Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
AND
JAMESK. MITCHELL
Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.
Received May 20, 1987
Accepted August 21, 1987
The field vane (FV) has traditionally been utilized to obtain profiles of undrained shear strength in soft to medium clays.
After some 40 years of experience with FV results, it has been suggested that empirical correction factors be applied to the FV
data to account for the effects of strain rate, anisotropy, and disturbance on measured shear strengths. As an additional use of
the device, the FV may be calibrated at each site to develop profiles of overconsolidation ratio (OCR) with depth. A data base
of oedometer test results and FV strengths from 96 different clays has been compiled to use as a basis for this calibration.
Key words: field vane, undrained strength, clay, overconsolidation ratio, preconsolidation pressure, shear strength, vane
shear.
La resistance au scissomktre (FV) a traditionnellement CtC utilisCe pour dCterminer les profils de la rksistance au cisaillement
non drainCe dans les argiles moyennes i molles. Aprks quelque 40 ans d'expCrience avec les rksultats de scissomktre, des
facteurs de correction empiriques ont CtC suggCrCs pour tenir compte des effets de vitesse de cisaillement, d'anisotropie, et de
For personal use only.
remaniement sur les rksistances mesurCes. Comme utilisation additionnelle de cet outil, la rksistance au scissombtre peut &tre
calibrke sur chaque site pour Ctablir des profils du rapport de surconsolidation (OCR) en fonction de la profondeur. Des
donnCes de rksultats d'essais oedomktriques et de rksistances au scissomktre pour 96 argiles diffirentes ont CtC compilkes pour
servir de base i cette calibration.
Mots clis : scissombtre de chantier, rksistance non drainCe, argile, rapport de surconsolidation, pression de prCconsolidation,
rksistance au cisaillement, resistance au scissomktre.
[Traduit par la revue]
( ) = NORMALIZED
STRENGTH
FIELD VANE
FIG.2. Observed trend between OCR and normalized field vane strength to overburden ratio.
curves may be difficult in some cases, especially in very stiff information was provided by the sources of data. Some of
to hard clays. In addition, sample disturbance tends to reduce these factors were size of vane, mineralogy, sand content, clay
the apparent value of a; (Ladd et al. 1977). fraction, anisotropy, and geological origins. Were they taken
A direct comparison between the laboratory-measured OCR into account appropriately, then the data scatter in Fig. 2 might
and the normalized field vane strength (Cu/a{o)Fvis presented be reduced.
as Fig. 2. The "average" trend may be found from regression
analyses on 262 data points, assuming a log-log relationship
(r = 0.80): Indexing of preconsolidation stress
Hansbo (1957) proposed that a; may be directly linked to
CuFV.Using the data base shown in Table 1, this hypothesis
which yields mean values of Cu/a{,, = 0.146 and A = 1.52 has been investigated and indicates the general trend shown in
for the FV test. These are quite different from typical param- Fig. 3. Regression analyses on 343 data points assuming a
eters derived from triaxial and simple shear data bases (Mayne log -log relationship (r = 0.89) give
1985). For example, isotropically consolidated triaxial com-
pression tests tend to have mean values of 0.33 and 0.71, [6] a; = 7 .@t(cuFv)0.83
respectively. or, by assuming that a direct arithmetic relation exists between
It is observed that [4] tends to underestimate OCR's in very a; and CuFV,regression analyses give a best-fit line with no
quick and sensitive clays. It could be that sampling disturb- intercept (r = 0.88):
ances caused reduction in a;, especially in lean clays.
