths of reconstituted samples from different lithological units Figure 7.17: Summary of oedometric compression tests on natural samples Figure 7.21: Compressibility of natural samples in oedometric tests Figure 7.24: Degradation of anisotropic strains during isotropic compression Figure 7.20: Change of swell sensitivity with stresses Figure 7.28: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(c) Figure 7.26: Sketch of the parameters used for the new normalisation Figure 7.29: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a) xxi .8: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) stressstrain (b) stress ratio Figure 7.18: Compression curves of natural samples in the triaxial apparatus Figure 7.19: Casagrande’s construction to define the gross yield and change of swelling line gradients Figure 7.16: Oedometric tests on natural samples from Units A2 and A3 Figure 7.12: Normal Compression and Critical State lines for samples from different lithological units Figure 7.22: Oedometric compression curves for natural and reconstituted samples Figure 7.9: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from different lithological units Figure 7.15: Oedometric tests on natural samples from Unit B (a) Sub-Unit B 2 2(c) (b) Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a) Figure 7.23: Stiffness in compression of natural samples in triaxial tests Figure 7.25: Normalised one-dimensional compression curves Figure 7.11: Stress paths of reconstituted samples from different lithological units Figure 7.Figure 7.10: Pore pressure increments for reconstituted samples from different lithological units Figure 7.27: New normalization for the oedometer tests Figure 7.14: Oedometric tests on natural samples from Unit C and intrinsic compression curve Figure 7.

32: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit C (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes Figure 7.36: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(c) Figure 7.41: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated isotropically before shearing Figure 7.30: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 7.31: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Unit A3 Figure 7.42: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B consolidated to anisotropic 2(a) states before shearing Figure 7.40: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from anisotropic states (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.Figure 7.37: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(b) (a) stress-strains relationships (b) pore water pressure changes Figure 7.44: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 condolidated to large stresses before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes xxii .34: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(c) consolidated to medium stresses (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore water pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.35: Large strain behaviour of Sample 12.5iUC consolidated to high stresses (a) stress-strain relationship (b) pore water pressure changes Figure 7.38: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(b) Figure 7.39: Large strain behaviour of samples form Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.33: Stress ratios for samples from Unit C Figure 7.43: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.

62: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at large stresses Figure 7.48: Typical shear planes through intact samples Figure 7.52: Sample sheared in extension along a shear plane of Type 3 in Figure 7.63: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing Figure 7.50 Figure 7.50: Typical shear plane along a pre-existing fissure Figure 7.53: Pore pressure change in a sample sheared along a single shear plane of Type 1a (Test 23.64: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at lower stresses Figure 7.58: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(b) Figure 7.45: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.65: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at higher stresses xxiii .56: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(c) at low stresses Figure 7.51: Sample sheared in compression with a shear plane of Type 1b in Figure 7.54: Pore pressure change for a sample that formed multiple shear planes of Type 2 (Test 11gUC) Figure 7.Figure 7.55: Stress paths for samples from Unit C Figure 7.7iUC) Figure 7.46: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions Figure 7.47: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from anisotropic states Figure 7.49: Multiple shear plane typology Figure 7.60: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing Figure 7.59: Stress paths of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions Figure 7.61: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at low stresses Figure 7.57: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(c) at large stresses Figure 7.48 Figure 7.

76: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher pressures Figure 7.68: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium stresses Figure 7.80: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at higher pressures Figure 7.67: Comparison between rotary core and block samples (a) stress paths (b) stress-strain relationships Figure 7.81: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit A3 Figure 7.75: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium pressures Figure 7.69: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher stresses Figure 7.82: Normalized SBS for samples from different lithological units at large stresses Figure 7.73: Typical Mohr circles for a sample that (a) mobilised its intact strength and (b) sheared along a pre-existing fissure Figure 7.79: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures Figure 7.78: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit C Figure 7.Figure 7.84: Stress ratios for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing xxiv (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure .72: Influence of pre-existing fissures on the shear planes (a) natural fissures before testing (b) shear planes after testing Figure 7.70: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at low and medium stresses Figure 7.77: Occurrence of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures Figure 7.71: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at higher stresses Figure 7.66: Peak strengths for samples from Unit A3 Figure 7.83: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2 swelled to low stresses before shearing changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.74: Comparison between behaviours of samples that mobilized their intact strength or sheared along a pre-existing fissure (a) stress-strain relationships (b) stress paths (c) Mohr's circles Figure 7.

7: Axial compression for Test 7gUE.2: Measurements of the arrival time with bender elements for Sample 7gUC at the in situ stress point.13: Contour of the Y1 surface for Unit C in (a) stress space and (b) strain space Figure 8.4: Creep rates in the 24h before starting the probes on the samples from Unit C Figure 8. (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.8: Radial compression probes on Samples 7gUE and 7gUE radial strains plotted against (a) cell pressure (b) axial strains Figure 8.1: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE Figure 8.14: Y2 yield point for Sample 7gkUC Figure 8.Figure 7.11: Strain rates for the probes and the monotonic loading tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE Figure 8.6: Axial probes on Sample 7gUC. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains Figure 8.10: Constant q probe for samples from Unit C (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.12: Monotonic shearing of samples 7gUC and 7gUE Figure 8.87: Consolidations along ko paths for samples from different lithological units Figure 8.15: Y2 yield points for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE xxv .86: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures Figure 7.5: Change of pore pressure with time due to temperature fluctuation and periods chosen for probing Figure 8.9: Probes at constant p' on samples from Unit C (a) equivalent shear modulus and (b) coupling modulus Figure 8. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains Figure 8.85: Stress paths for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing Figure 7.3: Arrival time from the interpretation of the bender element signals for Test 7gUE at the in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method Figure 8.

19: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 11gUC (a) frequency method (b) first arrival method for Ghv (c) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method Figure 8.17: Stiffness degradation curves for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE sheared to failure Figure 8.26: Radial compression and extension probes for samples from SubUnit B2(c).5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains Figure 8.24: Axial compression probes on Sample 11gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.5gUC (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method Figure 8.5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains Figure 8.27: Probes at constant p’ on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) shear modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.23: Linear elastic behaviour in an axial compression probe on Sample 12.Figure 8.30: Hysteretic behaviour in a cyclic probe on Sample 12.16: Y2 and Y1 surfaces for Unit C (a) plane of stress increments (b) plane of absolute stresses showing the approach stress path Figure 8.28: Constant q probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.25: Axial compression and extension probes on Sample 12.29: Constant q probe on Sample 12.5gUC replotted as an undrained test (a) change of pore water pressure at the mid-height during the probe (b) stress-strain curve Figure 8.22: Creep rates for Samples 11gUC and 12.18: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) Figure 8.31: Monotonic loadings for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) xxvi .21: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure with temperature during the day for samples from Sub-unit B2(c) Figure 8. radial strains plotted against (a) radial stress and (b) axial strain Figure 8.5gUC (a)stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains Figure 8.20: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 12.5gUC in the 24 hours before probing Figure 8.

49: Monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) xxvii .Figure 8.38: Consolidation stress paths for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and stress states for the bender element tests Figure 8.33: Y2 yield point for Sample 12.45: Axial compression probes for Sample 24g37DC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.44: Axial compression and extension probes on Samples 22.46: Radial compression probes for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.32: Y1 yield points for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress space (b) strain space Figure 8.6gUC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.6gUC and 23gUE (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.37: Stiffness degradation for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) sheared from their in situ stress state Figure 8.35: Y2 yield points for Samples 11gkUC and 11gDE Figure 8.42: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure during the day and periods chosen for the static probes Figure 8.47: Constant p' probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.48: Constant q probe on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B (a) bulk 2(a) modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.40: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 23gUE at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.5gUC Figure 8.39: Interpretation of the bender element signals for Sample 22.41: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Samples 24g37DC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.34: Y2 yield point for Sample 11gUC Figure 8.36: Y surface for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress increment space (b) absolute 2 stress space showing approach stress path Figure 8.43: Creep strain rates for samples from Sub-unit B2(a) in the 24 hours before probing Figure 8.

63: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.54: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared from the in situ stress state Figure 8.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain Figure 8.53: Y2 surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress increment lane (b) absolute stress plane showing approach stress path Figure 8.52: Y2 yield points for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared undrained Figure 8.Figure 8.3gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods Figure 8.55: Approach stress paths for samples from Unit A3 and stress states for the bender element tests Figure 8.4gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods Figure 8.62: Axial compression probes on Sample 24g37DC consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 in comparison with the axial compression probe on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and Sample 31.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains xxviii .50: Elastic surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress plane (b) strain plane Figure 8.3gUE (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain Figure 8.57: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.51: Y2 yield points for drained loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 8.59: Changes of pore water pressure at the mid-height with tme for the i samples from Unit A3 Figure 8.5gDC at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods Figure 8.61: Axial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 31.56: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.60: Creep rates for samples from Unit A in the 24 hours before starting 3 the static probes Figure 8.58: Interpretation methods for the bender element signals on Sample 31.

74: Comparison between the stiffness degradation curves of samples from Units A3 and B2(a) Figure 8.80: Change of shear moduli Ghv and Gvh at high stresses Figure 8.70: Y1 yield points for samples from Unit A3 and samples from SubUnit B consolidated to the in situ stress of Unit A (a) stress space (b) strain 2(a) 3 space Figure 8.Figure 8.64: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.73: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Unit A3 Figure 8.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.67: Constant q probes for Samples 36.76: Variation with depth of Young's moduli in vertical and horizontal directions Figure 8.71: Y2 yield points for samples loaded from the in situ stress state of Unit A3 (a) undrained shearing (b) drained loading Figure 8.68: Monotonic loadings on samples consolidated to the in situ stress state for Unit A3 (a) undrained tests (b) drained tests Figure 8.66: Constant p' probes for Samples 36.75: Variation with depth of shear moduli in vertical and horizontal planes Figure 8.3gUE.81: Normalised relationship between shear moduli Ghh and stresses xxix . 31.4gUE.4gUE (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8. 24g37DC (a) equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.77: Variation of Poisson's ratios with depth Figure 8.3gUE and 31.4gUE and 24g37DC from Sub-unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and 3 axial strains Figure 8.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Samples 31.79: Change of shear modulus with effective stress (a) Ghh (b) Ghv Figure 8.69: Strain rate effects on the stress-strain behaviour of drained samples Figure 8.65: Comparison between the radial compression on Sample 36.72: Y2 surface for samples from Unit A3 and samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress for Unit A3 (a) relative stress space (b) absolute stress space and approach stress path Figure 8.78: Variation of shear and Young’s moduli ratios with depth Figure 8.

89: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit A3 and from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 Figure 8.90: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from different lithological units Figure 8.4: Shear stiffness for the probes on Sample 17SH Figure 9.87: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit C Figure 8.2: Strain rates for Sample 17SH (a) creep strains before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes Figure 9.3SH Figure 9.84: Y2 yield locus for different lithological units Figure 8.86: Normalised Y2 yield locus for samples from different lithological units Figure 8.6: Strain r ates for the short approach stress paths of Sample 17.9: Approach stress paths above Y2 and shear probes for Sample 17.7: Stress-strain curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.3: Stress-strain curves for the probes on Sample 17SH after a short approach path Figure 9.2SH Figure 9.8: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.Figure 8.91: Bender element signal through a sheared sample (a) horizontal polarisation and horizontal propagation (b) vertical polarisation and horizontal propagation Figure 9.3SH Figure 9.83: Normalised Y1 yield locus for different lithological units Figure 8.85: Contours of the kinematic regions and approach stress paths for different lithological units Figure 8.3SH xxx .3SH (a) creep rates before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes Figure 9.88: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit B2 (a) Sub-Unit B2(c) (b) Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 8.82: Y1 yield locus for different lithological units (a) stress space (b) strain space Figure 8.1: Approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17SH Figure 9.5: Short approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17.

2: ko profile derived from suction measurements on thin-walled samples (Hight et al.13: Yield points for the linear elastic region of samples subjected to short approach stress paths Figure 9.3SH subjected to a long stress path (a) creep strain rates before probes (b) strain rates during the probes Figure 9.5: Approach stress paths to the in situ stress states (a) long path for “25m” and “37m” depths ((b) short path for “25m” and “37m” depths (c) path for “7m” and “10m” depths (d) path of Test 24G37DC.18: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.3SH and the 2 contour of Y2 for Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 9.3SH and normalized contour of the Y region for the other lithological 2 units Figure A5.3SH after long approach stress path Figure 9.12: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes on Sample 17.11: Stress-strain curves for the shear probes on Sample 17.6: Shear wave signal and first arrival time xxxi .3SH subjected to long 2 approach stress path Figure 9.15: Yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH after a long stress path Figure 9.17: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17SH Figure 9. Figure A5.20: Y yield points for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.19: Y Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.3SH where the creep was not allowed Figure 9.3SH and normalized contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 9.3: Schematic geological stress history of London Clay at T5 Figure A5.10: Strain rates for Sample 17.16: Normalized yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17. Figure A5.3SH subjected to a long approach stress path Figure 9.14: Yield point for the linear elastic region of Sample 17.3SH and the contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 9. shifted stress paths and in situ stress points for the three reference depths.21: Normalized yield of the Y2 region for the probes on samples 17SH and 17.1: Sketch of the geometry of the site Figure A5.Figure 9. 2003) Figure A5.4: Geological stress paths.

7: Arrival time determined with the frequency method Figure A5.8: Comparison between the arrival times determined with the first arrival and the frequency method xxxii .Figure A5.

LIST OF SYMBOLS α γ γd γw γs Γ∗ δ δe Angle of the shear plane to the horizontal Bulk unit weight Dry bulk unit weight Unit weight of water Unit weight of soil grains Specific volume on the intrinsic critical state line Axial strain due to the movement along the shear plane Final axial strain due to the movement along the shear plane Axial displacements Axial displacement at the time of the shear plane formation Axial displacement at the end of the test Axial strain Critical strain of the Y2 surface Strains at the end of the test Strain at which the shear plane forms Radial strain Volumetric strain Gradient of the NCL* in the v-logp’ plane Shear wave length Poisson’s ratio for horizontal strains due to horizontal strains Poisson’s ratio for vertical strains due to horizontal strains Poisson’s ratio for horizontal strains due to vertical strains Total mass density of the soil Axial stress Equivalent pressure Radial stress Preconsolidation stress Vertical effective stresses Lower limit of gross yield stress (Casagrande construction) ∆h ∆ hf ∆ hp εa ε crit εe εf εr εv λ λs ν hh ν vh ν hv ρ σa σ∗ e σr σ’? p σ’v σ’? y xxxiii .

τxy Upper limit of gross yield stress Shear stresses Angle of shearing resistance of the soil Cross sectional area Initial cross sectional area Ratio corresponding to the removal of the deviatoric stress Coefficient of saturation Cohesion intercept Intrinsic compression index Intact compression index Intrinsic swelling index Intact swelling index Swelling sensitivity Critical State Framework Critical State Line Distance between the bender element plates Sample diameter Sample diameter at the time of the shear plane formation Voids ratio Voids ratio on the intrinsic curve Voids ratio on the ICL for 100kPa vertical pressure Voids ratio on the ICL for 1000kPa vertical pressure Normalised voids ratio. e-e* Young modulus in the vertical direction Young modulus in the horizontal direction Shear wave frequency Unit friction between the soil sample and the membrane Deviatoric force Specific gravity of the grains Equivalent elastic shear modulus Elastic shear modulus Shear moduli in the vertical plane Shear modulus in horizontal plane φ’ A Ao As B c’ C* c Cc C* s Cs C* s/Cs CSF CSL d D Df e e* e100 e1000 en Ev Eh f fm Fa Gs Geq Gmax Gvh and Ghv : Ghh xxxiv .σ’? yu τyz. τzx.

I ICL Ho IsSR ISuL Ip Iv Jqp Jpq K k L LBS LL mv M (Chapter 5 only) Illite Intrinsic Compression Line Initial height of the sample In situ stress ratio Intrinsic strength line Plasticity index Void Index Coupling moduli Bulk modulus σ’a/σ’r Travel length of the shear wave Local Boundary Surface Liquid limit Coefficient of oedometric compressibility Extension modulus of the rubber membrane Stress ratio q/p’ at critical state Specific volume on the NCL* for p’=1kPa Normal compression line Intrinsic normal compression line Number of wave cycles Overconsolidation ratio Mean effective stress p’ on the isotropic intrinsic compression line at the same v Mean effective stress at gross yield in isotropic compression p’ on the isotropic NCL for the v at gross yield Mean effective stress at gross yield in ko compression Initial suction Isotropic preconsolidation pressure Plastic limit Quartz (σ’a+σ’r)/2 M N * NCL NCL* Rd = D λ /2 OCR=σ’? /σ’v p p’ p*e p’yi p*yi p’koiy pk pp PL qtz s’ xxxv .

t S SBS SBS* SCC SCL Shv. Y2 and Y3 (σa-σr)/2 Smectite State Boundary Surface Intrinsic State Boundary Surface Sedimentation Compression Curve Sedimentation Compression Line Shear waves in different directions Swell sensitivity Strenght Sensitivity Stress Sensitivity Undrained strength Intrinsic undrained strength Arrival time Velocity of the shear wave Specific volume Initial specific volume Final specific volume Initial volume of the sample Yield stress ratio Yield kinematic surfaces xxxvi . Svh Ss=C* s/Cs St Su/S* u=St Sσ=σ’y /σ∗ e Su S* u tarr vs v vi vf Vo YSR=σ’? /σ’? y v Y1 .

1997. non-uniform clays. (2003) and Standing & Burland (1999) demonstrated that the lithology of 1 .1 INTRODUCTION 1. James Park during the construction of the Jubilee line extension highlighted a local need to revise the general properties of the material that engineers in London deal with. non-linear and anisotropic models (Stallebrass & Taylor. King (1981) identified different lithological units for this clay and Hight et al. Jardine 1992) also revealed the importance of obtaining high quality experimental data. Studying London Clay has therefore a general interest for the better understanding of a class of clays.. stiffness and destructuration processes. and investigating the small strain behaviour of the materials.2 Objectives This research has aimed at finding a framework for the London Clay relating the engineering properties of this material to its geological features. The successful modelling of ground movements using small strain. Recent events. New findings about the geology of London Clay (King. which is similar to other such clays in term of strength response. for which a common model for behaviour could be desired. The structure of the clay and its geological history have been correlated through the mechanical response of the soil at both large and small strains. 1981) highlighted the importance of investigating the relationship between geology and engineering behaviour for stratified materials. 1. Simpson 1992.1 Background of the research London Clay is an example of a stiff sedimentary clay. such as the Heathrow tunnel collapse in 1994 and the poorly predicted ground movements at St. that is stiff.

3 Structure of the thesis The thesis consists of ten chapters. Following this introductory section (Chapter 1). Further investigation of the stiffness of the clay led also to a study of the effects of recent stress history on the soil behaviour. even at the shallowest depths. In this chapter. Following these works. could be expected to be applied to similar stiff clays that present lithological variability due to their geological history. considering the influence that structure.London Clay influences its mechanical response. an investigation of the effects of weathering on the sample behaviour was intended. in this research. Chapter 2 presents a literature review of the influence of factors such as structure. an investigation on the lithological characteristics of the clay has been conducted with the support of geological analysis (Mannion. but the lithological analysis of the clay demonstrated that there was no evidence of weathering on the samples from this site. have also been analysed. 1. The investigation on the small strain behaviour of the clay has been conducted by using dynamic and static probes that allowed an analysis of the anisotropy of the clay and the investigation of the kinematic yield surfaces. High quality rotary core and block samples were used from different depths within the London Clay stratum. although the compression stresses were limited by the apparatus used. The processes that induce destructuration of the natural material. based on data from the large and the small strain analyses. and in its reconstituted state to highlight the influence of structure for the natural material. The framework developed. the basic definition of structured materials and the 2 . Initially. fissures and lithology have on the soil response. The clay has been tested in its intact state. weathering and fissures on the behaviour of clays at large and small strains. 2004) and the relationship between lithology and the engineering response of the clay has been investigated in terms of stiffness and strength. such as compression/swelling to very high or very low stresses.

the interpretation methods and the corrections a pplied to the raw data are also included in this chapter. are presented in Chapter 5. In Chapter 4. Details of the data analyses. A separate review on the behaviour of London Clay is presented in Chapter 3. The data are compared with the literature and with the data available from the site investigation at the site where the samples were retrieved. Finally.1 illustrates the calculations for the consolidation procedures and Appendix 5. considering natural and reconstituted samples. The test procedures. Chapter 10 gives a summary of the conclusion obtained in the research. from sampling to testing. Chapter 9 discusses the effects of recent stress history on the soil behaviour from a specific testing programme defined for this study. Both the compression and large strain shearing behaviour of the clay is discussed in this chapter.2 shows details of the small strain procedures and their interpretation. 3 . Chapter 6 describes the soil used.processes of destructuration are discussed in detail. The elastic parameters and the yield surfaces of the soil are identified from tests performed on samples consolidated to their in situ stress states. the apparatus used for the research are described. The analysis of the clay behaviour at small strains is presented in Chapter 8. the index properties of the samples tested and the analysis of their microstructure and mineralogy. In Chapter 7 the analysis and discussion for the large strain data from the laboratory testing are presented. with details of the instrumentation used. where both the classical studies and the latest findings of the geological and mechanical features of this soil are considered. Two appendixes to Chapter 5 describe the details of specific calculations and analyses. Appendix 5. The current state of research on soil behaviour at small strains is also analysed.

with close packed particles due to a net negative force during deposition. They identify a flocculated fabric. Fabric includes inhomogeneities. which are summarised in Figure 2.1. a dispersed fabric.1 Fabric Sides and Barden (1970) provided a classification of fundamental fabrics. connect the particles. characterized by a net attractive electrical force between the particles. 1969). Bonding is the combination of forces acting to Clay particles are very small and interact in complex way. so clays are often regarded as continuum materials.. 1984). 1995). A clay particle is formed of a sequence of structural units constituted of minerals of hydrated layered silicates of aluminium and magnesium. 2. which have stable structures due to strong links between the units. which have a more or a less stable spacing depending on the strength of the links between the units. a turbostatic fabric. The orientation and distribution of these particles in a soil mass define the fabric of the clay (Lambe and Whitman. The flocculated fabric is distinguished by a 5 . the interparticle forces. which are not of a purely frictional nature (Lambe & Whitman. such as kaolinites. and smectite which has un-stable structure. and ‘bonding’. distribution of the soil particles and fissures (Coop et al. 1969). where edge to face contacts are present between domains and stacks with highly oriented particles.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2. 1985. as the basal links are provided by hydrated cations as shown in Figure 2. Blyth and De Freitas. illites and chlorite.1 Structure The term ‘structure’ will be used here to define the combination of ‘fabric’.1 (Veniale. The constituent layers and the links between them define different minerals.2. layering. the arrangement of the component particles.

temperature and organic content. reducing environment. implying the existence of a confined. This equilibrium develops during the geological life of the soil as a result of mineralogy. therefore. which are not of purely frictional nature.‘cardhouse’ fabric with a single particle arrangement. Van der Waal forces and viscous stresses within the absorbed water layer. Depositional and post-depositional processes contribute. which are parallel (Figure 2. Rapid deposition. as defined above.2 Bonding Bonding is defined as the combination of all the inter-particle forces. gives rise to a more orientated fabric. to the formation and the evolution of the soil structure. possibly with significant currents. which is consequently more compact (Burland 1990). Slow deposition in still water leads to an open fabric and O’Brien & Slatt (1990) showed that lamination indicates that deposition occurred in still conditions. The depositional conditions significantly affect the fabric of the sediment and the two most significant depositional factors are likely to be the rate of deposition and the stillness of the water. called domains. 2. all the factors acting to keep the soil particles together.2). electrostatic and magnetic interactions between crystals. ion concentration and water chemistry during deposition. Either externally induced variations of these factors or the development of chemical reactions within the sediments can cause substantial changes of both the fabric and the bonding of the clay with time. or ‘bookhouse’ with particles arranged in groups. The structure of clay.1. The fabric formed during deposition is termed ‘primary fabric’ and it can be modified by post-depositional phenomena. The presence of pyrite framboids is usually an indicator of anaerobic sulphide diagenesis developing in the early stages of consolidation. which can be considered as the result of all the processes that a soil has undergone during its geological history. They can be of electrostatic or electromagnetic nature. or. in general. is thus a physico-chemical equilibrium between the soil particles. 6 . osmotic pressure. with no-depositional mixing.

and so from both the fabric. which is the state that occurs in natural deposits. They distinguished an intact state of structure. and the interparticle contacts.1. The inherent or structural anisotropy arises from the structure of the soils.2. 1944). The remoulded state is obtained when sufficient mechanical energy is imparted to the clay mass to reduce its strength to a minimum. The mineralogy of the clay.4 Destructuration The definition of structure given above coincides with what Leroueil et al. 1984). 2. a destructured state. It refers strictly to natural soils. The particle deposition and compression occur under gravity and hence are directionally dependent. This strain-induced anisotropy can be distinguished from the “stress induced” anisotropy. which results solely from the anisotropy of the current stress condition and is independent of the strain and stress history of the material.3 Anisotropy and post-depositional processes define the conditions of Depositional equilibrium of the particles and contacts and therefore govern the soil response to subsequent changes in stresses and strains.. (1984) called the ‘intact state’ of structure. The resedimented state is achieved by the deposition of clay particles originally remoulded and remixed to a slurry and then consolidated under the self-weight of a soil column of increasing thickness (Leroueil et al.1. regarded structure as a more general concept that concerns the particular state in which the clayey soils can be encountered or produced. the 7 . as in laminated and bedded soils. This determines differences in the soil response depending on the direction of the application of the stress changes. Leroueil et al. although it might also be expected to exist in reconstituted soils that have undergone an anisotropic plastic strain history. a remoulded state and a resedimented state. Particle arrangement and contacts are therefore anisotropic. as a consequence of geological processes. The destructured state is that of an intact clay subjected to large strains that destroy its original structure. The anisotropy arising from the geological history of the soil is regarded as “inherent anisotropy” (Casagrande & Carrillo.

but it will be comprised of a fabric and bonding that are “stable”. whose structure develops during and after deposition as a result solely of one-dimensional compression and clays with a ‘post-sedimentation structure’. in any state it is. A ‘destructurated state’ will be assumed to be the state of a ‘reconstituted soil’ that has been mixed at a water content equal to or greater than the liquid limit. 2000) clays may be divided into clays with a ‘sedimentation structure’. Fearon & Coop (2000) found that this remoulding process removed the macro-fabric of clays. whose structure develops when geological processes alter the sedimentation structure of the soil after normal consolidation. 1990). will be considered as a reference to define the degree of structure of a natural material. In a reconstituted state. since they refer to the basic or inherent properties of the clay. without air or oven drying and has been consolidated under one-dimensional conditions (Burland. 8 . which corresponds to the degree of enhanced strength. can be considered to have a ‘structure’. Baudet & Stallebrass 2004). which the natural material may reach (Figure 2.5 Sedimentation and post-sedimentation structure Following Cotecchia (1996) and Cotecchia & Chandler (1997. but not necessarily all elements of its micro-fabric. the clay will still have a structure. any soil. which depends on its sedimentation process. In the following discussions. 2.3). Burland (1990) therefore defined the properties of a reconstituted soil as ‘intrinsic’. (1984) proposes that the characteristics of a soil are consequences of the processes the soil has undergone. 1996.chemistry and the deposition and consolidation conditions influence the characteristics of the resedimented state.1. and therefore. The concept of ‘state of structure’ introduced by Leroueil et al. as they do not change with disturbance (Cotecchia. Leroueil & Vaughan (1990) defined “structure permitted space” as being the stresses above those defined by the reconstituted normal compression line. the symbol * will refer to the intrinsic properties of materials. In this research. which results from the natural geological history of the soil. The ‘reconstituted state’ as the state of a fully ‘destructured material’. the term ‘structure’ will be used for clays in their ‘intact state’.

the term overconsolidation ratio OCR= σ’? /σ’v is reserved for the known geological history of the clay and p the term yield stress ratio. whose in situ stress.4a. When loaded at a geological rate. exhibit this type of structure.4a. which is reserved for the p true geological preconsolidation stress.6 Degree of structure The enhanced resistance of natural clays to compression is also reflected in shear strengths of the natural material that plot above the intrinsic State Boundary Surface (SBS) defined by the Critical State Framework (Smith et al. σ’? . the v gross yield stress σ’? and the preconsolidation stress σ’? coincide (σ’? =σ’? =σ’? ). as result of breakage of the structure of the soil. if the soil underwent other geological processes that created a stronger structure. in the plane of specific volume ‘v’ against mean effective stress p’. towards the point Z in Figure 1 2. describes the breakdown of the natural y v structure due to compression. ‘Post-sedimentation structure’ is typical of overconsolidated clays that have undergone such processes as erosion. Similarly. ageing or diagenesis altering their initial ‘sedimentation structure’. For these clays: σ’? >σ’? >σ’? and YSR>OCR.1. lies on or near the Sedimentation Compression Curve for the natural soil.4b). In loading from the in situ stress (point O in Figure 2. with continued development of structure. the compression curves of clays with a sedimentation structure move along the SCC for the natural soil. the compression curves follow a path that goes towards point Z2 in Fig. y p v p y As recommended by Burland (1990) the term gross yield stress σ’? . or yields at point Y. the compression curve moves towards the SCC and directly yields towards point Z3 if the post-sedimentation structure has been achieved solely by erosion. is used to y indicate the stress beyond which large volumetric changes occur and can be distinguished from the preconsolidation pressure σ’? . y p v 2. In these clays.2. 9 . Soft clays and stiff normally consolidated clays that have undergone diagenetic processes only while compressing to high stresses. above the SCC of the natural material. For higher loading rates. YSR=σ’?/σ’?. the in situ vertical stress.The ‘sedimentation structure’ is typical of normally or lightly overconsolidated clays.

Burland 1990). (1996) observed that the ratio of the normalised strength at the critical state (DE/DF in Figure 2. Schmertmann.5) could be useful in measuring the influence of structure. Cotecchia.1992.1 Normalising parameters Figure 2. The locations of the natural compression curve and the natural SBS in comparison to the locations of the normal compression line and SBS of the reconstituted material can be used as a measure of the influence of the structure on the sample behaviour. so that 10 . They highlighted also that the cohesion is a significant parameter of bonding and the ratio between the cohesion of the natural and reconstituted materials might also be used to evaluate the effect of structure. Terzaghi (1944) defined sensitivity St as the ratio between the undrained strength of undisturbed clay and the undrained strength of the remoulded clay at the same water content.6 shows the Sedimentation Compression Curves (SCC) derived by Skempton (1944) for a number of natural clays and plotted as relationship between the natural void ratio and the in situ vertical effective stress. though. 2. 1996). The sensitivity is generally regarded as the parameter embodying the differences of the microstructures of the natural and the remoulded clay (e. (1969) defined “swell sensitivity” Ss as the ratio of the intrinsic to the intact swelling indices C* s/Cs. 1985.2 Large strain behaviour 2. In comparing the cohesion. Calabresi & Scarpelli. which can also be used as indicator of structure.g. the compression behaviour of reconstituted material could be defined in a unique manner. by normalizing the sedimentation compression curves of reconstituted clays by using to the liquidity index. Burland et al. Skempton and Northey (1952) showed that.2. the curvature of the failure surface of the natural material at very small stresses should be taken into consideration. Rampello 1989.

The SCL of the natural soils lies above the ICL as result of the structure developed by the natural soils during the sedimentation process and the distance between the ICL and the SCL. In the normalised graph Iv -σ’v . is a measure of the acquired strength of the natural sediments with respect to the strength of the reconstituted clay. Burland (1990) fitted a regression line through the natural sedimentation compression curves determined by Skempton (1970). In Figure 2.a unique line emerged. and identified a unique Sedimentation Compression Line (SCL) (Figure 2.8 these sedimentation curves are plotted in the LI-σ’v plane together with the sensitivity values associated with each curve. The distance between the ICL and the SCL can be expressed by the ratio of the gross yield stress σ’? . resulting in sensitivities lower than 10. The SCL plotted in Figure 2.7).7 refers to a set of sedimentation compression curves that were derived by Skempton (1970) for clays of similar composition. to the “equivalent” pressure σ∗ e. while high sensitivity clays plot toward the upper bound. Clays on the same SCC have the same sensitivity and lower sensitivity clays are towards the lower bound of the band. with organic contents lower than 10% and carbonate contents lower than 25%. In the same normalised plane Iv -σ’v . 11 . These SCCs plotted very close to each other over a quite narrow band. the compression curves of reconstituted materials then plot on a unique line called the Intrinsic Compression Line (ICL).1) where e* 100 and e* 1000 are the intrinsic void ratios for one-dimensional compression corresponding to vertical effective stresses σ’v =100kPa and 1000kPa respectively and C* c is the intrinsic compression index. which is where the breakdown of the y natural structure occurs in compression. the Void Index Iv : * * e − e100 e − e100 Iv = * = * e100 − e1000 Cc* (2. called the “sedimentation sensitivity” (St). Burland (1990) introduced a normalizing parameter based on mechanical proprieties of the soil. which is the vertical effective stress on the ICL corresponding to the void ratio at the gross yield of the clay.

2) the State Boundary Surface of the natural material is then scaled up compared to the SBS of the corresponding reconstituted soil. given by Chandler (2000). For states on the right of the ICL (Figure 2.10) the equivalent strength is given by the structural resistance of the soil to the vertical stress 12 . They noticed that. 2000): Sσ=σ’y /σ∗ e (2. 1997. YSR were also defined geometrically.4) The ‘in situ stress ratio’. In this plane.10 and 2. if the Strength Sensitivity is defined by the equation: St =qpeak/q*peak (2. the Stress Sensitivity is the distance between the yield stress of the natural material and the vertical stress on the ICL at the same void ratio (Cotecchia & Chandler. In the plane of vertical effective stress against void index or void ratio.2.11 illustrate the basic definitions of the Sensitivity Framework. using data for the Pappadai clay.9).2 The Sensitivity Framework Cotecchia & Chandler (1997) developed the concept of ‘Strength Sensitivity’ introduced by Skempton (1970) and defined a framework for clay behaviour based on the sensitivity of clays. and the ‘yield stress ratio’.2. qpeak and q*peak.3) where Su is the undrained strength of the natural soil. considering the natural and reconstituted peak strength. The author defined the Intrinsic strength * line ISuL as a line plotted on a graph of I against the undrained strength S u of v the reconstituted material. an overconsolidated clay from the South of Italy. The strength sensitivity therefore represents the distance between the strength of the intact material and the intrinsic strength (Figure 2. Figures 2. IsSR. the Strength Sensitivity St was defined as: Su/S* u=St (2.

YSR (2.8) In terms of the state boundary surface Equations 2. σ* e>σ’e. 13 .9.11) S* u might be greater than Su.7): Su/S* u=St =Sσ . so that IsSR could have values less than unity.6) For clays having states lying to the left of the ICL.5) In the Sensitivity framework.Sσ . so that the strength sensitivity is proportional to the ratio of gross yield stress to the corresponding gross yield stress on the same clay reconstituted (Figure 2. and therefore: Su/S* u=St =IsSR. soils with same strength sensitivity followed same sedimentation curves.5 is also equal to the strength sensitivity. (Figure 2.12).(IsSR) together with the extra resistance required to load the sample to its yield stress: σ’y /σ* e= Sσ=IsSR.7) (2. whose position corresponds approximately to the sensitivity of the clay (Figure 2.IsSR (2. 2000) observed also that on a graph of Iv-σ’v.IsSR Rearranging (2. Cotecchia (1996).9): Sσ= p’iy /p*iy ~p’koiy /p*koiy =St (2. Equation 2.8 suggest that a geometric similarity exists between the SBS of the reconstituted and natural materials.YSR=Sσ (2. and Cotecchia & Chandler (1997.6 and 2.9) where the symbols are defined as in Figure 2. The equivalent strength has then to be factored up for the reduced in situ stress resulting from erosion: Su=S* u.

σ’y . due to the breakdown of the metastable elements. the influence of volume can be eliminated (Horvslev. 14 . as the strains increase after gross yield. the strength sensitivity S is no longer a constant value.14 shows the compression curves of Boom Clay.The SCLs of natural clays appeared to be approximately parallel to the reconstituted SCL. while the stable elements are likely to result from fabric. plotted on a unique curve with a constant size ratio relative to that of the corresponding reconstituted soil equal to St (Figure 2.2. has St =1. so that the yield stress σ’y is often not well defined (Burland et al. (1995) suggested that the meta-stable elements in structure are likely to be associated with bonding. or move along a line parallel to the ICL. 1937). The destructuration is a gradual process. but. Coop et al. and Sibari Clay. consolidated up to gross yield plotted and normalised for the volume by p*e. It has been observed that the t compression curve after yield can converge towards the ICL. Figure 2. with a meta-stable structure. which corresponds to the effective stress on the intrinsic compression curve at the same specific volume of the soil. Figure 2. Cs/C* s. which.13). by definition. 1996). Cotecchia (1996) found that the state boundary surface of natural Pappadai Clay samples. A soil can have both stable and meta-stable elements.3 Post yield behaviour After the gross yield. demonstrating a “meta-stable” structure that degrades with strains.14b also shows the swell sensitivity indices. with a more stable structure. so that after yielding the compression curve of the natural material can bend downwards towards the ICL. As a result of structural breakdown of Boom clay. as compression proceeds. but can then stabilise on a lne which is parallel to the ICL and above it due to the presence of i stable elements. Dividing the stresses by the equivalent pressure p*e. 2. structural breakdown starts to take place and the compression curves of natural materials tend to bend downwards. i.e. demonstrating the presence of “stable” elements of structure that do not degrade with strains. the swelling curves of the intact material tend to become parallel to the intrinsic swelling curve of the reconstituted soil.

They showed that. Baudet & Stallebrass. 1997. as for reconstituted clays. Vallericca clay). Cotecchia & Chandler (1997 and 2000) pointed out that the size of the current gross yield surface of natural soils is not controlled solely by the plastic volumetric strains.15). Analogous behaviour was found by Amorosi & Rampello. The Strength Sensitivity changes after yielding with increasing strains due to the progression of structure breakdown. lies below that of the clay compressed to states below the gross yield (Figure 2. The nonunique state boundary surface in the plane q/p* e-p’/p* e is related to the inability of the equivalent pressure to describe changes in the mechanical behaviour of a structured clay induced by the “destructuration strains” that is the plastic strains that developed during compression and shearing (Cotecchia & Chandler. 2000. Callisto & Rampello (2004) proposed to normalize the mean and deviatoric * stresses by a parameter that is similar to the equivalent intrinsic pressure p e. Jardine & Smith (1991) found that the ko consolidation beyond yield reduces the normalised compression strength of Bothkennar clay and Cotecchia (1996) showed that the normalised boundary surface of Pappadai Clay. but which also includes the effect of the progressive breakdown of the structure. and to evaluate the influence of the volumetric and deviatoric components of the “destructuration strains”. a unique SBS curve appeared. Sophisticated numerical models and normalizing parameters have been suggested (Kavvadas & Amorosi. as well as volume using p* e. as shown in Figure 2. (1984) highlighted the need of a more appropriate normalizing parameter that accounts for the progressive process of destructuration and Cotecchia & Chandler (1997) suggested to use the Strength Sensitivity St . 2004) to take into account the progression of the destructuration process as plastic strains develop. (e. when the SBS of Pappadai clay was normalised for the structure (St =p’iy /p*iy ).16. Amorosi & Rampello. 1998). the state of the soil destructurated 15 . In order to model the ‘post yield state’ of structured material Leroueil et al. compressed to a state above the gross yield.The structural breakdown after yielding modifies the normalised soil behaviour. Amorosi & Rampello (1998) suggested that for those soils that retain a “stable structure” after yield. but is controlled both by the volume change and by the change in strength sensitivity. (1998) testing Vallericca clay.g.

2004) and on the fabric of the soil. 16 . 2000). Kavvadas & Amorosi. Callisto (1996) showed that ko compression of Pisa clay. Baudet & Stallebrass. Kavvadas & Amorosi. These models have been shown to reproduce well the behaviour of normally consolidated soils. 1991. The breakdown of structure of the clay under the deviatoric strains involved in the k o compression is faster than that generated under isotropic conditions.17. as shown in Figure 2. a stiff clay. The influence of the two components of the destructuration strains is still the subject of debate in the literature.18). (2004) suggested that the plastic shear and volumetric strains are of equal importance in influencing the degradation of structure. implying a reduction of the normalised size of the State Boundary Surface of the clay. which do not require highpressure tests on natural samples to be performed. Most of the models for structured soils use different proportion of volumetric and shear strains in the destructuration law (e.under anisotropic compression should be taken as a reference for evaluating the influence of structure rather than the reconstituted state. a soft clay. 2. Amorosi (2004) found that Vallericca clay. 2000. Baudet & Stallebrass.g. Baudet & Stallebrass (2004) allowed stable and meta-stable elements of structure to be modelled considering the intrinsic proprieties of the soils. Jardine & Smith (1991) observed that isotropic compression of Bothkennar clay led to a more ductile response and a larger stress ratio than ko compression (Figure. The mechanism of destructuration depends on the direction of the stress path (Jardine & Smith. which can occur during both consolidation and shear stages.4 Anisotropic destructuration Destructuration is related to the cumulative volumetric and deviatoric plastic strains. where the deviatoric component of strains is much lower. created more damage to the structure than isotropic compression.2. the “destructuration strains”.2. destructured more during isotropic compression than during ko compression. but still are less well able to simulate the behaviour of heavily consolidated clays that form shear planes. The arrangement of the particles influences the capability of the soil to sustain better one or other component of the “destructuration strains”.

However. in the shear box.19a). Swelling did not show. suggesting a process of destructuration of the material. (2004) identified similar behaviour for natural London Clay. Calabresi & Scarpelli (1985) investigated the behaviour in compression and shearing of two Italian clays. They noticed that the compression curves of both clays showed that the yield stresses of the samples that had been swelled before re-compression were lower than the yield stresses of the intact samples.2.19b). Jardine et al. 26m and 37m.Tests on Vallericca clay (Amorosi & Rampello.5 Destructuration in swelling Leroueil & Vaughan (1990) pointed out that swelling might cause changes to the structure of some soils through disruption of interparticle bonding and yield. whereas swelled samples from 26m depth showed a slightly lower strength than intact samples (Figure 2.19c). 17 . similar to that induced by compression to very high pressures. 2. They tested samples from Heathrow from two depths. 1992) showed that the destructuration process is more significant in samples sheared drained than undrained. because during the drained stress paths plastic volumetric strains add to plastic deviatoric strains causing a faster progressive collapse of the natural structure under drained conditions. 1998) and Bothkennar clay (Smith et al. In the normalised stress-strain response there was no difference between the behaviour of intact samples and samples swelled before re-compression at 37m depth. the influence of this destructuration on the shearing stress paths was not very evident and the peak strengths of the samples swelled before compression plotted together with the peak strengths of the intact material (Figure 2. Todi clay and Ancona clay. however. a significant influence on the shearing behaviour of either clay and the normalised stress paths of the swelled samples plotted together with the normalised stress paths of the intact samples. The samples that were swelled before shearing showed that the swelling index increased with swelling (Figure 2. Takahashi et al.

In Lias clay and London Clay.20). with an increased presence of calcium and iron sulphates. (e.2. Bjerrum (1967) postulated that weathering was responsible for the destruction of diagenetic bonds developed during the geological history of clays and this was confirmed by Chandler (1972) for Lias clay. and observed that the depth affected by weathering depended on different factors.(2004) observed that the difference in lithological units influenced the behaviour in swelling of London Clay samples (see Chapter 3). although the change of fabric and the distribution of the fissures in the weathered stratum were more representative of the degree of weathering. and Cafaro & Cotecchia (2001) for Pappadai clay. Chandler & Apted (1988) for London Clay. He emphasised that loss of carbonate content and variation of the metallic elements were also indicative of the degree of weathering. turning to random domains the orientated domains of the fabric of the un-weathered clay. Cafaro & Cotecchia (2001) observed only small changes in the mineralogy of the clay. Weathering processes are often recognisable by colour changes of the clay at shallower depths.g. 2. Chandler & Apted (1988) noticed that London Clay did not show a significant change of mineralogy due to weathering. In both clays a particular feature of weathered zones was 18 . Chandler (1972) observed that the relative proportion of ferrous to ferric oxide can be used to identify the degree of oxidation. from blue-grey to brown in London Clay and from grey to yellow in Pappadai clay) due to oxidation processes that turn ferrous to ferric oxide. apart from the loss of carbonate content. which included the presence of overburden material. Chandler (1972) and Chandler & Apted (1988) identified four main zones of weathering. the ratio F O3 /FeO being e2 higher for clay strata subjected to higher oxidation. In the weathered stratum of Pappadai clay. but weathering modified the fabric of the clay. but the density of fissures increased dramatically in the weathered material (Figure 2.6 Effects of weathering Evidence of structural degradation has been found for clays subjected to weathering processes.

indicating destructuration due to weathering (Figure 2. The compression curves plotted in the v-logp’ plane show that the weathered clay underwent gross yield at lower stresses (Figure 2. 1964). Chandler (1972) and Chandler & Apted (1988) noticed that the swelling line through the in situ point of the weathered material intercepts an overburden pressure lower than the overburden pressure of the un-weathered material and concluded that weathering removed some influences of previous consolidation (Figure 2.23 and observed that the stress path changed with increasing degree of weathering. fragments of relatively un-weathered material set in a matrix of more weathered clay. while soils with high content of platy clay minerals show sliding shear behaviour. The State Boundary Surface of the weathered clay plotted above the intrinsic SBS of the reconstituted material. Vaughan et al. The water content was therefore assumed to be a fundamental parameter in the investigation of the effect of weathering on the mechanical behaviour of clays. 2. proposed the plasticity index Ip as a useful parameter to divide soils having turbulent or sliding behaviour. soils with lower proportion of platy clay minerals show turbulent shear behaviour.3 Large strain strength Based on Skempton work on residual strength (Skempton. Lupini et al. (1978). as shown in Figure 2. Chandler & Apted (1988) correlated the variation of water content with the variation of strength at different levels of weathered materials (Figure 2.24b) indicating weaker bonding and a lower Stress Sensitivity Sσ.22). Cafaro & Cotecchia (2001) found similar behaviour for samples of Pappadai clay. They interpreted the loss of strength of the weathered strata in terms of a reduction of cohesion intercept c’. These fragments retained a water content that was lower than the surrounding material. Based on an analysis of a range of British clays. but inside the SBS of the un-weathered material. Similar behaviour was observed in the Lias clay.24a). They 19 .the occurrence of ‘lithorelics’.21) and found that weathering increased the water content of London Clay by 4% above that expected if swelling only was involved. although the weathered clay still seemed to retain its structure in comparison with the reconstituted material (Figure 2.23a). (1981) introduced the idea that post-peak.

so their peak undrained stress is controlled by the initial stress before shearing and their shearing behaviour in a overconsolidated state is generally brittle (Figure 2. 2004). the localization of strains is thought to be the consequence of the strain softening. (2004) pointed out that.25). microstructure.27). but has no influence on the large strain strength.28). as these soils undergo turbulent shearing and their behaviour in an overconsolidated state is basically ductile. undergo sliding shearing.26. Jardine et al. Plastic clays. formative history. as this increases the peak strength of the material. Jardine et al. In stiff clays. as other parameters are also involved. Jardine et al. rate effects and fabric. several models have been suggested that account for yielding involving multiple kinematic surfaces 20 . (2004) highlighted that the engineering performance of clays is strongly influenced by their ductile or brittle behaviour and summarised the main factors that determine it. which is believed to be that remaining after breakage of interparticle bonds (Figure 2. The brittleness is thought to be due to the presence of bonding. such as stress history. Burland (1990) defined “post-rupture strength” as being the post-peak strength of stiff clays. in general terms the undrained strength of low plasticity clays is controlled by the water content. Burland et al. as reflected by the non-linearity of stiffness. and Sandroni (1977) observed that for London Clay the localization of strains coincided with a non-uniform distribution of the pore pressure (Figure 2. 2. In order to simulate this progressive process.observed that for soils with Ip <25% the shearing behaviour was prevalently turbulent. although there are many examples of soils that fail to respect this relationship. for soils with Ip >30% the shearing behaviour was sliding (Figure 2.4 Yielding behaviour The yielding of soils is a progressive process. (1996) observed that the postrupture strength envelope tends to lie close to the intrinsic Critical State Line of the reconstituted material. instead.

Jardine 1992). Y2 and Y3 .4. The magnitude of the strains measured when the Y1 surface is engaged. The strain rate marginally influences the linear region.29. the resolution of the strains did not allow a region of truly elastic behaviour to be resolved and Porovic & Jardine (1995) noticed that in some soils energy dissipation occurs as dynamic tests are performed. The maximum strains might range from about 0.(Al-Tabbaa & Muir Wood. and therefore move together with the stress point. with no movements occurring between them. although the effect of the increase is only about 10% per log strain rate increment (see Section 2. 2. 1992). Cuccovillo & Coop 1997. named Y1 . to around 0.006% for natural. Shear wave laboratory tests have demonstrated that soil behaviour may be 21 . In the past. 1989. but this limit can be much higher for well cemented materials. Simpson 1992. Stallebrass & Taylor.7). while Y3 is thought to remain comparatively immobile and is only affected by large strain events. Dynamic tests show strain thresholds larger than those measured in static tests. Within this region the strains are linearly dependent on the stresses applied and the load-unload stress paths are expected to coincide giving fully recoverable strains. He recognized three surfaces. while strain rates comparable with residual creep rates are thought to reduce the elastic response threshold (Jardine 1985. surrounding the stress state at which the soil is located. the particle contacts are therefore thought to be relatively unchanged. for reconstituted soils (Rolo 2003). consisting of defining three main zones of stress-strain response.002%. thus the behaviour might not always be fully recoverable. is very small. structured and lightly cemented materials (Jardine 1995. 1997. Rolo 2003). The soil mass is modelled as elastic particles linked by elastic contacts (Jardine 1992). which increases as the strain rate increases.1 Y1 surface This is the limit of the zone of linear elastic response. The multiple yield surfaces are sketched in Figure 2. Jardine (1992) proposed a general framework of soil behaviour. Y1 and Y2 are kinematic surfaces.

the ratio of plastic strain to total strain increases systematically preventing the hysteretic loop closing.2 Y2 surface This is the contour of a zone of non-linear stress-strain behaviour. Once Y2 is engaged. 1985. 2. Jardine (1992) attributed the loss of energy in the hysteretic loop to small-scale yielding and fretting at the inter-particle contacts. 1999). Georgiannou.04% for intact London Clay.03% for uncemented natural soils and around 0. Rolo (2003) observed that the elastic surface of Bothkennar clay at 6m depth is about 2kPa in diameter and it is eccentric with regard to the current effective stress. 2 Both clays and sands show a sharp change in the direction of the strain vector when reaching the Y2 surface (Smith et al. Values of ε crit of 0.anisotropic within the elastic region. 1992. subjected to normal and shear loading. Kuwano.. as shown in Figure 2. in sands. Kuwano (1999) found that. Jardine 2 (1985) assumed the critical strain ε crit to correspond to the larger value between the axial and radial strains..07% for cemented materials (Jardine. 0. 1992. Simpson et al. Georgiannou. 1998) showed that. which should be seen to close until the Y2 surface is reached..005% for reconstituted materials. 1988. Burland & Georgiannou (1991) and Puzrin & Burland (1998) developed energy-based empirical criteria for defining the small strain region corresponding 22 . Kuwano 1999).01% were reported for Magnus clay. where plastic strains are produced and the load-unload stress path reversal is hysteretic. the hysteresis loop fails to close as soon as the stress state passes Y as irreversible plastic strains develop.30 for Bothkennar clay. Studies on clays (Jardine 1992.4. Smith et al. (1979) also used a strain-based criterion to characterize the contour of the small strain region but defined it using generalised strain. 1992. In his strain-based criterion to delineate the boundary of the Y area. up to 0. which could provide a more uniform means to define the limit of the Y2 zone. although there is hysteresis in the Y2 region the behaviour is fully recoverable. 0. Smith et al. at a strain ε crit . Jardine (1995) therefore suggested that the limit of the fully recoverable zone could be mapped by sets of load-unload drained stress paths.

1987) and this limit is also defined as the Local Boundary Surface (LBS).∆ε r=∆U (2. They defined the incremental strain energy ∆U as: ∆σ’a. The limit of Zone III occurs at strains that increase with OCR (Hight et al.3 Y3 surface The zone within Y3 is defined as the area of irrecoverable plastic strains that become more significant approaching the limit of this area. He observed that undrained stress paths of reconstituted samples consolidated with different k ratios traced a series of “elastic boundaries” that undrained stress paths would not cross (Figure 2. Puzrin & Burland (1998) postulated that the boundary of Y2 was defined by a contour of constant incremental strain energy such that the work done by the increments of stresses to reach it along any stress path is constant.31). noticed 23 . which is defined by a sharp change in the stress-strain response.10) where ∆σ’a. The authors identified contours of constant incremental strain energy around the in situ stress state. It coincides with the boundary that Gens (1982) identified inside the State Boundary Surface (SBS). The Y3 surface is relatively immobile and its orientation is influenced by the isotropic or anisotropic nature of the soil.to Y2 .∆ε a+2∆σ’r. Burland & Georgiannou (1991) used values of incremental strain energy that assumed fixed energy values of zero at the in situ stress state and considered changes of strain energy for each stress path outgoing from the in situ state. Normally consolidated samples could move from one LBS to another by developing large volumetric strains along drained stress paths that were directed outside the current LBS. Leroueil & Vaughan (1990).4. In Zone III. and ∆σ’r. are the axial and radial stress increments and ∆ε a and ∆ε r are the axial and radial strain increments. which are scaled up compared to the values of the total strain energy but are similar to them in shape.. the soil particles are thought to slide relative to each other. 2.

g.0001% has demonstrated that in some soils it is possible to identify a region of purely elastic response. 2004).2.that for initially isotropic soils the yield surface was centred about the isotropic axis. the surface was centred about the k=σ’h /σ’v line. the stress path might be redirected inwards as it travels towards the intrinsic state (Baudet & Stallebrass. Studies presented by Simpson et al. In materials with a stable structure. Puzrin & Burland 1998). such as reconstituted clays. 24 . Inside this region. In soils with metastable structures. This highlighted the significance of studying soil behaviour at small strains. 1981) of the movements around excavations in London Clay indicated that the strains associated with undrained excavations and foundations in London Clay are generally very small. corresponding to Zone I defined by Jardine (1992).5. The Y3 surface can be interpreted by identifying changes in tangent stiffness and direction changes of effective stress paths in undrained tests and changes in strain increment direction for drained tests.1 Elastic parameters Resolving the strain measurements in the laboratory at strains as small as 0. For all normalisable soils an outer State Boundary Surface is defined in normalised stress space using the equivalent pressure p* e.5 Small strain behaviour Field measurements of the behaviour of geotechnical structures and the need for improving geotechnical design have highlighted the importance of accurately simulating the behaviour of soils at very small strains (e. as mentioned in Section 2.2. this surface could be reached by drained stress paths that will either stay on it or travel along it. but for anisotropically consolidated soils. (1979. the response of soil to static and dynamic loads can be predicted by applying Hooke’s law. 2. 2.

11 can be re-written for a cross-anisotropic material as:  1  E  h  − v hh  Eh − v  hv E = h   ⋅    ⋅   ⋅   − v hh Eh 1 Eh − v hv Eh ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ − v vh Ev − v vh Ev 1 Ev ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 Ghv ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 Gvh ⋅  ⋅   ⋅  δσ   xx   δσ yy   ⋅    • δσ zz    δτ  ⋅   yz  δτ   zx    δτ  ⋅   xy  1    Ghh  (2. Eh : Young modulus in the horizontal direction. 25 δε xx  δε   yy  δε zz  δγ   yz  δγ zx    δγ xy  . where the horizontal is considered as a plane of isotropy. ν vh : Poisson’s ratio for vertical strains due to horizontal strains. Equation 2. ν hh : Poisson’s ratio for horizontal strains due to horizontal strains.11) In soils the vertical direction of deposition and loading allow the identification of an axis of symmetry.12) where the parameters shown are defined as follows: Ev : Young modulus in the vertical direction.In a continuous solid material the stress increment ∆σ is related to strain increment ∆ε trough twenty-one elastic constants. Ghh : shear modulus in the horizontal plane. Considering Cartesian axes with the z axis vertical. which can be written in general terms as: δε xx   C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16  δσ xx  δε    δσ   yy  C 21 C 22 C23 C 24 C25 C 26   yy  δε zz   C31 C 32 C33 C 34 C35 C36  δσ zz  δγ  = C C C C C C  •  δτ   yz   41 42 43 44 45 46   yz  δγ zx  C 51 C 52 C53 C 54 C55 C 56   δτ zx       δτ  δγ xy  C 61 C 62 C63 C 64 C65 C 66   xy  (2. grouped in the “compliance matrix”. ν hv : Poisson’s ratio for horizontal strains due to vertical strains. and the hypothesis of ‘cross-anisotropy’ may therefore apply. Gvh =Ghv : shear moduli in the vertical plane.

and therefore: Ghh = Eh 2(1 + v hh ) (2.14) Thus only five independent parameters are required to describe a crossanisotropic elastic material: Ev . 1927).13) Ghh is dependent on Eh and ν hh because the horizontal plane is a plane of symmetry. Ghv and Equation 2. 2000): Ev 2 (1 − v hh ) − 2v vh ≥ 0 Eh (2. ν vh .These parameters are not all independent.15)  δτyz  ⋅    δτ   zx    ⋅  δτxy    2(1+vhh) Eh   ⋅ The thermodynamic requirements the strain energy has to be positive also imposes boundaries to the independent parameters (Lings et al. Thermodynamic rules require that for an elastic material the compliance matrix must be symmetric (Love. Eh . ν hh .16) 26 .12 becomes:     δεxx  δε    yy  δε   zz δγ  =   yz   δγzx     δγxy      1 Eh −vhh Eh −vvh Ev ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ −vhh Eh 1 Eh −vvh Ev ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ −vvh Ev −vvh Ev 1 Ev ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 Ghv ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 1 G vh ⋅    ⋅  δσ   'xx  δσyy ' ⋅    '  • δσzz (2. and therefore: vhv v vh = Eh E v (2.

