0612046: M.Eng.

Dissertation

An Investigation into the Undrained Shear Strength of Cohesive Materials.

A Dissertation
by
Inderjit Sidhu

A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering,
Brunel University.

Department of Engineering & Design

Brunel University of West London

March 2010

Major Subject: Civil Engineering with Sustainability

1
 Declaration of Originality

This is to confirm that the work done for this project is entirely my own and not of any other person,
unless explicitly acknowledged (including citation of published and unpublished sources). This work
has not previously been submitted in any form to Brunel University or to any other institution for
assessment for any other purpose.

Signed _________________________________________________

Date ___________________________________________________

1
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Supervisor Dr Phil Collins, Malcolm Austen, and Paul Szadorski. I have
benefited significantly from their guidance, support and undivided attention throughout the
completion of my project. Secondly, I would like to thank and all those people who gave some of
their time to suggest modifications and improvements.

Thirdly, I would like to thank Simon Burke, Joanne Sturges, John H Masters, and all the rest of the
staff at GeoLabs, BRE Watford for assisting to complete the tests.

Inderjit Sidhu, March 2010.

Nomenclature
Term Symbol Units

1
Total Major Principal Stress σ1/p1
kPa
Total Minor Principal Stress σ3/p3
kPa
Normal Stress σn
kPa
Effective Major Principal Stress σ1’
kPa
Effective Minor Principal Stress σ3’
kPa
Maximum Deviatoric Stress (σ1 – σ3)
kPa
Pore – Water Pressure u
kPa
Shear Strength τ (Cu)
kPa
Shear Strength at Failure τ f
kPa
Normal Stress at Failure σf
kPa
Undrained Shear Strength cu
kPa
Cohesion Intercept (Total Stresses) c
kPa
Cohesion Intercept (Effective Stresses) c’
kPa
Angle of Shearing Resistance (Total Stresses) ϕ
degrees
Angle of Shearing Resistance (Undrained – Total Stresses) ϕu
degrees
Angle of Shearing Resistance (Effective Stresses) ϕ’
degrees
Angle of Shearing Resistance (Total Stresses) ϕ* radians
Midpoint MP
kPa
Radius R
kPa
Shear Stress produced in the Soil cmob
kPa
Applied Bearing Pressure σmob
kPa
Founding Breadth B m
Founding Depth D
m
Unit weight of Soil removed γ kg/m3
Ultimate Bearing Capacity qf
kPa

3
 Allowable Bearing Capacity qa
kPa
Net Bearing Pressure qn
kPa
Bearing Capacity Coefficient Nc
Bearing Capacity Pressure Factor Nq
Bearing Capacity Density Factor Nγ
Skempton’s Bearing Capacity Factor (Undrained) Ncu
Shape Factor sc
Depth Factor dc
Safety Factor Fs
Triaxial Compression TC
Conventional Triaxial Compression CTC
Quick Undrained QU
Unconsolidated Undrained UU
Consolidated Undrained CU
Consolidated Drained CD

List of Tables
3.1 Specimen description of densities, mass and moisture content........................................26
4.1 Summary of Experiments performed...............................................................................33
5.1 Determination of Shear Strength and Normal Stress at Failure.......................................39
5.2 Undrained (Immediate) Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils..............................................41
5.3 Presumed Bearing Values under Static Loading..............................................................45

5
 List of Figures
1.1 Stability of shallow foundation or excavation in soft clay (Berre, 1981)...........................1
1.2 Development of Shear Failure beneath a Foundation (Coduto, 1994)...............................2
2.1 Estimation of the Friction Angle.......................................................................................6
2.2 Plastic Deformation Mechanism (Chen, 1975)..................................................................7
2.3 The three modes of Bearing Capacity Failures (Das, 1995)..............................................8
2.4 (a)Triaxial Setup and (b) Typical Stress Paths or Triaxial Tests (Wood, 1990)................9
2.5 Qualitative comparison of shear strength results for UU, CU and CD tests....................11
2.6 Results of a triaxial test on specimens of a homogenous soil..........................................12
2.7 Mohr circles showing stress state of three different specimens of the same........................
cohesion-less soil (c = 0) when subjected to different confining pressures...........................12
2.8 Mohr circle determinations using combinations of axial and confining pressure
for non-granular materials (Vickers, 1983)...........................................................................12
2.9 Mohr circles for the Total and Effective Stress for tested materials (Vickers, 1983).......13
2.10 Mohr circles comparison between Theoretical (a) and ................................................
Actual Results (b) for most soils (Vickers, 1983)..................................................................13
2.11 Illustration of the stresses and forces acting on a CTC subjected specimen..................14
2.12 The confining, shearing, and failure modes of a specimen under Triaxial ................
Compression (Vickers, 1983)................................................................................................16
2.13 Failure plane of a specimen under TC (Vickers, 1983).................................................16
2.14 Triaxial compression test showing test pressure and assumed plane of failure of AB
(Duncan, 1998)......................................................................................................................17
3.1 (a)Buff School Clay in its natural form. (b) Stoneware Clay shown as large clump and
clusters..................................................................................................................................21
3.2 (a)Specimen on weighing scale. (b) Two specimens of both clays correctly .................
weighed.................................................................................................................................22
3.3 (a) 2.5 kg Rammer for Compaction. (b) 1 L Mould Cylinder to 0.01 g...........................23
3.4 (a) Sequence of first four impacts. (b)Sequence of successive blows after first four ...
(3.3, BS 1377, 1990).............................................................................................................23
3.5 (a) Crucible containers used to weigh specimens. (b) Balance readable to 0.01 g...........25
4.1 Loading cell with Pressure Gauge and Loading ring; used for the confining pressure tests
..............................................................................................................................................27
4.2 The Brunel VJTech Advanced Triaxial testing system (not functioning)........................28

3
4.3 (a) A Latex membrane stretched along the inside of the mould. (b)Compacted specimen...
within the mould ..................................................................................................................28
4.4 A prepared specimen in the cell ready to be tested..........................................................29
4.5 General setup of Quick Undrained system ……………………………………………….
(VJTech Soil and Rock Testing Manual, 2009).....................................................................30
4.6 (a) General features of Wykeham Farrance Triaxial System. (b) Loading Cell...............31
5.1 Graphs of Shear Strength over Confining Pressure of Specimen C_X1 (a) and specimen...
C_X2 (b)...............................................................................................................................35
5.2 Graphs of Shear Strength over Confining Pressure of Specimen C_Y1 (a) and specimen...
C_Y2 (b)...............................................................................................................................36
5.3 Annotated Mohr Circles of Specimen C_X1 and Specimen C_X2.................................37
5.4 Annotated Mohr Circles of Specimen C_Y1 and Specimen C_Y2.................................37
5.5 Mohr’s circle to determine the shear strength and the normal stress at failure..............39
5.6 (a) Deformation changes at failure of C_X1 specimen. (b) Deformation changes at failure
of C_X2 specimen.................................................................................................................43
5.7 (a) Deformation changes at failure of C_Y1 specimen. (b) Deformation changes at failure
of C_Y2 specimen.................................................................................................................44
A.1 Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for X1 Clay Specimen....................51
A.2 Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for X2 Clay Specimen....................52
A.3 Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for Y1 Clay Specimen....................53
A.4 Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for Y2 Clay Specimen....................54
A.5 Quick Undrained Triaxial summary results for all Clay Specimens........55
Abstract
This study will look at different cohesive soils working in axial compression, observing this
behaviour, and its effect on the undrained shear strength. An investigation was lead into the
additional parameters affecting test results; for this purpose, smaller samples of soils are acquired in
order to conduct characteristic analysis of specimens prior to experimentation. The experimental work
was carried out on a Triaxial Compression apparatus at GeoLabs, BRE Watford testing centre. The
triaxial device was able to contain a cylindrical soil sample of height 76 mm, diameter 38 mm, where
these tests were co-ordinated with the staff at GeoLabs. Modifications to the apparatus to perform a
multistage undrained test resulted in a significant improvement in the performance of the apparatus
and a better representation of soil stresses.

The relationship between the undrained shear strength and the moisture content of cohesive soils
considers soil type and size of clay grains on the moisture content at uniform shear strength. Previous
studies have examined different soils, mainly sands and gravels, but not to great depth, whilst a lack
of focus is given to the impact of confining pressure on foundations built in clay. This paper focuses
on an investigation of the relationship between moisture content and undrained shear strength in clay
samples of different structures at different confining pressures, and their workability in shallow
foundation construction. This study examined the effect of this behavioural – interaction by varying
bulk density of the clays using a compactive effort, choosing a set of appropriate confining pressures
for number of clays chosen for their degree of variability i.e. silty to firm clays. These included
additional properties of moisture content, particle size, composition (coarse – grain soils),
compaction, and structure. All tests were carried out on pure samples of well – graded uniform laying
clays with different cohesive properties. Pressures subjected on the clay samples were two sets of
three different confining pressures, and this study developed relationships of behaviour to their
reaction of increasing pressure.

Stiff brown silty clay and firm grey clay were tested; were compactive effort obtained the required
bulk densities. The tests revealed that as the confining pressure increases, the undrained shear strength
increases. In addition, an increase the moisture and degree saturation produces a decrease in the angle
of shearing resistance angle (internal friction angle) and an overall decrease in undrained shear
strength. The deviatoric stress to affected the strain behaviour of the clays; however, a specific trend
was not found. These types of tested clays were inappropriate in to which level a shallow foundation.
Additionally, the extent of settlement occurring when foundation loads applied to the ground is
dependent on the structure rigidity, duration and type of loading, and deformation characteristics of

1
the ground soil. The study showed that consolidation settlement in clays and silts occur for long
periods after the structure is finished. The drainage rate from the voids under stresses influence
applied is slow; therefore, consolidation settlements must be considered. The shape of the specimens
did influence the overall failure mode response and demonstrate elastic distortion (barrelling/bulging)
in conjunction with general shear and local shear failure with the axial loading rate and confining
pressure.

2
 Table of Contents
Declaration of Originality.....................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................iii
Nomenclature ...............................................................................................................iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................vi
Abstract...........................................................................................................................vii

CHAPTER 1...............................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................1
1.1: Study Background........................................................................................................1
1.1.1: Shallow Foundations........................................................................................2
1.2: Chapters Overview......................................................................................................4
1.3: Aim and Objectives.....................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2...............................................................................6
LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................6
2.1: Introduction.................................................................................................................6
2.2: Friction........................................................................................................................6
2.3: Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations...................................................................7
2.4: Soil Testing..................................................................................................................9
2.4.1: The Triaxial Test..............................................................................................9
2.4.2: The Vane Shear Test........................................................................................9
2.5: Drained & Undrained Conditions..............................................................................10
2.6: Mohr – Coulomb Criterion........................................................................................11
2.7: Shear Stress Parameters.............................................................................................14
2.8: Loading and Stress Parameters..................................................................................17
2.9: Recent & Past Advances in Triaxial Testing..............................................................18
2.9.1: Equipment......................................................................................................18
2.9.2: Methodology..................................................................................................18
2.9.3: Errors and Interpretation.................................................................................19
2.9.4: New Test Varieties.........................................................................................19
CHAPTER 3.............................................................................20
MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION & PREPARATION.............................20
3.1: Introduction...............................................................................................................20

1
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Background

This study examines the characteristics of cohesive materials, focusing on undrained shear strength. A
cohesive material is an accumulation of particles sticking together through moisture; the mechanical
behaviour of cohesive materials is a function of the materials particle size, shape, particle-to-particle
friction, their arrangement, saturation, moisture, and the associated pore voids. Especially with in –
situ cases, there must also consideration on the loading and confining pressure acting on the material.
The deformation in cohesive materials is due to external forces; these create internal matrix changes
caused by particle interlocking, matrix suction, sliding and rolling. Understanding these material
responses can largely influence the importance of design of structures such as foundation systems,
pavements constructed with clay, natural earth dams, and the improving the stability of the
foundations in construction. These kinds of materials used in the development of shallow/deep
foundation construction, landscaping and design, where shallow foundations must follow through
certain soils in order to be less influenced by the behaviour of the soil. The analyses of these
structures is based on the strength and deformational behaviour of the material adjacent or beneath to
the foundation system. High strength soils, granular and cohesive materials will be able to work with
the foundation it surrounds, decrease the chance of rapid settlement, and in the hope to support a
structure without failing. Many studied reports of soil – interaction in literature, and the vast majority
of these are concerned with the use of interaction and properties under loading. Understanding this
develops measures to improve ground conditions, offer insight into working ground materials and
attempts to understand the nature of soils, particularly clays and sands. For example, the economic
and successful application of new shallow foundation depends on the soils immediate bearing
capacity, as well as supporting the weight of slabs; the foundation provides a level on which to build.
A structures weight keeps a foundation in place, in the case of taller buildings; foundations anchor a
building to the ground. A properly designed foundation or gravity – based structure will limit
settlement, i.e. the tendency of sink. The requirement of foundations is that it has to be working in
coordination with the material beneath it. This can be shown in Figure 1.1 that demonstrates the zones
of soil affected by foundations.

Figure 1.1: Stability of shallow foundation or excavation in soft clay. (Berre, 1981, [5])

Builders and non – professionals have consistently documented the requirement of good foundations.
A foundation is an element of a structure that works in coordination of a structure to the adjacent zone
of soil/rock beneath it. The main principle of having a foundation is to transfer the structure loads to
the soil/rock underlying with no overstress exerted on the soil or rock.

There are three basic requirements for a foundation to be satisfactory (Sowers, 1962, [36]):

• A properly situated foundation should respect any future influences, which could affect
performance.
• A foundation, including the soil below it, must be stable and safe from failure.
• A foundation must not settle adequately to damage the structure.
1.1.1 Shallow Foundations

1
Foundations have two main categories, shallow, and deep. This part of the study focuses on shallow
foundations rather than deep foundations. Shallow foundations are common in construction when the
soil formation has sufficient strength for a safe bearing support. If the soil is very compressible, or has
minor shear strength, shallow foundations are sometimes inadequate to these problems. The loads
applied transmit to greater depths then to a stiffer layer. A necessity of foundations is the ability to
carry structural loads without movement to cause damage. Most soils supporting foundations do not
overstress beyond their limit strength, as the deformation caused by this compressed soil cannot be
extreme. The pressure that a soil can withstand without shear failure (overstress) is the soil bearing
capacity (McCarthy, 2007, [32]). The maximum bearing capacity of soils for a foundation relates to
the soil properties and foundation characteristics. Three principal failure modes of soil exist, defined
as general shear failure, local shear failure and punching shear failure, of which Figure 1.2
demonstrates.

Figure 1.2: Development of Shear Failure beneath a Foundation (Coduto, 1994, [10])

General shear failure is inclined to have a brittle stress – strain relationship. A distinct area of
wedging is under the foundation where slip surfaces elongate diagonally from the footing edges down
through the soil then up toward the ground surface. This is where the ground surface bulges upward
and displacement is visible by foundation. Punching shear failure involves plastic material
characteristics. There is important compression that occurs beneath the foundation and vertical shear
occurs under the foundation edges. Zones beyond these edges are not generally affected and no real
bulging occurs. Local shear failure involves general shear and punching shear characteristic failure
modes. A distinct wedge and slip surface is formed below the foundation and slight bulging occurs at
the ground surfaces. Local shear states represent an intermediary condition between general and
punching shear failure (McCarthy, 2007, [32]). Shallow foundation design considers general shear
failure to happen in dense granular soil and in firmer saturated cohesive soils subjected to undrained
loading. Punching shear case usually applies to compressible soil (sands) that have low to medium
relative densities, and for cohesive soils subjected to slow axial loading (McCarthy, 2007, [32]).
Shallow foundations transmit the loads of the structure to the adjacent soil under it. The types of
shallow foundation available are pad foundation, strip foundation and raft foundation.

Pad Foundation

3
These support column point loads. There are different types of pad foundations accessible, like mass –
concrete for steel column, plain reinforced concrete, and balanced pad foundations. Shallow mass –
concrete pads are for varying states of soil layers where appropriate load bearing soils exist at shallow
depths (Curtin, Shaw, Parkinson & Golding, 1994, [13]). Deep mass concrete pads (cast at depths of
1.5 m – 2 m) are used when piling substitutes are more unrestrained. Shallow reinforced concrete pads
are like mass – concrete pads except of a smaller thickness because of the practice of reinforcement
on the tensile face of the pad that improves resistance to bending moments.

Strip Footing

Strip footings lie under consistent point loads. Strips distribute load concentration indirectly into an
increased thickness of sub – strata to reduce the settlement and bearing stress to a limit (Curtin, Shaw,
Parkinson & Golding, 1994, [13]). The structure will distribute load into longitudinal directions when
the loading is non – uniform. Strip width is chosen according to the bearing stress limit and bucket
size of the excavator (Curtin, Shaw, Parkinson & Golding, 1994, [13]).