If a forced value of the exponent term 11A = 1 is assumed [7] a;=3.45cUFv
and a direct relationship between OCR and normalized strength If for simplicity a value of A = 1 is assumed, then [5] may
is sought, the regression analyses give a best-fit line with no be generalized to
intercept (r = 0.81):
[81 OCR = ~FV(CUFV/~~O)
[5] OCR = 4.3 1(CuFv/a{,)
A similar formulation for [7] yields
It should be noted that many important factors were not
investigated during this study, primarily because incomplete
NOTES
Data Data
point point
symbol Site and reference symbol Site and reference
@ Saint Alban (Roy et al. 1981) 0 Rio de Janeiro (Ramalho-OrtigC et al. 1983)
0 Porto Tolle (Jamiolkowski et al. 1982) $ Thunder Bay (Ng et al. 1986)
@ Trieste (Battaglio et al. 1981) @ Silty Holocene (Koutsoftas and Fischer 1976)
@ Boston blue (D'Appolonia et al. 1971) @ Plastic Holocene (Koutsoftas and Fischer 1976)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG LIB on 11/12/17
The parameter aFvwas calculated for 263 individual data [i 11 aFv = 22(1,)-0.~~
points from the 96 sites according to
The original correlation proposed by Hansbo (1957) for
OCR Swedish clays related IXFV to the liquid limit (wL in percent):
[lo1 u w =
(CU/~:O)FV [12] (YFV = 222/wL
Values of a ~ inv the data base generally range from 1.8 to 20, This relation was reviewed by Larsson (1980) to include
although data on Backa clay reported by 0j e and Broms Scandinavian clays, in general, and was alternatively expressed
(1967) indicated values as high as 33. Furthermore, as shown in terms of plasticity index (I, in percent):
by Fig. 4, aw decreases with increasing plasticity index of the
clay. Assuming a log - log relationship, regression analyses of 1
[13] C Y =~
the data in Fig. 4 indicated (r = -0.75) (0.08 + 0.00551,)
CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 25. 1988
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG LIB on 11/12/17
For personal use only.
FIG.5 . Measured OCR profiles at six sites as determined from oedometer tests (individual points) and estimated profiles from FV data (dashed
lines).
Essentially, [13] and [I 11 give identical results for I, > 5. that observed between OCR and normalized shear strength
An application of the proposed method in estimating the pro- determined by laboratory shear test methods. This difference
files of OCR in six different clay deposits is shown in Fig. 5 . can be explained by the different normalized shear strength
The values of I, range from 8 to 100. It may be seen that the ratios obtained from different test types. The preconsolidation
values of OCR, calculated using [8], agree well with those pressure (a;) and the measured field vane strength (CuFV)also
determined from the results of oedometer tests. In these correlate within definable limits, and appear to be partially
examples, aFvwas estimated from [ll.]. In practice, it is dependent on the index properties of the clay. Calibration
recommended that vane strengths actually be calibrated with and verification of these trends are recommended for each spe-
the results of consolidation data obtained from undisturbed cific site.
samples. In their simplest form, the proposed expressions adopted are
An interesting similarity also exists between the OCR adjust-
ment coefficient (aFv) and the empirical vane strength correc-
tion factor (y) proposed by Bjerrum (1973). Both decrease with
Ip at approximately the same rate. By comparing Fig. l b with
Fig. 4, it appears that, in general, in which aFvranges from - 2 to 20 and is related to the plas-
ticitv index.
Acknowledgements
possibly allowing y to be determined from oedometer tests
rather than Ip. Anne Bethoun and Ken Ellis are thanked for preparation of
the manuscript and figures.
Conclusions
AAS,G., LACASSE, S., LUNNE,T., and HOEG,K. 1986. Use of in
Based On a review data and vane situ tests for foundation design on clay. Proceedings, Use of In Situ
strengths from 96 different clays, it is shown that a general COr- Tests in Geotechnicaf Engineering, ASCE, Blacksburg, VA,
relation exists between OCR and normalized undrained UP. 1-30.
strength to overburden ratio. This relationship is different than AGERICAN SOCIETY
FOR TESTING
AND MATERIALS.
1986. Soil and
156 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 25, 1988
rock, building stones. In Annual book of ASTM standards, Section HANSBO, S. 1957. A new approach to the determination of the shear
4, Volume 04.08. Philadelphia, PA, Test No. ASTM D-2573, pp. strength of clay by the fall cone test. Swedish Geotechnical Insti-
426-429. tute, Report No. 114.