Ideal undrained materials deform at constant volume and such materials must therefore lie on the line AB. h though. The bounds to the five independent parameters were shown graphically by Pickering (1970) in a 3 graph. so that ideal undrained materials are both uncoupled and incompressible.G hv ≤ Ev  E 2 E 2v vh (1 + vhh ) + 2 v (1 − v hh ) 2 1 − h vvh  Eh  Ev  (2. The ship’s bow shape represents the permitted space within which all the combinations of the drained elastic parameters plot. Eh . τzx. The five independent parameters can be measured in triaxial tests by choosing stress paths that allow simplification of Equation 2. can be reached from an infinite number of drained points within the space and therefore the mapping can only be performed from drained to undrained parameters. The line CD in this plane represents isotropic materials. Any set of drained parameters can be converted to a set of undrained parameters as all the points within the permitted space can be mapped onto the undrained line. shown in Figure 2. τxy can be applied to a cross-anisotropic material and the conditions of the triaxial cell impose that: dε xx =dε yy =dε r .32. The P -D oisson’s ratios are indicated with the symbol µ in the graph. The plane tangential to the bounding surface on the line AB represents all incompressible materials.18) Ev . In triaxial tests no shear stresses τyz. which undergo no distortional strain with isotropic loading. or volumetric strain with deviatoric loading. the plane ABC represents all uncoupled materials.15. The points on t e undrained line. so that incompressible elastic materials lie on line AB. dσ’xx =dσ’yy =dσ’r and dσ’zz=dσ’a 27 . In Figure 2.32. This line results from the intersection of the uncoupled and the incompressible planes. Ghv must also all be positive.17) − 1 ≤ v hh ≤ 1 (2.

Geq is the equivalent shear modulus and J is qp the coupling modulus linking changes in deviatoric stress to changes in volumetric strain. The plate on the other side of the sample. It was developed by Shirley & Hampton (1977) and consists of measuring the time taken for a shear wave to propagate through the sample.20) where K is the bulk modulus. detects the wave arrival and generates a small voltage that is displayed on a digital oscilloscope together with the wave sent. is excited by means of an applied voltage causing it to vibrate in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the plate. 28 . while Jpq is the coupling modulus linking changes in mean effective stress to changes in deviatoric strain (Lings et al. the transmitter. Two piezoceramic plates protrude into the soil specimen on opposite sides. 2000). and therefore Jqp =Jpq =J. producing a shear wave that propagates through the sample. and therefore 1/J=0. One plate.19) The variables can also be written in terms of triaxial parameters:  1 δε v   K  =  1 δε s    J pq  1  J qp  δp' ⋅ 1   δq    3Geq   (2. For an isotropic material there is also no coupling between distortional and volumetric behaviour. (a) Shear modulus The simplest method to measure the shear modulus at very small strains is the bender element technique. For a elastic n material the compliance matrix has to be symmetric.15 therefore simplifies to:  1 δε a   E v δε  =  − v  r   vh  Ev  − 2vhv  ' Ev  δσ a  ⋅ '  1 − v hh  δσ r  Eh   (2. The time difference between the sent wave and the received wave is used to calculate the velocity of the shear wave vs.Equation 2. the receiver.

Shear waves that propagate along the direction of the axis of symmetry can therefore measure stress-induced effects of anisotropy. the second referring to the direction of polarization or particle motion. The configuration of the triaxial apparatus however is axi-symmetric.33 shows a sketch of the possible configurations of the bender elements. having the horizontal plane as a plane of isotropy and anisotropy developing only in the vertical plane.21) where d is the distance between the plates and tarr is the arrival time. but that it is important to identify the kind of anisotropy studied and the limit to these measurements imposed by the configuration of the bender element system. and stress-induced anisotropy. Figure 2. which is related to the strain history of the soil that is geological or arising from consolidation. Jovicic & Coop (1998) pointed out that. The shear moduli are given a double suffix. The inherent anisotropy can only be separated from the stress-induced components in an isotropic stress condition.22) Depending on the orientation of the plates and on the direction of the shear wave propagation the shear modulus in different directions can be evaluated and therefore the anisotropy of Gmax within the soil measured. The elastic shear modulus Gmax in a defined direction is then calculated from: Gmax=ρvs2 where ρ is the total mass density of the soil.vs = d t arr (2. and when an anisotropic state of stresses is created a cross-anisotropic pattern of strains is created. in studying anisotropy. the first referring to the direction of propagation of the wave. The authors distinguished between inherent or strain-induced anisotropy. (2. but are unable to measure the strain-induced anisotropy in the sample. bender elements are a useful means. In investigating inherent anisotropy 29 . which results from the anisotropy of the current stress conditions.

Several interpretation methods have been proposed in the literature.the bender elements should therefore be mounted in the plane of isotropy (Jovicic & Coop. 1996). Using a sufficiently high frequency eradicates the near field effect and the arrival time can then be read on the oscilloscope and should not change with frequency. 1998). (i) First Arrival Method This method assumes a plane wave front and the absence of any reflected or refracted waves. It is more evident at low frequencies where it obscures the true arrival point. which makes the interpretation more difficult. (ii) Phase Velocity Method This consists of sending a continuous wave at different frequencies and analysing the point when the transmitted and the received waves are in phase and 30 . creating difficulties in the interpretation of the signal. The arrival time is estimated as the time between the start of a single shot pulse input to the transmitter element and the first deflection in the output signal from the receiving bender. but only the two methods used in this research will be reviewed here. Single shot square or sine waves can be used. The trace of the received signal is often characterized by an initial downward deflection called the “near field effect”. Commonly the bender elements are mounted in the top and bottom platens of specimens for convenience. Jovicic & Coop (1998) therefore trimmed their samples horizontally and vertically to investigate the inherent anisotropy of London Clay (b) Interpreting bender element signals The interpretation of the bender element signal represents the main difficulty of this technique. These methods gave good agreement and no further investigation of this topic was needed in this project. This results from the spreading of the wave front and coupling between waves that exhibit the same particle motion but propagate at different velocities (Jovicic et al.. because the square wave is composed of a spectrum of different frequencies. but Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) demonstrated that using a sine wave reduces the subjectivity in interpreting the signal. so it can be estimated from the average reading for a set of frequencies.

The frequency f and the travel time t are related to Rd by: Rd=D/λ=f. (c) Other elastic parameters Pennington et al. (2000) suggested methods of calculating the elastic parameters by combinations of dynamic and monotonic loading tests. This corresponds to identifying the maximum crosscorrelation between the signals recorded at two points in space.24 as the inverse of the slope of the line obtained by plotting Rd against frequency. In their work.20 and allowed determination of the independent elastic parameters. The number of wave cycles Rd may be written as: Rd=D/λ (2. Ev and ν vh were directly measured in probes at constant horizontal stress:  δσ '  Ev =  a   δε  '  a δσ r =0  δε  v vh = − r   δε   a  δσ 'r = 0 (2. Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) found that the travel length D is the main source of error in determining Gmax and concluded that D should be the distance between the tips of the bender elements.26) The other parameters can be derived from probes at constant vertical stress 31 . (1997) and Lings et al.23) where D is the travel length and λ is the wave length. Each half phase corresponds to a mode of vibration in the sample.25) (2. (1997) performed stress paths at constant σ’v and constant σ’h that allowed simplification of Equations 2. From Equation 2.19 and 2. making the hypothesis of a plane wave and in the absence of reflected and refracted waves.19.24) The arrival time can then be derived from Equation 2.t (2. Pennington et al.exactly 180o out of phase. a ‘three parameters’ calculation was adopted.

33) The formulation proposed above is valid for drained probes. δσ r' Eh = (1 − v hh )  δε r      δσ a' = 0     δσ a' =0 (2. but Lings (2001) also derived the elastic parameters from undrained probes and related them to those derived from drained probes. G and eq J to the five independent parameters: Geq = 3  1 + 2vvh 1 − v hh   + 4  E 2E h    v (2. (2.32) J= (2.27)  δε 2v hv = − a  δε (1 − v hh )  r (2. 32 .14. the bulk modulus K. allows Eh to be defined as: Eh = 4 Fh Ghh Fh + 2Ghh (2. the combination of Equations 2. where: Fh =Eh /(1-ν hh ). the equivalent shear modulus Geq and the coupling modulus J can be measured. (2000) also derived equations linking K.31) K= 1 1 − 4v vh 1 − v hh +2 Ev Eh 3  1 − vvh 1 − vhh 2  E − E  v h     (2.30) From probes at constant mean effective stress and constant deviatoric stress.29) and measuring Ghh with bender element tests.29 and 2.28) By introducing the parameter Fh . Lings et al.

Som (1968) noticed that the compressibility of samples in oedometer tests reduced following a rest period under constant load.34). He performed unconsolidated undrained tests starting from isotropic stress states and undrained tests on samples consolidated to their in situ stress state.2. (1990) carried out a set of stress probes on reconstituted samples of London Clay. The approach stress paths and the probes were about 90kPa in length. Atkinson et al. Costa Filho (1984) observed that for samples of London clay the stiffness depended on the consolidation stress path followed. The author noticed that in conditions of h axi-symmetry and for loading paths that remained inside the boundary surface. 33 . Inspired by these observations Atkinson et al. in particular the relative directions of the current and previous loading paths. two samples. which might have the form of a stress path direction change or an extended period of rest. The samples consolidated to their anisotropic in situ stress state showed a stiffer response than samples sheared from an isotropic stress state as the reversal in the direction of loading increased the stiffness of the material. The response was stiffer for samples having a higher angle of rotation from the previous stress path (Figure 2. This length seemed to the authors to be sufficient to observe a behaviour that was only influenced by the direction and not by the length of the stress path. (1990) and Stallebrass & Taylor (1997) observed that the stress-strain response of overconsolidated clays depends on their current state and on the loading history followed to reach that state. (1990) defined “recent stress history” as the current path load undertaken by the soil in relation to the previous stress path. loaded undrained in the same direction from the same stress point.2 Influence of recent stress history Atkinson et al.5. They performed probes at constant p’ in compression and extension and constant q in compression and swelling starting from isotropic stress states to which the samples had been taken by following different approach stress paths. Their stress probe programme is sketched in Figure 2. had different stress-strain responses if they had reached the stress point by following different stress paths.35. Atkinson (1973) observed that the stiffness in triaxial and plane strain tests increased as a consequence of a sudden change in the direction of t e stress path.

04%. Atkinson et al. the recent stress history assumes the meaning of a “recent strain history” and the lengths of the approach stress paths. However. as a result of the different consolidation paths followed. (1990) stated that the recent stress history should be included amongst the factors that influence the stress-strain response. For angles of rotation of +90o and –90o the stiffnesses plotted in between. which was assumed to 2 coincide with a critical shear strain ε crit =0. but changed in orientation. did not change in size. Only o the tests with an angle of rotation of 0 showed an apparently constant and lower initial stiffness. their results should be considered in terms of the degradation of stiffness for the range of strains they presented.5% strain where all the curves converged to a unique value.001%. The influence of the rotation angle was not distinguishable after 0.35 in terms of stiffnesses. In this sense. In this definition. Jardine (1992) performed a set of tests on London Clay starting from isotropic and anisotropic stress states and investigating the stiffness of the soil and the size of the kinematic surfaces. the length of the approach stress path and creep may play significant roles as they are directly associated with the stress path in terms of the strains involved. being the stiffest for 180o degree rotations and the least stiff for an angle of 0o . In particular Jardine compressed intact and reconstituted London Clay samples to 34 . The small strain stiffnesses depended on the angle of rotation. (1990) was only about 0. which are where the strains are developed by the sample. The authors characterised the recent stress history by the angle of rotation between the approach stress path and the current loading path. He noticed that the Y surface. The stiffness degradations are curved. become significant. The results of their tests are shown in Figure 2. which was long enough so that no volumetric strain changes could be measured. indicating an inelastic behaviour even at small strains. which was good at the time when the experiments were carried out. together with the current stress state and the overconsolidation ratio. whereas for other angles of rotation there seemed to be a degradation trend perhaps from similar initial values.Creep was allowed for only three hours before starting the probes. The resolution of the strain measured by Atkinson et al.

the influence of the recent stress history was erased.37) on natural samples including different angles of rotation of the approach stress path. The probes did not start from the same stress points and the samples were not taken back to the initial stress point. but followed long stress paths that moved away from the initial stress point. the approach stress path and the angle of rotation influenced the elastic parameters of the material and their degradation. Lings et al.1% strain the difference in stiffness reduced significantly and. Creep was allowed before each shear probe until axial and volumetric 35 . They performed two sets of tests (Figure 2. (2000) observed that in the heavily consolidated Gault Clay. CA and BA in Figure 2. The results were therefore normalised for the respective initial stresses. Creep was allowed before each probe started and the long stress paths included the development of large strains. at large strains. the undrained stiffness in compression. as shown in Figure 2. which. The author found that where there was no reloading stage. Jardine also observed that at 0. The degradation of values seems to depend on the angle of rotation.36. giving a Y2 e surface more elongated in the direction of compression than in extension.their initial in situ stress points following different stress paths. but. Clayton and Heymann (2001) performed a set of tests on Bothkennar clay as shown in Figure 2.38). but the length in term of stress was about 10kPa and the authors believed this stress path to be sufficiently long considering that for isotropic loading the state boundary surface of Bothkennar clay would have been at about 40kPa. by definition.01% strain was higher than the undrained stiffness in extension E at the same strain. Heavily reloaded samples were stiffer in extension than in compression at the same strain of 0.37. should be independent of recent stress history. The strains involved during the approach stress paths were not reported. Their undrained shear probes were about 9kPa in length and started from an initial isotropic state to which the sample had been consolidated following three different approach directions (DA. the angle of rotation seems also to influence the elastic values. before shearing to failure.01% and the Y surface was more elongated in the direction of 2 extension. Ec at 0.. The stiffnesses and the Poisson’s ratios are plotted against strains in Figure 2. surprisingly. in agreement with the observations of Atkinson et al.38.

because the compression path moved towards the failure line.38) used +90o and –90o angles of rotation from the approach stress paths DA and CA respectively.08%.38 and took the sample to failure. no difference in the stiffness curves from all the shear probes was noticed. Creep was allowed at the in situ stress points that were approached from the same direction in each probe. (1992) found the diameter of the Y2 surface of Bothkennar clay to be about 10kPa corresponding roughly to 0. this might have caused large strains to develop so that recent stress history effect might have been seen. The first two shear probes (AB in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2. They believed that creep might erase any memory of the approach stress path.02% axial strain.strain could no longer be measured. which kept the sample within Y2 .40 show sketches of the approach stress paths. For the Bothkannar clay. 36 For the London clay. However this was not the case for the approach stress paths used by Clayton & Heymann (2001). If the stress path had moved outside the Y2 surface. The stiffness at 10-3 % axial strain was the same for both cases but the degradation was faster in compression than in extension. The third shear probe used an angle of rotation of 180o from the approach stress path BA in Figure 2. Clayton & Heymann (2001) also performed shear probes in compression and extension on Bothkennar clay and London clay samples. It is possible that in the tests performed by Clayton & Heymann (2001) the approach stress path was not long enough in term of strains to see the effects of recent stress history. with a angle of n rotation of 0o . this might be an effect of recent stress history. Smith et al.38. However. while for the extension probe the rotation was 180o from the approach stress path direction. Figures 2. for . To the authors this result demonstrated that the recent stress history had no influence on the soil response if creep was allowed. for which k <1.39 and 2. The maximum axial strains reached during the two probes were about 0. the compression o probe moved in the same direction as the approach stress path. the probe directions and the test results for both clays. starting from their corresponding in situ stresses. even if it seemed sufficient in term of stresses. regardless the different approach stress paths. so that the time spent at constant stress became the recent stress history for the material.

The outgoing loading direction might therefore interact with the effects of recent stress history. the stress path rotation and the creep should therefore be isolated from other parameters that influence this response. the compression path rotated by 150o from the approach stress path direction and the extension path rotated by 30o . Clayton & Heymann (2001) concluded that. but the stiffness degradation was faster in extension than in compression as the compression path moved the soil away from the failure line. only the outgoing stress path was relevant to the soil response if creep was allowed.40. Jardine (1992) had already noticed that. Again. the presence of the failure line restrained the extension of Y2 . This made Clayton & Heymann (2001) conclude that only the outgoing stress path influenced the soil response.39 and 2. When loading from an anisotropic stress state soils show a stiffer response in the stress path that moves away from the failure line and Jardine (1992) noticed that the size of Zone II is restricted by the proximity of the Bounding Surface. In a truly linear elastic range. such as the outgoing stress path and the current stress state. however. the elastic stiffness of the soils should be expected to be independent of the angle of rotation from the approach stress path. it is not clear whether the rate of degradation was influenced also by the angle of rotation as well as by the outgoing direction. Rolo. from the tests performed. However. for Bothkennar clay. although the overall size of the Y2 surface did not change greatly. the rate of degradation was faster when the stress path moved towards the failure line. but in fact. confusing the real cause of the observed stress-strain response. Stallebrass & Taylor (1997) developed a model that allows the replication of the main features of soil behaviour by modelling elasto-plastic deformations with two nested kinematic hardening surfaces inside the 37 . In investigating the influence of the recent stress history on the stress-strain response. The two effects were not distinguishable and could have overlapped preventing any clear conclusion being made. the initial stiffness in both cases was the same. 2003) and both tests shown in Figures 2. the stiffness should be independent on the sign of loading (Kuwano.which ko >1. 1 999. since the initial stiffness of both Bothkennar clay and London clay did not change for the different stress path rotations. in both cases.

(1997) called the higher yield observed after ageing “ageing preconsolidation”. If the loading rate is high the reloading curve yields at higher stresses than on the curve for continuous loading. Vaughan. loading or compaction. showing a temporary overshoot. 2. (1998) observed that the soil response becomes stiffer as the ageing period increases. On an engineering scale.41.42. it might be associated in negative terms with destructuration. In the 38 . Tatsouka et al. If the loading rate after ageing is slow.conventional modified Cam-Clay model. Vaughan (1997) noticed that the response of Bothkennar clay in one dimensional compression was stiffer after ageing and suggested that the behaviour of soil after ageing is similar to that sketched in Figure 2. due to intrinsic physical and chemical processes or due to external processes such as desiccation. Lithification may consist of either an increase or decrease in the strength and stiffness of soils. Geologically. It consists of three types of behaviour. including lithification and weathering on both the geological timescale and on the civil engineering timescale. (1998) distinguished long term and short term ageing effects. This model extends the bubble model developed by Al-Tabbaa (1987) by introducing a second kinematic surface that takes into account the recent stress history of the soils. Tatsouka et al.6 Creep Creep may be defined as plastic strains that occur under constant effective stress and is one of the most important processes of ageing. They reported a number of tests on different soils investigating the effects of ageing (drained creep) in shear and defined a postageing stress-strain relationship as shown in Figure 2. In the first type the stress-strain curve after ageing re-joins the original primary loading relationship without exhibiting overshooting. the reloading curve yields on the curve for continuous loading. it incorporates diagenetic effects. earthquake. due to weathering associated with the exposure of soil after excavation or erosion.

Figure 2. In loose soils. The overshooting behaviour. 1998). When the undrained shear restarted a zone of high stiffness was seen before a clear yield was observed.second type the reloading stress-strain curve rejoins the original primary loading curve after having exhibited a temporary overshoot. with a noticeably larger peak strength than that obtained from the original primary loading. but the interaction of acceleration effects and particle crushing should be taken into account. The author attributed this difference to the lower strains developed by the Vallericca clay during ageing. The rate of loading used in the tests described above was quite high for both clays and some effects of undissipated or non-uniformly distributed pore water pressure might play a role in the stress-strain response. although in this case the effect on the subsequent stress-strain response seemed to be minor.. In the third case the stressstrain curve does not re-join the primary loading relationship and exhibits a persistent overshoot. but a lower shearing rate was also used for the natural samples of Vallericca clay. The effect of creep and 39 . observed in many soils after prolonged ageing..44 and aged until the creep axial strain rates became 3x10-5%/min and 1x10-4%/min respectively. The first set of samples was sheared undrained at a rate of 0.009%/min to anisotropic states A and B in Figure 2.43 shows two sets of tests on reconstituted samples of Fujinomori clay (Tatsouka et al. The samples were sheared undrained at a rate of 0. 1998). Mitchell (1960) defined this behaviour as “thixotropic hardening. such as clean sands. Similar tests were performed on natural samples of Vallericca clay (Figure 2.5.44. then allowed to creep for two days and re-sheared undrained to failure. no bonding is likely to form. As for the Fujinomori clay a high stiffness zone was noticed when the loading was restarted. has been attributed to structuration effects sometimes associated with the development of bonding. Tatsouka et al. The second set of samples was sheared undrained at the same rate to an anisotropic stress state corresponding to ko =0. The size of this zone was approximately proportional to the pressure level at which the specimen was aged.05%/min from an isotropic state to failure.

2%/min). as shown in Figure 2.46a where the stiffness variation is normalised with respect to the stiffness G at zero time. the stiffness increased up to 15% over about five days due to ageing phenomena. of low permeability. especially when the rate of reloading was reduced (Figure 2.45) plotted below the first shear stage. which was sheared at a fast rate (0. Sandroni (1977) highlighted the importance of pore pressure dissipation in natural soils that show localization of strains. while it was less evident as the confining pressure increased and in stages of unloading or reloading. The shearing was interrupted for 24h without allowing axial rebound and restarted at the same rate. as these control the pore pressure response. The stress-strain curve of the second stage (Figure 2.6. (1990) included the time spent at a constant stress before loading as a feature of recent stress history and Richardson (1998) pointed out 40 . 2. The effect of the stiffness o increases with time was higher at lower confining pressures and for first loading. Atkinson et al.44). He performed creep tests on a specimen of London Clay.the size of the high stiffness zone seemed smaller for the more permeable Metrano silty sand and also for a soft sedimentary sandstone tested by Santucci de Magistris (1998). (1998) suggest that for sands a re- structuration takes place due to rearrangement of the inter-particle contacts with time causing the stiffness to increase. Tatsuoka et al.1 Effects at small strains For very small strain stiffness the effect of ageing is thought to increase the shear modulus Go and the Young’s Modulus Eo measured in the course of continuous shearing where the structure is continuously changing. a low density. poorly graded carbonate sand. Jovicic & Coop (1997) noticed that in Dog’s Bay sand. The rate of change decreases with time (Figure 2.46b). The author attributed this to the equalization of pore pressure that would have occurred between the shear zone and the rest of the specimen during the 24h rest period.

the effect of the 41 . where the stress is uniquely defined by strain and strain rate (q=f(ε . whereas if the creep period is short the effect of the recent stress history becomes more important. (1998) presented a large number of tests on different soils showing that the deviatoric stress suddenly changes due to a step increase or decrease of strain rate.47 shows schematically the development of Y2 with the recent stress history. Jardine et al. and as the strains increase.that the creep adds to the effects of the stress path direction and can be investigated independently. 1998). The high stiffness region after creep therefore can be included in a more general framework of the effects of a loading rate change. Clays seem to follow an isotach model. as it can be thought of as the consequence of an increase of strain rate. The temporary over/undershooting effects increase with strain for granular materials and also became dominant for the stress-strain behaviour of clays at large strains (Jardine.50). dense Chuba Gravel and Hostun sand sheared drained or undrained.48-2. The overshooting effect noticed after creep has been observed also immediately after a step change in constant strain rate in the course of otherwise monotonic loading. 2004). After prolonged ageing or creep the size and the shape of the kinematic surfaces Y and Y become less dependent on the previous stress history (Jardine 1 2 1985. the stress-strain curve tends to converge towards a unique stress-strain relationship. Tatsuoka et al.dε /dt)). Figure 2.7 Strain rate effects The rate dependency in continuous shearing reflects the creep seen under constant load. Whereas the behaviour of granular materials seems to be dominated by a temporary effect of change in stress with strain rate.. independent of the strain rate. 1991. 2.. Figures 2. In Hostun sand (Figure 2. Y is thought 2 to re-centre around the current stress state when creep is allowed for a long time.50 show a few examples from tests on Vallericca clay. There seems to be a fundamental difference in behaviour between stiff clays and granular materials. Tatsuoka et al.

but the strains at the maximum were unaffected by the rate of shearing. especially for clays.strain rate on the stress-strain relationship was negligible for constant strain rates over a range of 500 times. The strain rates used to investigate strain rate dependency often seem to be quite high. but at faster shearing rates the undrained strength of the soil increased. The overshooting and undershooting behaviour disappeared with further straining and the stress-strain relationship rejoined that which was independent of the strain rate. and therefore undissipated or non-uniformly distributed pore pressures could affect the data.52 illustrates the effects of the strain rate on the Young’s modulus E of o Vallericca clay. He observed that the failure strains tended to decrease with increasing rate of shearing. From slow and medium rate shear tests on London Clay Sandroni (1977) noticed that up to the maximum pore pressure. where drainage and pore pressure distributions are less problematic. At very small strain rates there seems to be a strain rate dependency. the initial creep rate experienced by the sample as a result of the 42 . soft and stiff clays depend marginally on the strain rate. The author observed that the behaviour of the clay was influenced by the negative pore pressures generated on the shear plane. the behaviour of London Clay was insensitive to the rate of shearing. Figure 2. silty sand. Jardine (1992) pointed out that a soil that is still creeping at the end of a loading stage will display a strain rate effect. Cotecchia (1996) observed that for the compression behaviour of Pappadai Clay there was a threshold. Sandroni (1977) found that the measurements of the actual pore pressure became problematic at high rates of shearing and even the mid-height probe was not free from these effects. Figure 2. Overshooting and undershooting effects are more evident in sand or dense gravel. and at faster shearing rates the time for equalization of pore pressure was smaller. but this becomes smaller as the strain rate increases. even at very small strains. clean sands and gravel are insensitive to the strain rate and the small strain stiffnesses as of soft rock. above which the strain rate dependency became evident. In order to avoid confusing interactions. At very small strains the elastic stiffness seems to be hardly influenced by the strain rate.51 shows t e effect of the strain rate on the Young’s Moduli h for different materials. The small strain stiffnesses as of hard rock.

previous loading should therefore be negligible before starting a new loading stage. this tendency is mainly due to the different initial effective stress. which.54). Costa Filho (1984) showed that when the results were The normalised for the initial effective stress there was no longer any effect. was higher than the strength of 5” diameter specimens (Figure 2. Similar results have been shown by other authors for different clays. even if they are apparently closed and are thought to be responsible for the so-called ‘samplesize’ effect on strength measurements.5” and 5” (127mm).5” (38mm) diameter specimens (Figure 2. 2. Marsland & Butler (1967) carried out a test programme on Barton Clay specimens with diameters between 1. Fissures seem to increase the permeability of the material. in turn. although there is a tendency for the moduli of fissured soils measured using small specimens to be higher than those measured using large specimens.5” samples containing fissures. Bishop & Little (1967) observed that the strength envelope of London Clay from Wraysbury measured for 0. 1969).8 The influence of fissures Some materials have natural discontinuities. Marsland (1971) confirmed that for London Clay the Young’s modulus calculated for specimens of 38mm diameter was 30% higher than that calculated for specimens of 75mm diameter that were 10% higher than that of 125mm diameter specimens. 43 . A brief summary of the results from tests on fissured soils was presented by Costa Filho (1984).5” diameter and showed that the strength of these samples was higher than that of the 1.. but both open or closed cracks affected the elastic parameters of the soil mass. Skempton & Petley (1967) related the difference in strength to the lower effective strength parameters mobilized along the fissures.75” (19mm) diameter specimens plotted above that measured for 1.53). He pointed out that. which are often the result of stress release arising from some geological processes (Skempton et al. Walsh (1965) showed that the bulk modulus of a rock mass with closed cracks was the same as the bulk modulus of an intact mass. They selected “intact lumps” of 1.

author considered the normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress measured by Sandroni (1977) for London Clay samples and by Maguire (1975) for Lias clay (Tables 2.1 and 2.55). Webb (1964) showed that the stressstrain curves corresponding to an intact sample and to a sample that had sheared along a pre-existing fissure were coincident up to 1. but the maximum shear strengths of the two specimens were different. being higher for the intact sample (Figure 2.5% strain.2). 44 .

1: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on London Clay samples (Costa-Filho. data from Maguire 1975) 45 . 1984. 1984.2: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on Lias clay (Costa-Filho.Table 2. data from Sandroni 1977) Table 2.

1996) Figure 2. Cotecchia.1: Structure of the main clay units (Veniale.2: Classification of fabric (Sides & Barden. 1970) 47 .Figure 2. 1983.

3: Schematic diagram showing enhanced resistance of natural clays in compression e SC curves (Terzaghi. 1941) e SC curves (Terzaghi. 1941) Reconstituted clay Natural clay Reconstituted clay Natural clay O Y Y* Z2 Z1 Y* Y Z3 I*vy=I*vc I’vy=I’vc (a) Sedimentation structure I’v I*vy=I*vc I’vc I’vy I’v (b) Post-sedimentation structure Figure 2.v Natural clay Structure permitted space NCL * p’ Figure 2.4: Typical compression curves for (a) clays with sedimentation structure and (b) clays with post-sedimentation structure (Cotecchia & Chandler 1997) 48 .

5 Influence of structure: proposed normalising parameters Figure 2. 1970) 49 .6: Sedimentation compression curves for normally consolidated clays (Skempton.t/I*ve Iv/I*ve Figure 2.

Figure 2. 1990) 50 .7: The intrinsic and sedimentation compression lines (Burland.

Figure 2.8: (a) In situ states for normally consolidated clays (Skempton. 2000) 51 . 1970) and (b) interpretation of the data indicating sensitivity (Cotecchia and Chandler.

Figure 2.9: Geometrical definition of the strength sensitivity (Cotecchia & Chandler, 1997)

Figure 2.10: Stress and Strength Sensitivity relationships for clays having in situ states on the right of the ICL (Chandler 2000).

52

Figure 2.11: Stress and Strength Sensitivity relationships for clays having in situ states on the left of the ICL (Chandler 2000).

Figure 2.12: The Sensitivity framework (Cotecchia & Chandler 1997)

53

*
q/p*e

Figure 2.13: State boundary surface of reconstituted and undisturbed Pappadai clay consolidated to stresses before yield (Cotecchia, 1996)

54

(a) Sibari Clay

(b) Boom Clay Figure 2.14: Compression curves of (a) clay with a stable structure (Coop & Cotecchia, 1995) and (b) clay with a meta-stable structure (Burland, 1990)

55

q/p*e

(a)

(b)

a

a:Medium pressure drainedtests b:Medium pressure undrainedtests

(c)

Figure 2.15: Normalised SBS for samples compressed before and beyond gross yield: (a) Pappadai Clay (Cotecchia, 1996) (b) Bothkennar Clay (Jardine & Smith, 1991); (c) Valericca Clay (Amorosi & Rampello, 1998).

56

Figure 2.16: Unique SBS for Pappadai Clay normalised by structure (Cotecchia, 1996)

Figure 2.17: Isotropic and k0 compression for Pisa Clay (Baudet & Stallebrass, 2004, data from Callisto 1996)

57

(a)

(b) Figure 2.18: Destructuration of Bothkennar Clay (a) isotropic and k0 compression (b) shearing behaviour (Jardine & Smith, 1991)

58

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2.19: Behaviour of London Clay swelled to 1/6, 1/12, 1/16 the initial vertical effective stress (a) destructuration in one-dimensional swelling (b) normalised shear stress-horizontal displacement; (c) stress paths in constantheight direct shear box tests (Takahashi et al. 2005)

59

Average fissure area (cm)2
0 0 50 Head brown 5 5 100 150 0

0

Fissure intensity
10.000 Zone IV III II

(no/m3)
20.000

Zone I Depth (m) 10 grey 10

15

15

20

20

Figure 2.20: Fissuring in the London Clay (Chandler & Apted, 1988)

Figure 2.21: Variation of water content with different levels of weathered strata (Lias Clay, Chandler, 1972)

60

Figure 2.22: Idealised relationship between effective overburden pressure and water content during the geological history of an overconsolidated clay (Chandler, 1972)

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.23: Shear behaviour of London Clay samples at different levels of weathering (a) Undrained triaxial compression tests, (b) normalised stress paths (Chandler & Apted, 1988)

61

(a)

(b) Figure 2.24: Effects of weathering on Pappadai clay (a) Normalised state boundary surfaces of both the natural and the reconstituted samples (b) isotropic and one-dimensional compression behaviour of both the weathered (yellow) and the unweathered (grey) clay (Cafaro & Cotecchia, 2001)

62

1981) Figure 2.25: Effect of clay particles on the critical state friction angle and on the residual friction angle (Lupini et al.Figure 2.26: Idealised undrained shearing behaviour of overconsolidated clays with (a) low plasticity and (b) high plasticity (Jardine et al. 2004) 63 .

. 2004) 64 .Figure 2.27: Strength of stiff plastic clays (Jardine et al.

Figure 2.28: Localization of strains and pore pressure distribution in London Clay (Sandroni. 1977) 65 .

1992) 66 .Figure 2.29: Scheme of multiple yield surfaces (Jardine.

1992) 67 .30: Definition of Y2 for Bothkennar Clay from drained cyclic tests (Smith et al.Figure 2.

Figure 2. 1982) Figure 2.31: Normalised undrained stress paths for triaxial compression tests on Lower Cromer till samples comsolidated to different values of k (Gens. 1970) 68 .32: Bounds for the elastic parameters and planes and lines representing special types of materials (Pickering.

.Figure 2.33: Configuration for measurement of stiffness of a cross-anisotropic soil under axi-symmetric loading (Pennington et al.34: Effect of recent stress history on current stiffness (Atkinson et al. 1997) Figure 2. 1990) 69 .

.35: Stiffness response for tests for recent stress history of reconstituted London Clay (Atkinson et al. 1990) 70 .Figure 2.

36: Compression paths and small strain stiffnesses for natural and reconstituted London Clay samples (Jardine.Figure 2. 1992) 71 .

Figure 2.37: Stress probes and normalised elastic parameters for Gault clay (Lings et al. 2000) 72 .

(a) (b) Figure 2. 2001) 73 .38: Stress probes and stiffness degradation curves for Bothkennar clay (a) schematised stress path (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann.

2001) 74 .39: Stiffness degradation curves of a Bothkennar clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann.(a) (b) Figure 2.

(a) (b) Figure 2. 2001) 75 .40: Stiffness degradation curves of London clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann.

1998) 76 .41: Schematic behaviour in compression after ageing (Tatsuoka et al.Figure 2.. 1998) 1: b 2: b 3: b c : without overshooting before rejoining OR d: with temporary overshooting before rejoining OR e: with persistent overshooting and without rejoining OR Figure 2..42: Stress-strain curves after restarting loading at a constant strain rate (Tatsuoka et al.

Tatsuoka et al.Figure 2. 1998) 77 .43: Effect of undrained creep on the shearing behaviour of Fujinomori clay (Momoya. 1998.

1998) 78 .(a) (b) Figure 2. 1998 and Tatsuoka et al.44: Effects of drained creep on subsequent undrained shearing for undisturbed Vallericca clay and Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris.

Figure 2.45: Creep effect on fast rate shearing of undisturbed London Clay (Sandroni. 1977) 79 .

1998) 80 . 1998 and Tatsuoka et al.46: Influence of time on (a) the shear stiffness of carbonate sand samples (Jovicic & Coop. (b) small strain Young’s Modulus of Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris. 1997).(a) (b) Figure 2.

48: Effect of strain rate change on Chuba Gravel (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) 81 ..47: Development of kinematic yield surfaces with time (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) Figure 2.Figure 2.

50: Effect of strain rate change on Hostun Sand (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) 82 . 1998) Figure 2.Figure 2.49: Effect of strain rate change on Vallericca clay (Tatsuoka et al.

51: Effect of strain rate on the very small strain Young’s Modulus (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) 83 .Figure 2.

52: Stress-strain behaviour of Vallericca Clay at very small strains during (a) loading and (b) unloading at different rates (Tatsuoka et al.(a) (b) Figure 2. data from Santucci de Magistris. 1998. 1998) 84 .

1967) 85 .53: Strength envelopes on London Clay samples of different dimensions (Bishop.54: Strengths of samples of different diameters and samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures (Marsland & Butler. 1972) Figure 2.Figure 2.

Figure 2. 1964) 86 .55: Stress-strain behaviours of intact samples and samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Webb.

it will be assumed here that erosion 87 . focusing on the geological history of the London Basin in Southern England. an overview of the geological aspects of the London Clay will be presented for a better understanding of how this influences the mechanical behaviour of this soil. up to fine to medium sand grade are dispersed through most of the sandy beds. where the works carried out for the new Terminal 5 also made available a quantity of detailed information about the site. silty clay to very silty clay” (British Geological Survey. In this chapter. Most of the data about this site were reported by Hight et al. The details of the site where the samples were retrieved will be also described as observed from the site investigation carried out for the T5 project. forming marker horizons. 1991) traced the geological history of this soil as derived from a sequence of depositional strata. A very brief synthesis of his observations will be given here. (2003). It is believed that the formation of the London Clay is a sequence of deposition-erosion events. slightly calcareous.2 The London Clay formation “The London Clay is predominantly argillaceous and about 60% of the formation consists of thoroughly bioturbated. generally less than 125 microns in diameter. King (1981. 2004).3 LONDON CLAY 3.1 Introduction The samples of London Clay used in the present research were retrieved at Heathrow Airport. Glauconite grains are concentrated also in some of the more clayey beds. Glauconite grains. The sand and silty grains are of subangular quarz. but for simplicity. west of London. Beds of clayey silt grading to silty fine-grained sand increase in number and thickness from east to west. On the basis of the biostratigraphic characteristics of the London Clay. 3.

3 the Eocene stratigraphy of the London Clay in Southern Britain is presented. Western and Northern Belgium and Northern Germany. two areas of London Clay Formation are distinguished. 3. 88 . defining an area known as the Northern Sea Basin (Figure 3. In Southern England. The London Clay Formation lies above the Harwich Formation and underlies the Virginia Water Formation.2. Northern France. the first material to be deposited into the embryonic sea is called the Harwich Formation. a glauconitic sand that lies above a transgressional series of sands. The presence of phosphatic nodules. about 50 million years ago. England and Scotland (Figure 3.1). a bioturbated glauconitic sand with clay lamines and lenses. so that the geological history of the London Clay can be divided into depositional and post-deposition processes. distinguished the different geographical zones. mainly linked to sea level changes. which originally included a large part of Northern and NorthEastern Europe. silts and clays collectively known as the Lambeth Group. today present at some localities in the North-West Surrey and East Berkshire. The plate tectonics in the Northern Atlantic Sea in the late Palaeocene. Subsequent regional geological events. in the Early Eocene. glauconitic grains and intense bioturbation indicate that the Harwich Formation was deposited relatively slowly. In this basin. In both the Hampshire Basin and the London Basin. In Figure 3.1 Depositional processes: the London Basin and Hampshire Basin King (1981) showed evidence of common lithostratigraphic features over a large part of Northern Europe. which allows the identification of a common origin for the Northern Europe Basin. the Hampshire Basin and the London Basin.2).or other processes occurred in this soil after the deposition was completed. moving upwards. created the conditions for a sedimentary basin. the deposition of the London Clay started due to a sea level rise over part of Southern England up to the Welsh Massif.

(a) Lithological units Using a combination of biostratigraphy and lithological variation. The London Basin soil was deposited in a deeper water environment. The units are more easily identified in the Hampshire Basin and near the margins of the London Basin. King (1981) correlated the non-uniformities within the London Clay stratum to transgressive-regressive sea level cycles. although the regularity of the occurrence of the lithological units simplifies their identification throughout the depositional basins. from A to E (Figure 3. The soil of the Hampshire Basin. In both basins the thickness decreases westwards. 1991. Any fall of the sea level was marked by the deposition of coarser material. The author recognized five principal units. which are sub-divided into several members according to their bio-chemical characteristics. was deposited in a shallow marine environment. Figure 3. The total thickness of the London Clay Formation is between 50m and 150m in the London Basin and 50m and 130m in the Hampshire Basin. British Geological Survey.The London Clay was deposited in an environment where the sea level was rising. corresponding to cycles of sea level rise and fall. where all the sea level cycles are easily recognized by the coarsening upwards of the sequences. giving rise to different depositional sequences (stratigraphy) and features. King (1981) suggested a division of the London Clay formation into lithological units. The stratigraphy of the London Clay Formation has been found to be very consistent vertically and laterally and it is assumed therefore that continuous layers of similar characteristics persist along the thickness of the London Clay (King. close to the margin of the depositional basin. 2004).4 shows a sketch of the idealised depositional sequences of the London Clay Formation in the Hampshire Basin and in the London area linked to sea level variation. The high energy setting of this basin determined a varied stratigraphy. due to their high-energy environment. The variation of the sea level determined changes in the depositional environment. 89 . a low energy environment. more evident along the edges of the depositional basin. so that the stratigraphy of the deposited material is less evident than in the Hampshire Basin.5). where there was not enough time for the sediments to deposit completely before the next sea level rise.

A3(1) and A corresponding to the base and the top 3(2) parts of the layer. The upper part of the Harwich Formation was originally included in the London Clay Formation as Unit A1 . In most of the London area only the lower part of the sequence is preserved. where occasionally pebbles are recorded. is approximately 12m thick. such as in Southern Essex or Hampstead Heath in London (King.6. There are numerous partings and lenses of silt and fine sand. has an overall thickness of about 15m and it is divided into two sub-units. often referred to as a basal bed. Sandy clays and silty clays with diffuse boundaries alternate. The upper part. T Unit B The total thickness of Unit B is about 25m and two parts can be distinguished in it. from A to E can be recognised only in some areas of the London Basin. are recognized in 2 Unit A. It is non-calcareous. reflecting minor sea level changes. Units C and below. Clays from these units are considered in this research and a brief description of the characteristics of those units is given below. is now neglected and two parts. The Unit B1 is a 1m thick sandy clay layer and marks the boundary between Units A and B. Units A and A3 . A schematic description of the main lithological characteristics of these units is given in Figure 3. Unit A3. 90 . The base is characterised by a homogeneous and slightly calcareous silty clay layer. also supported by King (1981). 1981). Silt and sand partings become more common towards the top of the unit and impersistent thin claystone layers occur. The lowest unit. and has occasional wood fragments and pyrite nodules and contains no claystones. poorly sorted with a high percentage of silt. A2 . although this division. Unit A This is the deepest of the lithological units and lies above the Harwich Formation.The full sequence of the units.

1999. Unit B2 comprises silty clays with weak silt and sand partings and numerous claystones. 2005b) observed correlations between physical properties of the London Clay and its lithological units. micaceous and lignitic towards the top of the unit. This is an extremely gentle syncline and although there are some local faults. dips of more than 3o are rarely encountered.8 and the correlation between boreholes in the London Clay is shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3.On top of Unit B a glauconite rich layer marks the junction with the Unit B . Hight et al. Standing & Burland (1999. as measurements in different locations in the London Basin demonstrate (Standing & Burland. 2005a. Their informal division is related to the division of King (1981) as shown in Figure 3. The water content distribution with depth marks the sequence of the lithological units. There seems to be evidence that fault-blocks were created during the Alpine orogeny by the wave of energy developed in this process. The present study will be based only on King’s division. Unit C This unit is only occasionally present in the London Basin.. It is composed of a basal layer of homogeneous silty clay that becomes sandier. 1 2 indicating discontinuities in the sedimentation. 3. These blocks involve the whole thickness of the plates 91 .9. 2003). Sedimentary cycles are weakly discernible within Unit B2 .7 the water content distribution with depth is plotted for different sites in the London Area with the correspondent division into units.2.2 Post-depositional processes (a) Influence of the Alpine orogeny The Alpine orogeny compressed the subsiding London Platform and its sediment producing the eastward plunging syncline now identified as the London Basin. The British Geological Society (2004) proposed an informal division based on observations from different boreholes across the London Basin.

5m. and the structure of the clay becomes increasingly clear with depth. with a granulated or fragmented texture. where it changes to unweathered material (Hight et al. that took place in the Tertiary and Pleistocene epochs. and. Where the London Clay outcrops. They are thought to have slipped relatively to each other by a few metres. The erosion involved all the overlying deposits. 92 . (b) Erosion The erosion of a substantial thickness of the London Clay. Ground freezing even at large depths also occurred. there is usually little obvious evidence of weathering. (c) Weathering Weathering followed the erosion. The thickness of the clay affected by weathering varies between 3 and 6m depending on the lithology. led to mechanical overconsolidation of the clay. the upper 9m shows a brown colour due to oxidation with a thin transition zone above the bluegrey clay.. 1981). Below 3-4m. sub-vertical discontinuities and oxygenated groundwater converted ferrous to ferric oxide. Desiccation affected the near surface of the London Clay producing rough.. Where Terrace Gravels cover the clay. 2003). like in the Thames Valley. changing the colour of the clay from blue to brown. the effects of weathering are only limited to a very small stratum immediately below the base of the gravel. The clay seems softer and shattered but this physical weathering ceases abruptly at about 1m below the gravel. especially in the Thames Valley. 1961) to 300m in the Wraysbury district (Bishop et al. much of the London Clay itself. except for oxidation. 1965).and are believed each to have an area of about 10km2 . removed pyrite and dissolved any calcium carbonate cement. Along the Thames Valley late Quaternary gravel sheets deposited after erosion (King. The clay seems to be strongly weathered to a depth of 1. causing discontinuities in the London Clay layer. The amount of erosion has been estimated to range from about 150m in Essex (Skempton.

2005). but generally. (1959) classified the three principal types of discontinuities in London Clay as laminations.10 illustrates the particle size distribution of the London Clay Formation. Figure 3. and Figure 3. 93 . the fissures are randomly orientated and have an irregular area. illite. 3. The laminations are characterised by a thin parting of more silty material with. It is composed of poorly crystalline kaolinite. in some cases. The distribution and the orientation of the discontinuities are thought to reflect the structural bedding and the erosion history of the clay. backs and fissures. Wraysbury. Ward et al. Bishop et al. The fissures are “small fractures existing in clay and siltstone beds. Whitecliff Bay and Herne Bay. (1965) Ward et al. Greensand and Chalk and lateritic Eocene soils. (1969) to the above types of fissures.4 The Macrofabric London Clay is characterised by natural discontinuities whose engineering importance was emphasised by Ward et al.3 Mineralogy of the London Clay London clay comes from reworked soil from Jurassic shale. smectite and montmorillonite. Backs or joints are large fractures. but not crossing the bed or horizons within the bed” (Fookes & Parrish. Faults and sheeting. which are low-angle joints. (1965) and Skempton et al. predominantly vertical. The mineralogy varies greatly within the London Basin. while illite in the East of the London Basin and in the Hampshire Basin. but the geometry and the surface allow a classification of the possible causes of their formation. chlorite. 1969). The laminations or bedding would correspond to what are now recognized as the boundaries between different lithological units. a piece of fossilized wood or a shell lying on the surface.11 shows the mineralogy of the clay at a site in the Hampshire Basin. Fissures due to shear have smooth surfaces and curved conchoidal geometry. were added by Skempton et al. kaolinite seems to be predominant in the West of the London Basin. (1959). smectite and illite dominates in Central London (Huggett. Fookes & Parrish (1969) observed that at three sites. (1969).3. forming a series of intersecting curved surfaces.

The data were also analysed by Wroth (1972) and revisited by Burland (1990). Fissures parallel to the bedding are likely to have been influenced by depositional variations within the clay. 3. to stress release during erosion.1 Geology In the west of the London Basin.5 London Clay properties in west London In the early 60’s comprehensive research was carried out by Bishop et al. 1965). will be briefly summarised here. Prospect Park and Wraysbury Reservoir. (2003) added new information on the London Clay on the basis of commercial tests performed for the construction of the new Heathrow Terminal 5. The investigations concentrated on samples from South-West London. the implications for plate loading and compression test on fissured clays and considered the effects of sample size on tests results for fissured clays. the London Clay Formation is covered by late Quaternary Terrace Gravels that were deposited after erosion. It is not clear the way horizontal fissures are attributed t stress release. (1959). (1959. whose origin is associated. This type of fissures generally have orientations related to tectonic stress folding at the time of formation and might have been created at the same time as the main syncline during the Alpine orogeny in the Miocene period. as they would o be expected to be inclined of 45o -φ’/2 since they are due to passive failure. though. as determined by these studies. Bishop et al. The main properties of the London Clay in West London.while those due to tension are planar and rough. (1965). Ward et al. Skempton et al. (1969) on the characteristics of London Clay. Webb (1964) and Skempton et al. Hight & Jardine (1993) investigated the characteristics of the London Clay in correlation to its geology by considering samples from different sites in Central London and Standing & Burland (2005a and 2005b) emphasised the effects of the geological characteristics of the clay on engineering applications. such as Ashford Common. They are rough and planar and tend to be similar to fissures that are parallel to the present ground surface. 3.5. Ward et al. (1969) discussed the effects of laminations and fissures on standard tests. Hight et al. (1965). Geological 94 . (1965) and Ward et al.

5 and 27% and the liquid and plastic limits range between 60-70% and 24-29% respectively.2 Index properties In Figures 3.1 the index properties at Wrasbury Park are summarised (Skempton et al. seems to be unrealistically high. In the area of the T5 site called the “lagoon”. The profile of water content with depth has been found to provide a graphical means of identifying the lithological division within the London Clay (Standing & Burland. although the sub-unit of the division C was not clear.evidence suggests that perhaps 200m of the upper part of the 55Ma age London Clay Formation were eroded before the deposition of the Terrace Gravel.12 the lithological division of the London Clay profile at T5 is illustrated (Hight et al. the changes in the trend of the water content with depth 95 . Units A to C and their sub-units were identified at this site. The geological sections at Heathrow T5 (Figure 3.13) and Wraysbury are very similar. between 90 and 120m (Bishop et al. Hight et al. the water contents of the natural samples range between 22.5. depending on the depth. 1965). the index properties of the clay at Ashford Common and at Heathrow T5 are illustrated and in Table 3. Given the regularity of the lithology of the London Clay. The water level was found at about 1. a similar division could be applied to Ashford Common if the base level of the clay were known.. (2003) found the London Clay to be overlain by about 6m of terrace gravel. the gravel had been removed during the 1970’s by the Perry Oaks sewage works. compared to the 52m measured at T5. At Ashford Common Bishop et al.8m above the top of the clay. 1969). the total thickness of the London Clay at this site was established to be about 52m and the pore water pressure distribution was found to be hydrostatic... The estimated total thickness of the clay at this site. but measurements of pore water pressure were not available. At T5 Hight et al. Ashford Common (Figure 3. the water level being at 1. 2003).. At different sites in the London Basin. though.13b and 3. (1965) found about 5m of gravel to lie above an estimated thickness of London Clay of between 90 and 120m. 2003).5m above the top of the clay.12). (a) Lithological units In Figure 3. From borings.14. For all the locations. 3. 2005b.

if the sample is left in the tube. This wetting effect was partially reduced by removing the outer part of the samples immediately after boring.5.. (2003) suggested a sub-unit division of the main lithological units visually identified by King at T5 (Figure 3. 3. (1965) and Hight et al.15). 96 . The profile at Ashford Common was derived from block samples using the equation suggested by Skempton (1961): pk =p[ko -As(ko -1)] (3.have been found to correspond to unit and sub-unit boundaries. In Figure 3. the centreline effect causes a slight reduction of suction (Georgiannou & Hight.17 shows the profile of suction with depth measured on thin-wall samples and on rotary core samples. Figure 3.5 at about 30m depth. The ko profile at T5 was derived from suction measurements on thin-wall samples using a suction probe on site soon after sampling (Ridley & Burland. The suction measured on rotary core samples was found to be lower due to the sampling method. Hight et al. determining k values that are greater than 1.3 In situ stresses and ko The heavy overconsolidation of London Clay gives rise to high horizontal effective stresses. 1993). (2003) for Ashford Common and T5 are plotted. 1994).5 and this value tends to decrease with increasing depth. the ko profiles suggested by Bishop et al. On the basis of the water content profile. Skempton (1961) o and Skempton & La Rochelle (1965) found that in the upper 10m of the London Clay ko varies between 2 and 2. but the suction measured from the rotary core samples was still assumed to be as a lower bound for the suction on site. The suctions measured on the thin-wall samples were assumed to be more representative of the true suctions on site.3 (Bishop et al.1) where p is the in situ vertical effective stress. Although the edge effect causes an increase in suction. falling to 1. as the fluid in the barrel core wetted the samples reducing their suction. 1965).16. pk is the initial suction corresponding to the stress at which the samples neither swell nor consolidate in the triaxial apparatus and As is the excess pore water ratio corresponding to the removal of the deviatoric stress and was assumed to be 0.

19. Standing and Burland. the presence of claystone layers. (2003) suggested that these levels could be the boundaries of the lithological sub-units and they are indicated in Figure 3. However. A few jumps in the readings were thought to be associated with boundaries of the lithological units. might have induced these peaks. but zero shifts could occur in the readings if claystones were hit. (2003) summarised the horizontal permeability at different sites in Central London made with self-boring permeameters or self-boring pressuremeters and included the identification of lithological units (Figure 3. Rapid sudden inflows of water occurred in the upper part of Unit A . (2005a).18). The pore pressure distribution seems to 97 . The coordinates for the boreholes will be given in Table 5. Fugro subtractive piezocones with face filters were used. shown as peaks in the readings. Hight et al.5. which increased to 4x10-11 m/s in areas that had been subjected to erosion.4 Permeability The permeability of the London Clay has been found to be strongly associated with its lithological units. The authors observed at St. found that erosion of London Clay might increase its mass permeability. They observed that the permeabilities of samples from lithological unit A2 were the highest. in Central London.5 Cone penetrometer tests at T5 Cone penetrometer tests were performed at Heathrow T5 by the Building Research Establishment for the present research. The cones were robust enough to cope with the claystones. The cone resistance and the sleeve friction show a fairly uniform increase with depth. but they also noticed that an increase of permeability could be expected towards the top of each unit as result of an i creasing frequency of silt n partings. Hight et al.2. were noticed at 18 and 25m depth.3.19. Two main discontinuities. The results of the tests are summarised in Figure 3. The filters were pre-saturated with glycerine.5. where there is the larger 3 concentration of sand and silt partings. 3. because of the content of sandy layers in this unit. a value of permeability of around 1x10-11 m/s for Unit B2 . James’s Park. frequent in unit B2 .

because fissures are surfaces where little or no relative shear displacement has occurred. sheared undrained after isotropic consolidation to their estimated in situ stresses. (2003) also observed that the strength in extension at T5 was lower than that in compression and corresponded to the fissure strength as in extension the failure mode generally tended to coincide with the predominantly sub-horizontal natural fissures. Hight et al. pointed out that the strength on fissures is similar in magnitude to the post-rupture strength..be more indicative for the identification of the lithological units and seems to mark more clearly the changes in lithology through the depth. It has a brittle behaviour with localization of strains and a well defined post-rupture strength.21). 3. which is very close to the values of c =0 and φ ’=15o found by Bishop et al.g. particularly thin-wall samples. which is mobilised at very large strains. Jardine et al. samples tend often to fail along preexisting fissures. Due to the fissured nature of this clay. which is observed after the breakage of bonding.20 shows typical triaxial stress-strain curves of samples from different depths at T5. (2004).23)..35m depth in Figure 3. Figure 3. Hight & Jardine (1993) observed that the brittleness tends to increase with depth. The strength on fissures is therefore higher than the residual strength. mobilised a residual strength ’ corresponding to c’=0 and φ ’=12o .20). (1944) from direct shear tests (Figure 3. (2003) observed that the strength envelope of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures corresponded to c’=0 and φ ’=20o and matched the post-rupture strength envelope (Figure 3. Hight et al. 98 . (1965) from triaxial tests on block samples from Ashford Common and by Skempton. The authors also noticed that some samples.6 Shear strength London Clay is a typical example of a fissured stiff plastic clay. 11. In this case they may not mobilise any peak strength. Skempton (1977) found the strength along fissures and joints to be similar to the strength of normally consolidated reconstituted samples (Figure 3.22). but tend to reach directly the large strain strength (e.5.

reflecting both the stronger microstructure of the natural soil and its overconsolidation. (1965) and Ward et al. The Strength Sensitivity. at St James’s Park. the strength tended to reduce in the lithological units having higher water contents. so that below 25m depth the material can be classified as a hard clay. Figure 3. The authors observed that zones of higher sand content. The strength envelopes of the natural specimens lie above the intrinsic strength of the material.24). St . (2003) at Heathrow T5 agreed with this scheme. The different strength envelopes for samples from different depths in Central London are shown in Figure 3. The depths for the Levels A to F are indicated in Figure 3.Burland (1990) found a similar pattern.27. He noticed that the postrupture envelopes were similar to the intrinsic failure line of the reconstituted material (Figure 3. revisiting the data from Bishop et al. Hight & Jardine (1993) found that the changes in lithology and fabric in the London Clay influenced the undrained strength and the failure envelopes. The strength envelopes measured by Hight et al. The authors also observed that sandier layers occur in the London Clay at depths between 15-18m. while samples from Level F showed higher strengths. This induces a change of the cohesion intercept with depth. The authors observed that. although the unit boundaries at Ashford Common are unknown because the base of the clay was not loacted. (1965) from Ashford Common. (2005b).13a and Table 3. are associated with a higher effective stress failure envelope than the adjacent more plastic clays. 24-27m and below 30m.25 shows the peak strength envelopes for samples from four different depths at Ashford Common (Burland. of London Clay has been 99 . The strength envelopes of samples from Levels A to E seemed to define a unique line. Standing & Burland. together with the Hvorslev surface of the reconstituted soil.2. with partings of fine sand or silt. 1990).26. This could reflect a difference in the lithological unit between samples from Levels A to E and samples from Level F. The stress paths normalised for volume for samples from different depths at Ashford Common are shown in Figure 3. correlated the changes in the undrained strength of London Clay with changes in water content and therefore with the lithologcial units.