Raft Foundation

Raft foundations spread the structural loads over a larger area to reduce the bearing pressure, as it is
more rigid and lowers the potential for excessive differential settlements. Rafts are heavier in weight,
able to resist higher uplift loads, and distribute lateral loads into soils more consistently (Curtin,
Shaw, Parkinson & Golding, 1994, [13]). Sensible foundation design offers suitable safety factors for
shear failure of the soil and excessive settlement.

Once the strength of the soil is determined through laboratory shear testing, provided all data
regarding the in – situ conditions are sufficiently obtained, the strength can be used to determine the
Bearing Capacity on that same soil for a specific shallow foundation. The maximum load that a
foundation can support may be calculated using bearing capacity theory. In the case of preliminary
design, there can be theoretical bearing values (presumed) used to indicate and estimate the pressures
that would normally result in a satisfactory safety factor.
The Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qf) is the bearing stress value that causes a sudden settlement of the
foundation due to shear failure. The Allowable Bearing Capacity (qa) is the ultimate bearing stress
applied to a foundation that is safe against instability by shear failure, and the non – exceed maximum
tolerable settlement. The allowable bearing capacity derives from the ultimate bearing capacity using
a safety factor (Fs). The net bearing pressure (qn) is the rise in soil stress. Excavation for a foundation
relives the stress at founding level when the weight of the soil removed.

Most soils contain clay, sand, gravel, air and water. Exerted loads on soils permit consolidation, and
air and water drain out. Non – cohesive soils experience consolidation during construction phases. In
cohesive soils, clays and silts, this occurs over years or rapidly depending on the rate of consolidation
and material. Sand or gravel based materials are heavily explored for these kinds of analyses.
Nonetheless, there are many questions concerned to the basic understanding of the shear failure and
bulging/barrelling phenomena affects in cohesive materials such as clays. The current literature lacks
an experimental analysis that can address these concepts.
Water within the construction unfavourably affects the performance of foundations. The soil
moisture content can affect the shear strength and as a result the bearing capacity. The execution of
design and construction of foundations are with the intention of keeping the construction saturated to
a limit to prevent slip and sinking. A water source can usually range from direct precipitation or
through surrounding water. Casagrande & Shannon, 1951, [8] recognised two significant sources of
water from which base courses in foundations can become saturated. The first being frost action and
infiltration through the ground soil. This was initially based on theoretical analysis of crack width and
assumption of laminar flow through the base; they second source eventually concluded that base
courses could speedily become saturated through surface cracks upon rainfall. A better understanding
of this type of behaviour performed through laboratory tests where there is adequate replication of in

3
– situ stress conditions and loads. The two most common systems used to test cohesive soils are the
Triaxial Compression Test and the Unconfined Compression Test.
Determining soil stability is one of the few important and challenging aspects of geotechnical
engineering. The concern, including past knowledge, on soil stability has driven the important
advances and constant renewed understanding of the intricate behaviour of soils. This has also lead to
improvement of most testing equipment used to investigate soil behaviour. Broad research has gone
into the study of providing an agreement of soil mechanics principles and the approach to solve
practical soil problems regarding stability (Duncan & Wright, 2005, [17])
These advances matured into the evaluation and prediction of ground, slope stability,
foundation, pavement, runway and road design, and excavation in soft clay, here experience,
judgment, and rational methods have combined to better understand and improve the level of
achievable confidence in the use of observation, testing, and analysis. With these numerous advances,
effective prediction of soil stability still requires essential judgment, as it remains a difficult field. The
problem is that even when geology and soil conditions have been evaluated and keeping with good
practice standards, the overall stability has been assessed with methods that been efficient in previous
projects. It is a problem because it without proper understanding of behaviour, the theory behind
stability is unjust it is hard to determine the reasons for failure.

For the vast majority of structures built upon certain materials (cohesive and cohesion-less soils) the
main consideration is that of foundation loads, shallow or otherwise, and their compressive short/long
– term effect on the type of soil below and how this possibly affects performance. However, with the
specific techniques to improve materials that used to support loads, there is uncertainty with respect to
the forces leading to failure and their magnitudes. In the case of integrated soil foundations there is a
great deal of ambiguity in ignoring the type of existing soil on site and the overall contribution it may
have on the structure, even if some tests warrant a good practical use of the soil. It is apparent
therefore that research is required into the particular area in which an improved assessment in soil
stresses regarding the type of common soil used on site and the possible reasons why that would
benefit/adverse the type of structure built upon.
Over time, there has been significant experience with the behaviour of shallow foundations.
With respect to their function, this has led to the development of better understanding of changes in
soil properties that can occur over time, the importance of the requirements, limitations of laboratory,
in – situ testing for evaluating soil strengths, and development of more effective types of
instrumentation to predict potential soil behaviour. This is in coordination with improved
understanding of the principles of soil mechanics related to overall soil behaviour, improved
analytical procedures amplified by broad examination of the mechanics (large scale testing), detailed
comparisons with field behaviour, and finally with the use of computers to perform analyses. A better
understanding of cohesive behaviour performed through laboratory tests is necessary where there is
effective reproduction of in - situ stress conditions and loads.

1.2 Chapters Overview

This study begins with a concise literature review of the equipment used to measure shear strength,
the criterion used for failure and analysis, failure modes, drained and undrained conditions and their
relevance to soil testing, theory of plastic/elastic mechanisms in shallow foundations, loading and
stress parameters, internal soil friction, and strength properties are presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3
will discuss the preparation and methods to change the density of the specimens, compaction, to
determine the bulk and dry density, moisture content, relevant Eurocodes and standards along with a
description of the cohesive soils tested. This study performed undrained soil strength testing
behaviour using the Wykeham Farrance 38 mm diameter Triaxial Testing System at GeoLabs, BRE
Watford. In which observations were made of the specimens during compactive and actual testing
procedures. This includes the additional help of the Brunel University VJT5110 TriSCAN100
Advanced Automated Triaxial Testing System. The Brunel device itself is not functioning but the
explanation of the system provides understanding of the process. This apparatus allows three kinds of
tests to be performed, of which can be performed on cohesive cylindrical soil specimens to be encased
in rubber membranes with confining pressure present, then the soil specimen in the chamber, under

2
chosen lateral pressure, is subjected to an increasing axial load until the specimen fails and is
described fully in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 introduces the specific test and criteria used for actual
experimentation, describing details of the specific triaxial compression system used in this
experimental study, with specimen preparation method, testing procedure, along with a description of
tests to investigate cohesive soil behaviour.
Chapter 5 is the representation of results and analysis of test data, these being the undrained
shear strength, maximum deviator stress, angle of shearing resistance (angle of internal friction), the
shear and normal stress at failure, and apparent cohesion. This section describes the confining stress
to the shear strength response of the specimens, followed by the discussion of the impacts of
compressive load, confining pressure, deformational changes (specimen shape and failure modes),
comparing theoretical and actual results, and the effect of moisture and saturation. Each specimen
prepared will have a degree of variability and then compared with those of other specimens tested in
order to establish the effectiveness of the experiment, repeatability and reliability of the results. This
will include detailed comparison between the clays in order to determine their parameters.
Chapter 6 is essentially a concluding review of what was determined, the behavioural
interaction of the specimens, and the parameters used in them. Discussion into varying the effect of
confining pressure, effect of moisture and saturation, specimen shape, values of shear and normal
stress on each sample, and reliability of triaxial tests. Additionally, Chapter 6 describes the potential
benefit of soil shearing resistance values in wider applications. Recommendations and improvements
for future research, future work in the same geotechnical field, coordinating with data from literature,
laboratory and field are also compared with the proposed method to provide an independent check.
This will additionally include changes in experimental work with what possible improvements to
future to ensure results that are more reliable. This chapter also consists of a summary of the research
findings and the general contribution this study has made. In addition, with documented conclusions
derived from the study.

1.3 Aim and Objectives

The real aim of this study is to demonstrate which of the selected cohesive soils provide the greatest
shear strength and the lowest shear strength when subjected to different confining pressures and
whether the effect of moisture does play a part in the overall undrained shear strength. Additionally to
what extent this relationship plays in shallow foundations. To develop a means of determining the
relationship between undrained shear strength and confining pressure from a single specimen
subjected to a set of confining pressures, whilst better understanding overall cohesive soil theory,
shear strength properties, and confining pressure in certain in – situ conditions. Additionally with an
observation on how specimen shape affects the overall failure mode of a cohesive material. This
should discuss which cohesive materials are appropriate in shallow foundation design, provide useful
data for immediate bearing capacity, perhaps road, and clay – pavement design. Especially for sites
under excavation with soft clay and receiving channelised traffic like construction vehicles.

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

2
This chapter comprises of a literature review conducted on the soil shear tests, particularly their
potential and constraints, representation of stresses in soils, as this is required in order to provide an
appropriate level of understanding for the successful application of the shear test apparatus.
Additionally, this also consists of the latest advances made in the field of soil testing primarily
focussing on the parameters of the Triaxial Test. Added documentation on the behaviour of cohesive
materials under shallow foundation loading. Additionally presented are the factors affecting the
determination of these properties, with description of types of experimental determination of these
same properties, and concluding on recent test procedure developments. This section also mentions
the criterion used to determine the current existing models that are widely used with a summary of the
literature of the review finalising this chapter.

Clays are accountable for a large percentage of problems with stability due to complex water –
interaction. Certain strength properties of clays are complex and are subject to changes over time
through consolidation, permeability, swelling, weathering, slickensides, and creep. Undrained
strengths of clays are important for short – term loading conditions, and drained strengths are
important for long – term conditions. In nature, most soils and rocks are viscous – elastic materials. In
current literature, there are developed theories that are usually categorised into the linear viscous –
elasticity field, while soils and rocks are known to have highly nonlinear stress – strain behaviour
with a known dependency on permeability and time. Consequently, the time – independent elastic –
plastic theory is commonly used to describe the stress – strain relationships of natural materials; the
material is said to be linearly elastic up to the yielding point, after this it is achieves a perfectly plastic
condition (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981, [25]). In other cases, some materials are known to be brittle and
demonstrate a small amount of stress when under strain, this is usually the case for rock materials;
whereas others are known to demonstrate work – hardening (i.e. compacted clays, and some loose
sands) or even the opposite, known as work – softening.

2.2 Friction

Determining the shear resistance between any two particles is by measuring the force needed to cause
movement between the particles. The two most common methods of expressing frictional resistance
are to use the friction coefficient, or the friction angle. Figure 2.2 can help explain this friction system.
The friction angle ϕu (undrained), can be gained from a series plot of relations of a normal force, N
versus a shear force τ, which acts on a body. These values help to create the sliding of that same body.

Figure 2.1: Estimation of the Friction Angle

There are two main rules that run this principality; the first is the shear resistance between two bodies
is proportional to the normal force between them, and the second being the shear resistance between
two bodies is independent of the size of the bodies. In most materials, different sources add to the
frictional resistance, this includes sliding and rolling of particles, resistance to volume change,
interlocking particles and crushing of particles. The mechanisms of these sources relates to the effect
of volume change. Particles are interlocked and in contact with each other. This interlocking between
particles is directly related to material density, the denser material the greater the interlocking of
particles. If the shear stress is applied, the first act is resistance to volume change, and then followed

3
by particle sliding that is relative to each – other. For a dense specimen, the particles will roll upward
and over each other creating an increase in volume of the assembly of particles. In loose specimens,
the particles roll downward resulting in a decrease in volume.

2.3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations

Geotechnical engineers have two problems regarding the design of shallow foundations. The first
problem is the bearing capacity failure, and second is the excessive settlement. The bearing failure is
confirmed by using plasticity theory, while the excessive settlement is commonly checked using the
theory of elasticity. The determination for settlement in saturated clay has two mechanisms, the first is
the immediate settlements due to the deformation occurring at a constant volume, and the second is
the amount of consolidation settlement associated with the dissipation of pore – water pressure
(Skempton & Bjerrum, 1957, [39]). The excessive total settlements are the main sources of
substandard building performance. The issues addressed of which caused by unexpected
consolidation, with or without the presence of water, and lack of linear elasticity to understand the
earlier stages of undrained settlement that leads to serious doubts. The stress – strain of most soil is
non – linear from very small strains. The non – linear stress – strain characteristics can have high
influence on the form and the amount of the displacement distribution of soft clay structures. A
solution known as the Prandtl mechanism, (Figure 2.2) for plane strain indentation, offers a plastic
region of continuous deformation below a stiff circular punch. The strain is negligible outside this
region (Osman & Bolton, 2004, [33]). The solution includes three zones of spread shear, alleged to
shear and deform compatibly and continuously with no virtual sliding at their boundaries. There are
many factors that can affect the performance of shallow foundations such as permeability
(drained/undrained), compressibility or relative density, shape and stability of strips, adjacent
foundation contact and other structures, relative soil stiffness and footing, occurrence and relative
extent of horizontal loadings/moments, and stiffer or weaker underlying layers present. The soil
strains and deformations created according to the shear stress keep the foundation in equilibrium.
Shear stresses in the soil are linked to the external loading by the bearing capacity coefficient (Nc).

σmob = N c (cmob) Equation (2.1)

Where σmob is the applied bearing pressure, and cmob is shear stress produced in the soil.

Figure 2.2 demonstrates the certain deformation pattern where there are no displacement
discontinuities.

Figure 2.2: Plastic Deformation Mechanism (Chen, 2007, [9]).

The ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation i.e. strip footing can be a three – term
expression integrating the bearing capacity factors that are non – dimensional: Nc, Nq and Nγ, of which
are linked to the angle shearing resistance ϕ’ (Terzaghi, 1943, [43]).
qf = (c.Nc) + (qo.Nq) + ½(γ.B .Nγ) Equation (2.2)
In Drained loading, the terms for calculations are for effective stresses; where ϕ´ > 0, and terms Nc,
Nq and Nγ are > 0. In Undrained loading, calculations are in terms of the total stresses; where the
undrained shear strength (cu); Nq = 1.0 and Nγ = 0

2
 Figure 2.3: The three modes of Bearing Capacity Failures (Das, 1995, [14]).
a) General Shear, b) Local Shear, c) Punching Shear.

The most common mode of foundation shear failure is General Shear Failure. This failure happens in
moderately incompressible and strong (Rel. Density > 70 %) rock, and in normally consolidated and
saturated clays, of which are loaded quickly so that undrained conditions are overcome (Coduto,
2001, [12]). Failure is sudden, and there is a clearly defined surface of failure. The formed bulge
emerges to the surface of the ground and around the edges of the foundation. There can be
considerable tilting of the foundation if the structure does not prevent footing rotation. (Vesić, 1973,
[44]).

Local Shear Failure displays shear at the surfaces clearly beneath the foundation, which then become
indistinct near the ground surface (Vesić, 1973, [44]). This happens with a footing that rests on
moderately dense sand (36 % < Rel. Density < 70 %). Here, a small bulge may form, however
considerable settlement (0.5 foundation width) is required before the formation of a clear shear
surface develops near the ground (Coduto, 2001, [12]). The foundation will carry on sinking into the
ground without the likelihood of sudden failure.

The last shear is known as Punching Shear Failure, typically common in very loose sands where the
Rel. Density < 36 % of a thin layer of strong soil underlain with a weak soil, or in very weak clays in
slowly loaded drained conditions. The high compressibility soil causes large settlements, and weakly
defined vertical shear surfaces with these types of soils. There is little to no bulging at the ground
surface due to the low soil density that is not enough to propagate the failure surface, the failure then
forms gradually.

2.4 Soil Testing

2.4.1 The Triaxial Test

The term “conventional” describes the triaxial test; though, this ends up being unclear. In text, the
system is defined better as an axially symmetric testing apparatus that has two degrees of freedom, the
word “triaxial” being a misnomer, with an induced axial stress and confining cell pressure (Figure
2.4). The soil specimen is cylindrical and is enclosed in an impermeable latex membrane, which
prevents direct contact with a sustained pressurised fluid (water), surrounding the specimen within the
pressure cell. A modification to this cell pressure allows a desired pressure to confine the specimen.
Afterwards, a lowered piston via the top of the cell applies the axial load. The end platens (top and
bottom) are rigid and made to function in the capacity of being porous in order to allow for drainage

2
of the water (optional), which can be used to measure pore – water pressure. The typical
measurements taken during a triaxial test are the axial load (σ1), change in volume (δV), cell pressure
(σ3), and change in specimen length (δl). In drained tests, there is an extension of measuring change in
pore – water pressure (δu) in place of volume change.

(a) (b)
Figure 2.4: (a) Typical Triaxial Setup. (b) The typical Stress Paths for Triaxial Tests (Wood, 1991, [46])

There are two methods the axial stress can be applied: one by applying dead weights or a hydraulic
pressure that is implemented in equivalent increments until failure, also known as stress - control. The
other method is by application of axial deformation at a fixed rate using a geared or hydraulic loading
press, this is known as an axial displacement rate or loading rate. The triaxial test is performed under
one of the following settings: undrained or drained. In a drained test, the volume change in the
specimen is measured by the amount of water loss via the drain lines. In an undrained test, the
changes in pore water pressure in the specimen are not measured. Certain materials work under
certain drainage conditions and therefore these need to be considered prior to choosing a test profile.
These tests attempt to replicate full – scale behaviour with regard to both loading rates and drainage
conditions.

2.4.2 The Vane Shear Test

The vane shear test determines the undrained shear strength of clay soil. The apparatus for this test
includes four blades at the end of a rod. The height of a vane is twice the diameter. The vane is
rectangular, or conical, and pressed into the soil. The vane shear rod is covered in a protective
membrane to prevent soil adhesion during rotation. The soil tested is undisturbed by the pushing.
Standard vanes will rotate at a criterion rate of 0.1°/sec. The soil fails in a cylindrical shape
surrounding the vanes. Once failed, the maximum torque applied for rotation that causes failure is
then measured. (Das, 2004, [14])
The undrained shear strength value attained is too large due to the increase of strength via the high
rate of shear straining and soil anisotropy. Corrections are made for this using the correction factors.
Additionally, it can be correlated with pre – consolidation pressure and over – consolidation ratios of
clay (Das, 2004, [14]). The vane shear test is an economically simple for of test and rapid so that the
excess pore – water pressure developed during the testing does not have the time to dissipate. It
provides a reasonable results for medium – stiff clay. Nevertheless, this test is time – consuming and
is therefore limited for soft to stiff clay. Poor calibration results in errors in torque measurement,
damage to vanes and improper vane rate rotation – control.

2.5 Drained & Undrained Conditions

2
Drained or undrained conditions in a soil depends on the soil type (i.e. fine – grained or coarse –
grained), the geological arrangement (sand layers in some clays, fissures, etc), and rate of loading. In
the case of the rate of loading coupled with a normal construction activity, saturated coarse – grained
soils (e.g. gravels and sands) undergo drained conditions, and saturated fine – grained soils, like silts
and clays, undergo undrained conditions. If rate of loading is considerably fast (earthquake
conditions), coarse – grained soils can experience undrained conditions leading into liquefaction.
Drained conditions take place when there is no change in pore – water pressure via external loading.
Pore – water can drain out effectively causing volumetric strains inside the soil. Undrained conditions
exist where pore – water is unable to drain out when the rate of load is faster than the rate of which it
drains out. In this case, the pore – water with increase in pore – water pressure, takes most the
external loading, correlating that a soil’s tendency is to change volume when suppressed during
undrained loading.

Quick Undrained (QU) / Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Tests

In this type of test, no drainage of pore water is allowed at any stage. This involves the specimen
shearing at constant moisture content and, if the sampling, storage and preparation of the test have
been carried out correctly, the moisture content during testing should compare exactly with the
moisture content of the soil in its natural state at the time of sampling on site. Additionally, it also
means that if it is a saturated soil, with no drainage during the testing, there is therefore no volume
change during testing. Usually undrained tests are referred to as ‘Q’ or Quick tests.

Consolidated Undrained (CU) Tests

In this next category of test, the sample initially consolidates under an effective stress corresponding
to the same effective stress in – situ, where the moisture content reduces from its initial value. In other
tests where soil behaviour is analysed, consolidation is a process by which pore water expels from a
saturated soil under a constant total stress. Therefore, drainage allows the volume of the specimen to
decrease and the completion of consolidation noted by a termination of further volume change, or
discharge of water. The time needed to complete consolidation depends on the soil and permeability.
After the consolidation is finished, shearing is carried out at the moisture content reached at the end of
consolidation. Therefore, no recording of and permitted volume change is allowed during shearing.

Consolidated Drained (CD) Tests

The last of the three is the drained test, performed under conditions whereby drainage of the sample is
allowed at all times. Afterwards, there is a repeated reduction in the moisture content of the soil
specimen from that obtaining at the time of sampling. Coupled with this continually changing
moisture content are the continual volume changes of the sample during both consolidation and
shearing processes of the test. Another condition of the drained test is that the loading is applied
gradually so that there is no or very little expansion of pore pressure. Each addition of load is applied
only when the pore – water pressure within the sample has fallen to the value existing before the
application of the previous load addition. Usually drained tests are referred to as ‘S’ or Slow tests.

2.6 Mohr – Coulomb Criterion

In almost every soil testing application, there is a general criteria used to investigate the soil and
determine its corresponding values of strength. Mohr – Coulomb theory is usually the criteria used to
investigate soils subjected to shear testing. The parameters and theory of this particular criterion
represent the shear strength of soil as Mohr circles. These circles show the state of stresses of a
specimen in the plane that contains the major (σ1) and minor (σ3) principal stresses. Mohr circles can
be used to show different specimens of the same material subjected to different confining pressures,
then the friction angle (ϕ) of the material can be estimated from the slope of the line tangent to the
3
circles, this is known as the failure envelope (Figure 2.7). Equally, depending on the type of
engineering problem presented, either the peak friction angle or the constant volume friction angle is
required. These angles can be determined by using Mohr – Coulomb criterion of failure.

The cohesion of a soil refers to the ability of soil particles to stick together. If is possible for the soil to
be moulded effortlessly without breaking, it possesses plasticity. These properties depend on the
moisture content of the soil. The consistency is referred to as the indicator of cohesive or plastic soil.
The consistency varies with water content and it can range from dry - solid to wet - liquid.

The limiting shear stress for effective stress conditions (soil strength) is given by

t = c + σn tan ϕ Equation (2.3)

Where c = cohesion (apparent)
ϕ = angle of shearing resistance
σn = normal stress

cu and ϕ u are known as the undrained strength parameters for effective stress conditions

t = cu + σn tan ϕ u Equation (2.4)

Figure 2.5: Qualitative comparison of shear strength results for UU, CU and CD tests (McCarthy, 2007,
[32]).
Figure 2.5 shows the typical results of a triaxial test represented in Mohr circles. This additionally
denotes the type of results obtained with certain test conditions. In most common tests,
Unconsolidated Undrained/Quick Undrained procedures usually do not give angles of shearing
resistance (depending on saturation), as they tend to undergo bulging/barrelling deformation rather
than some common buckling conditions.

4
 Figure 2.6: Results of a triaxial test on specimens of a homogenous soil. (McCarthy, 2007, [32]).
Figure 2.6 shows a single homogenous soil tested at three confining pressures and the overall “best
common tangent for all Mohr circles. This method is more effective as it is generally representative of
stress state within the specimen.

Figure 2.7: Mohr circles showing stress state of three different specimens of the same cohesion-less soil (c
= 0) when subjected to different confining pressures.

Figure 2.8: Mohr circle determinations using combinations of axial and confining pressure for non-
granular materials (Vickers, 1983, [45]).

1
 σ

Figure 2.9: Mohr circles for the Total and Effective Stress for tested materials (Vickers, 1983, [45]).

Figures 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 are demonstrating the denoting of the angle of shearing resistance, and using
the tangent line of the Mohr circle to determine the slope of the common tangent.

(a)

(b)
Figure 2.10: Mohr circles comparison between Theoretical (a) and Actual Results (b) for most soils
(Vickers, 1983, [45]).

3
Figure 2.10 is demonstrating the difference between the expected triaxial results and actual triaxial
results. The reason why this is also studied is that traditionally if the Mohr circles are representative of
a single specimens stresses, there are still limitations, estimations, and uncertainties brought about in
the test results. The graphical representation of the Mohr circles is a good method to demonstrate if
anything has not followed according to predictions. The reason for testing these kinds of materials is
that the strength properties of silty and firm clay are not yet fully understood, unlike the conditions of
pure clay and sand, of which do represent the two limits of soil behaviour due to their mechanical
properties and overall composition. Mohr circles for actual tests (Figure 2.9 (b)) are common in all
triaxial test profiles (UU, CU & CD).

2.7 Shear Stress Parameters

The most widespread form of triaxial test is the Conventional Triaxial Compression or CTC test. This
method involves loading the specimen in the axial direction whilst keeping a constant confining
pressure (σc). This method is based on the statement that there are no shear stresses occurring at the
end platens, σc and the axial stress: σa = σc + (Fa /A) can be taken as the major (σ1) and minor (σ3)
principal stresses. Figure 2.11 demonstrates the stress states on a typical cylindrical specimen.

Figure 2.11: Illustration of the stresses and forces acting on a CTC subjected specimen.
(BS 1377, 1990, [48])

An obtainable and suitable analysis of these results can be executed by applying the following
equations and constructing the related relations:

Deviatoric stress, q = σ1 - σ3 Equation (2.5)

Axial strain, εa= ∆H/H0 Equation (2.6)
Volumetric strain, εv= ∆V/V0 Equation (2.7)
Major Principal Stress, σ1
Minor Principal Stress, σ3
Undrained Strength, σ1 - σ3 = 2 cu Equation (2.8)

Where:

5
Shear strength, τ = (σ1 - σ3)/2 Equation (2.9)
Hence, τ = cu, the undrained strength.
Where: ∆H and H0 are the change in height and initial height of the specimen. ∆V and V0 represent
the change in volume and initial change in volume.

Out of this, the following strains can be calculated from these measurements:
l0 = initial length of specimen
δl = change in length of specimen, compression is positive
V= initial volume of specimen
δV= change in specimen volume, volume increase (expansion is negative)
The axial strain rise,
δεr=-δll0 Equation (2.10)

The volumetric and radial strain rise,

δεr=δεv-δεa2 ∴ δεv=δεa+2δεr= -δVV Equation (2.11)

The shear strain rise,

δεq=23(δεa-δεv) Equation (2.12)

The subsequent stresses can be calculated from these measurements:

σc= pressure in cell (σ3)
Fa = axial force (σ1)
A = current cross-sectional area
The deviatoric stress
q≈FaA Equation (2.13)
The total mean stress
p=σc+q3 Equation (2.14)

The conventional triaxial test has traditionally been the most widespread method to determine soil
strength properties due to its control simplicity; however, with more complex loading scenarios,
various stress paths can be effortlessly followed (Figure 2.2). The cell pressure is held constant while
the axial force is increased in a triaxial compression test, this results in the additional total mean stress
becoming δp=δq/ 3 which is represented as line AB in Figure 2.2, where A is the initial state of
stress. In a conventional triaxial extension test, the loading ram is withdrawn causing the axial stress
to decrease while the confining pressure kept constant inducing a negative deviator stress. In this case,
the stress path would include the same overall slope as the conventional compression test, but in the
negative direction, shown by line AC in Figure 2.1. The next line DE illustrates the stress path for
maintaining the axial stress constant while altering the cell pressure simultaneously, which results in a
rise of the total mean stress relationship. The line FG in Figure 2.2 can be important where the total
mean stress is constant and if the separation of volumetric and distortional features of soil response is
required. If the test was to be executed using an undrained triaxial test, the distinction between the
total and effective stresses must be considered.

During the triaxial test, the specimen goes through deformational changes depending on the type of
material, confining pressure, and amount of applied force. In most sands and gravels tested, these
would demonstrate an almost clear plane of slip identical to buckling in slender members with the
type of failure expected with that material. This is not usually the typical response of clays or strongly
cohesive materials as the type of deformation resembles a bulge or barrel type structure and is hence
give the name bulging/barrelling to describe the phenomena. Most specimens of a short nature rather
than slender tend to undergo barrelling phenomena, where as slender specimens are more commonly
to deform to the buckling type of failure mode. Figure 2.12 shows the type of general deformation of
a specimen subjected to a triaxial test.

3
 Figure 2.12: The confining, shearing, and failure modes of a specimen under Triaxial Compression
(Vickers, 1983, [45])

Figure 2.13 shows the overall slip failure of a specimen subjected to triaxial loading. This additionally
indicates the major and minor principal planes in correlation to the failure of the test specimen. This
includes the relevant normal and shear stresses at the line of slip.

Figure 2.13 Failure plane of a specimen under TC (Vickers, 1983, [45])

3
 Figure 2.14: Triaxial compression test showing test pressure and assumed plane of failure AB.
(Duncan, 1998, [16]).

Figure 2.14 demonstrates the potential type of deformation and the plane of failure with a specimen
usually tested in the triaxial device, indicating where the angle of shearing resistance is determined.
The specimen can usually deform to buckling if it is slender, however shorter specimens in diameter
and height tend to show more complex failure modes than most common slender specimens.

2.8 Loading and Stress Parameters

In laboratory tests, the desired loading rate is for the producing no excess water pressures and the
specimens are free to drain from the cell. The parameters known as ‘effective stresses’ can be found
from the applied total stresses, and the known /determined pore – water pressure on the specimen.
Only the effective strength parameters, c’ and ϕ’, have application only to drained tests. With these
values, it is possible to construct a series of total stress Mohr circles (Figure 2.9) but the inferred total
stress (undrained) strength parameters become insignificant.

When dealing with undrained laboratory tests, there will be no drainage from the specimen, along
with no moisture redistribution within the specimen. There can be slower axial displacement rates in
triaxial tests as the conditions are uniform, and no allowance of drainage from the sample. When there
is pore – water pressure measurement in a triaxial test, the effective stresses can be determined
(effective parameters noted with a ’) and the effective strength parameters c’, ϕ’ are assessed. As
aforementioned, these can be used to assess long – term stability. Undrained tests are traditionally
used to determine total (or undrained) strength parameters cu, ϕu. If these parameters are to be
pertinent to ground parameters, the moisture content is to be the equivalent. This can be achieved by
both performing the QU/UU tests or CU tests and consolidating to the in – situ stresses. The total, or
undrained, strength parameters consider the short – term stability of soil – based constructions. It is
vital that there be no drainage if this approach is to be suitable. This means that Mohr’s circles with
total stress analysis would not be appropriate for sands and gravels. In clay soils, a total stress analysis
is the likely way to assess stability. Additionally, undrained strengths can be determined for any soil,
however they are not usually relevant in practice. In the case of sands and gravels, the pore pressures
drive out rapidly, and the effective strength parameters can be used to check the short – term stability.
Hypothetically, the effective strength parameters can also be used to check the stability at any time for
any soil type; however, the pore pressures in the ground must be identified prior to testing and usually
known in the long – term.
When documenting the different total stress Mohr circles against a single effective stress
Mohr circle, this indicates that the pore pressure is different for each sample. Increasing the cell
pressure without allowing drainage causes an increase in the pore pressure by the same amount (Δu =
Δσc) with no change in effective stress. During shearing of the specimen, the change in pore – water

1
pressure is a function of the initial effective stress and the moisture content. These would be identical
for the say three samples with an identical strength.

2.9 Recent & Past Advances in Triaxial Testing

Along with discussing the principles of the triaxial test, an additional aim of this literature review is to
also understand and state the recent, past, and new advances made in triaxial testing. There have been
many updates and modifications on methodology, instrumentation, and measurement since the
publication of ‘The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test’ (Bishop & Henkel, 1962 [6] /
1979 [7]). This document is used as underpinning for obtaining better existing, and developing new,
triaxial testing standards for this study and explores the validity of current British Standard/American
Society for Testing and Materials. This review is a collection of state – of – the – art papers separated
into four key areas; these include (I) Equipment, (II) Methodology, (III) Errors and Interpretation,
and (IV) New Test Varieties.

2.9.1 Equipment

The first part of this review describes examples of specific equipment and the systems for triaxial
testing on both soil and rock. The first paper (Tatsuoka, 2001, [42]) reviews the testing equipment for
both the static and cyclic loading tests. Additionally, this describes considered plane strain and simple
shear devices (direct shear). In this paper, many devices described can be applied to clays and sands;
yet, the illustrations given are only for the testing on non – cohesive soils. Three papers in this
category use computer – controlled testing systems, these include two in soils and one considering
soft rock.
The next four papers describe the specifically designed triaxial cells for various uses; this
includes the study of static and dynamic behaviour, the real – time measurement of different
parameters, soft rock testing and specimens of larger diameters regarding in – situ conditions. The last
four papers express the using effects of some components of the triaxial tests. These last papers
include the use of a flow pump, which permits the measurement of tensile soil strength, the use of
filter paper, practices to reduce the leakage in long – duration tests, and finally a comparison of local
and global deformations and their measurements. These papers, and various compiled reports indicate
that equipment in this field possess test devices capable of following a stress path of a soil specimen
almost mimicking loading encountered in – situ. Nonetheless, it also demonstrates a lack of
appreciation in testing along given strain paths that could be noteworthy in engineering applications.
One example of this is the simple form of the controlled strain path test, where the constant cross –
sectional area (A0) test is referred, but the more generalised and common controlled strain path tests
are not mentioned, when thoroughly browsing though these texts that the technology exists for that
application.

2.9.2 Methodology

In discussing the next category, two papers have significance above the rest. The first paper (Baldi,
Hight & Thomas, 1988, [3]) re – examines some features of the conventional methods in the triaxial
tests based on the initial work of the first publication (Bishop & Henkel, 1962 [6] / 1979 [7]). This
integrates advances in sample preparation practices and measurement, sample disturbance, various
stress paths, and use of UU (Unconsolidated Undrained) tests are conversed. The second significant
report (Lacasse & Berre, 1988, [27]) reduces the common 1986 triaxial testing preparation at the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. The next three papers explain the detailed use of multistage
drained triaxial tests on highly variable soils, where the other two papers then go on to focus on
experience in dealing with contaminated soils and soils of high gas content. The remaining four
papers then discuss the specific test preparations on relaxation, weak rock extension tests, high cell
pressure testing, and practice of recomposed sand specimens.

2
2.9.3 Errors and Interpretation

With the third category, there are over 20 papers and records all thus indicating the significance of
this area and implementing test results to engineering designs. The first paper (Germaine & Ladd,
1988, [20]) reassesses the various types of errors involved in measuring the behaviour of the soil
specimen and suggests that (UU) unconsolidated undrained and (CU) consolidated undrained tests do
not give reasonable undrained strength values. This paper additionally includes the assumption that
tests like the anisotropically consolidated (in – situ pressure) undrained compression and extension
(CA0U) tests and oedometer tests should commonly and preferably used more.
The next compilation of papers deal with the influence of the test conditions, procedures,
preparation of specimens, and the geometry on the test results. Most of these are considered on
previous experimental studies, while others are based on more commonplace theoretical analysis. This
third category would contain more details if there had been more information presented that carefully
exemplified the application of these influences on actual problems in engineering design. The most
important point of this area is the strong supporting statement to reject the UU test for design
purposes, when generally practiced on clays to develop behavioural relationships. However, a
premature assertion is made to perhaps discard the CU test (Germaine & Ladd, 1988, [20]). As
aforementioned, the CA0U is suggested as a substitute for the reason of it being more theoretically
valid, however, difficulty lies in measuring the correct A0 value and the overall process being time
consuming.

2.9.4 New Test Varieties

The last category consists of six papers devoted to test devices that allow independent control of
stresses/strains in three principal directions. The first paper in this category (Arthur, 1988, [1])
discusses the adaptability and limitations of various devices for testing cubical specimens to develop a
true triaxial apparatus for soils. The second paper (Saada, 1988, [35]) reviews the advantages and
constraints of hollow cylinder torsional devices for both static and cyclic loadings. The next three
papers describe the devices when using entirely rigid loading boundaries, the remaining three papers
then describe devices using a combination of flexible and rigid loading boundaries. These papers also
illustrated tests on soil (undisturbed or reconstituted) and rock specimens. This area consistently
highlights the difficulty that arises in conducting a true triaxial test for producing a representation of a
stress/strain relationship in a soil. Nonetheless, highly specialised and complex machinery do not
guarantee synchronised stress, and strain fields.

There is still a lack of concern regarding the need of relationships via test results from these devices
with those observed in practical situations, and therefore there will be a certain amount of time before
these tests are accepted and integrated into geotechnical engineering and design. Additionally with all
these methods to determine soil strength properties, there are also particular tests that must be
conducted in order to establish the variability of specimens and what constants will be kept in order to
determine a relationship. The next chapter will discuss the preparation and classification of the
materials in order to better establish the degree of variability among them, and what possible
relationships could those particular materials yield.

CHAPTER 3 – MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION & PREPERATION

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the particular materials used in the experimental work (Chapter 4). The
procedure used to modify the density, using compaction methods, of the clay material specimens;

3
along with a description of the used materials, analyses that were performed using visual description
and pre – tested moisture content are reported. Additionally, the chapter presents a description of the
physical properties and the tests performed to quantify those physical properties of the particulate
material used.

3.2 Material Description

The materials used in the experimental testing were cohesive materials obtained from GLS Supplies
UK. They are widely used due to their availability. In the case of clays, for the eventual study of shear
strength, the practical use of these kinds of clays is primarily in modernised construction and
landscaping. Colours describe the soil appearance. Organic soils are dark brown or dark green in
colour, while Peat soil is dark brown or black in colour. The description of colour is used with caution
as the soil mass colour can change with a change in moisture content or chemical composition.
(Lambe and Whitman, 1969, [29])

Clay X

Buff School Clay - (grogged) - an excellent multipurpose clay with a wide firing range, a fired colour
of light creamy gray buff getting darker towards the top end of the temperature range 1120 – 1280°C.
Features the same characteristics as the school buff smooth clay but with added grog giving extra
strength for larger pots and modelled work. Dull – like in appearance and colour, elastic as well as
being very moist for clay. Figure 3.1(a) shows the elastic and firm nature of the Buff clay. This
material has Hue 7.5Y/Chroma of 7/1or “light gray” soil colour. Clays such as this are common in sub
– humid environments, where the evaporation is greater than the precipitation, and there is an upward
movement of water and soluble salts present in the soil

Clay Y

Toasted Stoneware Clay - A lightly grogged clay firing to a warm brown toasted colour. Very good
handling characteristics. Firing temperatures 1150 – 1260°C. The clay itself is very crumbly when
taken away from a larger cluster. It can present itself as aggregates, clumps and even smaller particles.
Figure 3.1(b) shows the clump yet silty like nature of the Stoneware clay. This material has Hue
5YR/Chroma of 4/4 or “dull reddish brown” soil colour. The colour suggests that the clay had, from
its location, high annual precipitation amounts; a soil that is high in soil moisture, and/or litter from
coniferous trees favour an accumulation of organic matter. The material is toasted; therefore, this
reduces the amount of moisture present and changes the overall properties.

These clays are found in deposits at depths roughly about 1.5 m to 2 m in the UK. They are excavated
then processed for general use and industrialised use. The colours were determined using the Munsell
Soil Colour Chart. Shallow foundations are situated where the depth below finished ground level is
less than 3 m and include strip, pad and raft foundations (3.1 of BS 8004, 1986, [47]). Silts average
particle size is between 0.002 – 0.06 mm, where Clays have a particle size of < 0.002 mm. Particle
Size Distribution indicates that the clays consisted largely of SILT and SOFT CLAY. The chemical
tests done indicated that the soil is of 4.5 to 8 pH values and the amount of organic present is less than
0.01%, which is insignificant. The total sulphate and chloride content are less than 0.01%, and the
cohesive materials are considered non – aggressive.

2
 (a) (b)
Figure 3.1 (a): Buff School Clay in its natural form. (b): Stoneware Clay shown as large clump and
clusters.

3.3 British Standards in Experimental Work

With most materials being tested, there are standards for the specifications of the conditions. Below
are the British Standards that are taken in conjunction with tests run on soils or clays of this nature
and referenced from publication Eurocode 7.

Eurocode 7, Part I, BS 1997-1

This standard is the general basis for geotechnical aspects in the design of buildings and civil
engineering works, geotechnical data evaluation, ground improvement and reinforcement, dewatering
and fill. This additionally includes geotechnical design of spread foundations, piles, retaining
structures, embankments and slopes. Calculation rules for actions originating from the ground.

Eurocode 7, Part II, BS 1997-2

This part is the requirements for execution, analysis and use of results of laboratory and field tests to
assist in the geotechnical design of structures. This leads into the Standard BS 1377: 1990.

BS 1377, 1990
This British Standard has nine parts. Part 1 is general information relevant to the other Parts. Parts 2
to 8 explain methods of soil tests for civil engineering purposes where samples are taken for testing in
a laboratory. The laboratory test procedures as follows Part 2: Classification tests; Part 3: Chemical
and electro-chemical tests; Part 4: Compaction-related tests; Part 5: Compressibility, permeability
and durability tests; Part 6: Consolidation and permeability tests in hydraulic cells and with pore
pressure measurement; Part 7: Shear strength tests (total stress);and Part 8: Shear strength tests
(effective stress).

BS 8004, 1986
This British Standard is the code of practice and provides recommendations for design and
construction of foundations for the normal range of buildings and engineering structures. Section two
covers the general principles of design; sections three, four, five and seven are detailed considerations
of design and installation of main types of foundations. Sections six, eight and nine narrate site
operations and construction processes involved in foundation engineering and section ten describes
the factors affecting the durability of the various materials used in foundation structures. Section
eleven covers safety precautions. The standard does not cover foundations for special structures.

3.4 Preparation of Remoulded Specimens (Compacted)

2
Each tested specimen was weighed to 200 g to ensure the proper fitting into the 38 mm diameter
aluminium split mould. The weight of specimen would change if the specifications of the tested
specimen diameter were to change or increase. Usually larger specimens require more of the sample
from the undisturbed or remoulded source. (3.0 of BS 1377 – 4: 1990, [48])

Figure 3.2 (a): Specimen on weighing scale. (b) Two specimens of both clays correctly weighed.

In general, the specimen in a triaxial cell usually has a height equivalent to about two times the
diameter (H/D ratio), with the plane ends normal to the axis. This means in most cases the size of the
biggest soil particle cannot exceed one-fifth of specimen diameter. If any large particles found their
size and mass is noted. In some cases, undisturbed specimens cohere to field or specified conditions.

3.4.1 Compaction Method for Soils using a 2.5 kg Rammer

Generally, this test covers the determination of the dry density of soil passing a 20 mm test sieve
when it is compacted in a specified manner over a range of moisture contents. The range includes the
optimum moisture content at which the maximum dry density for this degree of compaction is
obtained. In this test, a 2.5 kg rammer is used falling through a height of 300 mm to compact the soil
in three layers into a 1 L compaction mould. The amount of actual specimens is smaller than the 1 L
mould can comply with so only the bottom layer of the compaction mould is used.

3.4.1.1 Compaction Criteria

The amount of compaction is related to two main criterion, this being 1) Compactive Effort, in which
the soil is compacted at a specified moisture content into a mould under the application of a specified
compactive effort (3.3 and 3.5 of BS 1377 – 4: 1990, [48]), the last being 2) Dry Density, in which the
soil is compacted to a specified moisture content into a mould in order to gain a specified dry density.
Any of the techniques is used and is congruent to the following types. i) A sample that is bigger than
the required test specimen, in which one or more test specimens of smaller size are to be taken (7.7.4
in BS 1377 – 1, 1990, [48]), ii) the specimen tested, when dealing with large diameters, e.g. 100 mm
(7.7.5 in BS 1377 – 1, 1990, [48]).

3.4.1.2 Compaction Equipment

3
A cylindrical British Standard compaction mould was obtained, having a nominal internal volume of
1 L. The mould is fitted with a detachable base plate and a removable extension. The essential
dimensions are in Figure 3.3, which also indicates the shape of the mould. The internal faces are
smooth, clean and dry before each use. A metal rammer has a circular face with 50 ± 0.5 mm
diameter, weighing approximately 2.5 kg ± 25 g. This rammer has a suitable arrangement for
controlling the height of drop to approximately 300 ± 3 mm. Additionally, there is a balance readable
to 1 g, a palette knife, a straightedge steel strip 300 mm, by 25 mm, and 3 mm thick, one bevelled
edge. Test sieves, orifice sizes 37.5 mm and 20 mm, and a receiver. Lastly, a corrosion – resistant
plastic tray with sides 80 mm deep.

(a) (b)

Figure 3.3 (a): 2.5 kg Rammer for Compaction. (b): 1 L Mould Cylinder to 0.01 g

3.4.1.3 Compaction Procedure

Firstly, the mould is weighed with base plate to the nearest gram (1 g). The initial dimensions are
measured to the nearest 0.1 mm. The extension is attached to the mould and the mould placed onto a
solid base. This would be the concrete floor, and kept in place to avoid disturbance. A) An amount of
the moist soil was placed into the mould so that at compaction, it occupies just over a third of the
height of the full mould. B) 27 consecutive impacts applied to the specimen within the mould via the
rammer, dropped at a height of 300 mm above the soil, controlled by a guiding tube. The soil is
compacted by 27 blows for the 1 L mould, where the first four (4) impacts correspond to the pattern
of Figure 3.4 (a). After the first four blows, the rammer is then moved, in the direction according to
Figure 3.4 (b) between the numbers of successive blows. This allows the blows to uniformly
distribute over the whole area. The impacts are performed uniformly over the surface of the specimen
and the rammer was allowed to fall freely, uninterrupted by soil in the guide tube.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.4 (a): Sequence of first four impacts. (b): Sequence of successive blows after the first four.

Processes A) and B) are repeated twice more so that the amount soil used is enough to fill the mould,
and this ensures that the surface is not more than 6 mm proud of the upper edge of the mould. It is
also necessary to control the amount of total volume of compacted soil as it has been discovered that

3
the amount of soul struck off after removing the extension is to large, the results become inaccurate.
The extension is then removed, and any excess soil is stroked off and the surface is levelled off the
soil compacted, the top of the mould is carefully cleared of any excess using the straightedge. Any
course particles that were taken off in the levelling process, including fine material, is replaced from
the original sample. Weighing of the soil with the mould and base plate is completed to the 1 g (m2).
C) The compacted soil then removed from the mould and then placed into a metal tray. A selective
representative sample of the soil is taken in order to determine the moisture content (3.2 of BS 1377 –
2: 1990, [48]). The remaining soil is broken up, and chafed through a 20 mm test sieve and the rest of
the prepared test sample is mixed.
Process D) involves adding suitable additions of water and mixing thoroughly into the soil (in general,
additions of 2 % to 4 % for cohesive soils) since this has not been prescribed, nor are the specimens
original moisture contents modified, it was ignored. Processes A) through C) are repeated in order to
gain a total of least five determinations. The internal volume of the 1 L mould is then calculated, V
(cm3). Determination of the bulk density, ρ (Mg/m3), of each compacted specimen from the equation:

Bulk Density Formula ρ=m2-m1V Equation (3.1)

Where:
m1 is the mass of mould and base plate (g);
m2 is the mass of mould, base plate and compacted soil (g).
Then, calculate the dry density, ρd (Mg/m3), of each compacted specimen from the equation:
Dry Density Formula ρd=100ρ100+w Equation (3.2)
Where:
w is the moisture content of the soil (%).

(Head, K.H, 1982, [23])(BS 1377 – 4: 1990, [48])

3.5 Determination of Moisture Content of Specimens

Soils have water present within the structure, through numerous voids. This amount of water,
expressed as a mass of the dry particle, is the moisture content. This has an effect on the soils
mechanics and behaviour. In this circumstance, a soil is only dry when there is no further possible
removable of water at a temperature that does not exceed 110° C. The moisture content is needed as a

4
guide to classify certain natural soils and be used as a method of criterion for control in re –
compacted soils. It is usually measure on samples used for common field and laboratory tests. The
most common method in determining the moisture content is the oven-drying method. (3.2 of BS
1377 – 2, 1990, [48])

3.5.1 Oven-drying Method

This section covers the method to determine the moisture of content of a specimen of soil expressed
as a percentage of the dry mass. The equipment used is as follows: a drying oven, capable of keeping
a temperature of 105° C to 110° C. A microwave is unsuitable as it is difficult to use a microwave to
maintain temperatures. A glass – weighing bottle, fitted with a ground cap, or a suitable airtight
corrosion - resistant metal container, a balance readable to 0.01 g, and desiccator containing
anhydrous silica gel.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.5 (a): Crucible containers used to weigh specimens. (b): Balance readable to 0.01 g.

3.5.2 Procedure

The weighing container is cleaned and dried and measured to the nearest 0.01 g (m1). A sample of 30
g is then taken from the soil, crumbled and placed loosely into the weighed container, and the lid
placed on top. The contents and the container are weighed to the nearest 0.01 g (m2). The lid prevents
any loss of moisture prior being placed into the oven. The lid is removed, and the containers are
placed into the oven and dried at 105° C to 110° C. The temperature chosen is 110° C. The sample
was not checked periodically every certain number or hours and this reduce effectiveness of cooling
the sample.

The sample was left for 24 hrs, as this was deemed appropriate for clay samples. After drying, the
specimen with the container was removed from the oven and the whole specimen placed into the
desiccator to cool. The then dried specimens were left to cool for about 30 minutes to 1 hr. A
desiccator is not essential but can reduce any further sources of error. The container and contents is
weighed to the nearest 0.01 g (m3).

The moisture content of the soil specimen was then calculated, w, as a percentage of the dry soil mass
to the nearest 0.1% using the equation:
w = m2- m3m3-m1.100 (%) (Equation 3.3)

Where:

m1 is the mass of container (g);

m2 is the mass of container and wet soil (g);
m3 is the mass of container and dry soil (g).

2
Table 3.1: Specimen description of densities, mass and moisture content.
Sample Specimen Description Mass Bulk Dry W–
Ref. Ref. (g) Density Density Moisture
(Mg/m³) (Mg/m³) Content (%)
C_X1 X1 Stiff brown silty 200 2.13 1.78 20
CLAY
C_X2 X2 Stiff brown silty 200 2.11 1.76 20
CLAY
C_Y1 Y1 Firm grey CLAY 200 1.99 1.54 29

C_Y2 Y2 Firm grey CLAY 200 1.96 1.52 29

3
CHAPTER 4 – EXPERIMENTAL WORK

4.1 Introduction

A series of quick undrained/unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression tests were performed on

the two types of cohesive materials, of which each had different moisture contents and different sets
of multistage confining pressures subjected. This included each type of soil having two sub – samples
of which the parameter varied was clay type and confining pressure. This meant that two clay
specimens were drier than the other two and of different clay composition. The parameters that were
additionally constant in these tests were density, bulk density, and moisture content. This chapter
presents a description of the equipment used to perform those tests, the procedure for pre – testing
specimen preparation, and a table summary of the tests performed.

4.2 Equipment Description

The testing equipment used for this investigation consists of the following main parts: triaxial cell for
38 mm diameter by 76 mm height specimens, aluminium split mould, loading frame, pressure control
gauge with dials, a de – aired water tank with water supply, air filter, air compressor, vacuum pump,
an AVC (Automatic Volume Control). This triaxial system can support up to three types of tests as
aforementioned, the primary set up of this system being more refined towards a standard quick
undrained test. In order to obtain a reasonable assessment of the c and ϕ values, four experiments
were performed on two identical specimens of two different clays at three different cell pressures. In
these experiments, the Wykeham Farrance Triaxial System is used with the conventional triaxial cell
with an added bottom end platen of 38 mm in diameter. The loading frame is has Pressure Gauge Dial
for reading the loading stress of the specimen at failure. With this system, there is one main load cell
with a maximum load capacity of 1700 kPa used for multistage confining pressure tests, the first clay
specimens (C_X1 and C_Y1) at 25 kPa, 50 kPa and 75kPa tests of confining pressure tests. Then, this
cell is reloaded with the second clay specimens (C_X2 and C_Y2), and then tested at confining
pressures of 30 kPa, 45 kPa and 60 kPa. The loading ring and cell used in experimental work is
presented in Figure 4.1, which has a pressure gauge dial.

Figure 4.1: Loading cell with Pressure Gauge and Loading ring; used for the confining pressure tests.

4.3 Preparation of Specimen into Loading Cell

1
Additionally, the Brunel VJTech Advanced Triaxial testing system is used to explain the procedure of
placing the specimen into the base pedestal, not for actual testing, as the equipment in the university
laboratory makes the process easier to demonstrate. This procedure is demonstrated in Figures 4.2 and
4.3. After the specimens are compacted, they are placed into a 38 mm diameter two – part aluminium
split mould. Each specimen has similar bulk densities at different moisture contents. Hence, a series
of tests would run on two sub – specimens of the sampled clay material, at different multistage
confining pressures. A cylindrical latex membrane is initially attached to the bottom end platen with
the help of an o – ring (38mm), then the mould is placed around that platen and the membrane is
tightened along its inside using grease. No porous stones are placed above the bottom platen and top
platen of the specimen, prior to attaching the final o – ring. The membrane will remain in the
specimen itself with the help of an additional confining correction pressure. Figure 4.4 (a) shows the
stretched membrane along the inside of the mould used with grease to keep the membrane fixed to the
inside of the mould. The mould is filled with the corresponding specimen of approximately 200 g.
After the deposited specimen is secure in the mould, it is then as shown in Figure 4.4 (b); this method
was chosen in order to get more consistency in the void ratio values than with the pluviation method.
When the mould is completely or mostly filled with the specimen, the top end platen is attached with
another o – ring, the edge of the membrane covers the top platen with a o – ring and a membrane
correction pressure that is approximately 2.0 kPa to 3.0 kPa will be applied to the outside of the
specimen to prevent disturbance. Subsequently, the aluminium mould is then removed and the cell
sleeve is set in place along with the top cell plate and the loading ram.

Figure 4.2: The Brunel VJTech Advanced Triaxial testing system (not functioning).

(a) (b)
Figure 4.3 (a): A Latex membrane stretched along the inside of the mould. (b): Compacted specimen
within the mould.

3
 Figure 4.4: A prepared specimen in the cell ready to be tested.

The reason for the experimental work not performed on the Brunel triaxial system is due to lack of
instructional literature regarding the set-up, equipment, and time – constraints in order to get it
working.

4.4 Equipment Preparation

After the cell is fully assembled, it is then placed into the loading frame. The cross beam that has the
loading cell is manually adjusted to the desired height. The cell becomes pressurised with water to
create a confining pressure. Figure 4.6 demonstrates the complete set-up of the triaxial cell in the
loading frame structure, ready for compression. Afterwards, the desired cell pressure is applied while
reducing the vacuum to avoid the confining the specimen to a higher pressure than of the desirable
test confining pressure. Then, the vacuum is removed, the specimen is vented and the test can begin.
There is no data acquisition system, as the readings are taken manually.

In QU (Quick Undrained) tests, the total stresses are normally measured in a triaxial cell where the
sample is subject to an all round confining pressure. The load applied through a piston onto the top
platen cap, additionally with the specimen being confined within a rubber membrane so that no
drainage in or out of the specimen is allowed. Generally, pore – water pressures are not usually
measured and the undrained test is often referred to as the QU – TXL test. An addition of the QU test
is the unconsolidated undrained test (UU); this is similar to the QU test but run at a slower rate in
order to measure pore water pressure. By comparison, effective stresses when measured in a triaxial
cell are more complex in their nature, as numerous parameters can be measured. These include
backpressure, pore – water pressure and volume change; all of which can be used to calculate the
required engineering properties. The tests used to determine effective stress are usually referred to as
consolidated drained (CD) or consolidated undrained (CU). Generally, the CD test is applicable to
sands and gravels while either the CU or CD test can be used with clays to further study their drained
behaviour.

In the case of the Wykeham Farrance system at GeoLabs, the quick undrained procedure was already
prescribed and ready to be used at any time. This eliminated any time needed to prepare the system set
at other conditions, and any final modifications regarding the system for the specimens was also made
prior to testing.

4.5 Testing Procedure

1
All the tests were performed under the QU (Quick Undrained) conditions of the Triaxial Compression
(TC) conditions, where the radial confining pressure was kept constant while the axial load was
amplified at a constant rate. Here the specimen was subjected to three confining pressures in order to
get three representative Mohr’s circles for the shear strength and stresses of that one specimen. This is
more effective and less time - consuming than single stage tests as it less involves removal,
remoulding and preparing the same specimen to a higher confining pressure after failure. Figure 4.5
shows the general setup and features of a quick undrained test using the Brunel Triaxial testing system
that has relativistic features as the Wykeham Farrance system. The computer terminal is optional
when software for data acquisition is present.

Figure 4.5: General setup of Quick Undrained system. (VJTech Soil and Rock Testing Manual, 2009)

4.5.1: Multistage Quick Undrained Procedure

Generally, this test covers the determination of the undrained compressive strength of a cohesive soil
specimen when subjected to a constant confining pressure, and to strain – controlled axial loading,
where no change in the total moisture content is permitted. Additionally this method gives a means of
finding a relationship between the confining pressure and undrained shear strength via a single
specimen. In most cases, this test is done without brittle, non – cohesive or sensitive soils. (9 of BS
1377 – 4, 1990, [48])

As aforementioned, the test in the triaxial system is applied to a cylinder specimen of a height
approximately equal to twice the diameter. In most cases, the specimen has the same diameter, about
100 mm; this is usually the formal size as an undisturbed specimen taken from the ground. Since the
specimens are taken from a processed clay source, then cleaned, and free of any organic matter; the
diameters can range from 38 – 150 mm. In this case, the specimens are 38 mm in diameter and 76 mm
in height. The specimens are confined in a transparent impermeable membrane between impermeable
end caps in the triaxial cell, with no porous stones, which is then pressurised by a fluid in order to
create confining pressure acting on the specimen. The axial load in then increased in usually three
stages by applying a constant rate of strain until the maximum vertical stress is reached, each stage
has a different confining pressure.

3
The tests are performed under the following test conditions, and these are specified before starting the
test. The test specimen and the confining pressures for each stage are initially clarified. It is
sometimes appropriate to have cell pressures of about 0.5vs, vs, and 2vs, where vs represents the total
vertical stress in – situ of a shallow foundation. The pressures are usually chosen in order to mirror
the range of likely vertical stress experienced by a soil in – situ. Again, with compacted soils, the cell
pressures should be indicative of those estimated total stress likely to occur in common foundation
conditions. In this case, the tests are not dealing with in – situ specimens, and this study is
investigating a relationship between confining pressure and undrained shear strength. Therefore, the
pressures chosen are closer together in order to get a more refined determination of shear strength in
relation to increasing confining pressure. This helps to determine the probability of demonstrating a
relationship observed as a slow increase or decrease in the strength and pressure values. The specimen
densities are remoulded to a NMC standard density at their chosen pressures. In over – consolidated
clays, the lowest cell pressure should not usually be less than the total vertical in – situ stress. This
involves an undisturbed or remoulded specimen that is ready to be tested. For a remoulded specimen,
the moisture content or dry density has been obtained during the compactive effort process.

A Triaxial cell, of dimensions suitable for 38 mm diameter by 76 mm height test specimen was
chosen, suitable for use with water at internal working pressures needed to perform the test. A gas is
not usually suitable for creating a pressure; that is why this system features a water tank. The main
features of the device shown in Figure 4.6 below.

(a) (b)
Figure 4.6 (a): General features of the Wykeham Farrance Triaxial System. (b): Loading Cell

The cell top plate is made of corrosion – resistant material that is fitted with an air – bleed plug and a
close-fitting piston guide bushing. Additionally, with a loading piston for applying the axial
compression to the specimen, lateral bending of piston during the test is usually negligible and
ignored. The piston is cleaned properly before use, and oiled lightly for lubrication. There is friction
between the piston, or seal, and the bushing; usually this is small enough to allow the piston slide
smoothly under its self - weight when the cell is empty. There is clearance between the piston, and the
bushing or seal usually minimises the leakage from the cell. The cell body is always cylindrical, and
made of a removable base pedestal and top cylinder; it is then sealed to the top plate and base plate.
The cylinder membrane is made of a transparent material, so the specimen can be observed during the
test. The cell base is also made of corrosion – resistant material with a built – in connection port.
The devices used for applying and maintaining the desired pressure on the water within the cell run to
an accuracy of ± 5 kPa with a gauge of a test grade for measuring pressure. Pressure systems are
dependent on air pressure regulators, dead – weight pressure cells, and even oil pressure regulators,
which have been used successfully. In most cases, their ability to supply or take in water is adequate
to compensate for cell leakage.

3
A bourdon tube pressure gauge is used part of the instrumentation (4.2 of BS 1377 – 1:1990, [48]) for
the tests covered by this standard, and they are of suitable test grade suitable. Electrical pressure
transducers can be used as an alternative, the working range of either type of instrument is
appropriated to the requirements of the test apparatus. These are readable within 0.5 % of the full
scale reading for pressures exceeding 10 % of the current reading. In these tests, a machine capable of
applying an axial compression at a uniform rate to the confined specimen at a speed should be within
a range of 0.05 mm/min to 4mm/min. In the Wykeham system, the rate is chosen as a standard test
rate of between 1.9%/min to 2.0 %/min which complies with the standard. An appropriate strain is
selected before commencing the test. In undrained shear, the selected strain is chosen to ensure
equalisation of pore pressures throughout the specimen. An extraneous requirement is that it should
additionally be able to apply an axial deformation of about one- third of the height of the tested
specimen. The Wykeham system also complies with this protocol with the dial gauges readable to
about 0.01 mm, as this depends on the range of travel specified. (4.2.1.3.5 of BS 1377 – 1: 1990,
[48]).

A calibrated measuring device to determine force is supplied; this is supported by the crosshead of the
compression machine so that the self – weight is not transferred onto the test specimen. A load ring
compensates for this, additionally a force transducer, or a mounted transducer inside the triaxial cell
capable of being underwater is used as an alternative. An alternative range of calibrated force –
measuring devices were readily available to suit the specimen strength, however all system parts were
functioning. The end caps for the specimen are made of a rigid corrosion – resistant material, with the
same diameter. Additionally a self – aligning seating provided placed between both the top cap and
loading ram.

Since the multistage test is more effective than performing three individual single stage tests on a
homogenous sample separately, this avoids and reduces time to prepare a specimen; additionally it
also means that only one latex membrane is used, and an easier representation of the stresses on the
specimen is represented. A cylindrical high – density natural latex/rubber membrane surrounds the
specimen, and provides resistance against leakage from the cell fluid. The un–stretched internal
diameter is not less than or larger than 90% of the specimen diameter. The length is sufficient enough
to cover the specimen and both end caps. The membranes thickness is 0.3 mm; this cannot go beyond
1% of the specimen diameter (1 % of 38 mm is 0.38). This can expand in conjunction with the
specimen changing shape and on the specimen diameter. If the soil contained angular or coarse
particles, the introduction of two or more membranes separated by silicon grease is considered. The
membranes are thoroughly checked for imperfections and damaged ones removed. A membrane
stretcher of suitable diameter to the specimen is also provided, along with an o – ring stretcher. Two
rubber o – rings of suitable 38 mm diameters are added to the specimen, which seals the end of the
latex/rubber membrane to the top cap and base pedestal (bottom) cap. These are un–stretched, with
diameters between 80 % to 90 % of the specimen diameter. These are additionally free from flaws and
necking.

The triaxial cell is then pressurised with any final adjustments made. The water pressure in the cell is
modified to the desired value with the loading piston reserved by the load frame. The loading machine
is then adjusted to bring the piston within a few millimetres of its seating on top if the specimen top
cap. The reading of the force - measuring device is recorded during steady motion as the initial
reading develops. The machine is further adjusted in order to bring the piston into contact with the
seating on the top cap.

The reading of the axial deformation gauge is noted, and the scale of the gauge is made to zero so that
the axial compression is registered directly as the reading of the gauge. The test is then started, and
the readings are taken up to the point of failure. This device does not have a system able to determine
the stress/strain data at regular intervals, so this is done manually by observation. The impending
failure is localised through visual observation. This denotes the shear stress and the values of strain at
that the point prior to failure. The cell pressure is then increased to the next pressure value and
readings are again taken in the same fashion without terminating the machine. This is then repeated
when the next maximum stress is indicated through visible signs in the specimens shape.
5
After completing the test on the chosen confining pressures, the axial force is disengaged from the
specimen and machine platen lowered so that top cap has clears the ram. The machine is then
restarted in the upward direction, and the reading from the axial force dial gauge is documented when
it is stable. The cell pressure is reduced corresponding to each of the pressures used, this process is
then repeated with each pressure, started by the restart of the machine. The cell pressure is reduced to
zero, and the water used to create the confining pressure is drained out from the loading cell, the cell
is then dismembered and the specimen is then removed. The membrane is then taken off and the
specimen is then drawn by hand at its failure state. All of these parts are done progressively and
effectively to reduce any loss of moisture content.

4.6 Tests Performed

A series of unconsolidated undrained TC tests were performed on the cohesive materials with
different test parameters of confining pressure and moisture content.

Table 4.1 presents the tests performed by their designated name along with the mass of the sample
tested, specimen dimensions (mm). The designation of the names is as follows: category (C_X1 =
Clay X1; C_X2 = Clay X2; C_Y1 = Clay Y1; C_Y2 = Clay Y2), and the confining pressures (25 = 25
kPa; 30 = 30 kPa, 45 = 45 kPa, 50 = 50 kPa; 60 = 60 kPa, 70 = 70kPa).

Table 4.1 Summary of experiments performed.

Specimen Dry W–
Confining Mass Bulk
Dimensions Density Density Moisture
Specimen Ref. Pressures Content
Diameter (mm)
(kPa) (g) (Mg/m³)
by Height (mm) (Mg/m³) (%)
25
C_X1 50 38.0 by 74.7 200 2.13 1.78 20
75
30
C_X2 45 38.0 by 77.9 200 2.11 1.76 20
60
25
C_Y1 50 37.8 by 75.2 200 1.99 1.54 29
75
30
C_Y2 45 37.9 by 78.2 200 1.96 1.52 29
60

7
CHAPTER 5 – EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the results of the quick undrained triaxial compression experiments that where
conducted to investigate the relationship between confining pressure and other parameters on the
strength properties of cohesive materials (i.e. clays). As aforementioned, two triaxial compression
tests were executed on two different clays for each combination of test conditions (moisture content,
density, material type, and confining pressure) to check the likelihood of repeatability. These results
are produced from data to graphical format and are presented in the Appendices as the relevant data
regarding the specimen, the pressure parameters and using Mohr’s circles to determine the amount of
cohesion present in the specimen, the shear strength, along with the angle of shearing resistance.

5.2 Data Obtained

The results of the QU tests for the four different types of clay soil at the different confining pressures
are shown in the Appendix as Figure A.1 to Figure A.4. This additionally includes a summary sheet of
the data obtained from each specimen as Figure A.5. Figures A.1 and A.2 are data sheets representing
the statistics obtained from specimens C_X1 and C_X2. Figures A.3 and A.4 then represents the same
data obtained for specimens C_Y1 and C_Y2. These data sheets additionally contain the determined
Mohr circles for that particular specimen calculated for the multistage tests, with the values of angle
of shearing resistance ϕ taken from the best common tangent of all circles, the undrained shear
strength cu, and the value of cohesion c. These are presented in the form of Shear Strength over
Confining Pressure. These Mohr circles were determined directly from the Axial Strain (%) vs
Deviator Stress (σ1 – σ3, kPa). Multistage testing concluded when the failure of the specimen was
imminent. This was determined by observing when the deviator stress tends a maximum value. The
specimens were not subjected to excessive deformation, particularly during the early stages of
loading. The specimens were inclined to develop distinct shear failure modes, and the strength could
have possibility been reduced from its peak strength. The shear strength measured at the successive
stages may have contributed towards an ultimate or residual strength condition. The ultimate
(residual) shear strength condition was obtained when the deviator stress has levelled off after
reaching its maximum value.

5.3 Effects of Confining Pressure and Undrained Shear Strength

The results shown in the graphical format in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show a relationship exists between
the undrained shear strength. The graphs all show a proportional relationship between these two
parameters, where the shapes of the curves is non – linear and mostly parabolic. Due to increasing the
confining pressure through a series of increments, the undrained shear strength demonstrates the
ability to increase to the change in pressure. In some cases, the changes appear diminutive. In other
cases, it shows the doubling of the pressure from 30 kPa to 60 kPa in the C_X2 and C_Y2 specimens,
where the strength increases gradually. In Figure 5.2 for specimens C_Y1 and C_Y2 the maximum
shear strengths for both specimens is the same for both the second and third confining pressures
(Stage 2 and Stage 3). This is either anomalous or an indication that the shear strength is relatively
unchanged in a more saturated sample or that this remains unchained in a sample that is closer to that
saturation point, when confining pressures are increased. Generally if the clay has less moisture
within it, it tends to provide greater undrained shear strength before impending failure. Figures 5.1
and 5.2 demonstrate that the shear strength increases with an increasing confining pressure; that these
values of shear are considerably larger, almost three – fold in pressure. This undrained strength is also
dependant on the pore – water pressure. The matrix suction in the clays decreases with a rise in the
degree of saturation, which is also in attachment of a reduction in the volume. The two sets of
identical clay specimens are brought to different initial states because of the changes in the pore –
water pressures under the undrained loading conditions. Clays X1 and X2 are considered more
unsaturated (moisture content ‘w’ is < 20%) than C_Y1 and C_Y2; therefore, in the undrained

1
loading conditions for unsaturated soils, the rise in the shear strength caused by a rise in the confining
pressure is mostly greater than the reduction of the shear strength coupled with the decrease in the
matrix suction. The matrix suction changes in an unsaturated soil, under undrained loading conditions,
are comparable to the changes in pore – water pressures in saturated soils that are under similar
undrained loading conditions. The volume change in unsaturated soils under undrained loading is
largely due to the compression of air. The undrained pore pressures are assumed to be generated
immediately after loading.

(a)
(b)
Figure 5.1: Graphs of Shear Strength over Confining Pressure of Specimen C_X1 (a) and Specimen C_X2
(b)
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.2: Graphs of Shear Strength over Confining Pressure of Specimen C_Y1 (a) and Specimen
C_Y2 (b)

Unsaturated

Unsaturated

Figure 5.3: Annotated Mohr Circles of Specimen C_X1 and Specimen C_X2

2
 Unsaturated Approaching
Saturation

Unsaturated
Approaching
Saturation

Figure 5.4: Annotated Mohr Circles of Specimen C_Y1 and Specimen C_Y2

Figures 5.3 and 5.4 depict the diameter of the Mohr circles increasing with an increase in confining
pressure. These diagrams additionally demonstrate, with annotation, the impact of the degree of
saturation on the specimen shear strength.
Figure 5.3 represents the specimens C_X1 and C_X2 Mohr circles. The undrained conditions work
differently to the specimens of C_Y1 and C_Y2, as the diagrams show the Mohr circles are spread
wider apart. Similarly, observations demonstrated that the undrained shear results from the remoulded
specimens at their natural moisture contents did show an appreciable difference from the specimens
that were more or less saturated. Both Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show a clear transition from an unsaturated
zone towards an approaching saturation point. Both Figures 5.3 and 5.4 indicate an unsaturated zone.
This zone is more apparent in specimens C_Y1 and C_Y2, more pronounced in C_Y2 as the Mohr
circles are better spread demonstrating a far clearer transition. C_Y1 and C_Y2 have greater
saturation due to higher moisture content, therefore the representative Mohr circles show this change
more clearly than of the previous two Clay X specimens. An approaching saturation point is less
evident than that of C_X1 and C_X2. This also demonstrates not just the relationship between the
undrained shear strength and confining pressure but the also the degree of saturation as parameter in
triaxial compression and how this affects the overall expected profile for undrained triaxial tests.

The plotted envelope identifies a curved relationship between the shear strength and total normal
stress for unsaturated soils tested under undrained conditions. Once the soil becomes further saturated
under the application of confining pressure, a horizontal envelope develops with respect to the shear
strength axis. Under saturated conditions, where a single stress state variable controls the strength, an
increase in the confining pressure is equally balanced by a pore – water pressure increase. The total
stress remains constant in spite of the applied confining pressure, σ3. Once the clay is saturated like
C_Y1 and C_Y2, the shear strength behaviour acts like the ϕu = 0 model. In these tests, the
relationship for angle of shearing resistance is ϕu ≥ 0 model. The pore – pressure changes due to the
application of deviator stress were commonly neglected for these undrained tests and generally for
unsaturated soils. Specimens C_Y1 and C_Y2 fit the profile of QU test, because the shearing
resistance angle is closer to zero, which is what is expected of QU tests. The cohesion has relatively
low values in C_Y1 and C_Y2 and tends to increase continuously at an increases rate that is much
more pronounced than that of the angle of shearing resistance (internal friction angle). The friction

2
angle is higher in values of lower cohesion, suggesting that the less cohesive the material, the greater
the amount of shearing resistance in the material (Chapter 2). This effect is demonstrated in both C_X
and C_Y specimens, in which the cohesion departed from 83 kPa to 54 kPa where the angle of
shearing resistance increased from 5° to 13° in the X tested specimens. The same effect, albeit almost
insignificant without other tests to prove, illustrate the same trend. In specimens C_Y1 and C_Y2, the
shearing resistance angle increases from 2° to 3.5° when the cohesion was 17 kPa and decreased to 16
kPa. In order to determine this relationship, if one exists, is to determine the cohesion and angle of
shearing of resistance of every Mohr circle. The deviator stress increases with the axial strain almost
continuously. The total stress increment Δσ2 equals Δσ3. The development of pore pressures in the
undrained triaxial test is influenced both by the total stress increment, Δσ3, and from the change in the
deviator stress, Δ (σ1 - σ3).

Now that the values of undrained shear strength su have been obtained for each clay, the data can be
used in the application of determining the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of shallow foundations as
mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2 (Skempton, 1951, [38]) using the expression below.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

qf = (su .Ncu) + qo Equation (5.1)

Ncu = Skempton's Bearing Capacity Factor, determined via a chart or using the following expression:

Ncu = (Nc.sc.dc) Equation (5.2)

Where sc is a shape factor and dc is a depth factor.

c = Apparent Cohesion intercept, qo = γ. D (Density × Depth)

D = Founding Depth, B = Foundation Breadth
γ = Unit Weight of removed Soil.
5.4 Specimen Mohr Circle Analysis

Figure 5.5: Mohr’s circle to determine the shear strength τf and the normal stress σf at failure.
The condition of the failure of the specimen is generally approximated to by a straight line drawn as a
tangent to the circles (best common tangent), the equation of which is t = c + σn tan ϕ. The value of
cohesion (c) is read of the shear stress axis, where intersected by the tangent to the Mohr circles, and
the angle of shearing resistance (ϕ) is angle between the tangent and a line parallel to the shear stress.

Equation (5.3)
Equation (5.4)
Equation (5.5)
Equation (5.6)

Table 5.1: Determination of Shear Strength and Normal Stress at Failure.

3
 C_X1 C_X2
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
q (kPa) 184 191 194 151 163 168
σ1 (kPa) 209 241 269 181 208 228
σ3 (kPa) 25 50 75 30 45 60
Radius R (kPa) 92 95.5 97 75.5 81.5 84
Midpoint MP (kPa) 117 145.5 172 105.5 126.5 144
Cu (kPa) 92 95 97 72 76 84
τ f at Failure (kPa) 91.650 95.137 96.631 73.565 79.411 81.847
σf at Failure (kPa) 108.98 137.18 163.55 88.516 108.17 125.1
Cohesion (c) (kPa) 83 54
ϕ * (Radians) 0.0872665 0.2268928
C_Y1 C_Y2
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
q (kPa) 37 40 41 37 40 41
σ1 (kPa) 62 90 116 67 85 101
σ3 (kPa) 25 50 75 30 45 60
Radius R (kPa) 18.5 20 20.5 18.5 20 20.5
Midpoint MP (kPa) 43.5 70 95.5 48.5 65 80.5
Cu (kPa) 19 20 20 19 20 20
τ f at Failure (kPa) 18.489 19.988 20.488 18.465 19.963 20.462
σf at Failure (kPa) 42.854 69.302 94.784 47.371 63.780 79.249
Cohesion (c) (kPa) 17 16
ϕ * (Radians) 0.0349066 0.0610865

Usually in Quick Undrained tests, half the deviatoric stress, q, is taken as the undrained shear strength
(cu), R = σn; therefore σn is taken as the maximum R and maximum possible shear strength, via Stage 3
of every test.

Since this is a multistage test, not every value of cohesion (c) and angle of shearing resistance (ϕ) has
been determined for every Mohr circle. Therefore, the assumption is made that the angle of shearing

4
resistance value is an average via the tangent of all the Mohr circles in that test and that the value of c
is assumed as average across all the Mohr circles for that test. The angle of shearing resistance is
taken in order to determine the shear strength at failure and normal stress at failure in calculation for
each Mohr circle of that specimen. However, a best common tangent is useful in obtaining a
representation of stresses in the entire specimen.

Softer more – saturated clays are easier to predict as they tend to follow the UU profile, drier less –
saturated clays tend to perform almost CU type of profile in UU tests. Both sets of clays exhibit
elastic distortion, or bulging, rather than complete plastic deformation. Considering the C_X1 and
C_X2 specimens, they are noticeably uneven and have behaviour that is considerably variable then
usually expected. From this, the assumption that less saturated more brittle clays have greater angle of
shearing resistance is considered. This could surmise a general statement that the drier the material,
the greater the angle of resistance.

With the data of C_X1 and C_X2, judging based on the Mohr circles, their profiles fit the type of
graphical output expected of a CU test, or perhaps a sample much less saturated then considered that
it deviates from the type of relationship expected of a QU test. This means both C_X1 and C_X2 were
either allowed to initially consolidate, or that the two specimens are far less saturated and that this
these tests reflect that parameter in the form of a higher shearing resistance angle, a more brittle like
material, and more variable QU test results. In addition, the degree of saturation (moisture) is most
likely to be a parameter that affects the shear values of C_X1 and C_X2 since the Mohr circles are not
similar. This is only considered under the assumption that saturation and moisture parameters could
affect the results of C_X1 and C_X2, along with the rate of application of the confining pressure
(consolidation prior to test) being a lot slower due to the nature of Clay C_X. In QU/UU tests, the rate
of consolidation is faster; where in CU tests, the consolidation is applied slowly. QU/UU tests are also
a good application of testing almost or fully saturated samples if determining the undrained shear
strength. C_X1 and C_X2 are far less saturated than the other clays in this test, therefore it is
concluded that the degree of saturation was a varying factor in the determination of the shear stresses
of C_X1 and C_X2 and this additionally changed the expected UU profile. To determine this
relationship further, more tests would need to be performed in order to examine the rate of
consolidation and the degree of saturation (moisture).

The material tested in the C_X1 and C_X2 tests is silty clay. The reason for testing this material is
first that the properties of silty clay are not yet fully understood, unlike pure clay and sand, which
represents the two extremes of soil behaviour due to their composition and the mechanical properties.
Silty clay is very common therefore, it is often necessary to relate to this material during foundation
construction works. It is also appropriate to obtain information regarding stresses in silty – clay type
of cohesive materials as they found in concentration during foundation design if present when drilling
to certain depths or applying foundations through that cohesive layer. This still underlines that the
overall behaviour of silty clay requires better understanding when considering shallow foundation
implementation. With these values of undrained shear strength in cohesive materials, a comparison is
need of

Table 5.2: Undrained (Immediate) Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils (BS 8004, 1986, [47])
Undrained (Immediate)
Consistency
Shear Strength
(Kgf/cm2)
In accordance
Widely Used Field Indications (kN/m )
2
(tonf/ft2)
with BS 5930
Very Stiff Very Stiff or Hard Brittle or very tough > 150 > 1.5
Stiff Stiff Cannot be moulded 100 to 150 1.0 to 1.5

5
 in the fingers
Firm to Stiff 75 to 100 0.75 to 1.0
Can be moulded in the
Firm 50 to 75 0.5 to 0.75
Firm fingers by strong pressure
Soft to Firm 40 to 50 0.4 to 0.5
Soft Soft Easily moulded in the fingers 20 to 40 0.2 to 0.4
Exudes between the fingers
Very Soft Very Soft < 20 < 0.2
when squeezed in the fist

Table 5.2 permits comparisons between the undrained values obtained in the triaxial testing of this
study and the values pre – determined for cohesive materials in British Standard. This table shows the
range at which the determined undrained shear strength of Clay X and Y lie according to their
immediate shear strength. The undrained shear strengths obtained are comparable to the lower half of
the table in the Firm and Soft clay region. Clay X specimens demonstrate to be firmer and stiffer with
greater values of shear strength and then the Clay Y specimens. This additionally suggests that firmer
and stiffer cohesive materials are less – saturated in general practice of tests and approach an almost
brittle condition. These make them more suitable to be encountered with when preparing a shallow
foundation.

Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 below; demonstrate the necessity to prove that a foundation is safe from shear
failure by taking a presumed bearing value that does not exceed the ratio of the ultimate bearing value
over a suitable safety factor. This means that the ratio should be in the order of 2 to 3 and no higher.
The likelihood of plastic deformation must be checked, when preparing and discovering a layer of
softer clay like Clay X and Clay Y at a depth below the foundation. Additionally, the net increase of
pressure in the soft clay due to the loading of the foundation should be addressed, as this net increase
of pressure is a limited value that will be a satisfactory safety factor against soft – clay layer shear
failure. A vital requirement to certify is that the total and differential settlements of the planned
foundations are not too large. Once the presumed bearing value has been assessed, the settlement
beneath this pressure is approximated, if too great the foundations will need to be redesigned by
reducing the bearing pressure or increasing the depth of the foundation to an area of low settlement. If
the statement that Clay X consolidates slower in the triaxial test is assumed correct, it makes it more
applicable to the types of clay layers encountered in real construction situations. The extent of
settlement occurring when foundation loads are applied to the ground is dependent on the structure
rigidity, duration and type of loading, and deformation characteristics of the ground soil.
Consolidation settlement in clays and silts can happen for long periods after the structure is finished.
The rate of drainage from the voids under influence of the stresses applied is slow; therefore,
allowances for slow consolidation settlements must be considered. Founding a structure on a peat or
organic soil may be inevitable, therefore consideration on the secondary consolidation mentioned
above gives rise to more worrying settlements that can be long – lasting. This settlement is dependent
on bearing pressure, compressibility of soil, foundation dimensions, depth prescribed, shape and
width. Wide foundations settle more than narrow foundations in non – cohesive soils with the same
applied bearing pressure. The allowable bearing pressure on wider foundations is less than that of the
bearing pressure allowed on narrow foundations, to keep settlements within suitable limits.
Settlement degree of foundations on cohesive soils can be determined in laboratory tests,
where consolidation characteristics and Young’s Modulus are determined. Elastic constraints from in
– situ test are usually preferred rather the values from laboratory testing. Estimating settlement is
traditionally based on oedometer tests (one – dimensional consolidation) (Terzaghi, 1943, [43];
Skempton, 1951, [38]). This method overvalues settlement rates in soils that have greater horizontal
permeability than vertical permeability. Foundations must carry down through peat and organic soil
to a consistent bearing layer below. Peat and organic soils are highly compressible, where lightly
loaded foundations are subject to considerable settlements over a long period. Soils such as these are
not suitable for carrying the loads from larger structures, and traditional lowering of the groundwater
produces a substantial and prolonged settlement.

5.5 Deformational Changes at Failure

6
In this section, all tested specimens are used to investigate the effect of loading rate, and confining
pressure on shear failure mode of the cylindrical clay specimens, the development of shear bands, and
the relating the deformation to expected shallow foundation failure modes. In Figures 5.6 and 5.7 are
the drawings of the specimens after their respected failure modes were observed at the same axial
loading rate and after a set of identical confining pressures. These are presented in two dimensions
and three dimensions to evaluate the shear bands visible on the front surface of specimens. The strains
at failure for each specimen as follows: C_X1, 12.7 %, 16.1 %, 20.7 %; C_X2, 16 %, 16 %, 19.9 %;
C_Y1, 14 %, 17.3 %, 20.6 %; and C_Y2, 12.2 %, 15.3 %, 19.2 %. All specimens underwent strain at
failure up from approximately 12 % to 21 % per Stage at each confining pressure. The strain at failure
(%) increases as a result of increasing each confining pressure (kPa). This means the relationship is
again non – linear and parabolic.

Shear bands were clearly observed in all specimens, as the local shear strain did not exceed 100%
near the shear plane. Bulging or barrelling failure mode seems for common for slower loading rates
than that of buckling failure mode in faster loading cases. In addition, these specimens confirmed the
behaviour of general and local shear failure patterns expected, which is given clear mention in
Chapters 1 and 2. The drawing of specimens C_X1, C_X2, C_Y1 and C_Y2, show shear bands acting
on the surface of the specimens and in some instances crossing each other with a shape similar to an
‘X’.

Clays, like many other materials tend to exhibit elastic to plastic deformation when subjected to
extreme loading and confining conditions. The clays being tested in these triaxial compression tests
are generally no different, however, due to slow loading rates to reduce the build up of pore – water
pressure and low confining pressures, the behaviour observed is less defined then some extreme
buckling cases and more complex. Clays usually behave as viscous – elastic materials, and in triaxial
tests, they tend to change volume in order to compensate for the increasing axial load. The most
common shape is bulging, in which the compression causes the specimen to compress to a shape that
resembles a “bulge” structure, where the diameter in the centre of ten specimen exceeds the diameter
of the specimen prior to testing. All tested specimens underwent bulging/barrelling because of a slow
axial displacement rate. Most of the specimens were theorised to bulge like that in Figure 1.2 (a),
where this mode is common in normally consolidated and saturated clays that are loaded quickly so
that undrained conditions are overcome. The specimens are small in diameter and height, and the
average axial displacement was 2.0 %/min, therefore the loading could be considered fast acting on a
small specimen, compared to a larger specimen of perhaps 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height where
this axial displacement rate would be considered slow. As the specimens tend to go bulging, the
particular shape varies between two distinct shear failure modes. Therefore, it is stated that the
specimens underwent diffuse shear failures as they indicate areas of general and local shear failure.
Bulging phenomena is also more likely to occur in specimens of short diameter and length, and at low
confining pressures as demonstrated by these tests. The confining pressures have less considerable
influence on the outcome of the specimen shape after testing.

These drawings also indicate the shear around the surface but no real observation is made on the
internal failure of the specimens. The transparent latex membrane sticks to the specimen due to the
membrane correction pressure; therefore, it is removed in order to see the specimen fully. The
drawings have lines representing shear bands created by the compressive process in order to follow
any changes in shape and the visible shear. This helps to determine the overall failure mode of each
specimen in order to determine a relationship with the specimen and the conditions during the test.
The figures demonstrate that Clay X is as susceptible to bulging as Clay Y, despite it being stiffer and
drier silty clay. From these tests, the conclusion made is that the effect of similar confining pressures
and similar axial displacement rates has no real affect on a short specimen of two different specimens.

The stress – strain relation and the process of shear bands formation for are demonstrated in
subsequent figures below. The deviator stress continues to increase until an axial failure strain of the
first pressure is reached, although strain localization is clearly seen at the second and third pressures.
The cause of this is due to the dilatancy of over consolidated clay increases the deviator stress much
more than the softening induced by development of the shear band on the side surface. In the
specimens where bands intersect, when the strain behaviour starts, the second shear band generated
8
intersects the first one. The second shear band becomes clearer than the other and more defined then
those that have intersected. In this way, the stress - strain relations of the cases of specimen X and Y
show strain softening corresponding to the generation of shear bands.

Each specimen showed local shear on the surface that continued to propagate after each increase in
confining pressure. C_X1 and C_X2 demonstrated an almost brittle tendency with C_X2
demonstrating buckling in the lower half of the specimen. This states that drier or less moist, and
therefore less saturated, specimens in these tests tended to undergo both bulging failure modes in
C_X1 and in a particular case some substantial buckling failure modes in C_X2. In most cases,
conclusions like this are not warranted without further tested specimens. Therefore, further tests
would need to be performed in order to certify some general understanding about unsaturated
samples. C_X1 and C_X2 are considered to be less – saturated or unsaturated in general as this
quantifies the cohesive material more easily and allows more detailed explanations about their
behaviour. Clays C_Y1 and C_Y2 are then considered to be saturated as their behaviour and their
Mohr circle representation allows it to make it easier to compare between Clay X and Clay Y. Starting
with C_X1, the specimen shows clear shear bands that act along the top right base of the specimen
towards the bottom left base. The ‘V’ shaped shear band was formed as two individual shear bands at
strains between 12.7 % and 16.1 % and propagated continuously till they intersected in the centre of
the specimen. The other two shear bands of smaller length at the top and bottom of the specimen
formed between the second and third confining pressure. Specimen C_X2 experienced local bulging
in the bottom half of the specimen, not uncommon, yet a clear shear band that shows a behaviour of a
buckling nature. The large almost horizontal shear band spread across the specimen considerably
during the changing of the first to the second confining pressure and then propagated to a limiting
amount after the third pressure was introduced. The almost 45° degree band of shear to the top part of
the specimen additionally lengthened during the change in confining pressure

(a) (b)
Figure 5.6 (a): Deformation changes at failure of C_X1 specimen. (b) Deformation changes at failure of
C_X2 specimen.

The axial displacement rates are the same for each specimen, the overall shape changes seem to be
equivalent to each other, and therefore it appears that the loading rate has genuine effect on the
behaviour of the clays. Although the peak strengths are almost same between two specimens of C_Y1
and C_Y2, this additionally identifies that a slenderer specimen shows the smaller residual strength.
The decrease of deviator stress is observed from the more saturated specimens C_Y1 and C_Y2.
These specimens have deviator stresses considerably less than that of the Clay X specimens. Clay Y
has a greater degree of saturation and these specimens; especially C_X2 has an area of local shear
failure mode. Additionally demonstrating the behaviour in stress – strain compared with Clay Y
specimens, which are observed to have more common ‘X’ shear bands. These short specimens show
the more complex failure mode among the same shape. Two shear bands occur that intersect in the
C_Y1 and C_Y2, where in case of C_Y2, two shear bands resemble an inverted ‘Y’. Figure 5.7 (a)
shows the C_Y1 specimen, again with the additional lines on the drawing to represent the shear
bands. The specimen yet again demonstrates the bulging phenomena. In 5.7 (b), C_Y2 specimen has a
less uniform bulging effect, with more considerable buckling failure or compression on the centre of
the specimen towards the right.

9
 (a) (b)
Figure 5.7 (a): Deformation changes at failure of C_Y1 specimen. (b) Deformation changes at failure of
C_Y2 specimen.

Currently, triaxial compression tests using rectangular clay specimens can be used to discuss the three
– dimensional failure behaviour of clay, where the local shear strain distributions are determined by
image analysis (digital photography) taken on a side surface of specimen during the triaxial
compression test. This study deals with the traditional cylindrical specimens with the traditional
representative drawing that can offer reasonable insight and explanation for their mode of failure due
to the loading rate and confining pressure. However, no depth into strain distribution and strain
localisation within the specimen. All specimens showed both these relationships and that the strains at
failure never seems to exceed 21 %.

Additionally, a slenderer specimen would show behaviour that is more unstable in stress – strain
relationships. The failure mode of a slender specimen tends to looks likes buckling of column. Where,
as aforementioned, these specimens exhibit the unique bulge or barrel – like mode of failure. The
specimens tested are shorter in length and diameter and are inclined to show a more complex shear
failure pattern as the stress – strain relationship is which demonstrates more stability in shorter
specimens.

With the clay specimens now tested, the Figures of 5.6 and 5.7 show shear bands common in the case
of a slow loading rate and low confining pressure, particularly more visible in C_X1 and C_Y2.
According to the failure modes that occur in these specimens, the stability of ultimate failure load
fluctuates. The slower loading rate used in these specimens shows more stable behaviour due to the
failure mode without buckling. There are different failure modes observed under the same test
conditions such as the same loading rate and same shape of specimen. There is also a level of
uncertainly as to whether large deformation and failure behaviour using the cylindrical specimen can
directly link to the practical problem for foundations and whether rectangular specimens should be
investigated to understand clear three – dimensional behaviour. However, it was very important that
the minute observation of the typical surface strain localisations and shear patterns were observed in
the specimens in order to improve the accuracy of prediction of progressive failure.

The specimens additionally indicate that a set of significantly higher pressures on these specimens
could yield in more indicative shear lines and planes of failure and perhaps more buckling – type of
deformation observed with slender specimens (Height/Diameter ratio > 2). It is noteworthy to mention
that the bulging/barrelling phenomenon directly shows similarities to the elastic bulge formation of
general shear in Figure 1.2 (a) and local shear phenomena (b) (Coduto, 1994, [10]). Here the lines
show the state of the elastic distortion caused by static loading acting on a shallow foundation in an
area of depression. For purely cohesive soils, the local shear failure may be assumed to occur when
the soil is soft to medium.

In considering preliminary design purposes, the standard BS 8004 gives presumed bearing values that
are the pressures, which would usually result in a sufficient safety factor against shear failure for
particular soil types, through no consideration of settlement.

2
Table 5.3: Presumed Bearing Values under Static Loading (BS 8004, 1986, [47])
Category Types of rocks and soils Presumed bearing value (kN/m²)
Cohesive soils Very stiff bolder clays & hard clays 300 to 600
Stiff clays 150 to 300
Firm clay 75 to 150
Soft clays and silts < 75
Very soft clay Not applicable

As highlighted by the cohesive soils in this table to the cohesive clays investigated in this study, the
presumed bearing values of cohesive soils increases as the clay becomes stiffer and firmer. For soft
clays and silts investigated in this study, the bearing values are in the range indicated in bold in Table
5.2. Clays are far more interesting in this manner as they have presumed values over range, rather
than dense or loose sands and gravels that have clear ranging values of presume bearing. This
additionally means that clays are susceptible to long – term consolidation settlement. The general
principles concerning bearing pressure and settlement characteristics are expressed in Chapters 1, 2.3
and 5.4. This additionally means that certain deep foundations would be inappropriate to use in areas
where the bearing values were less than 150 kN/m2, whereas shallow foundations could be made to
work sufficiently in areas of sub – standard cohesive materials.

5.6 Effects of Moisture Content

A relationship has been determined between the degree of saturation and undrained shear strength,
therefore a similar relationship is determined directly with the amount of moisture present in the
specimen, as both saturation degree and moisture content work in unison. Since is realised that the
shear strength will become greater (increase) and the conditions become safer with time as the pore –
water is allowed to drain. These shear test results indicate that it is possible to improve the shear
strength of clay soils by consolidation, if time is available for allowing the required pore – water
drainage to occur. This increase in shear strength is because of the fact that during shear, the effective
stress increases as the rate of shear increases and pore – water diverts from the plane of shear. This
explains why the failure envelopes for undrained tests are above the failure envelopes for drained tests
as shown in the Mohr circle profile diagram Figure 2.2.

5.7 Theoretical / Actual Results Comparison

From the Literature review, with Figure 2.9, it is evident that not all theoretical estimations can
correctly surmise the expected result of a triaxial test. It is also clear practice that it would more
appropriate to do triaxial tests more often in order to obtain better general information on the clays use
for foundation construction. There should be no dependency to rely heavily on theoretical predictions
made by Mohr circle and they should only be taken as estimates and not actual representative values
of the stresses in specific soils. Actual laboratory and in – situ testing is the best and most effective
method to examine shear strength of a soil and soil behaviour directly.

5.8 Degree of Saturation on Shear Strength

3
As observed, the degree of saturation has effects on the strength and slightly the stiffness of the
cohesive materials. The degree of saturation and stiffness are related properties that influenced the
frictional strength and cohesion of the clays. The relationship of these two properties does suggest
some cementing conditions of the material. An important factor controlling the strength of the clays
appears to be pore – water. Despite the Y clays being heavily saturated, the X clays have very high
matrix suction. Since the Y clays are saturated and subjected to reduction in effective stress, the
strains associated with saturation and removal of suction lead to reduction in strength. However, the
relation between pore – water pressure and strength needs further study before any certainties can be
agreed upon.

CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General Conclusions

6.1.1 Confining Pressure Modification

The analyses indicated that the purpose of changing the confining pressure between an unsaturated
and saturated material was significant in manipulating the value of shear stress. A clearly defined
relationship does exist between the undrained shear strength and confining pressure, in accordance
with other significant parameters such as shape, moisture content, and degree of saturation. The test
results in table and graphical format was additionally helpful in order to demonstrate these
relationships. In order to get a better representative state of the stresses in a specimen, the sample or
specimen source should come from an in – situ location, in which to understand field conditions more
than lab conditions.
1
6.1.2 Triaxial Testing Results

The results from the triaxial tests were very reliable as this method is more effective in determining
undrained shear strength values than the conventional Unconfined Compression test. The actual
results varied compared to theoretical predictions but this strengthens the notion that the reason for
testing these materials is firstly that the properties of clay are not fully understood, and further
analysis is needed on a larger amount of samples. These specimens additionally showed that the clay
is slightly anisotropic with respect to strength.

6.1.3 Shear Strength and Normal Stress at Failure

The values of undrained shear strength taken as half the maximum deviatoric stress using Mohr’s
solution was found to variant to the actual the values of strength and stress at failure. In either case,
the determination using Mohr’s circle can be taken as a maximum value. The difference in
calculations could be to the occlusion of minor errors in procedure.
For the values of normal stress, it would be wiser to use the values of obtained at failure as this is
shown to be more reliable than taking the midpoint of the Mohr circle, which again could be taken as
a maximum value. The values obtained are for the indication of total stress, which are limited in
studying soil mechanics as they provide the drainage and strength properties of that soil in the short –
term rather than the long – term.

6.1.4 Saturation, Moisture Content and Shear Strength

It was determined that both the degree of Saturation and the amount of moisture present in the
specimen had a considerable effect on the shear strength of the specimens. The more saturated the
sample, the more constant the shear strength value for each Mohr circle, and the smaller the angle of
shearing resistance (internal friction angle). This also means that the strength is related not just to the
amount of moisture in the specimen, but to the amount of saturation. The level of moisture and
saturation evidently has an impact on the amount of apparent cohesion. More moist or ‘wetter’
samples have less apparent cohesion present.

6.1.5 Specimen Shape

It was observed that the specimens tested, short in length and diameter, are more inclined to show a
more complex shear failure pattern (barrelling) as the specific stress – strain relationship in each clay
is more stable for shorter specimens. In fact, there is no essential difference between the different
cases is shown in Figure 5.6 and 5.7, which presents the shape of the four specimens in the final state.
In among the four tests, the specimens remained solid after the unstable deformation phase, retaining
the geometry of the final state when the testing machine was stopped.

6.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of the experimental work performed for this study, the following
recommendations are presented:

• Increase the quality control in the moisture procedure in order to obtain uniformity in the moisture
content of the specimens.
• Perform conventional triaxial compression tests with a mixture of different clays with modified
moisture contents to compare the difference in particles and the mixture.
• Additionally provide further investigation into the effect of slope stability and other engineering
predictions.
3
• All future tests should be conducted at a strain rate of 0.1% or lower.
• Select confining pressures of 0.5vs, vs, and 2vs (vs – maximum vertical stress)
• The tests that had leaks should be conducted again to verify the adjustments made for the leaks
were correct.
• Specimens should be consolidated prior to triaxial shear testing in order to determine if the
process improves shear strength.
• Conduct tests on a wider range of clays and silty materials to investigate the trends in shear.
• Conduct tests on rectangular specimens of different diameter to height ratios to investigate the
effect of specimen shape under triaxial compression.
• Conduct verification tests using a non-compressible or “dummy” specimen in order to verify the
compression corrections and volume change measurements.
• Conduct verification tests using an easily compressible “dummy” specimen to verify the minimal
effects of the vertical load.
• Conduct tests with the horizontal direction as the major principal axis.
• Addition of LVDT’s (Linear Variable Differential Transducer) to the other side of the pressure
cell to better follow the specimen and shear band response.
• Specimens of different densities may be tested to investigate the affects of density on the results.
• Tests may be conducted at different higher confining pressures to investigate how the increase in
confining pressure affects the results.
• Software additions may be made, additionally to use a computer using the LabView or WinCLISP
software.
• An automated – pressure – control device for the more complex loading conditions and varying
minor principal stress.
• Perform Consolidated Undrained/Consolidated Drained (CD/CD) tests on clays, with more
samples, to investigate the effect of the testing conditions.
• Use a more up-to-date Triaxial Testing system.
• Measure the pore – water pressure as it helps to determine the effective stresses used for long-
term stability information.
• Measuring pore – water pressure can additionally provide relationships between the drained shear
strength and confining pressure. These tests are performed at much slower speeds so suitable
amount of time should also be considered.
• When varying moisture content in compaction process, to increase the accuracy of the test it is
often advisable to reduce the increments of water in the region of the optimum moisture content.
• Focusing in a one type of soil condition and determine what is the foundation system that best
suites the soil condition.
• Establish the relationship between the foundation system and the site soil condition.

6.2.1 Recommended Changes in Testing Procedure

• Document the reading of the axial deformation gauge.

• Recording readings of the force gauge and compression gauge at a regular interval of the latter, so
that at least 30 – 40 sets instead of 15 sets of readings are taken up to the point of failure.
• Readings should be at close intervals when approaching maximum load.
• Plot calculator deviator stress against axial strain and force gauge reading against strain so that the
impending failure is localised.

6.3 Future Work

The following recommendations are made for future research and continuation of the present study:

• More research focusing in one type of soil condition and determine what kind of foundation
system best suites that particular soil condition. Perhaps investigate in – situ soils in a
construction site in order to better comprehend the function of the soils in real construction cases.
• A comprehensive study on the soil available in any country, the types of foundation system
currently used, the factors governing the selection of a safe and economical foundation system,
1
 the design approaches adopted by the design engineers and lastly, the problems related to the
foundation system.
• Investigate cases about the development of medium and high – rise buildings for commercial or
residential purpose. The study would comprise of the site conditions, selection of foundation
system, the foundation system used and some of the main issue in the cases. At later stage,
comparisons between these case studies could be made.
• Determine the strength of soil at various depths below the foundation from the site investigation
to find the safe bearing capacity.
• Establish the invert level of the foundation by either using the minimum depth below the ground
level, which is unaffected by temperature, moisture content or by the depth of basement.
• Resolve the foundation area from the characteristics working loads and allowable pressure. This
will determine the type or combination of types of foundation. A selection based on economic
consideration, speed and ability to build.
• A building may, to the extent, collapse due to the failures in its foundation system. Therefore, it is
important to identify the factors that can cause a foundation system to fail and also the ways to
minimize these problems. The major cause for foundation failures especially in expansive soil is
due to water. An investigation into the variation of water level can indentify settlement and
disturbance problem.
• Establish the relationship between the foundation system and the site soil condition. Here an
investigation could lead into the effects of a shallow/deep foundation shape and how this behaves
in certain soil conditions.
• The water content in cohesive soils changes at which the consistency changes from one stage to
the next stage. This is known the Atterberg Limits. An investigation into soil moisture content
should be conducted as it is critical in drained conditions where there is permitted drainage in a
foundation and if it contributes to settlement.

6.4 Summary

This study has summarised that mechanical behaviour of cohesive soil materials is largely influenced
by the stress path to which it is subjected. In order to study the complex behaviour of cohesive soils in
widespread stress space, many single element – testing methods have been developed in past several
decades noted in literature, which involve a variety of specimen shapes and loading/boundary
conditions. Using these common testing methods, the cohesive specimens were subjected to similar
stress paths (quick undrained triaxial compression tests) and the results were presented in this study.
As a result, it remains essential to carefully understand the influence of specimen shape and
loading/boundary conditions while analysing the experimental data to use in geotechnical design.
Essentially, the triaxial results showed the test is considered as a good method to investigate the
undrained soil behaviour, though some studies like this in particular have indicated that results of
conventional triaxial tests are reliable only when measured soil strains are approximately larger than
0.001 (0.1 %). This study has additionally shown that soil - strength and the deformation behaviour is
significantly influenced by the stress – strain behaviour of soils at small strain percentages, that is
obviously much similar than those measured in the conventional triaxial test.

As aforementioned, modelling soil strength and other properties in the analysis and design of shallow
foundations is very significant. The choosing of soil parameters for analysis and testing is , as shown
in this study, difficult as there is a great deal of uncertainty as to which parameters are more pertinent
to remain constant and which are good for variability. Since the properties of shallow and deep soil
elements are quite different. The selection of a distinguishing stress – strain curve to represent a
cohesive soil is necessary in design, but is difficult to settle on. In the case of design purposes of
square or circular footings in homogenous cohesive soils, displacements produced can be assumed to
be inhibited by the average soil stiffness in the deformation zone. Additionally, an extension of
bearing capacity theory should include the plastic deformation mechanisms with distributed plastic
strains. This can provide a unified solution for most design problems. This application is unlike the
conventional applications as it can please approximately both safety and serviceability needs with
prediction of stresses and displacements under working conditions.

2
 As the kinematics, characterisation is concerned, all four clay specimens experiences bulging
modes of failure and no real strain localisation was observed. A more detailed method of the triaxial
system is needed to investigate the conditions where there may be a loss of resistance or total
liquefaction. It is also difficult to identify whether a mode of failure is localised or dispersed. The
specimens displayed general and local shear failures of that stated in Chapters 1 and 2, again, the
triaxial test does not always provide clear result for a failure mechanism, as the observation of the
specimen failure is limited to the outer boundary or surface state. Strain localisation is in fact hidden
in such test conditions. Failure modes can be more easily featured in additional tests using biaxial
compression.

Engineering and mechanical properties of soil at a construction site will influence the design and
construction of shallow foundation systems. This study has stated how critical an investigation of soil
strength properties are essential in modern day construction and the wide variety of soil testing
methods available nowadays. The soil testing available that investigate soil properties and strength are
triaxial test, particle size distribution, moisture content, Atterberg Limit test, soil chemical test and
others. Considering the buildings erected nowadays, they are either medium or high – rise, and
therefore deep foundations such as piles is recommended. Therefore, more studies into this should be
carried out using more complex loading scenarios and with more non – uniform materials. Piles
transfer loads to a greater depth, which work better against shearing resistance for greater support.
The choice of a safe and cost effective foundation system for a particular structure is governed by
many factors of the site itself, particularly the soil strength. These factors should be greatly considered
to avoid damage and other harmful attributes and shall not be omitted just to make the design and
construction of foundations faster.

2
APPENDIX A

Figure A.1: Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for X1 Clay Specimen

4
Figure A.2: Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for X2 Clay Specimen

5
Figure A.3: Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for Y1 Clay Specimen

6
Figure A.4: Quick Undrained Triaxial test results for Y2 Clay Specimen

1
Figure A.5: Quick Undrained Triaxial summary results for all Clay Specimens.

2
READING LIST
A list of the references used throughout in the format specified by the Brunel University Ref System.

1. Arthur, J.F.R. (1988).

Cubical Devices: Versatility and Constraints. Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock,
ASTM STP 977, R.T. Donaghe, R.C. Chaney, and M.L. Silver, Eds., American Society for
Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, ISBN: 9780803109834, pages 743-765.

2. Aysen, A (1 Jan 2002).

Soil Mechanics: Basic Concepts and Engineering Applications, Taylor & Francis; 1st Edition,
ISBN: 978-9058093585.

3. Baldi, G, Hight, D.W, and Thomas, G.E (1988).

A Re-evaluation of Conventional Triaxial Test Methods. Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil
and Rock, ASTM STP 977, R.T. Donaghe, R.C. Chaney, and M.L. Silver, Eds., American
Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, ISBN: 9780803109834, pages. 219-263.

4. Baldi, G (31 Dec 1991).

Faults in Clays - Their Detection and Properties, European Commission, ISBN: 978-
9282625163.

5. Berre, T (1981).
Triaxial testing at NGI. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 5, 1982, No. 1/2, pages 3-17.

6. Bishop, A.W, and Henkel, D.J. (1962).

The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test.

7. Bishop, A.W, and Henkel, D.J. (1 Jan 1976).

The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test, Hodder Arnold; 2nd Revised
Edition, ISBN: 978-0713130041.

8. Casagrande, A. and Shannon, W.L. (1951).

Base course drainage for airport pavements. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 77 (75): 1–23.

9. Chen, W-F. (15 May 2007).

Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity, J. Ross Publishing, ISBN: 978-1932159738

10.Coduto D.P, (1994).

Foundation Design - Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall Inc

11.Coduto, D. P. (1999).
Geotechnical Engineering Principles. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
pages 759.

12. Coduto, D.P. (2001).

Chapter 6: Shallow Foundations- Bearing Capacity. Foundation Design: Principles and
Practices. 2nd Edition, pages 170-206.

13. Curtin, W.G, Shaw, G, Parkinson, G.I & Golding, J.M, (1994).
Structural Foundation Designers’ Manual, Blackwell

14. Das, B.M. (1995).

3
 Principles of Foundation Engineering. 3rd edition. PWS Publishing, Boston.

15.Donaghe, R.T, Chaney, R.C. and Silver, M. L. Published (31/12/1988).

Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, American Society for Testing & Materials
(ASTM), ISBN: 9780803109834.

16. Duncan, C.I. Jr. (1998).

Soils and Foundations for Architects and Engineers, Second Edition; Kluwer Academic
Publishers; Boston/London/Dordrecht.

17.Duncan, J.M, and Wright, S.G. (22 Feb 2005).

Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley & Sons; 1st Edition, ISBN: 978-0471691631.

18.Fratta, D, Aguettant, J, and Roussel-Smith, L (14 May 2007).

Introduction to Soil Mechanics Laboratory Testing, CRC Press; 1st Edition, ISBN: 978-
1420045628.

19. Fredlund, D.G, and Rahardjo, H (Aug 1993).

Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, Wiley – Interscience, ISBN: 978-0471850083

20.Germaine, J.T, and Ladd, C.C. (1988).

Triaxial Testing of Saturated Cohesive Soils. Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock,
ASTM STP 977, R.T. Donaghe, R.C. Chaney, and M.L. Silver, Eds., American Society for
Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, ISBN: 9780803109834, pages 421-459.

21.Germaine, J.T, Santagata, M.C. and Ladd, C.C (1999).

Initial stiffness of A0-normally consolidated clay measured in the triaxial apparatus. Pre-
failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Jamiolkowski, Lancellotta & Lo Presti
(eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN: 9058090752.

22.Germaine, J.T, Sheahan, T.C. , et al (31 Jul 2003).

American Society of Civil Engineers, ISBN: 978-0784406595.

23.Head, K.H (1982).

Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Vol. 1, Pentech Press, London, Plymouth.

24.Head, K.H (1982).

Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Vol. 2, Pentech Press, London, Plymouth.

25.Holtz, R.D, and Kovacs, W.D (8 March 1981).

An Introduction into Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice Hall, ISBN: 978-0134843940.

26.Jumikis, A.R (Mar 1967).

Introduction to Soil Mechanics, Van Nost Reinhold U.S, ISBN: 978-0442041984.

27.Lacasse, S, and Berre, T (1988).

Triaxial Testing Methods for Soils. Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP
977, R.T. Donaghe, R.C. Chaney, and M.L. Silver, Eds., American Society for Testing &
Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, ISBN: 9780803109834, pages 264-289.

28.Lambe, T.W. (1951).

Soil Testing for Engineers, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

29.Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (1969).

Soil Mechanics, SI Version. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, pages 553.

4
30.Liu, C (12 May 2005).
Soils and Foundations, Prentice Hall Singapore; 6th Edition, ISBN: 978-0131973084.

31.Liu, C and Evett, J.B (12 Jun 2008).

Soil Properties: Testing, Measurement and Evaluation, Prentice Hall; 6th Edition, ISBN: 978-
0136141235, pages 5-51, 337-351.

32.McCarthy, D.F. (2007).

Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Basic Geotechnics, Pearson, London.

33.Osman, A. S., and Bolton, M. D. (2004).

Plasticity based method for predicting settlement of shallow foundations, Submitted to ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, for review.

34. Prandtl, L. (1921).

Uber Die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Harte) Plastischer Baustoffe Und Die Festigkeit Von
Schneiden. Zeitschrift fur angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik. Vol. 1, No. 1. pages 15-20.

35.Saada, A.S. (1988).

Hollow Cylinder Torsional Devices: Their Advantages and Limitations. Advanced Triaxial
Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, R.T. Donaghe, R.C. Chaney, and M.L. Silver,
Eds., American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, ISBN: 9780803109834,
pages 766-795.

36.Sowers, G.F (1962).

Foundation Engineering, McGraw Hill Book Company Inc SP (2004) SP – Geotechnical
Report Gue & Partners Sdn Bhd

37.Sowers, G.F. and Gore, C.E. (1961).

Large Scale Preconstruction Tests of Embankment Materials for an Earth-Rock fill Dam. 5th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. pp. 717-720.

38. Skempton, A.W (1951).

The bearing capacity of the clay, Proceedings of Building Research Congress, vol. 1, pages
180-189.

39. Skempton, A.W, Bjerrum, L (1957).

Contribution to the settlement analysis of foundations on clay, Geotechnique,Vol.7, No.
4,pages 168-178.

40. Skempton, A.W (1 Jan 1984).

Selected Papers on Soil Mechanics, Thomas Telford Ltd, ISBN: 978-0727702050

41.Tatsuoka, F (1988).
Some Recent Developments in Triaxial Testing Systems for Cohesionless Soils. Advanced
Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, R.T. Donaghe, R.C. Chaney, and M.L.
Silver, Eds., American Society for Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, 1988, ISBN:
9780803109834, pages 7-67.

42.Tatsuoka, F, Shibuya, S, and Kuwano, R (1 Jan 2001).

Advanced Laboratory Stress-strain Testing of Geomaterials, Taylor & Francis; 1st Edition,
ISBN: 978-9026518430, pages 20-47.
43.Terzaghi, K (15 Jan 1943).

5
Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, ISBN-13: 978-0471853053

44. Vesić, A.S. (1973).

Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE. Vol. 99, No. SM1, pages 45-73.

45.Vickers, B (1983).
Laboratory Work in Soil Mechanics, Granada, Second Edition, USA.

46. Wood, D.M (26 April 1991)

Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, ISBN:
97805213378

47.BS 8004 (1986).

British Standard code of practice gives recommendations for the design and construction of
foundations for the normal range of buildings and engineering structures, page 27.

48.BS 1377 (29/06/1990).

This British Standard has nine parts. Part 1 is general information relevant to the other Parts.
Parts 2 to 8 explain methods of soil tests for civil engineering purposes where samples are
taken for testing in a laboratory. Parts 1, 2, 4 (Clause 3.3, 3.4), 7 (Clause 8, 9), 8.

49.Soil Mechanics Design Manual 7.01. (1986).

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia, pages 348.