Azzouz, A., and LUTZ,D. 1986. Shaft behavior of pile in plastic 1984. Foundations on friction creep piles in soft clays. Pro-
Empire clay. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 112(4): ceedings, International Conference on Case Histories in Geotech-
389-406. nical Engineering, Rolla, MO, Vol. 2, pp. 913 -922.
Azzouz, A., BALIGH,M., and LADD,C. C. 1983. Corrected field HANZAWA, H. 1977. Field behavior of Khor Al-Zubair clay. Soils
vane strength for embankment design. ASCE Journal of Geotech- and Foundations, 17(4): 17-30.
nical Engineering, 109(5): 730-734. 1979. Undrained strength characteristics in the Tokyo Bay.
BARA,J., and HILL, R. 1967. Foundation rebound at Dos Amigos Soils and Foundations, 19(4): 69 - 84.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG LIB on 11/12/17
pumping plant. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Founda- 1983. Three case studies for stability of soft clay deposits.
tions Division, 93(SM5): 153- 168. Soils and Foundations. 23(2): 140- 154.
BATTAGLIO, M., JAMIOLKOWSKI, M., LANCELLOTTA, R., and MAN- HOEG.K., ANDERSLAND, O., and ROLFSEN,E. 1969. Undrained
ISCALCO, R. 1981. Piezometer probe test in cohesive deposits. Pro- behavior of quick clay at Asrum. GCotechnique, 19: 101 - 115.
ceedings, Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, ASCE, St. HOLTZ,R., and HOLM,B. 1979. Test embankment on organic clay.
Louis, MO, pp. 264-302. Proceedings, 7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
BAUER,G. 1984. Design considerations and performance of a build- Foundation Engineering, Brighton, Vol. 3, pp. 79-86.
ing foundation. Proceedings, International Conference on Case JAMIOLKOWSKI, M., LANCELLOTTA, R. TORDELLA, L., and BATTAG-
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Rolla, MO, Vol. 1, pp. LIO, M. 1982. Undrained strength from CPT. Proceedings, 2nd
229 -234. European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, Vol. 2,
BERRE,T., and BJERRUM, L. 1973. Shear strength of normally con- pp. 599-606.
solidated clays. Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Soil JAMIOLKOWSKI, M., LADD,C., GERMAINE, J., and LANCELLOTTA, R.
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 1.1, pp. 1985. New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.
39-49. Proceedings, 1lth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
BJERRUM, L. 1972. Embankments on soft ground. Proceedings, Per- Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. 1, pp. 57- 153.
formance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE, Lafay- KINNER,E., and LADD,C. C. 1973. Undrained bearing capacity of
ette, IN, Vol. 2, pp. 1-54. footing on clay. Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Soils
1973. Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 1, pp.
clays. Proceedings, 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics 209-215.
and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 3, Session 4, pp. KONRAD, J., BOZOZUK, M., and LAW,K. 1985. Study of in situ test
For personal use only.
volcanic lacustrine clays. Proceedings, ASTM Conference on Soils Geotechnical Journal, 19: 433 -450.
for Engineering Purposes, Mexico. QUIROS,G. W., YOUNG,A. G., PELLETIER,J. H., and CHAN,
MASSARSCH, K., KOLTZ,R., HOLM,B., and FREDRIKSSON, A. 1975. J. H. C. 1983. Shear strength interpretation for Gulf of Mexico
Measurement of horizontal in situ stresses. Proceedings, In Situ clays. Proceedings, Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineer-
Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Raleigh, NC, Vol. 1, pp. ing, ASCE, Austin, TX, pp. 144- 165.
266-286. RAMALHO-ORTIGXO, J. A., WERNECK, M. L. G., and LACERDA,
MAYNE, P. 1980. Cam clay predictions of undrained strength. ASCE W. A. 1983. Embankment failure on clay near Rio de Janeiro.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 106(GTll): ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109(11): 1460- 1479.
1219-1241. RAYMOND, G. 1972. The kars embankment foundation. Proceedings,
1985. A review of undrained strength in DSS. Soils and Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE,
Foundations, 25(3): 64 -72. Lafayette, IN, Vol. 1, Part 1, pp. 319-340.