61 and usually assumed to be 0. The magnitudes of the shear moduli G . Wongsaroj et al. show that the small strain stiffness of London Clay is stress dependent. Laboratory test data. illustrated in Figure 3.7 Anisotropy and stiffness The anisotropic behaviour of London Clay was first addressed by Bishop et al. Webb. which were equal (Figure 3.. Burland.5. Cross-hole and down-hole seismic wave velocities measured at Heathrow T5 at 1m depth intervals from the ground surface. 2004). but Ghh is higher than Gvh and G . From hv bender elements tests on undisturbed samples of London Clay cut horizontally and vertically. These observations were confirmed by other measurements in different sites in Central London (Hight et al. London Clay samples deform more in the direction of deposition. show that at this site the shear modulus Ghh is 50-100% higher than Gvh or Ghv . 2003.. Table 3. 3.5. so that Gmax =Ap’n (3. than in the plane of deposition. 100 .8. (1966) and Atkinson (1975) by comparing the large strain strengths of samples cut horizontally and vertically.2) with the exponent n varying between 0.28. 2004). 1975. (1965).. These values were found to be consistent with the same moduli at other sites in Central London. Hight et al. 1996. 1990.5 (Wongsaroj et al. 1997.quoted to be higher than two (Cotecchia. Wongsaroj et al. Gvh and hh Ghv change with location and depth.3 summarises the values of the ratio Ghh /Gvh found in the literature. 1964) and the normalised state boundary surfaces seem to become horizontal after a normalised stress s’/σ* e of 0. Jovicic & Coop (1998) noticed that Gvh was equal to Ghv . Bishop.29). the horizontal (Atkinson.36 and 0.. 2004). The authors also found the ratio G /Gvh to be constant with depth and equal to about hh 1. the vertical.. although they curve round to the s’ axis at even higher stress levels.

The step changes in the distribution of the ratio Ghh /Gvh when plotted against depth were interpreted to indicate the changes of lithological unit.Hight et al. 101 .15).30). (2003) observed that the ratio G /Gvh against depth reflected the hh influence of lithology on anisotropy (Figure 3. similarly to the water content distribution (Figure 3.

2: Index properties of London Clay at Ashford Common (Bishop et al.4 25.72 1. [m] 9 15 20 27 35 42 Water content [%] 22.5-2.5-39 [mOD] 17.61 1.0 Table 3.79 0.3: Shear modulus ratios for London Clay (Wongsaroj et al. (1997) Jovicic & Coop (1998) Yimsiri (2001) Hight et al.2 23.79 0. 2004) 102 .Liquid Depth Limit [%] from ground level [m] 0-4.1: Index properties of London Clay at Wraysbury (Skempton et al.48-1.8 1.8 24..6-1.75 0. (1996) Hight et al. 1965) Data source Simpson et al.68 0.86 0.5 Gravel London Clay 62-76 Plastic Limit [%] Clay Fraction [%] ~30 55-60 Table 3.8 22..L.5 4.8 24.71-1.-21.54 1.5-13 13 . (2003) Ratio Ghh/Gvh 1. 1969) Level [m] A B C D E F Depth below G.6 Liquid Limit [%] 60 69 71 63 70 69 Plastic Limit [%] 24 29 29 26 27 29 Plasticity Index [%] 36 40 42 37 43 40 Clay Fraction %<2mm 42 59 53 47 57 60 Activity: wPI /%clay 0.67 Table 3..

1981) Figure 3.2: The North Sea Basin and London Clay formation (King. 1981) 103 .1: Late Palaeocene geology (King.Figure 3.

Figure 3.4: The London Clay formation: idealised depositional sequences linked to sea level changes (King.3: Eocene stratigraphy of the London Clay Formation in Southern Britain (King. 1981) 104 . 1981) Figure 3.

1981) 105 .Figure 3.5: Palaeocene and Eocene sections of the London Clay Formation (King.

Figure 3.6: Main features of the lithological units in the London Clay (King. 1981) 106 .

Figure 3. 2003) 107 .7: Identification of lithological units by water content (Hight et al..

8: Correlation between the informal lithological division suggested by the BGS (2004) and King (1981) (BGS.Figure 3. 2004) 108 .

9: Correlation between boreholes at different sites in the London Basin (BGS.Figure 3. 2004) 109 .

10: Envelope of particle sizes for London Clay (King. 1991) 110 .Figure 3.

111 .

at Whitecliff Bay in the Hampshire Basin (Hugget & Gale. 1998) 112 .Figure 3.11: Stratigraphical variation in lithology and clay mineralogy (<2µm).

Gravel Figure 3.12: Geology of London Clay at Heathrow T5 (Hight et al. 2003) 113 .

5m OD 0 +12.5m OD GWT Gravel 10 Depth below ground level [m] individual claystones 20 15-20cm layer of claystones discontinuous layer of claystones 30 40 (a) London Clay (b) Figure 3.+12.13: Profile of London Clay at Ashford Common (a) geology of the site and (b) index proprieties (Bishop et al. 1965) 114 .

Figure 3.14: Index proprieties of London Clay at T5 (Hight et al. 2003) 115 ..

2003) 116 .15: Unit boundaries at T5 identified by water content (Hight et al.Figure 3.

16: ko profiles for the London Clay at T5 and Ashford Common (Hight et al. 2003) 117 ..Figure 3.

17: Suction measurements at T5 (Hight. 2002) 118 .RC=Rotary core TW= Thin-wall U100=Tube Figure 3.

18: Horizontal permeability of London Clay from different sites in the London area (Hight et al.Figure 3. 2003) 119 .

Hight et al.19: Cone penetrometer tests at T5 (BRE 2002. 2003) 120 .Figure 3.

.20: Results of consolidated undrained tests on rotary cored samples from T5 (Hight et al..Figure 3. 2003) Figure 3. 2003) 121 .21: Triaxial compression and extension failure points from rotary cored and thin-walled samples (Hight et al.

Drained . 1965) 122 .22: Strength envelopes from triaxial tests on London Clay samples from Ashford Common (re-plotted from Bishop et al. Drained . Undrained .Level C 600 Vertical Sample.Level C Horizontal Sample.Level E 500 J (kPa) 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 I'n (kPa) Figure 3.Level C Horizontal Sample. Drained .Level E Vertical Sample.Level E Horizontal Sample. Undrained .Level C Vertical Sample. Undrained .Level E Horizontal Sample. Undrained . Drained .700 Vertical Sample.

Figure 3. 1965. 1990) 123 .23: Strength envelope of samples consolidated from slurry and of natural samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Skempton.. 1977) Figure 3.24: Post-rupture and intrinsic failure lines of London Clay at Ashford Common and strength envelope for samples failed along pre-existing fissures (Bishop et al. Burland.

26: Peak and residual strength envelopes for natural London Clay samples from different depths in Central London and strength along fissures (Hight & Jardine. 1993) 124 . 1990: data from Bishop et al. 1965) Figure 3.Figure 3.25: Strength envelopes of reconstituted and natural London Clay samples from different depths (Burland..

.27: Ashford Common: normalised state boundary surfaces for different depths (Burland. data from Bishop et al. 1965) 125 .Figure 3. 1990.

.Figure 3.28: Variation of elastic shear modulus with p’ (Wongsaroj et al. 2004) 126 .

29: Shear wave velocities and maximum shear stiffness at T5 (Hight et al. 2003) 127 .Figure 3.

2003) 128 .Figure 3..30: Identification of the lithological units using the stiffness ratio (Hight et al.

A simple sketch of the oedometer apparatus is given in Figure 4. Their characteristics will be described in this chapter. 4.1. The basic conventional oedometer cell consists of a rigid ring containing the sample. so that strains and water flow are only allowed in the vertical direction. The simple version of this test consists of applying a sequence of loads to samples laterally confined.2 the 129 . In Figure 4. The dimensions of the sample are designed so that the ratio between the diameter and the height is greater than two to reduce the effects of friction (Bishop and Henkel. 1957). The soil-steel contact at the inner surface of the ring was lightly lubricated with grease before testing.4 APPARATUS 4. which is in contact with two porous stones at the top and bottom surfaces to allow double drainage. The oedometer cell lies on a rigid aluminium base and a loading yoke allows the transmission of load from a lever arm carrying the weights to the sample top cap. oedometer apparatus is illustrated. The sample and the rigid ring are located in a water bath to prevent drying of the sample during consolidation tests and allow for the absorption of water during swelling.1 Introduction In this research work five triaxial apparatus and two oedometer apparatus were used. The stress and strain conditions are assumed to be axi-symmetric and the friction at the contact between the soil and the ring is assumed to be zero. In this research work 50mm and 38mm diameter samples were used.2 Oedometer The oedometer test reproduces in the laboratory conditions of onedimensional compression.

A conventional stress path apparatus for 38mm diameter samples.A transducer placed on the top platen measures the vertical displacements δ.1) where Ho is the initial height of the sample. 4. The cells differed between each other in the instrumentation and control systems. such as non-linearity. that used for 38mm natural samples and the high pressure triaxial cell were designed at City University. During the trimming of the sample. because of the lateral restraint of the sample: εv = δ Ho (4.3 Triaxial apparatus 4. 130 . temperature effects and drift were not found to be significant. flat and parallel surfaces were ensured to minimise the error due to the imperfect alignment of the top platen with the ring. which can cause misreading of the displacements. The main source of error is derived from the bedding error due to roughness or other imperfections of the top or base of the sample. two conventional stress path apparatus modified for 100mm diameter samples. The resolution of the transducers was much smaller than the electric noise and the other factors influencing the accuracy.1 Introduction The triaxial test is a versatile laboratory test that allows an examination of the behaviour of the soil under a large range of stress combinations.3. as all the stresses applied are measured and controlled. a medium pressure stress path apparatus for 38mm diameter samples and a high pressure triaxial apparatus for 50mm diameter samples were used in this research work. The conventional apparatus used for reconstituted samples and those used for 100mm natural samples were designed at Imperial College. In general the natural samples were tested in cells equipped with more sophisticated instrumentation than those used for the reconstituted samples. The vertical strain ε a equals the volumetric strain ε v .

A cylindrical sample with a ratio between height and diameter equal to two is enclosed in a latex membrane. Connections to the end of the sample allow drainage. as described by Jardine et al. The air pressures provided by the compressor are applied to the sample as hydraulic pressure through air-water interface systems.3. They consist of an electrolytic liquid sealed in a glass capsule and encapsulated in a stainless steel cylinder. The local axial displacements of the sample were measured by two electrolevel transducers. the measurement of the pore pressures and the application of an external pressure (back pressure). σr and a load cell of Imperial College type measures the deviatoric force Fa applied to the sample by moving the base piston.4). The pressures are managed by three stepper motor driven manostats controlled by a computer through relay outputs of the data-logging and control card. The sample is located in a cylindrical cell full of water under pressure.2 Conventional stress path apparatus The hydraulic triaxial apparatus as described by Bishop & Wesley (1975) is sketched in Figure 4. Figure 4. Three co-planar electrodes protruding into the capsule and partially immersed in the fluid measure the changes in impedance produced by tilting of the capsule. The volumetric changes of the samples were measured by a volume gauge of Imperial College type (Figure 4.5 shows the electrolevel gauges used in this research.4.3. A linearly variable differential transformer (LVDT) was attached to the volume gauge and allowed measurement of the volumetric strains. (1984). placed on a base platen and is sealed at the top and bottom by o-rings. The cell pressure. The variation of the water content corresponds to the variation of sample volume if the sample is saturated and the water is assumed incompressible. 131 . the ram pressure and the back pressure were supplied by a compressor operating at a minimum pressure of 800kPa. A stepper-motor driven pump connected to the hydraulic system and controlled directly by the computer controls the water flow to the base piston in strain-controlled tests. The cell pressure and the pore or back pressure were measured by Druck pressure transducers of 1700kPa capacity.

6). the viscosity of the oil in the ram interface delayed the response of the system to the applied pressure and. The main mechanical modification introduced to these apparatus was the substitution of the air-water ram pressure interface with an air-oil interface system and the reduction in length of all the tubes connected to the pedestal in order to reduce the error sources in the saturation of the system. which was determined by using a micrometer. The external displacements were measured using standard displacement transducers with a maximum travel length of 25mm. in many cases.7 and 4. the computer was unable to keep the axial pressure stable in stress controlled tests. according to the calibration curve. 4. which monitored the pressures and displacements. For the axial LVDTs the armature rested on a lower mount. The control program was the Durham University Control System. controlled the stresses and strains. (a) Axial and radial LVDTs The local displacements were measured by using axial and radial LVDTs. This fluctuation of the pressure was reduced by using the constant rate of strain pump to control the axial stress as well as the axial strains.3 Stress path apparatus for 100mm samples Two hydraulic triaxial apparatus for 100mm samples were specially designed at Imperial College prior this project and used in this research for testing the natural samples (Figure 4. However. and allowed the user to define the triaxial testing stages with automatic changes of the stress paths. A change of the penetration of the armature into the LVDT body generates a change in the output voltage. as described by Cuccovillo & Coop (1997) and sketched in Figures 4.3.8.The change in the electrolevel output voltage can be converted to a change of distance between the pads on the pivoted arms. The design of the mounts allows the sample to barrel or develop a shear plane without 132 . These apparatus were equipped with more sophisticated instrumentation than those used in the other apparatus. which was fitted with a large-headed screw that enabled small adjustments of the armature to be performed when the sample was set up.

This kind of transducer has a linear calibration over a range of displacements of about 10mm and they have a relatively small noise. A voltage is applied to the transmitter element causing it to vibrate in the direction normal to the face of the ceramic plates.8). It is captured and displayed by a digital oscilloscope. so that the shear wave velocity vs can be measured from: 133 . placed on the porous filter before installation.9). this allowed the data logger to work in its most sensitive range. where the applied stresses are uniform. The shear wave produced by the vibration is sent through the sample and detected by the receiver element. The probe was pushed through a protruding hole in the membrane and sealed with an o -ring and several layers of liquid latex (Figure 4. (c) Bender elements The elastic stiffness of the soil was measured using bender elements mounted on the side of the sample.causing the armature to jam. The time difference between the input and the output wave represents the travel time of the shear wave. ensured good contact between the filter and the sample and reduced the risk of cavitation of the filter due to the high suction of the sample. the LVDTs were set at their electrical zero by adjusting the zero potentiometer in the transducer amplifier. An LVDT for the measurement of radial displacements was mounted on the sample through a radial belt designed for 100mm diameter samples (Figure 4. 1983) was used to measure the pore pressure at the sample mid-height. The noise of the LVDTs was then reduced to about 2x10-5 mm by programming the data logger to integrate the set of readings over a relatively long period of about 3 seconds. The radial LVDT was calibrated using a micrometer that was specially adapted for the radial belt. The bender elements are piezoceramic plates that allow the shear wave velocity v through a soil specimen to be measured. To resolve the very small strains at the start of the shearing. (b) Mid-height probe A piezometer probe (Hight. Two elements s are used: a receiver and a transmitter. A pad of soft kaolin.

which were the “First Arrival Method” and the “Phase Velocity Method”. which can be taken as the distance between the tips of the bender elements (Viggiani and Atkinson. The interpretation of the results to determine the arrival time is the principal difficulty of bender element tests and several methods of interpretation have been proposed.3).3) Figure 4.1 and. The higher pressure was obtained by using 2. 4.1 summarises the sizes and mode of propagation of the elements.2) where L is the travel length. In this research work. They were inserted into rubber grommets. Liquid latex was used to cover the grommets and prevent leaks during testing. The water pressure arriving from the air-water interface into the base of 134 . (4. a sine wave was used and two methods for determining the travel time were adopted.5.11).5 times pressure multipliers placed in the lines between the air-water interfaces and the cell or the axial ram (Figure 4. which were attached to diametrically opposite sides of the latex membrane (see Section 5. 1995) and tarr is the travel time displayed on the oscilloscope. These methods were discussed in Section 2.10 shows a sketch of the bender elements used in this research. the tests results on the London Clay samples will demonstrate the agreement of the two interpretation methods.vs = L t arr (4. Table 4.3. in Chapters 5 and 7.3.4 The medium pressure apparatus Natural samples of 38mm diameter were tested in a Bishop and Wesley triaxial apparatus modified to achieve a radial pressure of 1. The elastic shear modulus Gmax can then be derived as: Gmax = ρ ⋅ v s2 where ρ is the density of the soil. The multipliers are comprised of unequal pistons that are otherwise similar to volume gauges.8MPa.

sealed with a second bellofram. The cell chamber is reinforced to have a higher stress capacity and special thicker membranes were used for the samples. receives the amplified water pressure and transfers it to the cell or the axial ram. which is moved forwards or backwards by a stepping motor activated through a gear box. placed in the lines of the cell and the ram pressures. written by Dr. Air-oil interfaces transfer the air pressure coming from the main compressor to oil for the cell and the axial ram up to pressures of 800kPa. A hydraulic pump is shown in Figure 4. It has a fixed piston along the n axis. 4. The compressed oil on one side of the cylinder is transferred to the high pressure system and the two-way valves enable redirection of the cylinder when it is close to one end of its travel by switching the oil pressure in either side of the piston to low or high pressure. This apparatus was equipped with a load cell of 5kN capacity built by Wykeham Farrance and axial LVDTs. 135 . The computer program. M. The stepper motor pump was controlled by a manually activated relay designed at City University.13 shows a picture of the apparatus with its instrumentation.5mm thick steel tube in order to be able to stand high pressures and oil is used as the cell liquid because it is not conductive and standard non-submersible LVDTs can then be used. acting as the oil reservoir. Two specially designed motorized hydraulic pumps. The top water chamber. through twoway valves. enable pressures up to 5MPa to be reached.the multiplier is transferred to the upper part through the unequal shaped piston resting on a bellofram.14 and sketched i Figure 4. Both sides of the cylinders are connected to the high pressure system and to the low pressure system.12.3. Coop was modified in order to increase the integration times to improve the accuracy of the readings.5 High pressure triaxial apparatus Three tests on natural samples of 50mm diameter were performed in a high pressure apparatus with a cell pressure capacity of 5MPa. The triaxial cell is made of a 12.15. Figure 4. An earlier version of the apparatus is described by Cuccovillo & Coop (1997) and it is sketched in Figure 4.

Pressure transducers of 6MPa capacity measure cell and pore pressures and a 25kN capacity load cell measure the axial stress. An Imperial College volume gauge, fitted with an LVDT is used as the back pressure system and miniature axial and radial LVDTs measures the local displacements (Cuccovillo & Coop, 1997). The overall axial strains are measured by an external LVDT. 4.3.6 Calibration and accuracy

The axial transducers were calibrated against micrometers and a special calibration device was designed for the radial belt to simulate radial displacements. The load cells and the pressure transducers were calibrated against a Budenberg dead-weight tester and a calibrated Bishop ram was used for the volume gauge. Linear calibrations were used in all cases. In Table 4.2, the key features of the laboratory instrumentation are summarised.

A wide range of apparatus and transducer types were used in this project and their accuracy was continuously improved throughout the project in order to be able to resolve the small strain region. For these reasons it is not possible to give a single value for the accuracy of each instrument used and only some indications of accuracy ranges on the most significant instrumentation will be mentioned. The worst typical accuracy estimated for the axial strain was about ±0.001% and was found for the inclinometers, which were usually used for reconstituted samples or for natural samples for which only the large strain behaviour was being investigated. The best typical accuracy within the small strain region was achieved later in the project for the LVDTs used for the 100mm stress path apparatus and was estimated to be in the order of the resolution of the LVDTs (i.e. about 2x10-5 mm). At larger strains, above 0.1% strain, the accuracy of the LVDTs was estimated to be about 0.5% of the current reading. The radial strains were measured to a similar accuracy to the axial strains. Much effort was also put in improving the accuracy of the load cell readings, in order to resolve the small strain region. A typical accuracy for axial stress in the conventional Bishop & Wesley apparatus was estimated to be about 0.1kPa, which was improved to about 0.01kPa for the 100mm apparatus. The shear probes shown in Chapter 8 demonstrate this accuracy. 136

4.3.7

Load cell connection

In some compressive shearing tests on natural samples starting from an isotropic stress state, the connection between the sample top platen and the load cell was achieved by a simple contact using a half-ball. Figure 4.16a shows a sketch of the connection. The half-ball is seated in a conical notch in the top platen and rotates as the load cell touches the sample, reducing to a minimum the sample disturbance. In this kind of connection, tilting of the sample was

observed at the beginning of shearing due to alignment problems.

In all the tests on reconstituted samples and in those performed on 38mm natural samples starting from anisotropic stress states the connection between the sample and the load cell was achieved using a conventional suction cap (Figure 4.16b). This consists of a rubber cap that connects the sample to a conical

extension screwed into the load cell. A small tube connecting the suction cap to the outside allows removal of water between the cap and the extension piece during connection and allows the connection to be at atmospheric pressure after connection. The difference of pressure between the cell pressure and atmospheric pressure gives a large force between the sample and the load cell. The suction cap connection avoids alignment errors, although the alignment between the sample axis and the load cell forced during the connection sometimes creates disturbance to the sample. The connection was made carefully, especially for natural samples, in order to reduce disturbance to the structure.

In order to carry out extension tests and avoid alignment errors affecting data in the small strain region, a rigid connection was required between the sample and the load cell also for the 100 mm specimens. Problems related to the tilting of the samples in the small strain region will be discussed in Section 5.3.5. In a few tests, a rigid connection was obtained by screwing the sample top platen directly into the load cell (Figure 4.16c). This connection avoided alignment errors, but has the disadvantage that the alignment imposed by the connection possibly disturbed the sample structure and the application of the initial pressures, which had to be isotropic and generally higher than 300kPa, required

137

synchronization of the cell and ram pressures, often difficult to obtain with the slow response of the ram pressure.

A special new suction cap was then designed for 100mm samples and was used in combination with a half-ball contact system. The design of this new connection system is shown in Figure 4.16d. It comprises of a half ball

protruding only 1mm from the top platen and a 100mm suction cap. This connection gives the minimum disturbance to the sample because the contact between the sample top platen and the load cell is made through the half-ball, which rotates, adapting its direction to the load cell and absorbing the disturbance caused by imposing alignment.

138

Type of wave Length Dimensions [mm] Width Thickness Wave propagation Wave polarisation

Shv 3.5 7.5 0.6 Horizontal Vertical

Shh 3.5 7.5 0.6 Horizontal Horizontal

Table 4.1: Details of bender elements

Transducer Pressure transducer Mid-Height Probe IC Load Cell IC Volume Gauge Displacement transducer External LVDT Electrolevels Internal LVDT

Type of measurements Cell and pore pressures Pore Pressure Deviatoric Force Volume strain Axial strains Axial strains Local axial strain Local axial and radial strains

Capacity 1MPa 1MPa 4kN 50cc 100cc 25mm 34mm 5mm ±5mm

Resolution 0.03 kPa 0.01 kPa 0.2 N 0.001 cc 5µm 0.2µm 0.1µm 2 x10-2 µm

Table 4.2: Summary of key features of typical laboratory instrumentation used in this project

139

Figure 4.1: Schematic design of the oedometer cell

PC transducer loading yoke

lever arm

Figure 4.2: Oedometer apparatus

140

Figure 4.3: Schematic diagram of the hydraulic triaxial apparatus (modified from Qadimi, 2005)

141

Water supply To the sample

LVDT O-ring

piston Belloframe

Back pressure supply

Figure 4.4: Volume gauge (Head, 1980)

142

Figure 4.5: Electrolevel inclinometers (Kuwano, 1999, adapted from Jardine et al. 1984)

143

load cell

PC CRSP air-oil interface volume gauge

external LVDT

air-water interface

cell pressure transducer

pore pressure transducer

Figure 4.6: Hydraulic triaxial cell for 100mm diameter samples

Figure 4.7: Axial LVDT with adjustable screw (Rolo, 2003, adapted from Cuccovillo & Coop, 1997)

144

Figure 4.8: Radial strain belt (Coop, 2005)

Figure 4.9: Mid-height pore pressure probe (Hight, 1983)

145

Ghv

Ghh

Figure 4.10: Schematic diagram of the lateral bender elements

Figure 4.11: Schematic diagram of the medium pressure triaxial apparatus (Qadimi, 2005)

146

Figure 4. 2005) 147 .12: Schematic diagram of the high pressure apparatus (Qadimi.

13: The high pressure apparatus (Qadimi. 2005) 148 . 2005) Figure 4.14: The motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi.Figure 4.

15: Schematic diagram of the motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi. 2005) 149 .Figure 4.

Load cell Half ball Top platen Sample (a) Load cell Suction cup Top platen Sample (b) Load cell Top platen Sample (c) Load cell Half ball Suction cup Top platen Sample (d) Figure 4.16: Load cell connections (a) half ball (b) suction cap (c) rigid connection (d) new suction cap connection for 100mm diameter samples 150 .

supervised in part by the author are also included as indicated. The identification of the REV strength would have required the use of 151 . Table 5. Given the fissure spacing in the London Clay. The works carried out for the enlargement of the airport gave the opportunity to recover rotary core samples and block samples that were tested in their natural state or remoulded for reconstituted samples.5 are also indicated in the Figure 5. as discussed in Chapter 3.5 TEST PROCEDURES 5. some tests conducted by others for MSc and MEng dissertations.1 and 5.1 Introduction All the London Clay samples used in this research were retrieved from the area proposed for the new Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 in London.5. For completeness. Initial and final water contents and wet weights of the samples were measured together with the inclination of the shear plane. samples from different depths were tested to characterize the profile of the London Clay in terms of engineering properties. either no fissures or one fissure are expected in the sample sizes chosen. although it is recognised that these sizes might not correspond to the representative element volume (REV) that is more appropriate to represent the overall fissured behaviour of the London Clay. High quality sampling techniques were used in order to minimize the soil disturbance.1 summarises all the tests conducted on natural samples and their lithological units.2 indicates the samples coordinates. Sample sizes of 38mm. The boreholes used for the CPT tests discussed in Section 3. Referring to the lithological units of this site (see Chapter 3).2 show maps of Heathrow T5 from which the samples were retrieved and Table 5.2 and included in Table 5. which allows the identification of the intact and the fissured strengths of the clay. Figures 5.7. Triaxial and oedometer tests were performed on both natural and reconstituted samples. The nomenclature used is explained in Section 5.2. if formed. 50mm and 100mm diameters were used.

The borehole location is indicated in Figure 5. The samples extracted from the cores were cut into pieces of about 35cm length and about 1cm of wetter material was removed from the outer part of the sample in order to avoid changing the insitu water content and to minimize the swelling due to free water around the sample.2. therefore. However. Samples that were badly disturbed due to drilling were rejected and the good quality samples were wrapped in a double layer of cling film and wax and were stored in the soil storage room at Imperial College. in the analysis of the data. a rough division into units was identified along the boreholes used in this research as described in Table 5.2 Sampling 5.1 Rotary Core Samples Rotary core samples were retrieved prior to the start of the project in the Summer of 2001 by using a triple barrel rotary corer with polymer foam lubrication. Two boreholes were drilled whose coordinates are indicated in Table 5. Based on the division into lithological units s uggested by Hight et al.3. therefore either samples of much larger size. which was unpractical for laboratory tests.5m depth to about 51m depth. or in situ tests.samples containing a representative number of fissures.2. (2003). as shown in Figure 5. when the localization of the strains also induced discontinuities into the specimens. In Chapters 7 and 8 it will be shown that the fissures only affect the behaviour of the clay at large strains. the use of a continuum model seems appropriate.3. 152 . No samples were available from unit B because they 1 were all badly disturbed during the sampling process.2. 5.5m to about 15m. this is beyond the scope of this thesis. The first borehole extended from the top of the London Clay at 5. This chapter describes the sampling methods and the test procedures used in this research. the second from 5.

According to Table 5.5m to the sample sides (Figure 5.5 and 17m depths and nine at 12m depth.5 and consisted of three main phases.5c). 5. Once the sides of the blocks and the top surfaces had been shaped. At each depth. The starting date of sampling at the different depths depended on the timetable of the excavation work and was arranged with the contractors working on site. (a) Sampling process The sampling process was carefully organized and the fissured nature of the soil required some practice and expertise to be developed before obtaining successful results. In order to avoid disturbing the samples the excavator did not dig closer than 0. as indicated in Figure 5. because the larger number of fissures observed at this depth made the quality of the blocks less certain. Wooden boxes were placed around the blocks and polyurethane foam was injected 153 . manual spades and finally a soil saw (Figures 5.5 and 12m blocks were used in this research. namely the excavation to access the sampling point. they were wrapped in clingfilm and waxed.2 Block samples Staff and students of the Soil Mechanics Research Group.2. The sampling process is illustrated in Figure 5.4.3. 2005) which will be discussed in Chapter 6.5a) and the final stage of digging was carried out with a pneumatic clay spade. including the author. all the block samples belong to the lithological Units B2 and C.2.A further division of Unit B2 into three lithological sub-units. B2(a) B2(b) and B2(c). was later identified on the basis of the index properties of the samples and the study of microfossils (Mannion. Six blocks were recovered at 6. the blocks were recovered by excavating below the temporary profile of the bench using a hydraulic excavator operated by the contractors on site. 12 and 15m below ground level. the cutting of the samples and finally storage. The blocks were taken from the benches along the south side of the T5 lounge chamber excavation in the sludge lagoon shown in Figure 5. recovered the block samples during the Spring and Summer of 2003. Only samples from the 6. The final dimensions of each block were about 35x35x25cm.5.5b and 5. at depths of 6.

1977) and so did not seem to have a significant influence on the sample behaviour.3 Natural Samples. In order to obtain 38mm diameter samples the initial dimensions of the core were first reduced to a diameter of roughly 45mm using sharp knives. with diameter of around 100mm. (b) Rotary cores The rotary core samples had a circular shape.6. which was enough to avoid significant drying of the samples. in order to minimize the time spent in this process and reduce the drying of the samples. because they closed as the initial pressure was applied to the sample in the apparatus. 5.between the box and the block. The top of the box was then closed and the samples were left on site overnight to allow the foam to harden. The block was then turned over and the open side was shaped to be flat. Accurate readings of the co-ordinates and depths of the samples were taken with a GPS system. a maximum time of 20 minutes was spent trimming rotary core samples. drying allows fissures to open. which required more organization. They were trimmed to nominal conventional dimensions of 100x200mm or 38x76mm by using the trimming devices shown in Figure 5. Trimming the rotary core samples was quicker and simpler than trimming samples from blocks. a cradle and trimming saws.1 Trimming During the trimming process particular techniques were developed and improved with experience. Drying also changes the initial water content and therefore the suction of natural samples and needed to be avoided. then the required dimensions of 38mm diameter and 76mm length were achieved by using a hand lathe. It was then covered with clingfilm. After 24 hours the blocks were cut underneath with the clay spade. For the 100mm diameter 154 . With experience. waxed and a layer of polyurethane foam was placed before finally closing the last side of the wooden box.triaxial tests 5.3. These mostly had horizontal and vertical orientations (Sandroni.

7). This prism was shaped into a cylinder by hand. The long duration of the tests also made it necessary to perform leakage tests frequently.samples.3. which reduced the effective diameter of the samples to about 98mm.3 Preparation of the sample Once the sample had been trimmed to the correct shape.2 Preparation of the cell The cell was kept under a pressure of 500-600kPa for at least 24 hours before testing. using a hand lathe and saws. An electric saw was used to cut the wood and the bench saw to cut the soil. it was supported on wires placed on top of the porous stone to avoid contact between 155 . only about 1mm of soil was removed from the perimeter. The initial sample suction was always higher than 200kPa. 5. The block recovered from site was first cut into four smaller blocks without removing the original wooden box because this was a necessary support to the sample. while the other three were resealed with wax. foam and wood to be used in the future. During the manual trimming about six measurement of the water content of the sample were taken from the sides and the top of the specimen.3. it was w eighed and its dimensions were accurately measured. (c) Blocks A bench saw was used for initial trimming of the block samples (Figure 5. The presence of fissures required the sample to be continuously supported on its sides to avoid opening of the fissures during trimming. One sample was obtained immediately from one of the four smaller blocks. Most of the excess soil was removed with the bench saw to obtain a prism of 105mm width and 205mm length. therefore during the preparation of the sample. The length of these samples was chosen to be about 180mm due to space problems in the apparatus. This ensured perfect saturation of the system and dissolution of any air bubbles trapped in the drainage lines. It was necessary to have the help of other research students to accelerate the process of resealing the blocks and sometimes help was required also during the manual trimming because the samples were very fissured and tended to crumble. 5.

The mid-height pore pressure probe was pushed into the nozzles in of the membrane and again sealed with an o -ring and layers of latex. were directly glued onto the membrane. where the mid-height probe was available. The saturation 156 . because the high suction of the sample could have cavitated the probe. To minimize the time spent on the wires the sample was first prepared on the bench. In the 100mm samples. The pore pressure was allowed to stabilize for about 24 hours. An o ring was placed around the nozzles and several layers of latex were applied to seal the bender elements into the membrane. Circumferential and top filter papers. This prevented the sample from cavitating the drainage system. for the 100mm samples. which were dampened before use. Two “cross shaped” slots were excavated into the sample with a small screwdriver to locate the bender elements because the stiffness of the sample did not allow pushing the bender elements directly into it.the sample and the drainage system. The porous stone was first de-aired both by using a vacuum pump and by boiling the stone for few minutes.8 shows the preparation process of a 100mm diameter sample along with a sketch of the sample. the control system was set up to record the data and a cell pressure about 100kPa higher than the expected effective pressure in the sample was instantaneously applied. For the 100mm samples the mid-height pore pressure probe and the bender elements also had to be set up on the samples. The holes were filled with remoulded clay and the bender elements were safely pushed into it through the nozzles in the membrane. stabilization was indicated by a convergence of the base and the mid-height pore pressures. The sample was finally put into the apparatus. A direct contact between the probe and the sample was avoided at this stage by putting a thin layer of kaolin on the face of the probe. The membrane was prepared in advance with three nozzles to locate the bender elements and the mid-height pore pressure probe as shown in Figure 5.8a. The mounts of the axial LVDTs and the radial belt. were first placed to facilitate drainage and the sample was immediately closed with the membrane and the top platen to reduce stress release and drying during the preparation. The contact between the sample and the drainage system occurred only when cell pressure was applied so that a positive pore pressure was measured. Figure 5.

3. 1997) immediately before testing. Usually all the samples showed B values higher than 95%. In the last stage of the present research. with the exception of a few specimens tested at the beginning of the research that had lower values.of the system was checked by increasing the cell pressure by about 50kPa and measuring the B value at the base and mid-height: B= ∆u ∆σ r (5. These data are also included in Figure 5. The lower profile of suction was measured by Geotechnical Observations (GeO) with suction probes on high quality rotary core samples. these data agree with the profile derived using the ko values suggested by Hight et al. The initial effective stresses measured in the triaxial apparatus plot between two profiles of suction derived from measurements on high quality rotary core samples and on thinwalled samples made on site.. The suction measured on thin-walled samples was believed to be more representative of the true in situ stress of the soil and it was therefore decided to rely on the upper bound profile. The higher profile was calculated using the ko values suggested by Hight et al. (2003) on the basis of suction measurements on thin-walled samples. for depths shallower than 15m. these measurements were found to agree with the initial effective stress measured in the triaxial apparatus after the pore pressure had stabilized and the B value had been checked. For depths below about 15m.9. The initial effective stresses 157 . 5. but. suction probe measurements on thin-walled samples from 5 to about 17m depth became available. As shown in Figure 5.1) where ∆σr and ∆u are the changes in cell and pore pressure respectively. the measured values are lower than those calculated using the suggested ko .4 Expected effective stress The suction of some of the cores and block samples tested in this research was measured with a suction probe (Ridley & Burland. The cause of this poor saturation was air bubbles trapped in the drainage system of triaxial apparatus and the problem was solved by reducing the length of the drainage tubes and by keeping the cell under pressure before testing. (2003).9.

5 Test procedures The triaxial tests conducted on natural samples are summarized in Table 5. the low saturation of the drainage system of the triaxial apparatus did not allow to measure the true initial effective stresses of the samples.9 and by the difficulties encountered in the present research in reaching the calculated in situ stresses at shallow depths.measured in the triaxial apparatus agree with the profile from the thin-walled samples. (2003). Practical experience suggested that the ko values of this profile for shallower depths could be too large. 158 . to investigate the elastic parameters and the yielding stresses. In the first few tests performed in this research. dried the samples. increasing their initial suctions. Undrained compression probes to investigate the influence of recent stress history on the soil behaviour. In Appendix 5. 5. Greater initial effective stresses were measured in the triaxial apparatus on some 38mm samples and on some 100mm samples equipped with more sophisticated instrumentation.5.1 it is explained that the ko profile suggested by Hight et al. This was because the trimming process for the former and the time spent in setting up the latter. (see Section 3.4 and were: • • • • Undrained unconsolidated compression and extension tests Drained and undrained compression and extension tests on samples isotropically compressed or swelled.3. Due to lack of information at this time. these samples were saturated using the effective stresses from the curve suggested by GeO from the rotary core samples. Drained and undrained compression and extension tests starting from the assumed in situ stress of the sample. which seems to be confirmed by the measurements on thin-walled samples in Figure 5.3) was trusted for the calculations of the in situ stresses in the present research.

5kPa/h for 100mm samples and 2-3kPa/h for 38 mm samples. where a mid-height probe was 159 . The pore pressure was allowed to stabilise before shearing. A maximum pore pressure excess of 5% of the current p’ was allowed. A small initial deviatoric stress of about 10kPa was applied immediately after the application of the initial cell pressure or simultaneously to it if the load cell was rigidly connected. but it was never increased more than twice the previous value. This rate was typically increased at each logarithmic interval of strains after the internal strains had reached 0. The voltages of the internal strain transducers were re-zeroed immediately before shearing in order to have the maximum accuracy of readings. equilibration of the pore water pressure was checked by comparing the mid-height probe and the base pore pressure measurements. The scan of the data was set to have about 100 readings for each logarithmic interval of strains. it was found that the sample tended to tilt when starting from an isotropic state. The connection between the load cell and the sample was achieved by using a half ball or a rigid connection obtained by screwing the top platen onto the load cell. in order to minimize the disturbance applied to the sample at the beginning of the shearing.(a) Unconsolidated undrained tests These tests were preformed on 38mm and 100mm diameter natural samples.02%/hour was used. The load cell was connected to the sample using the suction cap before starting the isotropic loading. (b) Consolidated drained or undrained tests from an isotropic state These tests were conducted mainly on 38mm diameter natural samples. These rates were chosen to allow full drainage. therefore some tests were started from a slightly anisotropy state. and consisted of conventional strain controlled shear in compression. At the beginning of shearing. An initially constant external strain rate of 0. For the 100mm samples. The rate of isotropic loading was 11. The tests consisted of isotropic swelling or compression starting from the stress state where the pore pressure had stabilized and the saturation of the system had been checked.1%. The tests started from the isotropic stress state corresponding to the initial effective stress of the sample. For the 38mm samples.

The idea was to subject the samples to a set of shear probes following different stress path rotations.3SH. which were then applied to Samples 17SH and 17. It was decided to perform the probes starting from the isotropic stress state in order not to be close to either of the failure lines in compression or extension. The first few attempts at the tests demonstrated that was impossible to perform compression probes starting from an isotropic state because the Imperial College load cell used in the a pparatus has a mechanical gap that induces a jump in the strains at about 2. it was significant for the range of stresses applied. which does not allow a smooth increase of the stresses.not available. was used to practise and develop the best testing procedures. 17. The stiffness data were consequently not sufficiently clear in the zone where the maximum effect of the recent stress history was expected. Although the tilt was very small. Sometimes it was also difficult to perform compression probes even from a slightly anisotropic state with deviatoric stress of 10kPa because the sample showed a slight tilt due to the presence of the half-ball in the load cell connection. The probes were thus performed in extension.5SH. At the end of the isotropic stage.02%/h for the undrained tests and 0. and thus remove any effect of the outgoing stress path directions on the soil stiffness. The constant strain shear tests were performed at an initial rate of shearing of 0. The data-logging interval was set up to have about 100 data sets in each logarithmic interval of axial strain. 160 . The voltages of the internal transducers were re-zeroed before shearing.10).004%/h for the drained tests. (d) Investigation of the influence of recent stress history Two sets of tests on samples from about 17m depth were conducted to investigate the influence of recent stress history on the soil behaviour. the strains were allowed to stabilize long enough to achieve a rate of volumetric strain per hour 100 times smaller than the initial rate of axial strain during shearing. Similar tests were also performed on reconstituted samples.5kPa deviatoric strains (Figure 5. the isotropic compression was stopped every 100kPa and the drainage conditions were checked either by closing the drainage tap and checking the excess pore pressure or by waiting for the stabilization of the volumetric strain. One sample.

The second probe stage included a consolidation stress path from O to C and back to O followed by undrained extension from O to X and back from X to O. taking the sample well outside the Y2 surface in this case.11a) about 10kPa in length. After probing the sample was sheared in compression to failure. and is discussed in detail in Chapter 9. The cell pressure was kept constant while q was reduced at a constant stress rate of ±5kPa/h. The rotation of this path OX is therefore approximately 0o from the approach stress path. which were about 10kPa and 100kPa in length respectively. A brief description of tests will be given below. Two sets of approach stress paths were tried. The sample was 161 . but the approach stress paths were about 100kPa in length. At Point X the rotation of 180o to return to O was instantaneous. The first probe stage included a drained compression stress path at constant p’ from O to B and back to O followed by undrained stress controlled extension from O to X and back from X to O. At point X the rotation of 180o to return to O was instantaneous and did not allow any creep.11a). the approach stress path was similar to that performed on Sample 17SH.11a. For the second set. Test 2: 17. the consolidation stress paths and the undrained probes were similar to those described above for Test 17SH. Creep was allowed at Point O before starting the extension probe. The sample was first consolidated to its in situ p’ of 330kPa under a deviatoric stress of –10kPa (A to O in Figure 5. (Figure 5. sketched in Figure 5. Creep was allowed under these stress conditions until no variation of volumetric strains could be measured. Test 1: 17SH A sketch of the stress paths performed on this sample is shown in Figure 5.11b. For the first set. The extension from O implied a rotation of 180o from the approach stress path and creep was allowed at O prior to starting the probe. but creep was not allowed before the undrained probes.3SH Two sets of probes were performed on this sample.The shear probes performed were all undrained and stress controlled. which were performed in compression starting from an initial anisotropic stress state with q=10kPa.

were used to represent Unit C. which was in compression in this case. 10m. One block sample from 12. from this point. probes and/or anisotropic swelling or ko compression were performed before finally shearing the samples to failure. therefore the samples from depths shallower than 12. A sketch of the tests performed is shown in Figure 5. in order to reduce any differences between these samples only to those due to the effects of weathering. the stresses . In the triaxial apparatus for 100mm samples the axial stress was controlled by using the constant rate of strain pump.e.5m represented respectively the bottom and the top of Unit B2 .5m depth and from 10 to 12. The stress paths were stress controlled.5m depth was also used from the top of Unit B .5m were thought to belong to the top of Unit B2 and were expected to be weathered.1.12. From the in situ stress points the samples were either sheared directly to failure or were ko compressed or swelled anisotropically and then sheared to failure or probes were performed before shearing to failure. Rotary core samples from 34m to 40m depths were used to represent lithological Unit A3(2). Block samples from the top of the London Clay. 162 Prior to any following stage. In the early stages of the research the samples from depths shallower than 9. rotary core samples from about 22m to 32.4. (e) Tests from the in situ stress state Samples from four principal depths were consolidated to their in situ stresses and. which was more stable than the ram pressure and allowed better accuracy of control. The approach stress paths used to consolidate the samples to their in situ stress points are described in detail in Appendix 5.5m (i. “10m” and “12m” nominal depths) were consolidated to the same in situ stress point by following the same stress path. For each 2 of these lithological units the in situ stress states and the approach stress paths were calculated with reference to four main depths of 35m. 25m.consolidated to this initial stress state with a constant p’ path and sheared undrained in compression to Point X. which will be shown later to correspond to two lithological sub-units of Unit B2 (Section 6.2). Where bender elements were available. the stiffness of the sample was measured at each significant stress point along the approach stress path. 7m.

The elastic parameters of the soil and the limits of the elastic kinematic surfaces were measured in each stress path performed from the in situ stress point. The samples were then sheared to failure following the shearing procedures described above. axial and radial strain could be measured. The shearing was controlled by the constant strain rate pump at initial external axial r ates of 0. in order to have the maximum accuracy of readings. Probes These probes were performed on 100mm diameter samples. then the deviator stress was increased keeping p’ constant to reach the isotropic axis and the swelling was continued isotropically to a minimum of 10kPa.004%/h for drained tests.02%/h for undrained tests and 0. Swelling tests These tests were conducted on two 38mm samples from the reference depth of 25m. These rates were used for both 38mm and 100mm diameter samples. The stress path consisted of a stress controlled loading along the estimated ko reloading stress path to reach the isotropic axis. which were equipped with local axial and radial LVDTs and bender e lements. The purpose of 163 . The voltages of the internal transducers were therefore re-zeroed before starting each stress paths. The samples were swelled anisotropically from their in situ stress point to p’=300kPa. The sample was allowed to stabilize at this pressure and then isotropically compressed again to 100kPa before undrained shearing to failure. A conventional triaxial apparatus equipped with inclinometers was used. Axial and radial stress rates as slow as 1kPa/h were used in order to have enough data to recognize the limits of the kinematic regions. while the axial stress was increased at a constant rate of 4kPa/h up to the maximum total axial stress of 1500kPa allowed by the apparatus used.were held at the in situ state until the creep rate had reduced to negligible values and no variation of volumetric. From the isotropic axis the radial strain was then controlled to be constant. Ko compression from the in situ stress Samples of 38mm diameter were compressed along a ko path in the medium pressure triaxial apparatus.

A probe was considered successful if the maximum variation of pore pressure.5kPa/h for samples from 7m and 10m depth due to higher permeabilities that allowed full drainage even at this higher rate. The details of the measurements are described in Appendix 5. in order to monitor the temperature with time and its effect on the local and global instrumentation. 5. axial and radial strains could be measured. which caused a cyclic 164 .13(a). All the probes were drained and stress controlled and started when the creep strains had become negligible and no variation per hour of the volumetric. Each probe was performed at least twice for each sample to have a double check of the results. which was increased to 0. The probes were performed over a period of time that was free from any the temperature variation (see Section 5.7o C was noticed between night and day as shown in Figure 5. Full drainage of the sample was guaranteed by using very slow stress rates and was checked by monitoring the mid-height probe.6). The maximum stress change during the probes was about 2kPa.2. In order to minimise the temperature oscillation. Half of the above rates was usually used for the probes at constant q. axial and radial compression or extension and probes with p’ or q constant were performed.3.these probes was to measure the elastic parameters of the London Clay and identify the existence and the limit of the elastic yield surface. after which the stresses were quickly taken back to the in situ values without allowing for creep. so the transducers and the temperature were carefully monitored for at least 24 hours before starting a probe stage.6 Effect of temperature Thermometers were installed inside the 100mm triaxial cells.3.3kPa/h. Between 8-10 hours were usually allowed between each probe. From the in situ stress points. measured at the mid-height. Typically a cyclic temperature change of 0.1kPa. was lower than 0. the cell was wrapped in bubble wrap and aluminium foil. The axial and radial compression and extension probes and the constant p’ compression probes were performed at rates of 0.

where the maximum strains measured are as small as a third of the strains due to the temperature change.2) where C is the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal. 10-5 /Co and ∆T is the temperature variation. The corresponding strains induced by temperature change could have been: ∆l 2 × 10 −4 = × 100 ≈ 2.003% and 5kPa per day respectively. which itself could also expand.5 = 2 × 10 −4 (5.8 × 10 − 4% 70 lo εa = (5. It was thought that the variation of the strains might be affected by the expansion of the transducer armatures and bodies with temperature. Considering that the length l of the armature inside the LVDT body was about 20mm: ∆l armature = C × 2l × ∆T = 10 −5 × 2 × 20 × 0. It seemed that the changes of pore water pressure and strains were due to real changes of pore pressure inside the sample.3) The thermal expansion of the LVDTs was therefore not enough to explain the measured cycle of strains. The cyclic oscillation of the transducers has negligible influence on the large strain behaviour. but is relevant at very small strains. as shown in Figures 5. The only 165 . An approximated calculation of the thermal expansion of the LVDTs was carried out to check if the magnitude of this could influence the readings. These values were measured when the creep effects on the strains had already reduced to negligible values. Several checks were carried out in order to understand whether the observed cyclic oscillation of the values depended on the soil or on the sensitivity of the transducers to the temperature. Due to thermal expansion the armature could move into the LVDT body.variation of the strains and of the pore water pressure with time. The local axial strains and the mid-height pore pressure showed maximum excursions of about 0.13(b) and (c).

solution found to prevent it was to reduce the temperature variation inside the cell.5 and Figure 5.14 the variation of the values with time are presented.15 shows the cell wrapped for temperature insulation. This reduced the temperature change to less then 0. The pore pressure change reduced to less than 0.4.5kPa and the strain excursion to ±0. 166 . Some samples were first swelled before compression in order to investigate the effects of swelling on structure. using sharp knifes. 5. swelling to 100kPa and re-compression to 10MPa. but a period of time could also be identified when all the values were constant.2 Testing procedures Compression tests were performed on samples from different depths. the strains were monitored for at least 24 hours and the times when the strains were constant were identified. The sample depths and the corresponding units are summarized in Table 5.16 shows a schematic diagram of the test procedure.1 Sample preparation The samples were trimmed into the 38mm and 50mm diameter oedometer rings manually. This period was therefore chosen to perform the probes in each tests. These consisted of compression of the samples to about 4MPa.1o C and therefore the pore pressure and the local strain oscillations reduced. Again some tests were carrier out by MSc students under the supervision of the author. The cell was thus isolated by wrapping it in several layers of bubble wrap and aluminium foil.001%. Prior to the probing stage. Figure 5. 5. In Figure 5.4. The initial water content and the sample dimensions were carefully measured before the sample was set up in the apparatus with an initial vertical load equal to the in situ vertical stress.4 Natural samples –oedometer tests 5.

The isotropic compression was performed at a rate of 3kPa/h.5.1 Triaxial tests (a) Consolidation The reconstituted samples were consolidated in conventional 38mm consolidometers (Figure 5.6) therefore the above defects of the consolidation process were overcome. A cell pressure of about 130kPa was initially applied to the sample. which was allowed to stabilize under a back pressure of 100kPa. 5. For each depth a minimum of three tests was performed with the help of MSc students. This stress rate was not slow enough to permit full drainage.1mm per day. and then either sheared undrained or swelled to low stresses before shearing. but could not be reduced due to time constraints. (b) Sample preparation The samples were set up in a conventional triaxial apparatus equipped with inclinometers to measure the local strains. (c) Tests procedures Isotropic compression and swelling tests followed by undrained shearing were performed on samples from different depths. This method of consolidation generates inhomogeneities in the sample due to frictional resistance along the side of the consolidometers and the distribution of the water content is not uniform along the sample. The samples were isotropically compressed to different stresses. Circumferential filter papers facilitated drainage. The samples were allowed to consolidate under this load until the axial displacements were less than 0.5.5 Reconstituted samples The reconstituted samples were obtained by remoulding the natural samples at a water content of 1.17) to σ’v of about 30kPa. without air or oven drying. following the recommendations of Burland (1990).25 times the liquid limit. Pore pressure dissipation was therefore allowed by stopping the compression every 100kPa and 167 . All the reconstituted samples were reconsolidated though in the triaxial apparatus and the initial specific volume was calculated using different methods (see Section 5.

Most of the oedometer tests and the triaxial tests on reconstituted samples were performed by MSc students as part of their dissertation projects.7.6. however the samples were left to dry in the oven for a time between three and five days.1 Calculations and corrections (a) Water content The water content of the specimens was measured according to the British Standard (BS 1377:2:1990).6 Analysis of the data For each sample tested the initial and final water content were measured along with the dimensions and the angle of shear plane.02%/h. 5. The calculations for both natural and reconstituted samples were made as follows. 5.1. The names of these students are included in Tables 5. This procedure gave points during compression that could be used to identify the Normal Compression Line.2 Oedometer tests The oedometer tests on reconstituted samples were similar to those performed on natural samples. Strain controlled undrained shearing was then performed at a rate of 0. The details of the tests are summarized in Table 5.6.6 and 5.allowing the volumetric strains to stabilize overnight. 5. 168 . The writer closely supervised these students so that uniformity in testing procedures could be ensured. The final wet weight and water content were measured after each test. because the standard 24 hours were thought to be not enough to allow a consistent drying of large samples. 5. The specimens were never allowed to dry longer than 5 days. Stages of loading and unloading were performed as summarized in Table 5.7. when formed. the shearing was started after the volumetric strain rate per hour had reduced to 1/100 of the shear strain rate to be used. 5.5.5. As for the tests on natural samples.

6) v i = Gs wi + 1 vi = Gs − 1 γ −1 γw vi = (1 − ε viso )(1 − ε vsh ) vf (5.7). as discussed in Chapter 6.5) and (5. and therefore two values of the final volume could be used in equation (5. The final specific volume vf in Equation (5.5) (5. which varies with depth and was measured at different depths along the borehole. ε viso and ε vsh : volumetric strain developed during isotropic compression and shearing respectively.7) where the symbols shown are defined as follows: γ : bulk unit weight.7) was calculated using the final water content wf and the final bulk weight γf in Equations (5.4) could not be used for the 100mm natural samples because the final dry weight of the samples was not available. as one half of the sample was not dried in the oven in order to use it for reconstituted samples.6) respectively. γw : unit weight of water. At each stage of the tests the specific volume was updated using: ε   v current = vi 1 − v   100  (5. γd : dry bulk unit weight. Gs : specific gravity.4) (5.(b) Specific volume The initial specific volume vi was calculated using the average of the values obtained with four methods: vi = G s γw γd (5.8) 169 . Equation (5.

9) where Ao is the initial cross-sectional area. which is measured by the volume gauge. (1988). It typically agreed with the value calculated from the local instrumentation. (c) Area correction The current area A was generally calculated applying a right-cylinder correction (Bishop & Henkel. when this was used to about ±0.05%.10) where ∆h is the axial displacement and Df and ∆hf are respectively the diameter of the specimen and the axial displacement at the time of the shear plane formation and α is the angle of the shear plane to the horizontal. 1957): A = Ao 1−εv 1−εa (5. ε a and ε v are the axial and volumetric strain. the correction formula applied to the measured deviatoric stress due to the effect of the membrane for a barrelling type of deformation was: 170 . Following Bishop & Henkel (1957) and La Rochelle et al. All the natural samples and some of the reconstituted samples that were sheared to large strains showed a localization of strains.where ε v is the volumetric strain. (d) Membrane correction The effect of the membrane restraint was calculated for both natural and reconstituted samples.18:  ∆h − ∆hf D2 π f A=  − a sin  D 2 2 f   2 2 D2 (∆h − ∆h f ) (cotα )  f  − (∆h − ∆h f )cotα −  4 4  (5. The cross-sectional area was then calculated applying the correction suggested by Chandler (1966) and illustrated in Figure 5. which was inspected visually during the test. After the formation of the shear plane the failure mechanism consisted of the sliding of two rigid blocks along the failure surface.

which was equipped with a displacement transducer that was electronically logged. and M is the extension modulus of the rubber membrane.19. For any strain ε a of the soil specimen beyond the strain ε f at which the shear plane formed. from the point when the shear plane formed the correction equation derived by La Rochelle et al. The membrane was placed between two rods connected to the loading frame. φ ’ by: f = σ r' tan ϕ ' (5. per unit width. The modulus M used for the calculation was the tangent at 10% strain.5πD MfDδ where: • (5. but significant for reconstituted samples.∆ (σ a − σ r ) = πDMε a (1 − ε a ) Ao (5. in particular for those samples that were swelled to low pressures. The curves of load against strain for all the membranes used in this research are plotted in Figure 5. (1988) was used: ∆ (σ a − σ r ) A = 1. The extension modulus M was calculated for each type of membrane used in this research by using the loading system frame shown in Figure 5.20.13) • δ is the axial strain due to the movement along the plane.14) where ε e is the strain at the end of the test and 171 .12) f is the unit friction between the soil and the membrane and is related to the angle of shearing resistance of the soil. consistent with the literature.11) where D is the initial diameter of the sample. The membrane restraint was found to be negligible for natural samples. δ is given by: δ = δe εa −ε f εe −ε f (5. In those tests that showed localization of strains.

with the stresses expected at failure. Equations 5. the stresses on the shear plane and at the intersection between the Mohr circle and the tangent 172 . with ∆hp =∆h measured at the end of the test and Ho is the initial length of the sample. (e) Volumetric and shear strains The volumetric strains were calculated from the volume gauge changes: εv = − ∆V Vo (5. A sketch of the method is shown in Figure 5.18) 5. For an intact failure mode.6. resulting from the intersection of the circle with a plane drawn from the pole having the inclination of the shear plane. was conducted applying the Mohr circle method. but 5. The shear strains were calculated from: εs = 2 (ε a − ε r ) 3 (5. resulting from the intersection of the circle with the tangent to it from the origin.18.δe = ∆h p Ho = ∆D tan α Ho (5.16) where Vo is the initial volume of the sample calculated for each test stage.2 Shear plane analysis The analysis of the shear plane. when it formed.17 were always in very good agreement. A sketch of the circle of stresses was drawn for each sample and a comparison was made between the stresses on the shear plane. This comparison allowed the identification of the failure characteristics.17) where ε a and ε r are the axial and radial strains from the local instrumentation. For the samples equipped with local instrumentation the volumetric strains were also calculated from:  ε  ε v = ε a + 2ε r − ε r2 1 − ε a + 2 a   εr    (5.17 was used in the small strain region.16 and 5.15) as in Figure 5.21.

gs = shortcut along the geological history followed by swelling to low pressures. The triaxial tests on natural samples begin with numbers. DE=drained extension. gk =shortcut along the geological history followed by ko compression. lg = consolidation through the long geological history stress path (see Appendix 5. UE = undrained extension. k = ko consolidation starting from the isotropic axis. but probably required lower energy and was due to a pre-existing fissure in the sample.1). An angle α different to θ indicates that the failure mode occurred along a plane that does not correspond to that that the intact material would have mobilised. while the oedometer tests on natural samples begin with the letter “O”.from the origin (point A in the figure) are expected to coincide approximately.7 Nomenclature of the tests The tests are named so that it is possible to understand from the title the depth of the samples and the test procedure. although allowance should be made for any curvature of the failure envelope. g = shortcut along the geological history stress path ((see Appendix 5. DC = drained compression. The angle α is then the same as the angle θ formed by joining the pole of stresses to Point A. is = isotropic swelling conditions. Triaxial tests In triaxial tests on natural samples. 5. The letters indicate: i = isotropic compression. UC = undrained compression.1). 173 . the subsequent small letters refer to the consolidation stress path and the capital letters to the shearing stage. All tests on reconstituted samples begin with the letter “r”. the numbers refer to the depth of the sample.

For triaxial tests on reconstituted samples. The letter “s” at the end of the name indicates that the sample was swelled before compression. Oedometer tests The names of the oedometer tests on natural samples start with t e letter “O” h followed by a number that indicates the depth of the sample. r25nc is a test on a sample reconstituted from about 25m depth and was normally consolidated before undrained shearing. Test 24gsUC is a triaxial test on a sample from 24m depth that was consolidated to its in situ stress state along the short geological stress path (Appendix 5.5(d)) and sheared undrained in compression. 174 .For example. the names start with the letter “r”. swelled to low stresses (see Section 5. O12s refers to an oedometer test on a natural sample from 12m depth that was swelled before compression. For example.3. The oedometer tests on reconstituted samples also start with the letter “r” followed by the “O” and the depth from which the samples were reconstituted.1). while rO25 refers to a tests on a reconstituted sample from 25m depth. the number refers to the depth of the soil the sample was reconstituted from and the following letters refer to the consolidation stress path: nc = normally consolidated. For example. oc = overconsolidated No indication of the shear stage is given because all the reconstituted tests were sheared undrained.

7 -12.5gkUC 34iUC O35 O35s 36lgUC 36.5 -13.5 31.5 7 7.9 11.8 17 17 17.49 30.4 25.7 24 24.1: Summary of all tests performed on natural samples 175 .95 32 32 32.4 30.89 28 29.5 25.Unit Sample name 7gUC 7gUE 7kUC O7 O10 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.2 45 mOD 16.3iUC 26. 2004) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial (Viladesau.5 -2.3gUE 36.4 -10.5 12.9 -2.1 13.6 10.5iUC 27UC 28DC O28 O28s 28.5 0.3 4 5 5.3 18.4 26 26.2iUC 38.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.1 16.5 9.5gUC 12.8 23.3 -17.7 -27.1 11 10.2 30.8 9.6 5.4 6.6 11.1 29.9 0.5 13 13.6iUC 16.8 -14.2003) oedometer (Ma.75 -3 -3.5 6.1 10.7 6.1 11.25 26.6 16.51 19.7isDC 22gsUC 22.75 15.4 6.6ikUC 23gUE 23.49 36.7 18 18.3 31.5UC 31iUC 31.2003) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Pun.2 -0.9DE 12.5 21 21.7 0.4 20 20.2003) oedometer (Ma.78 -1.2 22 22 22.28 25 25 25 25. 2004) triaxial (Viladesau.5 -4.9 6. 2004) oedometer (Pun.5 -14.55 23.5 16.8 11 11 11.71 16 16.9 7.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.05 -0.5 27.71 22 22.3 5.6iUC 23.4gsUC O25 O25s 25gUC 25.2 5.3 17.3 16.2 20.6 10.6 16.5iUC 13gUE O12s 14iUC 16.3 -0.6gUC 22.3g 36.2 51 top of LC [m] 1 1. 2004) Table 5.7iUC 11. 2004) oedometer (Pun.2 26.2 13. 2004) oedometer (Ma.51 13.5 -5 -7.2 23.3 11.1 35.5 -11.5 12.2 17.4gUE 33.9 -13 -13 -13.5 -1.5 37 37.5UC 38.22 36.6 22.28 19 19 19 19.2 36.7 -2.4 11.3gkUC 24.7 -4.9 -8 -10.4 31.5 6. 2004) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Ma.5 31 31.5 -15 -15.5 33.5 27 27.79 1.3 10 11 11.8 -0.4 36.7 8.7 14.3 37.75 21.2 12.2003) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Pun.5 -0.99 3.5SH 19.95 38 38 38.5 -3.22 30.25 20.5 38.75 41.3SH 17.8UC O17 17SH 17.4 10.5 Sample diameter Test type [mm] 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 38 100 100 100 100 50 100 50 38 100 38 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 100 38 100 100 38 38 38 50 100 100 38 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 38 38 100 38 50 38 50 100 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 100 100 100 38 Researcher (if not author) C B2 A3(2) A3(1) triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Pun.5 32.4 12.2003) triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial (Viladesau.4 16.3 11.1 7.2 1.5 -14.6 -11.3 24. 2004) triaxial (Viladesau.8 17.5 -1.7 -12.1 7.89 34 35.75 35.5 -1.1 1.2 28 28 28.4iUC 11.7lgUC 40iUC O51 Sample type block block block block rotary core block rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core Depth from ground level [m] 7 7.55 17.7UC 24g37DC 24.8isUC 21.2 7.75 1.9 13.4 5. 2004) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Ma.

5-45 45-48 48-52 Unit C B2 B1 A3(2) A3(1) A2 Table 5.5 *approximate values Table 5.4 21.5 33.43 22.2: Coordinates of borehole and block samples Depth from ground level [m] 5-10 10-32.3 21.5 17.5-33.Borehole Number Used in this research Used for site investigation Used for site investigation and CPT tests Block samples* PTBH1 PTBH2 BH404 BH406 BH407 BH408 BH413 Easting [m] 5170 5176 5380 4976 4971 4966 4961 5190-5198 Northing [m] 5703 5685 5880 5707 5706 5706 5705 5860-5865 Ground level [m] 22.3 21.3: Division of the borehole sample into lithological units 176 .5 32.0 21.43 18.

History 100 171 recent str.7UC 24g37DC 24.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.7lgUC 40iUC (Viladesau.+37m 100 512 short geol hist+Ko compr.5UC 38.5SH 19.9DE 12. 38 286 short geological history 100 310 isotropic swell 100 38 consolidated to saturate 38 350 isotropic consolidation 38 400 100 354 isotropic consolidation 100 296 unconsolidated 100 300 long geological hist 240 unconsolidated 100 MHPP bender element shear probes stress state before shearing p' q [kPa] [kPa] 260 260 788 260 1123 260 275 125 260 260 3500 260 1333 200 330 330 330 330 50 50 50 420 867 420 1285 420 509 420 50 420 420 248 248 234 460 340 320 400 1300 509 1040 4000 509 509 509 509 100 300 1800 400 600 296 509 340 -86 -86 230 -86 247 -86 0 0 0 -86 0 -86 0 0 0 0 -10 10 0 0 0 -154 216 -154 0 -154 10 -154 0 -154 -154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -126 472 0 -126 -126 -126 -126 8 0 0 0 0 10 -126 0 Researcher shear (if not author) UC UE UC UC UC DE UC UC DE UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC DC UC DC UC UE UC UC UC UC UC UC UE UC DC UC UC UC DC UC UC UE UC UC UC incomplete incomplete C B2 A3(2) 7gUC 7gUE 7kUC 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.4iUC 11. Hist.5iUC 13gUE 14iUC 16.5gUC 12.8UC 17SH 17.3gkUC 24. short geological history 100 192 short geol hist+Ko compr. 38 405 short geological history 38 240 isotropic compression 38 230 100 consolidated to saturate isotropic compression 100 325 short geological history 100 212 isotropic compression 50 260 short geological history 100 191 isotropic compression 38 261 100 consolidated to saturate 38 consolidated to saturate recent str.8isUC 21.3gUE 36. History 100 136 recent str.7iUC 11.3SH 17. History 100 233 305 short geol hist+swell 38 393 isotropic swell 38 305 short geol hist+swell 38 362 short geological history 100 357 iso+ko compression 38 369 short geological history 100 400 isotropic compression 38 250 short geological history 100 250 short geol.6iUC 23.4: Triaxial tests on natural samples 177 . 38 50 consolidated to saturate 327 long geological history 100 423 short geological history 100 520 short geol hist+Ko compr.4gsUC 25gUC 25.5iUC 27UC 28DC 28.4gUE 33. 2004) (Viladesau. 2004) (Viladesau.2iUC 38.5gkUC 34iUC 36lgUC 36.Unit Sample name Initial D effective Approach stress path stress p' [mm] [kPa] short geological history 100 201 short geological history 100 220 38 191 short geol hist+Ko compr.6gUC 22. 38 333 short geol hist+swell 38 350 100 313 100 38 consolidated to saturate 38 consolidated to saturate 100 consolidated to saturate 245 isotropic compression 100 340 100 320 38 400 38 207 isotropic compression 38 200 short geological history 100 500 short geol hist+Ko compr. 2004) DC UC UC UC DC UC UC UC UC Table 5.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.6iUC 16.6ikUC 23gUE 23.5UC 31iUC 31.3iUC 26. 2004) (Viladesau.7isDC 22gsUC 22.3g 36.

64 0.72 1.2003) (Pun.2 Consolidation stress path Max stresses Stress state reached in before compression shearing Shear p' q p' q [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] Researcher (if not author) r7nc r7oc r10nc r10oc r10oc1 r25nc r25nc1 r25oc r25oc1 r25oc2 r35nc r35oc r35oc1 block block rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core normal consolidated 400 over consolidated 200 normal consolidated 317 over consolidated 450 over consolidated 600 normal consolidated 600 normal consolidated 600 over consolidated 600 over consolidated 200 over consolidated 600 normal consolidated 485 over consolidated 600 over consolidated 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 100 317 200 30 600 600 200 15 50 485 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC (Abdulhadi.Unit C Sample name O7 O10 O12s O17 O25 O25s O28 O28s O35 O35s O51 Initial void Initial ratio swell e 0. 2004) (Abdulhadi.2003) (Pun. 2004) 25 10 25 A3(2) A3(1) (Ma.5: Oedometer tests on natural samples (Refer to Figure 5. 2004) (Abdulhadi.74 0.6: Triaxial tests on reconstituted samples 178 .8 0.2003) (Ma. 2004) (Abdulhadi.17) Reconstituted from: Sample name depth unit sample type [m] 7 C 7 11 12 12 21 B2 24 24 25 25 37 35 A3(2) 36.2003) 25 B2 (Ma. 2004) Table 5. 2004) (Abdulhadi.73 0.97 0. 2004) (Ma. 2004) (Abdulhadi. 2004) (Pun.72 0.62 0. 2004) (Abdulhadi. 2004) (Abdulhadi. 2004) Table 5.68 0.77 0.57 O 100 160 160 217 260 150 220 220 425 425 550 S Compression path σ'v[kPa] A B 3500 100 2500 4000 5200 7000 1500 3500 11500 3000 2000 4400 260 75 1300 260 150 220 10 425 50 550 Researcher C 15000 10000 11000 10400 17000 8500 14000 8000 10000 14000 D 150 25 25 50 25 220 25 25 550 (if not the author) (Pun.

7: Oedometer tests on reconstituted samples (Refer to Figure 5.Reconstituted from: Sample name depth [m] 7 10 17 25 28 Compression path unit C sample type block rotary core rotary core rO7 rO10 rO17 rO25 rO28 rO35 rO51 O 5 5 5 5 5 5 A 780 1000 260 σ 'v[kPa] B 6 8 C 1300 2000 D 6 8 (Pun.2003) 12 (Pun. 2004) 25 10 (Pun.16) 179 . 2004) B2 A3(2) A3(1) rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core 21 24 1060 1000 2000 50 15 25 8 6000 1660 7500 1000 25 (Ma. 2004) Table 5.

2.M25 180 Figure 5.1: Map of Heathrow T5 A4 North runway T5 Perry Oak Sewage Work Terminals 1. 3 Heathrow Airport London South runway N Scale: = 50m .

Block samples Streams Sludge Lagoon BH404 PTBH2 PTBH1 CPT BH406 Borehole samples Perry Oaks Sewage Works Scale: = 20m N Figure 5.2: Map of samples location 181 .

3: Sketch of the boreholes divided into lithological units and subunits Figure 5.4: Sketch of the excavation where the block samples were recovered 182 .C depth from the ground level [m] Borehole 2 B2 B1 A3(2) Borehole 1 A3(1) A2 Figure 5.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Figure 5.5. Sampling process: (a) strip of soil excavated by the digging machine. (b) block roughly shaped by pneumatic clay spade. (d) cling film layer applied on the block. (e) wax layers applied on the block. (c) block shaped by hand. (f) block sample closed in the wooden box and sealed with polyurethane foam 183 .

Figure 5.7: Bench saw and block sample trimming 184 .6: Trimming devices for 100mm diameter samples Figure 5.

185 . (c) sealing of the bender elements and mid-height probe.8: Sample preparation: (a) preparation of the membrane.(a) (b) Suction cup Half ball Top cap Membrane Lateral bender elements LVDT Radial Belt Side Filter paper Mid.height Mid-hight PP probe Wire Filter paper Porous stone (c) (d) Figure 5. (b) set up of the bender elements. (d) sketch of the sample with full instrumentation.

2003 100mm rotary core in triax. apparatus Figure 5. apparatus suction probe on block sample suction probe on rotary core GeO thin wall from ko calculation Hight et al.9: Suction measurements and initial effective stresses measured in the triaxial apparatus for all samples tested (data from Dineen.. 2003) 186 . Hight et al.Suction [kPa] 0 0 GeO rotary cores 200 400 600 5 10 Depth below ground level [m] 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 100mm block sample in triax. apparatus 38mm rotary core in triax. 2002.

008 ε a [%] (a) 18 17 16 q [kPa] 15 14 13 12 11 10 0.8 7 6 5 q [kPa] 4 3 2 1 0 0.000 LVDT1 LVDT2 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.000 LVDT1 LVDT2 Jump in strain -0.004 0.002 0.002 0.10: Problems in performing shear probes: (a) jump caused by the load cell and tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=0kPa.008 0. (b) tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=10kPa 187 .004 0.010 ea [%] εa [%] (b) Figure 5.

12: Sketch of the tests carried out from the in situ stress point 188 .11: Sketch of the stress path rotations for Tests (a) 17SH and (b) 17.3SH q on ssi re mp o oc k Swelling to low pressures Y1 O probes P’ NOT TO SCALE Figure 5.B q B Y2 O θ=180o C (a) Y2 θ=0o O θ=0 o A θ=180o C X X NOT TO SCALE (b) P’ Figure 5.

005 0.004 0.003% ∆εa=0.003 -0.4 21.001 -0.003% ∆er =0.9 240 Mid-height Pore Pressure [kPa] 239 238 237 236 235 234 233 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 ∆T~0.002 loc1 loc2 radial A a [%] 0.000 0 -0. (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains 189 .004 -0.2 21.21.005 time [h] starts at 12:00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 (c) ∆ea=0.6 temperature [Deg C] 21.001% ∆εr=0.002 -0.001 0.13: Variation with time of (a) temperature.1 21 20.5 21.7 Deg C (a) ∆u~5 kPa (b) 0.003 0.001% Figure 5.3 21.

0005% ∆ε r =0.000 0 -0.003 -0.2 kPa 200 199 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0.0005% Figure 5.001% ∆ε a=0.004 0. (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains after the cell was wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil 190 .2 22.001 0.22.005 time [h] 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 ∆ea=0.4 temperature [Deg C] 22.004 -0.002 -0.8 21.3 22.1 Deg C Mid-height Pore Pressure [kPa] 202 201 ∆u~0.001% ∆er =0.001 -0.9 21.14: Variation with time of (a) temperature.005 0.002 loc 1 loc 2 radial A a [%] 0.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 ∆T~0.1 22 21.003 0.

15: Triaxial cell wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil to prevent temperature oscillations e S B D A O C I’v Figure 5.Figure 5.16: Sketch of the sequence of the oedometer tests 191 .

17: Consolidometers for the reconstituted samples .Figure5.18: Area correction for specimen with a failure plane at an axial displacement ∆h (Chandler.D Figure 5. 1966) 192 .

25 load [kN/m] 0.19: Loading frame to measure the membrane extension modulus M (Bishop & Henkel 1957) 0.26mm M=0.Figure 5.36kN/m t=0.35 0.49kN/m t=0.05 t=membrane thickness M=0.20 0.30 0.54mm M=0.56mm 0.10 0.20: Extension modulus M calculated for the membrane correction 193 .15 0.35kN/m t=0.00 0 5 10 15 20 Aa [%] 38mm 38mm mid-pressure 50mm high pressure 100mm 30 35 40 45 50 25 Figure 5.36mm M=0.79kN/m t=0.

21: Mohr circle of stresses 194 .200 τ [kPa] A 100 peak envelope φ’ α=θ σ‘ [kPa] 100 200 300 400 Figure 5.

but some information could be gathered based on the experience of the block sampling and trimming. 6. which are A3(1) and A3(2). without specification of the sub-unit. particularly in Unit C. prior to this research. At Heathrow two sub-units of Unit A3 exist. The fissures seemed spaced at about 5-10cm and had a preferred angle of between 15o and 30o to the horizontal. A detailed log of the fissures was not recorded in this study. together with the sandy and silty layers observed. The data will be compared with existing information on the London Clay at this location and will be used as a background to the analysis of the tests results. The division into lithological units. block samples were used for the present research and the occurrence of fissures seemed to be their dominant feature. Natural fissures were noticed along all the length of the borehole. only samples from Sub-Unit A3(2) were tested and therefore these w be always referred to as samples from ill Unit A3 . but seemed more concentrated at shallower depths. identified by Hight et al. 195 . From this unit.1 Introduction In this chapter. is superimposed on the borehole and natural fissures and fissures arising from drilling are highlighted. the characteristics of the samples used in the present research and their engineering proprieties will be described with reference to the lithological characterization of the clay. (2003) at this site. which was carried out by others in May 2001.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL 6.2 Sample descriptions Figure 6. though. though.1 shows the borehole used in this study and the main soil features recognized visually during the sampling process. For the present research.

No description of these samples was recorded during the sampling process apart from the severe disturbance caused by the drilling. between 18m and 28m depth. respectively in Units C.g. The analyses were carried out on samples from three levels. between 10 and 12m depth.5m depth. Three magnetic lenses compress the size of the beam so that the size of the area being scanned reduces. The basic principle of the apparatus and the techniques used were similar to those documented in the literature (e. with 2 the exception of a few localized stones of 2 -3cm diameter and shell fragments at around 23m depth. An electron gun shoots a narrow electron beam against the sample’s surface. seemed fairly uniform. the electrons are reflected in a way that depends on the topography of the constituents of the 196 . in London. J. 1982).5m and 34.3 Microstructure of the London Clay An analysis of the microstructure and mineralogy of the clays was carried out by means of an electron microscope and X-ray diffraction. identifying possible differences at the micro-level between clays from different lithological units. All the samples from Unit B1 were very disturbed during the sampling process and were not suitable for testing. On impact with the sample. The SEM analyses were conducted by Dr. 6.Sandy and silty layers of thickness between 1cm and 3cm also occurred frequently along the borehole and became more numerous in Unit A3 . using a field emission electron microscope (Philips XL30).1 SEM analysis The main aim of this investigation was to examine the fabric of the clay in the different lithological units and identify signs of possible bonding in its structure. several 2 sandy layers were also recorded. B2 and A3 . The middle part of Unit B . Smart & Tovey. 6. 23. At the top of Unit B . Huggett at the Natural History Museum.3. The occurrence of more laminated soil was noticed at depths between 14m and 17m. while it is under vacuum. together with pyrite and shell fragments. 7m.

Fe derived from weathering can combine with S from rotting 197 . together with glauconitic faecal pellets and detrital feldspar and mica. it is not uncommon for metal cations. All the pictures are of a vertical plane orientated in the vertical direction. the clay seems quite densely packed and well-orientated. where carbonate occurs it does so as individual crystals (Figure 6. which is converted into magnified images of the area being scanned (Figure 6. indicates that Unit A3 deposited in a high-energy marine shelf environment. the shrinkage due to air-drying does not affect dramatically the soil structure and air-drying was therefore adopted. used for the present analysis.4 and 6. The Philips XL30 microscope. was also equipped with the more advanced technology of field emission.7) rather than as a general coating on the sediment particles.9 show images of a sample from 34. typically Ca.5). However. the winnowing effects of waves did not remove the clay fraction completely. Similarly. Here. particularly for soft samples. a typical detrital clay fabric with particles aggregated in domains is recognizable.sample and a receiver-decoder of the reflected electrons produces a signal. The microscope images are illustrated in Figures 6.2). At high magnification (Figures 6.3 to 6. (a) Unit A3 Figures 6.19 and the figure captions and the sketches describe the particular features of each sample. A technique of freeze-drying is preferred to reduce the disturbance due to pore water extraction on the fabric.3 to 6. due to wave and current action. The rough shape of the clay particles. the main features of the samples from the different units will be described.3). In the following sections. which allowed a better resolution of the images. unless otherwise indicated. In such an environment. which were air-dried and gold coated for testing. though. Only intact samples were used. In stiff clays. together with the main differences between them. At low magnification (Figure 6.5m depth at different magnifications. derived from the weathering of silicate minerals to combine with the atmospheric CO2 dissolved in the sea water to form carbonate precipitates in the pore spaces of the sediments as it dewaters during burial.

18. There does not seem to be a clear horizontal bedding and there are disturbances within the overall orientation. the clay reveals the presence of fossils and rounded particle aggregates.14 and 6. Substantial differences with the samples from the other units are immediately recognizable. At high magnification. although there is a predominance of face-to-face contacts. perhaps due to the presence of the grains.13. At low magnification (Figures 6. In Figure 6. The clay in this area seems more compacted and organised in domains. the central part of the clay area between the grains.10 to 6. 2004). At a very small scale it is possible to observe that what seems to be a 2µm clay 198 . The clay particles are detrital and only few grains could be recognized. It is difficult to identify domains or large particle aggregates and. At low magnification.15). creating a pattern of orientated domains with a preferred sub-horizontal orientation (Mannion. the fabric seems very disturbed and it is difficult to identify any preferred orientation. The sample shows a more clayey appearance and it seems homogeneous. A small area free from silt grains was also identified in the sample (Figure 6. which arises in part from bioturbation. the nature of the contacts seems to reveal a cardhouse structure (Figure 6.5m depth are shown. seems less compacted than the clay area around the grains.16. but predominantly the particles are faceto face.18). the images of a sample from 23. The grains induce orientation in the clay particles (Figure 6.13). (b) Unit B2 In Figures 6. randomly orientated sub-rounded to angular silt and find sand-sized grains can be imbedded in a finer clay matrix. the structure appears very different from that observed in the sample from Unit A3 .8).16). Generally.9). Pyrite nodules are commonplace throughout the London Clay and can range up to several centimetres across.14 to 6. (c) Unit C The images of a sample from 7m depth are shown in Figures 6.organic matter in an oxygen-poor environment to give irregular growths of pyrite (Figure 6. which are squashed between the grains and so are compacted around them. There are some edge-to-face contacts between the clay particles (Figure 6.

This sample from Unit C was retrieved at 1m below the top of the London Clay level and was therefore expected to be weathered.15) indicate that the clay particles formed in situ and are not detrital. 199 . perhaps as a result of compaction. The occurrence of calcite crystals (Figure 6.17) confirms that the clay is unweathered. it was believed that X-ray and chemical analyses to try to identify a calcite cement would not be very revealing and these were therefore not performed for this study. The fabric seems to be constituted of large aggregates and single particles in about equal proportion. although the size of these grains seems to be larger in Unit C.particle is actually an aggregate of much smaller particles in face-to-face contact. which excludes the possibility that this sample underwent a weathering process. The presence of grains characterizes samples from Units C and A3 . The regular shape of the particles and the presence of frequent holes in the sample (Figure 6. more packed and orientated at greater depths and more open and disturbed at shallower depths. expected to be in the sample. The clay structure seems to be very different at the three levels.19. but they could not be identified. therefore. Due to the rough surface of the clay particles. which would probably provide a minor localised bonding but in no unit could a general calcite coating be seen. The nature of the structure reveals a probable originally flocculated fabric that developed into a cardhouse fabric at shallower depths and into a bookhouse fabric at greater depths. A homogeneous clayey pattern and the presence of fossils distinguish Unit B2 . especially at shallow depths. Localised calcite crystals could be identified. (d) Comparison between different lithological units In Figure 6. Decalcified sediments and cryptocrystalline iron oxided were. three images of the samples from the different units are put together for a comparison between the clays from these units. A larger horizontal stiffness is therefore expected for deeper units.

The areas are measured using freeware "Macdiff".3 mm slits from 2 to 40° 2θ. The clay fraction sample was scanned on a Phillips 1820 automated X-ray diffractometer using Ni-filtered CuKα radiation.22 and are summarised in Table 6.2 Chemical micro-analysis The chemical composition of microscopic zones within the clay was investigated by Dr. The reflections used are: Smectite reflection at ~5 degrees Illite reflection at ~9 degrees Kaolinite reflection at 24. The clay tiles were scanned at a rate of 5 seconds per 0. The clay minerals are quantified using the areas of reflections (peaks) for which there is no.6. After spraying with glycol they were rescanned from 2 to 26° and again after heating at 400°C for 4 hours.3.9 degrees Chlorite reflection at 25. A portion of each sample was crushed. 200 . mixed with distilled water plus a few drops of ammonia as a dispersant and placed in an ultrasonic bath for 30 minutes to release the maximum amount of clay into suspension. The suspended sediment was then centrifuged (1000 rpm for 4 minutes) to l ave only the <2µm fraction in solution. These areas are weighted using factors determined from known mixtures of the clays previously analysed. also for 4 hours. e The clay suspension was decanted off from the >2µm fraction and centrifuged at high speed until all the clay was removed from suspension. (20 minutes at 4000 rpm). using 0. The resulting slurry was filtered onto an unglazed ceramic tile. or minimal.20 to 6.1.02° step width. Huggett. using a system composed of a scanning electron microscope with an X-ray receiver and diffractometer. interference from other clays. and finally after heating at 550°C.1 degrees The scans obtained from the London Clay samples from the different lithological units are shown in Figures 6.

201 . using standard techniques (BS1377: Part 2:1990:8.1. The Gs values vary between 2.005.Considering that there is an error of about ±10% in the readings. 6.75-2. The measurements were taken at closer intervals in cases of uncertainty.23 shows the distribution of the water content with depth.3 summarises the index proprieties of the samples tested. except for two samples from about 10m and 13m depth. which show lower values of 2.65 and 2.4.1 Specific gravity Gs The specific gravity of the particles was measured. which is consistent with the results of the SEM analysis and the micro-fossils analysis conducted by Mannion (2004). Head. being generally around 2.4. are in a coarser layer. while the sample from Unit A3 is more illite-rich and contains less smectite.2 Water content distribution Table 6.4) and this could have caused the reduction in Gs. being close to the boundary between Units C and B2 .6.3. (1965) are also reported for comparison.65 and 2. measured as described in Section 5. the Gs values measured at Ashford Common by Bishop et al.76.69 respectively (these values were double checked with additional tests). as confirmed by the grading curves (see Section 6. Each value is the average of a minimum of six values of the initial water contents for the samples tested.2.4 Sample characterization 6.4. Figure 6. The measured Gs values are shown in Table 6. These are each an average of three readings having scatter of about ±0. The ratio of clay to quarz indicates that there is a larger clay content in the samples from Units C and B2 than in the sample from Unit A3 . 1980). 6. These samples. on representative samples every 5m along the borehole. it seems that the samples from Units C and B2 are similar in composition.77. In the same table. The chlorite content in Unit C confirms that it has not been subjected to weathering.

The trend of the water content distribution identified by Hight et al.23. named B2(a). these sub-units seem consistent with the index proprieties and with the engineering behaviour of the clay from these depths and therefore this division was adopted and is referred to in the following sections.3 Atterberg limits Figure 6. has a water content close to the plastic limit. between 21 and 26m depth. in its intact state. although samples from Units 202 . and decreases downwards 2 to a minimum in Unit A3 and upwards towards Unit C.4. To the author. 6. This profile was measured by the author together with Nishimura (2005). in the middle of Unit B . showing that the water content distribution of the samples tested in the present research plots at the lower bound of that trend. All the curves plot within a narrow band. The gradings curves of samples from different depths are shown in Figure 6.The water content ranges between 0.2 and 0. Lithostratigraphic analysis conducted by Mannion (2004) on these samples. B2(b) and B2(c).23 mark the boundaries of these sub-units. The shaded zones in Figure 6. reflecting the presence of coarser material in these units and across the unit boundaries. There does not seem to be a large difference in grading between the samples from different units. The graph shows that the London Clay. having a percentage of clay-sized particles between 45-60%. The presence of the lithological units and sub-units cannot be clearly identified from the profile of the index proprieties. although there seems to be a change of proprieties within Unit B The plasticity of the clay is greatest 2. The scatter of the readings is larger in Unit A3 and in Unit C and in the proximity of the boundaries of the lithological units.25. These sub-units were identified on the basis on the micro-fossils present in the samples.24 shows the profile of the liquid and plastic limits with depth. recognised of three lithological sub-units within Unit B2 . (2003) is superimposed on the data in Figure 6.3 and the values agree well with those measured by Geotechnical Observations Ltd for a nearby borehole at T5.

a large content of clay particles was also found in this unit from X-ray diffraction analysis. analyses of the SEM images. plot lower together with the samples from Unit A3 . although a greater content of silt particles is evident from grading curves and SEM analysis. The higher plasticity of the clay in Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a) confirms the results of the XRD analysis that showed a larger clay content for the sample from about 24m. 203 . mainly in a sub-horizontal direction. The courser granulometry of samples from these depths is consistent with the vicinity of the lithological boundary between Unit B2 and C.5m. The grading curves for samples from these units plot lower within the band of the data. with evident signs of particle orientation. the SEM analysis showed that the clay from Units C and A3 contain the larger proportion of silt-sized particles. although it does not show significant signs of particle orientation. The SEM analyses showed that Unit C has an open structure characterised by a great proportion of silt-sized grains. The index properties of this unit are similar to Unit C. while the curves of samples from the middle of Unit B . at 10m and 12.1. The 2 samples from Sub-Unit B2(c).A3 and C seem to contain a relatively coarser granulometry. The distribution of the grading curves and the Atterberg limits seem consistent with the features of the clay observed in the SEM analysis. which is reflected in a lower plasticity for this unit. X-ray diffraction and index properties showed a variation of the characteristics of the clay with depth related to its lithological units. which is consistent with the particle size distribution of samples from this unit. but has a more packed structure. revealed by the X-ray diffraction analyses. is consistent with the higher plasticity and activity measured on samples from this unit. which does not seem to be reflected in higher plasticities and activities for samples from this unit. However. In summary.3. in Sub-Unit B2(b) plot above. As discussed in Section 6. Unit B2 seems similar in composition to Unit C. Unit A3 has a densely packed structure. It is uniform and its high clay content.

65 2.74 2.77 2.4 C B2 A3 Table 6. 2005) Depth below ground level [m] 7 9 10 13.5 24 27 28 35 36.74 2.5 42 51 Specific gravity of the grains Gs Heathrow T5.2 17 20 21.75 2.76 2.0 36.8 22. (1965) 2. present study 2.5 15.75 Ashford Common.2: Specific gravity of grains at T5 and Ashford Common 204 .1: X-ray analysis on samples from different lithological units (Huggett.72 2.74 2.73 2.77 2.Unit sample illite depth (m) 7 22 33 22% 21% 38% I-rich random S-rich chlorite kaolinite clay:qtz illite-smectite illite-smectite 2% 3% 2% 58% 63% 40% 4% 3% 6% 15% 11% 14% 34. Bishop et al.69 2.73 Table 6.76 2.

71 0.27 0.22 0.7UC 24g37DC 24.255 0.5 33.59 0.272 0.256 0.26 0.4gUE 33.28 0.261 0.62 0.33 0.65 0.238 0.27 0.89 34 35.24 0.282 0.37 0.77 0.6ikUC 23gUE 23.26 0.48 0.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.39 A 3(2) 0.24 0.5 13 13.73 B 2(b) 0.24 0.8isUC 21.4gsUC O25 O25s 25gUC 25.23 0.289 0.8 16.6 16.2 36.6gUC 22.258 0.8 23.4 0.4 11.239 0.24 0.3 17.68 0.5UC 38.262 0.62 0.254 0.263 0.4 36.252 0.63 0.Depth from Unit Sample name ground level [m] C 7gUC 7gUE 7kUC O7 O10 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.3 11.25 0.72 0.8UC O17 17SH 17.21 0.236 0.264 0.51 0.8 28 28 28.28 0.287 0.69 0.25 0.278 0.221 0.244 0.75 41.4 0.37 0.1 13.28 0.3 37.3: Index proprieties 205 .2 26.7 24 24.65 0.1 16.23 0.3gUE 36.745 0.4 31.28 0.7iUC 11.241 0.261 0.75 21.4 0.49 36.6iUC 23.25 0.5 37 37.6 0.67 0.63 0.2 51 Initial water content 0.37 0.245 0.32 0.51 19.55 0.26 0.5 0.272 0.248 0.3g 36.25 0.3 24.28 25 25 25 25.242 0.71 0.44 0.4iUC 11.53 A 0.32 0.33 0.251 0.7 14.224 0.2 23.5 38.43 0.5UC 31iUC 31.5SH 19.251 0.1 35.3iUC 26.36 0.6 11.24 0.9 13.71 0.257 0.38 0.6 22.28 0.69 B 2(c) 0.21 LL PL PI Clay Fraction 0.248 0.276 0.36 0.6 17 17.47 0.254 0.9DE 12.23 0.57 0.4 12.55 0.55 23.25 0.29 0.22 36.249 0.71 22 22.95 38 38 38.3SH 17.2iUC 38.249 0.21 0.68 0.54 0.37 0.6iUC 16.266 0.262 0.29 0.221 0.67 A2 Table 6.243 0.73 B 2(a) 0.28 0.4 26 26.68 0.25 26.23 0.255 0.3gkUC 24.226 0.5gUC 12.5iUC 13gUE O12s 14iUC 16.73 0.25 0.66 0.5gkUC 34iUC O35 O35s 36lgUC 36.28 0.25 0.29 0.59 0.238 0.226 0.5 27 27.7 0.7lgUC 40iUC O51 7 7 7 7 10 11 11.23 0.57 0.7isDC 22gsUC 22.5iUC 27UC 28DC O28 O28s 28.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.49 0.5 31.25 0.24 0.66 0.26 0.

5 C 10 Claystone Pyrite 15 Depth below ground level [m] Drilling fissures Natural fissures Silty layers 20 B2 25 Lighter clay Disturbed stratum 30 B1 35 40 A3(2) 45 48 51 A3(1) A2 Figure 6.1: Schematic description of the samples and lithological units 206 .

Figure 6.2: Schematic diagram of electron microscope (manual of Cambridge 500 SEM) 207 .

5m depth.3: London Clay from 33. Unit A3 (a) orientated fabric.(a) (b) Figure 6. (b) fracture through the sample 208 .

Figure 6.4: London Clay sample from Unit A3 209 .

Figure 6.5: London Clay from Unit A3 : orientated domains 210 .

(a) (b) Figure 6.6: London Clay from Unit A3 : particle nature and orientation (a) fracture and orientated domains (b) rough and sharp edges of the particles around a grain 211 .

7: London Clay from Unit A3 .Figure 6. particles around carbonate crystal 212 .

8: London Clay from Unit A3: clay particles around pyrite 213 .Figure 6.

particle contacts 214 .SMECTITE FROM ASH VOLCANIC Figure 6.9: London Clay from Unit A3.

10: London Clay from 23. in Unit B2 (a) disturbed structure within the overall bedding (b) homogeneous clayey appearance 215 .5m.(a) (b) Figure 6.

(a) (b) Figure 6.11: London Clay from Unit B2 : (a) particle orientation and (b) particle contacts 216 .

12: London Clay samples from Unit B2 217 .Figure 6.

Figure 6.13: London Clay from Unit B2 218 .

(a) (b) Figure 6.14: London Clay from 7m depth in Unit C (a) very bioturbated structure (b) calcite crystal between grains and clay particles 219 .

Figure 6.15: London Clay from Unit C 220 .

Figure 6.16: London Clay from Unit C 221 .

17: London Clay from Unit C: calcite crystal formed in-place 222 .Figure 6.

18: London Clay from Unit C: single particles and particle aggregates in a small clayey area at (a) large and (b) very large magnification 223 .(a) (b) Figure 6.

19: Comparison between samples from different units 224 .(a) Unit C (b) Unit B2 (c) Unit A3 Figure 6.

20: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit C 225 .Figure 6.

Figure 6.21: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit B2 226 .

Figure 6.22: XRD analysis for a sample from Unit A3 227 .

.27 0.21 0.0.18 water content w 0.15 0 0.(2003) Possible sub-units bo undaries Figure 6.3 C 10 B2 (a) B2 (b) depth below ground level [m] 20 B2 B2 (a) 30 B1 40 A3 (2) A3 (1) 50 A2 water content unit boundaries trend from Hight et al.23: Water content distribution with depth 228 .24 0.

2005) unit boundary Figure 6.2 0.24: Index proprieties and lithological units 229 .8 C 10 B2(c) depth below ground level [m] B2(b) 20 B2(a) 30 B1 40 A3(2) A3 (1) 50 A2 LL PL PL (Nishimura. 2005) LL (Nishimura.6 0.4 Liquid Limits [%] 0.0 0 Plastic Limit 0.

5m 16m 17m 22.5m 24m 31.5m 38m 40 20 0 0.5m 36m 36.100 80 % passing 60 sample depths 7m 10m 12.01 particle size [mm] C LAY FINE ME DIUM SILT CO AR SE 0.1 SA ND Figure 6.25: Grading curves 230 .001 0.3m 23.

(a) (b) Figure 6.3: London Clay from 33.5m depth. (b) fracture through the sample 204 . Unit A3 (a) orientated fabric.

4: London Clay sample from Unit A3 205 .Figure 6.

Figure 6.5: London Clay from Unit A3 : orientated domains 206 .

(a) (b) Figure 6.6: London Clay from Unit A3 : particle nature and orientation (a) fracture and orientated domains (b) rough and sharp edges of the particles around a grain 207 .

7: London Clay from Unit A3 . particles around carbonate crystal 208 .Figure 6.

Figure 6.8: London Clay from Unit A3: clay particles around pyrite 209 .

particle contacts 210 .9: London Clay from Unit A3.SMECTITE FROM VOLCANIC ASH Figure 6.

(a) (b) Figure 6.10: London Clay from 23. in Unit B2 (a) disturbed structure within the overall bedding (b) homogeneous clayey apparence 211 .5m.

(a) (b) Figure 6.11: London Clay from Unit B2 : (a) particle orientation and (b) particle contacts 212 .

12: London Clay samples from Unit B2 213 .Figure 6.

Figure 6.13: London Clay from Unit B2 214 .

(a) (b) Figure 6.14: London Clay from 7m depth in Unit C (a) very bioturbated structure (b) calcite crystal between grains and clay particles 215 .

Figure 6.15: London Clay from Unit C 216 .

Figure 6.16: London Clay from Unit C 217 .

17: London Clay from Unit C: calcite crystal formed in-place 218 .Figure 6.

18: London Clay from Unit C: single particles and particle aggregates in a small clayey area at (a) large and (b) very large magnification 219 .(a) (b) Figure 6.

19: Comparison between samples from different units 220 .(a) Unit C (b) Unit B2 (c) Unit A3 Figure 6.

Figure 6.20: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit C 221 .

21: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit B2 222 .Figure 6.

Figure 6.22: XRD analysis for a sample from Unit A3 223 .

.15 0 0.27 0.3 C 10 B2 (a) B2 (b) depth below ground level [m] 20 B2 B2 (a) 30 B1 40 A3 (2) A3 (1) 50 A2 water content unit boundaries trend from Hight et al.(2003) Possible sub-units bo undaries Figure 6.21 0.18 water content w 0.24 0.23: Water content distribution with depth 224 .0.

4 Liquid Limits [%] 0. 2005) unit boundary Figure 6.24: Index proprieties and lithological units 225 .0 0 Plastic Limit 0.6 0.2 0.8 C 10 B2(c) depth below ground level [m] B2(b) 20 B2(a) 30 40 A3(2) A 3(1) 50 A2 LL PL PL (Nishimura. 2005) LL (Nishimura.

5m 36m 36.100 80 % passing 60 7m 10m 12.1 SA N D Figure 6.25: Grading curves 226 .001 F INE 0.5m 38m A3 0 0.5m 16m C B 2(c) B 2(b) B 2(a) B2 40 20 17m 22.3m 23.5m 24m 31.01 particle size [mm] CLAY MEDIU M SIL T FINE 0.

no samples from the Sub-Unit B2(b) were tested. The behaviour of reconstituted samples will also be described to identify the influence of structure of the intact material. most of the tests on reconstituted samples were performed by MSc students. B2(b) and B(a) were tested in the oedometer apparatus.2 Intrinsic properties: reconstituted samples The investigation of the behaviour of London Clay samples in their destructured state was carried out testing samples from different lithological units in the triaxial and in the oedometer apparatus. Appropriate Gs values for the different sample 231 .6 and 5. In the triaxial apparatus. 7. v. Samples from Units C.3. Data for isotropically compressed samples are plotted in the planes of specific volume. As discussed in Chapter 5. swelling. and mean effective stress. who were closely supervised by the author. the large strain behaviour of natural and reconstituted London Clay samples in compression and shear will be analysed and correlated with the lithological features of the clay.1 Introduction In this chapter.1 to 7.2.7. while. A 3 and Sub-Units B2(c). p’.1 Behaviour in compression The results of the compression tests on reconstituted samples are presented in Figures 7. in some cases.7 LARGE STRAIN BEHAVIOUR 7. The testing procedures and the sample references were described in Section 5. in the triaxial apparatus. all the samples were sheared undrained after isotropic compression and. The intrinsic normal compression lines and the normalised boundary surfaces were used as a reference for the behaviour of the natural samples. 7. while the data for one-dimensionally compressed samples are plotted in the plane of void ratio against vertical effective stress.5 and are summarised in Tables 5.

do not seem to be affected by the differences in the clay nature. The slopes of the compression curves. This seems to influence the locations of the NCLs* for the different units. though.4a) and one-dimensional compression (Figure 7. In Figure 7. both in onedimensional and isotropic compression.76). For both isotropic compression (Figure 7. though. r12oc. plot on a different NCL* from that determined by the samples from Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(b) . so that the less plastic strata have NCLs* plotting lower in the v p’ graph. The occurrence of a unique NCL* for each lithological unit suggests that the intrinsic behaviour of the clay is fairly uniform within each unit.2b). despite the variations of PI with depth. but a lower G was found for Sub-Unit B2(c) (2. The main reason for this difference lies in the value of Gs used for the calculations of the initial specific volume or v oid ratios. Samples from the same unit converge towards the same intrinsic Normal Compression Line (NCL*). Unit A was 3 3 found to have the lower plasticity and to contain more granular material than the clay from Unit B2 .65-2.4b). r12oc1 in Figure 7. where. Within Sub-Unit B2 . It will be shown below that the intrinsic behaviour of each unit is affected though by the grading of the clay. transitional processes occurred. The one-dimensional and isotropic compression behaviours of the reconstituted samples are qualitatively similar.4. samples from the Sub-Unit B2(c) (r12nc. This different behaviour s for Sub-Unit B2(c) is also not surprising since this sub-unit is very close to a lithological boundary.6. In Chapter 6.1 and 7. The NCls* for the different lithological units are parallel to each other. 232 . but the curves for samples from Unit B2 plot above those for samples from Units C and A .2a and rO12. rO10 in Figure 7. These values are the average of the values measured as described in Section 5. since the Gs for Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(b) were very similar (2.69). the compression curves of samples from the different units are plotted together for comparison.depths were used for the calculations of the initial specific volumes or void ratios. which are summarised in Tables 7.2.74-2. geologically. different NCLs* exist depending on the lithological unit of the clay.

2. For the calculations. which caused difficulties for the calculations. All the samples bulged in shearing. summarised in Tables 7.1 and 7.The slope of the compression curves were derived by the oedometer tests.8 show the variation of deviatoric stress.9.5 shows the chosen NCLs* for the different lithological units. pore pressure and stress ratio with axial strain for reconstituted samples from different lithological units sheared undrained in the triaxial apparatus. the localization of the stresses was taken into account by applying the area correction suggested by Chandler (1966). but at large strains showed signs of strain localization. 233 .10. where larger stresses were reached.8). regardless the lithology of the clay. the stress ratio curves for the samples from the different lithological units are summarised for comparison.6-7. The overconsolidated samples show strainsoftening behaviour associated. Figure 7. which determined a complex shape for the current areas of the samples. the inclinations of which could be measured. In both cases.2.2 Shearing behaviour Figures 7. so that the compression parameters. as discussed in Section 5.6. but a mild strain-softening can be observed at large strains. the shear planes were not unique and seemed to have anomalous geometries. could be derived ignoring the curvature of the isotropic compression data at lower stresses. in some samples. inducing the unusual strain hardening behaviour for these two tests (Figures 7. r35oc1 and r25oc2. The stress ratio plots show that there is a tendency for the samples in each lithological unit to converge towards a unique critical state value. with the formation of a shear plane.7 and 7. In Figure 7. The intrinsic swelling curves for the different lithological units were found to be parallel. although some samples do not seem to have reached the critical state and the results are affected by the localization of the strains. there were clear shear planes formed. 7. The behaviour of the normally consolidated samples is basically contractant and strain-hardening at medium strains. The geometry of the shear planes formed by Samples r35oc1 and r25oc1 did not seem consistent with the failure mode assumed by Equation 5. In two samples.

which. The v-lnp’ paths followed by the reconstituted samples from the different lithological units are plotted in Figure 7.10 for the different lithological units. Their parameters are summarised in Table 7.85 seems again to be generally applicable. The intrinsic behaviour of the clay is therefore dependant on its lithology and different NCL*s and CSL*s can be identified for the different lithological units.1. can be identified for the different lithological units.11. regardless of the nature of the clay in the different strata. 1964. however. all the data tend to converge toward a same final stress ratio q/p’ of about 0.85. in some cases because the area correction interferes in the results. A line having a critical state gradient of 0. The nature of the clay affects the parameters N and Γ so that compression and the critical state lines of the more plastic strata plot above the others in the v-lnp’ plane. Pore pressure increments with strains. The curves seem to converge at large strains towards a unique stress ratio. with good approximation. 234 . can again be estimated to be about 0. Some samples did not reach a critical state. With good approximation. which is similar to the value of φ’c=20. which does not seem to be affected by the nature of the clay in the different lithological units. 1990). but λ and M do not seem to be influenced by the different lithology of the clay. CSL*s.3o . are plotted in Figure 7. intrinsic Critical State Lines. (a) Critical state line The stress paths followed by the reconstituted samples are summarised in Figure 7.1o found for London Clay at Ashford Common (Webb.85.There does not seem to be a significant variation between the strata and. These lines lie parallel to the NCL*s for the corresponding lithological units. with a constant offset between pairs of NCL* and CSL*. du/dε a. Arrows in the figure indicate incomplete tests. Burland.12. with some approximation. This critical state stress ratio corresponds to a critical state friction angle φ’c=21.

1988.17.. regardless the lithology of the clay. There is a relatively large scatter in the void ratios of samples from different depths. Also. 7. though.14-7. For each test. 2003). Tests performed during the site investigation for the enlargement of the Heathrow T5 airport on boreholes BH404 and BH406 (see Table 5. the true SBS* is not expected to plot far above the LBS. Considering the plasticity of the London Clay.1 Behaviour in compression Figures 7. Samples from Unit B2 seem to have larger initial void ratios than samples from the other units. SBS*.2) are also included in the graphs and are in good agreement with the results from the present research. where the compression curves of natural samples from different units are plotted together and. even within the same lithological unit. Drained or constant η stress path tests should be performed to identify the true SBS*.16 show the oedometric compression curves for intact samples from different lithological units. as shown in Figures 7. This type of plot is possible due to the unique value of M found for the different lithological units. an anisotropic shape for the SBS* might appear if the samples had been one-dimensionally consolidated. The wet side of the surface was derived only from undrained tests starting from the isotropic axis and therefore perhaps represents only a Local Boundary Surface. LBS (Gens. for the clarity of the 235 .3 Natural samples 7. which might plot above that identified by the undrained tests. probably due to both errors in the measurements and inhomogeneities between samples from different depths. Jardine et al. the NCL*s for the corresponding lithological unit or sub-unit were considered for the normalisation.(b) Normalised shearing behaviour The stress paths of the reconstituted samples normalised by the volume are plotted in Figure 7. The tests for all the units seem to plot together to define a unique state boundary surface.13. and therefore the LBS identified will be assumed here to be the RoscoeRendulic Surface of this material.3.

graph, only the compression paths are considered. The initial void ratios seem to correlate with the lithological units more than with the depth of the samples, so that samples from Unit C, although from the shallowest depth, have void ratios that are similar to those of samples from Units A3 and A2 from larger depths. This result is supported by the consistency of the data of the present research with the site investigation data, so that this result cannot be attributed to scatter in the measurements. The general trend of the void ratios seems to reflect again the plasticity and the grading curves, as discussed in Section 7.2.1 for the intrinsic behaviour of the clay. The scatter of the data within Unit B is quite large and it 2 is difficult to identify differences between Sub-Unit B2(c) and Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(b) , but the void ratios of samples from the most plastic strata (B2(a)) are larger than the others, regardless of the depths of the samples.

The large pressures applied in compression seem to have induced yielding of the clay, although it is difficult to identify a clear post-yield behaviour. Samples from the same units seem to converge towards the same lines, but, generally, the compression curves continue to diverge from the intrinsic curves, particularly at shallower depths, in Units C and B2(c) (Figures 7.14 and 7.15). Even larger stresses would have to have been applied to identify whether the compression paths of the intact samples would eventually converge towards the intrinsic compression curves.

In the triaxial apparatus, not very high stresses could be reached due to the limitations of the cells used. The compression curves of Samples 12.5iUC, 31.4iUC and 34iUC that were compressed to the highest stresses are shown in Figure 7.18. Samples 12.5iUC and 34iUC, from Sub-Unit B2(c) and Unit A3 respectively, were compressed isotropically to the same maximum stresses of 5MPa before shearing to failure. The pressures applied were not large enough to yield the clay, but there seems to be a change in the compressibility of the samples with increasing stresses, particularly for the samples from Unit B2 . Sample 31.4iUC, from Sub-Unit B2(a), behaves similarly to Sample 12.5iUC, although it was compressed to lower stresses. The behaviour of these two samples, from the top and the bottom of Unit B , suggests that a similarity exists 2 between samples within the same lithological unit. Only Sample 12.5iUC, 236

therefore, will be discussed below because it was subjected to larger stresses, but its behaviour will be assumed to be representative of Unit B . Also the i trinsic n 2 behaviour of the sub-units of Unit B2 were found to be similar and, although two different NCLs* exist for Sub-Units B2(c) and B2(a), these plot fairly close together (see Section 7.2.1).

In Figure 7.18, Sample 12.5iUC seems to compress more showing signs of incipient yielding, although there is no evidence of a clear yield point. Sample 34iUC, instead, seems much stiffer and its compression curve does not show evident changes in curvature. It will be shown in the next sections that this behaviour could be attributed to the different lithology of the samples, not only to their different depths. (a) Stress Sensitivity In Figures 7.14-7.16, the yield stresses for the oedometeric compression curves are marked. These were derived applying the Casagrande construction. Uncertainties persist on the values of the yield stresses derived, because the presumed post-yield behaviour still diverges from the corresponding intrinsic compression curves, which indicates that the yielding of the clay is not yet complete. The calculation of the Stress Sensitivity, Sσ, was therefore quite difficult. As discussed in Section 2.2.2 Sσ is defined as the distance between the yield stress of the natural material and the vertical stress on the intrinsic compression curve at the same void ratio. Figure 7.19 shows an example of Casagrande construction used to derive σ’y . The values derived with this method represent a lower limit (minimum) for the yield stress. An upper limit (maximum) is given by the stress value at which there is the maximum change of compression, which is indicated as σ’yu in Figure 7.19. The values of σ’y and σ’yu derived for each sample are summarised in Table 7.3, together with the corresponding values of Stress Sensitivity, which are not sensibly affected by the method used. For the different lithological units there does not seem to be a large difference in the values of sensitivity. Slightly lower values are measured for Units A3 and A2 where yield occurs at larger stresses. The OCR values and the upper and lower bound of the YSR are also shown in Table 7.3.

237

(b) Swell Sensitivity The progression of the destructuration process may be represented by the change in the slope of the swelling curves with increasing stresses. As discussed in Section 2.1.6, the Swell Sensitivity Ss, defined as the ratio between the gradient of the intrinsic and the intact swelling lines, is an indicator of the degree of structure of the material (Schmertmann, 1969). In Figure 7.19, the intrinsic swelling curve and the intact swelling curves at different stresses are shown for a typical sample. At low stresses, the intact structure of the clay induces the

swelling curves to be less steep than the slope of the intrinsic swelling line, but with increasing stresses the structural breakdown results in a less stiff response for the intact swelling curves. In Section 7.2, the intrinsic swelling curves for the different lithological units were found to be parallel, regardless the lithology of the clay, so that a unique C*s could be defined. At the maximum stresses reached in the compression of the natural samples, none of the intact swelling curves had become parallel to the intrinsic swelling line, suggesting that, at these stresses, the clays still retained some of their structure. This is particularly evident for Unit C. The changes of Swell Sensitivity Ss with stresses for samples from different lithological units are shown in Figure 7.20. Samples from Unit B2 seem to have the lowest Ss values. This reveals that the greater swelling of B2 is a function of structure and not of the intrinsic behaviour. From Figure 7.20, though, there seems to be a tendency for the samples for the Units A and A3 to 2 degrade faster towards lower values of swell sensitivity. 7.3.2 Lithological units and compressibility

The analysis of the compression curves of samples from different lithological units in both oedometer and triaxial compression tests (Figures 7.17-7.18) indicates that the maximum compressibility is in Units B2 and C.

The incremental values of the coefficient of compressibility mv =dε v /dσ’v for the clay are plotted in Figures 7.21 for the oedometer tests. In the figures, the different lithological units are distinguished. At low stresses, in oedometric compression the samples from Unit B2 and C seem more compressible than the samples from Units A3 and A2. The gradual change of the oedometric coefficient 238

of compressibility reflects the difficulty in identifying a clear yield stress. No abrupt changes in the curvature occurred for the different lithological units that could be associated with yielding and mv keeps decreasing even at large stresses. For stresses higher than 1000kPa, though, the difference between the lithological units reduces and, consistently with Figure 7.17, the mv values for the different units tend to become similar.

This behaviour can be explained if both the location of the NCLs* and the void ratio are taken into account. Generally, a larger compressibility is expected from samples that intercept their intrinsic compression curves at lower stresses, but, also, from samples with larger initial void ratios. Figure 7.17 showed that samples from Unit B2 , in all the sub-units, have larger initial void ratios than samples from other units, which is consistent with the larger compressibility of these samples in comparison with the samples from Units A3 and A . However, 2 the NCLs* of samples from Sub-Units B2(c) and B plot above the NCLs* for 2(a) Units A3 and A . The sample from Unit C, instead, has an NCL* and initial void 2 ratio similar to the samples from Unit A3 and A2 , but it behaves similarly to the samples from Unit B2 in its compressibility. In Figure 7.22, the intact and intrinsic compression curves of three representative samples are plotted together, from Units C and A3 , and from Sub-Unit B2(a) to represent qualitatively all the sub-units of Unit B2 . From the location of the NCLs* and the initial void ratios, the samples from Unit C and A3 are expected to behave similarly, but the compressibility of the sample from Unit C, as discussed above and shown in Figure 7.21, is similar to that of the samples from Unit B2 . Interacting effects therefore act, which suggest that the structure of the clay, along with its nature, have a significant influence on the compression behaviour.

In Figure 7.21, it was shown that, at large stresses, the coefficients of compressibility are similar for all the units. As mentioned before, the intact curves had not become parallel to the intrinsic curves and show C values lower c than the C*c value. The scatter of the C values for the different lithological u nits, c though, is not large, particularly considering that the yielding of some samples is still incomplete. This suggests that, when the influence of structure acting at

low stresses is removed, the compression behaviour of the samples from the 239

different lithological units tends to be similar, consistently with the intrinsic behaviour of the soil. The London Clay behaviour within the different lithological units is therefore influenced by both the nature of the clay and by its structure. The structure of the clay in the different lithological units determines differences in compressibility at low stresses, so that samples with a more open structure, from Units C and B2 , are more compressible than samples from Unit A3 , with a more packed and orientated structure (see Chapter 6). At large stresses, though, as result of structural breakdown, the compression curves tend to become parallel and differences in lithology disappear.

The bulk modulus values K are plotted in Figure 7.23 for Samples 12.5iUC and 31.4iUC and 34iUC, from Sub-Units B and B2(a) and Unit A3 , tested in the 2(c) high pressure triaxial apparatus. Sample 34iUC, from UnitA3 , shows stiffer behaviour at low strains than Samples 12.5iUC and 31.5iUC, which behave similarly. For volumetric strains larger than about 1%, though, the K values for the three samples increase, probably as result of incipient yielding.

For the triaxial tests, the development of deviatoric strains was analysed for the samples that reached the larger stresses and were equipped with local instrumentation (Tests 12.5iUC and 34iUC). A ratio between volumetric and axial strains, ε v /ε a, is plotted in Figure 7.24. The ratio ε v /ε a different from 3 under isotropic stress conditions is a sign of the intrinsic anisotropy of the samples. The volumetric strains were calculated from the local instrumentation. Sample 12.5iUC showed an initial ratio ε v /ε a greater than 3, which was surprising because in Chapter 8 it will be shown that the London Clay, in each lithological unit is stiffer horizontally than vertically. Similar results were obtained for this sample even when considering the volumetric strains measured from the volume gauge. Other samples from similar depths were then analysed and always an initial ratio ε v /ε a lower than 3 was found, consistently with the anisotropy of the clay. The data for one of these sample, 14iUC, are plotted in Figure 7.24 for example, although for this sample the stresses reached were not as large as for Samples 12.5iUC and 34iUC. The ratio ε v /ε a, degrades towards 3 for Samples 12.5iUC, and 14iUC while, for Sample 34iUC, the intrinsic deviatoric strains

240

seems to persist even at large stresses, and ε v /ε a shows only a gradual convergence towards 3. 7.3.3 Normalised compression behaviour

Figure 7.25 shows the results of the oedometer tests normalised for volume using the Void Index, Iv (Burland, 1990). The Intrinsic Compression Lines (ICL) from all the reconstituted tests on the different units are also plotted in the same figure and the lithological units of the natural samples are indicated. The intrinsic compression curves for the different units are almost parallel (Figure 7.4), therefore the corresponding ICLs plot together on a narrow band. The names of the natural samples refer to their depths. No normalisation was applied to the data from the triaxial tests because the observations made for the oedometer tests are more representative due to the larger stresses applied and because of the larger number of tests.