1986. CPT indexing of in situ OCR in clays. Proceedings, RICHARDSON, A., BRAND, E., and MENON,A. 1975. In situ determi-
Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Blacks- nation of anisotropy of a soft clay. Proceedings, In Situ Measure-
burg, VA, pp. 780-793. ment of Soil Properties, ASCE, Raleigh, NC, Vol. 1, pp.
MAYNE,P., and JONES,J. 1982. Evaluation of soft clay, Massey coal 336-349.
terminal, Newport News, Virginia. Law Engineering Report No. ROY,M., BLANCHET, R., TAVENAS, F., and LA ROCHELLE, P. 1981.
W1-3190-C to Dravo Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA. Behaviour of a sensitive clay during pile driving. Canadian Geo-
MAYNE,P. W, SWANSON, P., and FROST,D. 1986. Geotechnical technical Journal, 18: pp. 67-85.
report-CEBAF, Newport News, Virginia. Law Engineering SCHMERTMANN, J. 1975. Measurement of in situ shear strength. Pro-
Report No. NK5-1182 to DMJM, Washington, DC. ceedings, In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, Raleigh,
For personal use only.
MITCHELL, J., VIVITRAT, V., and LAMBE,T. 1977. Foundation per- NC, Vol. 2, pp. 57-138.
formance of Tower of Pisa. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical SILVESTRI, V. 1980. The long-term stability on a cutting slope in an
Engineering Division, 103(GT3): 227 -249. overconsolidated sensitive clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
MITCHELL, R., SANGREY, D., and WEBB.G. 1972. Foundations in 17: 337 -351.
the crust of sensitive clays. Proceedings, Performance of Earth and SKEMPTON, A., and HENKEL,D. 1953. The post glacial clays of the
Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE, Lafayette, IN, Vol. 1, Part 2, Thames estuary. Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Soil
pp. 1051 - 1072. Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Switzerland, Vol. 1, pp.
MOH, Z., BRAND, E., and NELSON,J. 1972. Pore pressures under a 302 -308.
bund on soft fissured clay. Proceedings, Performance of Earth and 1957. Tests on London clay from deep borings. Proceedings,
Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE, Lafayette, IN, Vol. 1, Part 1, 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
pp. 243 -272. Engineering, London, pp. 100- 105.
MOHAN,D., JAIN,R., and BHANDARI, R. 1978. Remedial underpin- TRAK,B., LA ROCHELLE,P., TAVENAS, F., LEROUEIL, S., and
ning of steel tank. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering ROY,M. 1980. A new approach to embankments on sensitive
Division, 104(GT5): 639 -655. clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17: 526-544.
MORIN,P., LEROUEIL, S., and SAMSON, L. 1983. Preconsolidation TRENTER, N. 1980. Discussion "Effective stress analysis of piles."
pressure of Champlain clays. Part I. In-Situ determination. Cana- Proceedings, Recent Developments in the Design and Construction
dian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 782 - 802. of Piles, ICE, London, pp. 383-387.
NG, R. M. C., Lo, K. Y., and ROWE,R. K. 1986. Analysis of field WALKER, L., and MOGAN,J. 1977. Field performance of a firm silty
performance-the Thunder Bay tunnel. Canadian Geotechnical clay. Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
Journal, 23:30-50. and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 1, pp. 341 -346.
NICHOLSON, D., and JARDINE,R. 1982. Performance of vertical WATSON,G., CROOKS,J., WILLIAMS, R., and YAM,C. 1984. Per-
drains at Queensborough. In Vertical drains. Thomas Telford Ltd., formance of preloaded structure on soft soil in Trinidad. GCotech-
London, England, pp. 67 -90. nique, 34: 239-257.
ORRIE,O., and BROMS,B. 1967. Effects of pile driving on soil prop- WROTH,C. P. 1984. The interpretation of in situ soil tests. Gkotech-
erties. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divi- nique, 34: 449-489.