Figure 7.25 shows that there is an influence of depth on the effect of structure on the compression behaviour, which seems to be more evident than any influence of the lithological unit. Samples from shallower depths cross the ICL plotting well above it and tending to bend downwards at larger stresses. Samples from greater depths, instead, plot closer to the ICL and show a less gradual yield. This behaviour suggests that the influence of the structure of the natural material on the compression behaviour decreases with depth, which does not seem consistent with the analysis of the compressibility discussed above. This graph seems only to show a trend with depth, which is similar to the trend shown by the values of the Stress Sensitivity. (a) New normalisation A new normalisation was attempted that considers t e structure with reference h to the intrinsic swelling curve as well as the intrinsic compression curve. Figure 7.26 shows a sketch of the normalisation. The influence of structure of the natural material is accounted for by using the swelling curve that intercepts the natural compression curve extrapolated to 1kPa. The intersection of this intrinsic swelling line with the intrinsic compression line defines a stress σ’n , so that, for

241

stresses lower than σ’n , the reference line for the structure is the intrinsic swelling curve, and for stresses larger than σ’n the compression curve becomes the reference line. The structure of the natural material is therefore defined b the y distance en between the compression curve of the natural material and the intrinsic swelling curve for σ’v <σ’n and from the intrinsic compression curve for σ’v >σ’n .

The normalised oedometer results are plotted in Figure 7.27. In this normalisation, the initial stiffness of the samples is accounted for by

extrapolating the curves to 1kPa. For stiffer samples, the intrinsic swelling curve plots further below the intact curve. The first two points of the oedometer curves for the natural samples were considered for the extrapolation to 1kPa, although, for better accuracy, a larger number of points should have been recorded at beginning of the compression by reducing the load increments.

The behaviour of the natural samples normalised in this new manner seems to be in better agreement with the compressibility and the stiffness results and the influence of structure for the deeper samples emerges. The difference in structure between samples from different depths is not large, but samples from shallower depths seem to have a slightly less strong structure than samples from greater depths, which is consistent with the measured Stress Sensitivity of the natural samples. Post-yield, the compression curves of deeper samples tend to bend

downwards, although they do not converge towards the horizontal axis, retaining a stable structure that is indicated by the distance en at large stresses. For shallow samples, the post-yield divergence of the natural compression lines from the intrinsic compression lines causes a continued increase of en after σ’n . 7.3.4 Destructuration due to swelling

Four samples, from 12m, 25m, 28m and 35m depth, were swelled in the oedometer apparatus from their in situ stresses before further recompression. The results of these tests are shown in Figures 7.28-7.31. The samples that had been swelled before compression are more compressible than the intact samples and seem to destructure faster, yielding at lower stresses. Deeper samples seem to 242

yield near the intrinsic curve. The compression curves of the intact and swelled samples tend to converge after yield. The structural breakdown seems to be

more dramatic for Sample O35s, from Unit A than for the samples from Unit B 3 2 as shown by the yield stresses summarised in Table 7.3. 7.3.5 Shearing behaviour

Figures 7.32-7.47 show the variation of the deviatoric stress, the pore pressure and the stress ratio with strains for samples from different lithological units sheared drained or undrained in the triaxial apparatus. The solid points in the figures refer to 38mm diameter samples, while the open points refer to 100mm diameter samples. Due to the large number of tests, the results from tests on

samples from Units B2(a) and A3 are divided between tests that start from isotropic states and tests that start from anisotropic states, which corresponds either to the in situ stress of the clay or to an anisotropic state that was reached after ko compression from the in situ stress state (see Section 5.5). The shearing behaviour of the clay, for each lithological unit, is basically dilatant and strain softening, with localization of the strains associated with the formation of shear planes. Generally, the peak strength occurs at axial strains between 2-4% and drops rapidly to a post-rupture strength at larger strains. The occurrence of the peak strength was noticed to be strongly correlated with the geometry of the shear plane, as will be discussed in the next section. The formation of the shear plane was identified visually during the tests and the appropriate area correction was applied from this point as described in Section 5.6.1. For the 100mm diameter samples the shear plane usually formed slightly before the peak strength and its development was gradual so that the strength dropped when the failure plane had propagated through the all sample. This suggests a progressive failure mode and indicates that the localization of strains is the trigger to the strain softening of the samples. In contrast, for the 38mm samples, the shear plane usually formed at the peak strength. Samples 34iUC (Figure 7.44) and 12.5iUC (Figure 7.34), which were compressed to about 5MPa, show a strain hardening behaviour. For these samples it was not possible to observe the formation of the shear plane during the test because the triaxial cell

243

was metallic, therefore the area correction to account for the shear plane was applied from an external axial strain of about 3.5%. For both tests, a small jump in the radial belt readings was noticed at this point, which supported the hypothesis that the shear plane that was observed after the tests formed at around this value of strain.

The strength drops to post-rupture values after displacements that were found to be variable. Consistently to what Burland, (1990) observed analysing the London clay behaviour at Ashford Common, the displacements between peak and post-rupture values do not exceed about 5mm, but here, differences were observed between the behaviour of 38mm and 100mm diameter samples. Usually, displacements between 4-5mm occurred for 100mm samples, with the exception of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures, which, when a peak strength occurred, dropped to post-rupture strength after displacements of about 2.5mm. For 38mm samples usually displacements between 1-2mm occurred, which are similar to the values measured at Ashford Common. No other differences were noticed between samples sheared drained or undrained and the sample size and the failure mode seem to control the post-rupture behaviour of the clay.

For each unit, the stress ratio shows a tendency to converge towards a unique critical state value, which is approximately 0.85 and corresponds to the critical state ratio identified by the tests on reconstituted samples. Some scatter and

divergence from this value are likely to have been caused by the type of shear plane formed and by the area correction applied. The stress ratio at large strains is in fact more scattered for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c), which tended to form multiple shear planes with complex sectional areas, as discussed in the next section.

A clear exception to the general behaviour of the clay is represented by the stress-strain curves of the tests that were swelled to very low stresses before shearing (Tests 19.8isUC, 21.7isDC, 22gsUC, 24.4gsUC in Figures 7.39 and 7.40). The characteristics of these samples will be discussed in Section 7.4.2, but

244

their post-rupture curves seem to plot above those of other samples from the same unit.

No differences were observed in the stress-strain behaviour of samples that had been consolidated along a ko path before shearing. The larger consolidation pressures induce larger deviatoric stresses, but the stress ratios of these samples are consistent with the behaviour of samples sheared from isotropic states. (a) Shear plane characteristics The analysis of the shear planes was carried out by visual inspection of the samples during and after testing and by the use of the Mohr’s circle theory, as discussed in Section 5.6.2.

Three principal shear plane geometries could be identified that are sketched in Figures 7.48-7.50. The first type of failure, in Figure 7.48, consisted of a single shear plane, with an inclination α between 45o -67o , usually located near one end of the sample, probably as a consequence of end restraint. The shear plane often had an S-shape, being flatter towards the ends and steeper in the middle. In the tests where this type of shear plane formed, t e change of inclination along the Sh shape was recorded, but the Mohr’s circle analysis showed that the failure occurred along the maximum inclination. Two sub-types of this shear plane typology were distinguished, Types 1a and 1b in Figure 7.48. The Type 1a consisted of a localization of the failure plane only in one area of the sample. This was typically observed for 38mm or 50mm diameter samples, although also occurred in some 100mm samples. The Type 1b, instead, was frequently

observed in 100mm diameter samples. The S -shaped shear plane ran throughout the length of the sample, extending from the top platen to the base. Generally, when samples failed along this type of shear plane, the formation of the shear surface was observed before the maximum strength, but it did correspond to the maximum stress ratio q/p’.

The second shear plane typology, sketched in Figure 7.49, consisted of several minor planes formed around the main failure plane. In this mode of failure, the shearing seemed to occur predominantly along the principal shear plane, 245

although minor movements occurred along the secondary planes, and these affected the strength behaviour. This type of shear plane is associated with a less pronounced or no peak in q (e.g. Tests 11.7iUC, 11.4iUC, 12.5gUC in Figure 7.34), so that, although, according to the Mohr’s circle analysis, the sample mobilises its intact strength, its peak strength is lower due to the presence of the minor planes. The stress-strain curve then has its peak at larger strains, between 4-8%. Below 1% strain, the stress-strain curve is similar to other samples, but tends to converge quickly towards a post-rupture strength. In some cases, the shear plane was observed to form before the peak stress ratio, although the presence of the minor planes confuses the results. This multiple shear plane

typology occurred particularly in samples from Sub-Unit B2(c), suggesting that the failure mode is probably associated with the nature of the clay.

The third type of shear plane is illustrated n Figure 7.50. It consists of a plane i inclined at between 15o -35o to the horizontal. This geometry is associated with a much lower peak strength and dilatancy for the clay and, if the shear plane was multiple, no peak strength occurred and the stress-strain curve tended directly towards the post-rupture strength. The Mohr’s circle analysis revealed that this low inclination of the shear plane at failure is incompatible with the strength that an intact sample should mobilise and suggests that it can be correlated with preexisting fissures in the specimen. Natural fissures that are inclined by 15o -35o are compatible with a sliding mode of shearing and, if present in the samples, they became the preferred shear surface. All the samples sheared in extension failed with this type of mode. Sandroni (1977) found that also shear planes with inclinations >70o corresponded to pre-existing fissures in the samples. In the present research, some cases of shear planes with inclinations between 67o -70o were observed, but not always did these inclinations corresponded to pre-existing fissures (e.g. 12.5gUC, 26.5iUC, 38UC).

Table 7.4 summarises the typologies of the shear planes found for each sample and in Figures 7.51 and 7.52 two pictures are shown of typical shear planes in compression and extension for 100mm diameter samples. In Appendix 7.1 the failure planes of all the samples are sketched.

246

g. the change of pore pressure at the mid-height of the specimen was about 15kPa larger than the change of pressure measured at the base. At the end of the test. In these cases. Generally.53 shows a typical example of the pore water change with strain. The pressure change measured at the mid-height was often between 3-5% smaller than that measured at the base for medium strains. 247 . but usually increased post-rupture. though.5%. suggesting that the localization of strains is related to a nonuniform distribution of the pore water pressure through the sample. up to the formation of the shear plane similar changes of pore pressure were found at the base and at the mid-height of the specimen.54 shows a typical behaviour for one of these samples. The excess pore pressure reduced post-peak in a manner that was similar to the post-rupture strength. Exceptions to this behaviour were shown by the samples that formed multiple shear planes. who found that the shear plane is associated with an increment of pore water pressure in the middle of the sample. Burland. Figure ase 7. 1990). With the development of the shear plane. For the calculation of the p’ values the base pore water pressure was always used. This is consistent with the study on the pore pressure distribution at failure conducted by Sandroni (1977). which indicates a uniform distribution of pore pressure in the sample at the beginning of shearing. with a maximum ∆u discrepancy of about 1%. which is consistent with the behaviour observed in other stiff clays (e. This behaviour is unlikely to be due to shear rate effects because the same shear rates were used for all samples.(b) Pore pressure distribution The distribution of the pore water pressure in the samples was investigated considering the base transducer and the mid-height probe. pore pressures measured at the mid-height and at the base of the sample started to diverge. Tody clay. Figure 7. the differences in the pore pressures between the mid-height and the b of the sample started at strains as small as 0. and it was therefore probably associated to the development of the minor shear planes. At strains around which the shear plane formed. The shear plane seemed to induce a larger change of pore pressure in the middle of the sample. the changes of pore water pressure at the base and the middle of the sample started to be different.

which were not large enough to yield the clay. maximum pressures of about 1000kPa were applied to the samples.65.3.55-7. though. These showed much lower strengths than other samples from the same units. The shear strains that occurred in onedimensional compression. The strength envelope found by Webb (1964) at Ashford Common at a depth of about 20m is also plotted in the figures.3.4iUC.64 and 7. the pressures applied in compression did not yield the samples. the peak strengths for the samples from all three sub-units of Unit B2 are plotted together at lower and higher pressures respectively.(c) Shear strength Figures 7. Data from the site investigation at Heathrow T5 are also included on the graphs as stress paths and are in good agreement with the data from the present research. As discussed in Section 7. Of these. A detailed analysis of this mode of failure will be conducted in Section 7. did not seem to induce significant effects on their shearing behaviour when compared with the isotropically compressed samples. compressed isotropically to 5MPa. When consolidated along a ko path. although the compression behaviours of Samples 12iUC and 31.7. for the following analysis of intact strength. more emphasis has 248 .3m seems to have failed along a pre-existing fissure. and. showed signs of incipient yielding.1. no significant differences in strength could be noticed for the samples that had been consolidated to higher pressures either isotropically or along a ko path. The dotted stress paths refer to samples that had a shear plane of the type sketched in Figure 7.63 show the stress paths of the samples tested for the different lithological units. The reduced strength is due to the fact that these samples sheared along pre-existing fissures and did not mobilise their intact strength. the sample from 10. the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures will not be taken into account. although the difference is not large and reduces at higher stresses. For each lithological unit. Samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) seem to plot slightly above the others at lower stresses. In Figures 7.50. In the present research.

and a rigorous comparison with the literature should consider the strength envelope of samples from the same lithological units. In Figure 7.66). suggest that the characteristics of the clay at the same depths could be similar. the data from Unit A3 are plotted together with the strength envelope found at Ashford Common for samples from 35m depth. However. which is deeper than the Sub-Unit A3(2) to which the data from the present research belong.been given to the lithology of the samples than to their depth. Stress paths for tests from the site investigation at Heathrow T5 are included. when the shear plane forms. and they plot together on unique strength lines (Figures 7. The base of the London Clay at Ashford Common. the shear plane typically occurs at the maximum stress ratio also for 38mm samples. although the two samples from 47m and 48m depths belong to Sub-UnitA3(1).66. though. the 38mm diameter samples and the two 50mm diameter samples 12.64-7. As discussed above.47 and 7. which often occurs at the maximum peak strength for samples of lower diameter. The strength envelope defined by samples from Unit B2 in the present research seems to agree with the envelope found at Ashford Common at 20m depth both for lower and higher stresses. no differences could be noticed between the 38mm and the 100mm diameter samples when the failure is through intact soil. It is likely that. At medium stresses there seem to be differences and the envelope from Ashford Common plots slightly above that defined by the samples in the present research. In terms of strength. it propagates through a 38mm diameter sample much faster than in the 100mm diameter samples inducing a more sudden failure. (d) Sample size effect In Figures 7.64-7.5iUC and 34iUC are indicated by solid symbols. The strength envelope of samples from Ashford Common plots slightly above the strengths from the present research for low and medium pressures. although the data point at high pressures is in good agreement. which is 249 .66.32-7. is uncertain (see Chapter 3) and it is not therefore possible to identify reliably the lithological units of the clay. the vicinity of this site with Heathrow T5 and the similarity of the topography of the two sites. The size of the samples seems to affect the correlation between the stress-strain curves and the formation of the shear plane.

A block sample was tested from Sub-Unit B2(c) (11gUC).68 and 7. the peak strengths of samples from different lithological units are plotted together for comparison. rotary core samples were used for the present research in all the lithological units. which confirms the good quality of the rotary core samples used for this research. but are different for larger strains.3. for which block samples were used. The intact strength was 250 .5gUC.48. 12.67. The stress-strain curves and the stress paths of the two samples are compared in Figure 7. with the exception of Unit C.6 Strength envelopes and lithological units In Figures 7.8). 7. has stress-strain curve that is more similar to samples that sheared with a failure plane of Type 1a in Figure 7. to be compared with a rotary core sample. with peak strengths occurring at strains larger than 4% and stress strain curves converging towards the post-rupture strength for strains larger than 1%. There does not seem to be a significant difference between the stress paths and the peak strengths of the two samples. Figure 7. which affected the location of their peaks and their stress-strain curves.34 showed that the stress-strain curve of Sample 12. instead.5gUC are similar.5gUC is similar to the curves of all the other samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) that formed multiple shear planes. The differences in the stress-strain curves of the rotary core and the block samples seem therefore to be the result from natural variability linked to the characteristics of their shear planes and do not depend on the quality of the samples. Sample 11gUC.69. This seems to be due to the formation of the shear planes. The peak strengths of Samples 11gUC and 12. (e) Sample quality As discussed in Chapter 5. Differences in strength between 38mm and 100mm diameter samples only occur because there is a greater possibility for the larger samples to shear along pre-existing fissures. Hight & Jardine (1993) and Hight et al. because both samples formed multiple shear planes.consistent with the study conducted by Costa-Filho (1984) on samples size effects (Section 2. while their stress-strain curves are coincident up to 1% strain. (2003) found that the difference in sample quality is reflected in different peak strengths being mobilised.

The variation in strength found from the present research is lower than that found by Hight & Jardine and is more similar in this respect to that of Webb (1964). though. Regardless the lithological units. Samples from Unit A3 . which could not be identified from these tests.70 and 7. the identification of a REV envelope would require in situ tests or tests on larger samples. the fissured strength envelope seems unique for the clay.1. 1964) and in Central London (Hight & Jardine. The peak strengths of samples that failed along pre-existing fissures are also included on the graph. Samples from Unit C show the lowest strength. Between the intact and the fissured strength envelopes a REV strength envelope is expected. Samples from all sub-units of Unit B2 plot together on a unique strength envelope. particularly of 100mm diameter. as their large strain behaviour is controlled by the fissures. 1993) are also shown for comparison. Hight & Jardine considered. whereas samples that failed on pre-existing fissures. instead. At 30m depth. In the present study. As discussed in Section 5. Samples from Unit A3 show the largest strengths. In Central London four strength envelopes were identified.identified using most of the 38mm and 100mm samples. defined a fissured strength envelope. for depths 8-12m. which is unpractical for laboratory tests. In Figures 7. thick-wall and thin-wall tube samples as well as rotary core samples. The disturbance caused by the sampling procedures might have reduced the strength of the clay. although the differences in strength between samples from different units do not seem large. 16-24m. which do not coincide with the depths for the strength envelopes identified by Hight & Jardine and this causes some differences in the results.71 the strength envelopes found at Ashford Common (Webb. the strength envelopes correlated with the lithological units. the strength envelopes for Ashford Common and for the sites in Central London plot close together. but at about 20m depth the difference is quite large and the envelope suggested by Hight & Jardine plots well below that for Ashford Common. have strengths that are consistent with the 251 . The lithology of the clay seems to influence the strength envelopes. from block samples that did not fail through pre-existing fissures. The strength envelope for Ashford Common was derived. 27-40m and 50-60m. between 33-40m depth.

while Sample 7gUE sheared in extension along a pre-existing fissure.3. The analysis of the influence of fissures on the sample behaviour was conducted after testing considering both the Mohr’s circle and the strength of the sample. but below that for 27-40m depth. the Mohr’s circle of stresses was drawn and the stresses on 252 . The presence of the discontinuities did not prevent Sample 11gUC from mobilising its intact strength. For each test. the natural fissures in the samples could not be seen. 7. In Figure 7. On opening the samples for trimming. At shallow depths. Probably this was due to the fact that the surfaces of the samples had been slightly wetted during the sampling process and then cut and smoothed with sharp knifes before sealing and storage (see Chapter 5). because samples only sheared along the preexisting fissures whose inclination and location were compatible with a failure mode. which will be discussed in the next section.72 the location of the natural fissures observed in Samples 11gUC and 7gUE before testing are sketched together with the failure surfaces of the samples after testing. the samples from Unit C. In trimming for testing the use of knifes again tended to smooth the sample’s surface. their surfaces appeared fairly smooth and free from fissures. which plots well above that identified by Hight & Jardine (1993) for samples from 16-24m depth. have strengths comparable with that identified by Hight & Jardine for samples from 8-12m. Before testing. at 7m depth. Samples from Sub-Unit B2 . hiding any natural discontinuities.7 Influence of pre-existing fissures The samples tested in this study were expected to contain natural fissures and the choice of testing 100m samples was mainly related to the possibility of observing the influence of these fissures on the clay behaviour. These natural fissures might be distinguished from those that formed because of drying. which did not coincide with that recorded. particularly the rotary cores.strength envelope for samples between 27-40m depth found by Hight & Jardine. seem to identify a unique strength envelope. between 10-31m depth. These samples though show much larger strength at higher stresses. though. Only in trimming the block samples did some natural fissures become evident and could be recorded.

indicating that the sample mobilised its intact strength.74. Sample 36lgUC. Both samples are from similar depths in lithological Unit A3 and were consolidated to the same stresses using the same approach stress paths. In the sketch. Typically the failure plane of samples that failed through pre-existing fissures has inclination lower than 45o .the shear plane were calculated. which confirms that Sample 36lgUC sheared along a pre-existing fissure.7lgUC. Figure 7.7lgUC. The Mohr’s circle analyses demonstrated that all the samples tested in extension failed along pre-existing fissures. but Sample 36lgUC has lower strength than Sample 38. as shown by the Mohr’s circle. instead. failed along a steep shear plane that intercepted the Mohr’s circle at lower stresses than those defined by the tangent to the circle. which consisted of comparing the strength of each sample with the strength of other samples from similar depths. The combination of the Mohr’s circle analyses and the strength analyses always gave consistent results. The comparison of the stress-strain curves and the stress paths of the two samples shows that for medium strains the behaviour of the two samples is similar. the shear plane and the tangent to the Mohr’s circle from the origin intercept the circle at the same point. the stress-strain curve and the stress path of Samples 36lgUC are compared with the curves for Sample 38. In Figure 7. The analyses conducted in terms of the Mohr’s circle were always supported by analyses in term of strength. and no allowance has been made on the possible curvature of the strength envelope.73 shows sketches of the Mohr’s circles for samples that mobilised their intact strength or sheared along a pre-existing fissure. In the Mohr’s circle of Test 38. suggesting that the sample sheared along a preexisting fissure. This is due to the fact that the typical inclination of the natural fissures in the London Clay is compatible with the shearing mode in extension and suggests that such fissures might have formed by passive failure during the geological σ’v reduction. the Mohr-Coulomb envelope is represented as a straight line passing through the origin. 253 .7lgUC and their Mohr’s circles are also shown.

75 and 7.2. This happened particularly for the 38mm samples that had been tested for MSc and MEng laboratory classes under the supervision of the author. which induced drying in the samples and opening of fissures. also vertical fissures were noticed to open through the samples as a consequence of drying. (b) Strength on fissures In Figures 7. In the graph there are also included the post rupture and intrinsic strength envelopes and the strength envelope for the samples sheared along pre-existing fissures identified by Burland (1990) on the basis of data from Bishop et al. This fissure did not affect the behaviour of this sample whose peak strength is comparable to the strength of other samples from the same lithological unit (Figure 7. (1965) for London Clay samples from Ashford Common. Sample 28. For the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissure that formed peaks.3o . The post-rupture strengths from the tests in the present research are in very good agreement with the data presented by Burland (1990) for low and medium pressures. defined by c=0 and φ’c=21.1o defined by Burland.5UC was tested after it had split into two pieces due to a horizontal fissure that opened as consequence of drying.(a) Fissures due to drying Some samples tested contained discontinuities that had opened as a consequence of drying during the sample preparation.75 because. For higher pressures. both the peak and the postrupture fissured strengths are indicated. the post-rupture strengths for the present 254 .59). The intrinsic envelope for the data in the present research is not included in Figure 7. the strengths of samples that sheared along preexisting fissures are plotted together with the intact peak and post-rupture strengths of the samples from the different lithological units. this curve. Neither the vertical nor the horizontal fissures were observed to have any influence on the sample behaviour and they did not prevent the samples from mobilizing their intact strength. is very similar to the curve of c=0 and φ’c=20. In a few cases. The fissures due to drying were mainly sub-horizontal and often formed along the bedding planes or laminations. The trimming process in these cases was longer.76.2. as discussed in Section 7.

At Ashford Common.research still plot slightly above the intrinsic strength. The samples consolidated to the highest pressures did not form peaks and therefore only their post-rupture strengths are plotted in the figure. instead. Similar percentages of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures 255 . In the figure the percentage of the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures is also included for reference. (1965). observed that a larger number of fissures occur at shallower depths. The occurrence of multiple shear planes in samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) might be related to the presence of a larger number of pre-existing fissures at this depth. only a post-test analysis of the fissures was conducted. (c) Lithological units and fissures A study of the influence of pre-existing fissures on the behaviour of the London Clay should have included a detailed log of the fissures on site that could be correlated with the shearing behaviour of the clay and its lithology. For higher pressures. as mentioned in Section 7.. From this analysis. The distribution of the fissures on site was not recorded in this study and.77 shows the occurrence of fissures with depth in relationship to the number of samples tested. Skempton. there is a lower occurrence of samples failing along pre-existing fissures. in Unit C and B . 2003). Figure 7. although the defects of this calculation were mentioned above. was lower 2(c) than the number of samples tested from higher depths.3. In the present study. the number of samples tested from shallower depths. the post-rupture strength envelope was found to cross the intrinsic strength envelope at about 600kPa and became lower for higher pressures. there seemed to be a larger occurrence of the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures from Sub-Unit B2(a). although the Mohr’s circle analyses of these samples showed that in most cases they mobilised their intact strengths. The strength envelope defined by c=0 and φ’=15o (Skempton. 1969) represents a lower bound for the clay. which is consistent with the literature (Burland. (1969) and Ward et al.. Only three samples were tested from the Unit C.5. 1990. which is too few to be statistically significant. Jardine et al. The strengths of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures plot on the post-rupture envelope for low and medium pressures and therefore slightly above the intrinsic strength. where the fissure spacing are also less.

81. particularly for Units B and C.78-7. In terms of plasticity and grading.79 and 7. the enhanced strength of the natural samples was shown in comparison to the intrinsic strength. but at large pressures. At lower stresses the normalised strengths of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures seem to plot approximately on the intrinsic Horvslev surface for all lithological units. The values of p* e were calculated considering the appropriate isotropic NCL* for each unit or sub-unit (see Figure 7. because.5). 7.4 Structure and destructuration of natural samples The enhanced resistance of the natural samples in compression has been already discussed in Section 7.75 and 7. In Figures 7. the clay from Units C 256 . which seem to be similar. The SBS for samples from Unit A plots above the SBSs of the 3 Units B2 and C. the intact and stress paths for natural and reconstituted samples from different lithological units are normalised for the volume by using the equivalent pressure p* e.76. the SBS for the different lithological units are plotted together for comparison. In Figure 7. There is not a large difference between the intrinsic and the intact normalised strengths of the samples at low pressures.3.were found for Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(b) .80).1 Normalised strength In Figures 7. All the samples from Unit B plot 2 together on a unique SBS (Figures 7.82. although more samples were tested from Sub-Unit B2(a). consistent with the postrupture and fissure strengths being slightly higher than the intrinsic critical state strength.4.3. Only the dry side of the intact b oundary surface could be drawn for each unit.2. as discussed in Section 7. although more tests are needed on samples from Unit C. the intact SBSs 2 extend well above the intrinsic SBS*. the samples were not compressed to stresses large enough to reach the wet side of critical. where the compression curves of natural samples were compared to the intrinsic compression curves in the corresponding lithological units. 7.

sheared drained. which shows a sudden post-peak drop of the stress ratio. The variations of deviatoric stress.82 only emerges because the nature of the * clay at the different levels has been taken into account considering the p e on the appropriate NCL* for each unit.4gsUC) have a less dilatant behaviour.2 Destructuration in swelling Swelling an intact sample was found to change its behaviour in compression causing an increase of compressibility and a reduction of stress sensitivity (Section 7. The samples that were recompressed to lower stresses (22gsUC and 24.8isUC.1).4gsUC and 22gsUC were recompressed to 100kPa and 200kPa respectively and sheared undrained. The normalised graph in Figure 7.83 and 7. The relationship between the SBSs of the intact clay and its lithological features shown in Figure 7. 21. though.82 seems to emphasise those structural differences. Tests 24.8isUC were then re-compressed to 50kPa before shearing drained and undrained respectively. 5. having NCLs* plotting below the NCL* of Unit B2 (see Section 7. 22gsUC and 24. degree of orientation (Chapter 6). also increasing the separation between the strength envelopes of Units B2 and C from that of Unit A3 . pore pressure and stress ratio with strains were shown in Figures 7. which makes this clay microscopically more similar to the clay from Unit B2 .7isDC. although the variation of their stress ratio with strains does not differ from the other samples.4gsUC) from Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a) that were swelled in the triaxial apparatus to an isotropic stress of about 10kPa. were found to contain more clay particles than samples from Unit A3 .and A3 seemed more similar. The stress ratio curve is flat at the top for all the samples. The influence of swelling on the shearing behaviour of the clay was investigated for four samples (19.4.7isDC and 19. 7. Also the intrinsic behaviour of Units A3 and C was found to be similar.7isDC.41 and are re-plotted in Figures 7.84. The structure of the clays from Units A3 and C were very different.1). At post-rupture. Samples from the Units C. Tests 21. having lower plasticity and more silt particles than Unit B2 . The procedures were described in Section 5.2. the 257 . so that Unit C showed less particle orientation than Unit A which showed high 3.3.39-7. so that other features rather than the nature of the clay emerge. with the only exception of Test 21.

as shown in Figure 7. therefore. compression along ko paths to high pressures was applied to the samples. no differences could be observed between samples sheared from isotropic and from anisotropic initial states. The test procedures for these paths were described in Section 5. When the anisotropic states corresponded to the in situ states of the samples.5.787.63 and Figures 7.55-7.86.3.stress ratios converge towards a unique value for all the samples equal to 1. 7. The shearing stress paths for these samples were shown in Figures 7. does not seem to affect the shearing behaviour of the London Clay. which is larger than the value of 0. No difference could be noticed in the strength of the samples at large strains. but in other cases. In both non-normalised and normalised spaces. 33.5. so that the effects of anisotropic strains on the clay behaviour could be investigated.87. The curves show fairly similar slopes.85 found for the intact samples.85 and the strength data for the intact samples from the same depth are also shown for comparison. One sample from Unit A3 .4. the behaviour of these samples did not differ from the behaviour of samples consolidated along isotropic stress paths.3 Destructuration due to anisotropic compression As mentioned in Section 7. The normalised stress paths of these samples are also consistent with the normalised paths of intact samples. This is consistent with the behaviour of other stiff clays (see Chapter 2).8. with gradients changing from 0.81.3. the consolidation stress paths were performed so that a minimum disturbance was applied to these samples.5gkUC. therefore no destructuration was expected. shows a larger gradient of 1.1. Swelling the samples to low stresses.4. 258 .4 to 0. The stress paths of the swelled samples are shown in Figure 7. The ko paths for samples from different units are shown in Figure 7.

69 2.18 2.69 1.81 1.1: Parameters for reconstituted isotropically compressed samples Unit C B 2(c) B 2(b) B 2(a) A3 A2 Sample rO7 rO10 rO17 rO25 rO28 rO35 rO51 Gs 2.74 2.4 1.87 3.74 2.53 3.18 C*c C*s 0.98 2.89 2.05 2.76 2.86 1.95 2.74 B 2(c) r10oc r10oc1 r25nc r25nc1 2.76 2.28 3.74 vi 1.73 N* 2.87 A3 r35oc r35oc1 2.57 1.77 2.148 Table samples 7.34 3.99 2.79 Table 7.76 1.04 1.83 G * l k 2.32 2.73 ei 2.22 3.34 1.94 0.5 1.88 1.17 1.Unit C Sample r7nc r7oc r10nc Gs 2.2: Parameters for one-dimensionally compressed reconstituted 259 .85 0.95 2.77 1.064 B 2(a) r25oc r25oc1 r25oc2 r35nc 2.97 2.168 3.386 0.99 2.78 3.01 ko 2.92 2.

2 2.6 1.1 1.0 3.7 1500 8500 442 O28 2200 7075 6.0 7.9 1.2 1.2 2.0 18 1.7 2.9 1.7 4000 11300 434 B 2(b) O17 2000 5200 8.8 17 2.2-1.Unit Test I ’y [kPa] I’yu [kPa] OCR YSR minimum maximum SI I ’a [kPa] 220 Ss 3 2.6-2.3 2000 10000 2000 A2 O51 3000 8770 4.5 19 2.6 3000 8000 426 1300 8200 5.1 1.9 1.5 2.4 C O7 1000 2500 16 9.6 O35 A3 O35s 3200 3200 5.4 2.4-2.3 6.2 2.5 9.5-2.7 1.1 1.6-1.0 23 2.8 1.5 10.0 24 2.3: Yield stresses.0 20 1.4-2.3 4.3 5.8 3500 14000 310 O10 B 2(c) O12s 910 2600 12 6.0 3.5 3.1 1.0 6.8-2.3-2. Stress Sensitivities and change of Swell Sensitivity for samples from different lithological units 260 .0 23 2.0 1.0 1.9 2500 10000 75 800 2500 12 6.5 3540 14000 225 11600 O28s 1100 5600 6.4 2.1 5200 10000 434 O25 3000 7000 6.6 1.7 6700 17000 150 O25s B 2(a) 1100 3700 6.0 17 2.2 12 1.7 21 2.3-2.0 1.9 1.1 2.6-2.5 3.1 1.6-1.2 2.3 17 1.4 4385 13000 Table 7.

4: Shear plane characteristics 261 .4gUE 33.6gUC 22.50 = 60 25 55 49 50 30 60 35 25 68 68 25 57 30 69 60 48 55 62 75 60 50 64 15 49 50 55 55 70 67 15 55 35 30 70 30 58 68 45 50 58 55 71 UC UE UC UC UC DE UC UC / UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC DC UC UC DC UC UE UC UC UC UC UC UC UE UC DC UC UC UC DC UC UC UE UC UC UC / incomplete DC UC DC UC UC UC UC UC UC 1a 3 1a 2 1a 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1a 3 1a 1a 1a 1a 2 1b 1a 2 1b 3 1a 1a 1a 1a 1b 1a 3 1a 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1a 1a 3 C B 2(c) B 2(b) B 2(a) A3 1b 1b 1b 1a 1a 1b 1a 2 1a 56 52 56 53 76 63 65 53 67 Table 7.4gsUC 25gUC 25.3g 36.Unit Sample name 7gUC 7gUE 7kUC 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.5SH 19.7isDC 22gsUC 22.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.3iUC 26.5iUC 13gUE 14iUC 16.5UC 31iUC 31.7lgUC 40iUC D [mm] 100 100 38 100 38 38 38 100 100 50 100 100 38 100 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 100 38 100 100 38 38 100 100 38 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 50 100 100 38 100 100 38 38 38 100 100 100 100 shear shear plane type refer to Figures 7.9DE 12.8isUC 21.5gUC 12.7UC 24g37DC 24.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.48-7.2iUC 38.5gkUC 34iUC 36lgUC 36.6iUC 16.5iUC 27UC 28DC 28.6iUC 23.8UC 17SH 17.3gkUC 24.4iUC 11.3gUE 36.6ikUC 23gUE 23.7iUC 11.5UC 38.3SH 17.

4 specific volume v r7nc r7oc 2.8 10 100 p' [kPa] (a) 2 1000 1.1: Reconstituted samples from Unit C (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression 262 1000 10000 .6 2.2.5 void ratio rO7 1 0.5 0 1 10 100 σ'v [kPa] (b) Figure 7.2 2 1.

5 void ratio rO10 Sub-Unit B2(c ) rO12 rO17 Sub-Unit B2(b) rO25 Sub-Unit B2(a) rO28 1 0.5 0 100 1000 10000 σv ' [kPa] Figure 7.2.8 10 100 p' [kPa] (a) (b) 1000 2 1.4 specific volume v Sub-Unit B2(a) 2.6 r12nc r12oc Sub-Unit B 2(c ) r12oc1 r25nc r25oc r25oc1 2.2 2 1.2: Reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression 1 10 263 .

6 2.3: Reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression 264 .5 0 1 10 100 σ'v [kPa] (b) 1000 10000 Figure 7.8 10 100 p' [kPa] 1000 (a) 2 1.2.4 specific volume v r37nc 2.2 r37oc r37oc1 2 1.5 rO35 void ratio e 1 0.

2.5 void ratio e 1 0.2 2 1.4: Reconstituted samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression 265 .8 10 100 p' [kPa] (a) 2 Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(b) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 Unit A 2 1000 1.6 Unit C Sub-Unit B2(c) Sub-Unit B2(a) Unit A 3 2.5 0 1 10 100 σ'v [kPa] (b) 1000 10000 Figure 7.4 specific volume v 2.

8 10 100 p' [kPa] (a) 1000 10000 2 1.2.5 B2(c) B 2(a ) and B2( b) A3 A2 0 1 10 100 σ'v [kPa] (b) 1000 10000 Figure 7.4 specific volume v A3 C 2.5: NCLs* for samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression 266 .6 NCL*s 2.5 void ratio e 1 C 0.2 B 2(c) B 2( a) 2 1.

4 0 0 4 8 εa [%] 12 16 20 (b) Figure 7.300 q [kPa] 200 100 0 0 ∆u [kPa] 100 5 10 εa [% ] 15 20 200 300 (a) r7oc r7nc 1.8 q /p' 0.2 0.6: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit C: (a) stress-strain (b) stress ratio 267 .

2 0.4 0 0 4 8 (b ) Figure 7.7: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) stress-strain (b) stress ratio 12 16 εa [%] 20 268 .8 q/p' 0.400 300 q [kPa] 200 100 0 0 ∆u [kPa] 100 4 8 12 16 εa [%] 20 r10n c r10o c B2(c ) r10o c1 r25n c r25n c1 r25o c1 B2(a ) r25o c2 r25o c 200 300 (a) 1.

8 q/p' 0.300 q [kPa] 200 100 0 0 ∆u [kPa] 100 4 8 εa [%] 12 16 20 200 r35nc r37nc r35oc r37oc r35oc r37oc1 300 (a) 1.8: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) stress-strain (b) stress ratio 12 16 20 269 .4 0 0 4 8 εa [%] (b) Figure 7.2 0.

2 0.9: Stress ratios for reconstituted samples from different lithological units 270 .1.8 q/p' 0.4 Unit C Unit B2 (c) Unit B2 (a) Unit A3 0 0 4 8 εa [%] 12 16 20 Figure 7.

1 Unit C Unit B2(c ) Unit B2(a ) Unit A 3 0.8 q/p' 0.10: Pore pressure increments for reconstituted samples from different lithological units 271 .6 0.4 -1 0 1 2 du/dεa [MPa] 3 4 Figure 7.

11: Stress paths of reconstituted samples from different lithological units 400 600 r7oc r37oc r10nc r7nc .q [kPa] 272 300 Unit C Unit B2(c) Unit B2(a) -( b) Unit A3 200 r37oc CSL* r25nc1 r25nc r37nc 100 r10oc r10oc1 r25oc1 r25oc2 0 0 r37oc1 200 p' [kPa] Figure 7.

2 CS L* -C specific volume v critical state and no rmal com pression lin es 2 NCL -B2( a) 1 .8 NCL-B 2(c) Incom plete testin g 1 .4 CSL-B 2(a) CSL-B 2( c ) CSL-A 3 Unit C Sub -Unit B 2(c ) Sub -Unit B 2(a ) Unit A 3 Unit C Sub -Unit B 2(c ) Sub -Unit B 2(a ) Unit A 3 end of sh earin g states 2 .2 .6 10 273 NCL -A 3 NCL -C 10 0 p' [kPa] 1000 1 0000 Fig ure 7.12 : Norm al Compressio n and Critical State lines fo r sam ples from different litho log ical units .

6 274 CSL * Unit C Unit B 2(c) Unit B 2(a)-(b) Unit A 3 0.0.13: Normalised stress paths of reconstituted sam ples from different lithological units .4 q/p*e e n si on l ine SBS* no -t 0. 4 p /p*e ' 0.2 NCL* 0 0 0.8 1.2 Figure 7.

14: Oedometeric tests on natural samples from Unit C and intrinsic compression curve 275 .8 void ratio e σ'y 0.1 intrinsic compression curve 0.6 O7 site investigation-7.25m 0.2 10 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] 10000 100000 Figure 7.4 0.

6 0.B2( a) site investigation-15.1 intrinsic compression curve 0.6 0.2 10 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] (b) 10000 100000 Figure 7.8 void ratio e σ'y 0.15: Oedometeric tests on natural samples from Unit B (a) Sub-Unit 2 B2(c) (b) Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a) 276 .2m 0.B2( b) O25 .4 O17 .4 O10 -B2( c) 0.2 10 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] (a) 10000 100000 1 intrinsic compression curve σ'y 0.B2( a) O28 .8 void ratio e 0.

8 void ratio e intrinsic compression curve σ'y 0.5m 0.1 O35 -A3 O51 -A2 site investigation-35.16: Oedometeric tests on natural samples from Units A2 and A3 277 .2 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] 10000 100000 Figure 7.6 0.4 0.

4 O25 O28 0.2 10 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] 10000 100000 Figure 7.17: Summary of oedometric compressions of natural samples 278 .6 035 O51 Unit C Unit B2( c) Unit B2( b) Unit B2( a) Unit A 3 Unit A 2 0.1 0.8 O10 O17 void ratio e O7 0.

5iUC-B 2( c) 1.6 34iUC-A 3 1.4 100 1000 p' [kPa] 10000 Figure 7.8 31.18: Compression curves of natural samples in the triaxial apparatus 279 .2 NCL *-B 2(c) NCL*-A3 NC L*-C N CL*-B 2(a ) 2 specific volume 1.4iUC-B 2( a) 12.2.

1.19: Example of Casagrande’s construction to define the gross yield and the change of swelling line gradients 280 .4 0.0 e 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.2 10 100 1000 10000 I’v [kPa] 100000 Figure 7.3 0.5 Intrinsic compression curve Cs 430 Cs 17000 Cs7000 I’y I’yu C*s 0.

1 7m 0.04 17m 25m 51m 35m mv [m2/MN] 0.3.4 10m 51m Unit A 3 Unit A 2 2 2.6 28m 1.20: Change of swell sensitivity with stresses 0.2 35m 7m 25m 17m 0.21: Compressibility of natural samples in oedometric tests 281 .02 0 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] 10000 100000 Figure 7.8 0 4000 8000 12000 σ'v [kPa] 16000 20000 Figure 7.08 10m Unit C Unit B2(c) Unit B2(b) Unit B2(a) Unit A3 Unit A2 0.2 Unit C Unit B 2(c ) Unit B 2(b) Unit B 2(a ) Swell Sensitivity Ss 2.8 1.06 28m 0.

5iUC -B2(c) 31.01 0.001 0.2 10 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] 10000 O25 100000 Figure 7.4 035 Unit C Unit B 2 (a) Unit A3 0.4iUC -B2(a) 120 K [MPa] 34iUC -A3 80 40 0 0.6 O7 0.1 εv [%] 1 10 100 Figure 7.8 void ratio e 0.22: Oedometeric compression curves for natural and reconstituted samples 160 12.1 intrinsic compress ion B 2(a) curve s C A3 0.23: Stiffness in compression of natural samples in triaxial tests 282 .

B2(c) εv/εa 14iUC -B2(b) 2 34iUC -A3 0 0 1000 2000 3000 p' [kPa] 4000 5000 Figure 7.24: Degradation of anisotropic strains during isotropic compression 283 .6 4 12.5iUC.

2 Unit C Unit B2(c) Unit B2(b) Unit B2(a) -1.0 ICL for different units -0.8 O10 O7 O35 -1.25: Normalised one-dimensional compression curves 284 .6 Unit A3 Unit A2 O25 O28 O51 -2 10 100 1000 σ' v [kPa] 10000 100000 Figure 7.4 O17 void index Iv -0.

60 0.26: Sketch of the parameters used for the new normalisation 285 .00 void ratio e 0.00 1 10 Intrinsic compression curve e Intrinsic swelling line en=e-e* e e* e* σ’n 100 1000 I'v [kPa] 10000 100000 intact compression curve Figure 7.1.80 0.40 0.20 0.

25 O35 U nit B 2( b) U nit B 2( a) U nit A 3 U nit A 2 O10 0.15 O28 O17 0.3 U nit C U nit B 2( c) 0.0.2 O51 O7 0.35 e-e* 286 0.1 100 1000 σ' v [kPa] 10000 O25 100000 Figure 7.27: N ew normalization for the oedom eter tes ts .

4 O10 O12s swelled first 0.28: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(c) 10 100 1 intrinsic compression curve σ'y 0.6 0.1 intrinsic compression curve σ'y 0.29: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a) 10 100 287 .2 1000 10000 100000 σ'v [kPa] Figure 7.8 void ratio e 0.2 1000 10000 100000 σ'v [kPa] Figure 7.4 O25 O25s swe lled first 0.6 0.8 void ratio e 0.

30: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a) 10 100 1 0.31: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Unit A3 288 .4 O28 O28s -swelled first 0.2 1000 10000 100000 σ'v [kPa] Figure 7.6 σ' y 0.1 intrinsic compression curve 0.8 void ratio e 0.8 void ratio e intrinsic compression curve 0.2 10 100 1000 σ'v [kPa] 10000 100000 Figure 7.4 O35 O35s swelled first 0.6 σ'y 0.

1200 q [kPa] shear plane 800 400 7gUC 7gkUC 7gUE 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 ε a [%] 16 -400 (a) ∆u [kPa] -8 -4 600 400 200 0 -200 0 4 (b) 8 12 εa [%] 16 Figure 7.32: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit C (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes 289 .

33: Stress ratios for samples from Unit C 290 .3 7gUC 7gkUC 7gUE q/p' 2 shear plane 1 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 εa [%] 16 -1 Figure 7.

4iUC 12.q [kPa] 1200 800 shear plane 400 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 εa [%] 11gUC 11gDE 11gkUC 11.34: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(c) consolidated to medium stresses (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore water pressure changes (c) volumetric strains 291 .7iUC 11.5gUC -400 ∆u [kPa] 600 400 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0 4 (a) 8 (b) 12 16 εa [%] 0 εv [%] -8 -4 -4 0 4 8 12 16 εa [%] (c) Figure 7.

q [kPa] 3000 shear plan e 2000 1000 12.5iUC 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 (a) ∆u [kPa] 2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 (b) 12 16 εa [%] 12 16 εa [%] Figure 7.5iUC consolidated to high stresses (a) stress-strain relationship (b) pore water pressure changes 292 .35: Large strain behaviour of Sample 12.

5gUC 12.5 iUC 1 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 εa [%] -1 Figure 7.3 q/p' 2 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11iUC 11.4iUC 12.36: Stress ratio for samples from Unit B2(c) 293 .

q [kPa] -8 -4 1200 800 400 0 0 4 8 12 εa [%] 16 13gUE 14iUC 16.8UC 17SH 17.5iUC 16 (b) Figure 7.3SH 17.6iUC -400 (a) 600 400 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0 4 8 12 εa [%] ∆u [kPa] 16.37: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(b) (a) stressstrains relationships (b) pore water pressure changes 294 .

3SH 17.8UC 17SH 17.6iUC 16.5iUC 2 1 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 εa [%] 16 -1 Figure 7.38: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(b) 295 .3 q/p' 13gUE 14iUC 16.

1200 q [kPa] -8 800 19.5UC 31iUC 600 400 ∆u [kPa] 200 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 (a) -8 -4 -200 0 4 εa [%] (b) 8 12 16 εv [%] -8 -4 2 0 -2 0 4 εa [%] (c) 8 12 16 Figure 7.7isDC 400 23.39: Large strain behaviour of samples form Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains 296 .5iUC 27UC 28DC -400 28.7UC 26UC 26DC 0 26.6iUC 23.3iUC -4 26.8isUC 21.

40: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from anisotropic states (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains 297 .6gUC 22.4aUE -400 ∆u [kPa] -8 -4 600 400 200 0 -200 0 4 εa [%] (b) 8 12 16 εv [%] -8 -4 4 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 (c) Figure 7.3gkUC 24.6ikUC 23gUE 24g37DC 24.4gsUC 25gUC 25.1200 800 q [kPa] -8 -4 400 0 0 4 εa [%] (a) 8 12 16 22gsUC 22.

41: Stress ratios for samples form Unit B2(a) consolidated isotropically before shearing 298 .5UC 31iUC q/p' -8 -4 1 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 -1 Figure 7.8isUC 21.5iUC 26.7isDC 23.7UC 26UC 26DC 26.6iUC 23.3 shear plane 2 19.3iUC 27UC 28DC 28.

4aUE q/p' -8 -4 1 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 -1 Figure 7.6ikUC 23gUE 24g37UC 24.3 2 22gsUC 22.42: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing 299 .4gsUC 25gUC 25.3gkUC 24.6gUC 22.

2iUC 38.5UC 16 0 -8 -4 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 (c) Figure 7.43: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains 300 .1200 800 S hear plane q [kPa] -8 -4 400 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 -400 600 400 ∆u [kPa] 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0 4 εa [%] (b) 4 εv [%] 8 12 (a) 37isUC 37DC 38UC 38.

3000 2000 q [kPa] S hear plane 1000 34 iUC 38 iUC 0 -8 -4 0 (a) 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 2000 1600 ∆u [kPa] -8 -4 1200 800 400 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 (b) Figure 7.44: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to large stresses before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes 301 .

7lgUC -8 -4 0 4 (b) 8 12 εa [%] 16 4 εv [%] 0 εa [%] (c) Figure 7.5gDC 36lgUC 38.45: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 302 .1200 shear plane 800 q [kPa] -8 -4 400 0 0 4 8 12 εa [%] 16 -400 (a) 600 400 ∆u [kPa] 200 0 -200 31.5gkUC 36.4gUE 33.3gUE-incomplete 36.

2iUC 38.5gkUC 36.3 34iUC 37isUC 37DC 2 Shear plane 38iUC 38UC 38.7lgUC q/p' 2 1 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 εa [%] 16 -1 Figure 7.3gUE-incomplete 36.46: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions 3 31.5UC q/p' -8 -4 1 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 -1 Figure 7.4gUE 33.5gDC 36lgUC 38.47: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from anisotropic states 303 .

49: Multiple shear plane typology α Type 3 Figure 7.48: Typical shear planes through intact samples α1 α2 α3 Type 2 Figure 7.α α 1a Type 1 1b Figure 7.50: Typical shear plane along a pre-existing fissure 304 .

Figure 7.50 305 .48 Figure 7.51: Sample sheared in compression with a shear plane of Type 1b in Figure 7.52: Sample sheared in extension along a shear plane of Type 3 in Figure 7.

54: Pore pressure changes for a sample that formed multiple shear planes of Type 2 (Test 11gUC) 0 2 306 .300 200 ∆u [kPa] Shear plane 100 base mid-height 0 2 3 4 εa [%] Figure 7.53: Pore pressure changes in a sample sheared along a single shear plane of Type 1a (Test 23.7iUC) 0 1 200 160 S hear plane ∆u [kPa] 120 80 base mid-height 40 0 4 6 εa [%] Figure 7.

1200 800 7gUC 7gkUC 7gUE (*) q [kPa] 400 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures -400 Figure 7.55: Stress paths for samples from Unit C 307 .

7iUC 11.56: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(c) at low stresses .q [kPa] 308 1200 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE (*) 11.4iUC 12.5gUC 800 400 (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 -400 Figure 7.

7iUC 11.4iUC 12.57: Stress paths for samples from Unit B 2(c) at large stresses 309 .5iUC 2000 1000 0 0 4000 p' [kPa] (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures 2000 6000 Figure 7.5gUC 12.5000 4000 3000 q [kPa] 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE (*) 11.

58: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(b) .q [kPa] 310 1200 13gUE (*) 14iUC 16.6iUC (*) 16.8UC 17SH (*) 17.3SH (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures 800 400 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 -400 Figure 7.

3iUC (*) 26.8isUC 21.7UC (*) 26UC 26DC 26.59: Stress paths of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions .7isDC 23.6iUC 23.5iUC 27UC (*) 28DC 28.1200 800 400 19.5UC 31iUC q [kPa] 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures -400 311 Figure 7.

3gkUC (*) 24.6gUC 22.4gsUC 25gUC 25.60: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing .6ikUC 23gUE (*) 24g37UC 24.4aUE (*) 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures -400 Figure 7.q [kPa] 312 1200 800 400 22gsUC 22.

2iUC 38.Figure 7.5UC 400 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 -400 313 .61: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at low stresses 1200 800 q [kPa] 37isUC 37DC 38UC 38.

62: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at large stresses 0 2000 6000 314 .5UC 4000 3000 q [kPa] 2000 1000 0 4000 p' [kPa] Figure 7.5000 34iUC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.

1200 800 q [kPa] 400 31.3gUE (*) 36.5gDC 36lgUC (*) 38.4gUE (*) 33.63: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing .5gkUC 36.7lgUC 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 -400 (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures 315 Figure 7.

9m 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 -400 Figure 7.3m 400 19.3m 0 0 11.800 B2(c) 38mm B2(c) 100mm B2(b) 38mm B2(b) 100mm B2(a) 38mm B2(a) 100mm pre-existing f issures stress paths for site investigation tests q kPa] 400 10.35m 16. (1 96 4 )2 0m 1200 de pt h .64: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at lower stresses 316 W eb b.

existing fissures 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 p' [kPa] 4000 5000 -1000 317 .Figure 7. 20 B2(c) 38mm B2(c) 100mm B2(b) 38mm B2(b) 100mm B2(a) 38mm B2(a) 100mm pr e.65: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at higher stresses 4000 3000 p th de m 2000 q kPa] bb We 64) ( 19 .

(1 eb b 96 4 2000 q [kPa] 1000 no tension cut off 47m 34m 0 0 37.66: Peak strengths for samples from Unit A3 318 .3000 d 5m )3 h e pt W .4m 1000 48m 2000 p' [kPa] A3 100mm A3 38mm pre-existing fissures stress paths for site inves tigation tes ts 3000 4000 5000 -1000 Figure 7.

67: Comparison between rotary core and block samples (a) stress paths (b) stress-strain relationships 319 .5gUC -rotary core sample 400 200 Shear plane 0 0 2 4 6 8 εa [%] -200 (b) Figure 7.q [kPa] 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 p' [kPa] -200 (a) q [kPa] 11gUC -block sample 12.

1200 Unit A3 Unit B2 800 no tens ion cut off q [kPa] Unit C U nit C 100mm 38m m S ub-Unit B 2(c ) 100m m 38mm S ub-Unit B 2(b) 100m m 38m m S ub-Unit B 2(a ) 100m m 38mm U nit A 3 100mm 38mm pre-exis ting fis sures 400 pre-exis ting fis sures envelope 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 -400 Figure 7.68: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium stresses 320 .

69: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher stresses 321 .4000 Unit B 2 3000 Unit A 3 Unit C 100mm 38m m Sub-U nit B 2(c) 100mm 38mm Sub-U nit B 2(b) 100mm 38mm Sub-U nit B 2(a) 100mm no tension cut off Unit C 0 0 1000 2000 p' [kPa] -1000 3000 4000 5000 38mm Unit A 3 100mm 38mm pre-exis ting fissures 2000 q [kPa] 1000 Figure 7.

(1993) Webb. (1964) 0 0 500 1000 p' [kPa] 1500 2000 -500 Figure 7.70: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at low and medium stresses 322 .1500 Ashford Common 30m 50-60m Ashford Common 20m Unit C 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2(c) 100mm 1000 27-40m 38mm Sub-unit B2(b) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2(a) 100mm q [kPa] 500 16-24m 8-12m 38mm Unit A3 100mm 38mm Hight & Jardine.

(1993) Webb.71: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at higher stresses 323 . (1964) 2000 q [kPa] Ashford Common 20m 50-60m 1000 27-40m 16-24m 8-12m 0 0 1000 2000 p' [kPa] -1000 3000 4000 5000 Figure 7.4000 3000 Ashford Common 30m Unit C 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2 (c) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2 (b) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2 (a) 100mm 38mm Unit A3 100mm 38mm Hight & Jardine.

72: Influence of pre-existing fissures on the shear planes (a) natural fissures before testing (b) shear planes after testing 324 .15o 15o 32o 35o 7gUC (a) 11gUC 38o 38o 60o 49o 35o 7gUC (b) 11gUC Figure 7.

73: Typical Mohr circles for samples that (a) mobilised their intact strength (b) sheared along a pre-existing fissure 325 .200 τ [kPa] peak envelope 100 φ’ α 400 σ‘ [kPa] 100 200 300 (a) 200 τ [kPa] e ptur t -ru pos gth stren ope l enve α=30o peak envelope 100 φ’ e lan ar p she 100 200 300 σ‘ [kPa] (b) Figure 7.

7lgUC post-rupture strength 59o 200 400 24o 600 800 σ‘ [kPa] she ar p lane 200 τ [kPa] peak strength postrupture strength (c) 36lgUC 100 61o 100 200 300 400 500 600 σ‘ [kPa] Figure 7.7lgUC (a) she ar p lane τ [kPa] 200 peak strength 38.74: Comparison between behaviours of samples that mobilized their intact strength or sheared along a pre-existing fissure (a) stress-strain relationships (b) stress paths (c) Mohr's circles 326 .800 600 q [kPa] 400 200 0 0 -200 800 600 q [kPa] 400 200 0 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 p' [%] (b) 2 4 6 8 εa [%] 10 36lgUC failed along a pre-existing fissure 38.

19 69) intrins ic stren gth env elo pe(Burland . 19 90) 600 400 τ [kPa] 200 0 0 -200 400 800 σ' [kPa] 1200 1600 327 .Figure 7.75: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium pressures Unit C peak p ost-ru pture Sub -Unit B 2(c) p eak pos t-ruptu re Sub -Unit B 2(b) peak p ost-ru pture Sub -Unit B 2(a) p eak pos t-ruptu re Unit A 3 peak po st-rup ture p re-ex is ting fis sures p eak p ost-ru pture p ost-ru pture env elope (Bu rland . 19 90) lower b oun d pre-existing fissures (Sk empton .

76: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher pressures 328 . 1990) lower bound pre-existing fissures (Skempton. 1990) 1000 τ [kPa] 0 0 1000 2000 σ' [kPa] 3000 4000 5000 -1000 Figure 7.Unit C peak post-rupture Sub-Unit B2(c) peak 2000 post-rupture Sub-Unit B2(b) peak post-rupture Sub-Unit B2(a) peak post-rupture Unit A3 peak post-rupture pre-existing fissures peak post-rupture post-rupture envelope (Burland. 1969) intrinsic strength envelope (Burland.

77: Occurrence of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures 329 .0 Samples failed along pre-existing fissures 33 % C B2(c ) 5 Samples tested 10 33 % depth below ground level [m] 15 50 % B2( b) 20 25 B2(a) 44 % 30 B1 35 12 % A3 40 Figure 7.

4 7gUE -0.4 Figure 7.8 7gkUC CSL* 0.8 p'/p*e 1.4 no tension cut off 7gUC NCL* 0 0 0.2 q/p*e 330 Intact strength P re-exis ting fissure s 0.1.2 1.6 SBS* .78: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit C 0.

79: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures 331 .1 Sub-Unit B2(c) q/p*e Sub-unit B2(b) Sub-unit B2(a) pre-existing fissures 0 0 0.1 0.3 -0.1 Figure 7.2 p'/p*e 0.2 SBS* no tension cut off 0.0.

6 -0.80: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at higher pressures 332 .4 0.8 q/p*e 0.8 p'/p*e 1.2 Sub-Unit B2(c) Sub-unit B 2(b) Sub-unit B 2(a) Pre-existing fissures 0.1.4 Figure 7.4 no tension cut off SBS* 0 0 0.2 1.

6 -0.4 Figure 7.4 SBS* 0 0 0 .2 Intact strength Pre-existing fissures 0.4 0.8 p'/p*e 1.1.2 1.81: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit A 3 333 .8 q/p*e 0.

4 Figure 7.2 1.2 Unit A 3 U nits B2 and C Unit C 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B 2(c ) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B 2(b) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B 2(a ) 100mm 0.4 0.82: Normalized SBS for samples from different lithological units at large stresses 334 .1.4 SBS * 38mm Unit A 3 100mm 38m m Pre-existing fiss ures 0 0 0.6 -0.8 q/p* e 0.8 p' /p*e 1.

7isDC 24.8isUC 21.83: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2 swelled to low stresses before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains 335 .4gsUC 22gsUC -400 600 400 ∆u [kPa] 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0 (a ) 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 (b) εv [%] -8 -4 2 0 -2 0 4 εa [%] (c) 8 12 16 Figure 7.1200 800 q [kPa] -8 -4 400 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 19.

8isUC 21.4gsUC 2 q/p' -8 -4 1 0 0 4 εa [%] 8 12 16 -1 Figure 7.7isDC 22gsUC 24.3 19.84: Stress ratio for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing 336 .

85: Stress paths for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing 1200 9 .7isDC 24gsUC 19.8isUC 0 0 22gsUC 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600 -400 337 . (1 64 ) W b eb 800 B2(c) 38mm B2(c) 100mm B2(b) 38mm B2(b) 100mm B2(a) 38mm B2(a) 100mm Swelled to low stresses before shearing q kPa] 400 21.Figure 7.

7isDC SBS* no tension cut off 22gsUC 0.2 0.3 -0.q/p*e 338 0.1 Figure 7.1 24gsUC intact samples from Unit B2 swelled before shearing 0 19.2 21.86: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures .1 p'/p*e 0.8isUC 0 0.

3g 0 0 200 400 600 p' [k Pa] 800 1000 1200 -200 339 .Figure 7.87: Consolidations along ko paths for samples from different lithological units 600 U nit C S ub-Unit B 2(c) S ub-Unit B 2(a) 400 in situ stress states U nit A 3 U nit C and Sub -Unit B2( c) S ub-Unit B 2(a) U nit A 3 7 gkU C 200 22.5g kUC 24.2gkU C q [kPa] 3 6.6gkUC 11g kUC 33.

B2(a) and A3. which reduced the refraction effects of the transmitted wave. Static and dynamic probes were performed on samples from lithological Units C. B2(c). radial compression and extension and probes at p’ constant and q constant. The static probes were fully drained and stress controlled and they were performed during the periods when the mid-height pore pressure transducer was less influenced by the temperature changes (see Section 5. The reasons for performing 341 . consolidated to their estimated in situ stresses as described in Appendix 5.1. due to the stiffness of the clay and the dimensions of the samples. axial compression and extension. the triaxial cells were wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil to reduce the temperature effects on the samples. For a few days before probing and also during the probes. The shear moduli of the clay in the horizontal and vertical directions were measured with bender elements along the approach stress paths and at the in situ stress state. The signal was always found to be very clear.3.1 Introduction An extensive study of the behaviour of London Clay at small strains was carried out to evaluate the elastic parameters of this material.5. The other elastic parameters.6). The bender element signals were interpreted with both the first arrival method and the frequency method.8 SMALL STRAIN BEHAVIOUR 8. These two methods always showed a very good agreement of the results. Young’s moduli and Poisson’s ratios. investigate the nature of the kinematic surfaces and define their relationship with the lithology of the clay. Similar sets of static probes were performed on the different samples. as described in Section 2. basically.1. which were. depending on the depths of the samples. A single shot sine wave was used with a frequency range between 3kHz and 12kHz. were measured from the static probes performed at the in situ stress states for each lithological unit.

these types of probes were discussed in Appendix 5.2. The Young’s modulus Ev and the Poisson ratio νvh were directly measured from the slope of the linear part of the curves σ'a-εa and εr-εa in the axial probes. The other elastic parameters Eh, νhh and νhv were derived from the radial probes, as discussed in Appendix 5.2. As a check, the values for the equivalent shear modulus, Geq, the bulk modulus K and the coupling moduli, Jqp and Jpq, measured from the constant p’ and constant q probes, were compared with those calculated from the combination of the independent parameters. Similarly, the undrained parameters were both measured from undrained monotonic loading of the samples and calculated from the combination of the drained parameters. A minimum of two axial compression

and radial compression probes were performed on each sample in order to have a double check on the values of the independent parameters.

The stress changes applied during the probes generally did not exceed 2kPa. The strains were completely recovered if the probes moved inside the elastic region. Otherwise, the yield points for the elastic region could be identified at the stresses where the behaviour diverged from linearity. Creep was allowed before starting each probe and the creep rates were monitored so that they could be considered negligible before probing. Typically, the stresses were held constant at the in situ state for about 5-7 days before starting the probing stage. The rest time, though, depended on the creep rates and was defined in each test according to the specific conditions. Usually, about 8-10 hours were allowed between each static probe. This time was found sufficient to reduce to negligible values the creep strains developed during the previous probe. Bender element readings were taken after each static probe and demonstrated that the probes did not affect the elastic stiffness of the samples. Conditions of full drainage and perfect agreement between both the axial LVDTs were used as parameters to identify the successful probes, the others being discarded.

Similar stress rates were used for the outgoing paths of all the probes and these varied between 0.3-0.5kPa/h, depending on the permeability of the samples. Usually lower stress rates were used for the constant q probes, although these probes were often unsuccessful due to lack of drainage in the samples. The

342

stress rates of the probes had to be compatible with their durations, because, due to the magnitude of the stresses applied, secondary effects such as the temperature or small amounts of drift in the load cell could affect the results significantly. The reversal paths were conducted at faster strain rates than the outgoing paths due to problems with the triaxial apparatus, which could not respond promptly to a reversal of load unless a large number of pulses were applied to the ram controller. Performing the unloading paths at faster rates than the loading paths was preferred to creep strains developing at the ends of the loading paths.

The results of the probes performed on each lithological unit will be discussed in this chapter. Features such as the effects of the sample quality at small strains, the effect of the consolidation stresses and pre-existing fissures will also be discussed as they emerge from the tests. A comparison between the results from the different lithological units will also be made.

In each plot, the total number of points recorded in the tests is shown and they might be different depending on the duration time of probing. The accuracy of the readings also varies between the tests because the resolution of the local instrumentation was continuously revised and improved during the research, which would be evident if a chronological presentation of the data was made.

For each unit, the kinematic surfaces Y1 and Y2 will also be identified according to the definitions given by Jardine (1992) using static probes and monotonic loading tests.

8.2 Lithological Unit C
Three samples were tested from this unit, 7gUC, 7gUE and 7gkUC that were all consolidated to the stress state of p’=160kPa and q=-85kPa. Static and dynamic probes were carried out on the 100mm samples, 7gUC and 7gUE, which were then sheared to failure, while Sample 7gkUC was compressed along

343

a ko path before shearing to failure. The approach stress paths and the outgoing paths are shown in Figure 8.1. 8.2.1 Bender element tests

The shear moduli Ghh and Ghv were measured along the approach stress path as shown in Figure 8.1. Typical interpretation methods for the measurements of the arrival time are shown in Figures 8.2 and 8.3 for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE at their in situ stresses. Qualitatively similar sets of data were found for all the other stress points. In the frequency method, the relationship between the frequency and the ratio D/λ is in good agreement with the theory, with exception for the values at low frequencies, due to near-field effects (Figures 8.2a and 8.2b). The arrival time measured with the first arrival method changes slightly with frequency and has a typical S-shape determined by the near-field effects at low frequencies. The average value of the arrival time measured with the first arrival method is always in very good agreement with the arrival time determined by the frequency method, as shown in Figures 8.2b and 8.3b. The values calculated from the frequency method were used for the calculations of the velocities and the shear moduli.

The variations of the shear moduli with stresses along the approach stress path are summarised in Table 8.1 for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE. Neither Ghh nor Ghv varied greatly in the approach stress path, probably due to an intrinsic anisotropy of the clay, which was not disturbed. 8.2.2 Static probes

The creep rates measured in the 24h before probing are shown in Figure 8.4 for both Samples 7gUC and 7gUE. The axial strain rates in the few hours before starting the probes oscillated around zero and had values of the same order of magnitude as the resolution of the local LVDTs, so that virtually no variation of strains could be measured before probing. Figure 8.5 shows the typical change of pore pressure measured at the mid-height during a day during this waiting period. This behaviour is typical for a 24h period and reflects a cyclic variation of temperature in the laboratory, as discussed in Section 5.3.6. The periods 344

chosen for probing are also indicated in Figure 8.5 and correspond to the hours when the pore pressure is more stable.

The results of the probes are shown in Figures 8.6-8.10. The probes were stress controlled at rates of 0.5kPa/h for the outgoing paths, which corresponded to strain rates of between 0.0003-0.0007%/h. In axial compression (Figures 8.6 and 8.7), two probes were preformed that did not exceed the elastic region (Probes 7gUC-ac1 and 7gUE-ac1) showing a purely linear elastic response. The slight hysteretic behaviour shown in these probes is probably due to the different strain rates used in the reversal paths and a better example of linear elastic response will be given in Section 8.3.1. In radial compression, all the probes exceeded the limit of the elastic region and the strains could not be recovered. No successful radial extension probes could be performed because the radial belt did not seem to move freely in this direction. Several probes were tried and one of these attempts, on Sample 7gUC, is illustrated in Figure 8.8. Only one successful constant q probe was performed for this unit, the data for which are plotted in Figure 8.10.

The arrows in the figures indicate the points where the stress paths diverged from linearity, marking the limit of the elastic region Y1. The development of irrecoverable plastic strains above the Y1 yield points, did not allow the closure of the reversal stress paths. At the strains when Y1 was engaged, the strain rates had already reached a fairly constant value, so that the velocity of loading could be considered constant and no acceleration effects interfered with the Y1 yield points, as shown in Figure 8.11, where the strains rates for the axial drained probes and the undrained monotonic loading paths are plotted. This figure also shows that all the probes were performed at similar strain rates, which were slightly faster in extension than in compression. Larger strain rates occurred in the undrained shearing of Sample 7gUC. Identical results were found for the other static probes, which are not shown for clarity.

345

8.2.3

Monotonic loading tests

Samples 7gUC and 7gUE were sheared undrained after probing. The monotonic loading stages were initially stress controlled at stress rates of ±2kPa/h, corresponding to about 0.002%/h for Sample 7gUC and –0.0015%/h for Sample 7gUE. The shearing was strain controlled above 0.01% axial strain. The stress-strain relationships at small strains were used to evaluate the undrained Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the clay (Figure 8.12). The monotonic shearing of Sample 7gUE showed an unexpected low stiffness. Since the results of the drained probes seemed consistent with the behaviour of Sample 7gUC, the reduced undrained stiffness was attributed to some disturbance caused to the sample before shearing. 8.2.4 Elastic parameters

All the elastic parameters measured from the static probes in this unit are summarised in Table 8.2. The drained values are very similar for both samples, which are stiffer in the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction, having a ratio Eh/Ev around 1.6 for Sample 7gUC and 1.5 for Sample 7gUE. The Poisson’s ratios νvh and νhh, which become negative in some cases, can be interpreted as being around zero. The combination of the elastic parameters calculated respected the boundary conditions imposed by the assumption of elasticity and cross-anisotropy (Equations 2.16-2.18). The bulk modulus and the shear modulus calculated with Equations A5.18-A5.20 corresponded approximately to the values directly measured from the probes, which indicate the reliability of the values found for the drained parameters. The values of the undrained Young’s modulus of Sample 7gUE suggest, though, that some disturbance might have affected the shearing of this sample. This sample finally failed in extension along a pre-existing fissure, but the values of the drained parameters do not seem to have been affected by the presence of this fissure and, as discussed before, are consistent with the values of Sample 7gUC, which mobilised its intact strength. It is unlikely that the low value of the undrained Young’s modulus is due to the pre-existing fissure because, in this case, also the other elastic parameters would be affected by this.

346

8.2.5

Kinematic surfaces

(a) Y1 surface Figure 8.13 shows the yield points of the elastic surface Y1 measured from the monotonic loading tests and from the static probes that went beyond the linear elastic range. The results are plotted both in stress and strain planes. In both planes, a rounded surface emerges that is almost symmetrical around the initial stress point. The incremental strain energy was calculated with Equation 2.10 for all the Y1 yield points, which show the same value of about 0.6-1x10-5 kJ/m3, as summarised in Table 8.3. The yield point from the monotonic loading of Sample 7gUC, which was sheared at faster rate, plots slightly above the others, probably due to a strain rate effect. From the tests performed in this unit, a direct comparison between the stress-strain curves of samples sheared at different strain rates was not possible because the samples sheared faster were also tested undrained, while those sheared at slower rates were drained. The test procedures, therefore, could have influenced the stress-strain response considering the order of magnitude of the strains involved. Strain rate effects are expected even in the elastic region, but they should not be too large because of the small strain range involved (Tatsuoka et al., 1998). The volumetric strains plotted in Figure 8.13b, were calculated from the local instrumentation (b) Y2 surface The monotonic loading tests, 7gUC, 7gUE and 7gkUC, were used to evaluate the yield points of the Y2 region. For Sample 7gkUC that was loaded drained along a ko path, the Y2 yield point could be measured from the change in the strain direction, as discussed in Section 2.5 and shown in Figure 8.14. For Samples 7gUC and 7gUE that were sheared undrained, Y2 was evaluated from the change of gradient of the pore pressure:deviatoric stress curve, as shown in Figure 8.15.

The Y2 limits identified from the tests are plotted in Figure 8.16 in a stress plane. The small number of tests only gives an idea of the Y2 surface shape, which requires more data to be better defined. In stress space, the Y2 surface

347

seems to have a rounded shape. It is not symmetrical around the initial stress point, but seems larger on the compression side than on the extension side. This shape is probably induced by the proximity of the initial stress state to the failure line in extension. Jardine (1992) observed that the Y2 surface of Bothkennar clay also reduced in size in the proximity of the failure lines (see Section 2.5.2).

It is unlikely that the effect of the recent stress history of the sample influenced the Y2 surface shape due to the very small magnitude of the strains induced in the samples during the approach stress paths and also because of the extended creep period allowed before shearing, but this will be discussed in Chapter 9. 8.2.6 Stiffness degradation

The stiffness degradation with strains is plotted in Figure 8.17 for both Samples 7gUE and 7gUC. Sample 7gUE clearly shows disturbance at very small strains, so that the elastic stiffness for this sample is surprisingly low compared to both the value predicted by the combination of the drained parameters and the value for Sample 7gUC. The stiffness degradation curve of this sample,

therefore, will only be considered at larger strains. For strains larger than 0.001%, the stiffness of Sample 7gUE degrades faster than that of Sample 7gUC, probably as result of softening because of the proximity to the failure line. For strains larger than 1%, though, the stiffnesses of both samples join together while reducing towards zero. Faster degradation of stiffness in extension could also be influenced by the recent stress history of the sample. The set of tests described above is similar to the tests performed by Clayton and Heymann (2001) on London Clay samples. Samples from Unit C, as for the samples tested by Clayton and Heymann, were consolidated to an anisotropic stress state with a simple path of decreasing q and creep was allowed before shearing. As observed by Clayton and Heymann (2001), also here the stiffness degradation is faster for the sample that moves towards the failure line. The outgoing stress path, as concluded by Clayton and Heymann, almost certainly influences the behaviour of the clay, inducing a softer response if the sample moves towards the failure line, but it is uncertain whether recent stress history also influenced this

348

behaviour. The direction of extension has the minimum angle of rotation from the approach stress path, so that, if only recent stress history were considered, a softer response would still be expected in the direction of extension. This effect would add to the effect of stiffness reduction induced by the proximity of the failure line. It cannot be concluded, then, as Clayton and Heymann did, that only the outgoing stress path influences the sample behaviour, because the situation analysed does not allow isolation of the effects of recent stress history, as will be discussed in Chapter 9.

The arrows in Figure 8.17 indicate the Y2 yield points that were defined in Section 8.2.5 from the pore pressure:deviatoric stress curves. The Y2 yield points occur when the stiffness curves start to bend downwards more rapidly.

8.3 Unit B2
Small strain analyses were conducted on samples from Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(c), so that the differences between the upper and the lower parts of the same lithological unit could be investigated. Two different consolidation stress paths were used, though, for the two sub-units, which were described in Appendix 5.1. Samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) were consolidated along the same stress path used for samples from Unit C, because, at the time when they were conducted, they were believed to be from the same lithological unit. The lithology of the clay was not very clear until the later stages of this research. Samples from Unit C were initially believed to be weathered samples from Unit B2 and therefore a unique stress path was chosen for these shallower samples, which were lately recognised to belong to a different lithological unit. This was to have enabled a direct comparison between them so highlighting the effect of the weathering on the soil behaviour. The establishment of the existence of Unit C for this site allows, though, a direct comparison between the inherent proprieties of the samples from Units B2 and C. The analyses at small strains will be described separately for the two SubUnits B2(a) and B2(c). The test procedures and the interpretation of the data are

349

similar to that discussed in Section 8.2 for samples from Unit C, and therefore only the results of the analyses will be discussed in the following sections. 8.3.1 Sub-Unit B2(c)

Static and dynamic probes were conducted on two 100mm diameter samples consolidated to the in situ stress point of p’=260kPa and q=-85kPa. A rotary core sample, 12.5gUC and a sample cut from a block, 11gUC were used and their comparison was useful in assessing the influence of sample quality at small strains. Two more samples, 11gkUC and 11gDE, having diameters of 38mm were consolidated to the in situ stress point of this unit and compressed along ko paths or were sheared drained in extension. The approach stress path and the outgoing paths are shown in Figure 8.18. (a) Bender elements tests Table 8.4 summarises the values of the shear moduli Ghh and Ghv at the main significant stress points along the approach stress paths. The shear moduli were calculated from the first arrival and the frequency methods. The interpretation of these two methods was qualitatively similar to that described in Section 8.2.1 and the arrival times calculated from the two methods at the in situ stress points for both samples are shown in Figures 8.19 and 8.20. In Figure 8.19 an example of the first arrival method is also shown. Only the signal for Ghv was available in an electronic format, but it illustrates the good quality of the received signal. Along the approach stress paths and at the in situ stress point, Ghh is larger than Ghv and their ratio is constantly about 1.9. The elastic stiffness of Sample 11gUC, in both directions, is between 5-10% larger than the stiffness of Sample 12.5gUC, but the difference is within the scatter that could be due to natural differences between the two samples. (b) Static probes The creep rates in the 24h before probing and the typical change of pore pressure during a day are shown in Figure 8.21. The probing periods were chosen so that the transducers would not be influenced by the temperature changes in the laboratory and the creep rates had reduced to negligible values (Figure 8.22). The

350

full drainage of the probes was always checked using the mid-height probe. The results of the static probes are plotted in Figures 8.23-8.30. The stress-strain behaviours of the samples during the probes are all plotted in terms of change of stresses, to eradicate small differences in the initial stress values. All the probes were stress controlled, at stress rates of ±0.5kPa/h, corresponding to strain rates of 0.0003-0.0008%/h, which are similar to those for samples from Unit C. Larger stress rates were used for the reversal stress paths to avoid creep strains accumulating. For clarity, the elastic probe performed on Sample 12.5gUC is plotted separately (Figure 8.23). The linear elastic response of this probe is indicated by the coincidence of the load and unload paths. The probes that exceeded the limit of the elastic region allowed the identification of the Y1 yield points.

In radial compression (Figure 8.26), the radial strains of Sample 11gUC-rc1 and 11gUC-rc2 did not increase above a value of 0.0001%, suggesting that the radial belt probably was not free to move (Figure 8.26b). These probes were repeated several times, giving always the same result. However the initial parts of the curves were used for the calculations of the Young’s modulus Eh with satisfactory results that were consistent with the behaviour in radial extension.

The constant p’ probes (Figure 8.27) showed consistent results for both samples, but no successful constant q probes could be performed on Sample 12.5gUC due to problems with drainage. In Figure 8.28, one of the constant q probes attempted on Sample 12.5gUC is shown together with the probes performed on Sample 11gUC. The excess pore pressure developed during Probe 12.5gUC-qconst was about 1kPa, which was about 50% of the change of total mean normal stress applied. This probe was then assumed to be undrained and re-plotted in terms of change of axial strain with axial stress, and it could then be used to derive the yield point Y1 as shown in Figure 8.29, where the change of pore pressure at the mid-height is also included.

One cyclic probe was also performed on Sample 12.5gUC to investigate the existence of hysteretic behaviour in the Y2 region. Jardine (1992), Smith et al.

351

(1992) and Georgiannou (1998) showed that, in the Y2 region the behaviour is fully recoverable although there is hysteresis. Probe 12.5gUC-ae, after a ∆q unloading of about -1.2kPa, was re-compressed to ∆q of +1.5kPa. The stressstrain curve is shown in Figure 8.30 and confirms that, above the Y1 region, the sample behaviour is hysteretic. In reloading, the behaviour seems stiffer than the first loading probably due to creep effects, which might also have prevented the hysteresis loop from closing, so that irrecoverable strains seem to have occurred at the end of the reloading stage. The reloading was continued up to ∆q=1.5kPa, then the sample was unloaded to the initial stress state to avoid excessive straining. Creep rate effects might have interfered also in this last unloading path.

The monotonic loadings of Samples 11gUC and 12.5gUC are shown in Figure 8.31 and allowed the measurement of the undrained parameters Euv and νuvh. At the beginning of shearing, the monotonic loading of Sample 11gUC was stress controlled, at a rate comparable to those of the drained probes, while the loading of Sample 12.5gUC was strain controlled at strain rates of about 0.01%/hr, around 10 times faster than the drained probes. Tatsuoka et al. (1998) showed that faster strain rates induce a stiffer response in the sample behaviour, although in the range of strains of the elastic region these effects are very small (see Figure 2.51). The two Samples 11gUC and 12.5gUC, do not seem to show any difference due to strain rates, although the Y1 yield point of Sample 11gUC, compressed at slow rates, occurred at lower strains than for Sample 12.5gUC. At strains beyond Y1, the behaviour of Sample 11gUC became stiffer, which was unusual and at larger strains some problems interfered in the shearing that induced the strains to become negative. It is not clear what caused these problems and whether the occurrence of the Y1 yield point is related to these or to strain rate effects. As for Unit C, also in the probes and monotonic shearing of the samples from Sub-Unit B2(c), the Y1 yield points occurred at strains when the strain rates were already constant, so that yielding is unlikely to be due to acceleration effects.

352

3.18) and gives good agreement between the measured and the calculated values of the bulk modulus and the coupling moduli. For both samples. (a) Kinematic surfaces Figure 8.33 and 8. The Y1 yield points are characterized by the same value of the incremental strain energy of about 0. The monotonic loadings of Samples 11gUC.6. As for Unit C.34 show the change of pore pressure with increasing deviatoric stress and the Y2 yield points for the undrained tests.5gUC. 12.5gUC) plots slightly above the others. 12.5) and prove the high quality of the rotary core samples used in the present research. 11gUC. The combination of the drained elastic parameters respects the boundary conditions (Equations 2.5gUC. probably due to a small strain rate effect. and the block sample. Figure 8. Figures 8.5gUC confirming that no differences due to sample quality could be seen. plot together with those determined by the probes on the rotary core sample. 11gUC. the Poisson’s ratios νhh and νvh can be assumed to be zero. the Young’s modulus in the vertical direction Ev measured from extension probes is lower than the value measured from the compression probes. 11gUC and 12. There seems to be consistency in the measurements between the two samples. but the measured equivalent shear modulus is larger than the value calculated from Equation A5.5gUC and 11gDE and the compression of Sample 11gkUC along a ko path were used to determine the Y2 yield points.35 shows the change of shear strain εs with 353 .18. The yield points determined by the probes on the block sample.6-1x10-5kJ/m3 as shown in Table 8. There do not seem to be significant differences in the elastic region between the rotary core sample.(c) Elastic parameters Table 8. 12.5 summarises all the elastic parameters for Sub-Unit B2(c) as derived from the static and dynamic probes and from undrained shearing.162.32 shows the Y1 surface measured from the drained probes and the monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(c). The yield point derived from the monotonic loading at a faster rate (12. which confirm the result already observed at large strains (Section 7. The Y1 surface seems centred around the initial stress point.

again probably due to the proximity of the failure line in extension.3. as described in Appendix 5. the elastic stiffness Geq measured with the local instrumentation is consistent with the measurements obtained with the bender element tests. The change from stress to strain control is indicated in the figure and corresponded to a point well beyond the Y2 yield. each sheared from the in situ stress state.5gUC has a stiffness that degraded faster than that of Sample 11gUC.36. The stiffness degradation is the fastest for this sample.1.1% and then strain controlled. the stiffness curves of the two samples converge.37 shows the shear stiffness degradation curves for Samples 11gUC. Sample 12.5gUC and 11gDE were strain controlled from the start of the shearing. 24g37DC. Arrows in the figure indicate the locations of the Y2 yield points. The resolution of the local instrumentation of Sample 11gDE. It seems to have a rounded shape. 25gUC. which was sheared drained and in extension towards the failure line. For Samples 11gUC and 12.5gUC and 11gDE. which are indicated in the figure. At shear strains of about 0. although this could be due to the difference in the shearing procedure as Sample 12.2 Sub-Unit B2(a) A total of seven samples (22.volumetric strain εv for the drained loading of Sample 11gkUC and the drained extension of Sample 11gDE. 12. 24gsUC. 24. The 100mm 354 .5gUC was strain controlled and consequently sheared at faster rates than Sample 11gUC. 8. 23gUE. The Y2 surface is plotted in Figure 8. while Sample 11gUC was initially stress controlled up to about εs=0.5gUC. slightly more elongated towards the compression side.6gUC. The surface does not seem to be affected by strain rates since the samples used to derive the yield stresses were loaded at different strain rates. did not allow the measurement of the elastic stiffness. Samples 12.2gkUC 22gsUC) were consolidated to the in situ stress state of p’=420kPa and q=-155kPa for this sub-unit.01%. tested in the medium pressure apparatus. The direction of the outgoing stress path and the destructuration due to the volumetric strains probably give rise to this. (b) Stiffness degradation Figure 8.

For all the samples.38.2gkUC.6gUC.41 for the three samples at their in situ stress states.6gUC and 23gUE were then sheared undrained to failure.7 summarises the values of the shear moduli Ghh and Ghv derived from the interpretation of the first arrival and the frequency methods. Neither shear modulus seemed to change greatly during the approach stress paths. indicating that the inherent anisotropy of the samples was not disturbed by the reconsolidation.39-8.Sample 25gUC was directly sheared undrained to failure. Samples 22. unusual features were not found in the bender element signal. also 100mm diameter samples.6gUC. The 38mm diameter sample. The characteristics of the signals were qualitatively similar to those described for Units C and B2(c) and the results of the interpretations are shown in Figures 8. The approach stress path and the outgoing paths of samples from this unit are shown in Figure 8. were both swelled to very low pressures before shearing to failure.1. Only the 100mm samples and Sample 24gkUC could be used to study the elastic region. Although this sample. was consolidated along a ko path and the other two 38mm diameter samples. although slightly lower for Sample 23gUE. Samples 22. 24. 23gUE and 24g37DC. were each subjected to static and dynamic probes. (a) Bender element tests Dynamic probes with bender elements were performed on Samples 22. Table 8. while the other samples. the shear moduli Ghh were always larger than Ghv and. The values of the shear moduli are consistent for the three samples. their ratio was between 2 and 2. while Sample 24g37DC was reconsolidated to the in situ stress point estimated for Unit A3 and there subjected again to static and dynamic probes that will be described in the next section. 355 . failed along a pre-existing fissure. at the in situ stress state. 22gsUC and 24gsUC were used to derive only the Y2 yield points. 23gUE and 24g37DC at each significant stress point along the approach stress path. as shown in Figure 8. 22gsUC and 24gsUC. which was sheared in extension.38. which was read and interpreted as for the other samples.

002%/h respectively. which corresponded to the first part of the loading path carried out to consolidate Sample 24g37DC from the in situ stress state of the Sub-Unit B2(a) to the in situ stress state of the Unit A3.6gUC was supposed to be drained. In Figure 8. Usually the probes on the samples from this sub-unit were performed during the night. The reduced stress rates in this unit were due to drainage problems.1 and 8. At small strains.44-8. The undrained stressstrain relationships of the two samples sheared in compression are coincident.40 and 7.48). as discussed in the next section. therefore this test has been considered undrained although it was performed with the drainage tap open.(b) Static probes The creep and temperature conditions were checked before starting the static probes as described in Sections 8. as the samples were less permeable than in Units C and B2(c).2. their stress-strain curves do not seem to be affected by these fissures.015%/h and 0.3. A stress increment of 0. The results of the static probes are plotted in Figures 8. Tests 25gUC and 22.48. though.6gUC were undrained and strain controlled at rates of about 0. despite the different stress rates.5. but the rate of shearing used (0. Sample 22.2. Only one successful q constant probe could be performed (24g37DC-qconst in Figure 8.0002-0. so that. corresponding to strain rates of between 0. their elastic 356 . Samples 25gUC and 23gUE failed along pre-existing fissures in compression and extension respectively.49.0006%/h.002%/h) did not guarantee full drainage.3kPa/hour was used for the drained probes. This will be observed later on samples from other units and will be discussed in Section 8.42 and 8. which are lower than the strain rates used for the shallower lithological units. the monotonic shearing stages of Samples 25gUC.43. 22.60). which reduced their large strain strength (see Figures 7.6gUC and 23gUE are shown.1 and the creep rates in the 24h prior to starting the probes and the change of pore pressure with time during a day are plotted in Figures 8.

The undrained Young’s moduli Euv are also well predicted by the combination of the drained parameters. There seems to be consistency between the values for the various samples tested. while in the strain plane the surface is orientated obliquely across the plane. the surface seems rounded and centred around the initial stress point.8 summarises the elastic parameters measured for this unit.16-2.50 in both stress and strain planes.18) and predicts the bulk and the equivalent shear moduli quite well. This sample failed mobilising the pre-existing fissure only at large strains. so that. for each sample. In the stress plane. All the yield points are characterized by the same incremental strain energy.4x10-5kJ/m3. and is consistent with the values found for the shallower units.20 suggest that Jqp is unexpectedly low.50) plot slightly above those derived from the drained probes. Samples 23gUE. (c) Elastic parameters Table 8. this fissure did not have any influence on the behaviour. (d) Kinematic surfaces The Y1 surface for this unit is plotted in Figure 8. As mentioned before. and 25gUC failed along pre-existing fissures. The measured coupling moduli. which were performed at lower strain rates. when closed. show a larger variability and Jqp and Jpq are not in agreement. 357 .9.2 and 2. but this is not evident from the Y1 surface. the pre-existing fissures along which Sample 23gUE failed produced no effects on the values of the elastic parameters. The combination of the elastic parameters. which mobilised their intact strength. respects the boundary conditions (Equations 2. which is about 1-2. as shown in Table 8. particularly in compression. where the yield points derived from the monotonic loadings (open marks in Figure 8.parameters were consistent with the values found for Samples 22.6 and is larger than the values measured for the shallower units.6gUC and 24g37DC. The values calculated from Equation A5. There seems to be only a little influence of the strain rate on the yield points in the stress plane. The ratio Eh/Ev varies between 2.

6gUC. The contour of the Y2 surface is characterized by the same incremental strain energy of between 3-4x10-4kJ/m3 (Table 8. As discussed in the next section. The tests were conducted at slightly different strain rates. though.6gUC. which. as mentioned before. There does not seem to be any influence on the Y2 surface of the preexisting fissures along which Samples 23gUE and 25gUC failed. whose approach stress path (Figure 8.For the measurements of the Y2 surface. The Y2 surface is plotted in Figure 8. which are reported in the figure. although the reasons for this shape are not clear and probably more tests on different directions are needed to define the Y2 shape with better accuracy. This seems contradictory.52. The effect of the strain rate. 23gUE and 25gUC and arrows on the figure indicate the Y2 yield points. was sheared with the drainage tap open. The centred position of the Y2 surface might also be due to the fact that the reloading part of the approach stress path might have moved inside the recent stress history surface. so that the outgoing stress paths were not affected by recent stress history effects.9). the change of pore pressure has been measured from the mid-height probe. though. although a faster degradation would have 358 . so that the contour of Y2 could be derived in different directions. For Sample 22. It seems slightly lower than the change of pore pressure measured on Sample 25gUC. with the centred shape obtained for samples from Units C and B2(c).54 for Samples 22. which induce the yield points of the samples loaded at faster rates to plot slightly above the others. as shown in Figure 8. as shown in Figure 8. and for the undrained tests. (e) Stiffness degradation Stiffness degradation curves are plotted in Figure 8. the data from all the seven samples were used. The contour of the Y2 surface is probably slightly affected by rate effects. An elliptical shape is suggested by the type and the number of tests performed. but the difference is not large.1) was sufficiently long to believe that it moved outside the recent stress history surface.53 and seems to be centred on the initial stress point.51. probable counteracting effects of stress history and failure line vicinity influenced the Y2 shape. For the drained tests. The three curves are virtually coincident. the Y2 yield points coincided with a change in the shear strain:volumetric strain curves. seems very small. it was derived from a change of gradient of the pore pressure plotted against axial stress.

Recent stress history effects will be discussed in the next chapter and it will be shown there that there exists a relationship between consolidation strains and creep strains that allow the effects of recent stress history to be seen. the identical stiffness behaviour of the two samples is only explained if counteracting effects of the recent stress history and the proximity of the failure line are assumed. These difficulties in distinguishing the influence of different factors on the sample behaviour. In this case. If the effects of strains induced in the samples in the approach stress path had not been erased by the creep at the in situ stress.6gUC and 23gUE. the creep period at the current stress state would have been able to erase the effects of strains developed during the approach stress path.been expected for Sample 23gUE. Considering only recent stress history. regardless the angles of rotation of the shearing paths from the direction of the approach stress path. The stiffness degradation curves of Samples 25gUC and 23gUE do not seem to be affected by the pre-existing fissures along which these samples failed. If this was the case.6gUC because it has a larger angle of rotation from the approach stress path. so that the creep in effect became the recent stress history for the samples and induced both samples to behave similarly. which was sheared towards the failure line in extension. led to a separate study of the effects of recent stress history. and the approach stress path was chosen so that a minimum disturbance would be applied to the samples. a stiffer behaviour would have been expected for the sample sheared in extension due to the larger angle of rotation that this forms with the direction of the approach stress path. The reasons for this are not clear. creep was allowed to reduce to negligible values before shearing. which will be discussed in Chapter 9. so that the stiffer behaviour induced by the recent stress history is counteracted by the softening induced by the proximity of the failure line in extension. Their stiffnesses had already reached very low values when the failure planes 359 . but starting from isotropic stress states. Sample 23gUE would be expected to be stiffer than Sample 22. Probably the stress state was sufficiently far from the failure line and was not influenced by this or its effects might be counteracted by recent stress history effects. and if the initial stress state of the samples was sufficiently far from the failure line. For both samples 22.

5gkUC was compressed at constant q from the in situ state. 36. After further compression along the ko path it was finally sheared undrained from a compressive anisotropic state. for Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a).5gDC and 38. as described in Appendix 5. at the time of testing.5gDC and 36. then joined the anticipated ko path with a p’ constant compression. but. 36. Figure 8. The 100mm Samples 36lgUC and 38.55 shows the approach and the outgoing stress paths for all the samples. the comparison between the 360 .3g was loaded along a ko path from the in situ stress state.3gUE.formed. 8. although the latter sample was not sheared successfully to failure as a leak occurred and the test was abandoned. The behaviour of this sample was useful for the investigation of the relationship between the effects of the initial stress states and the lithology of the clay on its behaviour. as mentioned before. it was re-consolidated to the in situ stresses of the Unit A3 and subjected again to static probes before shearing to failure. uncertainties still existed about the division of the lithological units until the later stages of the research. Sample 31. The 38mm Sample 33. In the analysis of the results of the tests in this unit.7gUC followed the long approach stress paths. it had been believed to belong to Unit A3 because.5gkUC.4gUE. The other samples were consolidated along the short approach stress paths.4gUE actually belongs to Sub-Unit B2(a).4gUE. 33. corresponding to p’=510kPa and q=-126kPa.7lgUC) were consolidated to the in situ stress state for this unit. so probably at small to medium strains these were still closed and did not influence the stiffness degradation of the whole sample. Dynamic probes were conducted on Samples 31. (31.4gUE and 36. after static probes at the in situ stress state of its own unit.3g. 36. 36.3UE along the approach stress path and static probes were conducted on Samples 31. Finally.1 and were then sheared undrained to failure.4 Unit A3 A total number of seven samples. 36lgUC.3gUE. but was not sheared due to a compressor failure. The 38mm Sample 36.

8. In the horizontal direction.55 and the results are given in Table 8. the values of Ghh and Ghv are similar and are generally slightly larger than those measured on Samples 31. the lithology of the clay seems to have an influence on the sample behaviour that does not depend only on the stresses applied.10.4gUE for clarity.67.4gUE and 24g37DC that naturally belong to Sub-Unit B2(a). Sample 36. Table 8.5. giving similar Young’s moduli and Poisson’s ratios (Figures 8.2 Static probes The periods chosen for the probes and the creep rates before probing are shown in Figures 8.10 also includes the shear moduli measured on Sample 24g37DC consolidated to the in situ stress state for Unit A3.58.samples that naturally belong to Unit A3 and those that were consolidated to the stress state of this unit will be highlighted.60.0006%/h.1 Bender elements tests The bender element tests were performed along the approach stress paths shown in Figure 8. For Samples 36.61 and 8.5gDC and 36.4. which are in good agreement. 8. Two interpretation methods were applied as discussed for the other units.0002-0. The correlation between the lithology of the clay and shear modulus will be discussed in detail in Section 8. corresponding to strain rates between 0. In Figures 8.3kPa/h.3gUE are plotted separately with those on Samples 24g37DC and 31. The drained probes were stress controlled at rates of 0. therefore. giving similar results.4. the three samples behaved similarly. The larger horizontal stiffness in Unit A3 in comparison with Sub-Unit B2(a) is consistent with the different structures of the clays from these 361 . In axial compression. In radial compression (Figures 8.62). the results of the probes are shown.3gUE that belong to Unit A3.56-8. as shown in a summary graph in Figure 8. and the arrival times at the in situ stresses for the three samples are shown in Figures 8.63 and 8.65.61-8. Virtually no creep could be measured before starting the probes. The axial and radial probes on Sample 36.59 and 8.64).3gUE shows a stiffer response than the other two samples.

so that the larger horizontal stiffness in Unit A3 could be attributed to the more packed and orientated structure of the clay in this stratum.69. the effects of the lithological units on the small strain behaviour of the clay will be discussed in detail. unless multiple failure planes formed.3.001%/h. In Section 8.7lgUC are coincident.66 and 8. which was sheared at a rate of about 0. The bulk and shear moduli were measured from the probes shown in Figures 8. As already discussed in the previous sections. which induced a reduction of its strength.005%/h respectively. This suggests that perhaps the pre-existing fissures only influence the sample behaviour when displacements start to occur along them. as shown in Figure 8. about 10 times faster than Sample 38.5. Their stress-strain curves are however slightly stiffer than the static probes. The axial compressions of the drained samples. The strain rate effect seems very small and the fact that for the same strain rate differences only the drained samples seem to be affected by strain rate effects might suggest that undissipated pore pressures might be a factor. The axial compressions of the undrained Samples 36lgUC and 38. are similar. although Sample 36lgUC was sheared at a strain rate of 0.units observed in the SEM analyses (see Chapter 6). 362 . The static probe was performed at a strain rate ten times slower than the monotonic loadings and its slightly less stiff behaviour is probably influenced by this. It was shown in Section 7. although they were sheared at different shear rates of 0. the small strain behaviour of this sample did not seem to be affected by the presence of the fissure and it behaved like other intact samples.68.01%/h. 36.69).67. Sample 36lgUC failed in compression along a pre-existing fissure.3gUE-ac.7 that also at medium strains the pre-existing fissures did not affect the behaviour (see Figure 7.002%/h and 0.7lgUC. The monotonic loadings of the samples tested at this stress level are shown in Figure 8.5gDC and 24g37DC. where the monotonic loadings are compared with the static Probe 36.

The 38mm Samples 36. 363 . The Y2 surface was again identified for each sample considering the relationships between shear and volumetric strains for drained tests and the relationship between the pore pressure and the deviatoric stress for the undrained tests.3g and 33. The yield stresses derived from the above curves plot together around a unique contour. from Unit A3 is slightly stiffer and shows a slightly larger Poisson’s ratio νhv. The undrained moduli in the vertical direction. In the stress plane. are larger for the samples from Unit A3 than for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a).13). the Y1 surface is shown in both stress and strain planes. The data are plotted in Figure 8. as shown in Figure 8.4. as for the other lithological units.4gUC failed.8. The other Poisson’s ratios νhh and νvh are nearly zero for all the samples. Sample 36. In the stress plane.4 Kinematic surfaces In Figure 8. The combinations of the elastic parameters respect the boundary conditions and predict the bulk modulus. at lower strain rates.2-3x10-5kJ/m3 (Table 8. though.71.11 and 8.12. and a small influence of the strain rates can probably be observed. sheared faster.3 Elastic parameters The elastic parameters measured from the above tests are summarised in Tables 8.3gUE.5gkUC were also used. The ratio Eh/Ev is between 2.72. Horizontally. the Y1 surface seems centred around the initial stress state.4 for the samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and 2. the equivalent shear modulus and the undrained parameters quite well for each sample. plot slightly above those found from the drained probes. The difference between the original lithological units of the samples is highlighted in the graphs. 8. As mentioned.4.6 for the sample from Unit A3. the drained Young’s moduli in the vertical direction are similar for samples that naturally belong to Unit A3 and those that belong to Sub-Unit B2(a). There is no evidence of effects of the pre-existing fissures along which Samples 36lgUC and 31. so that the yield stresses found from the monotonic loadings.70. All the points on the Y1 contour are characterized by the same incremental strain energy of about 1. but all the points seem to plot on a unique contour for the elastic region.

was not larger than 3-4% (see Table 8.4.4gUE. 1998). which were about 0. Sample 36.the Y2 surface seems again to be quite centred around the initial stress state and there does not seem to be an influence of the pre-existing fissures along which Samples 36lgUC and 31. It is difficult to notice differences due to the strain rates.68. This effect. corresponding to strain rates of 0.4gUC failed.3gUE could not be sheared successfully to failure. although undrained. which seemed strain rate independent (see Figures 8.3gUE. The fact that the stressstrain relationship of drained probes are more affected by strain rate effects.002%/h for the drained samples. at a rate of – 2kPa/h. The strain rate did not seem to have any effect on the location of the Y2 yield points.8x10-4kJ/m3 (Table 8. a small strain rate effect was observed that influenced the location of the yield stress Y1.5 Strain rate dependency For all the units. which only appear for the strain rate changes larger than a certain order. This is consistent with the literature (Tatsuoka et al. so that the maximum difference between drained probes performed at rates with one order of magnitude difference of strain rates. comparable to the strain rates of the shear probes. Within the strain rate range used for the drained probes (0. Samples 31. no significant strain rate effects could be observed in the definition of Y1 and only small effects appeared for an increase in the rates of at least one order of magnitude. seemed only slightly influenced by strain rate effects (Figure 8. were stress controlled at the beginning of the shearing. suggests that pore pressure effects might be involved in the strain rate effects. seems also to be associated with the test procedures so that drained tests showed larger strain rate effects than undrained tests.4gUE and 36. This 364 . 8. 8.14). The identification of Y2 accounts for pore water pressure as it is defined by the relationships between strains or between stresses and the pore pressure..69). which showed a lower value of 0.0005%/h.0002-0. though.13).69). The contour of the Y2 surface is characterized by the same value of incremental strain energy of around 3-4x10-4kJ/m3.0006%/h).015%/h for the undrained samples and 0. which was slightly larger for faster strain rates. with the exception of Samples 31. As mentioned above. The stress-strain relationships and therefore the elastic parameters.

14 summarises the elastic parameters measured in the different lithological units using averages of the results from the static and dynamic probes on each sample. The two samples naturally belong to two different units but were consolidated to the same stresses. 8. 36.73 for Samples 36lgUC. the clay is stiffer horizontally than vertically. as demonstrated by Ghh and Eh being greater than Ghv and Ev respectively and by the 365 . In Figure 8. 38. Recent stress history effects might have affected the behaviour of these samples. In each lithological unit. at small and medium strains. although Sample 36lgUC failed along a pre-existing fissure. The Y2 yields points correspond to the strains when the stiffness curves start to bend downwards more rapidly.1 Elastic parameters Table 8. The variation of the parameters with depth is shown in Figures 8. when dealing with strain rate effects. 8. also plotted in Figure 8. The stiffness degradation curve of Sample 31.5gDC. There is virtually no difference between the stiffness degradation of the two undrained samples 36lgUC and 38. the stiffnesses of the two drained samples 36. The stiffness degradation for the drained Sample 36.7lgUC that naturally belong to Unit A3.4. This sample seems to have the same stiffness degradation curve as the two samples sheared in drained compression.suggests that. is faster than for the undrained tests.4gUE is also included in Figure 8.5gDC. as discussed in Section 8. and show a similar stiffness degradation with strain. even if the stress state is moving more quickly towards the failure line.5.77.75-8.1 for Sub-Unit B2(a).5 Influence of the lithological unit 8.74. pore water pressure dissipation has be taken into account.6 Stiffness degradation The stiffness degradation curves with strain are plotted in Figure 8.74.5gDC and 24g37DC are compared.3.73.7lgUC.

7. which confirms that Ghv is about equal to Gvh for London Clay. around 1. but clearly seems to depend on the lithological characteristics of the clay. as might be interpreted from Figures 8. but their ratio Ghh/Ghv is almost constant around 2.5 in Unit C to about 2.2. which is consistent with the increase in horizontal stiffness with depth.6 in Unit A3. but this behaviour seems consistent with the observed variation of the structure of the clay in the different lithological units from an open structure to a structure that becomes more packed and orientated with depth. The behaviour of London Clay. being smaller.8 only for shallower depths.5. The gradient of these lines seems to be around 0. instead.75 and 8.values of the Poisson’s ratios. The data refer to Gvh as they were measured on a sample having vertically mounted bender elements in the high pressure triaxial apparatus. The Young’s moduli Ev and Eh also vary with depth. The Poisson’s ratios νhh and νvh are both approximately zero. The bender elements readings taken during the isotropic parts of the approach stress paths to the in situ stress state are plotted in Figure 8. as discussed in Section 3. A unique line seems to exist for all the sub-units of Unit B2 and this line plots between the lines for Unit A3 and Unit C. which will be discussed in Chapter 9.80. The shear moduli in both directions plot on different lines that clearly depend on the lithology of the clay. so that the ratio Eh/Ev increases from about 1. This is consistent with literature data (see Table 3. The shear modulus Ghv does not seem to be greatly influenced by the stresses applied and the curves in the logG-logp’ plane are almost flat. are also included in the graphs. The data obtained from the tests on samples from Sub-Unit B2(b). In Figure 8.76.78. The shear moduli Ghh and Ghv increase with depth. but νhv seems to increase with depth.3). 366 . increasing particularly in the horizontal direction. The shear modulus Ghh. as shown in Figure 8. The lower value of νhv in Unit C might reflect the more open and less orientated structure of the clay in this unit. is not only affected by the stresses applied. seems to be more influenced by the stresses applied. therefore. The trend of Gvh variation with pressure is consistent with the variation of Ghv. which is the lowest. The nature of the clay does not seem to have an influence. the results at higher stresses analysis are also included.79 for the different lithological units.

due to the larger stresses applied.25).4gUE.5.1) Where OCR is the overconsolidation ratio and A. The samples from the two units showed different elastic parameters.7). but these values were still smaller than those measured on samples that naturally belong to Unit A3 (Table 8.24 and 6.81. This normalisation is shown in Figure 8. in this case.The trend of the variation of shear moduli with stresses holds also when the initial volume of the soil is considered by normalising the pressures by the equivalent pressure p*e. in comparison with the clay from Unit B2. from Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) is: G=Ap’nOCRM (8.77 and the values of the elastic parameters in Table 8. In Figure 8. which defines the gradient of the logG:logp’ line for normally consolidated clays and is usually assumed to be between about 0. the shear moduli should have been normalised by p’n.10). This behaviour is unlikely to depend on the nature of the clay. because.81. The influence of lithology on the elastic parameters is also confirmed by comparing samples from Units C and B2(c) that were consolidated to the same stress point and subjected to the same approach stress path. Similarly. such as for Units C and A3. the relationship between G and p’.3 and 0. The index proprieties and the reconstituted samples showed. and M are constants for each soil. when consolidated to the stress state of Unit A3. but no tests on reconstituted samples were available to define the value n. n.14). The differences of stiffness of the clay in the elastic region are more 367 .75-8. similar behaviour would be expected from samples having similar intrinsic proprieties. The trend shown by the shear moduli in Figure 8.6 (see Section 3. Samples 24g37DC and 31. which were larger for Sub-Unit B2(c) than for Unit C (Table 8. from Sub-Unit B2(a).14 demonstrate a stiffer response for samples from deeper units. which is more plastic (see Figures 6. For overconsolidated clay. showed larger elastic parameters than those measured on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a). in fact. similarities in the intrinsic proprieties of the clay from these units that contain more silt particles.

The shapes of the surfaces also seem slightly different.5.83. which is consistent with the literature.likely to be due to the structure of the clay. There do not seem to be appreciable differences between the strains at the Y1 yield points for the different lithological units. independently of the consolidation stresses and on the lithology of the clay. the elastic surfaces derived for each unit are plotted together in a plane of stress changes from the initial stress points. so that the initial stress states for the different units coincide. These differences are taken into account in Figure 8. The size of the Y1 surfaces for Unit C and Sub-Unit B2(c) are smaller than the surfaces of the deeper units. There is some scatter in the results.82 refer to changes of stresses from the initial stress state for samples that had been consolidated to different stresses. where the stress contours of the elastic 368 . Following Burland & Georgiannou (1996).2 Kinematic Surfaces (a) Y1 surface In Figure 8.82. B2(a) and A3. The data in Figure 8. which is more packed and orientated in sub-horizontal domains for the deeper units (see Chapter 6). In Figure 8. being more rounded for Units C and B2(c) and more elongated for the deeper units. particularly on the extension side for Unit B2(c). Simpson et al (1975) and Jardine (1995) found that the region of larger stiffness is defined by similar strain values. the Y1 surfaces are plotted in a strain plane.4 and the analysis in terms of energy will be discussed in the next section. the values of the incremental strain energy were considered to define the contours of the kinematic surfaces and similar values of incremental strain energy were found for all the units. The significance of the incremental strain energy was discussed in Section 2. although this could just be due to a lack of data points in the directions of anisotropic swelling and compression for the deeper units. 8. This is also confirmed by the horizontal stiffness being larger and more dependent on the unit than the vertical stiffness.82b. but the shapes of the Y1 surfaces seem qualitatively similar.

to define better the Y2 locus. The size of the Y2 surface seems smaller for shallower units.5).85. which is independent of the lithological unit of the clay. 369 . probably due to the combined effects of the closer proximity of the failure line in extension and perhaps a recent stress history of the clay from these depths because of the different approach paths used (see Section 8. The Y2 surface seems to be quite well centred on the initial stress state. The Y2 surfaces seem to have different sizes and orientations. In a normalised plane. In Figure 8. it will be shown in Chapter 9 that the plastic strains developed in this region do not cause hardening. Again ignoring the differences in the shape apparent in Figure 8. where also the Y2 surface is more orientated towards the compression side. a unique Y2 surface may now be identified. (b) Y2 surface In each unit Y2 has been found to correspond to the point at which stiffness degradation accelerates and.82 are ignored. a unique locus may be identified for all units on the normalised plot. and the Y2 yield stresses have been normalised by their corresponding initial effective stresses.2. The Y1 surface seems centred on the initial stress state and there does not appear to be any influence of the preexisting fissures along which some of the samples failed at large strains.86.85). which can be better seen when the consolidation stress paths for the different units are also considered (Figure 8. If the slight differences in the Y1 yield locus shape identified in Figure 8.84 the Y2 surfaces for the different units are plotted together in a plane of stress changes.surfaces are normalised by the corresponding initial effective stresses for each unit. the initial consolidation stresses are taken into account. In Figure 8. all the Y1 surfaces for the different lithological units seem to plot together on a unique curve. although probably not symmetric in the stress plane. although the soil behaviour does not seem recoverable within this region. particularly on the extension side. More data points are needed.

but was found not to be very effective in representing the behaviour of the clays from different depths. even for samples from the same units consolidated to the same stresses. which gave qualitatively similar results.5-1kJ/m3. from Units C and B2(c). 8. while for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and Unit A3. When loading from the in situ stress state.The comparison of the clay behaviour for the different lithological units suggests that the lithology of the London Clay influences the small strain behaviour of this soil in such a manner that the magnitude of the various stiffness parameters not only depend on the stresses applied but are also influenced by the structure of the clay. The variability in the initial strain energy values arises from both the difference in strains developed during the approach stress paths and from the difference in stresses. was also conducted. Typically. did not effectively allow an understanding to be developed of the differences in strain energy developed during the outgoing stress paths. particularly in the small strain region. Even for samples consolidated to the same stress state. the total strain energy ranged between 1-2kJ/m3 and 5-6kJ/m3 respectively.3 Strain energy Burland & Georgiannou (1996) showed that the soil stiffness can be characterised by the contour of the incremental strain energy (∆U=∆σ’a∆εa+2∆σ’r∆εr). when the initial stresses are taken into account. during the approach stress paths was between 0.5. This parameter was found to be useful in this research to compare the strain energy associated to different samples starting from different stress conditions. it is difficult to appreciate differences between samples that belong to different lithological units. The absolute strain energies developed by the samples during the consolidation stress paths were different depending on the consolidation stress paths and on the natural variability of the specimens. The variability of the values of the initial strain energy. the scatter in the initial stress values was 370 . seem to be dependent mostly on the stresses applied. instead. An analysis in terms of absolute energy (U= σ’aεa+2σ’rεr). The sizes of the kinematic surfaces. so that. the total strain energy developed by the shallower samples. the change in strain energy is up to five orders of magnitude smaller than the total energy developed during the approach stress path.

the contours of the incremental strain energy of all the samples are similar and there exists a unique contour for the 10-4kJ/m3 incremental strain energy. Incremental strain energy levels between 10-4 and 10-1kJ/m3 are considered. The ellipses seem asymmetrical and orientated towards the compression side. regardless their approach stress paths. so that only this major difference is highlighted in the data shown in Figure 8. the incremental strain energies for the different lithological units are plotted together. which indicates a stiffer behaviour of the clay in the horizontal direction (Burland & Georgiannou. If the incremental strain energy is used. For each lithological unit. The scatter of the data for the incremental strain energy of the deeper units does not allow an investigation of any differences in structure between Units B2 and A3. but is quite large when used for the calculation of the strain energy at the yield points.87-8. The incremental strain energies for samples from different lithological units during their outgoing stress paths are shown in Figures 8.90. however. From the definition of the incremental strain energy. 371 . At larger strains. are minor in comparison with the differences between these units and Unit C.90. which is small considering the consolidation stresses. a reference value of zero is fixed at the in situ stress state for all the samples. this difference can only be attributed to differences in the structure of the clay from the various lithological units. 1996). which was found to be convenient for comparing the different samples. These differences. At very small strains.89 in the plane of changes of radial and axial effective stresses. probably due to the closer proximity of the failure line in extension. Similar differences in the strain values also affected the calculation of the total strain energy.between 0. the contours of the incremental strain energies for samples from Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(c) and Unit A3 coincide and are larger than the contours defined for the samples from Unit C. elliptic contours of the strain energies appear. In Figure 8. which involve maximum stress changes that do not exceed ±2kPa. instead. which approximately corresponds with the contour of the Y2 surfaces and confirms the coincidence of the normalised contours of the Y2 surfaces for the different units.5-2kPa. having the long axis parallel to the horizontal direction.

The sample was being unloaded at constant p’ to reach this stress state and bender element tests were being performed during the approach stress path.1). Soon after a shear plane was observed in the sample and the sample failed prematurely. In Chapter 7. The bender element signals could not be read only in one case. This sample was tested at an early stage of the research. The confused received signal was therefore thought to be due to the presence of the failure plane through the 372 . 1984). from Sub-Unit B2(c). At p’=280 and q=-140 the shear moduli calculated on this sample with dynamic probes were 123MPa and 62MPa for Ghh and Ghv respectively. when the modified approach stress path for the shallower units had not yet been adopted and the in situ stress state was believed to be at p’=230kPa and q=-180 (see Appendix 5. though. 1969. For this reason. As mentioned in Section 8. which were compatible with those found on other samples from the same unit at similar stress levels. the failure plane observed after testing does not always interrupt the travel path of the signal. The analyses of the data in the previous sections showed that the pre-existing fissures did not have any effect on either the elastic parameters or the sizes of the kinematic surfaces Y1 and Y2. However. the bender element signals did not detect any inconsistencies due to pre-existing fissures for any of the samples analysed in this chapter. 1965.6 Effect of fissures on the elastic parameters The fissured nature of the London Clay suggests that medium and large London Clay specimens are more likely to contain fissures (Skempton et al. Sandroni. as the receiving signal appeared confused and anomalous.4.. For q values lower than –160kPa. In the cases when preexisting fissures were noticed before testing. for Sample 11.9DE. only the orientation of fissures compatible with a failure mode could be identified with a post-testing analysis. 1977. Bishop et al. the bender element signal could not be read.. these never coincided with the failure plane. it was found that the pre-existing fissures only influence the large strain behaviour of the clay if they are orientated in such directions that are compatible with a failure mode. though. Costa-Filho. prior to reaching the desired stresses.8. The investigation of the effects of pre-existing fissures in the samples at large strains was conducted after testing because usually it was not possible to see fissures during the trimming process.1.

from about 17m depth. The bender element signal continued to travel trough the continuum part of the sample and did not intercept the discontinuity of the shear plane.5SH seem to demonstrate that. beyond a certain stress level.4 and Appendix 7. and bender element tests were again performed. In Figure 8. Since the sample did not mobilise its intact strength. Unfortunately no electronic data for these bender elements tests are available. was sheared undrained to failure from an isotropic state (see Section 5. but the failure plane formed on this sample was such that it did not intercept the shear wave path. The results of Tests 11. p’= 280kPa and q=-160kPa. The range of frequencies in which the signal could be read was between 3-5kHz. No difficulties were found in reading and interpreting the wave signal. it moved causing failure.3. Bender element tests were performed on Sample 17. the sample was taken back to isotropic conditions to remove the effects of any induced stress anisotropy.48. Only when displacements occurred along the failure plane could the signal not be read.1) and was localised near the top platen. perhaps as a result of the destructuration of the sheared sample. The objective was to identify whether it was possible to read the wave signal sent through a sheared sample. This and the fact that the bender element signals could be read until this stress level. After testing.9DE and 17. The stiffness reduces to very low values before the strength on the fissures is 373 .sample. (see Table 7. the fissures present in the London Clay do not influence the sample behaviour at small strains. suggest that this fissure was closed and no movements had occurred along it below these stresses. it is likely that the fissure along which the samples sheared was already present in the sample before testing. and. probably due to the discontinuity created by the shear plane. It was of Type 1a in Figure 7. when closed. The failure plane could be detected because some movement had occurred along it.91 the wave signal through the sheared sample is shown. lower than the range usually used.5). This sample. which was inclined at 25o to the horizontal and cut the travel path of the shear wave.3SH after it had been sheared to failure. These conclusions are supported by the fact that the stiffness degradation curves of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures are not different from those of samples that mobilised their intact strength.

mobilised. 374 . Whether the bender element signal can be read and interpreted through a sample containing fissures is then a different issue and depends on the location of the shear plane relative to the plane of measurement.

0 0.Stress state* A A’ B O after probes p’ [kPa] 200 220 260 260 260 q [kPa] 0.1) 375 .1: Shear moduli during the consolidation stress paths for samples from Unit C (*refer to Figure 8.0 0.0 -85 -85 79 81 87 Ghh [MPa] 78 7gUC Ghv [MPa] 44 80 43 47 47 86 81 86 Ghh [MPa] 7gUE Ghv [MPa] 35 42 46 47 Table 8.

45 35 34 39 74 88 61 81 80 121 140 113 -0.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq.09 0.A5. A5.03 0.63 47 45 46 29 79 79 65 34 Eh [MPa] νvh νhh νhv Geq [MPa] Eq.22 200 117 198 Table 8.08 -0.03 0. A5.21 138 [MPa] Eq.01 -0.2: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit C 376 .11 -0.18 K [MPa] Eq. A5.Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 7gUC ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 rc3 pconst qconst 7gUE ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst1 pconst2 79 77 73 115 0.20 Euv [MPa] 103 Undrained Euh Eq.46 0. A5.06 -0.52 0.00 -0.

18) 377 .1 Incremental Strain Energy ∆U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.Strain Energy U at the in situ state Test 7gUC ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 rc3 pconst qconst 7gUE ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst1 pconst2 7gkUC 0.3: Strain energy at the in situ and yield stresses for Unit C Stress state* A B O after probes p’ [kPa] 218 260 260 260 q [kPa] 0.5gUC Ghv [MPa] 56 60 60 59 [MPa] 101 61 70 69 121 115 115 Table 8.9 / 0.7 / 0.7 0.7 0.0 / 0.4: Shear modulus during the approach stress paths for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (*refer to Figure 8.0 -85 -85 141 128 133 Ghh [MPa] 11gUC Ghv [MPa] Ghh 12.8 / 0.0 0.8 0.3 Table 8.9 6.3 Y2 E-4 [kJ/m3] 4.6 0.4 Probe [kJ/m3] 1.2 3.

Eq.74 0.79 122 59 90 115 92 115 103 121 182 182 140 12.5: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) . A5.82 0.Drained Undrained K Eq.08 -0.22 Euh 378 Test Probe 11gUC ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 re pcon qcon1 qcon2 Ev [MPa] Eh [MPa] νvh νhh νhv Geq [MPa] A5.21 [MPa] Eq.07 0.5gUC ac1 ac2 ae rc pcon 145 140 74 232 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.19 [MPa] [MPa] Jqp Jpq Eq.18 135 141 99 212 237 272 0.23 -0.26 0.03 0.06 0.5 126 158 81 91 131 Table 8.08 -0.A5.20 [MPa] Euv Eq. [MPa] A5. A5.

2 3.6 0.1 Incremental Strain Energy ∆U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 1.8 0.8 / 0.3 Table 8.0 / 0.9 / 0.7 0.3 Y2 E-4 [kJ/m3] 4.7 0.94 6.7 / 0.6: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) 379 .1 -1.8 0.8 0.5gUC ac1 ac2 ae rc pcon -0.Strain Energy U Test Probe at the in situ state [kJ/m3] 11gUC ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 re pcon qcon1 qcon2 12.

38) 380 .7: Shear moduli during the approach stress paths for the samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (*refer to Figure 8.Stress state* A A’ A” 1” 2” B 1’ 3” C D 2’ O after probes p’ [kPa] 254 521 356 369 393 420 420 420 420 390 365 420 420 q [kPa] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35 -104 -194 -216 -208 -156 -156 22.6gUC Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa] Ghh 23gUE Ghv [MPa] 24g37DC Ghh [MPa] 139 Ghv [MPa] 79 [MPa] 182 86 156 145 157 71 74 72 71 71 173 91 134 76 155 78 153 143 164 165 161 166 170 171 77 76 76 75 81 81 159 159 75 74 180 182 91 91 159 154 73 77 178 179 87 80 Table 8.

A5.11 0.Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 22.18 K [MPa] Eq.14 0.02 -0.24 -0.86 89 76 70 72 50 117 138 196 0. A5. A5.01 0.21 223 [MPa] Eq.84 70 66 61 55 116 190 Eh [MPa] νvh νhh νhv Geq [MPa] Eq.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq.16 0.01 -0.8: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) 381 . A5.22 386 212 364 248 398 Table 8.6gUC ac rc pconst 23gUE ac1 ac2 rc 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 25gUC 144 148 114 270 317 136 120 313 -0.12 -0.74 0.20 Euv [MPa] 220 Undrained Euh Eq.15 -0.96 62 96 143 110 285 0.01 0. A5.

5 1.9 -1.9 3 3 4 Y2 10-4 [kJ/m3] 4 Table 8.9: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) 382 .0 Incremental Strain Energy ∆U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 0.5 1.5 -0.4 1.9 2.0 / 0.3 2.9 / 1.Strain Energy U Test Probe at the in situ state [kJ/m3] 22.9 0.9 2.6gUC ac rc pconst 23gUE ac1 ac2 rc 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 25gUC 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.1 / 1.

3gUE Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa] 198 225 102 84 191 88 245 226 217 179 185 200 97 83 86 229 230 226 241 196 196 98 98 190 189 94 94 237 115 115 112 112 117 211 211 217 200 198 95 105 93 96 102 101 Table 8.4gUE Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa] 36.5gDC Ghh [MPa] 217 220 210 Ghv [MPa] 97 97 97 121 115 36.55) 383 .Stress state* A 1 2 B’ 3 2’ C’ 4 D 5 O after probes p’ [kPa] 330 375 430 510 510 510 510 472 453 466 507 q [kPa] 0 0 0 0 -20 -106 -154 -168 -178 -165 -125 24g37DC Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa] 31.10: Shear moduli for samples consolidated along the approach stress paths used for Unit A3 (*refer to Figure 8.

20 Euv [MPa] 294 Undrained Euh Eq.5gDC 36lgUC 38.6gUC 171 -0.15 263 294 141 391 390 0. A5. A5.11: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit A3 384 .A5.02 1.3gUE ac rc1 rc2 qconst pconst 36.Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 36.22 458 Table 8.18 K [MPa] Eq.17 1.21 251 [MPa] Eq.02 -0. A5. A5.16 139 121 134 72 246 62 173 Eh [MPa] νvh νhh νhv Geq [MPa] Eq.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq.14 -0.

78 78 77 54 88 73 63 196 179 νvh νhh νhv Geq [MPa] Eq.18 K [MPa] Eq. A5.02 1.04 0.79 112 75 122 113 63 171 173 171 143 140 147 337 Eh [MPa] -0.11 0.05 -0.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq. A5.20 Euv [MPa] Undrained Euh Eq.12: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 385 .Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst qconst 31.13 -0.4gUE ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 149 149 352 0.21 253 [MPa] 420 249 430 Table 8. A5.15 0.07 0.26 0.11 0.04 -0. A5.

8 2.3 / 1.Strain Energy U Test Probe at the in situ state [kJ/m3] 36.8 5.8 / 0.7 3.4gUE ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 8.5 5.6 4.2 1.5 1.5 Incremental Strain Energy ∆U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 4.13: Incremental strain energy for samples from Unit A3 and Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 386 .5 3.6 2.1 1.6gUC 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst 31.9 2.2 1.5gDC 36lgUC 38.4 3.0 3.2 Y2 E-4 [kJ/m3] / 0.8 / Table 8.1 2.9 3.0 1.3gUE ac rc1 rc2 qconst pconst 36.2 4.

0 2.4 2.0 Ev [MPa] 81 76 125 120 110 128 135 143 149 141 171 Eh Eh/Ev [MPa] 125 115 240 232 285 313 294 330 351 402 1.17 196 294 263 294 *consolidated to the stress state of the Unit A3 Table 8.02 0.Depth Unit Test [m] C 7gUC 7gUE B2(c) 11gUC 12.4 2.9 2.04 -0.8 1.87 0.2 2.15 0.2 2.82 0.6 23 24 36 Ghh [MPa] 87 86 128 115 170 159 180 189 190 211 228 Ghv Ghh/Ghv [MPa] 47 47 70 59 81 75 91 94 94 102 117 1.1 2.02 0.6 7 7 11 12.0 2.04 1.9 2.16 0.04 0.14 0.5 1.3 36.14 -0.76 103 193 182 220 190 196 1.8 1.5 36 38.84 0.6 νvh νhh νhv Euv [MPa] -0.6gUC 23gUE B2(a) 24g37DC 24g37DC* 25gUC 31.5 22.45 0.14: Average of the independent elastic parameters measured in the static and dynamic probes on samples from different lithological units 387 .14 0.03 0.01 -0.4 36.01 -0.18 -0.1 2.6 2.4gUE* 36.5gUC 22.09 -0.07 0.05 -0.6 1.02 0.96 0.03 -0.3gUE A3 36.1 2.14 0.15 -0.6gUC 31.04 -0.50 0.5gDC 36lUC 38.9 1.54 0.9 1.0 2.

A 0 200 -20 220 A' 240 B 260 280 p'[kPa] 300 -40 q [kPa] -60 7gUC* 7gkUC -80 in situ state -100 * samples used for static probes stresses for the bender element tests 0 7gUE* Figure 8.1: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE 388 .

12 Frequency Method 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 D/λ 3 4 5 Ghh Ghv theoretical line p'=260kPa . q=-86kPa (a) 12 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0 Ghh first arrival Gvh first arrival frequency method 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 arrival time [µsec] (b) Figure 8.2: Measurements of the arrival time with bender elements for Sample 7gUC at the in situ stress point. (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods 389 .

12 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 D/λ (a) p'=260kPa . q=-86kPa G hh G hv theoretical line 3 4 5 Ghh first arrival 12 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0 300 400 500 600 arrival time [µsec] (b) Ghv first arrival frequency method 700 800 Figure 8.3: Arrival time from the interpretation of the bender element signals for Test 7gUE at the in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method 390 .

001 4 8 12 16 20 24 time [h] Figure 8.4: Creep rates in the 24h before starting the probes on the samples from Unit C 251 250 7gUC MHPP [kPa] 249 239 7gUE 238 periods chosen for probing 237 12:30 16:30 20:30 0:30 time [h] 4:30 8:30 12:30 Figure 8.5: Change of pore pressure with time due to temperature fluctuation and periods chosen for probing 391 .0015 0.001 dεa/dt [%/h] 0.002 0.0005 -0.0005 0 0 -0.0.

2 ∆σa [kPa] 1 Y1 0 -0.6: Axial probes on Sample 7gUC.001 -0.001 0 0.002 0.001 0.002 -0.001 0 0.002 εa [%] 0. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains 392 .001 εr [%] -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 νvh 0.001 0.003 εa [%] Ev -1 7gUC-ac1 7gUC-ac2 -2 (a) 0.002 0 -0.002 (b) Figure 8.

002 -0.002 0.002 0 0.001 -0.001 -0.001 0 0.2 ∆σa [kPa] Y1 1 Ev 0 -0.001 0.001 0 -0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 εa [%] (b) Figure 8.7: Axial compression for Test 7gUE. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains 393 .001 νvh 0.003 -0.003 -0.003 εa [%] -1 Y1 -2 (a) 7gUE-ac1 7gUE-ac2 7gUE-ae εr [%] -0.

0015 -0.2 ∆σr [kPa] Eh/(1-νhh) 1 0 -0.0005 0.8: Radial compression probes on Samples 7gUE and 7gUE radial strains plotted against (a) cell pressure (b) axial strains 394 .0005 0 0.0005 0 0.001 -0.0015 (b) Figure 8.0005 εa [%] -0.0005 -2νh v/(1-νhh ) 0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.001 -0.0015 εr [%] 7gUC-rc1 7gUC-rc2 7gUC-rc3 7gUE-rc 7gUC-re -1 -2 (a) 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 εr [%] -0.

0008 εs [%] 0.002 Figure 8.0012 0.002 0 εs [%] 1.6 G eq q [kPa] 1.4 7gUC-pconst 7gUE-pconst1 7gUE-pconst2 0 2 0.0004 0.4 0 0 0.2 1.2 Jqp 0.9: Probes at constant p' on samples from Unit C (a) equivalent shear modulus and (b) coupling modulus 395 .6 q [kPa] 1.0008 0.2 Y1 0.0012 0.0004 0.0016 0.8 (b) 0.8 (a) 0.0016 0.

001 εv [%] 0.001 0.001 0 εs [%] 0.002 -1 -2 (b) Figure 8.2 ∆p' [kPa] Y1 1 K 0 -0.003 -1 7gUC-qconst -2 (a) 2 ∆p' [kPa] 1 Jpq 0 -0.002 0.10: Constant q probe for samples from Unit C (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus 396 .001 0 0.

001 0 0.003 -0.001 0.002 0 -0.002 -0.11: Strain rates for the probes and the monotonic loading tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE 397 .0.003 7gUE Y1 -0.002 εa [%] 0.004 7gUC-ac1 7gUC-ac2 7gUE-ac1 7gUE-ac2 7gUE-ae 7gUE 7gUC Figure 8.002 -0.004 dεa/dt [%/h] Y1 7gUC 0.

001 0 0.002 εa [%] 0.003 -0.001 0.003 E uv 7gUE -1 -2 Figure 8.2 ∆q [kPa] 7gUC 1 Y1 0 -0.002 -0.12: Monotonic shearing of samples 7gUC and 7gUE 398 .

0015 0 0.003 (b) -0.0015 0.003 Figure 8.∆q [kPa] 2 1 7gUC Y1 0 -2 ∆p' [kPa] -1 0 1 2 (a) -1 7gUE -2 drained probes undrained monotonic loading 0.0015 0 -0.0015 εv [%] -0.003 εs [%] Y1 0.003 -0.13: Contour of the Y1 surface for Unit C in (a) stress space and (b) strain space 399 .

04 εv [%] -0.02 0 0.0.04 Figure 8.15: Y2 yield points for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE 400 .02 0.04 εs [%] Y2 0.02 -0.02 0 -0.14: Y2 yield point for Sample 7gkUC 15 ∆q [kPa] 7gUC 10 Y2 5 0 -15 -10 -5 -5 0 5 10 15 ∆u [kPa] -10 7gUE -15 Figure 8.04 -0.

∆q [kPa] 15 10 7gUC 5 Y1 0 -15 -10 -5 -5 0 Y2 7gkUC (a) 5 7gUE 10 15 ∆p' [kPa] -10 strain rates 0.002% /h 0.16: Y2 and Y1 surfaces for Unit C (a) plane of stress increments (b) plane of absolute stresses showing the approach stress path 401 .0015%/h 0.006% /h -15 0 200 q [kPa] -20 220 240 260 280 300 p' [kPa] -40 -60 (b) -80 -100 Figure 8.

01 εs [%] 0.1 1 10 Figure 8.0001 0.001 0.150 Geq 7gUC 7gUE 100 G [MPa] change from stress to strain control 50 Y2 7gUC 7gUE Y2 0 0.17: Stiffness degradation curves for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE sheared to failure 402 .

A 0 200 -20 220 240 B 260 280 p'[kPa] 300 -40 q [kPa] -60 11gUC* 12.5gUC* -80 0 in situ state -100 11gDE * sample s used for static probes stresses for the bender element tests 11gkUC Figure 8.18: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) 403 .

12 p'=260kPa . q=-85kPa frequency [kHz] 8 4 1/t arr 0 0 2 D/λ 4 Ghh Ghv theoretical line 6 (a) 15 output signal [arbitrary unit] 10 5 0 0 -5 -10 -15 arrival time [msec] [µsec] 500 1000 1500 2000 Ghv transmitter first arrival receiver frequency=5kHz (b) 12 frequency [kHz] 8 Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method 4 0 300 400 500 arrival time [µsec] 600 700 (c) (c) Figure 8.19: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 11gUC (a) frequency method (b) first arrival method for Ghv (c) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method 404 .

q=-85kPa frequency [kHz] 8 4 1/t arr 0 0 2 D/λ 4 Ghh Ghv theoretical line (a) 6 Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method 12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 (b) 0 500 600 700 arrival time [µsec] Figure 8.5gUC 300 400 (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method 405 .12 p'=260kPa .20: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 12.

0004 -0.5gUC in the 24 hours before probing 406 .0004 0.21: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure with temperature during the day for samples from Sub-unit B2(c) 0.0002 5 10 15 20 25 time [h] -0.22: Creep rates for Samples 11gUC and 12.0006 Figure 8.302 12.0002 dεa/dt 0 0 -0.5gUC 11gUC M HPP [kPa] 300 238 236 22:00 3:00 8:00 periods chosen for probing 13:00 18:00 23:00 time [h] Figure 8.0006 0.

0001 νvh -0.0004 0.4 0.0001 0.0002 0.6 0.0002 0.0004 0.8 12.0002 (a) 0.5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains 0.0005 εa [%] 407 .0002 (b) Figure 8.5gUC-ac1 0.2 Ev 0 0 0.0001 εr [%] 0 0 -0.0005 εa [%] load unload 0.23: Linear elastic behaviour in an axial compression probe on Sample 12.0003 0.0001 0.0003 0.∆σa [kPa] 0.

002 (b) Figure 8.003 -0.001 νvh 0 -0.002 εr [%] 0.001 0.001 -0.003 εa [%] -1 Y1 11gUC-ac1 11gUC-ac2 11gUE-ae -2 (a) 0.∆σa [kPa] 2 Y1 1 Ev 0 -0.24: Axial compression probes on Sample 11gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains 0 0.002 -0.002 -0.001 -0.003 -0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0.003 εa [%] 408 .002 0.

002 0.001 0.002 -0.003 εa [%] -1 Y1 -2 (a) 0.003 εa [%] 409 .5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains 12.002 (b) Figure 8.001 0.∆σa [kPa] 2 Y1 1 Ev 0 -0.002 0.001 νvh 0 -0.001 0 0.001 -0.25: Axial compression and extension probes on Sample 12.5gUC-ac2 12.002 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 -0.003 -0.5gUC-ae εr [%] 0 0.

0005 -0.001 0. radial strains plotted against (a) radial stress and (b) axial strain 410 .0005 εa [%] (a) -2νhv/(1-νhh) 0 0 0.001 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.5gUC-rc 11gUC-rc1 11gUC-rc2 11gUC-re -2 0.001 -0.0005 0.0015 εr [%] -0.0015 εr [%] -1 12.0015 -0.0015 (b) Figure 8.0005 -0.0015 -0.∆σr [kPa] 2 1 Εh/(1-νhh) 0 -0.26: Radial compression and extension probes for samples from SubUnit B2(c).001 0.

002 411 .0015 0.001 εv [%] 0.002 -1 (a) ∆q [kPa] 3 11gUC-pconst 12.0005 0 0.27: Probes at constant p’ on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) shear modulus (b) coupling modulus 0 0.3 2 Y1 ∆q [kPa] 1 G eq 0 -0.001 εs [%] 0.5gUC-pconst 2 1 J qp 0 -0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0005 -1 (b) Figure 8.

002 εs [%] -1 -2 (b) Figure 8.001 0.003 εv [%] -1 unsuccessful probe -2 (a) 2 ∆p' [kPa] 11gUC-qconst1 11gUC-qconst2 12.28: Constant q probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus 412 .5gUC-qconst 1 Jpq 0 -0.2 ∆p' [kPa] Y1 1 K 0 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0.

002 -0.003 -0.4 start of the reversal path -0.5gUC replotted as an undrained test (a) change of pore water pressure at the mid-height during the probe (b) stress-strain curve 413 .29: Constant q probe on Sample 12.0 0 2 time of probing [h] 4 6 8 10 ∆u [kPa] -0.002 -0.001 Y1 0 0 ∆σa [kPa] 0.003 -1 -2 (b) Figure 8.001 2 0.2 12.5gUC-qconst (a ) 1 εa[%] 0.8 -1.

001 εa [%] (b) Figure 8.5gUC-ae 1 0 -0.30: Hysteretic behaviour in a cyclic probe on Sample 12.0005 νvh 0 -0.0005 0 414 ∆σa [kPa] 2 .12.002 -0.002 0 0.0015 εr [%] 0.0015 -0.5gUC (a)stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains -0.0025 -0.001 0.0005 Ev -1 Y1 -2 (a) 0.0025 -0.0015 -0.002 εa [%] -0.001 -0.

003 εa [%] -1 11gUC 12.31: Monotonic loadings for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) 415 .001 0 0.002 -0.5g UC -2 Figure 8.003 -0.2 ∆q [kPa] 1 E uv Y1 0 -0.001 0.002 0.

0015 εv [%] 0.12.003 (b) Figure 8.003 -0.32: Y1 yield points for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress space (b) strain space 416 ∆q [kPa] 2 .5gUC-probes monotonic loadings (a) 0.0015 -0.5gUC 1 11gUC 0 -2 -1 0 1 ∆p' [kPa] 2 -1 11gUC-probes 12.003 εs [%] -2 0.003 -0.0015 0 0.0015 0 -0.

34: Y2 yield point for Sample 11gUC 417 .33: Y2 yield point for Sample 12.15 10 ∆q [kPa] Y2 5 0 0 5 ∆u [kPa] 10 15 Figure 8.5gUC 15 10 ∆q [kPa] 5 Y1 Y2 0 0 5 ∆u [kPa] 10 15 Figure 8.

35: Y2 yield points for Samples 11gkUC and 11gDE 418 .0.02 11gkUC 11gDE -0.02 εv [%] 0.04 εs [%] 0.02 Y2 0 0.04 -0.04 Figure 8.02 Y2 0 -0.04 -0.

0005% /h 0.01%/h -0.5gUC 5 11gUC Y1 0 -15 -10 -5 -5 11gDE -10 strain rates 0.36: Y2 surface for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress increment space (b) absolute stress space showing approach stress path 419 .0005%/h 0.∆q [kPa] 15 10 12.01%/h 260 280 300 p' [kPa] 0 5 10 15 ∆p' [kPa] 11gkUC (a) Y2 -15 0 200 q [kPa] -20 220 240 -40 (b) -60 -80 Y2 -100 Figure 8.

001 0.5gUC 11gDE G eq 11gUC G eq 12.37: Stiffness degradation for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) sheared from their in situ stress state 420 .1 1 10 Figure 8.150 Y2 100 G [MPa] 11gUC 12.5gUC 50 change from stress to strain control for Sample 11gUC 0 1E-005 0.0001 0.01 εs [%] 0.

38: Consolidation stress paths for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and stress states for the bender element tests 421 .6gUC * 25gUC 24.p' [kPa] 200 0 A" 300 A' 1' 400 B 2' 3' 500 A 600 -100 22.2gkUC 1 O 2 C 23gUE* 24g37DC* q [kPa] 22gsUC 24gsUC -200 D -300 * samples used for static probes -400 stress states for the bender element tests Figure 8.

39: Interpretation of the bender element signals for Sample 22. q=-156kPa frequency [kHz] 8 4 Ghh Ghv theoretical line 0 0 2 D/λ (a) 4 6 16 G hh first arrival method G hv first arrival method frequency method 12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [µsec] (b) 600 700 Figure 8.6gUC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods 422 .12 p'=420kPa .

16 frequency [kHz] 12 p'=420kPa . q=-156kPa 8 4 G hh G hv theoretical line 0 0 2 D/λ (a) 4 6 16 Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method 12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [µsec] (b) Figure 8.40: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 23gUE at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods 600 700 423 .

41: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Samples 24g37DC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods 600 700 424 .16 frequency [kHz] 12 p'=420kPa . q=-156kPa 8 4 G hh G hv theoretical line 0 0 2 D/λ (a) 4 6 16 Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method 12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [msec] (b) Figure 8.

0006 0.6gUC 23gUE 24g37UC 23:00 3:00 7:00 11:00 time [h] Figure 8.43: Creep strain rates for samples from Sub-unit B2(a) in the 24 hours before probing 425 .0004 0.42: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure during the day and 11:00 15:00 19:00 periods chosen for the static probes 0.0004 -0.0006 Figure 8.0002 dεa /dt [%/h] 0 0 -0.235 234 208 MHPP [kPa] 207 206 probing times 205 22.0002 4 8 12 16 20 24 time [h] -0.

001 -0.001 0 0.001 0 0.2 ∆σa [kPa] Y1 1 Ev 0 -0.002 -0.003 -1 22.003 -0.002 εr [%] 0.6gUC and 23gUE (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains 426 .001 νvh 0 -0.001 0.003 -0.44: Axial compression and extension probes on Samples 22.6gUC-ac 23gUE-ac1 23gUE-ac2 -2 (a) 0.002 εa [%] 0.001 0.002 (b) Figure 8.002 -0.003 -0.002 εa [%] 0.

001 νvh 0 -0.002 εa [%] 0.001 -0.001 -0.003 -1 24g37DC-ac1 24g37DC-ac2 24g37DC-ae -2 (a) εr [%] 0.45: Axial compression probes for Sample 24g37DC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains 0 0.001 0.2 ∆σa [kPa] 1 Y1 Ev 0 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0 0.002 -0.001 0.003 427 .002 εa [%] 0.002 (b) Figure 8.002 -0.003 -0.

001 0.0005 0.0015 εr [%] -0.6gUC-rc 23gUE-rc -2 (a) εa [%] 0.0015 -1 24g37DC-rc1 24g37UC-rc2 22.001 εr [%] 0.001 -0.001 0 0.0005 -0.001 -0.46: Radial compression probes for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains 428 .0005 0.2 ∆σr [kPa] 1 E h/(1-νh h) 0 -0.0005 0 -0.0015 -0.0005 0 0.0015 -0.0005 -2νhv/(1-νhh) -0.0015 (b) Figure 8.

47: Constant p' probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus 429 .0005 0.0005 0 0.3 2 Y1 ∆q [kPa] 1 G eq 0 -0.002 -1 (b) Figure 8.6gUC-pconst 24g37DC-pconst -1 (a) 3 2 ∆q [kPa] 1 Jqp 0 -0.001 εv [%] 0.001 εs [%] 0.002 22.0015 0.0005 0.0005 0 0.0015 0.

48: Constant q probe on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus 430 .001 0 εS [%] 0.002 0.6 ∆p' [kPa] 1.002 (b) Figure 8.2 ∆p' [kPa] 1 Y1 K 0 -0.8 0.2 0.001 0 0.4 Jpq 0 -0.001 0.003 -1 24g37DC-qconst -2 (a) 2 1.001 εv [%] 0.

002 -0.001 0.∆q [kPa] 2 22.002 0.001 0 0.015 -2 23gUE Figure 8.6gUC 25gUC 1 Y1 E uv 0 -0.003 -0.49: Monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) 431 .002 εa [%] 0.003 -1 strain rates [%/h] -0.

0015 0.0015 0 -0.003 -0.6gUC ∆q [kPa] 1 Y1 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 ∆p' [kPa] (a) -1 23gUE -2 undrained loads drained probes 0.0015 0 0.003 εs [%] 0.003 εv [%] (b) -0.50: Elastic surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress plane (b) strain plane 432 .0015 -0.2 25gUC 22.003 Figure 8.

02 0 Y2 0.51: Y2 yield points for drained loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) 20 ∆q[kPa] 22.04 εv [%] -0.02 Y2 0 -0.02 22gsUC 24gsUC 24.0.52: Y2 yield points for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared undrained 433 .04 Figure 8.04 εs [%] 0.2gkUC 24g37UC -0.02 0.6gUC 25gUC 10 Y2 0 -20 -10 0 10 ∆u [kPa] 20 -10 Y2 23gUE -20 Figure 8.04 -0.

015 0.015%/h -0.002%/h 0.6gUC 10 25gUC 5 22gsUC 24gsUC 0 -15 -10 ? strain rates 0.015% /h 0.22.001%/h -0.001% /h 0 q [kPa] 300 -50 350 400 ? -10 -5 -5 0 ∆q [kPa] 15 Y2 Y1 5 24g37UC 10 15 ∆p' [kPa] 23gUE ? -15 (a) 450 500 550 p' [kPa] -100 -150 Y2 (b) -200 -250 Figure 8.001% /h -0.53: Y2 surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress increment plane (b) absolute stress plane showing approach stress path 434 .

6gUC G eq 24g37DC 50 0 0.6gUC G eq 22.54: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared from the in situ stress state 435 .1 1 10 Figure 8.0001 0.001 0.150 100 G [MPa] Y2 23gUE 25gUC 22.01 εs [%] 0.

4gUE* C -200 Figure 8.5gDC 24g37DC 36lgUC 38.3gk 4 -120 O * samples used for the static probes 33.5gkUC -160 stress states for bender element tests 6 5 C' 36.7lgUC 36.3gUE* 31.p' [kPa] 320 0 A 1 2 3 B 360 400 440 480 520 -40 -80 q [kPa] 36.55: Approach stress paths for samples from Unit A3 and stress states for the bender element tests 436 .

56: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 Ghh Ghv theoretical line 0 0 1 2 D/λ (a) 3 4 5 12 Ghh first arrival method frequency [kHz] 8 Ghv first arrival method frequency method 4 0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [µsec] (b) 600 700 Figure 8.5gDC at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods 437 .

12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 Ghh Ghv theoretical line 0 0 1 2 D/λ (a) 3 4 5 12 Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method frequency [kHz] 8 4 0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [µsec] (b) 600 700 Figure 8.57: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.3gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods 438 .

12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 Ghh Ghv theoretical line 0 0 2 D/λ (a) Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method 4 6 12 frequency [kHz] 8 4 0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [µsec] (b) 600 700 Figure 8.4gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods 439 .58: Interpretation methods for the bender element signals on Sample 31.

0004 -0.4gUE 24g37DC 18 24 -0.0004 0.3gUE 31.208 24g37DC 206 MHPP [kPa] 204 202 31.4gUE 200 136 134 periods chosen for probing 132 36.60: Creep rates for samples from Unit A3 in the 24 hours before starting the static probes 440 .3gUE 7:00 13:00 19:00 time [h] Figure 8.0006 0.0006 Figure 8.59: Changes of pore water pressure at the mid-height with time for 19:00 1:00 the samples from Unit A3 0.0002 dεa/dt [%/h] 0 0 -0.0002 6 12 time [h] 36.

002 (b) Figure 8.001 0.4gUE-ac2 36.003 εa [%] -1 -2 31.002 0.4gUE-ac1 31.002 εr [%] 0.001 0 0.003 -0.2 Y1 ∆σa [kPa] 1 Ev 0 -0.001 -0.002 -0.002 0.3gUE-ac (a) 0.61: Axial compression probes on Sample 36.002 -0.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain 441 .3gUE from Unit A3 and Sample 31.001 0 0.003 εa [%] -0.003 -0.001 νvh 0 -0.001 0.

002 (b) Figure 8.62: Axial compression probes on Sample 24g37DC consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 in comparison with the axial compression probe on Sample 36.003 -0.001 0.003 εa [%] -0.∆σa [kPa] 2 Y1 1 Ev 0 -0.003 -0.3gUE (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain 442 .001 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 εa [%] -1 24g37DC-ac1 24g37DC-ac2 24g37DC-ae 36.001 0 0.001 -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 εr [%] -2 0.002 0.3gUE-ac (a) 0.001 νvh 0 -0.

001 -0.0005 0.0005 εa [%] 31.63: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.001 -0.0015 (b) Figure 8.0005 -0.0005 -2νhv/(1-νhh) -0.2 ∆σr [kPa] 1 E h/(1-νhh ) 0 -0.3gUE-rc2 0 0 0.4gUE-rc1 31.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains 443 .0015 -0.3gUE-rc1 36.001 -0.4gUE-rc2 36.0015 -0.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 31.001 εr [%] 0.0005 0.0015 -0.0005 -1 0 0.001 εr [%] 0.0015 -2 (a) 0.

2 Y1 ∆σr [kPa] 1 E h/(1-νhh ) 0 -0.0015 -0.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains 444 .0005 0.001 εr [%] 0.001 -2νhv/(1-νhh) -0.001 -0.0015 (b) Figure 8.0005 -0.0005 0 0.64: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE-rc2 (a) -2 0.0015 -1 24g37DC 36.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 εa [%] 0 -0.0005 0.3gUE-rc1 36.0015 -0.0005 0 0.001 εr [%] 0.

0015 -1 31.001 εr [%] 0.3gUE-rc2 24g37DC -2 (a) 0.001 εr [%] 0.0005 -0.001 -0.4gUE and 24g37DC from Sub-unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains 445 .2 ∆σr [kPa] 1 Eh/(1-νhh) 0 -0.0015 (b) Figure 8.0005 εa [%] -2νhv /(1-νhh) 0 0 0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.001 -0.0015 -0.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Samples 31.65: Comparison between the radial compression on Sample 36.4gUE-rc2 36.0005 0.0015 -0.0005 -0.0005 0.

4gUE 36.0005 0 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.002 24g37DC 31.0015 0.001 εs [%] 0.3gUE.0005 -1 0 0.66: Constant p' probes for Samples 36. 31. 24g37DC (a) equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus 446 .001 0.∆q [kPa] 3 2 1 G eq 0 -0.4gUE.002 εv [%] (b) Figure 8.3gUE -1 (a) 3 ∆q [kPa] 2 1 J qp 0 -0.

001 0 0.3gUE 31.67: Constant q probes for Samples 36.2 ∆p' [kPa] Y1 1 K 0 -0.002 0.3gUE and 31.001 εv [%] 0.001 0 0.003 -1 24g37DC 36.4gUE (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus 447 .4gUE -2 (a) 2 ∆p' [kPa] 1 J pq 0 -0.001 0.002 εs [%] -1 -2 (b) Figure 8.

001 31.001 -2 Figure 8.002 -0.4gUE -1 0 0.003 εa [%] 0 0.002 0.68: Monotonic loadings on samples consolidated to the in situ stress state for Unit A3 (a) undrained tests (b) drained tests 448 .7lgUC 36lgUC ∆q [kPa] 2 Y1 Sub-Unit B2(a ) Unit A3 1 E uv 0 -0.003 -0.001 -1 Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A3 (b) 0.003 εa [%] -2 36.002 0.38.002 -0.003 -0.5gDC 2 Y1 ∆σa [kPa] 1 24g37DC Ev 0 -0.001 (a) 0.

001 0.002 -0.5gDC 24g37DC 2 ∆σa [kPa] 36.003 εa [%] -2 Figure 8.002%/h 0.001 -1 strain rates 0.3gUE-ac 1 0 -0.005%/h 0.36.69: Strain rate effects on the stress-strain behaviour of drained samples 449 .0002%/h 0 0.002 0.003 -0.

0015 0 0.38.3gUE -2 Unit A3 monotonic loadings 36.0015 0.3gUE static probes Unit B 2(a) monotonic loadings Unit B 2(a) static probes εs [%] 0.5gDC 1 0 -2 -1 0 1 ∆p' [kPa] 2 (a) -1 ∆q [kPa] 31.0015 0 -0.003 Figure 8.003 0.4gUE 36.70: Y1 yield points for samples from Unit A3 and samples from SubUnit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress of Unit A3 (a) stress space (b) strain space 450 .7lgUC 2 36lgUC 24g37UC 36.0015 -0.003 εv [%] (b) -0.003 -0.

3g 0.02 0.5gkUC 0 -0.71: Y2 yield points for samples loaded from the in situ stress state of Unit A3 (a) undrained shearing (b) drained loading 451 .04 εv [%] -0.04 (a) 36.02 Y2 Y2 33.4gUE Y2 36.3gUE -10 0 5 10 15 ∆u [kPa] -15 0.02 -0.7lgUC 10 Y2 5 0 -15 -10 -5 -5 31.5gDC εs [%] 36.04 (b) Figure 8.02 0 0.∆q [kPa] 15 36lgUC 38.04 -0.

002%/h (D=38mm) -15 0.0005% /h 0 q [kPa] 400 -40 440 480 520 (a) 560 600 p' [kPa] -80 (b) -120 Y2 -160 -200 Figure 8.002%/h -0.4gUE 10 15 ∆p' [kPa] ? strain rates 0.3gUE 31.72: Y2 surface for samples from Unit A3 and samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress for Unit A3 (a) relative stress space (b) absolute stress space and approach stress path 452 .7lgUC 10 36lgUC 5 ? Y1 0 -15 -10 ? -5 -5 0 33.0005% /h 0.5gDC 24g37UC 36.∆q [kPa] 15 36.0015%/h -10 0.002%/h -0.5gkUC 5 36.3g 38.

150 100 G [MPa] Y2 36lgUC 38.001 0.0001 0.73: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Unit A3 453 .7lgUC 36.3gUE 50 0 0.5gDC G eq 36.1 1 10 Figure 8.01 εs [%] 0.

150 100 G [MPa] Y2 24g37DC 31.4gUE G eq 24g37DC 50 0 0.0001 0.74: Comparison between the stiffness degradation curves of samples from Units A3 and B2(a) 454 .5gDC Geq 31.1 1 10 Figure 8.4gUE 36.01 εs [%] 0.001 0.

G [MPa] 0 0 Gh h Gh v C consolidate d to the stress state of Unit A 3 50 100 150 200 250 10 B 2(c) depth below ground level [m] B 2(b) 20 B 2(a) 30 B1 A3 40 Figure 8.75: Variation with depth of shear moduli in vertical and horizontal planes 455 .

76: Variation with depth of Young's moduli in vertical and horizontal directions 456 .0 0 100 Young's Modulus [MPa] 200 300 Eh Ev 400 500 C consolidate d to the stress state of Unit A 3 10 B 2(c) depth below ground level [m] B 2(b) 20 B 2(a) 30 B1 A3 40 Figure 8.

5 0 0 Poisson's ratios 0.5 C 10 B 2 (c) depth below ground level [m] B 2 (b) 20 B 2 (a) 30 B1 A3 40 νhh νvh νhv consolidated to the stress state of Unit A 3 Figure 8.-0.5 1 1.77: Variation of Poisson's ratios with depth 457 .

0 0 Ghh/Ghv and Eh/Ev [MPa] 1 2 3 C 10 B 2(c) depth below ground level [m] B 2(b) 20 B 2(a) 30 B1 A3 40 Ghh/G hv Eh/Ev consolidated to the stress state of Unit A3 Figure 8.78: Variation of shear and Young’s moduli ratios with depth 458 .

79: Change of shear modulus with effective stress (a) Ghh (b) Ghv 459 .1000 A3 Gh h [MPa] B2 100 C 10 100 p' [kPa] (a) 1000 1000 Unit C sub-unit B 2(c) sub-unit B 2(b) sub-unit B 2(a) Unit A3 Gh v [MPa] 100 A3 B2 C 10 100 p' [kPa] (b) 1000 Figure 8.

80: Change of shear moduli Ghv and Gvh at high stresses 460 .1000 Unit C Sub-Unit B 2 (c) Sub-Unit B 2 (b) Sub-Unit B 2 (a) Unit A 3 A3 G vh B2 C Ghv and Gvh [MPa] 100 10 100 1000 p' [kPa] 10000 Figure 8.

1000 A3 Ghh [kPa] 100 C B2 Unit C Sub-unit B 2(c) Sub-unit B 2(b) Sub-unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 10 0 4 8 p*e/p' Figure 8.81: Normalised relationship between shear moduli Ghh and stresses 12 16 20 461 .

004 -0.002 (b) Figure 8.001 0.002 0.002 0.3 ∆q [kPa] 1.002 εv [%] 0.004 -0.82: Y1 yield locus for different lithological units (a) stress space (b) strain space 462 .5 0 1.5 A3 B 2(c) C 0 -3 -1.5 -3 (a) Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 εs [%] -0.5 ∆p' [kPa] 3 B 2(a) -1.001 0 0 -0.

008 ∆q/p'o 0.008 -0.004 ∆p'/p'o 0.008 -0.004 Y1 0 -0.0.004 0 0.83: Normalised Y1 yield locus for different lithological units 463 .008 Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 Figure 8.004 -0.

84: Y2 yield locus for different lithological units 464 .∆q [kPa] 15 10 A3 B 2(c) 5 C 0 -15 -10 -5 -5 B 2(a) -10 Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 0 5 10 ∆p' [kPa] 15 -15 Figure 8.

0 200 300 400 500 p' [kPa] 600 B 2(c) -100 C A3 q [kPa] B 2(a) -200 Y1 Y2 -300 Figure 8.85: Contours of the kinematic regions and approach stress paths for different lithological units 465 .

02 0 0.02 -0.02 ∆p'/p'o 0.0.02 0 -0.04 -0.04 Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 Figure 8.04 ∆q/p'o Y2 0.86: Normalised Y2 yield locus for samples from different lithological units 466 .04 -0.

∆σ'a [kPa] -100 -80 -60 -40 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 20 40 60 80 ∆σ'r [kPa] 100 incremental strain energy [kJ/m3] 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 Figure 8.87: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit C 467 .

80 ∆σ'a [kPa] -100 -80 -60 -40 60 40 20 0 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 (a) ∆σ'a [kPa] 80 60 40 20 0 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 (b) Figure 8.88: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit B2 (a) Sub-Unit B2(c) (b) Sub-Unit B2(a) 468 incremental strain energy [kJ/m3] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 0 20 40 60 80 ∆σ'r [kPa] 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 ∆σ'r [kPa] .

89: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit A3 and from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 469 .80 ∆σ'a [kPa] -100 -80 -60 ∆σ'r [kPa] -40 60 40 20 0 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 open points=samples from Unit A 3 solid points=samples from Sub-Unit B 2(a) consolidate d to the state of Unit A 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 incremental strain energy [kJ/m3] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 Figure 8.

90: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from different lithological units 470 .80 ∆σ'a [kPa] -100 -80 -60 ∆σ'r [kPa] -40 60 40 20 0 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 20 40 60 80 100 solid points=samples from Unit C incremental strain energy [kJ/m3] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 Figure 8.

80 direction= HH 3kHz 4kHz 5kHz output voltage [arbitrary unit] 40 0 (a) -40 first arrival -80 -0.5 2 80 3kHz 4kHz 5kHz output voltage [arbitrary unit] 40 0 (b) -40 first arrival -80 0 1 2 arrival time [ms] 3 4 Figure 8.5 0 direction=HV 0.91: Bender element signal through a sheared sample (a) horizontal polarisation and horizontal propagation (b) vertical polarisation and horizontal propagation 471 .5 1 arrival time [ms] 1.

Only angles of rotation of 0o and 180o were supposed to be used in the probes because.5. which might induce a softer response and obscure the effect of recent stress history (see Section 2. the influence of recent stress history on the behaviour of the clay will be discussed on the basis of the results of the tests on Samples 17SH and 17. the samples were subjected to a small approach stress path that coincided approximately with the dimension of the Y2 surface for this depth. though. these angles were expected to give the more distinguishable results.5. However. the samples were subjected to a long approach stress path of about 100kPa and then to undrained probes after the creep had reduced. Starting from an isotropic state was a necessary choice to avoid interacting effects due to the vicinity of the failure lines in extension or compression. from the literature. Two cases were considered. In the first case. The test procedures for these samples were described in detail in Section 5.3SH. which had different lengths of the approach stress path. They were then subjected to undrained shear probes either directly after reaching the initial stress state or after the creep had reduced to negligible values.3. One of the samples tested started from a slightly anisotropic state of q=-10kPa. the influences of three main factors were considered. This deviatoric stress. the nd length of the approach stress path and the creep rates before probing.2).1 Introduction In this chapter. The samples were consolidated to their equivalent isotropic in situ stress state and subjected to a set of stress path rotations and undrained probes. 473 . In the second case.9 EFFECTS OF RECENT STRESS HISTORY 9. The analysis of the results will be conducted focussing on the strains involved. which are the angle of rotation between the outgoing path a the approach stress path. was sufficiently small to consider the stress state nearly isotropic. In the tests. the effective angles of rotation were different from the nominal values of 0o and 180o because the probes were undrained.

2. At the end of the probe. From this stress state. referred as 17-157o e. approximately.5kPa/h. The rate of loading was further reduced in the proximity of the initial stress state so that it could be reached in a fully drained condition. This problem. were conducted in extension. indicated as Point O in Figure 9. but problems in the control system caused the control to stop at about –25kPa after which creep developed.The approach stress paths were conducted at low stress rates to avoid the development of significant excess pore pressures. the dimension of the Y 2 surface estimated for Sub-unit B2(b) . to q=-20kPa (Point C in Figure 9. 9. which is. Creep was allowed reduce to negligible values before the new probe in extension was performed having a 23o rotation from the approach stress path. the sample was extended at p’ constant.1. in most cases.5kPa/h. 9. stress controlled and. while no creep was allowed for Sample 17. though.1 to Point B at q=0kPa at constant p’ and then brought back to Point O at a rate of 1. The shear probes were undrained.3SH. For Sample 17SH.2 Case 1: short approach stress path Two sets of tests were conducted with the approach stress path length corresponding to about 10kPa. the creep rate was allowed to reduce before probing.3SH.1) and re-compressed back to q=-10kPa at a rate of 1. did not compromise the probe results. The two sets of tests differed in the rate of creep allowed before starting the shear probes and were conducted on Samples 17SH and 17. The stresses were held at Point O for a few days. This second probe will be called 17-23o e.1 Creep allowed The first set of tests was conducted on Sample 17SH consolidated to the stress state of p’=330kPa and q=-10kPa. This stress controlled probe. the sample was compressed from the Point O in Figure 9. was supposed to reach a minimum q of about –30kPa. until the creep rates had reduced to negligible values and then an undrained extension probe was performed having a 157o rotation from the approach stress path. 474 . which was controlled to be lower than 5% of the current effective stress.

but also the stiffness degradation with strains is the same.3SH started from a stress state of p’=330kPa and q=0kPa. The axial strain rates are considered due to the better resolution of the local LVDTs. Similarly. The data for the two probes seem coincident and cannot be distinguished. A set of tests identical to that described above was performed on Sample 17. There does not seem to be any effect of the recent stress history on the stress-strain and stiffness behaviour for these samples. The values measured of about 10-4 %/h. The undrained probes were conducted at a rate of –5kPa/h. (A’ to O’ in Figure 9.2b). From the state at A.The strains developed by the samples during the approach stress paths for both probes are summarised in Table 9.5.2a. Not only is the elastic stiffness for the two probes the same.003%/h (Figure 9.2.4. corresponding to strain rates of about -0.1 and were of the order of 0. around 30 times faster than the creep strains. which had not been strained greatly during the approach stress path and that had been allowed to creep until the creep strains reduced to negligible values. 9.3. which corresponds to the Point A in Figure 9.005% for the volumetric strain. The stress-strain curves for Probes 17-157o e and the 17-23o e are shown in Figure 9. regardless the different approach stress paths. as shown in Figure 9.2 Creep not allowed The probes performed on Sample 17.5) and held at this stress state for three hours before performing an undrained shear probe in compression that had a rotation of about 75o from the direction of the approach stress path and reached a maximum 475 .3SH before conducting the probes described below. obtaining identical results. the sample was consolidated at constant p’ to a deviatoric stress of q=10kPa. no difference can be seen in the stiffness degradation curves for the two probes. as expected from probes starting from the same stress state. were of the same order of magnitude as the resolution of the local LVDTs. The creep rates before probing are shown in Figure 9.

5kPa/h. the creep rates had started to reduce from the rates during loading.003%/h at the beginning of the probes. which corresponded to strain rates of about 0.6b. (1990).q of about 37kPa.2. after three hours at the Point O’. but the sample with the lower angle of rotation from the approach stress path has a stiffness that degrades faster.1 because in that case the creep rates were allowed to reduce before probing.3-75o c and 17.2. it was sheared undrained in compression with a 105o rotation from the approach stress path.3-105o c respectively.0006%/h when the probes started. The two shear probes will be named 17. but were still about 0. the use of a slower strain rate for the approach stress path did not affect the results in comparison with the probes described in Section 9. the strain rates started to increase. After the shear probe.3-75o c.6.3-75o c and this is confirmed by the stiffness degradation curves of the two probes shown in Figure 9. due to organizational problems with the timing of the probes. The shear probes had to be carried out under observation and. which is lower than the rate used for the set of probes discussed in Section 9. The stressstrain curves for the two probes in Figure 9. The creep time of three hours was chosen to be in agreement with the procedures of the tests conducted by Atkinson et al.3-105o c is stiffer than the response of Probe 17. In the three hours when the load was h eld constant. the sample was re-consolidated from O’ to B’ and back to O’ and. particularly for sample 17. where also the strain rates during the approach stress paths are included. The shear probes were stress controlled at a rate of 5kPa/h. 476 . A condition of full drainage was ensured in both cases. As shown below.2 and are in the order of 0. considering that only three hours at constant stresses could be allowed.8.7 show that the response for Probe 17. the approach stress paths had to be performed during the night. The approach stress paths were conducted at stress rates of about 0.004%. The creep rates before probing are shown in Figure 9. The two probes have the same elastic stiffness. as shown in Figure 9.015% for the volumetric strain. For axial strains larger than 0. The strains developed during the approach stress paths are summarised in Table 9.1. around five times faster than the creep strain rates.

having a 30o rotation from the direction of the approach stress path.3 Case2: long approach stress path On Sample 17. therefore. corresponding to initial strain rates of about -0.3-L30o e. two more undrained shear probes were performed in extension after long consolidation stress paths of about 100kPa.10b.3-L150o e than for Probe 17. The probes were stress controlled at a stress rate of –5kPa/h.3-L150o e. The stresses were held at the Point O” to allow the reduction of the creep strains and then an undrained shear probe in extension was performed. the probe of 30o rotation has a stiffness that degrades faster than that for a probe of 150o rotation.3SH.9) and.9. The recent stress history. around 30 times faster than the creep rates.11 and clearly demonstrate a stiffer response for Probe 17. For axial strains higher than 0.003%/h. from the same elastic stiffness. These probes will be named 17. The strains developed during the approach stress paths are summarised in Table 9. even after an approach stress path that had not produced large strains.10a and were of the order of 10-4 %/h. the sample was re-consolidated at constant p’ to the stress state of q=-100kPa and back to q=0kPa (O”-C”-O” in Figure 9.3 and are of the order of 0. subjected to a second undrained probe in extension. showing that. From the initial stress state of p’=330kPa and q=0kPa the sample was consolidated at constant p’ to q=100kPa and back to 0kPa (O”-B”-O” in Figure 9. The stiffness degradation curves for the two curves also confirm this result (Figure 9.3-L30o e.3-L30o e and 17. after creep had reduced to negligible values. seems to influence the clay 477 .9).004%. where the “L” refers to the long approach stress path. The consolidation paths and the probes are shown in Figure 9. and were virtually not measurable. The creep rates before probing are shown in Figure 9. After the probe. having a 150o rotation from the approach stress path. 9. particularly for Sample 17.The recent stress history therefore influences the sample behaviour if the creep is not allowed to reduce.2% for the volumetric strain. as shown in Figure 9.12). The stress-strain curves for the two probes are shown in Figure 9. the strain rates started to increase.

conducted with a better resolution instrumentation. The probes in the present research. which corresponds to no 2 large strains being developed in the samples during the approach stress paths. However. For axial strains rates that are high relative to the creep rate. Although only the stresses involved were mentioned. The results of the present research are in agreement with both the study conducted by Atkinson et al. who could not see the recent stress history effects. above that time. the recent stress history affects the sample behaviour only if no creep is allowed before probing. they could not measure further strains with the instrumentation they were using. even when a long time for the creep reduction had been allowed. then the strains developed during the approach stress path become important. this stress path seems sufficient to induce the development of large strains on a reconstituted sample. (1990) used a stress rate of 5kPa/h for their consolidation path that was about 90kPa long. For a length of the approach stress path that is below the Y region. the rest time at the initial state becomes its recent stress history and is able to delete the effects of the angle of rotation. These studies were discussed in Section 2. there seems to emerge a relationship between the strains developed during the approach stress path and the creep.behaviour. The existence of some conditions that allow the effects of recent stress history to be seen re-opens the debate on the existence of recent stress history effects. If the sample is not strained sufficiently during the approach stress path. The authors then allowed three hours of creep before probing because. although the writer does not agree with their conclusions. From the analyses conducted. if the strains developed by the sample during the approach stress path are significant.2. 478 . but a re- interpretation of those results could be attempted here on the basis of the results of the present research.5. the effect of the angle of rotation from the previous stress path can only be seen if sufficient strains developed during the approach path. if creep is allowed before probing. A question then arises about the threshold strains above which the effects of the recent stress history would be seen. (1990) who observed effects of recent stress history and with the tests performed by Clayton & Heymann (2001). Atkinson et al.

The examples considered above started from isotropic stress states. 1992). possibly. could be due to the large strains developed during the approach stress path and. The effects of recent stress history observed by Atkinson et al. (1990). which seem to the writer to be more appropriate to investigate the effects of recent stress history. though. had also a lower angle of rotation for the stress path that moved towards the failure line and the two effects might therefore have been superimposed. to the combined effect of these strains with residual creep strains. The stress path they used. had comparable dimensions to the Y2 surface measured on Bothkennar clay (Smith & Jardine. They found that the stress path that moved towards the failure line had stiffnesses that degraded faster than those of a stress path that moved towards the compression side. three hours are not sufficient for the creep strains to reduce to values that do not affect the behaviour of natural London Clay samples. can cancel each other out when they have opposite effects. 479 . therefore. Clayton & Heymann (2001) included in their recent stress history study the results of probes on London Clay samples tested from an initial anisotropic state. instead. The results discussed in Chapter 8 demonstrated that the effects of the angle of rotation and the effects induced by the presence of the failure line. Clayton & Heymann (2001).demonstrated that even using lower consolidation rates and a short approach stress path. were unable to see any effect of recent stress history on Bothkennar clay samples subjected to shear probes having different angles of rotation from an approach stress path of about 9kPa and creep strains that had reduced to negligible values before probing. though. It is likely that the sample had not been subjected to large strains during the approach stress path and therefore the rest time at the constant stresses before probing became its recent stress history deleting the effects of the previous stress paths. The type of approach stress path they used.

after the different consolidation stress paths. As o discussed in Chapter 8. identified in Chapter 8. and separate analyses of the radial strains and the Young’s moduli supported the suggested values. 9.4. the Y1 surface of the Sub-Unit B2(a) was found from probes on samples that had been subjected to an approach stress path that. The results of the analyses conducted in Chapter 8 will be used here for comparison. The identification of the yield stresses was not easy. for which no other samples were tested at small strains. In Figure 9.3SH are slightly different.4. The shear moduli for Samples 17SH and 17. particularly in a normalised plane.4 Effects of angle of rotation on the kinematic surfaces The results of the probes described above were also used to investigate the effects that creep and angles of rotation produced on the yield surfaces. The values measured are consistent with those found for other lithological units and with the values expected for samples from this depth. while re-tracing the geological history of the clay. the shear moduli Ghh and Ghv did not change greatly in either of the samples. probably due to inhomogeneities between the two samples. Samples 17SH and 17. created a minimum disturbance to ts i structure. but the results of the analyses discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 suggest that similarities could be found between this sub-unit and the others. particularly for probes 17.14. but.13-9. The measurements of the moduli are qualitatively similar to those described in Chapter 8 for samples from other units and the two interpretation methods used showed perfect agreement in the results.9.3-105o c and 17.3-75o c. which are tentatively indicated by arrows in the figures. 9.3SH belong to the lithological Sub-Unit B2(b) .2 Elastic surface In Figures 9. These samples were also allowed to creep until the creep rates had 480 . is also added to the graph f r comparison. the stress-strain curves used to identify the elastic yield surface Y1 are shown.15 those values are plotted in a plane of stresses ∆p’-∆q and the Y surface for samples from Sub1 Unit B2(a).4.1 Shear modulus Bender element tests were carried out before each shear probe and the results are summarised in Table 9.

The probes that had been subjected to larger strains before shearing with creep rate reduction.3-L150o e.3-L30o e and 17. In Figure 9. the probes with the 1 481 . though. The identification of the yield stresses on these probes was not easy and the suggested values might not be the true yield stresses because they are affected by creep strain effects. with the exception of the cases in which the creep rates were not allowed to reduce. yielded at slightly larger stresses than those measured for Sub-Unit B2(a). particularly Probe 17. though does not seem to be large and might be due to the strain rate effects.16. As mentioned before. Only the yield stresses of the probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e. this is due to the interaction of creep strains on the strains developed by the loading. In this plane. Probes 17. are most similar to the probes performed on the samples from the Sub-Unit B2(a). and they seem to yield at the same values at which the samples from the Sub-Unit B2(a) yielded.3-75o c and 17. The undrained Young’s moduli found from the probes are included in Table 9. as these probes were performed at strain rates around ten times faster than those used for the probes in Sub-Unit B2(a). The probes that had no creep rates reduction. Consistently with the discussion for the Y yield stresses.5. 17-23o e and 17-157o e.3-L150o e. those probes that had a short approach stress path and creep rates reduced before shearing. with the larger angle of rotation. yielded at larger stresses than those found for the Sub-Unit B2(a) and at different values for the two angles of rotations. The axial strains at which the yields occurred are similar to the yield strains found for all the other units. a unique Y1 contour was found for all the lithological units (Section 8. whereas the yield stresses of the other probes plot further out. In the investigation on the recent stress history. 17.2).reduced to negligible values before probing. plot on this contour. The difference. The angles of rotation from the approach stress path have no effects on the yielding of these samples.4. the yield points are plotted in a plane of stresses normalized by the initial effective stress p’o .3-105o c.

in the probes where the sample had been taken to relatively large strains during the approach stress path.4. However. The Y surfaces of the Sub-UnitsB2(c) and B are also included 2 2(a) in the graph. as mentioned above. In Probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e.21 the normalized Y2 contour is shown.19 and the stresses identified are plotted in the stress plane ∆p’-∆q in Figure 7. The probes that had been subjected to short approach stress paths plot on this contour. though. the creep rates were completely reduced before shearing and no differences could be 482 . The elastic parameters derived from the probes are not sufficient to calculate the equivalent shear moduli to be compared with the measured values. show similar values of Euv except for u the probe at 75o rotation with no creep allowed. are similar. while the probe that was subjected to a long approach stress path plots at lower stresses. which shows a lower E v .4 Effect of creep The comparison between the results from probes that differed only in the creep rates before shearing suggests interesting features for the sample behaviour with regard to bubble type models. 9.3 Y2 surface The yield stresses for the Y surface were identified as described in Chapter 8 2 from the change in deviatoric stress with pore pressure. which was found to be unique for all the lithological units.4. The Y2 yield points for the Samples 17SH and 17. The value identified for this probe. The graphs are shown in Figures 9. which was expected considering the depth of these samples. the Y yields. As for Y . for 2 both angle of rotation 30o and 150o . the axial strains associated 1 to the Y2 yields are similar to those found for other lithological units. This is confirmed by the fact that the shear moduli.3SH seem to plot between the surfaces of the other two sub-units. is not the true undrained Young’s modulus because of the influence of creep strain effects. plot together at slightly lower stresses.20. suggesting a reduction of the Y2 region caused by the approach path strains.17-9. In Figure 9. which were calculated with the bender elements and were not affected by strain rates. The other probes. performed on a different sample.short approach stress path and the creep reduced (17-23o e and 17-157o e) show virtually no difference in the Euv values for the two angles of rotation. 9.

In the probes where the creep had not been allowed. These features are consistent with the behaviour hypothesized in the bubble model. 2 instead. 483 .noticed between the location of the Y1 and Y2 yield stresses and the elastic parameters for both angles of rotation. In probes where creep had been allowed before shearing. seems only to be affected by the destructuration strain applied to the samples that result in a reduced dimension of the surface. In this case. It is thought that the elastic bubble re-centres around the current point when the stresses are held constant to allow creep. for 150o rotation. the Y1 surface is expected to be asymmetric around the initial stress point and orientated towards the direction of the approach stress path. the Y surface is 1 expected to be centred and symmetric around the stress state.3-75o c and 17. In Probes 17. The Y surface. instead. instead. the reduction of the creep rates had not been allowed before shearing and the yielding for both the Y1 and the Y regions occurred at larger stresses for the 2 probe at 105o rotation than for the probe at 75o rotation. This probably 1 caused the increased dimension of the Y1 for the 150o rotation. and in each direction the yield should therefore be at the same distance from the initial stress state. where the elastic bubble is dragged with the stress point.3-105o e. the stress state moves inside the Y bubble towards the direction of the approach 1 stress path and therefore towards the larger side of the Y bubble.

approach stress path below Y2 Approach stress path A-O’ B’-O’ 0.2: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.Test 17SH Approach stress path C-O B-O 0.08 0.3-75o c and 17.0042 0.004 ε v [%] ε a [%] ε r [%] ε s [%] Table 9.012 0.019 0.3L30o e and 17.004 -0.14 -0.3SH.2 -0.02 0.9) 484 .005 0.1) Test 17.001 0.002 -0.0001 0.3SH approach stress path outside Y2 Approach stress path C”-O” B”-O” -0.006 -0.03 -0.0006 0.5) Test 17.3-L150o e (refer to Figure 9.3: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.004 0.005 0.1: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e (refer to Figure 9.0001 ε v [%] ε a [%] ε r [%] ε s [%] Table 9.17 0.3-105o c (refer to Figure 9.021 -0.07 ε v [%] ε a [%] ε r [%] ε s [%] Table 9.04 0.001 0.

3-L30o e 17.4: Elastic parameters for probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH 485 .3-105o c * * 17.3-L150 o Long 126 Table 9.Approach stress path Creep * Probe 17-23 e 17-157 o e o Ghh [MPa] 146 148 130 129 128 e Ghv [MPa] 72 71 64 64 66 65 Euv [MPa] 174 189 134 217 195 215 Short * 17.3-75o c 17.

1: Approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17SH 486 .p' [kPa] 320 0 B 330 340 350 157 o -10 q [kPa] O 17SH-23 oe 23o C 17SH-157 oe -20 -30 Figure 9.

004 -0.0012 0.002 .2: Strain rates for Sample 17SH (a) creep strains before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes dεa/dt [%/h] 487 -0.006 (b) Figure 9.0008 before 17-23oe before 17-157oe -0.0.0004 dεa /dt [%/h] arrival at the initial sta te 0 4 8 12 16 time [h] 0 -0.008 -0.002 0 0 -0.0012 εa [%] -0.01 -0.0004 -0.006 (a) -0.004 17-23o e 17-157o e -0.0008 0.

008 -0.004 0 17-23oe 17-157o e -12 -16 -20 -24 -28 Figure 9.016 -0.3: Stress-strain curves for the probes on Sample 17SH after a short approach path 488 q [kPa] .012 εs [%] -0.-0.

120 80 17-157 oe G [MPa] 17-23 o e 40 0 0.01 Figure 9.001 εs [%] 0.0001 0.4: Shear stiffness for the probes on Sample 17SH 489 .

3 -105 oc 30 17.3SH 490 .40 17.3 -75oc q [kPa] 20 B' Y2 10 O' 0 300 310 320 p' [kPa] 330 A 340 Figure 9.5: Short approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17.

025 Figure 9.005 0.3-105o c 0.001 dεa /dt [%/h] 0 0 5 10 time [h] -0.004 dεa /dt [%/h] 0.002 17.005 0.3-75oc 0.01 εa [%] (b) 17.3-75o c arrival at the stress state 0.001 0 0 0.001 15 20 25 (a) -0.0.02 0.002 before 17.3SH (a) creep rates before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes 491 .015 0.002 0.006 0.6: Strain rates for the short approach stress paths of Sample 17.003 0.

3-75oc 17.2SH 492 .3-105o c 0 0 0.01 0.7: Stress-strain curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.025 Figure 9.015 εs [%] 0.02 0.40 30 q [kPa] 20 10 17.005 0.

120 100 80 17.3-75 o c 20 0 1E-005 0.0001 0.01 0.3SH 493 .3-105 oc G [MPa] 60 40 17.1 Figure 9.001 εs [%] 0.8: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.

3 -L30 oe 17.3 -L150 oe 380 400 -20 -40 C" q=-10 0kPa Figure 9.40 B" q=100kPa 20 Y2 q [kPa] O" 0 300 320 340 p' [kPa] 360 17.3SH 494 .9: Approach stress paths above Y2 and shear probes for Sample 17.

001 -0.3-L30o e 17.005 -0.3-L150 oe -0.004 0 0 -0.006 (b) Figure 9.008 (a) -0.001 dεa/dt [%/h] 0 0 10 20 30 40 time [h] -0.002 dεa/dt [%/h] 495 -0.10: Strain rates for Sample 17.0.012 17.002 17.001 -0.3-L150o e 0.3-L30 oe 17.002 εa [%] -0.003 -0.3SH subjected to a long stress path (a) creep strain rates before probes (b) strain rates during the probes .016 -0.004 -0.

03 -0.3SH after long approach stress path 496 q [kPa] .3-L150oe -30 Figure 9.3-L30oe 17.-0.01 0 0 -10 -20 17.11: Stress-strain curves for the shear probes on Sample 17.02 εs [%] -0.

3-L150 o e 40 17.12: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes on Sample 17.001 εs [%] 0.0001 0.3-L30 o e 0 1E-005 0.120 80 G [MPa] 17.3SH after a long stress path 497 .1 Figure 9.01 0.

3 ∆q [kPa] 498 Y1 2 17.001 εa [%] 0.002 -0.002 Y1 17-157 o e -2 -3 Figure 9.001 Y1 17-23 oe -1 0 0.13: Yield points for the linear elas tic region of samples subjected to short approach stress paths .3-105o c 1 17.3-75 oc Y1 0 -0.

3-L30 o e Y1 -1 17.002 .002 -0.3 ∆q [kPa] -0.3SH subjected to a long approach stress path 499 2 1 0 0 0.001 17.001 εa [%] 0.3-L150 o e -2 Y1 -3 Figure 9.14: Yield points for the linear elastic region of S ample 17.

15: Yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.4 Yie ld points for Sub-Unit B 2(a) short approach stress path.3-105o c -4 Figure 9.3SH and the contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a) 500 . 3-L150 oe -2 0 17-157 oe 17-23oe 2 ∆p' [kPa] 4 ∆q [kPa] 17.3-L30o e 17. no creep long approach stress path.3-75 oc 0 -4 -2 17. creep 2 Y 1 B 2(a) 17. creep short approach stress path.

006 ∆p'/p'o 0.3-L 30oe 17.3 -105 o c Y1 17.006 1 7.012 -0.012 501 .0. n o creep lon g ap proach stress path.006 ∆q/p'o 17.L150 o e -0. creep 0.012 -0.3.75 o c 0 -0. creep sh ort ap proach str ess path.006 17 -23oe 17 -157 oe 0 0.3.012 Yield p oints for o ther lithological units sh ort ap proach str ess path.

3SH and normalized contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a) 502 .16: Normalized yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.Figure 9.

3-L150o c 8 17.0 -16 -12 -8 ∆u [kPa] -4 -4 0 17-157o e -8 17-23o e -12 -16 Figure 9.3SH where the creep was not allowed ∆q [kPa] Y2 503 . 3L 30oc 4 Y2 0 0 4 8 12 ∆u [kPa] 16 Figure 9.18: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.17: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17SH 16 ∆q [kPa] 12 17.

0 -16 -12 -8 ∆u [kPa] -4 0 -4 Y2 17-105 o e -8 ∆q [kPa] 17-75o e -12 -16 Figure 9.3SH subjected to long 2 approach stress path 504 .19: Y Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.

20: Y2 yield points for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH and the contour of Y2 for Sub-Unit B2(a) 505 .3-1 05 o c 5 17.15 Y 1 yield po ints Y 2 yield po ints for Sub -Un its B 2(c) and B2 (a ) sho rt ap pro ach stress p ath. no creep ∆p' [kPa] 10 17 . creep sho rt ap pro ach stress p ath.3 -75 oc ∆q [kPa] Y1 0 -10 -5 17.23 oe -10 0 5 10 Y 2 B2(a ) Y 2 B2(c ) -15 15 -15 Figure 9. 3-L30 oe 17 . no creep lon g ap proach stress path.3-L15 0o-5 e 17 -15 7 oe 17.

04 Figure 9.3-105 oc 17. creep allowed Y2 17.3SH and normalized contour of the Y region for the 2 other lithological units 506 .02 ∆p'/p'o 0. no creep long approac h stress path.3-L30oe -0.04 -0.21: Normalized yield of the Y2 region for the probes on samples 17SH and 17.02 Y1 0 -0.04 17.04 ∆q/p'o Y 1 yield poin ts for all other lithological units Y 2 yield poin ts for all lithological units short approac h stress path.02 17-157 oe 17-23o e -0.0.3-75 oc 0.3-L1 50 oe 0 0. creep allowed short approac h stress path.02 17.

No samples from Unit B1 were available for testing. B2(c). Five main lithological units. only oedometer tests were performed. as the nature of this layer usually does not allow the recovery of good quality samples. The location of the NCL*s and CSL*s depended on the stratum. which was dominant in determining the differences in the mechanical response of samples from different lithological units. The differences in the lithology of the clay were revealed by both the nature and the structure of the clay in the different units. belonging to different lithological strata of the London Clay. 2005). Three main sub-units were also identified in Unit B2. The differences in the nature of the clay from different lithological strata were revealed particularly by the grading curves and also by the Atterberg limits and water content distributions with depth. although slightly less clearly. The nature of the clay influenced its intrinsic behaviour. A comparison between the mechanical responses of samples from different lithological units allowed the identification of a relationship between the engineering properties and the geology of London Clay. Samples from different depths were tested. A3 and A2 exist at Heathrow T5 (Hight et al. For each stratum. B1. For Unit A2. which involved triaxial and oedometer tests on natural and reconstituted samples and the use of high accuracy instrumentation for the measurements of strains. 2003. but this research concentrated on Units C. so that a unique NCL* and CSL* could be found for each unit.10 CONCLUSIONS This research aimed at finding a framework for the London Clay relating the engineering proprieties of this material to its geological features. B2. Mannion. the large and small strain behaviour was investigated. B2 and A3. but did not seem to affect its intact behaviour as much as the structure of the clay. the characteristics of the clay seemed fairly uniform and showed similarity in mineralogy and grading. B2(b) and B2(a). C. although NCL* and CSL* had the same offset for all strata. The more plastic units had an NCL* and CSL* plotting above the others in the v-lnp’ 507 . Within each stratum..

plane. and microfossil analyses also confirmed that the clay had experienced no weathering processes. The compression behaviour of the intact samples in fact showed that the compression 508 . which could only provide a minor localised bonding for the clay. but not orientated structure characterised Unit B2. Sub-Unit B2(a) and Unit A3 was investigated with SEM and showed that a probable originally flocculated fabric for this clay developed into a cardhouse fabric at shallower depths and into a bookhouse fabric at greater depths. The ratio between the horizontal and vertical moduli increased with depth. Domains with sub-horizontal orientations were typical of the deepest Unit A3 and probably were responsible for an increase in the horizontal stiffness of the clay from deeper strata. The microstructure of samples from Unit C. κ and M and C*c and C*s were unique for the clay. the gradings. This was reflected in a different NCL* for this sub-unit. In no unit could a general calcite coating be seen that would create a strong bonding between the particles and only localised calcite crystals could be identified in some strata. The mechanical response of undisturbed samples did not seem greatly influenced by its nature. regardless its lithology. A compact. however. so that the NCL* for all strata were parallel. The presence of coarser grains seemed to characterise Units C and A3. X-ray. consistently with the sub-horizontal orientation of the particle domains in deeper units. for which the index properties showed a similarity in nature. In Unit B2. The microstructure of the clay explained its small strain behaviour being stiffer horizontally than vertically. but was dominated by the structure of the clay from the different strata. the index properties and microfossil analyses (Mannion. though. for which SEM. and an open structure emerged for the shallowest Unit C. probably as result of the vicinity of the lithological boundary. 2005) highlighted the presence of a stratum. although X-ray diffraction analysis revealed similarities in the composition of Units C and B2. the parameters λ. with different characteristics from the lower strata. B2(c). perhaps as result of compression. which also showed similarities in their mechanical behaviour.

contradicting the stiffness and the strength behaviour of the clay. though. At higher pressures. These differences in the clay structure for the different units. The differences between the strength envelopes of the clay from different units at low pressures were not large and the intact SBSs plotted fairly close to the SBS*s.curves did not converge towards the intrinsic compression lines but retaining stable elements of structure even at higher stresses and large strains. Both the shearing and compression behaviour of the clay was affected by the structural differences between the units. were more compressible and had lower strengths than samples from units with a more packed and orientated structures. Structural changes to the intact clay were caused by swelling. having a fabric dominated structure. with a unique compression curve and strength envelope. seem more effectively represented by a new normalising parameter. The structural features of such a clay. despite the similarity in nature between Units A3 and C. despite the presence of lithological sub-units having different index and intrinsic properties. such as Unit A3. Anisotropic stresses applied during compression to higher stresses did not seem to induce differences in the strength of the clay compared to isotropic compression. en. were found to be not consistently represented by the Stress Sensitivity and the Void Index. in Unit B2. the strength envelopes of clays with more orientated structure plotted above the envelopes of clay with the more open structure and the intact SBSs also extended well above the intrinsic SBS*. Samples from units having an open structure. that is calculated relative to the intrinsic swelling curves as well as the intrinsic compression line. 509 . A normalisation that accounts for the initial void ratio relative to the ICL shows that shallower samples have more structure than deeper samples. but these only affected its compression behaviour inducing lower stress sensitivities and did not affect the strengths of the samples. however. a fairly uniform behaviour could be found. which only seemed to reflect in the depth of the samples. although these differences were more evident in compression and in the strength envelopes at higer pressures. Likewise. such as Units C and B2.

both the microstructure of the clay and the stresses applied influenced the clay behaviour. when the stresses were normalised by the initial state. when large strains developed during the approach stress path. there seemed to be a larger occurrence of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures from Sub-Unit B2(a). When the samples had not experienced large strains during the consolidation stress paths. so that.. particularly its elastic parameters. Strain rate effects were found to influence slightly the behaviour at small strains. although undissipated pore water pressures had to be accounted for. From this analysis. had to be avoided. In studying recent stress history effects the influence of other interacting parameters. Natural fissures were distinguished from fissures formed as consequence of drying during the sample preparation. The region of purely elastic behaviour of London Clay did not exceed an overall radius of about 2kPa. In the study at small strains. The size of the kinematic surfaces. then creep could erase the influence of the approach stress path on the outgoing stress path. A relationship could be found between the stress-strain behaviour of samples subjected to different stress path rotations. Constant values of incremental strain energy were found to be associated with the yield surfaces. 510 . strains developed during the approach stress paths and creep strains. Stress history effects were found to be less important than strain history effects. though. The effect of fissures on the samples behaviour was analysed at both large and small strains. creep rate effects were removed by allowing creep rates to reduce to negligible values before conducing any probes. The distribution of the fissures on site was not recorded in this study and only a post-test analysis of the fissures was conducted. unique kinematic surfaces Y1 and Y2 appeared for the clay for all strata. Fissures due to drying did not affect the mechanical behaviour of the samples. The relationship between creep strains and strain developed during shearing was then analysed separately considering recent stress history effects. mainly depended on the consolidation pressures. However. stress history effects are evident and induce stiffer behaviour for the outgoing stress path having the larger angle of rotation from the approach stress path. such as the vicinity of the failure lines.At small strains.

but these fissures did not seem to affect either the elastic parameters or the sizes of the kinematic surfaces. Further research testing is required to provide more comprehensive data to examine soil behaviour on the wet-side (i. High quality rotary core samples were used for most of the work and their behaviour was found to be similar to that of block samples. 511 . An investigation of Unit A2 at both large and small strain is currently being undertaken to complete the picture of the behaviour of the more common London Clay strata. The fissured nature of this material also suggested the need for an accurate investigation of the distribution of fissure in situ for a better understanding of the influence of fissures on the bulk behaviour of the clay. No sample size effects were also evident apart from the greater likelihood that larger samples would contain fissures. High pressure tests were attempted in this research. consistent with the literature. A new construction phase of Heathrow T5 will soon give the opportunity to complete this aspect of the work.e. but the pressures used were not high enough to cause significant destructuration of this material. with normally consolidated samples). 10.while natural fissures only affected the large strain behaviour if they were orientated in directions compatible with the shearing mode.1 Suggestions for future work This research work has highlighted the importance of accounting for lithology when dealing with natural soils. for which the use of even higher pressures is required. The strength on fissures was lower than the intact strength. An investigation on the stiffness of reconstituted samples with bender element tests is also currently being undertaken to enable normalisation of the results of natural samples.

MSc dissertation. (2004). and Lewin P. Géotechnique. 54. No. The influence of natural soil structure on the mechanical behaviour of a stiff clay. Technology and Medicine. University of London. Permeability and stress-strain response of speswhite kaoline. 40.531-540.91-99. Géotechnique. Géotechnique.L. Soils and soft rocks as engineering materials. Elsevier Applied Science. pp.81-118. The geotechnics of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks. Thesis.2. London.H. pp. Amorosi A. Géotechnique. (1990) Effect of stress h istory on the stiffness of overconsolidated soil. (1987). Webb D. and Stallebrass S. Bishop.REFERENCES Abdulhadi N. 17. 395-402. Numerical methods in Geomechanics NUMOG III. and Rampello S. Triaxial testing on reconstituted London Clay. (1965). (1973). A. Engineering geology of Norwegian normally-consolidated marine clays as related to settlements of buildings.W. Evangelista & Picarelli eds Balkema Rotterdam. (1989). Baudet B. No. PhD Thesis. A constitutive model for structured clays.. Imperial College. The measurement of soil properties in the triaxial tests.. and Muir Wood D. (2004). The deformation of undisturbed London Clay. No.W. Inaugural Lecture. (1967). University of London. Amorosi. and Stallebrass S. pp. (1957). Atkinson J. PhD.1-31. University of London. Imperial College London. Al-Tabbaa A. No. Edward Arnold LTD.J. pp. personal communication. H.. Atkinson J.I. . and Henkel D. (1998). 513 . pp. Bishop A. Imperial College of Science. pp. 15. University of Cambridge. Bjerrum L.E. An experimentally based bubble model for clay. (1966).4. Bishop A.1.W.M.4. Al-Tabbaa A. Undisturbed samples of London Clay from the Ashford Common shaft: strength-effective stress relationships. Richardson D.269-278.

N. The measurement of residual strength in triaxial compression. London. British Standard Institution (1990).2.3.41. Proc. 51. Géotechnique. (1996). Shear Failure on Anisotropic Materials. B. Proc. (1991). Burland J. pp. (1944). B.L (1967).H. Rampello S.4.. (1966). Proc. PhD Thesis. Burland J.D. Vol. J. Small strain stiffness under generalised stress changes. An interpretation of structural degradation for three natural clays. (1975). Keyworth. 46. Proc.J.41-44. 25.89-96.. Burland J.B.329-378.H. Can. Conf.N. Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. pp. Chandler R. Géotechnique. Special Memoir 256. Effect of swelling caused by unloading in overconsolidated clays. Geology of London. and Wesley L. and Little A. 10th ECSMFE.J.270 and 271 (England and Wales). 514 . 7th Edition. British Standard Institution. Chandler R. No. Geotech. Edward Arnold. Cafaro F. and Carrillo.. Oslo. (1996). and Cotecchia F. Géotechnique. 40. Rome. 18. and De Freitas M. pp. San Francisco 1. British Geological Survey (2004). Vol. Blyth F.W. Getech. pp. A note on the measurement of strength in the triaxial compression tests.392-407 Casagrande A. Bishop A. pp. of Civil Eng. Nottingham. Géotechnique. and Rampello S. (1984). Vol.441-453 Calabresi G.3. A geology for Engineers.G.74-87. pp. On the compressibility and shear strength of natural soils.257. Essex. and Calabresi G. 31. BS 1377. (1968). pp. 1. No.5. Georgiannou V. Callisto L. A laboratory study of the strength of four stiff clays.491-514. No. Callisto L. 11th ICSMFE. (2004). Géotechnique.261-266.Bishop A.W. A hydraulic triaxial apparatus for controlled stress path testing. Univerista’ La Sapienza. Florence.181-186. No. Géotechnique. No. (1985). and Georgiannou V.411-414. Structural degradation and changes in the mechanical behaviour of a stiff clay due to weathering.. 16. No. (2001). and Scarpelli G. 3. pp. pp. pp.1. (1990). Boston Soc. pp. Studio sperimentale su un’argilla naturale: il comportamento meccanico dell’argilla di Pisa. The influence of the size and orientation of the sample on the apparent strength of the London Clay at Maldon.657-670.

M.2. and Apted J. and Coop M. G.J. pp.J. London. pp. (1997). (1995).4.R. Proc. The effects of weathering on the strength of London Clay. (2000) Reconstitution-what makes an appropriate reference material? Géotechnique. Mechanical behaviour of the stiff clays from Montemesola Basin in relation to their geological history and structure Characterization and Engineering Proprieties of Natural Soils.J. 11th ECSMFE. Géotechnique. (1996). 1. pp. (2001).4.245-255 Coop M.H. Tan et al. No. 11th ECSMFE. (2000). No. Quart.33.R. The measurements of local axial strains in triaxial tests using LVDTs. 47.7-39.J. Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology. The effects of structure on the properties of an Italian Pleistogene clay.55-62. and Heymann. University of London.Chandler R. Coop M. 47. pp. The compression of sediments at the archeological site of Sibari. Fearon R. (2003). Géotechnique.R.19-26. pp.21. Atkinson J. Quart.. Chandler R.523-544. and Taylor R. Strength. Copenhagen 1.3. No. Lias clay: Weathering processes and their effect on shear strength. No. A general framework for the mechanical behaviour of clay Géotechnique. 34.J. (1984) Technical note: A note on the influence of fissures on the deformation characteristics of London Clay. pp.R.268-2672 Cotecchia F. No.431-447. Vol. Stiffness of geometerials at very small strains.4. Journal of Engineering Geology. (2005). 51. Copenhagen 1. pp. No. and Coop M.I. Cuccovillo T.E. Cotecchia F and Chandler R. personal communication Coop M. (1997) The influence of structure on the prefailure behaviour of a natural clay Géotechnique. 50. Costa Filho L.167-171. Proc. 22.N. (2000) Clay sediments in Depositional Basin: the Geotechnical Cycle. pp.R. 3. pp.P. yielding and stiffness of structured and unstructured soils. Cotecchia F. PhD Thesis.R. Géotechnique. pp. Vol. 515 . 50.J. Géotechnique. (1988).471-477. Cotecchia F and Chandler R. No.5968 Clayton C. pp. (2002) personal communication Chandler R. and Cotecchia F.403-431. (1972). eds. (1995). Chandler R.

J. (1994).J. and Gens A. 3Vols. Hight D. Vol.W. Gens A. Hight D.M.W. Hight D. (2002).K. Jardine R. University of London. The effects of Centreline Tube Sampling Strains on the Undrained Behaviour of Two Stiff Overconsolidated Clays..W.451-474. (1997). pp. Greece. Bennel J. PhD Thesis.J. Hight D. GTJODJ.. Georgiannou V. Vol. Tan T. No.. Balkema. (1969).. National University Singapore. Vol.W. Int. Geotechnical Testing Journal.P. A. Phoon.. Stress-strain and strength of a low plasticity clay. Observations on small-scale structural discontinuities in the London Clay and their relationship to the regional geology. and Allenou C.N. Horvslev M. Balkema. No. pp.D.. Lerouil S. (1993). and Hight D. Davis P. Laboratory investigation on sea bed clays. Georgiannou V. The behaviour of soft clays.S. (eds). Athens. Jardine R.G. (1988).33-158. Some characteristics of London Clay.W. 47. (1980).H.J. Jardine R. 1. and Porovic E. University of London. pp851-907. 19.475-487. (1937). Uber die Festigkeitseirgenschaften Gestorter Bindiger Boden. (1983). Small strain stiffness and strength characteristics of hard London Clay Tertiary clays. Hight D. Géotechnique.3.533-522. Characterisation and Engineering. 2. (1987). Hight D. Plymouth. (1982). Proc. Conf.W. No. Journal of Engineering Geol.17. No 45.217-240. Manual of soil laboratory testing. pp.4. and Jardine R.J. pp.4. Public works Research Centre. K. Powell J. Proc. Fookes P. Head. Danmarks Naturvidenskabelige Samfund. PhD thesis. Géotechnique.J.D. and Parrish D. personal communication Hight D. On Hard Soils-Soft Rocks.G. Pentek. McMillan F.. Imperial College of Science. Vol. 516 . and Denness B. (1969).. Quart. Technology and Medicine. Observational studies on fissure patterns in cretaceous sediments of South-East England..W. Chana B. University of London. Wave velocity and stiffness measurements of the Crag and Lower London Tertiaries at Sizewell.. pp.G.J. Ch. (2003).. Symp.Fookes P. Rotterdam. 1.2. Ingeniorvidenskabelige Skrifter.N. Embankments on soft clays. K. PhD Thesis. The Behaviour of Clayey Sands under Monotonic and Cyclic Loading. Athens. London.

Potts.J. Advances in Geotechnical Engineering: The Skempton Conference.. Jovicic V.2. Jardine R. pp. Hight D. pp. No. Geotechnical testing journal.G. and Potts D.. and Burland J.2. R. (1995). 517 . Jardine.R. and Gale A. The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus. 50. (2004). M. Petrography and diagenesis of the Thames Group at Whitecliff Bay. 197-202. Geo-coast ’91 Int Conf. Geologist Association.1. St John H.R. pp. 21.1. Jardine R.Huggett J. No. Symes M.J. (1998). (1992).R. Thomas Telford.. and Coop M. and Simic. of the Int. personal communication Jardine R.3.W. eds.J. Vol.. Jardine R. Evaluation of design parameters for multistage construction. One perspective of the pre-failure deformation characteristics of some geomaterials. Jardine R. (1985). No. 46.J.J.W. Jardine R. Géotechnique. London.223-228. A constitutive model for structured clays. pp. and Smith P. 10th ECSMFE. Port & Harbour Res. Yokohama. pp.M. 34. Géotechnique. Stiffness of coarse-grained soils at small strains. 109.263-273. University of London. Objective criterial for determining Gmax from bender element tests. & Higgins.323-340. Vol. Vol. Kavvadas M. pp. Proc. Géotechnique. Proc. The measurement of stiffness anisotropy in clays with bender element tests in the triaxial apparatus. Géotechnique. Development in understanding Soil Behaviour. (1996). No. (1998).3. personal communication Huggett J.. (1984). Hokkaido. (1991).D.B. pp.3. Jovicic V. 855-885. and Coop M. Investigation of pile-soil behaviour with special reference to the foundations of offshore structures. and Coop M.99-113. Gens A. PhD Thesis. D. Ints.M.S.545-561. Hight D. pp. (2004).. No. (1991). K. Yokosuka.M... 103-206. Soils and foundations. Vol.357-362. conference on the prefailure deformation characteristics of geomaterials.J. (2000). Jardine R. pp. Jardine R.32. Proc. and Amorosi. 47.J. Jovicic V. Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil stiffness. Japan. A.R. Vol.J. (2005).R.3-10. 2003. Florence. GTJODJ.111-124.J. Coop M. Some practical applications of a non-linear ground model.J. (1997).. 2.. pp. No1.

Technology and Medicine. Discussion on: Correlations between index tests and the properties of remoulded clays. City University. New York. Stratigraphical studies relevant to the geotechnics of the London Basin. and Whitman R.M.223-226. PhD.D.King C. Leroueil S.E. (2004). The stiffness and yielding anisotropy of sand.2. PhD thesis. Kuwano R. 31. Géotechnique. The stratigraphy of the London Basin and associated deposits. Anisotropic stiffness parameters and their measurement in a stiff natural clay. (1988). pp.109-125.. (1990).. PhD Thesis.555-565.6. University of London Lambe T. R. and Vaughan P. University of London. and Nash D. and Vaughan P. Chaney Silver eds Leroueil S.181-213. Stratigraphy of the London Clay (Early Eocene) in the Hampshire Basin. PhD Thesis. Pennigton D. 40. No. 35. pp. Géotechnique. Géotechnique. Dover publications. Imperial College London. Skinner A. Maguire W.3... Ma J.E. (1927) A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity.H. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (1975). The drained residual strength of cohesive soils. MSc dissertation. The influence of state on the capacity of driven piles in sands. 51. and Locat J. Soil Mechanics.Carrier W. (1981).R. 518 . MPhil transfer report. Leroueil S.F. Blais-Leroux L. Lings M. Love A.. pp. No. 1984 Géotechnique. Behaviour of intact London Clay in oedometer tests. Lings M.F.F. Lupini J.467488. Mannion W. (1999).W...V.L. and Tavenas F. Tertiary Research Special Paper. No. Trak B. Donaghe. (1981). Backhuys. Kingstone Polytechnic. No. and Beckman J. The undrained strength and stress-strain behaviour of brecciated Upper Lias clay. King C.2. Drained and undrained anisotropic elastic stiffness parameters. pp. La Rochelle P.S.2.L. London.H (2003). New York. Vol. (1984). (2001).. Klotz E. (1991). 50. (1969). No. Imperial College London. Tavenas F.D.. 6.U. pp. The General and Congruent Effects of Structure in Natural Soils and Weak Rocks. Rotterdam. Thesis. Observational approach to membrane and area corrections in triaxial tests. (2000). Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock. (2000). Géotechnique. Imperial College of Science.

Ko -OCR relationship in soil. Qadimi A.851-872.T. Effects of the period and stress path of consolidation on consolidation characteristics of clays. pp. (1998).M.271-276. Nash D. (1982). Proc.M. Ishii T.R. University of Rome. (2005). Imperial College London.4.3. pp.. Stress-strains behaviour of soils.S. Geotech. (1998). Argillaceous Rock atlas. Yamaguchi 1. MSc dissertation. and Lings M. O’Brien N. (1997). Oslo 1. pp. Rampello S. 20. Puzrin A. pp.59-68. Pennington D. No. (2005). and Jardine R.L. Pickering D. (1960) Fundamental aspects of thixotropy in soils. Nishimura S. Rotterdam. and Tatsuoka F. pp. Strength measurements on stiff fissured Barton Clay from Hampshire.Marsland A. pp. Effetti del rigonfiamento sul compartamento di argille fortemente sovraconsolidate. GT6.19-52. Anisotropic elastic parameters for soils.25-30. Proc of ASCE. and Kulhawy F. Balkema. (1971).139-145. JGS. and Slatt R.J. The influence of structure on the compression behaviour of London Clay.T.391-398. and Burland J.217-233. PhD Thesis. The cyclic response of a carbonate sand through critical state soil mechanics. Pun A. (1970). Foulis..108.F. 519 . Journal of SMFE Div. pp. Vol. Géotechnique. Marsland A. and Butler M. 83 No3. (1989). Proc. 33rd Japan National Conference on Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. Momoya Y. No. Non-linear model of small-strain behaviour of soils. ASCE. pp.615-616 (in Japanese). Géotechnique. Porovic E. (1998). PhD thesis to be submitted to Imperial College London. Strain-rate dependency of deformation on NC clay and prediction of undrained creep..K.H. Géotechnique. University of Tokyo (in Japanese). The shear strength of stiff fissured clays. (2003). (1990). No. Laboratory study on anisotropy of natural London Clay. Conf.E. pp. (1995). Mitchell J. 47.3. Anisotropy of Go shear stiffness in Gault clay. Mayne P. Roscoe Memorial Symposium. Imperial College London. Springer Velag. Pre-failure deformation of geomaterials.J. PhD Thesis. MSc Thesis.W.1. 20.B. (1967). Momoya Y. Cambridge: G. Some observations on the static and dynamic shear stiffness of Ham River sand.

PhD Thesis. Proc. University of London Santucci de Magistris F. O’Riordan N. Imperial College of Science. No. pp.119-135. Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory.149-175.W. (1969).H. pp. (1944). (2003).W.B. London. Simpson B. The influence of anisotropy on calculations of ground settlements above tunnels.D.321-324.100. No. pp. (1998). Q. Géotechnique. (1964). on Soil Mech Geoth.2. and Burland J.W. No.2. Rolo R. No. A new instrumentation for the measurement of soil moisture suction. Horizontal stresses in an overconsolidated Eocene clay. Paris 1. PhD Thesis. (1961). The microstructure of dispersed and flocculated samples of kaolinite. Long term stability of clay slopes.41. Simpson B. and Wallays (1981).2. Géotechnique.351-357. Géotechnique. 42. Eng. Balkema. Geothecnical Aspects of underground construction in soft ground. 520 .. The anisotropic stress-strain-strength behaviour of brittle sediments. Simpson B. illite and montmorillonite. (1998). Sommer H. Retaining Structures: displacement and design.541-576. J. Technology and Medicine.7th European Conf. Géotechnique. Sandroni S. 5th ICSMFE. 8. Brighton 5.77-101. (1993). pp. PhD Thesis. Skempton A. and Jovicic V. Geological Soc. pp. A computer model for the analysis of ground movements in London Clay. Investigation of threshold effects in soil deformations.Richardson D. Calabresi G. Skempton A. London. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. and Barden L. No. (1996).. University of Tokyo Schmertmann. 43.J. Sides G.391-399. 14. pp.591-595. pp.. Rotterdam. 29..91-125. City University. State of the art report. Internal report. 19. Atkinson J. No. Proc. pp. Swell Sensitivity. Proceedings.J. (1970). The strength of London Clay in total and effective stress terms.H. (1977). Simpson B. Notes on the compressibility of clays. Design parameters for stiff clays. and Croft O. (1992). Session 4.. Ridley A. (1979).M. pp.4.530533. Skempton A. Géotechnique. pp.

42. Géotechnique. and Burland J. and Petley D. Joints and fissures in the London Clay at Wraysbury and Edgware. (1992).89-91.E. Proc.W. Géotechnique.D. and Tovey N. Smart P.W. Géotechnique.J. pp. Vol. Victoria and the South Bank. pp. (1997). Shear Wave Measurements in Laboratory Sediments.178.N.W. 3. The sensitivity of clays. S. Geo-Coast ’91.235-353. (1957). in print 521 . Smith P. and Hight D.2.R. p. Tests on London Clay from deep borings at Paddington.K. (2005a)..30-53. (1982). Conf. Eng.9th Int. Oxford University Press..2. The strength along structural discontinuities in stiff clays.3. 47. No. 3. PhD Thesis. (1991). No.S. (1977). pp. Schuster F. The use of triaxial tests for prediction of settlements. No3. No.J. Standing J.E.W. Skempton A. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft ground. Geotech.J.J. Skempton A. The yielding of Bothkennar clay.205217 Shirley D. and Northey R. Electron microscopy of soils and sediments: examples. Amsterdam.N. pp.R. and Fund.29-46. University of London Stallebrass S. (1999). Skempton A. Géotechnique. Journal of Acoustic Society of America. (1952).B. No. and Jardine R.257-274 Som N.. pp.125.1. Jardine R.63. Tokyo. Balkema. and Burland J.607-613. Vol. pp. Skempton A. 15. Q.R. and Henkel D.W. pp. and La Rochelle P.M. Smith P. Int. Conf. No. The consolidation of clays by gravitational compaction..2. pp. No.J. pp. Conf. and Taylor R. Yokohama. and Hampton L. London. 4th Int. and Petley D. Report to LUL.B.W.261-270. The effects of stress path on deformation and consolidation of London Clay. Skempton A. Geological Soc. (1969). Standing J.. Proc. (1968).D. & F. Ground characterisation to explain JLEP Tunnelling Volume Losses in the Westminster area.Skempton (1970). Skempton A. pp373-411. Slope stability of cutting in brown London Clay. 1.J. (1967). Oslo. Proc.1/17. Soil Mech. Conf.R. (1997) The development and evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of ground movements in overconsolidated clay. Investigationg variations in tunnelling volume loss –a case study.J. pp.W. 19.. Proc.221-242. The Bradwell slip: a short-term failure in London Clay. 100-106. (1965). 2. Géotechnique.

Momoya Y. No. (1944).G. Vaughan P. Proc. Some aspects of the elastic behaviour of overconsolidated clay. Proprieties of the London Clay at the Ashford Common shaft: in-situ and undrained strength tests Géotechnique 15.H. (1985). J. University of London. 9. and Koseki J.203-217. Marsland A. Hayano K. Hight D. pp. (1995). Osaka. Veniale. Soil Mech. pp.R. (2003). 29-A. (2005). Geotech.. The effects of cracks on the uniaxial elastic compression of rocks. 16th Int. Institution of Civil Engineers. Viggiani G. Roscoe Memorial Symp. (1959). Proc. Samuels S. and Walbanke H.. Proc. Géotechnique.J. Viladesau E. F. Wroth C. Walsh J. pp. Miner. Imperial College London.101-119. Sodha V. The mechanical proprieties of undisturbed samples of London Clay and Pierre shale. M.1741-1765.H.27.J. L. Of the First Int.. and Butler. internal report. Res. Terzaghi K. Vaughan P. Rottherdam: Balkema. 2HSSR.G. (1978). Santucci de Magistris F.608. Jardine R. The role of microfabric in clay soil stability. (1965). Vol. Interpretation of bender element tests.33-58. (1964). Further studies of the proprieties of London Clay Géotechnique. PhD.. Webb D.B.H.. Engineering behaviour of weak rock: Some answers and some questions.321-344. No. pp. Some new aspects of time effects on the stress-strain behaviour of stiff geomaterials. and Atkinson J. No. Vol. Swelling effects on mechanical behaviour of natural London Clay. Conf. Foulis.P. Clay Fills.G. 3. pp. (1965). pp. (2005b). 45. Factors controlling the stability of clays fills in Britain.. pp.4.B. and Samuels S. Tatsouka F.E. 70. London. Ward W. pp. Conf.5249-5257. (1972). Thesis. Ward W. (1997)..347-361.149-154.R.R.W. 522 . Petrogr.2. London.H. p.1. Napoli. in print. 1998. and Burland J. An investigation into unexpected tunnelling volume losses in the Westminster area. and Dennis W. Ends and means n Soils Mechanics. (1998). submitted to Géotechnique Takahashi A.Standing J. Acta. Engineering Journal i (Canada). On Hard Soils and Soft Rocks.. Effects of swelling on the strength of London Clay..

. Pre-failure deformation characteristics of soils: Anisotropy and soil fabric.J. and Mair R. Yimsiri S. (2001). Advances in Geotechnical Engineering: The Skempton Conference. 523 . Stiffness anisotropy of London Clay and its modelling: Laboratory and Field. University of Cambridge. London. PhD Thesis. Soga K. 2004. Thomas Telford..Wongsaroj J. (2004). Yimsiri S.

“10m” for samples from 10 to 12. 1957.5m and “7m” for the block samples from the top of the London Clay. 2000).1. For these representative depths the in situ stresses p’ and q were calculated considering the geometry of the site.2). Table A5. It was assumed that about 175m of the upper part of the clay above the present level have been eroded at this location (Skempton & Henkel. The site investigation showed that the w ater table was 1. “35m” for samples from 34 to 40m.5m above the top of the clay and the pore water pressure was found to be hydrostatic..5m. the erosion of clay and the deposition of gravel.5. About 5. The geological stress history of the London Clay at the site was simulated for each representative depth. sketched in Figure A5. the same stress history being assumed for samples from 10 and 7m depths. The values of ko used were: k o = 1 − sin ϕ ' Phase I: (A5. which was derived from the suction measurements on thinwalled samples (see Section 3.APPENDIX 5.3). The OCR values are shown in Table A5. Figure A5.1) (A5. four representative depths were chosen.2)     Phase II: k o = (1 − sin ϕ ' )OCR sinϕ '  OCR 3 OCR Phase III: k o = k oNC  + 1 − 1 −sin ϕ '  OCR 4 max  OCRmax (A5. “25m” for samples from 22 to 32. Three geological phases were supposed: the deposition of clay. For samples from “10m” and “7m” the same in situ stress point was used as discussed in Section 5. (2003) (Figure A5.3) A1 .5m of gravel was assumed to overlay about 52m of London Clay.3 sketches the geological stress paths for the three depths.1 shows the stresses used.1 Calculation of the in situ stress states and approach stress paths For the samples that were consolidated to the in situ stress states.5.1 and the ko profile suggested by Hight et al.3. Chandler.

2 shows the details of the geological stress paths. These factors might have caused changes of k and moved the in situ o stress point. This approach stress path was performed only on two samples from A2 . in agreement with the research group involved in the London Clay project. Table A5. in order to match the measured in situ stress points (Figure A5. Two stress path approaches were used. Taking into consideration the influence of the sea level changes during the depositional process and the presence of the lithological units. unloading along the k line (B to C) and reloading to the in situ stress point (C to o O). The final in situ stresses derived from the geological stress history were different from those calculated using the geometry of the site and the ko values suggested by Hight et al. The development of bonding during the geological history of the clay was also neglected. Table A5. It consisted of isotropic compression to a maximum effective stress determined at the intersection of the geological unloading line with the isotropic axis (A to B).4). the simplified “three phase” geological stress path was assumed to be valid. The re-loading stress path due to the deposition of the gravel is likely to reproduce quite realistically the last geological event on this site and it is expected to have a more significant influence on the sample behaviour. it is likely that several cycles of deposition and erosion occurred in the London Clay at different stages of its geological life (Chandler.as suggested by Mayne & Kulhawy (1982). This difference might arise from the fact that the simulation of the geological stress path was very simplistic. before the final deposition of the gravel. Long geological stress path This approach stress path is illustrated in Figure A5.2 shows the stresses used for the approach stress paths for each depth. keeping the stress paths parallel.5a. Considering the difficulty in simulating a more complex geological history of the clay. but it was shifted. therefore the simplified assumption made by shifting the geological stress paths was considered adequate. (2003). where OCR is the overconsolidation ratio. 2002).

and therefore a second stress path was chosen for all the other tests.7lgUC). From this point.5c. 38.5% axial strain were imposed for this second approach stress path. The modified stress path for these depths is shown in Figure A5. Short geological stress path This approach stress path. This stress point corresponded to p’=260kPa and q=-86kPa and was assumed to be the new representative in situ stress point for samples from this depth. These large strains might induce excessive disturbance to the sample structure. was consolidated along the “25m” stress path to its reference in situ stress state. because large volumetric strains of about 2% developed during the isotropic compression. Only in a few cases were these limits slightly exceeded. which could safely be reached by all the samples from 7m and 10m depths without exceeding the strain limits. because the calculated in situ stress points could not be reached as failures in extension would occur. 10 and 7m depths An atypical stress path was followed by the samples from “10m” and “7m” depth.“35m” depth (Tests 36lgUC. unloading at constant p’ to reach the stress point on the geological unloading curve (B’ to C’). the sample was re-consolidated to the “37m” in situ state following the A3 . Maximum limits of 1% volumetric strain and 0. Initial tests attempted on samples from 10m depth showed that the fixed limits of 0. It was therefore decided to stop the approach stress path at a stress point along the constant p’ unloading. the sample. Special cases Test 24g37DC In this test.5b. after performing probes. consisted of isotropic compression to the mean effective stress corresponding to the in situ stress (A to B’). illustrated in Figure A5.5% axial strain and 1% volumetric strain imposed for the “short geological stress path” could not be respected and one sample also failed on a pre-existing fissure before reaching the in situ stress state. from 24m depth. and then unloading and reloading along the geological stress path to the in situ point (C’ to C and C to O).

Although it belongs to Unit B2 . but a computer crash occurred during the test. Probes were again performed at this point before shearing the sample to failure. Test 11. For this reason the letter “a” in the name of this sample indicates an anisotropic stress condition of p’=440kPa and q=-20kPa.stress path sketched in Figure A5. the division into lithologcial units was not yet clear and this sample was believed to belong Unit A3 .9DE This test was performed in a earlier stage of the research.4aUE This test was supposed to follow a long approach stress path to the in situ stress state of the reference depth “25m”. The final stress state did not coincide therefore with the expected state.4m depth. After this test the stress path for “7m” and “10m” was modified as described above. at the time of testing. failed prematurely along a pre-existing fissure during the constant p’ stage. it was consolidated to the “35m” depth stress point by following the “35m” approach stress path because. which changed the calibration factor of the load cell. Test 25. though. A4 .4gUE The sample used for this test was from 31. The sample. Test 31. when the in situ effective stress of p’=260kPa and q=–220kPa was supposed to be reached following the stress path for “10m” depth.5d.

q=0kPa) C' (p'=420kPa .B' .O C' (Figure A5.5gDC 36lgUC 38.Depth from ground level [m] 7 25 36 5 [m] Thickness of gravel Depth from top of LC [m] 1 20 30 3 1.O B (p'=820kPa . q=0kPa) O' (p'=260kPa .5(b)) B' (p'=420kPa .2: In situ stresses and approach stress paths (refer to Figure 5. q=-209kPa) A-B-C-O -125 (Figure A5. q=0kPa) (p'=420kPa .5(a)) -125 Table A5. q=0kPa) (p'=420kPa .4gUE 33. q=-86kPa) B2 B2 "25m" 420 B B' -155 A .C .3gUE 36. q=-195kPa) C (p'=365kPa .O' (Figure A5.B' .3g 36.5 1.B' . q=0kPa) (Figure A5.3 21 ko Cclay I’v OCR p’ q kN/m3 [kPa] 111 309 426 16.5gkUC 36.C' .5gUC 22gsUC 22.7lgUC "7m" In situ stresses p' q [kPa] [kPa] Approach stress path C 260 "10m" -220 A .5 5.0 6.5(b)) C (p'=820kPa .4gsUC 25gUC 31. q=-195kPa) (p'=365kPa .3gkUC 24.5(c)) B' (p'=260kPa .5) A5 .C . q=-209kPa) 510 "35m" 510 A3 A .1: Tests from the in situ stress point: in situ stresses Unit Sample Reference name depth 7gUC 7gUE 7kUC 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 12.C' .0 [kPa] 258 413 508 [kPa] -222 -157 -124 Table A5.6gUC 23gUE 24g37DC 24.

2: ko profile derived from suction measurements on thin-walled samples (Hight et al.5m ic ic s at osta yd ydr u uh 52m London Clay Figure A5.1: Sketch of the geometry of the site 0 0 1 ko 2 3 4 10 20 depth [m] 30 40 50 60 Figure A5.17. 2003) A6 .5m Terrace gravel 1.5m OD 5.

q [kPa] : e1 has P lay of c on i osit dep Phase 2: erosion of clay Phase 3: deposition of gravel p' [kPa] Figure A5. shifted stress paths and in situ stress points for the three reference depths 400 800 1200 1600 A7 .4: Estimated geological stress paths.3: Schematic geological stress history of London Clay at T5 1000 750 q [kPa] 500 10m 25m 37m 10m 25m 37m 10m 25m 37m assumed geological history shifted curves Hight et al 2003 250 0 0 -250 p' [kPa] Figure A5.

5: Approach stress paths to the in situ stress states (a) long path for “25m” and “37m” depths ((b) short path for “25m” and “37m” depths (c) path for “7m” and “10m” depths (d) path of Test 24g37DC A8 .q A O C (a) q B P’ A O C B’ P’ C’ (b) q A B’ O’ C C’ (c) P’ 25m A O E C (d) 35m B’ O” D P’ Fai lure line NOT TO SCALE Figure A5.

which were calculated using Equations 2. For these equations. as shown in Figure A5. The arrival time determined with the frequency method usually coincided with the values determined with the first arrival method using higher frequencies and was used in Equations 2.APPENDIX 5. Usually a clear signal was obtained.8. as described in Section 2.1.22. The drained probes were chosen so that the elastic parameters could be measured from the equations: δε a = 2v 1 ' δσ a − vh δσ r' Ev Ev (A5. the arrival time was determined interpreting the bender element signal with both the “first arrival method” and the “frequency method”. as shown.6 and 5. The arrival time determined with the first arrival method could be influenced by near field effects. Figures A5.6. for example. in Figure A5. so that it decreased slightly with increasing frequency. Sinusoidal waves were used with frequencies in the range 2-12kHz. The two interpretation methods always gave values in good agreement. The set of bender elements mounted on the samples allowed the measurements of the shear moduli Ghh and Ghv .22 for the calculation of the shear moduli. where the arrival times determined by the two methods are shown for different frequencies. A detailed analysis of the interpretations at the different depths will be given in Chapter 8.5.21 and 2.4.4) A9 .2 Measurements of the elastic parameters The elastic parameters of the clay were measured by performing bender element tests and small stress controlled drained probes following the analysis described in Section 2.7 show two examples of the interpretation methods.21 and 2.

5 to: δε a = − δε r = 2vvh δσ r' Ev (A5.6 and A5.10) 1 − v hh δσ r Eh (A5. reducing Equations 5.7) The vertical Young modulus Ev in compression or extension and the Poisson’s ratio ν vh were directly measured from Equations A5. (2000).9) For radial compression.5) For axial compression or extension.δε r = − vvh 1 − v hh ' δσ a + δσ r Ev Eh (A5. δσa ’=0.4) and (A5. δσr’=0 reducing the equations (A5.5) to: δε a = 1 ' δσ a Ev (A5. A parameter F was directly measured from the probes.6) δε r = − v vh ' δσ a Ev (A5.4 and A5. al.7:  δσ ' Ev =  a  δε  a     δσ r' = 0 (A5.8)  δε  v vh =  r   δε   a  δσ 'r = 0 (A5.11) and so the horizontal Young’s modulus Eh and the other Poisson’s ratios ν hh and ν vh were derived following Kuwano (1999) and the three parameters formulation suggested by Lings et.12) A10 . where: Fh = Eh 1 − v hh (A5.

the horizontal Young’s Modulus was calculated from: Eh = 4Fh Ghh Fh + 2Ghh (A5.=J.13) The Poisson’s ratio ν hh was calculated from the combination of Equations A5.17) For an elastic material the compliance matrix has to be symmetrical. were then compared with those calculated by using the other elastic parameters derived from the constant σ’r and σ’a probes and bender elements: G eq = K= 3 4[(1 + 2vvh ) / Ev + (1 − v hh ) / 2E h ] (A5.16 and A5.17.13. 1990): δε v = δp ' δq + K J pq (A5. from the constitutive equations written in terms of triaxial variables (Atkinson et al.16) δp ' δq + δε s = J pq 3G eq (A5. from Equations A5. the equivalent shear modulus Geq and the coupling moduli Jpq and Jqp .14) (A5. therefore Jpq =Jqp ..18) (A5.19) 1 [(1 − 4v vh ) / Ev + 2(1 − vhh ) / Eh ] A11 . These probes allowed measurements of the bulk modulus K.12 and A5.Having measured the shear modulus Ghh using the bender elements. The parameters measured from the constant p’ and constant q probes. and ν vh was calculated using the average value from the equations: v hv = − v hv = − δε a (1 − v hh ) δε r 2 E h δε a 2 δσ r (A5.15) Probes at constant p’ and constant q were also performed.

24) A12 . The undrained parameters were also calculated as combination of the drained parameters using the formulation proposed by Lings (2001). the mapping is only possible from drained to undraned parameters and the calculated values were compared with the values measured directly from undrained tests.22) = (A5.23) u v hv = (A5. ν vh =0.J= 3 2[(1 − v vh ) / Ev − (1 − v hh ) / E h ] (A5.5 and the other undrained elastic parameters can be derived from: Evu = Ehu = v u hh Ev [2(1 − v hh ) Ev + (1 − 4vvh ) Eh ] 2 2(1 − vhh ) E v − 4v vh E h Eh 2(1 − vhh ) E v2 + (1 − 4vvh ) Ev E h 2 hh 2 v (A5.21) [ ] 2 (1 − v ) E + (1 − 2vvh − 2v vh v hh ) Ev E h − v vh Eh2 2 2 2 (1 − v hh ) Ev2 + (v hh − 2vvh − 2vvh v hh ) Ev E h + v vh E h 2 2 (1 − vhh ) E v2 + (1 − 2vvh − 2vvh v hh ) Ev E h − vvh Eh2 u u v vh Eh Evu (A5.5.20) This comparison enabled a check to be made of consistency of the elastic parameters. For undrained conditions. As discussed in Section 2.1.

q=-85kP a frequen cy [M Hz] 8 4 1/t a rr 0 0 2 D/λ 4 (a) Ghh Ghv theoretical line 6 Figure A5.7: Arrival time determined with the frequency method 12 frequency [MHz] 8 Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method 4 0 300 400 500 600 arrival time [µsec] 700 (c) Figure A5.6: Shear wave signal and first arrival time 12 p'=260kP a .first arrival Received wave arrival time Transmitted trasmitter wave Figure A5.8: Comparison between the arrival times determined with the first arrival and the frequency method A13 .

A14 .

60o 38o 48o 55o 7gUC D=100mm 7gkUE Unit C 7gkUC D=38mm Figure A7.1: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Unit C A15 .APPENDIX 7.1 Shear planes The figures in this appendix show schematic drawings of the shear planes formed in samples from different lithological units.

45o 55o 50o 60o 46o 70o 68o 11gDE D=38mm 11kUC 12.5iUC D=50mm 65o o 28o 55 60o 40o 54o 25o 45o 15o 55o 40o 20o 25o 11.5gUC D=100mm Sub-unit B2(c) Figure A7.2: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) A16 .9DE 35o 68o 10o 40o 12.7iUC 11.4iUC 11.

5SH Sub-unit B2(b) Figure A7.8UC 62o 60o 25o 65o 19.3: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Sub-Unit B2(b) A17 .8isUC 21.3SH D=100mm 17.7isUC D=38mm 22gsUC 20o 20o 10o 35o 25o 30o 30o 15o 60o 13gUE 16.6iUC 17SH 48o 55o 17.69o 57o 14iUC 68o 75o 57o 16.

64o 49o 75o 54o 54o 70o 60o 55o 22.4: Shear plane characteristics for 38mm diameter samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) A18 .2gkUC 68o 55o 58o 72o 45o 26UC 28DC 28.6ikUC 23.5UC D=38mm 31IUC Sub-unit B2(a) Figure A7.6iUC 24gsUC 24.

4GUE D=100mm Sub-unit B2(a) Figure A7.5iUC 60o 30o 8o 50o 5o 27UC 31.7UC 24g37DC 15o 45o 18o 30o 67o 15o 10o 30o 70o 10o 25aUC 25.4aUE 26.3UC 26.17o 64o 15o 50o 24o 55o 15o 40o 50o 22.6gUC 23gUE 23.5: Shear plane characteristics for 100mm diameter samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) A19 .

2iUC 38.5gDC 37isUC 67o 50o First plane 59o 63o 65o 53o 25o 43o 38.4iUC (D=50mm) 36lgUC 36.58o 56o 50o 53o 56o 18o 67o 12o 76o 33.5UC D=100mm 38.5gkUC 37DC D=38mm 38iUC 38UC 30o 40o 52o 55o 56o 61o 34.6: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Unit A3 A20 .7lgUC Unit A3 40iUC Figure A7.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful