Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 598

ADVANCED LABORATORY CHARACTERISATION OF LONDON CLAY

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

By

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

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

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

accounted for in analysing the mechanical response of the clay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

viii

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

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

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

10.1 Suggestions for future work REFERENCES

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

A1

ix

APPENDIX 5.2 Measurements of the elastic parameters APPENDIX 7.1 Shear planes

A9

A14

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on London Clay samples (Costa-Filho, 1984, data from Sandroni, 1977) Table 2.2: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on Lias clay samples (Costa-Filho, 1984, data from Maguire, 1975) Table 3.1: Index proprieties of London Clay at Wraysbury (Skempton et al., 1969) Table 3.2: Index proprieties of London Clay at Ashford Common (Bishop et al., 1965) Table 3.3: Shear modulus ratios for London Clay (Wongsaroj et al., 2004) Table 4.1: Details of bender elements Table 4.2: Summary of key features of typical laboratory instrumentation used in this project Table 5.1: Summary of all tests performed in natural samples Table 5.2: Coordinates of borehole and block samples Table 5.3: Division of the borehole sample into lithological units Table 6.1: X-ray analysis on samples from different lithological units Table 6.2: Specific gravity of grains at T5 and Ashford Common Table 6.3: Index proprieties Table 7.1: Parameters for reconstituted samples isotropically compressed Table 7.2: Parameters of reconstituted samples one-dimensionally compressed Table 7.3: Yield stresses and Stress Sensitivity for samples from different lithological units Table 8.1: Shear moduli during the consolidation stress paths for samples from Unit C (*refer to Figure 8.1) Table 8.2: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit C Table 8.3: Strain energy at the in situ and yield stresses for Unit C Table 8.4: Shear modulus during the approach stress paths for samples from SubUnit B2(c) (*refer to Figure 8.18) Table 8.5: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) Table 8.6: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) xi

Table 8.7: Shear moduli during the approach stress paths for the samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (*refer to Figure 8.38) Table 8.8: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) Table 8.9: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) Table 8.10: Shear moduli for samples consolidated along the approach stress paths used for Unit A3 (*refer to Figure 8.55) Table 8.11: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit A3 Table 8.12: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 Table 8.13: Incremental strain energy for samples from Unit A3 and Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 Table 8.14: Average of the independent elastic parameters measured in the static and dynamic probes on samples from different lithological units Table 9.1: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e (refer to Figure 9.1) Table 9.2: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.3-75o c and 17.3-105o c (refer to Figure 9.5) Table 9.3: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.3-L30o e and 17.3-L150o e (refer to Figure 9.9) Table 9.4: Elastic parameters for probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Structure of the main clay units (Veniale, 1983; Cotecchia, 1996) Figure 2.2: Classification of fabric (Sides & Barden, 1970) Figure 2.3: Schematic diagram showing enhanced resistance of natural clays in compression Figure 2.4: Typical compression curves for (a) clays with sedimentation structure and (b) clays with post-sedimentation structure (Cotecchia & Chandler 1997) Figure 2.5 Influence of structure: proposed normalising parameters Figure 2.6: Sedimentation compression curves for normally consolidated clays (Skempton, 1970) Figure 2.7: The intrinsic and sedimentation compression lines (Burland, 1990) Figure 2.8: (a) In situ states for normally consolidated clays (Skempton, 1970) and (b) interpretation of the data indicating sensitivity (Cotecchia and Chandler, 2000) Figure 2.9: Geometrical definition of the strength sensitivity (Cotecchia & Chandler, 1997) Figure 2.10: Stress and Strength Sensitivity relationships for clays having in situ states on the right of the ICL (Chandler 2000). Figure 2.11: Stress and Strength Sensitivity relationships for clays having in situ states on the left of the ICL (Chandler 2000). Figure 2.12: The Sensitivity framework (Cotecchia & Chandler 1997) Figure 2.13: State boundary surface of reconstituted and undisturbed Pappadai clay consolidated to stresses before yield (Cotecchia, 1996). Figure 2.14: Compression curves of (a) clay with a stable structure (Coop & Cotecchia, 1995) and (b) clay with a meta-stable structure (Burland, 1990) Figure 2.15: Normalised SBS for samples compressed before and beyond gross yield: (a) Bothkennar Clay (Jardine & Smith, 1991); (b) Pappadai Clay (Cotecchia, 1996); Valericca Clay (Amorosi & Rampello, 1998). Figure 2.16: Unique SBS for Pappadai Clay normalised by structure Figure 2.17: Isotropic and k0 compression for Pisa Clay (Baudet & Stallebrass, 2004, data from Callisto 1996) Figure 2.18: Destructuration of Bothkennar Clay (a) isotropic and k0 compression (b) shearing behaviour (Jardine & Smith, 1991) xiii

Figure 2.19: Behaviour of London Clay swelled to 1/6, 1/12, 1/16 the initial vertical effective stress (a) destructuration in one-dimensional swelling (b) normalised shear stress-horizontal displacement; (c) stress paths in constantheight direct shear box tests (Takahashi et al. 2005) Figure 2.20: Fissuring in the London Clay (Chandler & Apted, 1988) Figure 2.21: Variation of water content with different levels of weathered strata (Lias Clay, Chandler, 1972) Figure 2.22: Idealised relationship between effective overburden pressure and water content during the geological history of an overconsolidated clay (Chandler, 1972) Figure 2.23: Shear behaviour of London Clay samples at different levels of weathering (a) Undrained triaxial compression tests, (b) normalised stress paths (Chandler & Apted, 1988) Figure 2.24: Effects of weathering on Pappadai clay (a) Normalised state boundary surfaces of both the natural and the reconstituted samples (b) isotropic and one-dimensional compression behaviour of both the weathered (yellow) and the unweathered (grey) clay (Cafaro & Cotecchia, 2001) Figure 2.25: Effect of clay particles on the critical state friction angle and on the residual friction angle (Lupini et al. 1981) Figure 2.26: Idealised undrained shearing behaviour of overconsolidated clays with (a) low plasticity and (b) high plasticity (Jardine et al, 2004) Figure 2.27: Strength of stiff plastic clays (Jardine et al. 2004) Figure 2.28: Localization of strains and pore pressure distribution in London Clay (Sandroni, 1977) Figure 2.29: Scheme of multiple yield surfaces (Jardine, 1992) Figure 2.30: Definition of Y2 for Bothkennar Clay from drained cyclic tests (Smith et al. 1992) Figure 2.31: Normalised undrained stress paths for triaxial compression tests on Lower Cromer till samples consolidated to different values of K (Gens, 1982) Figure 2.32: Bounds for the elastic parameters and planes and lines representing special types of materials (Pickering, 1970) Figure 2.33: Configuration for measurement of stiffness of a cross-anisotropic soil under axi-symmetric loading (Pennington et al., 1997)

xiv

Figure 2.34: Effect of recent stress history on current stiffness (Atkinson et al. 1990) Figure 2.35: Stiffness response for tests for recent stress history of reconstituted London Clay (Atkinson et al., 1990) Figure 2.36: Compression paths and small strain stiffnesses for natural and reconstituted London Clay samples (Jardine, 1992) Figure 2.37: Stress probes and normalised elastic parameters for Gault clay (Lings et al. 2000) Figure 2.38: Stress dependent stiffness of a single Bothkennar clay specimen subjected to two different loading paths (Clayton & Heymann, 2001) Figure 2.39: Stiffness degradation curves of a Bothkennar clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann, 2001) Figure 2.40: Stiffness degradation curves of London clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann, 2001) Figure 2.41: Schematic behaviour in compression after ageing (Tatsuoka et al., 1998) Figure 2.42: Stress-strain curves after restarting loading at a constant strain rate (Tatsuoka et al., 1998) Figure 2.43: Effect of undrained creep on the shearing behaviour of Fujimori clay (Momoya, 1998, Tatsuoka et al, 1998) Figure 2.44: Effects of drained creep on subsequent undrained shearing for undisturbed Vallericca clay and Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris, 1998 and Tatsuoka et al, 1998) Figure 2.45: Creep effect on fast rate shearing of undisturbed London Clay (Sandroni, 1977) Figure 2.46: Influence of time on (a) the shear stiffness of carbonate sand samples (Jovicic & Coop, 1997); (b) small strain Youngs Modulus of Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris, 1998 and Tatsuoka et al. 1998) Figure 2.47: Development of the kinematic yield surfaces with time (Tatsuoka et al., 1998) Figure 2.48: Effect of strain rate change on Chuba Gravel (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) Figure 2.49: Effect of strain rate change on Vallericca clay (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) xv

Figure 2.50: Effect of strain rate change on Hostun Sand (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) Figure 2.51: Effect of strain rate on the very small strain Youngs Modulus (Tatsuoka et al. 1998) Figure 2.52: Stress-strain curve of Vallericca Clay at very small strains during (a) loading and (b) unloading at different rates (Tatsuoka et al. 1998, data from Santucci de Magistris, 1998) Figure 2.53: Strength envelopes on London Clay samples of different dimensions (Bishop, 1972) Figure 2.54: Strengths of samples of different diameters and samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures (Marsland & Butler, 1967) Figure 2.55: Stress-strain behaviours of intact samples and samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Webb, 1964) Figure 3.1: Late Palaeocene geology (King, 1981) Figure 3.2: The North Sea Basin and London Clay formation (King, 1981) Figure 3.3: Eocene stratigraphy of the London Clay Formation in Southern Britain (King, 1981) Figure 3.4: The London Clay formation: idealised depositional sequences linked to sea level changes (King, 1981) Figure 3.5: Palaeocene and Eocene sections of the London Clay Formation (King, 1981) Figure 3.6: Main features of the lithological units in the London Clay (King, 1981) Figure 3.7: Identification of lithological units by water content (Hight et al., 2003) Figure 3.8: Correlation between the informal lithological division suggested by the BGS (2004) and King (1981) (BGS, 2004) Figure 3.9: Correlation between boreholes at different sites in the London Basin (BGS, 2004) Figure 3.10: Envelope of particle sizes for London Clay (King, 1991) Figure 3.11: Stratigraphical variation in lithology and clay mineralogy (<2m), at Whitecliff Bay in the Hampshire Basin (Hugget & Gale, 1998) Figure 3.12: Geology of the London Clay at Heathrow T5 (Hight et al. 2003)

xvi

Figure 3.13: Profile of London Clay at Ashford Common (a) geology of the site and (b) index proprieties (Bishop et al. 1965) Figure 3.14: Index proprieties of London Clay at T5 (Hight et al., 2003) Figure 3.15: Unit boundaries at T5 identified by water content (Hight et al. 2003 Figure 3.16: ko profiles for the London Clay at T5 and Ashford Common (Hight et al., 2003) Figure 3.17: Suction measurements at T5 (Hight, 2002) Figure 3.18: Horizontal permeability of London Clay from different sites in the London area (Hight et al. 2003) Figure 3.19: Cone penetrometer tests at T5 (BRE 2002; Hight et al, 2003) Figure 3.20: Results of consolidated undrained tests on rotary cored samples from T5 (Hight et al., 2003) Figure 3.21: Triaxial compression and extension failure points from rotary cored and thin-walled samples (Hight et al., 2003) Figure 3.22: Strength envelopes from triaxial tests on London Clay samples from Ashford Common (re-plotted from Bishop et al 1965) Figure 3.23: Strength envelope of samples consolidated from slurry and of natural samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Skempton, 1977) Figure 3.24: Post-rupture and intrinsic failure lines of London Clay at Ashford Common and strength envelope for samples failed along pre-existing fissures (Bishop et al., 1965; Burland, 1990) Figure 3.25: Strength envelopes of reconstituted and natural London Clay samples from different depths (Burland, 1990: data from Bishop et al., 1965) Figure 3.26: Peak and residual strength envelopes for natural London Clay samples from different depths in Central London and strength along fissures (Hight & Jardine, 1993) Figure 3.27: Ashford Common: normalised state boundary surfaces for different depths (Burland, 1990; data from Bishop et al., 1965) Figure 3.28: Variation of elastic shear modulus with p (Wongsaroj et al., 2004) Figure 3.29: Shear wave velocities and maximum shear stiffness at T5 (Hight et al, 2003) Figure 3.30: Identification of the lithological units using the stiffness ratio (Hight et al., 2003) Figure 4.1: Schematic design of the oedometer cell xvii

Figure 4.2: Oedometer apparatus Figure 4.3: Schematic diagram of the hydraulic triaxial apparatus Figure 4.4: Volume gauge Figure 4.5: Electrolevel inclinometers Figure 4.6: Bishop &Wesley triaxial cell for 100mm diameter samples Figure 4.7: Axial LVDT with adjustable screw Figure 4.8: Radial strain belt (Coop, 2005) Figure 4.9: Mid-height pore pressure probe (Hight, 1983) Figure 4.10: Schematic diagram of the lateral bender elements Figure 4.11: Schematic diagram of the medium pressure triaxial apparatus (Qadimi, 2005) Figure 4.12: Schematic diagram of the high pressure apparatus (Qadimi, 2005) Figure 4.13: The high pressure apparatus (Qadimi, 2005) Figure 4.14: The motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi, 2005) Figure 4.15: Schematic diagram of the motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi, 2005) Figure 4.16: Load cell connections (a) half ball (b) suction cap (c) rigid connection (d) new suction cap connection for 100mm diameter samples Figure 5.1: Map of Heathrow T5 Figure 5.2: Map of sample locations Figure 5.3 Sketch of the boreholes divided in lithological units and sub-units Figure 5.4 Sketch of the excavation where the block samples were recovered Figure 5.5 Sampling process: (a) strip of soil excavated by the digging machine; (b) block roughly shaped by pneumatic clay spade; (c) block shaped by hand; (d) cling film layer applied on the block; (e) wax layers applied on the block; (f) block sample closed in the wooden box and sealed with polyurethane foam. Figure 5.6Trimming devices for 100mm diameter samples Figure 5.7Bench saw and block sample trimming. Figure 5.8Sample preparation: (a) preparation of the membrane; (b) set up of the bender elements; (c) sealing of the bender elements and mid-height probe; (d) sketch of the sample with full instrumentation Figure 5.9: Suction measurements and initial effective stresses measured in the triaxial apparatus for all samples tested (Ridley, 2002; Hight et al., 2003)

xviii

Figure 5.10: Problems in performing shear probes: (a) jump in the load cell and tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=0kPa; (b) tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=10kPa. Figure 5.11: Sketch of the stress path rotations for the tests (a) 17SH and (b) 17.3SH Figure 5.12: Sketch of the tests from the in situ stress point Figure 5.13: Variation with time of (a) temperature; (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains Figure 5.14: Variation with time of (a) temperature; (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains after the cell was wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil Figure 5.15: Triaxial cell wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil to prevent temperature oscillation Figure 5.16: Sketch of the oedometer tests Figure5.17: Consolidometers for the reconstituted samples Figure 5.18: Specimen with a failure plane at an axial displacement h (Chandler, 1966) Figure 5.19: Loading frame to measure the membrane extension modulus M Figure 5.20: Extension modulus M calculated for the membrane correction Figure 5.21: Mohr circle of stresses Figure 6.1: Schematic description of the samples and lithological units Figure 6.2: Schematic diagram of electron microscope (manual of Cambridge 500 SEM) Figure 6.3: London Clay from 33.5m depth, Unit A3 (a) orientated fabric; (b) fracture through the sample Figure 6.4: London Clay sample from Unit A3 Figure 6.5: London Clay from Unit A3 : orientated domains Figure 6.6: London Clay from Unit A3 : particle nature and orientation (a) fracture and orientated domains (b) rough and sharp edges of the particles around a grain Figure 6.7: London Clay from Unit A3: Particles around carbonate cement Figure 6.8: London Clay from Unit A3: clay particles around pyrite Figure 6.9: London Clay from Unit A3, particle contacts

xix

Figure 6.10: London Clay from 23.5m, in Unit B2 (a) disturbed structure within the overall bedding (b) homogeneous clayey apparence Figure 6.11: London Clay from Unit B2 : (a) particle orientation and (b) particle contacts Figure 6.12: London Clay samples from Unit B2 Figure 6.13: London Clay from Unit B2 Figure 6.14: London Clay from 7m depth in Unit C (a) very bioturbated structure (b) calcite crystal between grains and clay particles Figure 6.15: London Clay from Unit C Figure 6.16: London Clay from Unit C Figure 6.17: London Clay from Unit C: calcite crystal formed in-place Figure 6.18: London Clay from Unit C: single particles and particle aggregates in a small clayey area at (a) large and (b) very large magnification Figure 6.19: Comparison between samples from different units Figure 6.20: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit C Figure 6.21: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit B2 Figure 6.22: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit A3 Figure 6.23: Water content distribution with depth Figure 6.24: Index proprieties and lithological units Figure 6.25: Grading curves Figure 7.1: Reconstituted samples from Unit C (a) isotropic compression (b) onedimensional compression Figure 7.2: Reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.3: Reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.4: Reconstituted samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.5: NCLs* for samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression Figure 7.6: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit C: (a) stressstrain (b) stress ratio Figure 7.7: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) stressstrain (b) stress ratio xx

Figure 7.8: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) stressstrain (b) stress ratio Figure 7.9: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from different

lithological units Figure 7.10: Pore pressure increments for reconstituted samples from different lithological units Figure 7.11: Stress paths of reconstituted samples from different lithological units Figure 7.12: Normal Compression and Critical State lines for samples from different lithological units Figure 7.13: Normalised stress paths of reconstituted samples from different lithological units Figure 7.14: Oedometric tests on natural samples from Unit C and intrinsic compression curve Figure 7.15: Oedometric tests on natural samples from Unit B (a) Sub-Unit B 2 2(c) (b) Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a) Figure 7.16: Oedometric tests on natural samples from Units A2 and A3 Figure 7.17: Summary of oedometric compression tests on natural samples Figure 7.18: Compression curves of natural samples in the triaxial apparatus Figure 7.19: Casagrandes construction to define the gross yield and change of swelling line gradients Figure 7.20: Change of swell sensitivity with stresses Figure 7.21: Compressibility of natural samples in oedometric tests Figure 7.22: Oedometric compression curves for natural and reconstituted samples Figure 7.23: Stiffness in compression of natural samples in triaxial tests Figure 7.24: Degradation of anisotropic strains during isotropic compression Figure 7.25: Normalised one-dimensional compression curves Figure 7.26: Sketch of the parameters used for the new normalisation Figure 7.27: New normalization for the oedometer tests Figure 7.28: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(c) Figure 7.29: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a) xxi

Figure 7.30: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 7.31: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Unit A3 Figure 7.32: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit C (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes Figure 7.33: Stress ratios for samples from Unit C Figure 7.34: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(c) consolidated to medium stresses (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore water pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.35: Large strain behaviour of Sample 12.5iUC consolidated to high stresses (a) stress-strain relationship (b) pore water pressure changes Figure 7.36: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(c) Figure 7.37: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(b) (a) stress-strains relationships (b) pore water pressure changes Figure 7.38: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(b) Figure 7.39: Large strain behaviour of samples form Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.40: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from anisotropic states (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.41: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated isotropically before shearing Figure 7.42: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B consolidated to anisotropic 2(a) states before shearing Figure 7.43: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.44: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 condolidated to large stresses before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes

xxii

Figure 7.45: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.46: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions Figure 7.47: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from anisotropic states Figure 7.48: Typical shear planes through intact samples Figure 7.49: Multiple shear plane typology Figure 7.50: Typical shear plane along a pre-existing fissure Figure 7.51: Sample sheared in compression with a shear plane of Type 1b in Figure 7.48 Figure 7.52: Sample sheared in extension along a shear plane of Type 3 in Figure 7.50 Figure 7.53: Pore pressure change in a sample sheared along a single shear plane of Type 1a (Test 23.7iUC) Figure 7.54: Pore pressure change for a sample that formed multiple shear planes of Type 2 (Test 11gUC) Figure 7.55: Stress paths for samples from Unit C Figure 7.56: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(c) at low stresses Figure 7.57: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(c) at large stresses Figure 7.58: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(b) Figure 7.59: Stress paths of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions Figure 7.60: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing Figure 7.61: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at low stresses Figure 7.62: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at large stresses Figure 7.63: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing Figure 7.64: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at lower stresses Figure 7.65: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at higher stresses xxiii

Figure 7.66: Peak strengths for samples from Unit A3 Figure 7.67: Comparison between rotary core and block samples (a) stress paths (b) stress-strain relationships Figure 7.68: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium stresses Figure 7.69: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher stresses Figure 7.70: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at low and medium stresses Figure 7.71: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at higher stresses Figure 7.72: Influence of pre-existing fissures on the shear planes (a) natural fissures before testing (b) shear planes after testing Figure 7.73: Typical Mohr circles for a sample that (a) mobilised its intact strength and (b) sheared along a pre-existing fissure Figure 7.74: Comparison between behaviours of samples that mobilized their intact strength or sheared along a pre-existing fissure (a) stress-strain relationships (b) stress paths (c) Mohr's circles Figure 7.75: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium pressures Figure 7.76: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher pressures Figure 7.77: Occurrence of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures Figure 7.78: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit C Figure 7.79: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures Figure 7.80: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at higher pressures Figure 7.81: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit A3 Figure 7.82: Normalized SBS for samples from different lithological units at large stresses Figure 7.83: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2 swelled to low stresses before shearing changes (c) volumetric strains Figure 7.84: Stress ratios for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing xxiv (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure

Figure 7.85: Stress paths for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing Figure 7.86: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures Figure 7.87: Consolidations along ko paths for samples from different lithological units Figure 8.1: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE Figure 8.2: Measurements of the arrival time with bender elements for Sample 7gUC at the in situ stress point, (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.3: Arrival time from the interpretation of the bender element signals for Test 7gUE at the in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method Figure 8.4: Creep rates in the 24h before starting the probes on the samples from Unit C Figure 8.5: Change of pore pressure with time due to temperature fluctuation and periods chosen for probing Figure 8.6: Axial probes on Sample 7gUC. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains Figure 8.7: Axial compression for Test 7gUE. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains Figure 8.8: Radial compression probes on Samples 7gUE and 7gUE radial strains plotted against (a) cell pressure (b) axial strains Figure 8.9: Probes at constant p' on samples from Unit C (a) equivalent shear modulus and (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.10: Constant q probe for samples from Unit C (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.11: Strain rates for the probes and the monotonic loading tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE Figure 8.12: Monotonic shearing of samples 7gUC and 7gUE Figure 8.13: Contour of the Y1 surface for Unit C in (a) stress space and (b) strain space Figure 8.14: Y2 yield point for Sample 7gkUC Figure 8.15: Y2 yield points for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE

xxv

Figure 8.16: Y2 and Y1 surfaces for Unit C (a) plane of stress increments (b) plane of absolute stresses showing the approach stress path Figure 8.17: Stiffness degradation curves for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE sheared to failure Figure 8.18: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) Figure 8.19: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 11gUC (a) frequency method (b) first arrival method for Ghv (c) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method Figure 8.20: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 12.5gUC (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method Figure 8.21: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure with temperature during the day for samples from Sub-unit B2(c) Figure 8.22: Creep rates for Samples 11gUC and 12.5gUC in the 24 hours before probing Figure 8.23: Linear elastic behaviour in an axial compression probe on Sample 12.5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains Figure 8.24: Axial compression probes on Sample 11gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.25: Axial compression and extension probes on Sample 12.5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains Figure 8.26: Radial compression and extension probes for samples from SubUnit B2(c), radial strains plotted against (a) radial stress and (b) axial strain Figure 8.27: Probes at constant p on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) shear modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.28: Constant q probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.29: Constant q probe on Sample 12.5gUC replotted as an undrained test (a) change of pore water pressure at the mid-height during the probe (b) stress-strain curve Figure 8.30: Hysteretic behaviour in a cyclic probe on Sample 12.5gUC (a)stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains Figure 8.31: Monotonic loadings for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) xxvi

Figure 8.32: Y1 yield points for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress space (b) strain space Figure 8.33: Y2 yield point for Sample 12.5gUC Figure 8.34: Y2 yield point for Sample 11gUC Figure 8.35: Y2 yield points for Samples 11gkUC and 11gDE Figure 8.36: Y surface for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress increment space (b) absolute 2 stress space showing approach stress path Figure 8.37: Stiffness degradation for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) sheared from their in situ stress state Figure 8.38: Consolidation stress paths for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and stress states for the bender element tests Figure 8.39: Interpretation of the bender element signals for Sample 22.6gUC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.40: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 23gUE at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.41: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Samples 24g37DC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods Figure 8.42: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure during the day and periods chosen for the static probes Figure 8.43: Creep strain rates for samples from Sub-unit B2(a) in the 24 hours before probing Figure 8.44: Axial compression and extension probes on Samples 22.6gUC and 23gUE (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.45: Axial compression probes for Sample 24g37DC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.46: Radial compression probes for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.47: Constant p' probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.48: Constant q probe on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B (a) bulk 2(a) modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.49: Monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) xxvii

Figure 8.50: Elastic surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress plane (b) strain plane Figure 8.51: Y2 yield points for drained loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 8.52: Y2 yield points for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared undrained Figure 8.53: Y2 surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress increment lane (b) absolute stress plane showing approach stress path Figure 8.54: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared from the in situ stress state Figure 8.55: Approach stress paths for samples from Unit A3 and stress states for the bender element tests Figure 8.56: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.5gDC at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods Figure 8.57: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.3gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods Figure 8.58: Interpretation methods for the bender element signals on Sample 31.4gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods Figure 8.59: Changes of pore water pressure at the mid-height with tme for the i samples from Unit A3 Figure 8.60: Creep rates for samples from Unit A in the 24 hours before starting 3 the static probes Figure 8.61: Axial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and Sample 31.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain Figure 8.62: Axial compression probes on Sample 24g37DC consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 in comparison with the axial compression probe on Sample 36.3gUE (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain Figure 8.63: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 31.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

xxviii

Figure 8.64: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains Figure 8.65: Comparison between the radial compression on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Samples 31.4gUE and 24g37DC from Sub-unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and 3 axial strains Figure 8.66: Constant p' probes for Samples 36.3gUE, 31.4gUE, 24g37DC (a) equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.67: Constant q probes for Samples 36.3gUE and 31.4gUE (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus Figure 8.68: Monotonic loadings on samples consolidated to the in situ stress state for Unit A3 (a) undrained tests (b) drained tests Figure 8.69: Strain rate effects on the stress-strain behaviour of drained samples Figure 8.70: Y1 yield points for samples from Unit A3 and samples from SubUnit B consolidated to the in situ stress of Unit A (a) stress space (b) strain 2(a) 3 space Figure 8.71: Y2 yield points for samples loaded from the in situ stress state of Unit A3 (a) undrained shearing (b) drained loading Figure 8.72: Y2 surface for samples from Unit A3 and samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress for Unit A3 (a) relative stress space (b) absolute stress space and approach stress path Figure 8.73: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Unit A3 Figure 8.74: Comparison between the stiffness degradation curves of samples from Units A3 and B2(a) Figure 8.75: Variation with depth of shear moduli in vertical and horizontal planes Figure 8.76: Variation with depth of Young's moduli in vertical and horizontal directions Figure 8.77: Variation of Poisson's ratios with depth Figure 8.78: Variation of shear and Youngs moduli ratios with depth Figure 8.79: Change of shear modulus with effective stress (a) Ghh (b) Ghv Figure 8.80: Change of shear moduli Ghv and Gvh at high stresses Figure 8.81: Normalised relationship between shear moduli Ghh and stresses xxix

Figure 8.82: Y1 yield locus for different lithological units (a) stress space (b) strain space Figure 8.83: Normalised Y1 yield locus for different lithological units Figure 8.84: Y2 yield locus for different lithological units Figure 8.85: Contours of the kinematic regions and approach stress paths for different lithological units Figure 8.86: Normalised Y2 yield locus for samples from different lithological units Figure 8.87: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit C Figure 8.88: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit B2 (a) Sub-Unit B2(c) (b) Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 8.89: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit A3 and from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3 Figure 8.90: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from different lithological units Figure 8.91: Bender element signal through a sheared sample (a) horizontal polarisation and horizontal propagation (b) vertical polarisation and horizontal propagation Figure 9.1: Approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17SH Figure 9.2: Strain rates for Sample 17SH (a) creep strains before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes Figure 9.3: Stress-strain curves for the probes on Sample 17SH after a short approach path Figure 9.4: Shear stiffness for the probes on Sample 17SH Figure 9.5: Short approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17.3SH Figure 9.6: Strain r ates for the short approach stress paths of Sample 17.3SH (a) creep rates before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes Figure 9.7: Stress-strain curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.2SH Figure 9.8: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.3SH Figure 9.9: Approach stress paths above Y2 and shear probes for Sample 17.3SH xxx

Figure 9.10: Strain rates for Sample 17.3SH subjected to a long stress path (a) creep strain rates before probes (b) strain rates during the probes Figure 9.11: Stress-strain curves for the shear probes on Sample 17.3SH after long approach stress path Figure 9.12: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes on Sample 17.3SH after a long stress path Figure 9.13: Yield points for the linear elastic region of samples subjected to short approach stress paths Figure 9.14: Yield point for the linear elastic region of Sample 17.3SH subjected to a long approach stress path Figure 9.15: Yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH and the contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 9.16: Normalized yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH and normalized contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 9.17: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17SH Figure 9.18: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.3SH where the creep was not allowed Figure 9.19: Y Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.3SH subjected to long 2 approach stress path Figure 9.20: Y yield points for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH and the 2 contour of Y2 for Sub-Unit B2(a) Figure 9.21: Normalized yield of the Y2 region for the probes on samples 17SH and 17.3SH and normalized contour of the Y region for the other lithological 2 units Figure A5.1: Sketch of the geometry of the site Figure A5.2: ko profile derived from suction measurements on thin-walled samples (Hight et al, 2003) Figure A5.3: Schematic geological stress history of London Clay at T5 Figure A5.4: Geological stress paths, shifted stress paths and in situ stress points for the three reference depths. Figure A5.5: Approach stress paths to the in situ stress states (a) long path for 25m and 37m depths ((b) short path for 25m and 37m depths (c) path for 7m and 10m depths (d) path of Test 24G37DC. Figure A5.6: Shear wave signal and first arrival time xxxi

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

xxxii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

d w s e

Angle of the shear plane to the horizontal Bulk unit weight Dry bulk unit weight Unit weight of water Unit weight of soil grains Specific volume on the intrinsic critical state line Axial strain due to the movement along the shear plane Final axial strain due to the movement along the shear plane Axial displacements Axial displacement at the time of the shear plane formation Axial displacement at the end of the test Axial strain Critical strain of the Y2 surface Strains at the end of the test Strain at which the shear plane forms Radial strain Volumetric strain Gradient of the NCL* in the v-logp plane Shear wave length Poissons ratio for horizontal strains due to horizontal strains Poissons ratio for vertical strains due to horizontal strains Poissons ratio for horizontal strains due to vertical strains Total mass density of the soil Axial stress Equivalent pressure Radial stress Preconsolidation stress Vertical effective stresses Lower limit of gross yield stress (Casagrande construction)

h hf hp
a crit

e f
r v s hh vh hv

a e r ? p v ? y

xxxiii

? yu yz, zx, xy

Upper limit of gross yield stress Shear stresses Angle of shearing resistance of the soil Cross sectional area Initial cross sectional area Ratio corresponding to the removal of the deviatoric stress Coefficient of saturation Cohesion intercept Intrinsic compression index Intact compression index Intrinsic swelling index Intact swelling index Swelling sensitivity Critical State Framework Critical State Line Distance between the bender element plates Sample diameter Sample diameter at the time of the shear plane formation Voids ratio Voids ratio on the intrinsic curve Voids ratio on the ICL for 100kPa vertical pressure Voids ratio on the ICL for 1000kPa vertical pressure Normalised voids ratio, e-e* Young modulus in the vertical direction Young modulus in the horizontal direction Shear wave frequency Unit friction between the soil sample and the membrane Deviatoric force Specific gravity of the grains Equivalent elastic shear modulus Elastic shear modulus Shear moduli in the vertical plane Shear modulus in horizontal plane

A Ao As B c C* c Cc C* s Cs C* s/Cs CSF CSL d D Df e e* e100 e1000 en Ev Eh f fm Fa Gs Geq Gmax Gvh and Ghv : Ghh

xxxiv

I ICL Ho IsSR ISuL Ip Iv Jqp Jpq K k L LBS LL mv M (Chapter 5


only)

Illite Intrinsic Compression Line Initial height of the sample In situ stress ratio Intrinsic strength line Plasticity index Void Index Coupling moduli Bulk modulus a/r Travel length of the shear wave Local Boundary Surface Liquid limit Coefficient of oedometric compressibility Extension modulus of the rubber membrane Stress ratio q/p at critical state Specific volume on the NCL* for p=1kPa Normal compression line Intrinsic normal compression line Number of wave cycles Overconsolidation ratio Mean effective stress p on the isotropic intrinsic compression line at the same v Mean effective stress at gross yield in isotropic compression p on the isotropic NCL for the v at gross yield Mean effective stress at gross yield in ko compression Initial suction Isotropic preconsolidation pressure Plastic limit Quartz (a+r)/2

M N
*

NCL NCL*
Rd = D /2

OCR=? /v p p p*e pyi p*yi pkoiy pk pp PL qtz s

xxxv

t S SBS SBS* SCC SCL Shv, Svh Ss=C* s/Cs St Su/S* u=St S=y / e Su S* u tarr vs v vi vf Vo YSR=? /? y v Y1 , Y2 and Y3

(a-r)/2 Smectite State Boundary Surface Intrinsic State Boundary Surface Sedimentation Compression Curve Sedimentation Compression Line Shear waves in different directions Swell sensitivity Strenght Sensitivity Stress Sensitivity Undrained strength Intrinsic undrained strength Arrival time Velocity of the shear wave Specific volume Initial specific volume Final specific volume Initial volume of the sample Yield stress ratio Yield kinematic surfaces

xxxvi

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the research


London Clay is an example of a stiff sedimentary clay, which is similar to other such clays in term of strength response, stiffness and destructuration processes. New findings about the geology of London Clay (King, 1981) highlighted the importance of investigating the relationship between geology and engineering behaviour for stratified materials. Studying London Clay has

therefore a general interest for the better understanding of a class of clays, that is stiff, non-uniform clays, for which a common model for behaviour could be desired.

Recent events, such as the Heathrow tunnel collapse in 1994 and the poorly predicted ground movements at St. James Park during the construction of the Jubilee line extension highlighted a local need to revise the general properties of the material that engineers in London deal with. The successful modelling of

ground movements using small strain, non-linear and anisotropic models (Stallebrass & Taylor, 1997, Simpson 1992; Jardine 1992) also revealed the importance of obtaining high quality experimental data, and investigating the small strain behaviour of the materials.

1.2 Objectives
This research has aimed at finding a framework for the London Clay relating the engineering properties of this material to its geological features. The structure of the clay and its geological history have been correlated through the mechanical response of the soil at both large and small strains.

King (1981) identified different lithological units for this clay and Hight et al., (2003) and Standing & Burland (1999) demonstrated that the lithology of 1

London Clay influences its mechanical response. Following these works, in this research, an investigation on the lithological characteristics of the clay has been conducted with the support of geological analysis (Mannion, 2004) and the relationship between lithology and the engineering response of the clay has been investigated in terms of stiffness and strength, considering the influence that structure, fissures and lithology have on the soil response. High quality rotary core and block samples were used from different depths within the London Clay stratum. The clay has been tested in its intact state, and in its reconstituted state to highlight the influence of structure for the natural material. The processes that induce destructuration of the natural material, such as compression/swelling to very high or very low stresses, have also been analysed, although the compression stresses were limited by the apparatus used. Initially, an

investigation of the effects of weathering on the sample behaviour was intended, but the lithological analysis of the clay demonstrated that there was no evidence of weathering on the samples from this site, even at the shallowest depths.

The investigation on the small strain behaviour of the clay has been conducted by using dynamic and static probes that allowed an analysis of the anisotropy of the clay and the investigation of the kinematic yield surfaces. Further investigation of the stiffness of the clay led also to a study of the effects of recent stress history on the soil behaviour.

The framework developed, based on data from the large and the small strain analyses, could be expected to be applied to similar stiff clays that present lithological variability due to their geological history.

1.3 Structure of the thesis


The thesis consists of ten chapters. Following this introductory section (Chapter 1), Chapter 2 presents a literature review of the influence of factors such as structure, weathering and fissures on the behaviour of clays at large and small strains. In this chapter, the basic definition of structured materials and the

processes of destructuration are discussed in detail. The current state of research on soil behaviour at small strains is also analysed.

A separate review on the behaviour of London Clay is presented in Chapter 3, where both the classical studies and the latest findings of the geological and mechanical features of this soil are considered.

In Chapter 4, the apparatus used for the research are described, with details of the instrumentation used. The test procedures, from sampling to testing, are presented in Chapter 5. Details of the data analyses, the interpretation methods and the corrections a pplied to the raw data are also included in this chapter. Two appendixes to Chapter 5 describe the details of specific calculations and analyses. Appendix 5.1 illustrates the calculations for the consolidation procedures and Appendix 5.2 shows details of the small strain procedures and their interpretation.

Chapter 6 describes the soil used, the index properties of the samples tested and the analysis of their microstructure and mineralogy. In Chapter 7 the analysis and discussion for the large strain data from the laboratory testing are presented. Both the compression and large strain shearing behaviour of the clay is discussed in this chapter, considering natural and reconstituted samples. The data are compared with the literature and with the data available from the site investigation at the site where the samples were retrieved.

The analysis of the clay behaviour at small strains is presented in Chapter 8. The elastic parameters and the yield surfaces of the soil are identified from tests performed on samples consolidated to their in situ stress states.

Chapter 9 discusses the effects of recent stress history on the soil behaviour from a specific testing programme defined for this study. Finally, Chapter 10 gives a summary of the conclusion obtained in the research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Structure
The term structure will be used here to define the combination of fabric, the arrangement of the component particles, and bonding, the interparticle forces, which are not of a purely frictional nature (Lambe & Whitman, 1969). Fabric includes inhomogeneities, layering, distribution of the soil particles and fissures (Coop et al., 1995). connect the particles. Bonding is the combination of forces acting to

Clay particles are very small and interact in complex way, so clays are often regarded as continuum materials. A clay particle is formed of a sequence of structural units constituted of minerals of hydrated layered silicates of aluminium and magnesium, which have a more or a less stable spacing depending on the strength of the links between the units. The constituent layers and the links between them define different minerals, such as kaolinites, illites and chlorite, which have stable structures due to strong links between the units, and smectite which has un-stable structure, as the basal links are provided by hydrated cations as shown in Figure 2.1 (Veniale, 1985; Blyth and De Freitas, 1984). The orientation and distribution of these particles in a soil mass define the fabric of the clay (Lambe and Whitman, 1969). 2.1.1 Fabric

Sides and Barden (1970) provided a classification of fundamental fabrics, which are summarised in Figure 2.2. They identify a flocculated fabric,

characterized by a net attractive electrical force between the particles; a dispersed fabric, with close packed particles due to a net negative force during deposition; a turbostatic fabric, where edge to face contacts are present between domains and stacks with highly oriented particles. The flocculated fabric is distinguished by a

cardhouse fabric with a single particle arrangement, or bookhouse with particles arranged in groups, called domains, which are parallel (Figure 2.2).

The depositional conditions significantly affect the fabric of the sediment and the two most significant depositional factors are likely to be the rate of deposition and the stillness of the water. Slow deposition in still water leads to an open fabric and OBrien & Slatt (1990) showed that lamination indicates that deposition occurred in still conditions, with no-depositional mixing. Rapid deposition, possibly with significant currents, gives rise to a more orientated fabric, which is consequently more compact (Burland 1990). The presence of pyrite framboids is usually an indicator of anaerobic sulphide diagenesis developing in the early stages of consolidation, implying the existence of a confined, reducing environment. The fabric formed during deposition is termed primary fabric and it can be modified by post-depositional phenomena. 2.1.2 Bonding

Bonding is defined as the combination of all the inter-particle forces, which are not of purely frictional nature. They can be of electrostatic or electromagnetic nature, Van der Waal forces and viscous stresses within the absorbed water layer, or, in general, all the factors acting to keep the soil particles together.

The structure of clay, as defined above, is thus a physico-chemical equilibrium between the soil particles. This equilibrium develops during the geological life of the soil as a result of mineralogy, electrostatic and magnetic interactions between crystals, ion concentration and water chemistry during deposition, osmotic pressure, temperature and organic content. Either externally induced variations of these factors or the development of chemical reactions within the sediments can cause substantial changes of both the fabric and the bonding of the clay with time. Depositional and post-depositional processes contribute, therefore, to the formation and the evolution of the soil structure, which can be considered as the result of all the processes that a soil has undergone during its geological history.

2.1.3

Anisotropy and post-depositional processes define the conditions of

Depositional

equilibrium of the particles and contacts and therefore govern the soil response to subsequent changes in stresses and strains. The particle deposition and compression occur under gravity and hence are directionally dependent. Particle arrangement and contacts are therefore anisotropic. This determines differences in the soil response depending on the direction of the application of the stress changes.

The anisotropy arising from the geological history of the soil is regarded as inherent anisotropy (Casagrande & Carrillo, 1944). The inherent or structural

anisotropy arises from the structure of the soils, as a consequence of geological processes, and so from both the fabric, as in laminated and bedded soils, and the interparticle contacts. It refers strictly to natural soils, although it might also be expected to exist in reconstituted soils that have undergone an anisotropic plastic strain history. This strain-induced anisotropy can be distinguished from the stress induced anisotropy, which results solely from the anisotropy of the current stress condition and is independent of the strain and stress history of the material. 2.1.4 Destructuration

The definition of structure given above coincides with what Leroueil et al. (1984) called the intact state of structure, which is the state that occurs in natural deposits. Leroueil et al. regarded structure as a more general concept that concerns the particular state in which the clayey soils can be encountered or produced. They distinguished an intact state of structure, a destructured state, a remoulded state and a resedimented state. The destructured state is that of an intact clay subjected to large strains that destroy its original structure. The remoulded state is obtained when sufficient mechanical energy is imparted to the clay mass to reduce its strength to a minimum. The resedimented state is achieved by the deposition of clay particles originally remoulded and remixed to a slurry and then consolidated under the self-weight of a soil column of increasing thickness (Leroueil et al., 1984). The mineralogy of the clay, the 7

chemistry

and

the

deposition

and

consolidation conditions influence the

characteristics of the resedimented state.

The concept of state of structure introduced by Leroueil et al. (1984) proposes that the characteristics of a soil are consequences of the processes the soil has undergone, and therefore, any soil, in any state it is, can be considered to have a structure, which depends on its sedimentation process. In this research, the term structure will be used for clays in their intact state, which results from the natural geological history of the soil. A destructurated state will be assumed to be the state of a reconstituted soil that has been mixed at a water content equal to or greater than the liquid limit, without air or oven drying and has been consolidated under one-dimensional conditions (Burland, 1990). Fearon & Coop (2000) found that this remoulding process removed the macro-fabric of clays, but not necessarily all elements of its micro-fabric. In a reconstituted state, the clay will still have a structure, but it will be comprised of a fabric and bonding that are stable, as they do not change with disturbance (Cotecchia, 1996, Baudet & Stallebrass 2004). Burland (1990) therefore defined the properties of a reconstituted soil as intrinsic, since they refer to the basic or inherent properties of the clay. The reconstituted state as the state of a fully destructured material, will be considered as a reference to define the degree of structure of a natural material, which corresponds to the degree of enhanced strength. Leroueil & Vaughan (1990) defined structure permitted space as being the stresses above those defined by the reconstituted normal compression line, which the natural material may reach (Figure 2.3). In the following discussions, the symbol * will refer to the intrinsic properties of materials. 2.1.5 Sedimentation and post-sedimentation structure

Following Cotecchia (1996) and Cotecchia & Chandler (1997, 2000) clays may be divided into clays with a sedimentation structure, whose structure develops during and after deposition as a result solely of one-dimensional compression and clays with a post-sedimentation structure, whose structure develops when geological processes alter the sedimentation structure of the soil after normal consolidation.

The

sedimentation

structure

is

typical

of

normally

or

lightly

overconsolidated clays, whose in situ stress, in the plane of specific volume v against mean effective stress p, lies on or near the Sedimentation Compression Curve for the natural soil. Soft clays and stiff normally consolidated clays that have undergone diagenetic processes only while compressing to high stresses, exhibit this type of structure. In these clays, the in situ vertical stress, ? , the v gross yield stress ? and the preconsolidation stress ? coincide (? =? =? ). y p v p y As recommended by Burland (1990) the term gross yield stress ? , is used to y indicate the stress beyond which large volumetric changes occur and can be distinguished from the preconsolidation pressure ? , which is reserved for the p true geological preconsolidation stress. Similarly, the term overconsolidation ratio OCR= ? /v is reserved for the known geological history of the clay and p the term yield stress ratio, YSR=?/?, describes the breakdown of the natural y v structure due to compression. When loaded at a geological rate, with continued development of structure, the compression curves of clays with a sedimentation structure move along the SCC for the natural soil, towards the point Z in Figure 1 2.4a. For higher loading rates, the compression curves follow a path that goes towards point Z2 in Fig.2.4a, as result of breakage of the structure of the soil. Post-sedimentation structure is typical of overconsolidated clays that have undergone such processes as erosion, ageing or diagenesis altering their initial sedimentation structure. In loading from the in situ stress (point O in Figure 2.4b), the compression curve moves towards the SCC and directly yields towards point Z3 if the post-sedimentation structure has been achieved solely by erosion, or yields at point Y, above the SCC of the natural material, if the soil underwent other geological processes that created a stronger structure. For these clays: ? >? >? and YSR>OCR. y p v 2.1.6 Degree of structure

The enhanced resistance of natural clays to compression is also reflected in shear strengths of the natural material that plot above the intrinsic State Boundary Surface (SBS) defined by the Critical State Framework (Smith et al. 9

1992; Calabresi & Scarpelli, 1985; Rampello 1989; Burland 1990). The locations of the natural compression curve and the natural SBS in comparison to the locations of the normal compression line and SBS of the reconstituted material can be used as a measure of the influence of the structure on the sample behaviour.

Burland et al. (1996) observed that the ratio of the normalised strength at the critical state (DE/DF in Figure 2.5) could be useful in measuring the influence of structure. They highlighted also that the cohesion is a significant parameter of bonding and the ratio between the cohesion of the natural and reconstituted materials might also be used to evaluate the effect of structure. In comparing the cohesion, though, the curvature of the failure surface of the natural material at very small stresses should be taken into consideration.

Terzaghi (1944) defined sensitivity St as the ratio between the undrained strength of undisturbed clay and the undrained strength of the remoulded clay at the same water content. The sensitivity is generally regarded as the parameter embodying the differences of the microstructures of the natural and the remoulded clay (e.g. Cotecchia, 1996). Schmertmann, (1969) defined swell sensitivity Ss as the ratio of the intrinsic to the intact swelling indices C* s/Cs, which can also be used as indicator of structure.

2.2 Large strain behaviour

2.2.1

Normalising parameters

Figure 2.6 shows the Sedimentation Compression Curves (SCC) derived by Skempton (1944) for a number of natural clays and plotted as relationship between the natural void ratio and the in situ vertical effective stress. Skempton and Northey (1952) showed that, by normalizing the sedimentation compression curves of reconstituted clays by using to the liquidity index, the compression behaviour of reconstituted material could be defined in a unique manner, so that

10

a unique line emerged. Burland (1990) introduced a normalizing parameter based on mechanical proprieties of the soil, the Void Index Iv :
* * e e100 e e100 Iv = * = * e100 e1000 Cc*

(2.1)

where e* 100 and e* 1000 are the intrinsic void ratios for one-dimensional compression corresponding to vertical effective stresses v =100kPa and 1000kPa respectively and C* c is the intrinsic compression index. In the normalised graph Iv -v , the compression curves of reconstituted materials then plot on a unique line called the Intrinsic Compression Line (ICL). In the same normalised plane Iv -v , Burland (1990) fitted a regression line through the natural sedimentation compression curves determined by Skempton (1970), and identified a unique Sedimentation Compression Line (SCL) (Figure 2.7). The SCL of the natural soils lies above the ICL as result of the structure developed by the natural soils during the sedimentation process and the distance between the ICL and the SCL, called the sedimentation sensitivity (St), is a measure of the acquired strength of the natural sediments with respect to the strength of the reconstituted clay. The distance between the ICL and the SCL can be expressed by the ratio of the gross yield stress ? , which is where the breakdown of the y natural structure occurs in compression, to the equivalent pressure e, which is the vertical effective stress on the ICL corresponding to the void ratio at the gross yield of the clay.

The SCL plotted in Figure 2.7 refers to a set of sedimentation compression curves that were derived by Skempton (1970) for clays of similar composition, with organic contents lower than 10% and carbonate contents lower than 25%, resulting in sensitivities lower than 10. These SCCs plotted very close to each other over a quite narrow band. In Figure 2.8 these sedimentation curves are plotted in the LI-v plane together with the sensitivity values associated with each curve. Clays on the same SCC have the same sensitivity and lower sensitivity clays are towards the lower bound of the band, while high sensitivity clays plot toward the upper bound.

11

2.2.2

The Sensitivity Framework

Cotecchia & Chandler (1997) developed the concept of Strength Sensitivity introduced by Skempton (1970) and defined a framework for clay behaviour based on the sensitivity of clays, using data for the Pappadai clay, an overconsolidated clay from the South of Italy. They noticed that, considering the natural and reconstituted peak strength, qpeak and q*peak, if the Strength Sensitivity is defined by the equation:

St =qpeak/q*peak

(2.2)

the State Boundary Surface of the natural material is then scaled up compared to the SBS of the corresponding reconstituted soil. The strength sensitivity therefore represents the distance between the strength of the intact material and the intrinsic strength (Figure 2.9).

Figures 2.10 and 2.11 illustrate the basic definitions of the Sensitivity Framework, given by Chandler (2000). The author defined the Intrinsic strength
* line ISuL as a line plotted on a graph of I against the undrained strength S u of v

the reconstituted material. In this plane, the Strength Sensitivity St was defined as: Su/S* u=St

(2.3)

where Su is the undrained strength of the natural soil. In the plane of vertical effective stress against void index or void ratio, the Stress Sensitivity is the distance between the yield stress of the natural material and the vertical stress on the ICL at the same void ratio (Cotecchia & Chandler, 1997, 2000): S=y / e (2.4)

The in situ stress ratio, IsSR, and the yield stress ratio, YSR were also defined geometrically. For states on the right of the ICL (Figure 2.10) the equivalent strength is given by the structural resistance of the soil to the vertical stress

12

(IsSR) together with the extra resistance required to load the sample to its yield stress: y /* e= S=IsSR.YSR

(2.5)

In the Sensitivity framework, Equation 2.5 is also equal to the strength sensitivity, and therefore: Su/S* u=St =IsSR.YSR=S

(2.6)

For clays having states lying to the left of the ICL, * e>e, (Figure 2.11) S* u might be greater than Su, so that IsSR could have values less than unity. The equivalent strength has then to be factored up for the reduced in situ stress resulting from erosion: Su=S* u.S .IsSR Rearranging (2.7): Su/S* u=St =S .IsSR

(2.7)

(2.8)

In terms of the state boundary surface Equations 2.6 and 2.8 suggest that a geometric similarity exists between the SBS of the reconstituted and natural materials, so that the strength sensitivity is proportional to the ratio of gross yield stress to the corresponding gross yield stress on the same clay reconstituted (Figure 2.9):

S= piy /p*iy ~pkoiy /p*koiy =St

(2.9)

where the symbols are defined as in Figure 2.9. Cotecchia (1996), and Cotecchia & Chandler (1997, 2000) observed also that on a graph of Iv-v, soils with same strength sensitivity followed same sedimentation curves, whose position corresponds approximately to the sensitivity of the clay (Figure 2.12).

13

The SCLs of natural clays appeared to be approximately parallel to the reconstituted SCL, which, by definition, has St =1. Dividing the stresses by the equivalent pressure p*e, which corresponds to the effective stress on the intrinsic compression curve at the same specific volume of the soil, the influence of volume can be eliminated (Horvslev, 1937). Cotecchia (1996) found that the

state boundary surface of natural Pappadai Clay samples, consolidated up to gross yield plotted and normalised for the volume by p*e, plotted on a unique curve with a constant size ratio relative to that of the corresponding reconstituted soil equal to St (Figure 2.13). 2.2.3 Post yield behaviour

After the gross yield, y , structural breakdown starts to take place and the compression curves of natural materials tend to bend downwards. The destructuration is a gradual process, so that the yield stress y is often not well defined (Burland et al. 1996), but, as the strains increase after gross yield, the strength sensitivity S is no longer a constant value. It has been observed that the t compression curve after yield can converge towards the ICL, demonstrating a meta-stable structure that degrades with strains, or move along a line parallel to the ICL, demonstrating the presence of stable elements of structure that do not degrade with strains. Figure 2.14 shows the compression curves of Boom Clay, with a meta-stable structure, and Sibari Clay, with a more stable structure. Figure 2.14b also shows the swell sensitivity indices, i.e. Cs/C* s, as compression proceeds. As a result of structural breakdown of Boom clay, the swelling curves of the intact material tend to become parallel to the intrinsic swelling curve of the reconstituted soil. A soil can have both stable and meta-stable elements, so that after yielding the compression curve of the natural material can bend downwards towards the ICL, due to the breakdown of the metastable elements, but can then stabilise on a lne which is parallel to the ICL and above it due to the presence of i stable elements. Coop et al. (1995) suggested that the meta-stable elements in structure are likely to be associated with bonding, while the stable elements are likely to result from fabric.

14

The structural breakdown after yielding modifies the normalised soil behaviour. Jardine & Smith (1991) found that the ko consolidation beyond yield reduces the normalised compression strength of Bothkennar clay and Cotecchia (1996) showed that the normalised boundary surface of Pappadai Clay, compressed to a state above the gross yield, lies below that of the clay compressed to states below the gross yield (Figure 2.15). Analogous behaviour was found by Amorosi & Rampello, (1998) testing Vallericca clay. The nonunique state boundary surface in the plane q/p* e-p/p* e is related to the inability of the equivalent pressure to describe changes in the mechanical behaviour of a structured clay induced by the destructuration strains that is the plastic strains that developed during compression and shearing (Cotecchia & Chandler, 1997; Amorosi & Rampello, 1998). Cotecchia & Chandler (1997 and 2000) pointed out that the size of the current gross yield surface of natural soils is not controlled solely by the plastic volumetric strains, as for reconstituted clays, but is controlled both by the volume change and by the change in strength sensitivity. In order to model the post yield state of structured material Leroueil et al. (1984) highlighted the need of a more appropriate normalizing parameter that accounts for the progressive process of destructuration and Cotecchia & Chandler (1997) suggested to use the Strength Sensitivity St . They showed that, when the SBS of Pappadai clay was normalised for the structure (St =piy /p*iy ), as well as volume using p* e, a unique SBS curve appeared, as shown in Figure 2.16. The Strength Sensitivity changes after yielding with increasing strains due to the progression of structure breakdown. Sophisticated numerical models and normalizing parameters have been suggested (Kavvadas & Amorosi, 2000; Baudet & Stallebrass, 2004) to take into account the progression of the destructuration process as plastic strains develop, and to evaluate the influence of the volumetric and deviatoric components of the destructuration strains. Callisto & Rampello (2004) proposed to normalize the mean and deviatoric
* stresses by a parameter that is similar to the equivalent intrinsic pressure p e, but

which also includes the effect of the progressive breakdown of the structure.

Amorosi & Rampello (1998) suggested that for those soils that retain a stable structure after yield, (e.g. Vallericca clay), the state of the soil destructurated 15

under anisotropic compression should be taken as a reference for evaluating the influence of structure rather than the reconstituted state. Baudet & Stallebrass (2004) allowed stable and meta-stable elements of structure to be modelled considering the intrinsic proprieties of the soils, which do not require highpressure tests on natural samples to be performed.

These models have been shown to reproduce well the behaviour of normally consolidated soils, but still are less well able to simulate the behaviour of heavily consolidated clays that form shear planes. 2.2.4 Anisotropic destructuration

Destructuration is related to the cumulative volumetric and deviatoric plastic strains, the destructuration strains, which can occur during both consolidation and shear stages. The mechanism of destructuration depends on the direction of the stress path (Jardine & Smith, 1991; Kavvadas & Amorosi, 2000; Baudet & Stallebrass, 2004) and on the fabric of the soil. The arrangement of the particles influences the capability of the soil to sustain better one or other component of the destructuration strains. The influence of the two components of the destructuration strains is still the subject of debate in the literature. Callisto (1996) showed that ko compression of Pisa clay, a soft clay, created more damage to the structure than isotropic compression, as shown in Figure 2.17. The breakdown of structure of the clay under the deviatoric strains involved in the k o compression is faster than that generated under isotropic conditions, where the deviatoric component of strains is much lower. Amorosi (2004) found that Vallericca clay, a stiff clay, destructured more during isotropic compression than during ko compression, implying a reduction of the normalised size of the State Boundary Surface of the clay. Jardine & Smith (1991) observed that isotropic

compression of Bothkennar clay led to a more ductile response and a larger stress ratio than ko compression (Figure.2.18). Most of the models for structured soils use different proportion of volumetric and shear strains in the destructuration law (e.g. Kavvadas & Amorosi, 2000). Baudet & Stallebrass, (2004) suggested that the plastic shear and volumetric strains are of equal importance in influencing the degradation of structure.

16

Tests on Vallericca clay (Amorosi & Rampello, 1998) and Bothkennar clay (Smith et al. 1992) showed that the destructuration process is more significant in samples sheared drained than undrained, because during the drained stress paths plastic volumetric strains add to plastic deviatoric strains causing a faster progressive collapse of the natural structure under drained conditions. 2.2.5 Destructuration in swelling

Leroueil & Vaughan (1990) pointed out that swelling might cause changes to the structure of some soils through disruption of interparticle bonding and yield, similar to that induced by compression to very high pressures.

Calabresi & Scarpelli (1985) investigated the behaviour in compression and shearing of two Italian clays, Todi clay and Ancona clay. They noticed that the compression curves of both clays showed that the yield stresses of the samples that had been swelled before re-compression were lower than the yield stresses of the intact samples. Swelling did not show, however, a significant influence on the shearing behaviour of either clay and the normalised stress paths of the swelled samples plotted together with the normalised stress paths of the intact samples.

Takahashi et al. (2004) identified similar behaviour for natural London Clay. They tested samples from Heathrow from two depths, 26m and 37m, in the shear box. The samples that were swelled before shearing showed that the swelling index increased with swelling (Figure 2.19a), suggesting a process of destructuration of the material. However, the influence of this destructuration on the shearing stress paths was not very evident and the peak strengths of the samples swelled before compression plotted together with the peak strengths of the intact material (Figure 2.19c). In the normalised stress-strain response there was no difference between the behaviour of intact samples and samples swelled before re-compression at 37m depth, whereas swelled samples from 26m depth showed a slightly lower strength than intact samples (Figure 2.19b). Jardine et al.

17

(2004) observed that the difference in lithological units influenced the behaviour in swelling of London Clay samples (see Chapter 3). 2.2.6 Effects of weathering

Evidence of structural degradation has been found for clays subjected to weathering processes. Bjerrum (1967) postulated that weathering was

responsible for the destruction of diagenetic bonds developed during the geological history of clays and this was confirmed by Chandler (1972) for Lias clay, Chandler & Apted (1988) for London Clay, and Cafaro & Cotecchia (2001) for Pappadai clay.

Weathering processes are often recognisable by colour changes of the clay at shallower depths, (e.g. from blue-grey to brown in London Clay and from grey to yellow in Pappadai clay) due to oxidation processes that turn ferrous to ferric oxide. Chandler (1972) observed that the relative proportion of ferrous to ferric oxide can be used to identify the degree of oxidation, the ratio F O3 /FeO being e2 higher for clay strata subjected to higher oxidation. He emphasised that loss of carbonate content and variation of the metallic elements were also indicative of the degree of weathering, although the change of fabric and the distribution of the fissures in the weathered stratum were more representative of the degree of weathering. Chandler & Apted (1988) noticed that London Clay did not show a significant change of mineralogy due to weathering, apart from the loss of carbonate content, but the density of fissures increased dramatically in the weathered material (Figure 2.20). In the weathered stratum of Pappadai clay, Cafaro & Cotecchia (2001) observed only small changes in the mineralogy of the clay, with an increased presence of calcium and iron sulphates, but weathering modified the fabric of the clay, turning to random domains the orientated domains of the fabric of the un-weathered clay.

In Lias clay and London Clay, Chandler (1972) and Chandler & Apted (1988) identified four main zones of weathering, and observed that the depth affected by weathering depended on different factors, which included the presence of overburden material. In both clays a particular feature of weathered zones was

18

the occurrence of lithorelics, fragments of relatively un-weathered material set in a matrix of more weathered clay. These fragments retained a water content that was lower than the surrounding material. The water content was therefore assumed to be a fundamental parameter in the investigation of the effect of weathering on the mechanical behaviour of clays. Chandler & Apted (1988) correlated the variation of water content with the variation of strength at different levels of weathered materials (Figure 2.21) and found that weathering increased the water content of London Clay by 4% above that expected if swelling only was involved. Similar behaviour was observed in the Lias clay. Chandler (1972) and Chandler & Apted (1988) noticed that the swelling line through the in situ point of the weathered material intercepts an overburden pressure lower than the overburden pressure of the un-weathered material and concluded that weathering removed some influences of previous consolidation (Figure 2.22). They interpreted the loss of strength of the weathered strata in terms of a reduction of cohesion intercept c, as shown in Figure 2.23 and observed that the stress path changed with increasing degree of weathering, although the weathered clay still seemed to retain its structure in comparison with the reconstituted material (Figure 2.23a). Cafaro & Cotecchia (2001) found similar behaviour for samples of Pappadai clay. The State Boundary Surface of the weathered clay plotted above the intrinsic SBS of the reconstituted material, but inside the SBS of the un-weathered material, indicating destructuration due to weathering (Figure 2.24a). The compression curves plotted in the v-logp plane show that the weathered clay underwent gross yield at lower stresses (Figure 2.24b) indicating weaker bonding and a lower Stress Sensitivity S.

2.3 Large strain strength


Based on Skempton work on residual strength (Skempton, 1964), Lupini et al. (1981) introduced the idea that post-peak, soils with lower proportion of platy clay minerals show turbulent shear behaviour, while soils with high content of platy clay minerals show sliding shear behaviour. Based on an analysis of a range of British clays, Vaughan et al. (1978), proposed the plasticity index Ip as a useful parameter to divide soils having turbulent or sliding behaviour. They

19

observed that for soils with Ip <25% the shearing behaviour was prevalently turbulent; for soils with Ip >30% the shearing behaviour was sliding (Figure 2.25). Jardine et al. (2004) pointed out that, although there are many examples of soils that fail to respect this relationship, as other parameters are also involved, in general terms the undrained strength of low plasticity clays is controlled by the water content, as these soils undergo turbulent shearing and their behaviour in an overconsolidated state is basically ductile. Plastic clays, instead, undergo sliding shearing, so their peak undrained stress is controlled by the initial stress before shearing and their shearing behaviour in a overconsolidated state is generally brittle (Figure 2.26, Jardine et al. 2004). The brittleness is thought to be due to the presence of bonding, as this increases the peak strength of the material, but has no influence on the large strain strength.

Burland (1990) defined post-rupture strength as being the post-peak strength of stiff clays, which is believed to be that remaining after breakage of interparticle bonds (Figure 2.27). Burland et al. (1996) observed that the postrupture strength envelope tends to lie close to the intrinsic Critical State Line of the reconstituted material. In stiff clays, the localization of strains is thought to be the consequence of the strain softening, and Sandroni (1977) observed that for London Clay the localization of strains coincided with a non-uniform distribution of the pore pressure (Figure 2.28).

Jardine et al. (2004) highlighted that the engineering performance of clays is strongly influenced by their ductile or brittle behaviour and summarised the main factors that determine it, such as stress history, formative history, microstructure, rate effects and fabric.

2.4 Yielding behaviour


The yielding of soils is a progressive process, as reflected by the non-linearity of stiffness. In order to simulate this progressive process, several models have been suggested that account for yielding involving multiple kinematic surfaces

20

(Al-Tabbaa & Muir Wood, 1989; Stallebrass & Taylor, 1997, Simpson 1992; Jardine 1992).

Jardine (1992) proposed a general framework of soil behaviour, consisting of defining three main zones of stress-strain response. He recognized three

surfaces, named Y1 , Y2 and Y3 , surrounding the stress state at which the soil is located. Y1 and Y2 are kinematic surfaces, and therefore move together with the stress point, while Y3 is thought to remain comparatively immobile and is only affected by large strain events. The multiple yield surfaces are sketched in Figure 2.29. 2.4.1 Y1 surface

This is the limit of the zone of linear elastic response. Within this region the strains are linearly dependent on the stresses applied and the load-unload stress paths are expected to coincide giving fully recoverable strains. The soil mass is modelled as elastic particles linked by elastic contacts (Jardine 1992), the particle contacts are therefore thought to be relatively unchanged, with no movements occurring between them. In the past, the resolution of the strains did not allow a region of truly elastic behaviour to be resolved and Porovic & Jardine (1995) noticed that in some soils energy dissipation occurs as dynamic tests are performed, thus the behaviour might not always be fully recoverable.

The magnitude of the strains measured when the Y1 surface is engaged, is very small. The maximum strains might range from about 0.002%, for reconstituted soils (Rolo 2003), to around 0.006% for natural, structured and lightly cemented materials (Jardine 1995; Cuccovillo & Coop 1997; Rolo 2003), but this limit can be much higher for well cemented materials. The strain rate

marginally influences the linear region, which increases as the strain rate increases, although the effect of the increase is only about 10% per log strain rate increment (see Section 2.7). Dynamic tests show strain thresholds larger than those measured in static tests, while strain rates comparable with residual creep rates are thought to reduce the elastic response threshold (Jardine 1985, 1992). Shear wave laboratory tests have demonstrated that soil behaviour may be

21

anisotropic within the elastic region. Rolo (2003) observed that the elastic surface of Bothkennar clay at 6m depth is about 2kPa in diameter and it is eccentric with regard to the current effective stress. 2.4.2 Y2 surface

This is the contour of a zone of non-linear stress-strain behaviour, where plastic strains are produced and the load-unload stress path reversal is hysteretic. Jardine (1992) attributed the loss of energy in the hysteretic loop to small-scale yielding and fretting at the inter-particle contacts, subjected to normal and shear loading. Studies on clays (Jardine 1992, Smith et al. 1992; Georgiannou, 1998) showed that, although there is hysteresis in the Y2 region the behaviour is fully recoverable. Jardine (1995) therefore suggested that the limit of the fully recoverable zone could be mapped by sets of load-unload drained stress paths, which should be seen to close until the Y2 surface is reached. Once Y2 is engaged, at a strain crit , the ratio of plastic strain to total strain increases systematically preventing the hysteretic loop closing, as shown in Figure 2.30 for Bothkennar clay. Kuwano (1999) found that, in sands, the hysteresis loop fails to close as soon as the stress state passes Y as irreversible plastic strains develop. 2 Both clays and sands show a sharp change in the direction of the strain vector when reaching the Y2 surface (Smith et al., 1992, Kuwano 1999), which could provide a more uniform means to define the limit of the Y2 zone. In his strain-based criterion to delineate the boundary of the Y area, Jardine 2 (1985) assumed the critical strain crit to correspond to the larger value between the axial and radial strains. Values of crit of 0.01% were reported for Magnus clay, 0.04% for intact London Clay, 0.005% for reconstituted materials, up to 0.03% for uncemented natural soils and around 0.07% for cemented materials (Jardine, 1985; Georgiannou, 1988; Smith et al., 1992; Kuwano, 1999). Simpson et al., (1979) also used a strain-based criterion to characterize the contour of the small strain region but defined it using generalised strain.

Burland & Georgiannou (1991) and Puzrin & Burland (1998) developed energy-based empirical criteria for defining the small strain region corresponding 22

to Y2 . Burland & Georgiannou (1991) used values of incremental strain energy that assumed fixed energy values of zero at the in situ stress state and considered changes of strain energy for each stress path outgoing from the in situ state. They defined the incremental strain energy U as: a. a+2r. r=U

(2.10)

where a. and r. are the axial and radial stress increments and a and r are the axial and radial strain increments.

The authors identified contours of constant incremental strain energy around the in situ stress state, which are scaled up compared to the values of the total strain energy but are similar to them in shape. Puzrin & Burland (1998) postulated that the boundary of Y2 was defined by a contour of constant incremental strain energy such that the work done by the increments of stresses to reach it along any stress path is constant. 2.4.3 Y3 surface

The zone within Y3 is defined as the area of irrecoverable plastic strains that become more significant approaching the limit of this area, which is defined by a sharp change in the stress-strain response. In Zone III, the soil particles are thought to slide relative to each other. The limit of Zone III occurs at strains that increase with OCR (Hight et al., 1987) and this limit is also defined as the Local Boundary Surface (LBS). It coincides with the boundary that Gens (1982) identified inside the State Boundary Surface (SBS). He observed that undrained stress paths of reconstituted samples consolidated with different k ratios traced a series of elastic boundaries that undrained stress paths would not cross (Figure 2.31). Normally consolidated samples could move from one LBS to another by developing large volumetric strains along drained stress paths that were directed outside the current LBS.

The Y3 surface is relatively immobile and its orientation is influenced by the isotropic or anisotropic nature of the soil. Leroueil & Vaughan (1990), noticed 23

that for initially isotropic soils the yield surface was centred about the isotropic axis, but for anisotropically consolidated soils, the surface was centred about the k=h /v line. The Y3 surface can be interpreted by identifying changes in tangent stiffness and direction changes of effective stress paths in undrained tests and changes in strain increment direction for drained tests.

For all normalisable soils an outer State Boundary Surface is defined in normalised stress space using the equivalent pressure p* e. In materials with a stable structure, such as reconstituted clays, this surface could be reached by drained stress paths that will either stay on it or travel along it. In soils with metastable structures, as mentioned in Section 2.2.2, the stress path might be redirected inwards as it travels towards the intrinsic state (Baudet & Stallebrass, 2004).

2.5 Small strain behaviour


Field measurements of the behaviour of geotechnical structures and the need for improving geotechnical design have highlighted the importance of accurately simulating the behaviour of soils at very small strains (e.g. Puzrin & Burland 1998). Studies presented by Simpson et al. (1979, 1981) of the movements around excavations in London Clay indicated that the strains associated with undrained excavations and foundations in London Clay are generally very small. This highlighted the significance of studying soil behaviour at small strains. 2.5.1 Elastic parameters

Resolving the strain measurements in the laboratory at strains as small as 0.0001% has demonstrated that in some soils it is possible to identify a region of purely elastic response, corresponding to Zone I defined by Jardine (1992). Inside this region, the response of soil to static and dynamic loads can be predicted by applying Hookes law.

24

In a continuous solid material the stress increment is related to strain increment trough twenty-one elastic constants, grouped in the compliance matrix, which can be written in general terms as: xx C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 xx yy C 21 C 22 C23 C 24 C25 C 26 yy zz C31 C 32 C33 C 34 C35 C36 zz = C C C C C C yz 41 42 43 44 45 46 yz zx C 51 C 52 C53 C 54 C55 C 56 zx xy C 61 C 62 C63 C 64 C65 C 66 xy

(2.11)

In soils the vertical direction of deposition and loading allow the identification of an axis of symmetry, and the hypothesis of cross-anisotropy may therefore apply, where the horizontal is considered as a plane of isotropy. Considering

Cartesian axes with the z axis vertical, Equation 2.11 can be re-written for a cross-anisotropic material as: 1 E h v hh Eh v hv E = h v hh Eh 1 Eh v hv Eh v vh Ev v vh Ev 1 Ev 1 Ghv 1 Gvh xx yy zz yz zx xy 1 Ghh (2.12) where the parameters shown are defined as follows: Ev : Young modulus in the vertical direction; Eh : Young modulus in the horizontal direction; hh : Poissons ratio for horizontal strains due to horizontal strains; vh : Poissons ratio for vertical strains due to horizontal strains; hv : Poissons ratio for horizontal strains due to vertical strains; Gvh =Ghv : shear moduli in the vertical plane; Ghh : shear modulus in the horizontal plane. 25

xx yy zz yz zx xy

These parameters are not all independent. Thermodynamic rules require that for an elastic material the compliance matrix must be symmetric (Love, 1927), and therefore:

vhv v vh = Eh E v

(2.13)

Ghh is dependent on Eh and hh because the horizontal plane is a plane of symmetry, and therefore:

Ghh =

Eh 2(1 + v hh )

(2.14)

Thus only five independent parameters are required to describe a crossanisotropic elastic material: Ev , Eh , vh , hh , Ghv and Equation 2.12 becomes:

xx yy zz = yz zx xy

1 Eh vhh Eh vvh Ev

vhh Eh 1 Eh vvh Ev

vvh Ev vvh Ev 1 Ev

1 Ghv

1 G vh

'xx yy ' ' zz (2.15) yz zx xy 2(1+vhh) Eh

The thermodynamic requirements the strain energy has to be positive also imposes boundaries to the independent parameters (Lings et al. 2000):

Ev 2 (1 v hh ) 2v vh 0 Eh

(2.16)

26

G hv

Ev E 2 E 2v vh (1 + vhh ) + 2 v (1 v hh ) 2 1 h vvh Eh Ev

(2.17)

1 v hh 1

(2.18)

Ev , Eh , Ghv must also all be positive.

The bounds to the five independent parameters were shown graphically by Pickering (1970) in a 3 graph, shown in Figure 2.32. The P -D oissons ratios are indicated with the symbol in the graph. The ships bow shape represents the permitted space within which all the combinations of the drained elastic parameters plot. In Figure 2.32, the plane ABC represents all uncoupled materials, which undergo no distortional strain with isotropic loading, or volumetric strain with deviatoric loading. The line CD in this plane represents isotropic materials. The plane tangential to the bounding surface on the line AB represents all incompressible materials, so that incompressible elastic materials lie on line AB. Ideal undrained materials deform at constant volume and such materials must therefore lie on the line AB. This line results from the intersection of the uncoupled and the incompressible planes, so that ideal undrained materials are both uncoupled and incompressible. Any set of drained parameters can be converted to a set of undrained parameters as all the points within the permitted space can be mapped onto the undrained line. The points on t e undrained line, h though, can be reached from an infinite number of drained points within the space and therefore the mapping can only be performed from drained to undrained parameters.

The five independent parameters can be measured in triaxial tests by choosing stress paths that allow simplification of Equation 2.15. In triaxial tests no shear stresses yz, zx, xy can be applied to a cross-anisotropic material and the conditions of the triaxial cell impose that:

d xx =d yy =d r ; dxx =dyy =dr and dzz=da

27

Equation 2.15 therefore simplifies to:

1 a E v = v r vh Ev

2vhv ' Ev a ' 1 v hh r Eh

(2.19)

The variables can also be written in terms of triaxial parameters:


1 v K = 1 s J pq 1 J qp p' 1 q 3Geq

(2.20)

where K is the bulk modulus, Geq is the equivalent shear modulus and J is qp the coupling modulus linking changes in deviatoric stress to changes in volumetric strain, while Jpq is the coupling modulus linking changes in mean effective stress to changes in deviatoric strain (Lings et al. 2000). For a elastic n material the compliance matrix has to be symmetric, and therefore Jqp =Jpq =J. For an isotropic material there is also no coupling between distortional and volumetric behaviour, and therefore 1/J=0. (a) Shear modulus The simplest method to measure the shear modulus at very small strains is the bender element technique. It was developed by Shirley & Hampton (1977) and consists of measuring the time taken for a shear wave to propagate through the sample. Two piezoceramic plates protrude into the soil specimen on opposite sides. One plate, the transmitter, is excited by means of an applied voltage causing it to vibrate in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the plate, producing a shear wave that propagates through the sample. The plate on the other side of the sample, the receiver, detects the wave arrival and generates a small voltage that is displayed on a digital oscilloscope together with the wave sent. The time difference between the sent wave and the received wave is used to calculate the velocity of the shear wave vs,

28

vs =

d t arr

(2.21)

where d is the distance between the plates and tarr is the arrival time. The elastic shear modulus Gmax in a defined direction is then calculated from: Gmax=vs2 where is the total mass density of the soil.

(2.22)

Depending on the orientation of the plates and on the direction of the shear wave propagation the shear modulus in different directions can be evaluated and therefore the anisotropy of Gmax within the soil measured. Figure 2.33 shows a sketch of the possible configurations of the bender elements. The shear moduli are given a double suffix, the first referring to the direction of propagation of the wave, the second referring to the direction of polarization or particle motion.

Jovicic & Coop (1998) pointed out that, in studying anisotropy, bender elements are a useful means, but that it is important to identify the kind of anisotropy studied and the limit to these measurements imposed by the configuration of the bender element system. The authors distinguished between inherent or strain-induced anisotropy, which is related to the strain history of the soil that is geological or arising from consolidation, and stress-induced anisotropy, which results from the anisotropy of the current stress conditions. The inherent anisotropy can only be separated from the stress-induced components in an isotropic stress condition. The configuration of the triaxial

apparatus however is axi-symmetric, and when an anisotropic state of stresses is created a cross-anisotropic pattern of strains is created, having the horizontal plane as a plane of isotropy and anisotropy developing only in the vertical plane. Shear waves that propagate along the direction of the axis of symmetry can therefore measure stress-induced effects of anisotropy, but are unable to measure the strain-induced anisotropy in the sample. In investigating inherent anisotropy

29

the bender elements should therefore be mounted in the plane of isotropy (Jovicic & Coop, 1998). Commonly the bender elements are mounted in the top and bottom platens of specimens for convenience. Jovicic & Coop (1998) therefore trimmed their samples horizontally and vertically to investigate the inherent anisotropy of London Clay (b) Interpreting bender element signals The interpretation of the bender element signal represents the main difficulty of this technique. Several interpretation methods have been proposed in the literature, but only the two methods used in this research will be reviewed here. These methods gave good agreement and no further investigation of this topic was needed in this project. (i) First Arrival Method This method assumes a plane wave front and the absence of any reflected or refracted waves. The arrival time is estimated as the time between the start of a single shot pulse input to the transmitter element and the first deflection in the output signal from the receiving bender. Single shot square or sine waves can be used, but Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) demonstrated that using a sine wave reduces the subjectivity in interpreting the signal, because the square wave is composed of a spectrum of different frequencies, which makes the interpretation more difficult. The trace of the received signal is often characterized by an

initial downward deflection called the near field effect. This results from the spreading of the wave front and coupling between waves that exhibit the same particle motion but propagate at different velocities (Jovicic et al., 1996). It is more evident at low frequencies where it obscures the true arrival point, creating difficulties in the interpretation of the signal. Using a sufficiently high frequency

eradicates the near field effect and the arrival time can then be read on the oscilloscope and should not change with frequency, so it can be estimated from the average reading for a set of frequencies. (ii) Phase Velocity Method This consists of sending a continuous wave at different frequencies and analysing the point when the transmitted and the received waves are in phase and 30

exactly 180o out of phase. This corresponds to identifying the maximum crosscorrelation between the signals recorded at two points in space, making the hypothesis of a plane wave and in the absence of reflected and refracted waves. Each half phase corresponds to a mode of vibration in the sample. The number of wave cycles Rd may be written as:

Rd=D/

(2.23)

where D is the travel length and is the wave length. The frequency f and the travel time t are related to Rd by: Rd=D/=f.t

(2.24)

The arrival time can then be derived from Equation 2.24 as the inverse of the slope of the line obtained by plotting Rd against frequency. Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) found that the travel length D is the main source of error in determining Gmax and concluded that D should be the distance between the tips of the bender elements. (c) Other elastic parameters Pennington et al. (1997) and Lings et al. (2000) suggested methods of calculating the elastic parameters by combinations of dynamic and monotonic loading tests. In their work, a three parameters calculation was adopted. Pennington et al. (1997) performed stress paths at constant v and constant h that allowed simplification of Equations 2.19 and 2.20 and allowed determination of the independent elastic parameters. From Equation 2.19, Ev and vh were directly measured in probes at constant horizontal stress: ' Ev = a ' a r =0
v vh = r a 'r = 0

(2.25)

(2.26)

The other parameters can be derived from probes at constant vertical stress 31

r' Eh = (1 v hh ) r

a' = 0 a' =0

(2.27)

2v hv = a (1 v hh ) r

(2.28)

By introducing the parameter Fh , where:

Fh =Eh /(1- hh ),

(2.29)

and measuring Ghh with bender element tests, the combination of Equations 2.29 and 2.14, allows Eh to be defined as:

Eh =

4 Fh Ghh Fh + 2Ghh

(2.30)

From probes at constant mean effective stress and constant deviatoric stress, the bulk modulus K, the equivalent shear modulus Geq and the coupling modulus J can be measured. Lings et al. (2000) also derived equations linking K, G and eq J to the five independent parameters:

Geq =

3 1 + 2vvh 1 v hh + 4 E 2E h v

(2.31)

K=

1 1 4v vh 1 v hh +2 Ev Eh
3 1 vvh 1 vhh 2 E E v h

(2.32)

J=

(2.33)

The formulation proposed above is valid for drained probes, but Lings (2001) also derived the elastic parameters from undrained probes and related them to those derived from drained probes.

32

2.5.2

Influence of recent stress history

Atkinson et al. (1990) and Stallebrass & Taylor (1997) observed that the stress-strain response of overconsolidated clays depends on their current state and on the loading history followed to reach that state, in particular the relative directions of the current and previous loading paths. Atkinson et al. (1990) defined recent stress history as the current path load undertaken by the soil in relation to the previous stress path, which might have the form of a stress path direction change or an extended period of rest. Atkinson (1973) observed that the stiffness in triaxial and plane strain tests increased as a consequence of a sudden change in the direction of t e stress path. The author noticed that in conditions of h axi-symmetry and for loading paths that remained inside the boundary surface, two samples, loaded undrained in the same direction from the same stress point, had different stress-strain responses if they had reached the stress point by following different stress paths. The response was stiffer for samples having a higher angle of rotation from the previous stress path (Figure 2.34). Costa Filho (1984) observed that for samples of London clay the stiffness depended on the consolidation stress path followed. He performed unconsolidated undrained tests starting from isotropic stress states and undrained tests on samples consolidated to their in situ stress state. The samples consolidated to their anisotropic in situ stress state showed a stiffer response than samples sheared from an isotropic stress state as the reversal in the direction of loading increased the stiffness of the material.

Som (1968) noticed that the compressibility of samples in oedometer tests reduced following a rest period under constant load. Inspired by these

observations Atkinson et al. (1990) carried out a set of stress probes on reconstituted samples of London Clay. Their stress probe programme is sketched in Figure 2.35. They performed probes at constant p in compression and extension and constant q in compression and swelling starting from isotropic stress states to which the samples had been taken by following different approach stress paths. The approach stress paths and the probes were about 90kPa in length. This length seemed to the authors to be sufficient to observe a behaviour that was only influenced by the direction and not by the length of the stress path. 33

Creep was allowed for only three hours before starting the probes, which was long enough so that no volumetric strain changes could be measured. The results of their tests are shown in Figure 2.35 in terms of stiffnesses. The stiffness degradations are curved, indicating an inelastic behaviour even at small strains. The small strain stiffnesses depended on the angle of rotation, being the stiffest for 180o degree rotations and the least stiff for an angle of 0o . For angles of rotation of +90o and 90o the stiffnesses plotted in between. The influence of the rotation angle was not distinguishable after 0.5% strain where all the curves converged to a unique value. The resolution of the strain measured by Atkinson

et al. (1990) was only about 0.001%, which was good at the time when the experiments were carried out. However, their results should be considered in terms of the degradation of stiffness for the range of strains they presented. Only
o the tests with an angle of rotation of 0 showed an apparently constant and lower

initial stiffness, whereas for other angles of rotation there seemed to be a degradation trend perhaps from similar initial values.

Atkinson et al. (1990) stated that the recent stress history should be included amongst the factors that influence the stress-strain response, together with the current stress state and the overconsolidation ratio. The authors characterised the recent stress history by the angle of rotation between the approach stress path and the current loading path. In this definition, the length of the approach stress path and creep may play significant roles as they are directly associated with the stress path in terms of the strains involved. In this sense, the recent stress history assumes the meaning of a recent strain history and the lengths of the approach stress paths, which are where the strains are developed by the sample, become significant.

Jardine (1992) performed a set of tests on London Clay starting from isotropic and anisotropic stress states and investigating the stiffness of the soil and the size of the kinematic surfaces. He noticed that the Y surface, which was assumed to 2 coincide with a critical shear strain crit =0.04%, did not change in size, but changed in orientation, as a result of the different consolidation paths followed. In particular Jardine compressed intact and reconstituted London Clay samples to

34

their initial in situ stress points following different stress paths, before shearing to failure, as shown in Figure 2.36. The author found that where there was no reloading stage, the undrained stiffness in compression, Ec at 0.01% strain was higher than the undrained stiffness in extension E at the same strain, giving a Y2 e surface more elongated in the direction of compression than in extension. Heavily reloaded samples were stiffer in extension than in compression at the same strain of 0.01% and the Y surface was more elongated in the direction of 2 extension. Jardine also observed that at 0.1% strain the difference in stiffness reduced significantly and, at large strains, the influence of the recent stress history was erased, in agreement with the observations of Atkinson et al..

Lings et al. (2000) observed that in the heavily consolidated Gault Clay, the approach stress path and the angle of rotation influenced the elastic parameters of the material and their degradation. They performed two sets of tests (Figure

2.37) on natural samples including different angles of rotation of the approach stress path. The probes did not start from the same stress points and the samples were not taken back to the initial stress point, but followed long stress paths that moved away from the initial stress point. The results were therefore normalised for the respective initial stresses. Creep was allowed before each probe started and the long stress paths included the development of large strains. The stiffnesses and the Poissons ratios are plotted against strains in Figure 2.37. The degradation of values seems to depend on the angle of rotation, but, surprisingly, the angle of rotation seems also to influence the elastic values, which, by definition, should be independent of recent stress history.

Clayton and Heymann (2001) performed a set of tests on Bothkennar clay as shown in Figure 2.38. Their undrained shear probes were about 9kPa in length and started from an initial isotropic state to which the sample had been consolidated following three different approach directions (DA, CA and BA in Figure 2.38). The strains involved during the approach stress paths were not reported, but the length in term of stress was about 10kPa and the authors believed this stress path to be sufficiently long considering that for isotropic loading the state boundary surface of Bothkennar clay would have been at about 40kPa. Creep was allowed before each shear probe until axial and volumetric 35

strain could no longer be measured. The first two shear probes (AB in Figure 2.38) used +90o and 90o angles of rotation from the approach stress paths DA and CA respectively. The maximum axial strains reached during the two probes were about 0.08%. The third shear probe used an angle of rotation of 180o from the approach stress path BA in Figure 2.38 and took the sample to failure. As shown in Figure 2.38, no difference in the stiffness curves from all the shear probes was noticed, regardless the different approach stress paths. To the authors this result demonstrated that the recent stress history had no influence on the soil response if creep was allowed. They believed that creep might erase any

memory of the approach stress path, so that the time spent at constant stress became the recent stress history for the material.

It is possible that in the tests performed by Clayton & Heymann (2001) the approach stress path was not long enough in term of strains to see the effects of recent stress history, even if it seemed sufficient in term of stresses. Smith et al. (1992) found the diameter of the Y2 surface of Bothkennar clay to be about 10kPa corresponding roughly to 0.02% axial strain. If the stress path had moved outside the Y2 surface, this might have caused large strains to develop so that recent stress history effect might have been seen. However this was not the case for the approach stress paths used by Clayton & Heymann (2001), which kept the sample within Y2 . Clayton & Heymann (2001) also performed shear probes in compression and extension on Bothkennar clay and London clay samples, starting from their corresponding in situ stresses. Creep was allowed at the in situ stress points that were approached from the same direction in each probe. Figures 2.39 and 2.40 show sketches of the approach stress paths, the probe directions and the test results for both clays. For the Bothkannar clay, for which k <1, the compression o probe moved in the same direction as the approach stress path, with a angle of n rotation of 0o , while for the extension probe the rotation was 180o from the approach stress path direction. The stiffness at 10-3 % axial strain was the same for both cases but the degradation was faster in compression than in extension. However, this might be an effect of recent stress history, because the compression path moved towards the failure line. 36 For the London clay, for

which ko >1, the compression path rotated by 150o from the approach stress path direction and the extension path rotated by 30o . Again, the initial stiffness in both cases was the same, but the stiffness degradation was faster in extension than in compression as the compression path moved the soil away from the failure line. Jardine (1992) had already noticed that, for Bothkennar clay, although the overall size of the Y2 surface did not change greatly, the presence of the failure line restrained the extension of Y2 . Clayton & Heymann (2001) concluded that, since the initial stiffness of both Bothkennar clay and London clay did not change for the different stress path rotations, only the outgoing stress path was relevant to the soil response if creep was allowed.

In a truly linear elastic range, however, the stiffness should be independent on the sign of loading (Kuwano, 1 999, Rolo, 2003) and both tests shown in Figures 2.39 and 2.40, the elastic stiffness of the soils should be expected to be independent of the angle of rotation from the approach stress path. However, in both cases, the rate of degradation was faster when the stress path moved towards the failure line. This made Clayton & Heymann (2001) conclude that only the outgoing stress path influenced the soil response, but in fact, from the tests performed, it is not clear whether the rate of degradation was influenced also by the angle of rotation as well as by the outgoing direction. The two effects were not distinguishable and could have overlapped preventing any clear conclusion being made.

In investigating the influence of the recent stress history on the stress-strain response, the stress path rotation and the creep should therefore be isolated from other parameters that influence this response, such as the outgoing stress path and the current stress state. When loading from an anisotropic stress state soils show a stiffer response in the stress path that moves away from the failure line and Jardine (1992) noticed that the size of Zone II is restricted by the proximity of the Bounding Surface. The outgoing loading direction might therefore interact with the effects of recent stress history, confusing the real cause of the observed stress-strain response. Stallebrass & Taylor (1997) developed a model that allows the replication of the main features of soil behaviour by modelling elasto-plastic deformations with two nested kinematic hardening surfaces inside the 37

conventional modified Cam-Clay model. This model extends the bubble model developed by Al-Tabbaa (1987) by introducing a second kinematic surface that takes into account the recent stress history of the soils.

2.6 Creep
Creep may be defined as plastic strains that occur under constant effective stress and is one of the most important processes of ageing. Tatsouka et al. (1998) distinguished long term and short term ageing effects, including lithification and weathering on both the geological timescale and on the civil engineering timescale. Lithification may consist of either an increase or decrease in the strength and stiffness of soils. Geologically, it incorporates diagenetic effects, due to intrinsic physical and chemical processes or due to external processes such as desiccation, earthquake, loading or compaction. On an engineering scale, it might be associated in negative terms with destructuration, due to weathering associated with the exposure of soil after excavation or erosion.

Vaughan (1997) noticed that the response of Bothkennar clay in one dimensional compression was stiffer after ageing and suggested that the behaviour of soil after ageing is similar to that sketched in Figure 2.41. If the

loading rate after ageing is slow, the reloading curve yields on the curve for continuous loading. If the loading rate is high the reloading curve yields at higher stresses than on the curve for continuous loading, showing a temporary overshoot. Vaughan, (1997) called the higher yield observed after ageing ageing preconsolidation.

Tatsouka et al. (1998) observed that the soil response becomes stiffer as the ageing period increases. They reported a number of tests on different soils investigating the effects of ageing (drained creep) in shear and defined a postageing stress-strain relationship as shown in Figure 2.42. It consists of three types of behaviour. In the first type the stress-strain curve after ageing re-joins the original primary loading relationship without exhibiting overshooting. In the

38

second type the reloading stress-strain curve rejoins the original primary loading curve after having exhibited a temporary overshoot. In the third case the stressstrain curve does not re-join the primary loading relationship and exhibits a persistent overshoot, with a noticeably larger peak strength than that obtained from the original primary loading.

The overshooting behaviour, observed in many soils after prolonged ageing, has been attributed to structuration effects sometimes associated with the development of bonding. Mitchell (1960) defined this behaviour as thixotropic hardening. In loose soils, such as clean sands, no bonding is likely to form, but the interaction of acceleration effects and particle crushing should be taken into account.

Figure 2.43 shows two sets of tests on reconstituted samples of Fujinomori clay (Tatsouka et al., 1998). The first set of samples was sheared undrained at a rate of 0.05%/min from an isotropic state to failure. The second set of samples was sheared undrained at the same rate to an anisotropic stress state corresponding to ko =0.5, then allowed to creep for two days and re-sheared undrained to failure. When the undrained shear restarted a zone of high stiffness was seen before a clear yield was observed. The size of this zone was approximately proportional to the pressure level at which the specimen was aged. Similar tests were performed on natural samples of Vallericca clay (Figure 2.44, Tatsouka et al., 1998). The samples were sheared undrained at a rate of 0.009%/min to anisotropic states A and B in Figure 2.44 and aged until the creep axial strain rates became 3x10-5%/min and 1x10-4%/min respectively. As for the Fujinomori clay a high stiffness zone was noticed when the loading was restarted, although in this case the effect on the subsequent stress-strain response seemed to be minor. The author attributed this difference to the lower strains developed by the Vallericca clay during ageing, but a lower shearing rate was also used for the natural samples of Vallericca clay.

The rate of loading used in the tests described above was quite high for both clays and some effects of undissipated or non-uniformly distributed pore water pressure might play a role in the stress-strain response. The effect of creep and 39

the size of the high stiffness zone seemed smaller for the more permeable Metrano silty sand and also for a soft sedimentary sandstone tested by Santucci de Magistris (1998), especially when the rate of reloading was reduced (Figure 2.44).

Sandroni (1977) highlighted the importance of pore pressure dissipation in natural soils that show localization of strains, as these control the pore pressure response. He performed creep tests on a specimen of London Clay, of low permeability, which was sheared at a fast rate (0.2%/min). The shearing was interrupted for 24h without allowing axial rebound and restarted at the same rate. The stress-strain curve of the second stage (Figure 2.45) plotted below the first shear stage. The author attributed this to the equalization of pore pressure that would have occurred between the shear zone and the rest of the specimen during the 24h rest period. 2.6.1 Effects at small strains

For very small strain stiffness the effect of ageing is thought to increase the shear modulus Go and the Youngs Modulus Eo measured in the course of continuous shearing where the structure is continuously changing. Jovicic & Coop (1997) noticed that in Dogs Bay sand, a low density, poorly graded carbonate sand, the stiffness increased up to 15% over about five days due to ageing phenomena, as shown in Figure 2.46a where the stiffness variation is normalised with respect to the stiffness G at zero time. The effect of the stiffness o increases with time was higher at lower confining pressures and for first loading, while it was less evident as the confining pressure increased and in stages of unloading or reloading. Tatsuoka et al. (1998) suggest that for sands a re-

structuration takes place due to rearrangement of the inter-particle contacts with time causing the stiffness to increase. The rate of change decreases with time (Figure 2.46b).

Atkinson et al. (1990) included the time spent at a constant stress before loading as a feature of recent stress history and Richardson (1998) pointed out

40

that the creep adds to the effects of the stress path direction and can be investigated independently.

After prolonged ageing or creep the size and the shape of the kinematic surfaces Y and Y become less dependent on the previous stress history (Jardine 1 2 1985; Jardine et al., 1991; Tatsuoka et al., 1998). Figure 2.47 shows schematically the development of Y2 with the recent stress history. Y is thought 2 to re-centre around the current stress state when creep is allowed for a long time, whereas if the creep period is short the effect of the recent stress history becomes more important.

2.7 Strain rate effects


The rate dependency in continuous shearing reflects the creep seen under constant load. The overshooting effect noticed after creep has been observed also immediately after a step change in constant strain rate in the course of otherwise monotonic loading. The high stiffness region after creep therefore can be included in a more general framework of the effects of a loading rate change, as it can be thought of as the consequence of an increase of strain rate.

There seems to be a fundamental difference in behaviour between stiff clays and granular materials. Clays seem to follow an isotach model, where the stress is uniquely defined by strain and strain rate (q=f( ,d /dt)). Whereas the behaviour of granular materials seems to be dominated by a temporary effect of change in stress with strain rate, and as the strains increase, the stress-strain curve tends to converge towards a unique stress-strain relationship, independent of the strain rate. The temporary over/undershooting effects increase with strain for granular materials and also became dominant for the stress-strain behaviour of clays at large strains (Jardine, 2004). Tatsuoka et al. (1998) presented a large number of tests on different soils showing that the deviatoric stress suddenly changes due to a step increase or decrease of strain rate. Figures 2.48-2.50 show a few examples from tests on Vallericca clay, dense Chuba Gravel and Hostun sand sheared drained or undrained. In Hostun sand (Figure 2.50), the effect of the

41

strain rate on the stress-strain relationship was negligible for constant strain rates over a range of 500 times. The overshooting and undershooting behaviour disappeared with further straining and the stress-strain relationship rejoined that which was independent of the strain rate.

The strain rates used to investigate strain rate dependency often seem to be quite high, especially for clays, and therefore undissipated or non-uniformly distributed pore pressures could affect the data. Overshooting and undershooting effects are more evident in sand or dense gravel, where drainage and pore pressure distributions are less problematic. Sandroni (1977) found that the measurements of the actual pore pressure became problematic at high rates of shearing and even the mid-height probe was not free from these effects. From slow and medium rate shear tests on London Clay Sandroni (1977) noticed that up to the maximum pore pressure, the behaviour of London Clay was insensitive to the rate of shearing, but at faster shearing rates the undrained strength of the soil increased. He observed that the failure strains tended to decrease with increasing rate of shearing, but the strains at the maximum were unaffected by the rate of shearing. The author observed that the behaviour of the clay was influenced by the negative pore pressures generated on the shear plane, and at faster shearing rates the time for equalization of pore pressure was smaller. Cotecchia (1996) observed that for the compression behaviour of Pappadai Clay there was a threshold, above which the strain rate dependency became evident.

At very small strains the elastic stiffness seems to be hardly influenced by the strain rate. Figure 2.51 shows t e effect of the strain rate on the Youngs Moduli h for different materials. The small strain stiffnesses as of hard rock, clean sands and gravel are insensitive to the strain rate and the small strain stiffnesses as of soft rock, silty sand, soft and stiff clays depend marginally on the strain rate. Figure 2.52 illustrates the effects of the strain rate on the Youngs modulus E of o Vallericca clay. At very small strain rates there seems to be a strain rate dependency, but this becomes smaller as the strain rate increases. Jardine (1992) pointed out that a soil that is still creeping at the end of a loading stage will display a strain rate effect, even at very small strains. In order to avoid confusing interactions, the initial creep rate experienced by the sample as a result of the 42

previous loading should therefore be negligible before starting a new loading stage.

2.8 The influence of fissures


Some materials have natural discontinuities, which are often the result of stress release arising from some geological processes (Skempton et al., 1969). Fissures seem to increase the permeability of the material, even if they are apparently closed and are thought to be responsible for the so-called samplesize effect on strength measurements. Bishop & Little (1967) observed that the strength envelope of London Clay from Wraysbury measured for 0.75 (19mm) diameter specimens plotted above that measured for 1.5 (38mm) diameter specimens (Figure 2.53). Similar results have been shown by other authors for different clays. Marsland & Butler (1967) carried out a test programme on Barton Clay specimens with diameters between 1.5 and 5 (127mm). They selected intact lumps of 1.5 diameter and showed that the strength of these samples was higher than that of the 1.5 samples containing fissures, which, in turn, was higher than the strength of 5 diameter specimens (Figure 2.54). Skempton & Petley (1967) related the difference in strength to the lower effective strength parameters mobilized along the fissures.

Walsh (1965) showed that the bulk modulus of a rock mass with closed cracks was the same as the bulk modulus of an intact mass, but both open or closed cracks affected the elastic parameters of the soil mass. Marsland (1971)

confirmed that for London Clay the Youngs modulus calculated for specimens of 38mm diameter was 30% higher than that calculated for specimens of 75mm diameter that were 10% higher than that of 125mm diameter specimens. A brief summary of the results from tests on fissured soils was presented by Costa Filho (1984). He pointed out that, although there is a tendency for the moduli of fissured soils measured using small specimens to be higher than those measured using large specimens, this tendency is mainly due to the different initial effective stress. Costa Filho (1984) showed that when the results were The

normalised for the initial effective stress there was no longer any effect.

43

author considered the normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress measured by Sandroni (1977) for London Clay samples and by Maguire (1975) for Lias clay (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Webb (1964) showed that the stressstrain curves corresponding to an intact sample and to a sample that had sheared along a pre-existing fissure were coincident up to 1.5% strain, but the maximum shear strengths of the two specimens were different, being higher for the intact sample (Figure 2.55).

44

Table 2.1: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on London Clay samples (Costa-Filho, 1984, data from Sandroni 1977)

Table 2.2: Normalised secant moduli at 50% maximum deviatoric stress on Lias clay (Costa-Filho, 1984, data from Maguire 1975)

45

Figure 2.1: Structure of the main clay units (Veniale, 1983; Cotecchia, 1996)

Figure 2.2: Classification of fabric (Sides & Barden, 1970)

47

Natural clay Structure permitted space NCL *

p Figure 2.3: Schematic diagram showing enhanced resistance of natural clays in compression

e
SC curves (Terzaghi, 1941)

SC curves (Terzaghi, 1941)

Reconstituted clay

Natural clay

Reconstituted clay

Natural clay

O Y Y* Z2 Z1 Y*

Z3

I*vy=I*vc Ivy=Ivc
(a) Sedimentation structure

Iv

I*vy=I*vc Ivc Ivy

Iv

(b) Post-sedimentation structure

Figure 2.4: Typical compression curves for (a) clays with sedimentation structure and (b) clays with post-sedimentation structure (Cotecchia & Chandler 1997)

48

t/I*ve

Iv/I*ve
Figure 2.5 Influence of structure: proposed normalising parameters

Figure 2.6: Sedimentation compression curves for normally consolidated clays (Skempton, 1970)

49

Figure 2.7: The intrinsic and sedimentation compression lines (Burland, 1990)

50

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

51

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

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

52

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

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

53

*
q/p*e

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

54

(a) Sibari Clay

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

55

q/p*e

(a)

(b)

a:Medium pressure drainedtests b:Medium pressure undrainedtests

(c)

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

56

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

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

57

(a)

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

58

(a)

(b)

(c)

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

59

Average fissure area (cm)2


0 0 50 Head brown 5 5 100 150 0

Fissure intensity
10.000 Zone IV III II

(no/m3)
20.000

Zone I Depth (m) 10 grey 10

15

15

20

20

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

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

60

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

(a)

(b)

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

61

(a)

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

62

Figure 2.25: Effect of clay particles on the critical state friction angle and on the residual friction angle (Lupini et al. 1981)

Figure 2.26: Idealised undrained shearing behaviour of overconsolidated clays with (a) low plasticity and (b) high plasticity (Jardine et al, 2004)

63

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

64

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

65

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

66

Figure 2.30: Definition of Y2 for Bothkennar Clay from drained cyclic tests (Smith et al. 1992)

67

Figure 2.31: Normalised undrained stress paths for triaxial compression tests on Lower Cromer till samples comsolidated to different values of k (Gens, 1982)

Figure 2.32: Bounds for the elastic parameters and planes and lines representing special types of materials (Pickering, 1970)

68

Figure 2.33: Configuration for measurement of stiffness of a cross-anisotropic soil under axi-symmetric loading (Pennington et al., 1997)

Figure 2.34: Effect of recent stress history on current stiffness (Atkinson et al. 1990)

69

Figure 2.35: Stiffness response for tests for recent stress history of reconstituted London Clay (Atkinson et al., 1990) 70

Figure 2.36: Compression paths and small strain stiffnesses for natural and reconstituted London Clay samples (Jardine, 1992)

71

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

72

(a)

(b) Figure 2.38: Stress probes and stiffness degradation curves for Bothkennar clay (a) schematised stress path (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann, 2001)

73

(a)

(b) Figure 2.39: Stiffness degradation curves of a Bothkennar clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann, 2001) 74

(a)

(b) Figure 2.40: Stiffness degradation curves of London clay subjected to two different loading paths (a) schematised stress paths (b) stiffness response (Clayton & Heymann, 2001)

75

Figure 2.41: Schematic behaviour in compression after ageing (Tatsuoka et al., 1998)

1: b 2: b 3: b

c : without overshooting before rejoining OR d: with temporary overshooting before rejoining OR e: with persistent overshooting and without rejoining OR

Figure 2.42: Stress-strain curves after restarting loading at a constant strain rate (Tatsuoka et al., 1998)

76

Figure 2.43: Effect of undrained creep on the shearing behaviour of Fujinomori clay (Momoya, 1998, Tatsuoka et al, 1998)

77

(a)

(b) Figure 2.44: Effects of drained creep on subsequent undrained shearing for undisturbed Vallericca clay and Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris, 1998 and Tatsuoka et al, 1998)

78

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

79

(a)

(b) Figure 2.46: Influence of time on (a) the shear stiffness of carbonate sand samples (Jovicic & Coop, 1997); (b) small strain Youngs Modulus of Metramo silty sand (Santucci de Magistris, 1998 and Tatsuoka et al. 1998)

80

Figure 2.47: Development of kinematic yield surfaces with time (Tatsuoka et al., 1998)

Figure 2.48: Effect of strain rate change on Chuba Gravel (Tatsuoka et al. 1998)

81

Figure 2.49: Effect of strain rate change on Vallericca clay (Tatsuoka et al. 1998)

Figure 2.50: Effect of strain rate change on Hostun Sand (Tatsuoka et al. 1998)

82

Figure 2.51: Effect of strain rate on the very small strain Youngs Modulus (Tatsuoka et al. 1998)

83

(a)

(b) Figure 2.52: Stress-strain behaviour of Vallericca Clay at very small strains during (a) loading and (b) unloading at different rates (Tatsuoka et al. 1998, data from Santucci de Magistris, 1998)

84

Figure 2.53: Strength envelopes on London Clay samples of different dimensions (Bishop, 1972)

Figure 2.54: Strengths of samples of different diameters and samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures (Marsland & Butler, 1967)

85

Figure 2.55: Stress-strain behaviours of intact samples and samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Webb, 1964)

86

LONDON CLAY

3.1 Introduction
The samples of London Clay used in the present research were retrieved at Heathrow Airport, west of London, where the works carried out for the new Terminal 5 also made available a quantity of detailed information about the site.

In this chapter, an overview of the geological aspects of the London Clay will be presented for a better understanding of how this influences the mechanical behaviour of this soil. The details of the site where the samples were retrieved will be also described as observed from the site investigation carried out for the T5 project. Most of the data about this site were reported by Hight et al. (2003).

3.2 The London Clay formation


The London Clay is predominantly argillaceous and about 60% of the formation consists of thoroughly bioturbated, slightly calcareous, silty clay to very silty clay (British Geological Survey, 2004). Beds of clayey silt grading to silty fine-grained sand increase in number and thickness from east to west. The sand and silty grains are of subangular quarz, generally less than 125 microns in diameter. Glauconite grains, up to fine to medium sand grade are dispersed through most of the sandy beds. Glauconite grains are concentrated also in some of the more clayey beds, forming marker horizons.

On the basis of the biostratigraphic characteristics of the London Clay, King (1981, 1991) traced the geological history of this soil as derived from a sequence of depositional strata. A very brief synthesis of his observations will be given here, focusing on the geological history of the London Basin in Southern England. It is believed that the formation of the London Clay is a sequence of deposition-erosion events, but for simplicity, it will be assumed here that erosion 87

or other processes occurred in this soil after the deposition was completed, so that the geological history of the London Clay can be divided into depositional and post-deposition processes.

3.2.1

Depositional processes: the London Basin and Hampshire Basin

King (1981) showed evidence of common lithostratigraphic features over a large part of Northern Europe, which allows the identification of a common origin for the Northern Europe Basin. The plate tectonics in the Northern Atlantic Sea in the late Palaeocene, moving upwards, created the conditions for a sedimentary basin, which originally included a large part of Northern and NorthEastern Europe, England and Scotland (Figure 3.1). In this basin, in the Early

Eocene, about 50 million years ago, the deposition of the London Clay started due to a sea level rise over part of Southern England up to the Welsh Massif, Northern France, Western and Northern Belgium and Northern Germany, defining an area known as the Northern Sea Basin (Figure 3.2). Subsequent

regional geological events, mainly linked to sea level changes, distinguished the different geographical zones.

In Southern England, two areas of London Clay Formation are distinguished, the Hampshire Basin and the London Basin. In Figure 3.3 the Eocene stratigraphy of the London Clay in Southern Britain is presented. In both the

Hampshire Basin and the London Basin, the first material to be deposited into the embryonic sea is called the Harwich Formation, a glauconitic sand that lies above a transgressional series of sands, silts and clays collectively known as the Lambeth Group. The presence of phosphatic nodules, glauconitic grains and intense bioturbation indicate that the Harwich Formation was deposited relatively slowly. The London Clay Formation lies above the Harwich Formation and underlies the Virginia Water Formation, a bioturbated glauconitic sand with clay lamines and lenses, today present at some localities in the North-West Surrey and East Berkshire.

88

The London Clay was deposited in an environment where the sea level was rising. King (1981) correlated the non-uniformities within the London Clay stratum to transgressive-regressive sea level cycles. The variation of the sea level determined changes in the depositional environment, giving rise to different depositional sequences (stratigraphy) and features. Any fall of the sea level was marked by the deposition of coarser material, more evident along the edges of the depositional basin. The soil of the Hampshire Basin, close to the margin of the depositional basin, was deposited in a shallow marine environment. The high energy setting of this basin determined a varied stratigraphy, where all the sea level cycles are easily recognized by the coarsening upwards of the sequences. The London Basin soil was deposited in a deeper water environment, a low energy environment, where there was not enough time for the sediments to deposit completely before the next sea level rise, so that the stratigraphy of the deposited material is less evident than in the Hampshire Basin. Figure 3.4 shows a sketch of the idealised depositional sequences of the London Clay Formation in the Hampshire Basin and in the London area linked to sea level variation.

The total thickness of the London Clay Formation is between 50m and 150m in the London Basin and 50m and 130m in the Hampshire Basin. In both basins the thickness decreases westwards. The stratigraphy of the London Clay Formation has been found to be very consistent vertically and laterally and it is assumed therefore that continuous layers of similar characteristics persist along the thickness of the London Clay (King, 1991; British Geological Survey, 2004). (a) Lithological units Using a combination of biostratigraphy and lithological variation, King (1981) suggested a division of the London Clay formation into lithological units, corresponding to cycles of sea level rise and fall. The author recognized five principal units, from A to E (Figure 3.5), which are sub-divided into several members according to their bio-chemical characteristics. The units are more easily identified in the Hampshire Basin and near the margins of the London Basin, due to their high-energy environment, although the regularity of the occurrence of the lithological units simplifies their identification throughout the depositional basins. 89

The full sequence of the units, from A to E can be recognised only in some areas of the London Basin, such as in Southern Essex or Hampstead Heath in London (King, 1981). A schematic description of the main lithological characteristics of these units is given in Figure 3.6. In most of the London area only the lower part of the sequence is preserved, Units C and below. Clays from these units are considered in this research and a brief description of the characteristics of those units is given below. Unit A This is the deepest of the lithological units and lies above the Harwich Formation. The upper part of the Harwich Formation was originally included in the London Clay Formation as Unit A1 , although this division, also supported by King (1981), is now neglected and two parts, Units A and A3 , are recognized in 2 Unit A.

The lowest unit, A2 , often referred to as a basal bed, is approximately 12m thick. It is non-calcareous, poorly sorted with a high percentage of silt, and has occasional wood fragments and pyrite nodules and contains no claystones. There are numerous partings and lenses of silt and fine sand. Sandy clays and silty clays with diffuse boundaries alternate, reflecting minor sea level changes.

The upper part, Unit A3, has an overall thickness of about 15m and it is divided into two sub-units, A3(1) and A corresponding to the base and the top 3(2) parts of the layer. The base is characterised by a homogeneous and slightly calcareous silty clay layer. Silt and sand partings become more common towards the top of the unit and impersistent thin claystone layers occur. T Unit B The total thickness of Unit B is about 25m and two parts can be distinguished in it. The Unit B1 is a 1m thick sandy clay layer and marks the boundary between Units A and B, where occasionally pebbles are recorded.

90

On top of Unit B a glauconite rich layer marks the junction with the Unit B , 1 2 indicating discontinuities in the sedimentation. Unit B2 comprises silty clays with weak silt and sand partings and numerous claystones. Sedimentary cycles are weakly discernible within Unit B2 . Unit C This unit is only occasionally present in the London Basin. It is composed of a basal layer of homogeneous silty clay that becomes sandier, micaceous and lignitic towards the top of the unit.

Standing & Burland (1999, 2005a, 2005b) observed correlations between physical properties of the London Clay and its lithological units. The water content distribution with depth marks the sequence of the lithological units, as measurements in different locations in the London Basin demonstrate (Standing & Burland, 1999; Hight et al., 2003). In Figure 3.7 the water content distribution with depth is plotted for different sites in the London Area with the correspondent division into units.

The British Geological Society (2004) proposed an informal division based on observations from different boreholes across the London Basin. Their informal division is related to the division of King (1981) as shown in Figure 3.8 and the correlation between boreholes in the London Clay is shown in Figure 3.9. The present study will be based only on Kings division. 3.2.2 Post-depositional processes

(a) Influence of the Alpine orogeny The Alpine orogeny compressed the subsiding London Platform and its sediment producing the eastward plunging syncline now identified as the London Basin. This is an extremely gentle syncline and although there are some local faults, dips of more than 3o are rarely encountered. There seems to be evidence that fault-blocks were created during the Alpine orogeny by the wave of energy developed in this process. These blocks involve the whole thickness of the plates

91

and are believed each to have an area of about 10km2 . They are thought to have slipped relatively to each other by a few metres, causing discontinuities in the London Clay layer. (b) Erosion The erosion of a substantial thickness of the London Clay, that took place in the Tertiary and Pleistocene epochs, led to mechanical overconsolidation of the clay. The amount of erosion has been estimated to range from about 150m in Essex (Skempton, 1961) to 300m in the Wraysbury district (Bishop et al., 1965). The erosion involved all the overlying deposits, and, especially in the Thames Valley, much of the London Clay itself. Along the Thames Valley late Quaternary gravel sheets deposited after erosion (King, 1981). (c) Weathering Weathering followed the erosion. Desiccation affected the near surface of the London Clay producing rough, sub-vertical discontinuities and oxygenated groundwater converted ferrous to ferric oxide, changing the colour of the clay from blue to brown, removed pyrite and dissolved any calcium carbonate cement. Ground freezing even at large depths also occurred.

The thickness of the clay affected by weathering varies between 3 and 6m depending on the lithology. Where the London Clay outcrops, the upper 9m shows a brown colour due to oxidation with a thin transition zone above the bluegrey clay. The clay seems to be strongly weathered to a depth of 1.5m, with a granulated or fragmented texture. Below 3-4m, there is usually little obvious evidence of weathering, except for oxidation, and the structure of the clay becomes increasingly clear with depth. Where Terrace Gravels cover the clay,

like in the Thames Valley, the effects of weathering are only limited to a very small stratum immediately below the base of the gravel. The clay seems softer and shattered but this physical weathering ceases abruptly at about 1m below the gravel, where it changes to unweathered material (Hight et al., 2003).

92

3.3 Mineralogy of the London Clay


London clay comes from reworked soil from Jurassic shale, Greensand and Chalk and lateritic Eocene soils. It is composed of poorly crystalline kaolinite, illite, chlorite, smectite and montmorillonite. The mineralogy varies greatly within the London Basin, but generally, kaolinite seems to be predominant in the West of the London Basin, while illite in the East of the London Basin and in the Hampshire Basin; smectite and illite dominates in Central London (Huggett, 2005). Figure 3.10 illustrates the particle size distribution of the London Clay

Formation, and Figure 3.11 shows the mineralogy of the clay at a site in the Hampshire Basin.

3.4
The

Macrofabric
London Clay is characterised by natural discontinuities whose

engineering importance was emphasised by Ward et al. (1959), Bishop et al. (1965) Ward et al. (1965) and Skempton et al. (1969). Ward et al. (1959) classified the three principal types of discontinuities in London Clay as laminations, backs and fissures. The laminations are characterised by a thin parting of more silty material with, in some cases, a piece of fossilized wood or a shell lying on the surface. The laminations or bedding would correspond to what are now recognized as the boundaries between different lithological units. Backs or joints are large fractures, predominantly vertical, forming a series of intersecting curved surfaces. The fissures are small fractures existing in clay and siltstone beds, but not crossing the bed or horizons within the bed (Fookes & Parrish, 1969). Faults and sheeting, which are low-angle joints, were added by Skempton et al. (1969) to the above types of fissures.

The distribution and the orientation of the discontinuities are thought to reflect the structural bedding and the erosion history of the clay. Fookes & Parrish (1969) observed that at three sites, Wraysbury, Whitecliff Bay and Herne Bay, the fissures are randomly orientated and have an irregular area, but the geometry and the surface allow a classification of the possible causes of their formation. Fissures due to shear have smooth surfaces and curved conchoidal geometry, 93

while those due to tension are planar and rough. This type of fissures generally have orientations related to tectonic stress folding at the time of formation and might have been created at the same time as the main syncline during the Alpine orogeny in the Miocene period. Fissures parallel to the bedding are likely to have been influenced by depositional variations within the clay. They are rough and planar and tend to be similar to fissures that are parallel to the present ground surface, whose origin is associated, though, to stress release during erosion. It is not clear the way horizontal fissures are attributed t stress release, as they would o be expected to be inclined of 45o -/2 since they are due to passive failure. Ward et al. (1959), Bishop et al. (1965) and Ward et al. (1965), Skempton et al. (1969) discussed the effects of laminations and fissures on standard tests, the implications for plate loading and compression test on fissured clays and considered the effects of sample size on tests results for fissured clays.

3.5 London Clay properties in west London


In the early 60s comprehensive research was carried out by Bishop et al. (1965), Ward et al. (1959, 1965), Webb (1964) and Skempton et al. (1969) on the characteristics of London Clay. The investigations concentrated on samples from South-West London, such as Ashford Common, Prospect Park and Wraysbury Reservoir. The data were also analysed by Wroth (1972) and revisited by Burland (1990). Hight & Jardine (1993) investigated the characteristics of the London Clay in correlation to its geology by considering samples from different sites in Central London and Standing & Burland (2005a and 2005b) emphasised the effects of the geological characteristics of the clay on engineering applications. Hight et al. (2003) added new information on the London Clay on the basis of commercial tests performed for the construction of the new Heathrow Terminal 5. The main properties of the London Clay in West London, as determined by these studies, will be briefly summarised here. 3.5.1 Geology

In the west of the London Basin, the London Clay Formation is covered by late Quaternary Terrace Gravels that were deposited after erosion. Geological 94

evidence suggests that perhaps 200m of the upper part of the 55Ma age London Clay Formation were eroded before the deposition of the Terrace Gravel. The geological sections at Heathrow T5 (Figure 3.12), Ashford Common (Figure 3.13) and Wraysbury are very similar. At Ashford Common Bishop et al. (1965) found about 5m of gravel to lie above an estimated thickness of London Clay of between 90 and 120m. The water level was found at about 1.8m above the top of the clay, but measurements of pore water pressure were not available. At T5 Hight et al. (2003) found the London Clay to be overlain by about 6m of terrace gravel, the water level being at 1.5m above the top of the clay. From borings, the total thickness of the London Clay at this site was established to be about 52m and the pore water pressure distribution was found to be hydrostatic. In the area of the T5 site called the lagoon, the gravel had been removed during the 1970s by the Perry Oaks sewage works. (a) Lithological units In Figure 3.12 the lithological division of the London Clay profile at T5 is illustrated (Hight et al., 2003). Units A to C and their sub-units were identified at this site, although the sub-unit of the division C was not clear. Given the regularity of the lithology of the London Clay, a similar division could be applied to Ashford Common if the base level of the clay were known. The estimated total thickness of the clay at this site, between 90 and 120m (Bishop et al., 1965), seems to be unrealistically high, though, compared to the 52m measured at T5. 3.5.2 Index properties

In Figures 3.13b and 3.14, the index properties of the clay at Ashford Common and at Heathrow T5 are illustrated and in Table 3.1 the index properties at Wrasbury Park are summarised (Skempton et al., 1969). For all the locations, the water contents of the natural samples range between 22.5 and 27% and the liquid and plastic limits range between 60-70% and 24-29% respectively, depending on the depth. The profile of water content with depth has been found to provide a graphical means of identifying the lithological division within the London Clay (Standing & Burland, 2005b; Hight et al., 2003). At different sites in the London Basin, the changes in the trend of the water content with depth 95

have been found to correspond to unit and sub-unit boundaries. On the basis of the water content profile, Hight et al., (2003) suggested a sub-unit division of the main lithological units visually identified by King at T5 (Figure 3.15). 3.5.3 In situ stresses and ko

The heavy overconsolidation of London Clay gives rise to high horizontal effective stresses, determining k values that are greater than 1. Skempton (1961) o and Skempton & La Rochelle (1965) found that in the upper 10m of the London Clay ko varies between 2 and 2.5 and this value tends to decrease with increasing depth, falling to 1.5 at about 30m depth. In Figure 3.16, the ko profiles suggested by Bishop et al. (1965) and Hight et al. (2003) for Ashford Common and T5 are plotted. The profile at Ashford Common was derived from block samples using the equation suggested by Skempton (1961):

pk =p[ko -As(ko -1)]

(3.1)

where p is the in situ vertical effective stress, pk is the initial suction corresponding to the stress at which the samples neither swell nor consolidate in the triaxial apparatus and As is the excess pore water ratio corresponding to the removal of the deviatoric stress and was assumed to be 0.3 (Bishop et al, 1965). The ko profile at T5 was derived from suction measurements on thin-wall samples using a suction probe on site soon after sampling (Ridley & Burland, 1993). Figure 3.17 shows the profile of suction with depth measured on thin-wall samples and on rotary core samples. The suctions measured on the thin-wall samples were assumed to be more representative of the true suctions on site. Although the edge effect causes an increase in suction, if the sample is left in the tube, the centreline effect causes a slight reduction of suction (Georgiannou & Hight, 1994). The suction measured on rotary core samples was found to be lower due to the sampling method, as the fluid in the barrel core wetted the samples reducing their suction. This wetting effect was partially reduced by removing the outer part of the samples immediately after boring, but the suction measured from the rotary core samples was still assumed to be as a lower bound for the suction on site. 96

3.5.4

Permeability

The permeability of the London Clay has been found to be strongly associated with its lithological units. Hight et al. (2003) summarised the horizontal permeability at different sites in Central London made with self-boring permeameters or self-boring pressuremeters and included the identification of lithological units (Figure 3.18). They observed that the permeabilities of samples from lithological unit A2 were the highest, because of the content of sandy layers in this unit, but they also noticed that an increase of permeability could be expected towards the top of each unit as result of an i creasing frequency of silt n partings.

Standing and Burland, (2005a), found that erosion of London Clay might increase its mass permeability. The authors observed at St. Jamess Park, in Central London, a value of permeability of around 1x10-11 m/s for Unit B2 , which increased to 4x10-11 m/s in areas that had been subjected to erosion. Rapid sudden inflows of water occurred in the upper part of Unit A , where there is the larger 3 concentration of sand and silt partings. 3.5.5 Cone penetrometer tests at T5

Cone penetrometer tests were performed at Heathrow T5 by the Building Research Establishment for the present research. The coordinates for the boreholes will be given in Table 5.2. Fugro subtractive piezocones with face

filters were used. The filters were pre-saturated with glycerine. The cones were robust enough to cope with the claystones, but zero shifts could occur in the readings if claystones were hit. The results of the tests are summarised in Figure 3.19. The cone resistance and the sleeve friction show a fairly uniform increase with depth. A few jumps in the readings were thought to be associated with boundaries of the lithological units. Two main discontinuities, shown as peaks in the readings, were noticed at 18 and 25m depth. Hight et al. (2003) suggested that these levels could be the boundaries of the lithological sub-units and they are indicated in Figure 3.19. However, the presence of claystone layers, frequent in unit B2 , might have induced these peaks. The pore pressure distribution seems to

97

be more indicative for the identification of the lithological units and seems to mark more clearly the changes in lithology through the depth. 3.5.6 Shear strength

London Clay is a typical example of a fissured stiff plastic clay. It has a brittle behaviour with localization of strains and a well defined post-rupture strength. Figure 3.20 shows typical triaxial stress-strain curves of samples from different depths at T5, sheared undrained after isotropic consolidation to their estimated in situ stresses. Hight & Jardine (1993) observed that the brittleness tends to

increase with depth.

Due to the fissured nature of this clay, samples tend often to fail along preexisting fissures. In this case they may not mobilise any peak strength, but tend to reach directly the large strain strength (e.g. 11.35m depth in Figure 3.20). Hight et al. (2003) observed that the strength envelope of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures corresponded to c=0 and =20o and matched the post-rupture strength envelope (Figure 3.21). The authors also noticed that some samples, particularly thin-wall samples, mobilised a residual strength
corresponding to c=0 and =12o , which is very close to the values of c =0 and

=15o found by Bishop et al. (1965) from triaxial tests on block samples from Ashford Common and by Skempton, (1944) from direct shear tests (Figure 3.22). Jardine et al., (2004), pointed out that the strength on fissures is similar in magnitude to the post-rupture strength, which is observed after the breakage of bonding, because fissures are surfaces where little or no relative shear displacement has occurred. The strength on fissures is therefore higher than the residual strength, which is mobilised at very large strains. Hight et al., (2003) also observed that the strength in extension at T5 was lower than that in compression and corresponded to the fissure strength as in extension the failure mode generally tended to coincide with the predominantly sub-horizontal natural fissures.

Skempton (1977) found the strength along fissures and joints to be similar to the strength of normally consolidated reconstituted samples (Figure 3.23). 98

Burland (1990) found a similar pattern, revisiting the data from Bishop et al. (1965) and Ward et al. (1965) from Ashford Common. He noticed that the postrupture envelopes were similar to the intrinsic failure line of the reconstituted material (Figure 3.24).

Figure 3.25 shows the peak strength envelopes for samples from four different depths at Ashford Common (Burland, 1990). The depths for the Levels A to F are indicated in Figure 3.13a and Table 3.2. The strength envelopes of the natural specimens lie above the intrinsic strength of the material, reflecting both the stronger microstructure of the natural soil and its overconsolidation. The strength envelopes of samples from Levels A to E seemed to define a unique line, while samples from Level F showed higher strengths. This could reflect a difference in the lithological unit between samples from Levels A to E and samples from Level F, although the unit boundaries at Ashford Common are unknown because the base of the clay was not loacted. Hight & Jardine (1993) found that the

changes in lithology and fabric in the London Clay influenced the undrained strength and the failure envelopes. The authors observed that zones of higher sand content, with partings of fine sand or silt, are associated with a higher effective stress failure envelope than the adjacent more plastic clays. This induces a change of the cohesion intercept with depth. The authors also observed that sandier layers occur in the London Clay at depths between 15-18m, 24-27m and below 30m, so that below 25m depth the material can be classified as a hard clay. The different strength envelopes for samples from different depths in

Central London are shown in Figure 3.26. The strength envelopes measured by Hight et al. (2003) at Heathrow T5 agreed with this scheme.

Standing & Burland, (2005b), correlated the changes in the undrained strength of London Clay with changes in water content and therefore with the lithologcial units. The authors observed that, at St Jamess Park, the strength tended to reduce in the lithological units having higher water contents.

The stress paths normalised for volume for samples from different depths at Ashford Common are shown in Figure 3.27, together with the Hvorslev surface of the reconstituted soil. The Strength Sensitivity, St , of London Clay has been 99

quoted to be higher than two (Cotecchia, 1996; Burland, 1990; Webb, 1964) and the normalised state boundary surfaces seem to become horizontal after a normalised stress s/* e of 0.8, although they curve round to the s axis at even higher stress levels. 3.5.7 Anisotropy and stiffness

The anisotropic behaviour of London Clay was first addressed by Bishop et al. (1965), Bishop, (1966) and Atkinson (1975) by comparing the large strain strengths of samples cut horizontally and vertically. London Clay samples deform more in the direction of deposition, the vertical, than in the plane of deposition, the horizontal (Atkinson, 1975, Hight et al., 1997, Wongsaroj et al., 2004).

Laboratory test data, illustrated in Figure 3.28, show that the small strain stiffness of London Clay is stress dependent, so that Gmax =Apn

(3.2)

with the exponent n varying between 0.36 and 0.61 and usually assumed to be 0.5 (Wongsaroj et al., 2004). The magnitudes of the shear moduli G , Gvh and hh Ghv change with location and depth, but Ghh is higher than Gvh and G . From hv bender elements tests on undisturbed samples of London Clay cut horizontally and vertically, Jovicic & Coop (1998) noticed that Gvh was equal to Ghv . The authors also found the ratio G /Gvh to be constant with depth and equal to about hh 1.5. These observations were confirmed by other measurements in different sites in Central London (Hight et al., 2003; Wongsaroj et al., 2004). Cross-hole and down-hole seismic wave velocities measured at Heathrow T5 at 1m depth intervals from the ground surface, show that at this site the shear modulus Ghh is 50-100% higher than Gvh or Ghv , which were equal (Figure 3.29). These values were found to be consistent with the same moduli at other sites in Central London. Table 3.3 summarises the values of the ratio Ghh /Gvh found in the literature.

100

Hight et al. (2003) observed that the ratio G /Gvh against depth reflected the hh influence of lithology on anisotropy (Figure 3.30). The step changes in the distribution of the ratio Ghh /Gvh when plotted against depth were interpreted to indicate the changes of lithological unit, similarly to the water content distribution (Figure 3.15).

101

Liquid Depth Limit [%] from ground level [m] 0-4.5 4.5-39 [mOD] 17.5-13 13 - -21.5 Gravel London Clay 62-76

Plastic Limit [%]

Clay Fraction [%]

~30

55-60

Table 3.1: Index properties of London Clay at Wraysbury (Skempton et al., 1969)

Level [m] A B C D E F

Depth below G.L. [m] 9 15 20 27 35 42

Water content [%] 22.4 25.8 24.8 22.8 24.2 23.6

Liquid Limit [%] 60 69 71 63 70 69

Plastic Limit [%] 24 29 29 26 27 29

Plasticity Index [%] 36 40 42 37 43 40

Clay Fraction %<2mm 42 59 53 47 57 60

Activity: wPI /%clay 0.86 0.68 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.67

Table 3.2: Index properties of London Clay at Ashford Common (Bishop et al., 1965)

Data source Simpson et al. (1996) Hight et al. (1997) Jovicic & Coop (1998) Yimsiri (2001) Hight et al. (2003)

Ratio Ghh/Gvh 1.54 1.71-1.72 1.48-1.61 1.6-1.8 1.5-2.0

Table 3.3: Shear modulus ratios for London Clay (Wongsaroj et al., 2004)

102

Figure 3.1: Late Palaeocene geology (King, 1981)

Figure 3.2: The North Sea Basin and London Clay formation (King, 1981)

103

Figure 3.3: Eocene stratigraphy of the London Clay Formation in Southern Britain (King, 1981)

Figure 3.4: The London Clay formation: idealised depositional sequences linked to sea level changes (King, 1981)

104

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

105

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

106

Figure 3.7: Identification of lithological units by water content (Hight et al., 2003)

107

Figure 3.8: Correlation between the informal lithological division suggested by the BGS (2004) and King (1981) (BGS, 2004)

108

Figure 3.9: Correlation between boreholes at different sites in the London Basin (BGS, 2004)

109

Figure 3.10: Envelope of particle sizes for London Clay (King, 1991)

110

111

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

112

Gravel

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

113

+12.5m OD
0

+12.5m OD GWT
Gravel

10

Depth below ground level [m]

individual claystones
20

15-20cm layer of claystones discontinuous layer of claystones

30

40

(a)

London Clay

(b)

Figure 3.13: Profile of London Clay at Ashford Common (a) geology of the site and (b) index proprieties (Bishop et al. 1965)

114

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

115

Figure 3.15: Unit boundaries at T5 identified by water content (Hight et al. 2003)

116

Figure 3.16: ko profiles for the London Clay at T5 and Ashford Common (Hight et al., 2003)

117

RC=Rotary core TW= Thin-wall U100=Tube

Figure 3.17: Suction measurements at T5 (Hight, 2002)

118

Figure 3.18: Horizontal permeability of London Clay from different sites in the London area (Hight et al. 2003)

119

Figure 3.19: Cone penetrometer tests at T5 (BRE 2002; Hight et al, 2003)

120

Figure 3.20: Results of consolidated undrained tests on rotary cored samples from T5 (Hight et al., 2003)

Figure 3.21: Triaxial compression and extension failure points from rotary cored and thin-walled samples (Hight et al., 2003)

121

700
Vertical Sample, Drained - Level C Horizontal Sample, Drained - Level C

600

Vertical Sample, Undrained - Level C Horizontal Sample, Undrained - Level C Vertical Sample, Drained - Level E Horizontal Sample, Drained - Level E Vertical Sample, Undrained - Level E Horizontal Sample, Undrained - Level E

500

J (kPa)

400

300

200

100

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

I'n (kPa) Figure 3.22: Strength envelopes from triaxial tests on London Clay samples from Ashford Common (re-plotted from Bishop et al. 1965)

122

Figure 3.23: Strength envelope of samples consolidated from slurry and of natural samples sheared along pre-existing fissures (Skempton, 1977)

Figure 3.24: Post-rupture and intrinsic failure lines of London Clay at Ashford Common and strength envelope for samples failed along pre-existing fissures (Bishop et al., 1965; Burland, 1990)

123

Figure 3.25: Strength envelopes of reconstituted and natural London Clay samples from different depths (Burland, 1990: data from Bishop et al., 1965)

Figure 3.26: Peak and residual strength envelopes for natural London Clay samples from different depths in Central London and strength along fissures (Hight & Jardine, 1993)

124

Figure 3.27: Ashford Common: normalised state boundary surfaces for different depths (Burland, 1990; data from Bishop et al., 1965)

125

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

126

Figure 3.29: Shear wave velocities and maximum shear stiffness at T5 (Hight et al, 2003)

127

Figure 3.30: Identification of the lithological units using the stiffness ratio (Hight et al., 2003)

128

APPARATUS

4.1 Introduction
In this research work five triaxial apparatus and two oedometer apparatus were used. Their characteristics will be described in this chapter.

4.2 Oedometer
The oedometer test reproduces in the laboratory conditions of onedimensional compression. The simple version of this test consists of applying a sequence of loads to samples laterally confined, so that strains and water flow are only allowed in the vertical direction. A simple sketch of the oedometer apparatus is given in Figure 4.1.

The basic conventional oedometer cell consists of a rigid ring containing the sample, which is in contact with two porous stones at the top and bottom surfaces to allow double drainage. The dimensions of the sample are designed so that the ratio between the diameter and the height is greater than two to reduce the effects of friction (Bishop and Henkel, 1957). The oedometer cell lies on a rigid aluminium base and a loading yoke allows the transmission of load from a lever arm carrying the weights to the sample top cap. The sample and the rigid ring are located in a water bath to prevent drying of the sample during consolidation tests and allow for the absorption of water during swelling. The stress and strain conditions are assumed to be axi-symmetric and the friction at the contact between the soil and the ring is assumed to be zero. The soil-steel contact at the inner surface of the ring was lightly lubricated with grease before testing. In this research work 50mm and 38mm diameter samples were used. oedometer apparatus is illustrated. In Figure 4.2 the

129

A transducer placed on the top platen measures the vertical displacements . The vertical strain a equals the volumetric strain v , because of the lateral restraint of the sample:

v =

Ho

(4.1)

where Ho is the initial height of the sample. The resolution of the transducers was much smaller than the electric noise and the other factors influencing the accuracy, such as non-linearity, temperature effects and drift were not found to be significant. During the trimming of the

sample, flat and parallel surfaces were ensured to minimise the error due to the imperfect alignment of the top platen with the ring, which can cause misreading of the displacements. The main source of error is derived from the bedding error due to roughness or other imperfections of the top or base of the sample.

4.3 Triaxial apparatus

4.3.1

Introduction

The triaxial test is a versatile laboratory test that allows an examination of the behaviour of the soil under a large range of stress combinations, as all the stresses applied are measured and controlled. A conventional stress path apparatus for 38mm diameter samples, two conventional stress path apparatus modified for 100mm diameter samples, a medium pressure stress path apparatus for 38mm diameter samples and a high pressure triaxial apparatus for 50mm diameter samples were used in this research work. The cells differed between each other in the instrumentation and control systems. In general the natural samples were tested in cells equipped with more sophisticated instrumentation than those used for the reconstituted samples. The conventional apparatus used for reconstituted samples and those used for 100mm natural samples were designed at Imperial College; that used for 38mm natural samples and the high pressure triaxial cell were designed at City University.

130

4.3.2

Conventional stress path apparatus

The hydraulic triaxial apparatus as described by Bishop & Wesley (1975) is sketched in Figure 4.3. A cylindrical sample with a ratio between height and

diameter equal to two is enclosed in a latex membrane, placed on a base platen and is sealed at the top and bottom by o-rings. The sample is located in a cylindrical cell full of water under pressure, r and a load cell of Imperial College type measures the deviatoric force Fa applied to the sample by moving the base piston. Connections to the end of the sample allow drainage, the measurement of the pore pressures and the application of an external pressure (back pressure).

The cell pressure, the ram pressure and the back pressure were supplied by a compressor operating at a minimum pressure of 800kPa. The air pressures provided by the compressor are applied to the sample as hydraulic pressure through air-water interface systems. The pressures are managed by three stepper motor driven manostats controlled by a computer through relay outputs of the data-logging and control card. A stepper-motor driven pump connected to the

hydraulic system and controlled directly by the computer controls the water flow to the base piston in strain-controlled tests.

The cell pressure and the pore or back pressure were measured by Druck pressure transducers of 1700kPa capacity. The volumetric changes of the

samples were measured by a volume gauge of Imperial College type (Figure 4.4). The variation of the water content corresponds to the variation of sample volume if the sample is saturated and the water is assumed incompressible. A linearly variable differential transformer (LVDT) was attached to the volume gauge and allowed measurement of the volumetric strains.

The local axial displacements of the sample were measured by two electrolevel transducers, as described by Jardine et al. (1984). Figure 4.5 shows the electrolevel gauges used in this research. They consist of an electrolytic liquid sealed in a glass capsule and encapsulated in a stainless steel cylinder. Three co-planar electrodes protruding into the capsule and partially immersed in the fluid measure the changes in impedance produced by tilting of the capsule. 131

The change in the electrolevel output voltage can be converted to a change of distance between the pads on the pivoted arms, according to the calibration curve, which was determined by using a micrometer. The external displacements were measured using standard displacement transducers with a maximum travel length of 25mm.

The control program was the Durham University Control System, which monitored the pressures and displacements, controlled the stresses and strains, and allowed the user to define the triaxial testing stages with automatic changes of the stress paths. 4.3.3 Stress path apparatus for 100mm samples

Two hydraulic triaxial apparatus for 100mm samples were specially designed at Imperial College prior this project and used in this research for testing the natural samples (Figure 4.6). The main mechanical modification introduced to these apparatus was the substitution of the air-water ram pressure interface with an air-oil interface system and the reduction in length of all the tubes connected to the pedestal in order to reduce the error sources in the saturation of the system. However, the viscosity of the oil in the ram interface delayed the response of the system to the applied pressure and, in many cases, the computer was unable to keep the axial pressure stable in stress controlled tests. This fluctuation of the pressure was reduced by using the constant rate of strain pump to control the axial stress as well as the axial strains. These apparatus were equipped with

more sophisticated instrumentation than those used in the other apparatus. (a) Axial and radial LVDTs The local displacements were measured by using axial and radial LVDTs, as described by Cuccovillo & Coop (1997) and sketched in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. A change of the penetration of the armature into the LVDT body generates a change in the output voltage. For the axial LVDTs the armature rested on a

lower mount, which was fitted with a large-headed screw that enabled small adjustments of the armature to be performed when the sample was set up. The design of the mounts allows the sample to barrel or develop a shear plane without 132

causing the armature to jam. This kind of transducer has a linear calibration over a range of displacements of about 10mm and they have a relatively small noise. To resolve the very small strains at the start of the shearing, the LVDTs were set at their electrical zero by adjusting the zero potentiometer in the transducer amplifier; this allowed the data logger to work in its most sensitive range. The noise of the LVDTs was then reduced to about 2x10-5 mm by programming the data logger to integrate the set of readings over a relatively long period of about 3 seconds.

An LVDT for the measurement of radial displacements was mounted on the sample through a radial belt designed for 100mm diameter samples (Figure 4.8). The radial LVDT was calibrated using a micrometer that was specially adapted for the radial belt. (b) Mid-height probe A piezometer probe (Hight, 1983) was used to measure the pore pressure at the sample mid-height, where the applied stresses are uniform. The probe was pushed through a protruding hole in the membrane and sealed with an o -ring and several layers of liquid latex (Figure 4.9). A pad of soft kaolin, placed on the porous filter before installation, ensured good contact between the filter and the sample and reduced the risk of cavitation of the filter due to the high suction of the sample. (c) Bender elements The elastic stiffness of the soil was measured using bender elements mounted on the side of the sample. The bender elements are piezoceramic plates that allow the shear wave velocity v through a soil specimen to be measured. Two elements s are used: a receiver and a transmitter. A voltage is applied to the transmitter element causing it to vibrate in the direction normal to the face of the ceramic plates. The shear wave produced by the vibration is sent through the sample and detected by the receiver element. The time difference between the input and the output wave represents the travel time of the shear wave. It is captured and displayed by a digital oscilloscope, so that the shear wave velocity vs can be measured from: 133

vs =

L t arr

(4.2)

where L is the travel length, which can be taken as the distance between the tips of the bender elements (Viggiani and Atkinson, 1995) and tarr is the travel time displayed on the oscilloscope. The elastic shear modulus Gmax can then be derived as:

Gmax = v s2
where is the density of the soil.

(4.3)

Figure 4.10 shows a sketch of the bender elements used in this research. They were inserted into rubber grommets, which were attached to diametrically opposite sides of the latex membrane (see Section 5.3.3). Liquid latex was used to cover the grommets and prevent leaks during testing. Table 4.1 summarises the sizes and mode of propagation of the elements.

The interpretation of the results to determine the arrival time is the principal difficulty of bender element tests and several methods of interpretation have been proposed. In this research work, a sine wave was used and two methods for determining the travel time were adopted, which were the First Arrival Method and the Phase Velocity Method. These methods were discussed in Section 2.5.1 and, in Chapters 5 and 7, the tests results on the London Clay samples will demonstrate the agreement of the two interpretation methods. 4.3.4 The medium pressure apparatus

Natural samples of 38mm diameter were tested in a Bishop and Wesley triaxial apparatus modified to achieve a radial pressure of 1.8MPa. The higher pressure was obtained by using 2.5 times pressure multipliers placed in the lines between the air-water interfaces and the cell or the axial ram (Figure 4.11). The multipliers are comprised of unequal pistons that are otherwise similar to volume gauges. The water pressure arriving from the air-water interface into the base of 134

the multiplier is transferred to the upper part through the unequal shaped piston resting on a bellofram. The top water chamber, sealed with a second bellofram, receives the amplified water pressure and transfers it to the cell or the axial ram.

The cell chamber is reinforced to have a higher stress capacity and special thicker membranes were used for the samples. This apparatus was equipped with a load cell of 5kN capacity built by Wykeham Farrance and axial LVDTs. The computer program, written by Dr. M. Coop was modified in order to increase the integration times to improve the accuracy of the readings. The stepper motor

pump was controlled by a manually activated relay designed at City University. 4.3.5 High pressure triaxial apparatus

Three tests on natural samples of 50mm diameter were performed in a high pressure apparatus with a cell pressure capacity of 5MPa. An earlier version of the apparatus is described by Cuccovillo & Coop (1997) and it is sketched in Figure 4.12. Figure 4.13 shows a picture of the apparatus with its instrumentation. The triaxial cell is made of a 12.5mm thick steel tube in order to be able to stand high pressures and oil is used as the cell liquid because it is not conductive and standard non-submersible LVDTs can then be used.

Air-oil interfaces transfer the air pressure coming from the main compressor to oil for the cell and the axial ram up to pressures of 800kPa. Two specially designed motorized hydraulic pumps, placed in the lines of the cell and the ram pressures, enable pressures up to 5MPa to be reached. A hydraulic pump is

shown in Figure 4.14 and sketched i Figure 4.15. It has a fixed piston along the n axis, which is moved forwards or backwards by a stepping motor activated through a gear box. Both sides of the cylinders are connected to the high pressure system and to the low pressure system, acting as the oil reservoir, through twoway valves. The compressed oil on one side of the cylinder is transferred to the high pressure system and the two-way valves enable redirection of the cylinder when it is close to one end of its travel by switching the oil pressure in either side of the piston to low or high pressure.

135

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

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

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

4.3.7

Load cell connection

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

observed at the beginning of shearing due to alignment problems.

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

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

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

137

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

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

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

138

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

Shv 3.5 7.5 0.6 Horizontal Vertical

Shh 3.5 7.5 0.6 Horizontal Horizontal

Table 4.1: Details of bender elements

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

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

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

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

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

139

Figure 4.1: Schematic design of the oedometer cell

PC transducer loading yoke

lever arm

Figure 4.2: Oedometer apparatus

140

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

141

Water supply To the sample

LVDT O-ring

piston Belloframe

Back pressure supply

Figure 4.4: Volume gauge (Head, 1980)

142

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

143

load cell

PC CRSP air-oil interface volume gauge

external LVDT

air-water interface

cell pressure transducer

pore pressure transducer

Figure 4.6: Hydraulic triaxial cell for 100mm diameter samples

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

144

Figure 4.8: Radial strain belt (Coop, 2005)

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

145

Ghv

Ghh

Figure 4.10: Schematic diagram of the lateral bender elements

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

146

Figure 4.12: Schematic diagram of the high pressure apparatus (Qadimi, 2005)

147

Figure 4.13: The high pressure apparatus (Qadimi, 2005)

Figure 4.14: The motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi, 2005)

148

Figure 4.15: Schematic diagram of the motorised hydraulic pump (Qadimi, 2005)

149

Load cell Half ball

Top platen

Sample

(a)

Load cell

Suction cup

Top platen

Sample

(b)
Load cell

Top platen Sample

(c)

Load cell Half ball Suction cup Top platen

Sample

(d)

Figure 4.16: Load cell connections (a) half ball (b) suction cap (c) rigid connection (d) new suction cap connection for 100mm diameter samples 150

TEST PROCEDURES

5.1

Introduction

All the London Clay samples used in this research were retrieved from the area proposed for the new Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 in London, as discussed in Chapter 3. The works carried out for the enlargement of the airport gave the opportunity to recover rotary core samples and block samples that were tested in their natural state or remoulded for reconstituted samples. High quality sampling techniques were used in order to minimize the soil disturbance. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show maps of Heathrow T5 from which the samples were retrieved and Table 5.2 indicates the samples coordinates. The boreholes used for the CPT tests discussed in Section 3.5.5 are also indicated in the Figure 5.2 and included in Table 5.2.

Referring to the lithological units of this site (see Chapter 3), samples from different depths were tested to characterize the profile of the London Clay in terms of engineering properties. Table 5.1 summarises all the tests conducted on natural samples and their lithological units. The nomenclature used is explained in Section 5.7. For completeness, some tests conducted by others for MSc and MEng dissertations, supervised in part by the author are also included as indicated. Triaxial and oedometer tests were performed on both natural and reconstituted samples. Initial and final water contents and wet weights of the samples were measured together with the inclination of the shear plane, if formed. Sample sizes of 38mm, 50mm and 100mm diameters were used, although it is recognised that these sizes might not correspond to the representative element volume (REV) that is more appropriate to represent the overall fissured behaviour of the London Clay. Given the fissure spacing in the London Clay, either no fissures or one fissure are expected in the sample sizes chosen, which allows the identification of the intact and the fissured strengths of the clay. The identification of the REV strength would have required the use of 151

samples containing a representative number of fissures, therefore either samples of much larger size, which was unpractical for laboratory tests, or in situ tests. However, this is beyond the scope of this thesis.

In Chapters 7 and 8 it will be shown that the fissures only affect the behaviour of the clay at large strains, when the localization of the strains also induced discontinuities into the specimens, therefore, in the analysis of the data, the use of a continuum model seems appropriate. This chapter describes the sampling methods and the test procedures used in this research.

5.2

Sampling

5.2.1

Rotary Core Samples

Rotary core samples were retrieved prior to the start of the project in the Summer of 2001 by using a triple barrel rotary corer with polymer foam lubrication. The borehole location is indicated in Figure 5.2. Two boreholes were drilled whose coordinates are indicated in Table 5.2. The first borehole extended from the top of the London Clay at 5.5m depth to about 51m depth, the second from 5.5m to about 15m, as shown in Figure 5.3. The samples extracted from the cores were cut into pieces of about 35cm length and about 1cm of wetter material was removed from the outer part of the sample in order to avoid changing the insitu water content and to minimize the swelling due to free water around the sample. Samples that were badly disturbed due to drilling were rejected and the good quality samples were wrapped in a double layer of cling film and wax and were stored in the soil storage room at Imperial College.

Based on the division into lithological units s uggested by Hight et al. (2003), a rough division into units was identified along the boreholes used in this research as described in Table 5.3. No samples were available from unit B because they 1 were all badly disturbed during the sampling process.

152

A further division of Unit B2 into three lithological sub-units, B2(a) B2(b) and B2(c), was later identified on the basis of the index properties of the samples and the study of microfossils (Mannion, 2005) which will be discussed in Chapter 6. 5.2.2 Block samples

Staff and students of the Soil Mechanics Research Group, including the author, recovered the block samples during the Spring and Summer of 2003. The blocks were taken from the benches along the south side of the T5 lounge chamber excavation in the sludge lagoon shown in Figure 5.2, at depths of 6.5, 12 and 15m below ground level, as indicated in Figure 5.4. According to Table 5.3, all the block samples belong to the lithological Units B2 and C. (a) Sampling process The sampling process was carefully organized and the fissured nature of the soil required some practice and expertise to be developed before obtaining successful results. Six blocks were recovered at 6.5 and 17m depths and nine at 12m depth, because the larger number of fissures observed at this depth made the quality of the blocks less certain. Only samples from the 6.5 and 12m blocks were used in this research.

The sampling process is illustrated in Figure 5.5 and consisted of three main phases, namely the excavation to access the sampling point, the cutting of the samples and finally storage. The starting date of sampling at the different depths depended on the timetable of the excavation work and was arranged with the contractors working on site. At each depth, the blocks were recovered by excavating below the temporary profile of the bench using a hydraulic excavator operated by the contractors on site. In order to avoid disturbing the samples the excavator did not dig closer than 0.5m to the sample sides (Figure 5.5a) and the final stage of digging was carried out with a pneumatic clay spade, manual spades and finally a soil saw (Figures 5.5b and 5.5c). The final dimensions of each block were about 35x35x25cm. Once the sides of the blocks and the top surfaces had been shaped, they were wrapped in clingfilm and waxed. Wooden boxes were placed around the blocks and polyurethane foam was injected

153

between the box and the block. The top of the box was then closed and the samples were left on site overnight to allow the foam to harden. After 24 hours the blocks were cut underneath with the clay spade. The block was then turned over and the open side was shaped to be flat. It was then covered with clingfilm, waxed and a layer of polyurethane foam was placed before finally closing the last side of the wooden box. Accurate readings of the co-ordinates and depths of the samples were taken with a GPS system.

5.3

Natural Samples- triaxial tests

5.3.1

Trimming

During the trimming process particular techniques were developed and improved with experience, in order to minimize the time spent in this process and reduce the drying of the samples, drying allows fissures to open. These mostly had horizontal and vertical orientations (Sandroni, 1977) and so did not seem to have a significant influence on the sample behaviour, because they closed as the initial pressure was applied to the sample in the apparatus. Drying also changes the initial water content and therefore the suction of natural samples and needed to be avoided. Trimming the rotary core samples was quicker and simpler than trimming samples from blocks, which required more organization. With experience, a maximum time of 20 minutes was spent trimming rotary core samples, which was enough to avoid significant drying of the samples. (b) Rotary cores The rotary core samples had a circular shape, with diameter of around 100mm. They were trimmed to nominal conventional dimensions of 100x200mm or 38x76mm by using the trimming devices shown in Figure 5.6.

In order to obtain 38mm diameter samples the initial dimensions of the core were first reduced to a diameter of roughly 45mm using sharp knives, then the required dimensions of 38mm diameter and 76mm length were achieved by using a hand lathe, a cradle and trimming saws. For the 100mm diameter 154

samples, only about 1mm of soil was removed from the perimeter, which reduced the effective diameter of the samples to about 98mm. The length of these samples was chosen to be about 180mm due to space problems in the apparatus. (c) Blocks A bench saw was used for initial trimming of the block samples (Figure 5.7). The presence of fissures required the sample to be continuously supported on its sides to avoid opening of the fissures during trimming. The block recovered from site was first cut into four smaller blocks without removing the original wooden box because this was a necessary support to the sample. An electric saw was used to cut the wood and the bench saw to cut the soil. One sample was obtained immediately from one of the four smaller blocks, while the other three were resealed with wax, foam and wood to be used in the future. Most of the excess soil was removed with the bench saw to obtain a prism of 105mm width and 205mm length. This prism was shaped into a cylinder by hand, using a hand lathe and saws. It was necessary to have the help of other research students to accelerate the process of resealing the blocks and sometimes help was required also during the manual trimming because the samples were very fissured and tended to crumble. During the manual trimming about six measurement of the water content of the sample were taken from the sides and the top of the specimen. 5.3.2 Preparation of the cell

The cell was kept under a pressure of 500-600kPa for at least 24 hours before testing. This ensured perfect saturation of the system and dissolution of any air bubbles trapped in the drainage lines. The long duration of the tests also made it necessary to perform leakage tests frequently. 5.3.3 Preparation of the sample

Once the sample had been trimmed to the correct shape, it was w eighed and its dimensions were accurately measured. The initial sample suction was always higher than 200kPa, therefore during the preparation of the sample, it was supported on wires placed on top of the porous stone to avoid contact between 155

the sample and the drainage system. This prevented the sample from cavitating the drainage system. The contact between the sample and the drainage system occurred only when cell pressure was applied so that a positive pore pressure was measured. The porous stone was first de-aired both by using a vacuum pump and by boiling the stone for few minutes. To minimize the time spent on the wires the sample was first prepared on the bench. Circumferential and top filter papers, which were dampened before use, were first placed to facilitate drainage and the sample was immediately closed with the membrane and the top platen to reduce stress release and drying during the preparation. The mounts of the axial LVDTs and the radial belt, for the 100mm samples, were directly glued onto the membrane.

For the 100mm samples the mid-height pore pressure probe and the bender elements also had to be set up on the samples. The membrane was prepared in advance with three nozzles to locate the bender elements and the mid-height pore pressure probe as shown in Figure 5.8a. Two cross shaped slots were

excavated into the sample with a small screwdriver to locate the bender elements because the stiffness of the sample did not allow pushing the bender elements directly into it. The holes were filled with remoulded clay and the bender elements were safely pushed into it through the nozzles in the membrane. An o ring was placed around the nozzles and several layers of latex were applied to seal the bender elements into the membrane. The mid-height pore pressure probe was pushed into the nozzles in of the membrane and again sealed with an o -ring and layers of latex. A direct contact between the probe and the sample was avoided at this stage by putting a thin layer of kaolin on the face of the probe, because the high suction of the sample could have cavitated the probe. Figure 5.8 shows the preparation process of a 100mm diameter sample along with a sketch of the sample. The sample was finally put into the apparatus, the control system was set up to record the data and a cell pressure about 100kPa higher than the expected effective pressure in the sample was instantaneously applied.

The pore pressure was allowed to stabilize for about 24 hours. In the 100mm samples, where the mid-height probe was available, stabilization was indicated by a convergence of the base and the mid-height pore pressures. The saturation 156

of the system was checked by increasing the cell pressure by about 50kPa and measuring the B value at the base and mid-height:
B= u r

(5.1)

where r and u are the changes in cell and pore pressure respectively.

Usually all the samples showed B values higher than 95%, with the exception of a few specimens tested at the beginning of the research that had lower values. The cause of this poor saturation was air bubbles trapped in the drainage system of triaxial apparatus and the problem was solved by reducing the length of the drainage tubes and by keeping the cell under pressure before testing. 5.3.4 Expected effective stress

The suction of some of the cores and block samples tested in this research was measured with a suction probe (Ridley & Burland, 1997) immediately before testing. As shown in Figure 5.9, these measurements were found to agree with the initial effective stress measured in the triaxial apparatus after the pore pressure had stabilized and the B value had been checked. The initial effective stresses measured in the triaxial apparatus plot between two profiles of suction derived from measurements on high quality rotary core samples and on thinwalled samples made on site. The lower profile of suction was measured by Geotechnical Observations (GeO) with suction probes on high quality rotary core samples. The higher profile was calculated using the ko values suggested by Hight et al., (2003) on the basis of suction measurements on thin-walled samples. The suction measured on thin-walled samples was believed to be more representative of the true in situ stress of the soil and it was therefore decided to rely on the upper bound profile. In the last stage of the present research, suction probe measurements on thin-walled samples from 5 to about 17m depth became available. These data are also included in Figure 5.9. For depths below about

15m, these data agree with the profile derived using the ko values suggested by Hight et al, (2003), but, for depths shallower than 15m, the measured values are lower than those calculated using the suggested ko . The initial effective stresses 157

measured in the triaxial apparatus agree with the profile from the thin-walled samples.

Greater initial effective stresses were measured in the triaxial apparatus on some 38mm samples and on some 100mm samples equipped with more sophisticated instrumentation. This was because the trimming process for the former and the time spent in setting up the latter, dried the samples, increasing their initial suctions. In the first few tests performed in this research, the low saturation of the drainage system of the triaxial apparatus did not allow to measure the true initial effective stresses of the samples. Due to lack of information at this time, these samples were saturated using the effective stresses from the curve suggested by GeO from the rotary core samples.

In Appendix 5.1 it is explained that the ko profile suggested by Hight et al. (2003), (see Section 3.5.3) was trusted for the calculations of the in situ stresses in the present research. Practical experience suggested that the ko values of this profile for shallower depths could be too large, which seems to be confirmed by the measurements on thin-walled samples in Figure 5.9 and by the difficulties encountered in the present research in reaching the calculated in situ stresses at shallow depths. 5.3.5 Test procedures

The triaxial tests conducted on natural samples are summarized in Table 5.4 and were: Undrained unconsolidated compression and extension tests Drained and undrained compression and extension tests on samples isotropically compressed or swelled. Undrained compression probes to investigate the influence of recent stress history on the soil behaviour. Drained and undrained compression and extension tests starting from the assumed in situ stress of the sample, to investigate the elastic parameters and the yielding stresses.

158

(a) Unconsolidated undrained tests These tests were preformed on 38mm and 100mm diameter natural samples. The tests started from the isotropic stress state corresponding to the initial effective stress of the sample, and consisted of conventional strain controlled shear in compression. An initially constant external strain rate of 0.02%/hour was used. This rate was typically increased at each logarithmic interval of strains after the internal strains had reached 0.1%, but it was never increased more than twice the previous value. The connection between the load cell and the sample was achieved by using a half ball or a rigid connection obtained by screwing the top platen onto the load cell. At the beginning of shearing, it was found that the sample tended to tilt when starting from an isotropic state, therefore some tests were started from a slightly anisotropy state. A small initial deviatoric stress of about 10kPa was applied immediately after the application of the initial cell pressure or simultaneously to it if the load cell was rigidly connected. The pore pressure was allowed to stabilise before shearing.

The voltages of the internal strain transducers were re-zeroed immediately before shearing in order to have the maximum accuracy of readings. The scan of the data was set to have about 100 readings for each logarithmic interval of strains. (b) Consolidated drained or undrained tests from an isotropic state These tests were conducted mainly on 38mm diameter natural samples. The tests consisted of isotropic swelling or compression starting from the stress state where the pore pressure had stabilized and the saturation of the system had been checked. The load cell was connected to the sample using the suction cap before starting the isotropic loading, in order to minimize the disturbance applied to the sample at the beginning of the shearing. The rate of isotropic loading was 11.5kPa/h for 100mm samples and 2-3kPa/h for 38 mm samples. These rates were chosen to allow full drainage. For the 100mm samples, equilibration of the pore water pressure was checked by comparing the mid-height probe and the base pore pressure measurements. A maximum pore pressure excess of 5% of the current p was allowed. For the 38mm samples, where a mid-height probe was

159

not available, the isotropic compression was stopped every 100kPa and the drainage conditions were checked either by closing the drainage tap and checking the excess pore pressure or by waiting for the stabilization of the volumetric strain. At the end of the isotropic stage, the strains were allowed to stabilize long enough to achieve a rate of volumetric strain per hour 100 times smaller than the initial rate of axial strain during shearing. The voltages of the internal transducers were re-zeroed before shearing. The data-logging interval was set up to have about 100 data sets in each logarithmic interval of axial strain. The constant strain shear tests were performed at an initial rate of shearing of 0.02%/h for the undrained tests and 0.004%/h for the drained tests. Similar tests were also performed on reconstituted samples. (d) Investigation of the influence of recent stress history Two sets of tests on samples from about 17m depth were conducted to investigate the influence of recent stress history on the soil behaviour. The idea was to subject the samples to a set of shear probes following different stress path rotations. It was decided to perform the probes starting from the isotropic stress state in order not to be close to either of the failure lines in compression or extension, and thus remove any effect of the outgoing stress path directions on the soil stiffness.

The first few attempts at the tests demonstrated that was impossible to perform compression probes starting from an isotropic state because the Imperial College load cell used in the a pparatus has a mechanical gap that induces a jump in the strains at about 2.5kPa deviatoric strains (Figure 5.10), which does not allow a smooth increase of the stresses. The stiffness data were consequently not sufficiently clear in the zone where the maximum effect of the recent stress history was expected. Sometimes it was also difficult to perform compression

probes even from a slightly anisotropic state with deviatoric stress of 10kPa because the sample showed a slight tilt due to the presence of the half-ball in the load cell connection. Although the tilt was very small, it was significant for the range of stresses applied. The probes were thus performed in extension. One sample, 17.5SH, was used to practise and develop the best testing procedures, which were then applied to Samples 17SH and 17.3SH. 160

The shear probes performed were all undrained and stress controlled. The cell pressure was kept constant while q was reduced at a constant stress rate of 5kPa/h. Two sets of approach stress paths were tried, which were about 10kPa and 100kPa in length respectively. A brief description of tests will be given below, and is discussed in detail in Chapter 9. Test 1: 17SH A sketch of the stress paths performed on this sample is shown in Figure 5.11a. The sample was first consolidated to its in situ p of 330kPa under a deviatoric stress of 10kPa (A to O in Figure 5.11a). Creep was allowed under these stress conditions until no variation of volumetric strains could be measured. The first probe stage included a drained compression stress path at constant p from O to B and back to O followed by undrained stress controlled extension from O to X and back from X to O. Creep was allowed at Point O before starting the extension probe. The rotation of this path OX is therefore approximately 0o from the approach stress path. At point X the rotation of 180o to return to O was instantaneous and did not allow any creep. The second probe stage included a consolidation stress path from O to C and back to O followed by undrained extension from O to X and back from X to O. The extension from O implied a rotation of 180o from the approach stress path and creep was allowed at O prior to starting the probe. At Point X the rotation of 180o to return to O was instantaneous. After probing the sample was sheared in compression to failure. Test 2: 17.3SH Two sets of probes were performed on this sample. For the first set, sketched in Figure 5.11b, the consolidation stress paths and the undrained probes were similar to those described above for Test 17SH, but the approach stress paths were about 100kPa in length, taking the sample well outside the Y2 surface in this case. For the second set, the approach stress path was similar to that performed on Sample 17SH, (Figure 5.11a) about 10kPa in length, but creep was not allowed before the undrained probes, which were performed in compression starting from an initial anisotropic stress state with q=10kPa. The sample was

161

consolidated to this initial stress state with a constant p path and sheared undrained in compression to Point X, which was in compression in this case. (e) Tests from the in situ stress state Samples from four principal depths were consolidated to their in situ stresses and, from this point, probes and/or anisotropic swelling or ko compression were performed before finally shearing the samples to failure. Rotary core samples from 34m to 40m depths were used to represent lithological Unit A3(2); rotary core samples from about 22m to 32.5m depth and from 10 to 12.5m represented respectively the bottom and the top of Unit B2 , which will be shown later to correspond to two lithological sub-units of Unit B2 (Section 6.4.2). Block samples from the top of the London Clay, were used to represent Unit C. One block sample from 12.5m depth was also used from the top of Unit B . For each 2 of these lithological units the in situ stress states and the approach stress paths were calculated with reference to four main depths of 35m, 25m, 10m, 7m. In the early stages of the research the samples from depths shallower than 9.5m were thought to belong to the top of Unit B2 and were expected to be weathered, therefore the samples from depths shallower than 12.5m (i.e. 10m and 12m nominal depths) were consolidated to the same in situ stress point by following the same stress path, in order to reduce any differences between these samples only to those due to the effects of weathering. The approach stress paths used to consolidate the samples to their in situ stress points are described in detail in Appendix 5.1.

The stress paths were stress controlled. In the triaxial apparatus for 100mm samples the axial stress was controlled by using the constant rate of strain pump, which was more stable than the ram pressure and allowed better accuracy of control. Where bender elements were available, the stiffness of the sample was measured at each significant stress point along the approach stress path.

From the in situ stress points the samples were either sheared directly to failure or were ko compressed or swelled anisotropically and then sheared to failure or probes were performed before shearing to failure. A sketch of the tests performed is shown in Figure 5.12. 162 Prior to any following stage, the stresses

were held at the in situ state until the creep rate had reduced to negligible values and no variation of volumetric, axial and radial strain could be measured. The elastic parameters of the soil and the limits of the elastic kinematic surfaces were measured in each stress path performed from the in situ stress point. The voltages of the internal transducers were therefore re-zeroed before starting each stress paths, in order to have the maximum accuracy of readings.

The shearing was controlled by the constant strain rate pump at initial external axial r ates of 0.02%/h for undrained tests and 0.004%/h for drained tests. These rates were used for both 38mm and 100mm diameter samples. Ko compression from the in situ stress Samples of 38mm diameter were compressed along a ko path in the medium pressure triaxial apparatus. The stress path consisted of a stress controlled loading along the estimated ko reloading stress path to reach the isotropic axis. Axial and radial stress rates as slow as 1kPa/h were used in order to have enough data to recognize the limits of the kinematic regions. From the isotropic axis the radial strain was then controlled to be constant, while the axial stress was increased at a constant rate of 4kPa/h up to the maximum total axial stress of 1500kPa allowed by the apparatus used. The samples were then sheared to failure following the shearing procedures described above. Swelling tests These tests were conducted on two 38mm samples from the reference depth of 25m. A conventional triaxial apparatus equipped with inclinometers was used. The samples were swelled anisotropically from their in situ stress point to p=300kPa, then the deviator stress was increased keeping p constant to reach the isotropic axis and the swelling was continued isotropically to a minimum of 10kPa. The sample was allowed to stabilize at this pressure and then isotropically compressed again to 100kPa before undrained shearing to failure. Probes These probes were performed on 100mm diameter samples, which were equipped with local axial and radial LVDTs and bender e lements. The purpose of 163

these probes was to measure the elastic parameters of the London Clay and identify the existence and the limit of the elastic yield surface. The details of the measurements are described in Appendix 5.2.

From the in situ stress points, axial and radial compression or extension and probes with p or q constant were performed. All the probes were drained and stress controlled and started when the creep strains had become negligible and no variation per hour of the volumetric, axial and radial strains could be measured.

The maximum stress change during the probes was about 2kPa, after which the stresses were quickly taken back to the in situ values without allowing for creep. Each probe was performed at least twice for each sample to have a double check of the results. Full drainage of the sample was guaranteed by using very slow stress rates and was checked by monitoring the mid-height probe. A probe was considered successful if the maximum variation of pore pressure, measured at the mid-height, was lower than 0.1kPa. The axial and radial compression and extension probes and the constant p compression probes were performed at rates of 0.3kPa/h, which was increased to 0.5kPa/h for samples from 7m and 10m depth due to higher permeabilities that allowed full drainage even at this higher rate. Half of the above rates was usually used for the probes at constant q.

The probes were performed over a period of time that was free from any the temperature variation (see Section 5.3.6), so the transducers and the temperature were carefully monitored for at least 24 hours before starting a probe stage. In order to minimise the temperature oscillation, the cell was wrapped in bubble wrap and aluminium foil. Between 8-10 hours were usually allowed between each probe. 5.3.6 Effect of temperature

Thermometers were installed inside the 100mm triaxial cells, in order to monitor the temperature with time and its effect on the local and global instrumentation. Typically a cyclic temperature change of 0.7o C was noticed between night and day as shown in Figure 5.13(a), which caused a cyclic

164

variation of the strains and of the pore water pressure with time, as shown in Figures 5.13(b) and (c). The local axial strains and the mid-height pore pressure showed maximum excursions of about 0.003% and 5kPa per day respectively. These values were measured when the creep effects on the strains had already reduced to negligible values. The cyclic oscillation of the transducers has negligible influence on the large strain behaviour, but is relevant at very small strains, where the maximum strains measured are as small as a third of the strains due to the temperature change.

It was thought that the variation of the strains might be affected by the expansion of the transducer armatures and bodies with temperature. An approximated calculation of the thermal expansion of the LVDTs was carried out to check if the magnitude of this could influence the readings. Due to thermal

expansion the armature could move into the LVDT body, which itself could also expand. Considering that the length l of the armature inside the LVDT body was about 20mm:
l armature = C 2l T = 10 5 2 20 0.5 = 2 10 4

(5.2)

where C is the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal, 10-5 /Co and T is the temperature variation. The corresponding strains induced by temperature change could have been: l 2 10 4 = 100 2.8 10 4% 70 lo

a =

(5.3)

The thermal expansion of the LVDTs was therefore not enough to explain the measured cycle of strains.

Several checks were carried out in order to understand whether the observed cyclic oscillation of the values depended on the soil or on the sensitivity of the transducers to the temperature. It seemed that the changes of pore water pressure and strains were due to real changes of pore pressure inside the sample. The only

165

solution found to prevent it was to reduce the temperature variation inside the cell. The cell was thus isolated by wrapping it in several layers of bubble wrap and aluminium foil. This reduced the temperature change to less then 0.1o C and therefore the pore pressure and the local strain oscillations reduced. In Figure 5.14 the variation of the values with time are presented. The pore pressure change reduced to less than 0.5kPa and the strain excursion to 0.001%, but a period of time could also be identified when all the values were constant. This period was therefore chosen to perform the probes in each tests. Prior to the probing stage, the strains were monitored for at least 24 hours and the times when the strains were constant were identified. Figure 5.15 shows the cell wrapped for temperature insulation.

5.4

Natural samples oedometer tests

5.4.1

Sample preparation

The samples were trimmed into the 38mm and 50mm diameter oedometer rings manually, using sharp knifes. The initial water content and the sample dimensions were carefully measured before the sample was set up in the apparatus with an initial vertical load equal to the in situ vertical stress. 5.4.2 Testing procedures

Compression tests were performed on samples from different depths. These consisted of compression of the samples to about 4MPa, swelling to 100kPa and re-compression to 10MPa. Some samples were first swelled before compression in order to investigate the effects of swelling on structure. The sample depths and the corresponding units are summarized in Table 5.5 and Figure 5.16 shows a schematic diagram of the test procedure. Again some tests were carrier out by MSc students under the supervision of the author.

166

5.5 Reconstituted samples


The reconstituted samples were obtained by remoulding the natural samples at a water content of 1.25 times the liquid limit, without air or oven drying, following the recommendations of Burland (1990). 5.5.1 Triaxial tests

(a) Consolidation The reconstituted samples were consolidated in conventional 38mm

consolidometers (Figure 5.17) to v of about 30kPa. The samples were allowed to consolidate under this load until the axial displacements were less than 0.1mm per day. This method of consolidation generates inhomogeneities in the sample due to frictional resistance along the side of the consolidometers and the distribution of the water content is not uniform along the sample. All the reconstituted samples were reconsolidated though in the triaxial apparatus and the initial specific volume was calculated using different methods (see Section 5.6) therefore the above defects of the consolidation process were overcome. (b) Sample preparation The samples were set up in a conventional triaxial apparatus equipped with inclinometers to measure the local strains. Circumferential filter papers

facilitated drainage. A cell pressure of about 130kPa was initially applied to the sample, which was allowed to stabilize under a back pressure of 100kPa. (c) Tests procedures Isotropic compression and swelling tests followed by undrained shearing were performed on samples from different depths. For each depth a minimum of three tests was performed with the help of MSc students. The samples were isotropically compressed to different stresses, and then either sheared undrained or swelled to low stresses before shearing. The isotropic compression was performed at a rate of 3kPa/h. This stress rate was not slow enough to permit full drainage, but could not be reduced due to time constraints. Pore pressure dissipation was therefore allowed by stopping the compression every 100kPa and 167

allowing the volumetric strains to stabilize overnight. This procedure gave points during compression that could be used to identify the Normal Compression Line. Strain controlled undrained shearing was then performed at a rate of 0.02%/h. As for the tests on natural samples, the shearing was started after the volumetric strain rate per hour had reduced to 1/100 of the shear strain rate to be used. The final wet weight and water content were measured after each test. The details of the tests are summarized in Table 5.6. 5.5.2 Oedometer tests

The oedometer tests on reconstituted samples were similar to those performed on natural samples. Stages of loading and unloading were performed as summarized in Table 5.7.

Most of the oedometer tests and the triaxial tests on reconstituted samples were performed by MSc students as part of their dissertation projects. The writer closely supervised these students so that uniformity in testing procedures could be ensured. The names of these students are included in Tables 5.1, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7.

5.6 Analysis of the data


For each sample tested the initial and final water content were measured along with the dimensions and the angle of shear plane, when formed. The calculations for both natural and reconstituted samples were made as follows. 5.6.1 Calculations and corrections

(a) Water content The water content of the specimens was measured according to the British Standard (BS 1377:2:1990), however the samples were left to dry in the oven for a time between three and five days, because the standard 24 hours were thought to be not enough to allow a consistent drying of large samples. The specimens were never allowed to dry longer than 5 days. 168

(b) Specific volume The initial specific volume vi was calculated using the average of the values obtained with four methods:

vi = G s

w d

(5.4) (5.5) (5.6)

v i = Gs wi + 1 vi = Gs 1 1 w

vi =

(1 viso )(1 vsh )

vf

(5.7)

where the symbols shown are defined as follows: : bulk unit weight; d : dry bulk unit weight; w : unit weight of water; Gs : specific gravity, which varies with depth and was measured at different depths along the borehole, as discussed in Chapter 6; viso and vsh : volumetric strain developed during isotropic compression and shearing respectively.

Equation (5.4) could not be used for the 100mm natural samples because the final dry weight of the samples was not available, as one half of the sample was not dried in the oven in order to use it for reconstituted samples. The final specific volume vf in Equation (5.7) was calculated using the final water content wf and the final bulk weight f in Equations (5.5) and (5.6) respectively, and therefore two values of the final volume could be used in equation (5.7).

At each stage of the tests the specific volume was updated using:

v current = vi 1 v 100

(5.8)

169

where v is the volumetric strain, which is measured by the volume gauge. It typically agreed with the value calculated from the local instrumentation, when this was used to about 0.05%. (c) Area correction The current area A was generally calculated applying a right-cylinder correction (Bishop & Henkel, 1957):

A = Ao

1v 1a

(5.9)

where Ao is the initial cross-sectional area, a and v are the axial and volumetric strain.

All the natural samples and some of the reconstituted samples that were sheared to large strains showed a localization of strains, which was inspected visually during the test. After the formation of the shear plane the failure mechanism consisted of the sliding of two rigid blocks along the failure surface. The cross-sectional area was then calculated applying the correction suggested by Chandler (1966) and illustrated in Figure 5.18:

h hf D2 f A= a sin D 2 2 f

2 2 D2 (h h f ) (cot ) f (h h f )cot 4 4

(5.10) where h is the axial displacement and Df and hf are respectively the diameter of the specimen and the axial displacement at the time of the shear plane formation and is the angle of the shear plane to the horizontal. (d) Membrane correction The effect of the membrane restraint was calculated for both natural and reconstituted samples. Following Bishop & Henkel (1957) and La Rochelle et al. (1988), the correction formula applied to the measured deviatoric stress due to the effect of the membrane for a barrelling type of deformation was:

170

( a r ) =

DM a (1 a ) Ao

(5.11)

where D is the initial diameter of the sample, and M is the extension modulus of the rubber membrane, per unit width.

The extension modulus M was calculated for each type of membrane used in this research by using the loading system frame shown in Figure 5.19. The membrane was placed between two rods connected to the loading frame, which was equipped with a displacement transducer that was electronically logged. The curves of load against strain for all the membranes used in this research are plotted in Figure 5.20. The modulus M used for the calculation was the tangent at 10% strain, consistent with the literature. The membrane restraint was found to be negligible for natural samples, but significant for reconstituted samples, in particular for those samples that were swelled to low pressures.

In those tests that showed localization of strains, from the point when the shear plane formed the correction equation derived by La Rochelle et al. (1988) was used:

( a r ) A = 1.5D MfD
where:

(5.12)

f is the unit friction between the soil and the membrane and is related to the angle of shearing resistance of the soil, by: f = r' tan ' (5.13)

is the axial strain due to the movement along the plane. For any strain a of the soil specimen beyond the strain f at which the shear plane formed, is given by:

= e

a f e f

(5.14)

where e is the strain at the end of the test and

171

e =

h p Ho

D tan Ho

(5.15)

as in Figure 5.18, with hp =h measured at the end of the test and Ho is the initial length of the sample. (e) Volumetric and shear strains The volumetric strains were calculated from the volume gauge changes:

v =

V Vo

(5.16)

where Vo is the initial volume of the sample calculated for each test stage. For the samples equipped with local instrumentation the volumetric strains were also calculated from:

v = a + 2 r r2 1 a + 2 a r

(5.17)

where a and r are the axial and radial strains from the local instrumentation. Equations 5.16 and 5.17 were always in very good agreement, but 5.17 was used in the small strain region.

The shear strains were calculated from:

s =

2 ( a r ) 3

(5.18)

5.6.2

Shear plane analysis

The analysis of the shear plane, when it formed, was conducted applying the Mohr circle method. A sketch of the circle of stresses was drawn for each sample and a comparison was made between the stresses on the shear plane, resulting from the intersection of the circle with a plane drawn from the pole having the inclination of the shear plane, with the stresses expected at failure, resulting from the intersection of the circle with the tangent to it from the origin. This comparison allowed the identification of the failure characteristics. A sketch of the method is shown in Figure 5.21. For an intact failure mode, the stresses on the shear plane and at the intersection between the Mohr circle and the tangent 172

from the origin (point A in the figure) are expected to coincide approximately, although allowance should be made for any curvature of the failure envelope. The angle is then the same as the angle formed by joining the pole of stresses to Point A. An angle different to indicates that the failure mode occurred along a plane that does not correspond to that that the intact material would have mobilised, but probably required lower energy and was due to a pre-existing fissure in the sample.

5.7 Nomenclature of the tests


The tests are named so that it is possible to understand from the title the depth of the samples and the test procedure. The triaxial tests on natural samples begin with numbers, while the oedometer tests on natural samples begin with the letter O. All tests on reconstituted samples begin with the letter r. Triaxial tests In triaxial tests on natural samples, the numbers refer to the depth of the sample, the subsequent small letters refer to the consolidation stress path and the capital letters to the shearing stage. The letters indicate: i = isotropic compression; is = isotropic swelling conditions; k = ko consolidation starting from the isotropic axis; lg = consolidation through the long geological history stress path (see Appendix 5.1); g = shortcut along the geological history stress path ((see Appendix 5.1); gk =shortcut along the geological history followed by ko compression; gs = shortcut along the geological history followed by swelling to low pressures. UC = undrained compression; UE = undrained extension; DC = drained compression; DE=drained extension.

173

For example, Test 24gsUC is a triaxial test on a sample from 24m depth that was consolidated to its in situ stress state along the short geological stress path (Appendix 5.1), swelled to low stresses (see Section 5.3.5(d)) and sheared undrained in compression.

For triaxial tests on reconstituted samples, the names start with the letter r, the number refers to the depth of the soil the sample was reconstituted from and the following letters refer to the consolidation stress path: nc = normally consolidated; oc = overconsolidated No indication of the shear stage is given because all the reconstituted tests were sheared undrained. For example, r25nc is a test on a sample reconstituted from about 25m depth and was normally consolidated before undrained shearing. Oedometer tests The names of the oedometer tests on natural samples start with t e letter O h followed by a number that indicates the depth of the sample. The letter s at the end of the name indicates that the sample was swelled before compression. The oedometer tests on reconstituted samples also start with the letter r followed by the O and the depth from which the samples were reconstituted. For example, O12s refers to an oedometer test on a natural sample from 12m depth that was swelled before compression, while rO25 refers to a tests on a reconstituted sample from 25m depth.

174

Unit

Sample name
7gUC 7gUE 7kUC O7 O10 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.4iUC 11.7iUC 11.9DE 12.5gUC 12.5iUC 13gUE O12s 14iUC 16.6iUC 16.8UC O17 17SH 17.3SH 17.5SH 19.8isUC 21.7isDC 22gsUC 22.6gUC 22.6ikUC 23gUE 23.6iUC 23.7UC 24g37DC 24.3gkUC 24.4gsUC O25 O25s 25gUC 25.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.3iUC 26.5iUC 27UC 28DC O28 O28s 28.5UC 31iUC 31.4gUE 33.5gkUC 34iUC O35 O35s 36lgUC 36.3g 36.3gUE 36.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC 38.7lgUC 40iUC O51

Sample type
block block block block rotary core block rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core

Depth from
ground level [m] 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 10 11 11.1 13.3 11.4 11.6 11.9 13.4 12.5 13 13.7 14.1 16.6 16.8 17 17 17.3 17.51 19.75 21.71 22 22.6 22.8 23.2 23.55 23.7 24 24.3 24.28 25 25 25 25.4 26 26.2 26.25 26.5 27 27.2 28 28 28.5 31.4 31.5 33.89 34 35.1 35.2 36.22 36.4 36.49 36.5 37 37.3 37.95 38 38 38.5 38.75 41.2 51 top of LC [m] 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 4 5 5.1 7.3 5.4 5.6 5.9 7.4 6.5 7 7.7 8.1 10.6 10.8 11 11 11.3 11.51 13.75 15.71 16 16.6 16.8 17.2 17.55 17.7 18 18.3 18.28 19 19 19 19.4 20 20.2 20.25 20.5 21 21.2 22 22 22.5 25.4 25.5 27.89 28 29.1 29.2 30.22 30.4 30.49 30.5 31 31.3 31.95 32 32 32.5 32.75 35.2 45 mOD 16.5 16.4 16.3 16.2 13.5 12.5 12.4 10.2 12.1 11.9 11.6 10.1 11 10.5 9.8 9.4 6.9 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.2 5.99 3.75 1.79 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.3 -0.05 -0.2 -0.5 -0.8 -0.78 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.9 -2.5 -2.7 -2.75 -3 -3.5 -3.7 -4.5 -4.5 -5 -7.9 -8 -10.4 -10.5 -11.6 -11.7 -12.7 -12.9 -13 -13 -13.5 -13.8 -14.5 -14.5 -14.5 -15 -15.3 -17.7 -27.5

Sample diameter Test type


[mm] 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 38 100 100 100 100 50 100 50 38 100 38 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 100 38 100 100 38 38 38 50 100 100 38 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 38 38 100 38 50 38 50 100 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 100 100 100 38

Researcher (if not author)

B2

A3(2)

A3(1)

triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Pun, 2004) oedometer (Pun, 2004) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Ma,2003) triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial (Viladesau, 2004) triaxial (Viladesau, 2004) triaxial (Viladesau, 2004) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial (Viladesau, 2004) oedometer (Ma,2003) oedometer (Ma,2003) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Pun, 2004) oedometer (Pun, 2004) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Ma,2003) oedometer (Ma,2003) triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial triaxial oedometer (Pun, 2004)

Table 5.1: Summary of all tests performed on natural samples 175

Borehole Number Used in this research Used for site investigation Used for site investigation and CPT tests Block samples* PTBH1 PTBH2 BH404 BH406 BH407 BH408 BH413

Easting [m] 5170 5176 5380 4976 4971 4966 4961 5190-5198

Northing [m] 5703 5685 5880 5707 5706 5706 5705 5860-5865

Ground level [m] 22.43 22.43 18.0 21.4 21.3 21.3 21.5 17.5

*approximate values Table 5.2: Coordinates of borehole and block samples

Depth from ground level [m] 5-10 10-32.5 32.5-33.5 33.5-45 45-48 48-52

Unit C B2 B1 A3(2) A3(1) A2

Table 5.3: Division of the borehole sample into lithological units

176

Unit

Sample name

Initial D effective Approach stress path stress p' [mm] [kPa] short geological history 100 201 short geological history 100 220 38 191 short geol hist+Ko compr. short geological history 100 192 short geol hist+Ko compr. 38 405 short geological history 38 240 isotropic compression 38 230 100 consolidated to saturate isotropic compression 100 325 short geological history 100 212 isotropic compression 50 260 short geological history 100 191 isotropic compression 38 261 100 consolidated to saturate 38 consolidated to saturate recent str. History 100 171 recent str. History 100 136 recent str. History 100 233 305 short geol hist+swell 38 393 isotropic swell 38 305 short geol hist+swell 38 362 short geological history 100 357 iso+ko compression 38 369 short geological history 100 400 isotropic compression 38 250 short geological history 100 250 short geol. Hist.+37m 100 512 short geol hist+Ko compr. 38 333 short geol hist+swell 38 350 100 313 100 38 consolidated to saturate 38 consolidated to saturate 100 consolidated to saturate 245 isotropic compression 100 340 100 320 38 400 38 207 isotropic compression 38 200 short geological history 100 500 short geol hist+Ko compr. 38 50 consolidated to saturate 327 long geological history 100 423 short geological history 100 520 short geol hist+Ko compr. 38 286 short geological history 100 310 isotropic swell 100 38 consolidated to saturate 38 350 isotropic consolidation 38 400 100 354 isotropic consolidation 100 296 unconsolidated 100 300 long geological hist 240 unconsolidated 100

MHPP bender element shear probes

stress state before shearing p' q [kPa] [kPa]


260 260 788 260 1123 260 275 125 260 260 3500 260 1333 200 330 330 330 330 50 50 50 420 867 420 1285 420 509 420 50 420 420 248 248 234 460 340 320 400 1300 509 1040 4000 509 509 509 509 100 300 1800 400 600 296 509 340 -86 -86 230 -86 247 -86 0 0 0 -86 0 -86 0 0 0 0 -10 10 0 0 0 -154 216 -154 0 -154 10 -154 0 -154 -154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -126 472 0 -126 -126 -126 -126 8 0 0 0 0 10 -126 0

Researcher shear (if not author) UC UE UC UC UC DE UC UC DE UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC DC UC DC UC UE UC UC UC UC UC UC UE UC DC UC UC UC DC UC UC UE UC UC UC


incomplete incomplete

B2

A3(2)

7gUC 7gUE 7kUC 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.4iUC 11.7iUC 11.9DE 12.5gUC 12.5iUC 13gUE 14iUC 16.6iUC 16.8UC 17SH 17.3SH 17.5SH 19.8isUC 21.7isDC 22gsUC 22.6gUC 22.6ikUC 23gUE 23.6iUC 23.7UC 24g37DC 24.3gkUC 24.4gsUC 25gUC 25.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.3iUC 26.5iUC 27UC 28DC 28.5UC 31iUC 31.4gUE 33.5gkUC 34iUC 36lgUC 36.3g 36.3gUE 36.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC 38.7lgUC 40iUC

(Viladesau, 2004) (Viladesau, 2004) (Viladesau, 2004)

(Viladesau, 2004)

DC UC UC UC DC UC UC UC UC

Table 5.4: Triaxial tests on natural samples 177

Unit C

Sample name O7 O10 O12s O17 O25 O25s O28 O28s O35 O35s O51

Initial void Initial ratio swell e 0.68 0.8 0.77 0.73 0.72 0.72 1.74 0.97 0.64 0.62 0.57 O 100 160 160 217 260 150 220 220 425 425 550 S

Compression path 'v[kPa] A B 3500 100 2500 4000 5200 7000 1500 3500 11500 3000 2000 4400 260 75 1300 260 150 220 10 425 50 550

Researcher C 15000 10000 11000 10400 17000 8500 14000 8000 10000 14000 D 150 25 25 50 25 220 25 25 550
(if not the author)

(Pun, 2004) (Ma,2003)

25

B2

(Ma,2003) (Ma,2003) (Pun, 2004) (Pun, 2004)

25 10 25

A3(2) A3(1)

(Ma,2003) (Pun, 2004)

Table 5.5: Oedometer tests on natural samples (Refer to Figure 5.17)

Reconstituted from: Sample name depth unit sample type [m] 7 C 7 11 12 12 21 B2 24 24 25 25 37 35 A3(2) 36.2

Consolidation stress path

Max stresses Stress state reached in before compression shearing Shear p' q p' q [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]

Researcher (if not author)

r7nc r7oc r10nc r10oc r10oc1 r25nc r25nc1 r25oc r25oc1 r25oc2 r35nc r35oc r35oc1

block block rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core

normal consolidated 400 over consolidated 200 normal consolidated 317 over consolidated 450 over consolidated 600 normal consolidated 600 normal consolidated 600 over consolidated 600 over consolidated 200 over consolidated 600 normal consolidated 485 over consolidated 600 over consolidated 600

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

400 100 317 200 30 600 600 200 15 50 485 200 50

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC

(Abdulhadi, 2004) (Abdulhadi, 2004) (Abdulhadi, 2004) (Abdulhadi, 2004) (Abdulhadi, 2004) (Abdulhadi, 2004)

(Abdulhadi, 2004) (Abdulhadi, 2004)

Table 5.6: Triaxial tests on reconstituted samples

178

Reconstituted from: Sample name depth [m] 7 10 17


25 28

Compression path

unit C

sample type
block rotary core rotary core

rO7 rO10 rO17 rO25 rO28 rO35 rO51

O 5 5 5 5 5 5

A
780 1000 260

'v[kPa] B
6 8

C
1300 2000

D
6 8 (Pun, 2004)

B2 A3(2) A3(1)

rotary core rotary core rotary core rotary core

21 24

1060 1000 2000

50 15 25 8

6000 1660 7500 1000

25 (Ma,2003) 12 (Pun, 2004) 25 10 (Pun, 2004)

Table 5.7: Oedometer tests on reconstituted samples (Refer to Figure 5.16)

179

M25

180

Figure 5.1: Map of Heathrow T5

A4

North runway

T5

Perry Oak Sewage Work

Terminals 1, 2, 3

Heathrow Airport London


South runway

Scale:

= 50m

Block samples
Streams

Sludge Lagoon
BH404

PTBH2 PTBH1

CPT
BH406

Borehole samples

Perry Oaks Sewage Works


Scale: = 20m

Figure 5.2: Map of samples location

181

C
depth from the ground level [m]

Borehole 2

B2

B1 A3(2)
Borehole 1

A3(1) A2

Figure 5.3: Sketch of the boreholes divided into lithological units and subunits

Figure 5.4: Sketch of the excavation where the block samples were recovered

182

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

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

183

Figure 5.6: Trimming devices for 100mm diameter samples

Figure 5.7: Bench saw and block sample trimming

184

(a)

(b)

Suction cup Half ball Top cap Membrane Lateral bender elements LVDT Radial Belt Side Filter paper

Mid- height Mid-hight


PP probe

Wire

Filter paper

Porous stone

(c)

(d)

Figure 5.8: Sample preparation: (a) preparation of the membrane; (b) set up of the bender elements; (c) sealing of the bender elements and mid-height probe; (d) sketch of the sample with full instrumentation.

185

Suction [kPa] 0 0
GeO rotary cores

200

400

600

5 10 Depth below ground level [m] 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


100mm block sample in triax. apparatus suction probe on block sample suction probe on rotary core GeO thin wall

from ko calculation Hight et al.2003 100mm rotary core in triax. apparatus 38mm rotary core in triax. apparatus

Figure 5.9: Suction measurements and initial effective stresses measured in the triaxial apparatus for all samples tested (data from Dineen, 2002; Hight et al., 2003)

186

8 7 6 5 q [kPa] 4 3 2 1 0 0.000 LVDT1 LVDT2

Jump in strain

-0.002

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

a [%]
(a)

18 17 16 q [kPa] 15 14 13 12 11 10 0.000 LVDT1 LVDT2

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

ea [%] a [%]

(b) Figure 5.10: Problems in performing shear probes: (a) jump caused by the load cell and tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=0kPa; (b) tilting of the sample for a probe starting at q=10kPa

187

B q B Y2 O =180o C
(a)

Y2 =0o O =0 o A =180o C X X NOT TO SCALE


(b)
P

Figure 5.11: Sketch of the stress path rotations for Tests (a) 17SH and (b) 17.3SH

on ssi re mp o oc k

Swelling to low pressures

Y1 O probes

NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5.12: Sketch of the tests carried out from the in situ stress point

188

21.6 temperature [Deg C] 21.5 21.4 21.3 21.2 21.1 21 20.9 240 Mid-height Pore Pressure [kPa] 239 238 237 236 235 234 233 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

T~0.7 Deg C

(a)

u~5 kPa

(b)

0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 loc1 loc2 radial

A a [%]

0.001 0.000 0 -0.001 -0.002 -0.003 -0.004 -0.005 time [h] starts at 12:00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

(c)
ea=0.003% a=0.003% er =0.001%

r=0.001%

Figure 5.13: Variation with time of (a) temperature; (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains

189

22.4 temperature [Deg C] 22.3 22.2 22.1 22 21.9 21.8 21.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

T~0.1 Deg C

Mid-height Pore Pressure [kPa]

202

201

u~0.2 kPa
200

199

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002

loc 1 loc 2 radial

A a [%]

0.001 0.000 0 -0.001 -0.002 -0.003 -0.004 -0.005 time [h] 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

ea=0.001% a=0.001% er =0.0005% r =0.0005%

Figure 5.14: Variation with time of (a) temperature; (b) mid-height pore pressure and (c) strains after the cell was wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil

190

Figure 5.15: Triaxial cell wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil to prevent temperature oscillations

e
S B D A O

Iv
Figure 5.16: Sketch of the sequence of the oedometer tests

191

Figure5.17: Consolidometers for the reconstituted samples

,D

Figure 5.18: Area correction for specimen with a failure plane at an axial displacement h (Chandler, 1966)

192

Figure 5.19: Loading frame to measure the membrane extension modulus M (Bishop & Henkel 1957)

0.35 0.30 0.25 load [kN/m] 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05


t=membrane thickness M=0.49kN/m t=0.54mm M=0.36kN/m t=0.36mm M=0.35kN/m t=0.26mm

M=0.79kN/m t=0.56mm

0.00 0 5 10 15 20
Aa [%]

38mm 38mm mid-pressure 50mm high pressure 100mm 30 35 40 45 50

25

Figure 5.20: Extension modulus M calculated for the membrane correction

193

200

[kPa] A

100

peak envelope = [kPa]

100

200

300

400

Figure 5.21: Mohr circle of stresses

194

DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL

6.1

Introduction

In this chapter, the characteristics of the samples used in the present research and their engineering proprieties will be described with reference to the lithological characterization of the clay. The data will be compared with existing information on the London Clay at this location and will be used as a background to the analysis of the tests results.

6.2 Sample descriptions


Figure 6.1 shows the borehole used in this study and the main soil features recognized visually during the sampling process, which was carried out by others in May 2001, prior to this research. The division into lithological units, identified by Hight et al. (2003) at this site, is superimposed on the borehole and natural fissures and fissures arising from drilling are highlighted, together with the sandy and silty layers observed. At Heathrow two sub-units of Unit A3 exist, which are A3(1) and A3(2). For the present research, though, only samples from Sub-Unit A3(2) were tested and therefore these w be always referred to as samples from ill Unit A3 , without specification of the sub-unit. Natural fissures were noticed along all the length of the borehole, but seemed more concentrated at shallower depths, particularly in Unit C. From this unit, though, block samples were used for the present research and the occurrence of fissures seemed to be their dominant feature. A detailed log of the fissures was not recorded in this study, but some information could be gathered based on the experience of the block sampling and trimming. The fissures seemed spaced at about 5-10cm and had a preferred angle of between 15o and 30o to the horizontal.

195

Sandy and silty layers of thickness between 1cm and 3cm also occurred frequently along the borehole and became more numerous in Unit A3 . The middle part of Unit B , between 18m and 28m depth, seemed fairly uniform, with 2 the exception of a few localized stones of 2 -3cm diameter and shell fragments at around 23m depth. The occurrence of more laminated soil was noticed at depths between 14m and 17m. At the top of Unit B , between 10 and 12m depth, several 2 sandy layers were also recorded, together with pyrite and shell fragments.

All the samples from Unit B1 were very disturbed during the sampling process and were not suitable for testing. No description of these samples was recorded during the sampling process apart from the severe disturbance caused by the drilling.

6.3 Microstructure of the London Clay


An analysis of the microstructure and mineralogy of the clays was carried out by means of an electron microscope and X-ray diffraction, identifying possible differences at the micro-level between clays from different lithological units. The analyses were carried out on samples from three levels, 7m, 23.5m and 34.5m depth, respectively in Units C, B2 and A3 . 6.3.1 SEM analysis

The main aim of this investigation was to examine the fabric of the clay in the different lithological units and identify signs of possible bonding in its structure.

The SEM analyses were conducted by Dr. J. Huggett at the Natural History Museum, in London, using a field emission electron microscope (Philips XL30). The basic principle of the apparatus and the techniques used were similar to those documented in the literature (e.g. Smart & Tovey, 1982). An electron gun shoots a narrow electron beam against the samples surface, while it is under vacuum. Three magnetic lenses compress the size of the beam so that the size of the area being scanned reduces. On impact with the sample, the electrons are reflected in a way that depends on the topography of the constituents of the 196

sample and a receiver-decoder of the reflected electrons produces a signal, which is converted into magnified images of the area being scanned (Figure 6.2). The Philips XL30 microscope, used for the present analysis, was also equipped with the more advanced technology of field emission, which allowed a better resolution of the images.

Only intact samples were used, which were air-dried and gold coated for testing. A technique of freeze-drying is preferred to reduce the disturbance due to pore water extraction on the fabric, particularly for soft samples. In stiff clays, though, the shrinkage due to air-drying does not affect dramatically the soil structure and air-drying was therefore adopted.

In the following sections, the main features of the samples from the different units will be described, together with the main differences between them. The microscope images are illustrated in Figures 6.3 to 6.19 and the figure captions and the sketches describe the particular features of each sample. All the pictures are of a vertical plane orientated in the vertical direction, unless otherwise indicated. (a) Unit A3 Figures 6.3 to 6.9 show images of a sample from 34.5m depth at different magnifications. At low magnification (Figure 6.3), the clay seems quite densely packed and well-orientated. At high magnification (Figures 6.4 and 6.5), a typical detrital clay fabric with particles aggregated in domains is recognizable. The rough shape of the clay particles, together with glauconitic faecal pellets and detrital feldspar and mica, indicates that Unit A3 deposited in a high-energy marine shelf environment, due to wave and current action. However, the winnowing effects of waves did not remove the clay fraction completely. In such an environment, it is not uncommon for metal cations, typically Ca, derived from the weathering of silicate minerals to combine with the atmospheric CO2 dissolved in the sea water to form carbonate precipitates in the pore spaces of the sediments as it dewaters during burial. Here, where carbonate occurs it does so as individual crystals (Figure 6.7) rather than as a general coating on the sediment particles. Similarly, Fe derived from weathering can combine with S from rotting 197

organic matter in an oxygen-poor environment to give irregular growths of pyrite (Figure 6.8). Pyrite nodules are commonplace throughout the London Clay and can range up to several centimetres across. There are some edge-to-face contacts between the clay particles (Figure 6.9), but predominantly the particles are faceto face, creating a pattern of orientated domains with a preferred sub-horizontal orientation (Mannion, 2004). (b) Unit B2 In Figures 6.10 to 6.13, the images of a sample from 23.5m depth are shown. At low magnification, the clay reveals the presence of fossils and rounded particle aggregates. At high magnification, the structure appears very different from that observed in the sample from Unit A3 . The sample shows a more clayey appearance and it seems homogeneous, which arises in part from bioturbation. There does not seem to be a clear horizontal bedding and there are disturbances within the overall orientation. The clay particles are detrital and only few grains could be recognized. It is difficult to identify domains or large particle aggregates and, although there is a predominance of face-to-face contacts, the nature of the contacts seems to reveal a cardhouse structure (Figure 6.13). (c) Unit C The images of a sample from 7m depth are shown in Figures 6.14 to 6.18. Substantial differences with the samples from the other units are immediately recognizable. At low magnification (Figures 6.14 and 6.15), randomly orientated sub-rounded to angular silt and find sand-sized grains can be imbedded in a finer clay matrix. Generally, the fabric seems very disturbed and it is difficult to identify any preferred orientation, perhaps due to the presence of the grains. The grains induce orientation in the clay particles (Figure 6.16), which are squashed between the grains and so are compacted around them. In Figure 6.16, the central part of the clay area between the grains, seems less compacted than the clay area around the grains.

A small area free from silt grains was also identified in the sample (Figure 6.18). The clay in this area seems more compacted and organised in domains. At a very small scale it is possible to observe that what seems to be a 2m clay 198

particle is actually an aggregate of much smaller particles in face-to-face contact. The fabric seems to be constituted of large aggregates and single particles in about equal proportion. The regular shape of the particles and the presence of frequent holes in the sample (Figure 6.15) indicate that the clay particles formed in situ and are not detrital.

This sample from Unit C was retrieved at 1m below the top of the London Clay level and was therefore expected to be weathered. Decalcified sediments

and cryptocrystalline iron oxided were, therefore, expected to be in the sample, but they could not be identified, which excludes the possibility that this sample underwent a weathering process. The occurrence of calcite crystals (Figure 6.17) confirms that the clay is unweathered. (d) Comparison between different lithological units In Figure 6.19, three images of the samples from the different units are put together for a comparison between the clays from these units. The clay structure seems to be very different at the three levels, more packed and orientated at greater depths and more open and disturbed at shallower depths. The nature of the structure reveals a probable originally flocculated fabric that developed into a cardhouse fabric at shallower depths and into a bookhouse fabric at greater depths, perhaps as a result of compaction. A larger horizontal stiffness is therefore expected for deeper units. The presence of grains characterizes samples from Units C and A3 , although the size of these grains seems to be larger in Unit C. A homogeneous clayey pattern and the presence of fossils distinguish Unit B2 .

Localised calcite crystals could be identified, which would probably provide a minor localised bonding but in no unit could a general calcite coating be seen. Due to the rough surface of the clay particles, especially at shallow depths, it was believed that X-ray and chemical analyses to try to identify a calcite cement would not be very revealing and these were therefore not performed for this study.

199

6.3.2

Chemical micro-analysis

The chemical composition of microscopic zones within the clay was investigated by Dr. Huggett, using a system composed of a scanning electron microscope with an X-ray receiver and diffractometer. A portion of each sample was crushed, mixed with distilled water plus a few drops of ammonia as a dispersant and placed in an ultrasonic bath for 30 minutes to release the maximum amount of clay into suspension. The suspended sediment was then centrifuged (1000 rpm for 4 minutes) to l ave only the <2m fraction in solution. e The clay suspension was decanted off from the >2m fraction and centrifuged at high speed until all the clay was removed from suspension, (20 minutes at 4000 rpm). The resulting slurry was filtered onto an unglazed ceramic tile.

The clay fraction sample was scanned on a Phillips 1820 automated X-ray diffractometer using Ni-filtered CuK radiation. The clay tiles were scanned at a rate of 5 seconds per 0.02 step width, using 0.3 mm slits from 2 to 40 2. After spraying with glycol they were rescanned from 2 to 26 and again after heating at 400C for 4 hours, and finally after heating at 550C, also for 4 hours.

The clay minerals are quantified using the areas of reflections (peaks) for which there is no, or minimal, interference from other clays. The areas are measured using freeware "Macdiff". These areas are weighted using factors determined from known mixtures of the clays previously analysed. The reflections used are: Smectite reflection at ~5 degrees Illite reflection at ~9 degrees Kaolinite reflection at 24.9 degrees Chlorite reflection at 25.1 degrees

The scans obtained from the London Clay samples from the different lithological units are shown in Figures 6.20 to 6.22 and are summarised in Table 6.1.

200

Considering that there is an error of about 10% in the readings, it seems that the samples from Units C and B2 are similar in composition, while the sample from Unit A3 is more illite-rich and contains less smectite. The ratio of clay to quarz indicates that there is a larger clay content in the samples from Units C and B2 than in the sample from Unit A3 . The chlorite content in Unit C confirms that it has not been subjected to weathering, which is consistent with the results of the SEM analysis and the micro-fossils analysis conducted by Mannion (2004).

6.4 Sample characterization

6.4.1

Specific gravity Gs

The specific gravity of the particles was measured, using standard techniques (BS1377: Part 2:1990:8.3, Head, 1980), on representative samples every 5m along the borehole. The measurements were taken at closer intervals in cases of uncertainty. The measured Gs values are shown in Table 6.2. These are each an average of three readings having scatter of about 0.005. In the same table, the Gs values measured at Ashford Common by Bishop et al. (1965) are also reported for comparison.

The Gs values vary between 2.65 and 2.76, being generally around 2.75-2.77, except for two samples from about 10m and 13m depth, which show lower values of 2.65 and 2.69 respectively (these values were double checked with additional tests). These samples, being close to the boundary between Units C and B2 , are in a coarser layer, as confirmed by the grading curves (see Section 6.4.4) and this could have caused the reduction in Gs. 6.4.2 Water content distribution

Table 6.3 summarises the index proprieties of the samples tested. Figure 6.23 shows the distribution of the water content with depth. Each value is the average of a minimum of six values of the initial water contents for the samples tested, measured as described in Section 5.6.1.

201

The water content ranges between 0.2 and 0.3 and the values agree well with those measured by Geotechnical Observations Ltd for a nearby borehole at T5. The scatter of the readings is larger in Unit A3 and in Unit C and in the proximity of the boundaries of the lithological units, reflecting the presence of coarser material in these units and across the unit boundaries. Lithostratigraphic analysis conducted by Mannion (2004) on these samples, recognised of three lithological sub-units within Unit B2 , named B2(a), B2(b) and B2(c). These sub-units were identified on the basis on the micro-fossils present in the samples. The shaded zones in Figure 6.23 mark the boundaries of these sub-units. To the author, these sub-units seem consistent with the index proprieties and with the engineering behaviour of the clay from these depths and therefore this division was adopted and is referred to in the following sections.

The trend of the water content distribution identified by Hight et al. (2003) is superimposed on the data in Figure 6.23, showing that the water content distribution of the samples tested in the present research plots at the lower bound of that trend. 6.4.3 Atterberg limits

Figure 6.24 shows the profile of the liquid and plastic limits with depth. This profile was measured by the author together with Nishimura (2005). The graph shows that the London Clay, in its intact state, has a water content close to the plastic limit. The presence of the lithological units and sub-units cannot be clearly identified from the profile of the index proprieties, although there seems to be a change of proprieties within Unit B The plasticity of the clay is greatest 2. between 21 and 26m depth, in the middle of Unit B , and decreases downwards 2 to a minimum in Unit A3 and upwards towards Unit C. The gradings curves of samples from different depths are shown in Figure 6.25. All the curves plot within a narrow band, having a percentage of clay-sized particles between 45-60%. There does not seem to be a large difference in grading between the samples from different units, although samples from Units

202

A3 and C seem to contain a relatively coarser granulometry. The grading curves for samples from these units plot lower within the band of the data, while the curves of samples from the middle of Unit B , in Sub-Unit B2(b) plot above. The 2 samples from Sub-Unit B2(c), at 10m and 12.5m, plot lower together with the samples from Unit A3 . The courser granulometry of samples from these depths is consistent with the vicinity of the lithological boundary between Unit B2 and C. The distribution of the grading curves and the Atterberg limits seem consistent with the features of the clay observed in the SEM analysis. As discussed in Section 6.3.1, the SEM analysis showed that the clay from Units C and A3 contain the larger proportion of silt-sized particles. The higher plasticity of the clay in Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a) confirms the results of the XRD analysis that showed a larger clay content for the sample from about 24m.

In summary, analyses of the SEM images, X-ray diffraction and index properties showed a variation of the characteristics of the clay with depth related to its lithological units. The SEM analyses showed that Unit C has an open structure characterised by a great proportion of silt-sized grains, which is consistent with the particle size distribution of samples from this unit. However, a large content of clay particles was also found in this unit from X-ray diffraction analysis, which does not seem to be reflected in higher plasticities and activities for samples from this unit. Unit B2 seems similar in composition to Unit C, but has a more packed structure, although it does not show significant signs of particle orientation. It is uniform and its high clay content, revealed by the X-ray diffraction analyses, is consistent with the higher plasticity and activity measured on samples from this unit. Unit A3 has a densely packed structure, with evident signs of particle orientation, mainly in a sub-horizontal direction. The index properties of this unit are similar to Unit C, although a greater content of silt particles is evident from grading curves and SEM analysis, which is reflected in a lower plasticity for this unit.

203

Unit

sample illite depth (m) 7 22 33 22% 21% 38%

I-rich random S-rich chlorite kaolinite clay:qtz illite-smectite illite-smectite 2% 3% 2% 58% 63% 40% 4% 3% 6% 15% 11% 14% 34.0 36.8 22.4

C B2 A3

Table 6.1: X-ray analysis on samples from different lithological units (Huggett, 2005)

Depth below ground level [m] 7 9 10 13.5 15.2 17 20 21.5 24 27 28 35 36.5 42 51

Specific gravity of the grains Gs Heathrow T5, present study 2.74 2.73 2.69 2.65 2.75 Ashford Common, Bishop et al. (1965)

2.77 2.76 2.74 2.72 2.76 2.75 2.77 2.74 2.73

Table 6.2: Specific gravity of grains at T5 and Ashford Common

204

Depth from Unit Sample name ground level [m] C 7gUC 7gUE 7kUC O7 O10 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.4iUC 11.7iUC 11.9DE 12.5gUC 12.5iUC 13gUE O12s 14iUC 16.6iUC 16.8UC O17 17SH 17.3SH 17.5SH 19.8isUC 21.7isDC 22gsUC 22.6gUC 22.6ikUC 23gUE 23.6iUC 23.7UC 24g37DC 24.3gkUC 24.4gsUC O25 O25s 25gUC 25.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.3iUC 26.5iUC 27UC 28DC O28 O28s 28.5UC 31iUC 31.4gUE 33.5gkUC 34iUC O35 O35s 36lgUC 36.3g 36.3gUE 36.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC 38.7lgUC 40iUC O51
7 7 7 7 10 11 11.1 13.3 11.4 11.6 11.9 13.4 12.5 13 13.7 14.1 16.6 16.8 16.6 17 17.3 17.51 19.75 21.71 22 22.6 22.8 23.2 23.55 23.7 24 24.3 24.28 25 25 25 25.4 26 26.2 26.25 26.5 27 27.8 28 28 28.5 31.4 31.5 33.89 34 35.1 35.2 36.22 36.4 36.49 36.5 37 37.3 37.95 38 38 38.5 38.75 41.2 51

Initial water content


0.262 0.252 0.261 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.236 0.249 0.242 0.255 0.258 0.255 0.282 0.249 0.25 0.278 0.27 0.266 0.26 0.272 0.272 0.26 0.254 0.24 0.276 0.264 0.262 0.261 0.244 0.248 0.254 0.241 0.251 0.25 0.25 0.257 0.263 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.256 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.287 0.289 0.248 0.224 0.21 0.25 0.226 0.221 0.243 0.221 0.24 0.238 0.245 0.238 0.226 0.239 0.251 0.25 0.21

LL

PL

PI

Clay Fraction
0.53

0.66

0.29

0.37

0.69

B 2(c)

0.66 0.65

0.29 0.28

0.37 0.37 0.5 0.73

B 2(b)

0.68 0.63

0.32 0.25

0.36 0.38

0.54

0.67

0.72 0.68 0.745

0.28 0.28 0.32

0.44 0.4 0.43

0.57 0.55

0.77 0.73

0.69

0.29

0.4

0.55

0.73

B 2(a)

0.71

0.23

0.48

0.71

0.23

0.47

0.68

0.28

0.4

0.57

0.7

0.6 0.62 0.63 0.65 0.59

0.28 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.21

0.33 0.62 0.36 0.37 0.39

A 3(2)

0.51

0.71

0.59

0.26

0.33

0.49

0.67

A2

Table 6.3: Index proprieties 205

C
10 Claystone Pyrite 15 Depth below ground level [m] Drilling fissures Natural fissures Silty layers 20

B2
25

Lighter clay Disturbed stratum

30

B1
35

40

A3(2)

45 48 51

A3(1) A2

Figure 6.1: Schematic description of the samples and lithological units

206

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

207

(a)

(b)

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

208

Figure 6.4: London Clay sample from Unit A3

209

Figure 6.5: London Clay from Unit A3 : orientated domains

210

(a)

(b)

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

Figure 6.7: London Clay from Unit A3 , particles around carbonate crystal

212

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

213

SMECTITE FROM ASH VOLCANIC

Figure 6.9: London Clay from Unit A3, particle contacts

214

(a)

(b) Figure 6.10: London Clay from 23.5m, in Unit B2 (a) disturbed structure within the overall bedding (b) homogeneous clayey appearance

215

(a)

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

216

Figure 6.12: London Clay samples from Unit B2

217

Figure 6.13: London Clay from Unit B2

218

(a)

(b)

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

219

Figure 6.15: London Clay from Unit C

220

Figure 6.16: London Clay from Unit C

221

Figure 6.17: London Clay from Unit C: calcite crystal formed in-place

222

(a)

(b) Figure 6.18: London Clay from Unit C: single particles and particle aggregates in a small clayey area at (a) large and (b) very large magnification

223

(a) Unit C

(b) Unit B2

(c) Unit A3 Figure 6.19: Comparison between samples from different units

224

Figure 6.20: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit C

225

Figure 6.21: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit B2

226

Figure 6.22: XRD analysis for a sample from Unit A3

227

0.15 0

0.18

water content w 0.21 0.24

0.27

0.3

C
10

B2 (a) B2 (b)
depth below ground level [m] 20

B2

B2 (a)
30

B1

40

A3 (2)

A3 (1)
50

A2

water content unit boundaries trend from Hight et al.,(2003)

Possible sub-units bo undaries

Figure 6.23: Water content distribution with depth

228

0 0

Plastic Limit 0.2

0.4

Liquid Limits [%] 0.6 0.8

C
10

B2(c)

depth below ground level [m]

B2(b)
20

B2(a)
30

B1

40

A3(2)

A3 (1)
50

A2

LL PL PL (Nishimura, 2005) LL (Nishimura, 2005) unit boundary

Figure 6.24: Index proprieties and lithological units

229

100

80

% passing

60
sample depths 7m 10m 12.5m 16m 17m 22.3m 23.5m 24m 31.5m 36m 36.5m 38m

40

20

0 0.001 0.01 particle size [mm]


C LAY FINE ME DIUM SILT CO AR SE

0.1

SA ND

Figure 6.25: Grading curves

230

(a)

(b)

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

204

Figure 6.4: London Clay sample from Unit A3

205

Figure 6.5: London Clay from Unit A3 : orientated domains

206

(a)

(b)

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

Figure 6.7: London Clay from Unit A3 , particles around carbonate crystal

208

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

209

SMECTITE FROM VOLCANIC ASH

Figure 6.9: London Clay from Unit A3, particle contacts

210

(a)

(b) Figure 6.10: London Clay from 23.5m, in Unit B2 (a) disturbed structure within the overall bedding (b) homogeneous clayey apparence

211

(a)

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

212

Figure 6.12: London Clay samples from Unit B2

213

Figure 6.13: London Clay from Unit B2

214

(a)

(b)

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

215

Figure 6.15: London Clay from Unit C

216

Figure 6.16: London Clay from Unit C

217

Figure 6.17: London Clay from Unit C: calcite crystal formed in-place

218

(a)

(b) Figure 6.18: London Clay from Unit C: single particles and particle aggregates in a small clayey area at (a) large and (b) very large magnification

219

(a) Unit C

(b) Unit B2

(c) Unit A3 Figure 6.19: Comparison between samples from different units

220

Figure 6.20: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit C

221

Figure 6.21: XRD analysis of a sample from Unit B2

222

Figure 6.22: XRD analysis for a sample from Unit A3

223

0.15 0

0.18

water content w 0.21 0.24

0.27

0.3

C
10

B2 (a) B2 (b)
depth below ground level [m] 20

B2

B2 (a)
30

B1

40

A3 (2)

A3 (1)
50

A2

water content unit boundaries trend from Hight et al.,(2003)

Possible sub-units bo undaries

Figure 6.23: Water content distribution with depth

224

0 0

Plastic Limit 0.2

0.4

Liquid Limits [%] 0.6 0.8

C
10

B2(c)

depth below ground level [m]

B2(b)
20

B2(a)
30

40

A3(2)

A 3(1)
50

A2

LL PL PL (Nishimura, 2005) LL (Nishimura, 2005) unit boundary

Figure 6.24: Index proprieties and lithological units

225

100

80

% passing

60
7m 10m 12.5m 16m

C B 2(c) B 2(b) B 2(a) B2

40

20

17m 22.3m 23.5m 24m 31.5m 36m 36.5m 38m

A3

0 0.001 F INE 0.01 particle size [mm] CLAY MEDIU M SIL T FINE 0.1

SA N D

Figure 6.25: Grading curves

226

LARGE STRAIN BEHAVIOUR

7.1

Introduction

In this chapter, the large strain behaviour of natural and reconstituted London Clay samples in compression and shear will be analysed and correlated with the lithological features of the clay. The behaviour of reconstituted samples will also be described to identify the influence of structure of the intact material.

7.2 Intrinsic properties: reconstituted samples


The investigation of the behaviour of London Clay samples in their destructured state was carried out testing samples from different lithological units in the triaxial and in the oedometer apparatus. In the triaxial apparatus, all the samples were sheared undrained after isotropic compression and, in some cases, swelling. The testing procedures and the sample references were described in Section 5.5 and are summarised in Tables 5.6 and 5.7. Samples from Units C, A 3 and Sub-Units B2(c), B2(b) and B(a) were tested in the oedometer apparatus, while, in the triaxial apparatus, no samples from the Sub-Unit B2(b) were tested. As discussed in Chapter 5, most of the tests on reconstituted samples were performed by MSc students, who were closely supervised by the author. The intrinsic normal compression lines and the normalised boundary surfaces were used as a reference for the behaviour of the natural samples. 7.2.1 Behaviour in compression

The results of the compression tests on reconstituted samples are presented in Figures 7.1 to 7.3. Data for isotropically compressed samples are plotted in the planes of specific volume, v, and mean effective stress, p, while the data for one-dimensionally compressed samples are plotted in the plane of void ratio against vertical effective stress. Appropriate Gs values for the different sample 231

depths were used for the calculations of the initial specific volumes or void ratios, which are summarised in Tables 7.1 and 7.2. These values are the average of the values measured as described in Section 5.6.

The

one-dimensional

and

isotropic

compression

behaviours

of

the

reconstituted samples are qualitatively similar. Samples from the same unit converge towards the same intrinsic Normal Compression Line (NCL*). Within Sub-Unit B2 , though, samples from the Sub-Unit B2(c) (r12nc, r12oc, r12oc1 in Figure 7.2a and rO12, rO10 in Figure 7.2b), plot on a different NCL* from that determined by the samples from Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(b) , both in onedimensional and isotropic compression. The main reason for this difference lies

in the value of Gs used for the calculations of the initial specific volume or v oid ratios, since the Gs for Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(b) were very similar (2.74-2.76), but a lower G was found for Sub-Unit B2(c) (2.65-2.69). This different behaviour s for Sub-Unit B2(c) is also not surprising since this sub-unit is very close to a lithological boundary, where, geologically, transitional processes occurred.

The occurrence of a unique NCL* for each lithological unit suggests that the intrinsic behaviour of the clay is fairly uniform within each unit, despite the variations of PI with depth. It will be shown below that the intrinsic behaviour of each unit is affected though by the grading of the clay.

In Figure 7.4, the compression curves of samples from the different units are plotted together for comparison. For both isotropic compression (Figure 7.4a) and one-dimensional compression (Figure 7.4b), different NCLs* exist

depending on the lithological unit of the clay. The NCls* for the different lithological units are parallel to each other, but the curves for samples from Unit B2 plot above those for samples from Units C and A . In Chapter 6, Unit A was 3 3 found to have the lower plasticity and to contain more granular material than the clay from Unit B2 . This seems to influence the locations of the NCLs* for the different units, so that the less plastic strata have NCLs* plotting lower in the v p graph. The slopes of the compression curves, though, do not seem to be

affected by the differences in the clay nature.

232

The slope of the compression curves were derived by the oedometer tests, where larger stresses were reached, so that the compression parameters, summarised in Tables 7.1 and 7.2, could be derived ignoring the curvature of the isotropic compression data at lower stresses. Figure 7.5 shows the chosen NCLs* for the different lithological units. The intrinsic swelling curves for the different lithological units were found to be parallel, regardless the lithology of the clay. 7.2.2 Shearing behaviour

Figures 7.6-7.8 show the variation of deviatoric stress, pore pressure and stress ratio with axial strain for reconstituted samples from different lithological units sheared undrained in the triaxial apparatus.

All the samples bulged in shearing, but at large strains showed signs of strain localization. The behaviour of the normally consolidated samples is basically contractant and strain-hardening at medium strains, but a mild strain-softening can be observed at large strains. The overconsolidated samples show strainsoftening behaviour associated, in some samples, with the formation of a shear plane. In two samples, r35oc1 and r25oc2, there were clear shear planes formed, the inclinations of which could be measured. In both cases, the shear planes were not unique and seemed to have anomalous geometries, which determined a complex shape for the current areas of the samples. For the calculations, the localization of the stresses was taken into account by applying the area correction suggested by Chandler (1966), as discussed in Section 5.6. The geometry of the shear planes formed by Samples r35oc1 and r25oc1 did not seem consistent with the failure mode assumed by Equation 5.10, which caused difficulties for the calculations, inducing the unusual strain hardening behaviour for these two tests (Figures 7.7 and 7.8).

The stress ratio plots show that there is a tendency for the samples in each lithological unit to converge towards a unique critical state value, although some samples do not seem to have reached the critical state and the results are affected by the localization of the strains. In Figure 7.9, the stress ratio curves for the

samples from the different lithological units are summarised for comparison.

233

There does not seem to be a significant variation between the strata and, with some approximation, all the data tend to converge toward a same final stress ratio q/p of about 0.85, which does not seem to be affected by the nature of the clay in the different lithological units.

Pore pressure increments with strains, du/d a, are plotted in Figure 7.10 for the different lithological units. The curves seem to converge at large strains towards a unique stress ratio, which, with good approximation, can again be estimated to be about 0.85. This critical state stress ratio corresponds to a critical state friction angle c=21.3o , which is similar to the value of c=20.1o found for London Clay at Ashford Common (Webb, 1964, Burland, 1990). (a) Critical state line The stress paths followed by the reconstituted samples are summarised in Figure 7.11. A line having a critical state gradient of 0.85 seems again to be generally applicable, regardless of the nature of the clay in the different strata.

The v-lnp paths followed by the reconstituted samples from the different lithological units are plotted in Figure 7.12. Some samples did not reach a critical state, in some cases because the area correction interferes in the results. Arrows in the figure indicate incomplete tests. With good approximation, however, intrinsic Critical State Lines, CSL*s, can be identified for the different lithological units. These lines lie parallel to the NCL*s for the corresponding lithological units, with a constant offset between pairs of NCL* and CSL*. Their parameters are summarised in Table 7.1.

The intrinsic behaviour of the clay is therefore dependant on its lithology and different NCL*s and CSL*s can be identified for the different lithological units. The nature of the clay affects the parameters N and so that compression and the critical state lines of the more plastic strata plot above the others in the v-lnp plane, but and M do not seem to be influenced by the different lithology of the clay.

234

(b) Normalised shearing behaviour The stress paths of the reconstituted samples normalised by the volume are plotted in Figure 7.13. This type of plot is possible due to the unique value of M found for the different lithological units. For each test, the NCL*s for the corresponding lithological unit or sub-unit were considered for the normalisation. The tests for all the units seem to plot together to define a unique state boundary surface, SBS*, regardless the lithology of the clay. The wet side of the surface was derived only from undrained tests starting from the isotropic axis and therefore perhaps represents only a Local Boundary Surface, LBS (Gens, 1988; Jardine et al., 2003). Drained or constant stress path tests should be performed to identify the true SBS*, which might plot above that identified by the undrained tests. Also, an anisotropic shape for the SBS* might appear if the samples had been one-dimensionally consolidated. Considering the plasticity of

the London Clay, though, the true SBS* is not expected to plot far above the LBS, and therefore the LBS identified will be assumed here to be the RoscoeRendulic Surface of this material.

7.3 Natural samples

7.3.1

Behaviour in compression

Figures 7.14-7.16 show the oedometric compression curves for intact samples from different lithological units. Tests performed during the site investigation for the enlargement of the Heathrow T5 airport on boreholes BH404 and BH406 (see Table 5.2) are also included in the graphs and are in good agreement with the results from the present research.

There is a relatively large scatter in the void ratios of samples from different depths, even within the same lithological unit, probably due to both errors in the measurements and inhomogeneities between samples from different depths. Samples from Unit B2 seem to have larger initial void ratios than samples from the other units, as shown in Figures 7.17, where the compression curves of natural samples from different units are plotted together and, for the clarity of the 235

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

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

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

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

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

237

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

240

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

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

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

241

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

243

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

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

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

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

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

244

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

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

Three principal shear plane geometries could be identified that are sketched in Figures 7.48-7.50. The first type of failure, in Figure 7.48, consisted of a single shear plane, with an inclination between 45o -67o , usually located near one end of the sample, probably as a consequence of end restraint. The shear plane often had an S-shape, being flatter towards the ends and steeper in the middle. In the tests where this type of shear plane formed, t e change of inclination along the Sh shape was recorded, but the Mohrs circle analysis showed that the failure occurred along the maximum inclination. Two sub-types of this shear plane typology were distinguished, Types 1a and 1b in Figure 7.48. The Type 1a consisted of a localization of the failure plane only in one area of the sample. This was typically observed for 38mm or 50mm diameter samples, although also occurred in some 100mm samples. The Type 1b, instead, was frequently

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

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

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

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

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

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

246

(b) Pore pressure distribution The distribution of the pore water pressure in the samples was investigated considering the base transducer and the mid-height probe. The excess pore pressure reduced post-peak in a manner that was similar to the post-rupture strength, which is consistent with the behaviour observed in other stiff clays (e.g. Tody clay, Burland, 1990). Generally, up to the formation of the shear plane similar changes of pore pressure were found at the base and at the mid-height of the specimen, with a maximum u discrepancy of about 1%, which indicates a uniform distribution of pore pressure in the sample at the beginning of shearing. At strains around which the shear plane formed, though, the changes of pore water pressure at the base and the middle of the sample started to be different. The shear plane seemed to induce a larger change of pore pressure in the middle of the sample, suggesting that the localization of strains is related to a nonuniform distribution of the pore water pressure through the sample. Figure 7.53 shows a typical example of the pore water change with strain. With the development of the shear plane, pore pressures measured at the mid-height and at the base of the sample started to diverge. At the end of the test, the change of pore pressure at the mid-height of the specimen was about 15kPa larger than the change of pressure measured at the base. This is consistent with the study on the pore pressure distribution at failure conducted by Sandroni (1977), who found that the shear plane is associated with an increment of pore water pressure in the middle of the sample.

Exceptions to this behaviour were shown by the samples that formed multiple shear planes. In these cases, the differences in the pore pressures between the mid-height and the b of the sample started at strains as small as 0.5%. Figure ase 7.54 shows a typical behaviour for one of these samples. The pressure change measured at the mid-height was often between 3-5% smaller than that measured at the base for medium strains, but usually increased post-rupture. This behaviour is unlikely to be due to shear rate effects because the same shear rates were used for all samples, and it was therefore probably associated to the development of the minor shear planes. For the calculation of the p values the base pore water pressure was always used.

247

(c) Shear strength Figures 7.55-7.63 show the stress paths of the samples tested for the different lithological units. The dotted stress paths refer to samples that had a shear plane of the type sketched in Figure 7.50. These showed much lower strengths than other samples from the same units. The reduced strength is due to the fact that these samples sheared along pre-existing fissures and did not mobilise their intact strength. A detailed analysis of this mode of failure will be conducted in Section 7.3.7, and, for the following analysis of intact strength, the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures will not be taken into account.

For each lithological unit, no significant differences in strength could be noticed for the samples that had been consolidated to higher pressures either isotropically or along a ko path. As discussed in Section 7.3.1, the pressures

applied in compression did not yield the samples, although the compression behaviours of Samples 12iUC and 31.4iUC, compressed isotropically to 5MPa, showed signs of incipient yielding. When consolidated along a ko path, maximum pressures of about 1000kPa were applied to the samples, which were not large enough to yield the clay. The shear strains that occurred in onedimensional compression, though, did not seem to induce significant effects on their shearing behaviour when compared with the isotropically compressed samples.

In Figures 7.64 and 7.65, the peak strengths for the samples from all three sub-units of Unit B2 are plotted together at lower and higher pressures respectively. Data from the site investigation at Heathrow T5 are also included on the graphs as stress paths and are in good agreement with the data from the present research. Of these, the sample from 10.3m seems to have failed along a pre-existing fissure.

Samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) seem to plot slightly above the others at lower stresses, although the difference is not large and reduces at higher stresses. The strength envelope found by Webb (1964) at Ashford Common at a depth of about 20m is also plotted in the figures. In the present research, more emphasis has

248

been given to the lithology of the samples than to their depth, and a rigorous comparison with the literature should consider the strength envelope of samples from the same lithological units. The base of the London Clay at Ashford

Common, though, is uncertain (see Chapter 3) and it is not therefore possible to identify reliably the lithological units of the clay. However, the vicinity of this site with Heathrow T5 and the similarity of the topography of the two sites, suggest that the characteristics of the clay at the same depths could be similar. The strength envelope defined by samples from Unit B2 in the present research seems to agree with the envelope found at Ashford Common at 20m depth both for lower and higher stresses. At medium stresses there seem to be differences and the envelope from Ashford Common plots slightly above that defined by the samples in the present research.

In Figure 7.66, the data from Unit A3 are plotted together with the strength envelope found at Ashford Common for samples from 35m depth. Stress paths for tests from the site investigation at Heathrow T5 are included, although the two samples from 47m and 48m depths belong to Sub-UnitA3(1), which is deeper than the Sub-Unit A3(2) to which the data from the present research belong. The strength envelope of samples from Ashford Common plots slightly above the strengths from the present research for low and medium pressures, although the data point at high pressures is in good agreement. (d) Sample size effect In Figures 7.32-7.47 and 7.64-7.66, the 38mm diameter samples and the two 50mm diameter samples 12.5iUC and 34iUC are indicated by solid symbols. The size of the samples seems to affect the correlation between the stress-strain curves and the formation of the shear plane, which often occurs at the maximum peak strength for samples of lower diameter. It is likely that, when the shear plane forms, it propagates through a 38mm diameter sample much faster than in the 100mm diameter samples inducing a more sudden failure. As discussed above, the shear plane typically occurs at the maximum stress ratio also for 38mm samples. In terms of strength, no differences could be noticed between the 38mm and the 100mm diameter samples when the failure is through intact soil, and they plot together on unique strength lines (Figures 7.64-7.66), which is 249

consistent with the study conducted by Costa-Filho (1984) on samples size effects (Section 2.8). Differences in strength between 38mm and 100mm diameter samples only occur because there is a greater possibility for the larger samples to shear along pre-existing fissures. (e) Sample quality As discussed in Chapter 5, rotary core samples were used for the present research in all the lithological units, with the exception of Unit C, for which block samples were used. A block sample was tested from Sub-Unit B2(c)

(11gUC), to be compared with a rotary core sample, 12.5gUC. The stress-strain curves and the stress paths of the two samples are compared in Figure 7.67. There does not seem to be a significant difference between the stress paths and the peak strengths of the two samples, while their stress-strain curves are coincident up to 1% strain, but are different for larger strains. This seems to be due to the formation of the shear planes, because both samples formed multiple shear planes, which affected the location of their peaks and their stress-strain curves. Figure 7.34 showed that the stress-strain curve of Sample 12.5gUC is similar to the curves of all the other samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) that formed multiple shear planes, with peak strengths occurring at strains larger than 4% and stress strain curves converging towards the post-rupture strength for strains larger than 1%. Sample 11gUC, instead, has stress-strain curve that is more similar to samples that sheared with a failure plane of Type 1a in Figure 7.48. Hight & Jardine (1993) and Hight et al. (2003) found that the difference in sample quality is reflected in different peak strengths being mobilised. The peak strengths of Samples 11gUC and 12.5gUC are similar, which confirms the good quality of the rotary core samples used for this research. The differences in the stress-strain

curves of the rotary core and the block samples seem therefore to be the result from natural variability linked to the characteristics of their shear planes and do not depend on the quality of the samples. 7.3.6 Strength envelopes and lithological units

In Figures 7.68 and 7.69, the peak strengths of samples from different lithological units are plotted together for comparison. The intact strength was

250

identified using most of the 38mm and 100mm samples, whereas samples that failed on pre-existing fissures, particularly of 100mm diameter, defined a fissured strength envelope, as their large strain behaviour is controlled by the fissures. Between the intact and the fissured strength envelopes a REV strength envelope is expected, which could not be identified from these tests. As discussed in Section 5.1, the identification of a REV envelope would require in situ tests or tests on larger samples, which is unpractical for laboratory tests. The lithology of the clay seems to influence the strength envelopes, although the differences in strength between samples from different units do not seem large. Samples from Unit A3 show the largest strengths. Samples from all sub-units of Unit B2 plot together on a unique strength envelope. Samples from Unit C show the lowest strength. The peak strengths of samples that failed along pre-existing fissures are also included on the graph. Regardless the lithological units, the

fissured strength envelope seems unique for the clay.

In Figures 7.70 and 7.71 the strength envelopes found at Ashford Common (Webb, 1964) and in Central London (Hight & Jardine, 1993) are also shown for comparison. In Central London four strength envelopes were identified, for depths 8-12m, 16-24m, 27-40m and 50-60m. At 30m depth, the strength envelopes for Ashford Common and for the sites in Central London plot close together, but at about 20m depth the difference is quite large and the envelope suggested by Hight & Jardine plots well below that for Ashford Common. The strength envelope for Ashford Common was derived, though, from block samples that did not fail through pre-existing fissures. Hight & Jardine considered, instead, thick-wall and thin-wall tube samples as well as rotary core samples. The disturbance caused by the sampling procedures might have reduced the strength of the clay. The variation in strength found from the present

research is lower than that found by Hight & Jardine and is more similar in this respect to that of Webb (1964).

In the present study, the strength envelopes correlated with the lithological units, which do not coincide with the depths for the strength envelopes identified by Hight & Jardine and this causes some differences in the results. Samples from Unit A3 , between 33-40m depth, have strengths that are consistent with the 251

strength envelope for samples between 27-40m depth found by Hight & Jardine. Samples from Sub-Unit B2 , between 10-31m depth, though, seem to identify a unique strength envelope, which plots well above that identified by Hight & Jardine (1993) for samples from 16-24m depth, but below that for 27-40m depth. At shallow depths, the samples from Unit C, at 7m depth, have strengths comparable with that identified by Hight & Jardine for samples from 8-12m. These samples though show much larger strength at higher stresses. 7.3.7 Influence of pre-existing fissures

The samples tested in this study were expected to contain natural fissures and the choice of testing 100m samples was mainly related to the possibility of observing the influence of these fissures on the clay behaviour. These natural fissures might be distinguished from those that formed because of drying, which will be discussed in the next section. Before testing, the natural fissures in the samples could not be seen. On opening the samples for trimming, particularly

the rotary cores, their surfaces appeared fairly smooth and free from fissures. Probably this was due to the fact that the surfaces of the samples had been slightly wetted during the sampling process and then cut and smoothed with sharp knifes before sealing and storage (see Chapter 5). In trimming for testing the use of knifes again tended to smooth the samples surface, hiding any natural discontinuities. Only in trimming the block samples did some natural fissures become evident and could be recorded. In Figure 7.72 the location of the natural fissures observed in Samples 11gUC and 7gUE before testing are sketched together with the failure surfaces of the samples after testing. The presence of the discontinuities did not prevent Sample 11gUC from mobilising its intact strength, while Sample 7gUE sheared in extension along a pre-existing fissure, which did not coincide with that recorded, because samples only sheared along the preexisting fissures whose inclination and location were compatible with a failure mode.

The analysis of the influence of fissures on the sample behaviour was conducted after testing considering both the Mohrs circle and the strength of the sample. For each test, the Mohrs circle of stresses was drawn and the stresses on

252

the shear plane were calculated. The analyses conducted in terms of the Mohrs circle were always supported by analyses in term of strength, which consisted of comparing the strength of each sample with the strength of other samples from similar depths.

Figure 7.73 shows sketches of the Mohrs circles for samples that mobilised their intact strength or sheared along a pre-existing fissure. In the sketch, the Mohr-Coulomb envelope is represented as a straight line passing through the origin, and no allowance has been made on the possible curvature of the strength envelope. Typically the failure plane of samples that failed through pre-existing fissures has inclination lower than 45o .

In Figure 7.74, the stress-strain curve and the stress path of Samples 36lgUC are compared with the curves for Sample 38.7lgUC and their Mohrs circles are also shown. Both samples are from similar depths in lithological Unit A3 and were consolidated to the same stresses using the same approach stress paths. In the Mohrs circle of Test 38.7lgUC, the shear plane and the tangent to the Mohrs circle from the origin intercept the circle at the same point, indicating that the sample mobilised its intact strength. Sample 36lgUC, instead, failed along a steep shear plane that intercepted the Mohrs circle at lower stresses than those defined by the tangent to the circle, suggesting that the sample sheared along a preexisting fissure. The comparison of the stress-strain curves and the stress paths of the two samples shows that for medium strains the behaviour of the two samples is similar, but Sample 36lgUC has lower strength than Sample 38.7lgUC, which confirms that Sample 36lgUC sheared along a pre-existing fissure, as shown by the Mohrs circle.

The Mohrs circle analyses demonstrated that all the samples tested in extension failed along pre-existing fissures. This is due to the fact that the typical inclination of the natural fissures in the London Clay is compatible with the shearing mode in extension and suggests that such fissures might have formed by passive failure during the geological v reduction. The combination of the Mohrs circle analyses and the strength analyses always gave consistent results.

253

(a) Fissures due to drying Some samples tested contained discontinuities that had opened as a consequence of drying during the sample preparation. This happened particularly for the 38mm samples that had been tested for MSc and MEng laboratory classes under the supervision of the author. The trimming process in these cases was longer, which induced drying in the samples and opening of fissures. The fissures due to drying were mainly sub-horizontal and often formed along the bedding planes or laminations. In a few cases, also vertical fissures were noticed to open through the samples as a consequence of drying. Neither the vertical nor the horizontal fissures were observed to have any influence on the sample behaviour and they did not prevent the samples from mobilizing their intact strength. Sample 28.5UC was tested after it had split into two pieces due to a horizontal fissure that opened as consequence of drying. This fissure did not affect the

behaviour of this sample whose peak strength is comparable to the strength of other samples from the same lithological unit (Figure 7.59). (b) Strength on fissures In Figures 7.75 and 7.76, the strengths of samples that sheared along preexisting fissures are plotted together with the intact peak and post-rupture strengths of the samples from the different lithological units. For the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissure that formed peaks, both the peak and the postrupture fissured strengths are indicated. In the graph there are also included the post rupture and intrinsic strength envelopes and the strength envelope for the samples sheared along pre-existing fissures identified by Burland (1990) on the basis of data from Bishop et al. (1965) for London Clay samples from Ashford Common. The intrinsic envelope for the data in the present research is not

included in Figure 7.75 because, as discussed in Section 7.2.2, this curve, defined by c=0 and c=21.3o , is very similar to the curve of c=0 and c=20.1o defined by Burland.

The post-rupture strengths from the tests in the present research are in very good agreement with the data presented by Burland (1990) for low and medium pressures. For higher pressures, the post-rupture strengths for the present

254

research still plot slightly above the intrinsic strength. The samples consolidated to the highest pressures did not form peaks and therefore only their post-rupture strengths are plotted in the figure. At Ashford Common, instead, the post-rupture strength envelope was found to cross the intrinsic strength envelope at about 600kPa and became lower for higher pressures. The strengths of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures plot on the post-rupture envelope for low and medium pressures and therefore slightly above the intrinsic strength, which is consistent with the literature (Burland, 1990; Jardine et al., 2003). For higher pressures, there is a lower occurrence of samples failing along pre-existing fissures. The strength envelope defined by c=0 and =15o (Skempton, 1969) represents a lower bound for the clay. (c) Lithological units and fissures A study of the influence of pre-existing fissures on the behaviour of the London Clay should have included a detailed log of the fissures on site that could be correlated with the shearing behaviour of the clay and its lithology. The distribution of the fissures on site was not recorded in this study and, as mentioned in Section 7.3.5, only a post-test analysis of the fissures was conducted. From this analysis, there seemed to be a larger occurrence of the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures from Sub-Unit B2(a). Skempton, (1969) and Ward et al., (1965), observed that a larger number of fissures occur at shallower depths, where the fissure spacing are also less. In the present study, the number of samples tested from shallower depths, in Unit C and B , was lower 2(c) than the number of samples tested from higher depths. Only three samples were tested from the Unit C, which is too few to be statistically significant.

The occurrence of multiple shear planes in samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) might be related to the presence of a larger number of pre-existing fissures at this depth, although the Mohrs circle analyses of these samples showed that in most cases they mobilised their intact strengths. Figure 7.77 shows the occurrence of fissures with depth in relationship to the number of samples tested. In the figure the percentage of the samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures is also included for reference, although the defects of this calculation were mentioned above. Similar percentages of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures 255

were found for Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(b) , although more samples were tested from Sub-Unit B2(a).

7.4 Structure and destructuration of natural samples


The enhanced resistance of the natural samples in compression has been already discussed in Section 7.3.3, where the compression curves of natural samples were compared to the intrinsic compression curves in the corresponding lithological units. In Figures 7.75 and 7.76, the enhanced strength of the natural samples was shown in comparison to the intrinsic strength. 7.4.1 Normalised strength

In Figures 7.78-7.81, the intact and stress paths for natural and reconstituted samples from different lithological units are normalised for the volume by using the equivalent pressure p* e. The values of p* e were calculated considering the appropriate isotropic NCL* for each unit or sub-unit (see Figure 7.5).

Only the dry side of the intact b oundary surface could be drawn for each unit, because, as discussed in Section 7.2, the samples were not compressed to stresses large enough to reach the wet side of critical. All the samples from Unit B plot 2 together on a unique SBS (Figures 7.79 and 7.80). There is not a large difference between the intrinsic and the intact normalised strengths of the samples at low pressures, particularly for Units B and C, but at large pressures, the intact SBSs 2 extend well above the intrinsic SBS*. At lower stresses the normalised strengths of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures seem to plot approximately on the intrinsic Horvslev surface for all lithological units, consistent with the postrupture and fissure strengths being slightly higher than the intrinsic critical state strength.

In Figure 7.82, the SBS for the different lithological units are plotted together for comparison. The SBS for samples from Unit A plots above the SBSs of the 3 Units B2 and C, which seem to be similar, although more tests are needed on samples from Unit C. In terms of plasticity and grading, the clay from Units C 256

and A3 seemed more similar, having lower plasticity and more silt particles than Unit B2 . Also the intrinsic behaviour of Units A3 and C was found to be similar, having NCLs* plotting below the NCL* of Unit B2 (see Section 7.2.1). Samples from the Units C, though, were found to contain more clay particles than samples from Unit A3 , which makes this clay microscopically more similar to the clay from Unit B2 . The relationship between the SBSs of the intact clay and its lithological features shown in Figure 7.82 only emerges because the nature of the
* clay at the different levels has been taken into account considering the p e on the

appropriate NCL* for each unit, so that other features rather than the nature of the clay emerge. The structure of the clays from Units A3 and C were very different, so that Unit C showed less particle orientation than Unit A which showed high 3, degree of orientation (Chapter 6). The normalised graph in Figure 7.82 seems to emphasise those structural differences, also increasing the separation between the strength envelopes of Units B2 and C from that of Unit A3 . 7.4.2 Destructuration in swelling

Swelling an intact sample was found to change its behaviour in compression causing an increase of compressibility and a reduction of stress sensitivity (Section 7.3.1). The influence of swelling on the shearing behaviour of the clay was investigated for four samples (19.8isUC, 21.7isDC, 22gsUC and 24.4gsUC) from Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a) that were swelled in the triaxial apparatus to an isotropic stress of about 10kPa. The procedures were described in Section 5. 5. Tests 21.7isDC and 19.8isUC were then re-compressed to 50kPa before shearing drained and undrained respectively. Tests 24.4gsUC and 22gsUC were recompressed to 100kPa and 200kPa respectively and sheared undrained. The variations of deviatoric stress, pore pressure and stress ratio with strains were shown in Figures 7.39-7.41 and are re-plotted in Figures 7.83 and 7.84. The samples that were recompressed to lower stresses (22gsUC and 24.4gsUC) have a less dilatant behaviour, although the variation of their stress ratio with strains does not differ from the other samples. The stress ratio curve is flat at the top for all the samples, with the only exception of Test 21.7isDC, sheared drained, which shows a sudden post-peak drop of the stress ratio. At post-rupture, the

257

stress ratios converge towards a unique value for all the samples equal to 1.4, which is larger than the value of 0.85 found for the intact samples.

The stress paths of the swelled samples are shown in Figure 7.85 and the strength data for the intact samples from the same depth are also shown for comparison. No difference could be noticed in the strength of the samples at large strains. The normalised stress paths of these samples are also consistent with the normalised paths of intact samples, as shown in Figure 7.86. Swelling the samples to low stresses, therefore, does not seem to affect the shearing behaviour of the London Clay. This is consistent with the behaviour of other stiff clays (see Chapter 2). 7.4.3 Destructuration due to anisotropic compression

As mentioned in Section 7.3.5, no differences could be observed between samples sheared from isotropic and from anisotropic initial states. When the anisotropic states corresponded to the in situ states of the samples, the consolidation stress paths were performed so that a minimum disturbance was applied to these samples, therefore no destructuration was expected, but in other cases, compression along ko paths to high pressures was applied to the samples, so that the effects of anisotropic strains on the clay behaviour could be investigated. The ko paths for samples from different units are shown in Figure 7.87. The test procedures for these paths were described in Section 5.3.5. The curves show fairly similar slopes, with gradients changing from 0.4 to 0.8. One sample from Unit A3 , 33.5gkUC, shows a larger gradient of 1.1. The shearing stress paths for these samples were shown in Figures 7.55-7.63 and Figures 7.787.81. In both non-normalised and normalised spaces, the behaviour of these samples did not differ from the behaviour of samples consolidated along isotropic stress paths.

258

Unit C

Sample r7nc r7oc r10nc

Gs 2.74

vi 1.81 1.99 2.73

N* 2.83

2.74

B 2(c)

r10oc r10oc1 r25nc r25nc1

2.69

1.97 2.04 1.98 2.18

2.95

2.85

0.168 3.05 2.94

0.064

B 2(a)

r25oc r25oc1 r25oc2 r35nc

2.76

1.92 2.32 2.17 1.87

A3

r35oc r35oc1

2.77

1.86 1.99

2.89

2.79

Table 7.1: Parameters for reconstituted isotropically compressed samples

Unit C B 2(c) B 2(b) B 2(a) A3 A2

Sample rO7 rO10 rO17 rO25 rO28 rO35 rO51

Gs 2.74 2.69 2.74 2.76 2.76 2.77 2.73

ei 2.78 3.34 3.28 3.87 3.22 3.53 3.01

ko 2.95 2.4 1.88 1.57 1.5 1.34 1.18

C*c

C*s

0.386

0.148

Table samples

7.2:

Parameters

for

one-dimensionally

compressed

reconstituted

259

Unit

Test

I y
[kPa]

Iyu
[kPa]

OCR

YSR
minimum maximum

SI

I a
[kPa] 220

Ss 3 2.0 1.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 5.2 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 2.9 1.6 1.3 4.2 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.6 1.2 2.2 1.1 1.9 1.5 2.9 1.8 1.1 2.2 2.0 1.4

O7

1000

2500

16

9.0

23

2.6-2.8

3500 14000 310

O10 B 2(c) O12s

910

2600

12

6.5

19

2.6-2.9

2500 10000 75

800

2500

12

6.0

18

1.8-2.7

4000 11300 434

B 2(b)

O17

2000

5200

8.5

9.0

24

2.5-2.1

5200 10000 434

O25

3000

7000

6.5

10.0

23

2.4-2.7

6700 17000 150

O25s B 2(a)

1100

3700

6.5

3.2

12

1.2-1.7

1500 8500 442

O28

2200

7075

6.0

6.7

21

2.4-2.5

3540 14000 225 11600

O28s

1100

5600

6.0

3.3

17

1.6-1.6

O35 A3 O35s

3200

3200

5.0

7.8

17

2.3-2.6

3000 8000 426

1300

8200

5.0

3.0

20

1.6-1.3

2000 10000 2000

A2

O51

3000

8770

4.3

6.0

17

2.3-2.4

4385 13000

Table 7.3: Yield stresses, Stress Sensitivities and change of Swell Sensitivity for samples from different lithological units 260

Unit

Sample name 7gUC 7gUE 7kUC 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11.4iUC 11.7iUC 11.9DE 12.5gUC 12.5iUC 13gUE 14iUC 16.6iUC 16.8UC 17SH 17.3SH 17.5SH 19.8isUC 21.7isDC 22gsUC 22.6gUC 22.6ikUC 23gUE 23.6iUC 23.7UC 24g37DC 24.3gkUC 24.4gsUC 25gUC 25.4aUE 26DC 26UC 26.3iUC 26.5iUC 27UC 28DC 28.5UC 31iUC 31.4gUE 33.5gkUC 34iUC 36lgUC 36.3g 36.3gUE 36.5gDC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC 38.7lgUC 40iUC

D [mm] 100 100 38 100 38 38 38 100 100 50 100 100 38 100 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 100 38 100 100 38 38 100 100 38 38 100 100 100 38 38 38 100 38 50 100 100 38 100 100 38 38 38 100 100 100 100

shear

shear plane type refer to Figures 7.48-7.50

=
60 25 55 49 50 30 60 35 25 68 68 25 57 30 69 60 48 55 62 75 60 50 64 15 49 50 55 55 70 67 15 55 35 30 70 30 58 68 45 50 58 55 71

UC UE UC UC UC DE UC UC / UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC UC DC UC UC DC UC UE UC UC UC UC UC UC UE UC DC UC UC UC DC UC UC UE UC UC UC / incomplete DC UC DC UC UC UC UC UC UC

1a 3 1a 2 1a 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 1a 3 1a 1a 1a 1a 2 1b 1a 2 1b 3 1a 1a 1a 1a 1b 1a 3 1a 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1a 1a 3

B 2(c)

B 2(b)

B 2(a)

A3

1b 1b 1b 1a 1a 1b 1a 2 1a

56 52 56 53 76 63 65 53 67

Table 7.4: Shear plane characteristics

261

2.6

2.4 specific volume v


r7nc r7oc

2.2

1.8 10 100 p' [kPa] (a) 2 1000

1.5 void ratio

rO7

0.5

0 1 10 100 'v [kPa] (b)


Figure 7.1: Reconstituted samples from Unit C (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression 262

1000

10000

2.6
r12nc r12oc Sub-Unit B 2(c ) r12oc1 r25nc r25oc r25oc1

2.4 specific volume v

Sub-Unit B2(a)

2.2

1.8 10 100 p' [kPa] (a)


(b)

1000

1.5 void ratio

rO10 Sub-Unit B2(c ) rO12 rO17 Sub-Unit B2(b) rO25 Sub-Unit B2(a) rO28

0.5

0 100 1000 10000 v ' [kPa] Figure 7.2: Reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) isotropic compression (b)
one-dimensional compression

10

263

2.6

2.4 specific volume v


r37nc

2.2

r37oc r37oc1

1.8 10 100 p' [kPa] 1000

(a)
2

1.5

rO35
void ratio e

0.5

0 1 10 100 'v [kPa] (b) 1000 10000

Figure 7.3: Reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression

264

2.6
Unit C Sub-Unit B2(c) Sub-Unit B2(a) Unit A 3

2.4 specific volume v

2.2

1.8 10 100 p' [kPa]


(a)
2 Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(b) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 Unit A 2

1000

1.5 void ratio e

0.5

0 1 10 100 'v [kPa] (b) 1000 10000

Figure 7.4: Reconstituted samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression

265

2.6 NCL*s

2.4 specific volume v A3 C 2.2

B 2(c)

B 2( a)

1.8 10 100 p' [kPa]


(a)

1000

10000

1.5 void ratio e

1 C 0.5

B2(c)

B 2(a ) and B2( b)

A3 A2 0 1 10 100 'v [kPa] (b) 1000 10000

Figure 7.5: NCLs* for samples from different lithological units (a) isotropic compression (b) one-dimensional compression

266

300

q [kPa]

200

100

0 0 u [kPa] 100 5 10 a [% ] 15 20

200

300 (a) r7oc r7nc

1.2

0.8 q /p' 0.4 0 0 4 8 a [%] 12 16 20

(b)
Figure 7.6: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit C: (a) stress-strain (b) stress ratio

267

400 300 q [kPa] 200 100 0 0 u [kPa] 100 4 8 12 16 a [%] 20 r10n c r10o c B2(c ) r10o c1 r25n c r25n c1 r25o c1 B2(a ) r25o c2 r25o c

200

300 (a) 1.2

0.8 q/p' 0.4 0 0 4 8 (b )


Figure 7.7: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit B2 (a) stress-strain (b) stress ratio

12

16

a [%]

20

268

300

q [kPa]

200

100

0 0 u [kPa] 100 4 8 a [%] 12 16 20

200

r35nc r37nc r35oc r37oc r35oc r37oc1

300
(a)

1.2

0.8 q/p' 0.4 0 0 4 8 a [%]


(b) Figure 7.8: Shearing behaviour of reconstituted samples from Unit A3 (a) stress-strain (b) stress ratio

12

16

20

269

1.2

0.8 q/p' 0.4


Unit C Unit B2 (c) Unit B2 (a) Unit A3

0 0 4 8 a [%] 12 16 20

Figure 7.9: Stress ratios for reconstituted samples from different lithological units

270

1 Unit C Unit B2(c ) Unit B2(a ) Unit A 3

0.8

q/p' 0.6 0.4 -1 0 1 2 du/da [MPa] 3 4


Figure 7.10: Pore pressure increments for reconstituted samples from different lithological units

271

q [kPa]

272

300 Unit C Unit B2(c) Unit B2(a) -( b) Unit A3 200 r37oc

CSL*

r25nc1 r25nc

r37nc 100 r10oc r10oc1 r25oc1 r25oc2 0 0 r37oc1 200 p' [kPa] Figure 7.11: Stress paths of reconstituted samples from different lithological units 400 600 r7oc r37oc r10nc r7nc

2 .4

CSL-B 2(a) CSL-B 2( c ) CSL-A 3 Unit C Sub -Unit B 2(c ) Sub -Unit B 2(a ) Unit A 3 Unit C Sub -Unit B 2(c ) Sub -Unit B 2(a ) Unit A 3 end of sh earin g states

2 .2 CS L* -C specific volume v

critical state and no rmal com pression lin es

NCL -B2( a) 1 .8 NCL-B 2(c) Incom plete testin g 1 .6 10


273

NCL -A 3 NCL -C 10 0 p' [kPa] 1000 1 0000

Fig ure 7.12 : Norm al Compressio n and Critical State lines fo r sam ples from different litho log ical units

0.6
274

CSL *

Unit C Unit B 2(c) Unit B 2(a)-(b) Unit A 3

0.4 q/p*e
e n si on l ine

SBS*

no -t

0.2

NCL* 0 0 0. 4 p /p*e
'

0.8

1.2

Figure 7.13: Normalised stress paths of reconstituted sam ples from different lithological units

1 intrinsic compression curve 0.8 void ratio e 'y 0.6


O7 site investigation-7.25m

0.4

0.2 10 100 1000 'v [kPa] 10000 100000

Figure 7.14: Oedometeric tests on natural samples from Unit C and intrinsic compression curve

275

1 intrinsic compression curve 0.8 void ratio e 'y

0.6

0.4
O10 -B2( c)

0.2 10 100 1000 'v [kPa] (a) 10000 100000

1 intrinsic compression curve 'y 0.6

0.8 void ratio e

0.4

O17 - B2( b) O25 - B2( a) O28 - B2( a) site investigation-15.2m

0.2 10 100 1000 'v [kPa] (b) 10000 100000

Figure 7.15: Oedometeric tests on natural samples from Unit B (a) Sub-Unit 2 B2(c) (b) Sub-Units B2(b) and B2(a)

276

O35 -A3 O51 -A2 site investigation-35.5m

0.8 void ratio e

intrinsic compression curve 'y

0.6

0.4

0.2 100 1000 'v [kPa] 10000 100000

Figure 7.16: Oedometeric tests on natural samples from Units A2 and A3

277

0.8

O10

O17 void ratio e O7 0.6 035

O51 Unit C Unit B2( c) Unit B2( b) Unit B2( a) Unit A 3 Unit A 2

0.4

O25 O28

0.2 10 100 1000 'v [kPa] 10000 100000

Figure 7.17: Summary of oedometric compressions of natural samples

278

2.2

NCL *-B 2(c) NCL*-A3 NC L*-C

N CL*-B 2(a )

specific volume

1.8

31.4iUC-B 2( a)

12.5iUC-B 2( c) 1.6 34iUC-A 3

1.4 100 1000 p' [kPa] 10000

Figure 7.18: Compression curves of natural samples in the triaxial apparatus

279

1.0

e
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

Intrinsic compression curve

Cs 430 Cs 17000 Cs7000

Iy

Iyu

C*s 0.4 0.3 0.2 10 100 1000 10000

Iv [kPa]

100000

Figure 7.19: Example of Casagrandes construction to define the gross yield and the change of swelling line gradients

280

3.2 Unit C Unit B 2(c ) Unit B 2(b) Unit B 2(a ) Swell Sensitivity Ss 2.4 10m 51m Unit A 3 Unit A 2 2

2.8

1.6 28m 1.2

35m

7m

25m

17m

0.8 0 4000 8000 12000 'v [kPa] 16000 20000

Figure 7.20: Change of swell sensitivity with stresses

0.1 7m 0.08 10m Unit C Unit B2(c) Unit B2(b) Unit B2(a) Unit A3 Unit A2 0.04 17m 25m 51m 35m

mv [m2/MN]

0.06

28m

0.02

0 100 1000 'v [kPa] 10000 100000

Figure 7.21: Compressibility of natural samples in oedometric tests

281

intrinsic compress ion B 2(a) curve s C A3

0.8

void ratio e

0.6

O7

0.4 035 Unit C Unit B 2 (a) Unit A3 0.2 10 100 1000 'v [kPa] 10000

O25

100000

Figure 7.22: Oedometeric compression curves for natural and reconstituted samples
160 12.5iUC -B2(c) 31.4iUC -B2(a) 120 K [MPa] 34iUC -A3

80

40

0 0.001 0.01 0.1 v [%] 1 10 100

Figure 7.23: Stiffness in compression of natural samples in triaxial tests 282

4 12.5iUC- B2(c)
v/a

14iUC -B2(b) 2 34iUC -A3

0 0 1000 2000 3000 p' [kPa] 4000 5000

Figure 7.24: Degradation of anisotropic strains during isotropic compression

283

0 ICL for different units -0.4

O17
void index Iv

-0.8 O10 O7

O35 -1.2 Unit C Unit B2(c) Unit B2(b) Unit B2(a) -1.6 Unit A3 Unit A2

O25 O28 O51

-2 10 100 1000 ' v [kPa] 10000 100000

Figure 7.25: Normalised one-dimensional compression curves

284

1.00 void ratio e 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1 10

Intrinsic compression curve e Intrinsic swelling line en=e-e* e e* e* n 100 1000 I'v [kPa] 10000 100000 intact compression curve

Figure 7.26: Sketch of the parameters used for the new normalisation

285

0.35

e-e*

286

0.3 U nit C U nit B 2( c) 0.25 O35 U nit B 2( b) U nit B 2( a) U nit A 3 U nit A 2

O10 0.2 O51 O7 0.15 O28 O17 0.1 100 1000 ' v [kPa] 10000 O25

100000

Figure 7.27: N ew normalization for the oedom eter tes ts

intrinsic compression curve 'y

0.8 void ratio e

0.6

0.4
O10 O12s swelled first

0.2 1000 10000 100000 'v [kPa] Figure 7.28: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled
before compression in Sub-Unit B2(c)

10

100

1 intrinsic compression curve 'y 0.6

0.8 void ratio e

0.4
O25 O25s swe lled first

0.2 1000 10000 100000 'v [kPa] Figure 7.29: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled
before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a)

10

100

287

intrinsic compression curve

0.8 void ratio e

0.6

'y

0.4
O28 O28s -swelled first

0.2 1000 10000 100000 'v [kPa] Figure 7.30: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled
before compression in Sub-Unit B2(a)

10

100

0.8 void ratio e

intrinsic compression curve

0.6

' y

0.4
O35 O35s swelled first

0.2 10 100 1000 'v [kPa] 10000 100000

Figure 7.31: Compression curves of an intact sample and a sample swelled before compression in Unit A3 288

1200 q [kPa]

shear plane 800

400

7gUC 7gkUC 7gUE

0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 a [%] 16

-400
(a)

u [kPa] -8 -4

600 400 200 0 -200 0 4


(b)

12

a [%]

16

Figure 7.32: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit C (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes

289

3 7gUC 7gkUC 7gUE

q/p' 2 shear plane 1 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12

a [%]

16

-1
Figure 7.33: Stress ratios for samples from Unit C

290

q [kPa]

1200

800

shear plane

400

0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 a [%]
11gUC 11gDE 11gkUC 11.7iUC 11.4iUC 12.5gUC

-400 u [kPa] 600 400 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0 4

(a)

8 (b)

12

16 a [%]

0 v [%] -8 -4 -4 0 4 8 12 16 a [%]

(c) Figure 7.34: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(c) consolidated
to medium stresses (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore water pressure changes (c) volumetric strains

291

q [kPa]

3000

shear plan e

2000

1000

12.5iUC

0 -8 -4 0 4 8 (a) u [kPa] 2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 -8 -4 0 4 8 (b) 12 16 a [%] 12 16 a [%]

Figure 7.35: Large strain behaviour of Sample 12.5iUC consolidated to high stresses (a) stress-strain relationship (b) pore water pressure changes

292

3 q/p'

11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 11iUC 11.4iUC 12.5gUC 12.5 iUC

0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 a [%]

-1

Figure 7.36: Stress ratio for samples from Unit B2(c)

293

q [kPa] -8 -4

1200

800

400

0 0 4 8 12 a [%] 16
13gUE 14iUC 16.6iUC

-400

(a) 600 400 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0 4 8 12 a [%]

u [kPa]

16.8UC 17SH 17.3SH 17.5iUC

16

(b) Figure 7.37: Large strain behaviour for samples from Unit B2(b) (a) stressstrains relationships (b) pore water pressure changes

294

3 q/p' 13gUE 14iUC 16.6iUC 16.8UC 17SH 17.3SH 17.5iUC

0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 a [%] 16

-1
Figure 7.38: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(b)

295

1200

q [kPa] -8

800

19.8isUC 21.7isDC 400 23.6iUC 23.7UC 26UC 26DC 0 26.3iUC -4 26.5iUC 27UC 28DC -400 28.5UC 31iUC 600 400 u [kPa] 200 0

4 a [%]

12

16

(a)

-8

-4

-200

4 a [%] (b)

12

16

v [%] -8 -4

2 0 -2 0 4 a [%] (c) 8 12 16

Figure 7.39: Large strain behaviour of samples form Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains 296

1200

800

q [kPa] -8 -4

400

0 0 4 a [%] (a) 8 12 16
22gsUC 22.6gUC 22.6ikUC 23gUE 24g37DC 24.3gkUC 24.4gsUC 25gUC 25.4aUE

-400 u [kPa] -8 -4

600 400 200 0 -200 0 4 a [%] (b) 8 12

16

v [%] -8 -4

0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

(c) Figure 7.40: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from
anisotropic states (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains

297

shear plane 2

19.8isUC 21.7isDC 23.6iUC 23.7UC 26UC 26DC 26.5iUC 26.3iUC 27UC 28DC 28.5UC 31iUC

q/p' -8 -4

0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

-1 Figure 7.41: Stress ratios for samples form Unit B2(a) consolidated
isotropically before shearing

298

22gsUC 22.6gUC 22.6ikUC 23gUE 24g37UC 24.3gkUC 24.4gsUC 25gUC 25.4aUE

q/p' -8 -4

0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

-1
Figure 7.42: Stress ratios for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing

299

1200

800

S hear plane

q [kPa] -8 -4

400

0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

-400 600 400 u [kPa] 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0 4 a [%] (b) 4 v [%] 8 12 (a)

37isUC 37DC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC

16

0 -8 -4 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

(c) Figure 7.43: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 sheared from
isotropic conditions (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains

300

3000

2000 q [kPa]

S hear plane

1000
34 iUC 38 iUC

0 -8 -4 0 (a) 4 a [%] 8 12 16

2000 1600 u [kPa] -8 -4 1200 800 400 0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

(b) Figure 7.44: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to
large stresses before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes

301

1200

shear plane 800

q [kPa] -8 -4

400

0 0 4 8 12 a [%] 16

-400 (a) 600 400 u [kPa] 200 0 -200

31.4gUE 33.5gkUC 36.3gUE-incomplete 36.5gDC 36lgUC 38.7lgUC

-8

-4

4 (b)

12

a [%]

16

4 v [%] 0 a [%] (c) Figure 7.45: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to
anisotropic states before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains

-8

-4

12

16

302

3
34iUC 37isUC 37DC

Shear plane

38iUC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC

q/p' -8 -4

0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

-1 Figure 7.46: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic
conditions
3
31.4gUE 33.5gkUC 36.3gUE-incomplete 36.5gDC 36lgUC 38.7lgUC

q/p' 2 1 0 -8 -4 0 4 8

12 a [%]

16

-1 Figure 7.47: Stress ratios for samples from Unit A3 sheared from anisotropic

states

303

1a Type 1

1b

Figure 7.48: Typical shear planes through intact samples

2 3

Type 2 Figure 7.49: Multiple shear plane typology

Type 3 Figure 7.50: Typical shear plane along a pre-existing fissure

304

Figure 7.51: Sample sheared in compression with a shear plane of Type 1b in Figure 7.48

Figure 7.52: Sample sheared in extension along a shear plane of Type 3 in Figure 7.50

305

300

200 u [kPa]

Shear plane

100

base mid-height

0 2 3 4 a [%] Figure 7.53: Pore pressure changes in a sample sheared along a single shear
plane of Type 1a (Test 23.7iUC)

200

160 S hear plane

u [kPa]

120

80
base mid-height

40

0 4 6 a [%] Figure 7.54: Pore pressure changes for a sample that formed multiple shear
planes of Type 2 (Test 11gUC)

306

1200

800

7gUC 7gkUC 7gUE (*)

q [kPa]

400

0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

(*) sheared along pre-existing fissures -400

Figure 7.55: Stress paths for samples from Unit C

307

q [kPa]

308

1200
11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE (*) 11.7iUC 11.4iUC 12.5gUC

800

400

(*) sheared along pre-existing fissures 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

-400

Figure 7.56: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(c) at low stresses

5000

4000

3000
q [kPa]

11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE (*) 11.7iUC 11.4iUC 12.5gUC 12.5iUC

2000

1000

0 0 4000 p' [kPa] (*) sheared along pre-existing fissures 2000 6000

Figure 7.57: Stress paths for samples from Unit B 2(c) at large stresses

309

q [kPa]

310

1200
13gUE (*) 14iUC 16.6iUC (*) 16.8UC 17SH (*) 17.3SH

(*) sheared along pre-existing fissures

800

400

0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

-400 Figure 7.58: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(b)

1200

800

400

19.8isUC 21.7isDC 23.6iUC 23.7UC (*) 26UC 26DC 26.3iUC (*) 26.5iUC 27UC (*) 28DC 28.5UC 31iUC

q [kPa]

0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

(*) sheared along pre-existing fissures -400

311

Figure 7.59: Stress paths of samples from Unit B2(a) sheared from isotropic conditions

q [kPa]

312

1200

800

400

22gsUC 22.6gUC 22.6ikUC 23gUE (*) 24g37UC 24.3gkUC (*) 24.4gsUC 25gUC 25.4aUE (*)

0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

(*) sheared along pre-existing fissures -400

Figure 7.60: Stress paths for samples from Unit B2(a) consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing

Figure 7.61: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at low stresses
1200

800

q [kPa]

37isUC 37DC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC

400

0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

-400

313

5000 34iUC 37isUC 37DC 38iUC 38UC 38.2iUC 38.5UC

4000

3000 q [kPa] 2000 1000 0

4000 p' [kPa] Figure 7.62: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 sheared from isotropic conditions at large stresses

2000

6000

314

1200

800

q [kPa]

400

31.4gUE (*) 33.5gkUC 36.3gUE (*) 36.5gDC 36lgUC (*) 38.7lgUC

0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

-400

(*) sheared along pre-existing fissures

315

Figure 7.63: Stress paths of samples from Unit A3 consolidated to anisotropic states before shearing

800
B2(c) 38mm B2(c) 100mm B2(b) 38mm B2(b) 100mm B2(a) 38mm B2(a) 100mm pre-existing f issures stress paths for site investigation tests

q kPa]

400

10.3m 0 0 11.35m

16.3m 400 19.9m 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

-400

Figure 7.64: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at lower stresses

316

eb b,

(1

96 4

)2

0m

1200

de

pt h

Figure 7.65: Peak strengths for samples from Unit B2 at higher stresses

4000

3000
p th de m

2000 q kPa]

bb We

64) ( 19 ,

20

B2(c) 38mm B2(c) 100mm B2(b) 38mm B2(b) 100mm B2(a) 38mm B2(a) 100mm pr e- existing fissures

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 p' [kPa] 4000 5000

-1000

317

3000
d 5m )3 h e pt

, (1 eb b

96 4

2000

q [kPa]

1000 no tension cut off 47m 34m 0 0 37.4m 1000 48m 2000 p' [kPa]

A3 100mm A3 38mm pre-existing fissures stress paths for site inves tigation tes ts

3000

4000

5000

-1000

Figure 7.66: Peak strengths for samples from Unit A3

318

q [kPa]

400

200

0 0 200 400 600 p' [kPa]

-200 (a) q [kPa]

11gUC -block sample 12.5gUC -rotary core sample

400

200

Shear plane

0 0 2 4 6 8 a [%]

-200 (b) Figure 7.67: Comparison between rotary core and block samples (a) stress paths
(b) stress-strain relationships

319

1200 Unit A3

Unit B2

800 no tens ion cut off q [kPa]

Unit C

U nit C 100mm 38m m S ub-Unit B 2(c ) 100m m 38mm S ub-Unit B 2(b) 100m m 38m m S ub-Unit B 2(a ) 100m m 38mm U nit A 3 100mm 38mm pre-exis ting fis sures

400

pre-exis ting fis sures envelope 0 0 400 800 p' [kPa] 1200 1600

-400

Figure 7.68: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium stresses

320

4000

Unit B 2 3000 Unit A 3 Unit C 100mm 38m m Sub-U nit B 2(c) 100mm 38mm Sub-U nit B 2(b) 100mm 38mm Sub-U nit B 2(a) 100mm no tension cut off Unit C 0 0 1000 2000 p' [kPa] -1000 3000 4000 5000 38mm Unit A 3 100mm 38mm pre-exis ting fissures

2000 q [kPa] 1000

Figure 7.69: Strength envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher stresses

321

1500

Ashford Common 30m

50-60m

Ashford Common 20m Unit C 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2(c) 100mm

1000 27-40m

38mm Sub-unit B2(b) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2(a) 100mm

q [kPa]

500

16-24m 8-12m

38mm Unit A3 100mm 38mm Hight & Jardine, (1993) Webb, (1964)

0 0 500 1000 p' [kPa] 1500 2000

-500

Figure 7.70: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at low and medium stresses

322

4000

3000

Ashford Common 30m

Unit C 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2 (c) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2 (b) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B2 (a) 100mm 38mm Unit A3 100mm 38mm Hight & Jardine, (1993) Webb, (1964)

2000
q [kPa]

Ashford Common 20m

50-60m
1000 27-40m 16-24m 8-12m 0 0 1000 2000 p' [kPa] -1000 3000 4000 5000

Figure 7.71: Comparison between strength envelopes for different sites at higher stresses

323

15o

15o

32o 35o

7gUC
(a)

11gUC

38o 38o 60o 49o 35o

7gUC (b)

11gUC

Figure 7.72: Influence of pre-existing fissures on the shear planes (a) natural fissures before testing (b) shear planes after testing

324

200

[kPa] peak envelope

100

400 [kPa]

100

200

300

(a)
200

[kPa]
e ptur t -ru pos gth stren ope l enve
=30o

peak envelope
100

e lan ar p she
100

200

300

[kPa]

(b)

Figure 7.73: Typical Mohr circles for samples that (a) mobilised their intact strength (b) sheared along a pre-existing fissure

325

800 600 q [kPa] 400 200 0 0 -200 800 600 q [kPa] 400 200 0 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 p' [%] (b) 2 4 6 8 a [%] 10

36lgUC failed along a pre-existing fissure 38.7lgUC

(a)

she ar p lane

[kPa]
200

peak strength

38.7lgUC post-rupture strength

59o 200 400

24o 600 800

[kPa]

she ar p lane

200 [kPa]

peak strength postrupture strength

(c)

36lgUC
100 61o 100 200 300 400

500

600

[kPa]

Figure 7.74: Comparison between behaviours of samples that mobilized their intact strength or sheared along a pre-existing fissure (a) stress-strain

relationships (b) stress paths (c) Mohr's circles 326

Figure 7.75: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at low and medium pressures

Unit C peak p ost-ru pture Sub -Unit B 2(c) p eak pos t-ruptu re Sub -Unit B 2(b) peak p ost-ru pture Sub -Unit B 2(a) p eak pos t-ruptu re Unit A 3 peak po st-rup ture p re-ex is ting fis sures p eak p ost-ru pture p ost-ru pture env elope (Bu rland , 19 90) lower b oun d pre-existing fissures (Sk empton , 19 69) intrins ic stren gth env elo pe(Burland , 19 90)

600

400

[kPa]

200

0 0 -200 400 800 ' [kPa] 1200 1600

327

Unit C peak post-rupture Sub-Unit B2(c) peak

2000

post-rupture Sub-Unit B2(b) peak post-rupture Sub-Unit B2(a) peak post-rupture Unit A3 peak post-rupture pre-existing fissures peak post-rupture post-rupture envelope (Burland, 1990) lower bound pre-existing fissures (Skempton, 1969) intrinsic strength envelope (Burland, 1990)

1000 [kPa] 0 0 1000 2000 ' [kPa] 3000 4000

5000

-1000

Figure 7.76: Peak and post-rupture failure envelopes for samples from different lithological units at higher pressures

328

0
Samples failed along pre-existing fissures 33 % C B2(c )

Samples tested

10

33 %

depth below ground level [m]

15
50 % B2( b)

20

25
B2(a) 44 %

30
B1

35

12 % A3

40
Figure 7.77: Occurrence of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures

329

1.2

q/p*e

330

Intact strength P re-exis ting fissure s 0.8 7gkUC CSL* 0.4 no tension cut off 7gUC NCL* 0 0 0.4 7gUE -0.4 Figure 7.78: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit C 0.8 p'/p*e 1.2 1.6 SBS*

0.2

SBS*

no tension cut off

0.1 Sub-Unit B2(c)

q/p*e

Sub-unit B2(b) Sub-unit B2(a) pre-existing fissures 0 0 0.1 0.2 p'/p*e 0.3

-0.1

Figure 7.79: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures

331

1.2 Sub-Unit B2(c) Sub-unit B 2(b) Sub-unit B 2(a) Pre-existing fissures 0.8

q/p*e

0.4

no tension cut off

SBS*

0 0 0.4 0.8 p'/p*e 1.2 1.6

-0.4

Figure 7.80: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at higher pressures

332

1.2

Intact strength Pre-existing fissures 0.8

q/p*e

0.4 SBS*

0 0 0 .4 0.8 p'/p*e 1.2 1.6

-0.4 Figure 7.81: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit A 3

333

1.2 Unit A 3

U nits B2 and C Unit C 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B 2(c ) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B 2(b) 100mm 38mm Sub-unit B 2(a ) 100mm

0.8

q/p* e

0.4 SBS *

38mm Unit A 3 100mm 38m m Pre-existing fiss ures

0 0 0.4 0.8 p' /p*e 1.2 1.6

-0.4

Figure 7.82: Normalized SBS for samples from different lithological units at large stresses

334

1200

800

q [kPa] -8 -4

400

0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16 19.8isUC 21.7isDC 24.4gsUC 22gsUC

-400 600 400 u [kPa] 200 0 -8 -4 -200 0

(a )

4 a [%]

12

16

(b) v [%] -8 -4 2 0 -2 0 4 a [%] (c) 8 12 16

Figure 7.83: Large strain behaviour of samples from Unit B2 swelled to low stresses before shearing (a) stress-strain relationships (b) pore pressure changes (c) volumetric strains

335

3 19.8isUC 21.7isDC 22gsUC 24.4gsUC

q/p' -8 -4

0 0 4 a [%] 8 12 16

-1
Figure 7.84: Stress ratio for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing

336

Figure 7.85: Stress paths for samples swelled to low stresses before shearing

1200
9 , (1 64 )

b eb

800 B2(c) 38mm B2(c) 100mm B2(b) 38mm B2(b) 100mm B2(a) 38mm B2(a) 100mm Swelled to low stresses before shearing

q kPa]

400

21.7isDC

24gsUC 19.8isUC 0 0 22gsUC

400

800 p' [kPa]

1200

1600

-400

337

q/p*e

338
0.2 21.7isDC SBS* no tension cut off 22gsUC 0.1 24gsUC intact samples from Unit B2 swelled before shearing 0 19.8isUC 0 0.1 p'/p*e 0.2 0.3 -0.1 Figure 7.86: Normalized stress paths for samples from Unit B2 at low pressures

Figure 7.87: Consolidations along ko paths for samples from different lithological units
600 U nit C S ub-Unit B 2(c) S ub-Unit B 2(a) 400 in situ stress states U nit A 3 U nit C and Sub -Unit B2( c) S ub-Unit B 2(a) U nit A 3 7 gkU C 200 22.6gkUC 11g kUC 33.5g kUC

24.2gkU C

q [kPa]

3 6.3g

0 0 200 400 600 p' [k Pa] 800 1000 1200

-200

339

SMALL STRAIN BEHAVIOUR

8.1

Introduction

An extensive study of the behaviour of London Clay at small strains was carried out to evaluate the elastic parameters of this material, investigate the nature of the kinematic surfaces and define their relationship with the lithology of the clay.

Static and dynamic probes were performed on samples from lithological Units C, B2(c), B2(a) and A3, consolidated to their estimated in situ stresses as described in Appendix 5.1. The shear moduli of the clay in the horizontal and vertical directions were measured with bender elements along the approach stress paths and at the in situ stress state. A single shot sine wave was used with a frequency range between 3kHz and 12kHz, depending on the depths of the samples. The signal was always found to be very clear, due to the stiffness of the clay and the dimensions of the samples, which reduced the refraction effects of the transmitted wave. The bender element signals were interpreted with both the first arrival method and the frequency method, as described in Section 2.5.1. These two methods always showed a very good agreement of the results. The other elastic parameters, Youngs moduli and Poissons ratios, were measured from the static probes performed at the in situ stress states for each lithological unit. The static probes were fully drained and stress controlled and they were performed during the periods when the mid-height pore pressure transducer was less influenced by the temperature changes (see Section 5.3.6). For a few days before probing and also during the probes, the triaxial cells were wrapped in bubble paper and aluminium foil to reduce the temperature effects on the samples.

Similar sets of static probes were performed on the different samples, which were, basically, axial compression and extension, radial compression and extension and probes at p constant and q constant. The reasons for performing 341

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

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

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

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

342

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

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

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

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

8.2 Lithological Unit C


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

343

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

345

8.2.3

Monotonic loading tests

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

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

346

8.2.5

Kinematic surfaces

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

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

347

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

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

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

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

348

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

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

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

349

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

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

350

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

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

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

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

351

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

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

352

(c) Elastic parameters Table 8.5 summarises all the elastic parameters for Sub-Unit B2(c) as derived from the static and dynamic probes and from undrained shearing. There seems to be consistency in the measurements between the two samples. For both samples, the Youngs modulus in the vertical direction Ev measured from extension probes is lower than the value measured from the compression probes. As for Unit C, the Poissons ratios hh and vh can be assumed to be zero. The combination of the drained elastic parameters respects the boundary conditions (Equations 2.162.18) and gives good agreement between the measured and the calculated values of the bulk modulus and the coupling moduli, but the measured equivalent shear modulus is larger than the value calculated from Equation A5.18.

There do not seem to be significant differences in the elastic region between the rotary core sample, 12.5gUC, and the block sample, 11gUC, which confirm the result already observed at large strains (Section 7.3.5) and prove the high quality of the rotary core samples used in the present research. (a) Kinematic surfaces Figure 8.32 shows the Y1 surface measured from the drained probes and the monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(c). The Y1 surface seems centred around the initial stress point. The yield points determined by the probes on the block sample, 11gUC, plot together with those determined by the probes on the rotary core sample, 12.5gUC confirming that no differences due to sample quality could be seen. The yield point derived from the monotonic loading at a faster rate (12.5gUC) plots slightly above the others, probably due to a small strain rate effect. The Y1 yield points are characterized by the same value of the incremental strain energy of about 0.6-1x10-5kJ/m3 as shown in Table 8.6.

The monotonic loadings of Samples 11gUC, 12.5gUC and 11gDE and the compression of Sample 11gkUC along a ko path were used to determine the Y2 yield points. Figures 8.33 and 8.34 show the change of pore pressure with increasing deviatoric stress and the Y2 yield points for the undrained tests, 11gUC and 12.5gUC. Figure 8.35 shows the change of shear strain s with

353

volumetric strain v for the drained loading of Sample 11gkUC and the drained extension of Sample 11gDE. The Y2 surface is plotted in Figure 8.36. It seems to have a rounded shape, slightly more elongated towards the compression side, again probably due to the proximity of the failure line in extension. The surface does not seem to be affected by strain rates since the samples used to derive the yield stresses were loaded at different strain rates, which are indicated in the figure. (b) Stiffness degradation Figure 8.37 shows the shear stiffness degradation curves for Samples 11gUC, 12.5gUC and 11gDE, each sheared from the in situ stress state. Samples 12.5gUC and 11gDE were strain controlled from the start of the shearing, while Sample 11gUC was initially stress controlled up to about s=0.1% and then strain controlled. The change from stress to strain control is indicated in the figure and corresponded to a point well beyond the Y2 yield. For Samples 11gUC and 12.5gUC, the elastic stiffness Geq measured with the local instrumentation is consistent with the measurements obtained with the bender element tests. Sample 12.5gUC has a stiffness that degraded faster than that of Sample 11gUC, although this could be due to the difference in the shearing procedure as Sample 12.5gUC was strain controlled and consequently sheared at faster rates than Sample 11gUC. At shear strains of about 0.01%, the stiffness curves of the two samples converge. The resolution of the local instrumentation of Sample 11gDE, tested in the medium pressure apparatus, did not allow the measurement of the elastic stiffness. The stiffness degradation is the fastest for this sample, which was sheared drained and in extension towards the failure line. The direction of the outgoing stress path and the destructuration due to the volumetric strains probably give rise to this. Arrows in the figure indicate the locations of the Y2 yield points. 8.3.2 Sub-Unit B2(a)

A total of seven samples (22.6gUC, 23gUE, 25gUC, 24g37DC, 24gsUC, 24.2gkUC 22gsUC) were consolidated to the in situ stress state of p=420kPa and q=-155kPa for this sub-unit, as described in Appendix 5.1. The 100mm

354

Sample 25gUC was directly sheared undrained to failure. Samples 22.6gUC, 23gUE and 24g37DC, also 100mm diameter samples, were each subjected to static and dynamic probes. Samples 22.6gUC and 23gUE were then sheared undrained to failure, while Sample 24g37DC was reconsolidated to the in situ stress point estimated for Unit A3 and there subjected again to static and dynamic probes that will be described in the next section. The 38mm diameter sample, 24.2gkUC, was consolidated along a ko path and the other two 38mm diameter samples, 22gsUC and 24gsUC, were both swelled to very low pressures before shearing to failure. Only the 100mm samples and Sample 24gkUC could be used to study the elastic region, while the other samples, 22gsUC and 24gsUC were used to derive only the Y2 yield points. The approach stress path and the outgoing paths of samples from this unit are shown in Figure 8.38. (a) Bender element tests Dynamic probes with bender elements were performed on Samples 22.6gUC, 23gUE and 24g37DC at each significant stress point along the approach stress path, as shown in Figure 8.38. Table 8.7 summarises the values of the shear moduli Ghh and Ghv derived from the interpretation of the first arrival and the frequency methods. The characteristics of the signals were qualitatively similar to those described for Units C and B2(c) and the results of the interpretations are shown in Figures 8.39-8.41 for the three samples at their in situ stress states. The values of the shear moduli are consistent for the three samples, although slightly lower for Sample 23gUE. Although this sample, which was sheared in

extension, failed along a pre-existing fissure, unusual features were not found in the bender element signal, which was read and interpreted as for the other samples.

For all the samples, the shear moduli Ghh were always larger than Ghv and, at the in situ stress state, their ratio was between 2 and 2.1. Neither shear modulus seemed to change greatly during the approach stress paths, indicating that the inherent anisotropy of the samples was not disturbed by the reconsolidation.

355

(b) Static probes The creep and temperature conditions were checked before starting the static probes as described in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.3.1 and the creep rates in the 24h prior to starting the probes and the change of pore pressure with time during a day are plotted in Figures 8.42 and 8.43. Usually the probes on the samples from this sub-unit were performed during the night.

The results of the static probes are plotted in Figures 8.44-8.48. A stress increment of 0.3kPa/hour was used for the drained probes, corresponding to strain rates of between 0.0002-0.0006%/h, which are lower than the strain rates used for the shallower lithological units. The reduced stress rates in this unit were due to drainage problems, as the samples were less permeable than in Units C and B2(c). Only one successful q constant probe could be performed (24g37DC-qconst in Figure 8.48), which corresponded to the first part of the loading path carried out to consolidate Sample 24g37DC from the in situ stress state of the Sub-Unit B2(a) to the in situ stress state of the Unit A3. In Figure 8.49, the monotonic shearing stages of Samples 25gUC, 22.6gUC and 23gUE are shown. Tests 25gUC and 22.6gUC were undrained and strain controlled at rates of about 0.015%/h and 0.002%/h respectively. Sample 22.6gUC was supposed to be drained, but the rate of shearing used (0.002%/h) did not guarantee full drainage, therefore this test has been considered undrained although it was performed with the drainage tap open. The undrained stressstrain relationships of the two samples sheared in compression are coincident, despite the different stress rates. This will be observed later on samples from other units and will be discussed in Section 8.5.2.

Samples 25gUC and 23gUE failed along pre-existing fissures in compression and extension respectively, which reduced their large strain strength (see Figures 7.40 and 7.60). At small strains, though, their stress-strain curves do not seem to be affected by these fissures, so that, as discussed in the next section, their elastic

356

parameters were consistent with the values found for Samples 22.6gUC and 24g37DC, which mobilised their intact strength. (c) Elastic parameters Table 8.8 summarises the elastic parameters measured for this unit. There seems to be consistency between the values for the various samples tested. The ratio Eh/Ev varies between 2.2 and 2.6 and is larger than the values measured for the shallower units. The combination of the elastic parameters, for each sample, respects the boundary conditions (Equations 2.16-2.18) and predicts the bulk and the equivalent shear moduli quite well. The undrained Youngs moduli Euv are also well predicted by the combination of the drained parameters. The measured coupling moduli, show a larger variability and Jqp and Jpq are not in agreement. The values calculated from Equation A5.20 suggest that Jqp is unexpectedly low. As mentioned before, the pre-existing fissures along which Sample 23gUE failed produced no effects on the values of the elastic parameters. This sample failed mobilising the pre-existing fissure only at large strains, so that, when closed, this fissure did not have any influence on the behaviour. (d) Kinematic surfaces The Y1 surface for this unit is plotted in Figure 8.50 in both stress and strain planes. In the stress plane, the surface seems rounded and centred around the initial stress point, while in the strain plane the surface is orientated obliquely across the plane. All the yield points are characterized by the same incremental strain energy, which is about 1-2.4x10-5kJ/m3, as shown in Table 8.9, and is consistent with the values found for the shallower units. There seems to be only a little influence of the strain rate on the yield points in the stress plane, particularly in compression, where the yield points derived from the monotonic loadings (open marks in Figure 8.50) plot slightly above those derived from the drained probes, which were performed at lower strain rates. Samples 23gUE, and 25gUC failed along pre-existing fissures, but this is not evident from the Y1 surface.

357

For the measurements of the Y2 surface, the data from all the seven samples were used, so that the contour of Y2 could be derived in different directions. For the drained tests, the Y2 yield points coincided with a change in the shear strain:volumetric strain curves, as shown in Figure 8.51, and for the undrained tests, it was derived from a change of gradient of the pore pressure plotted against axial stress, as shown in Figure 8.52. For Sample 22.6gUC, which, as mentioned before, was sheared with the drainage tap open, the change of pore pressure has been measured from the mid-height probe. It seems slightly lower than the change of pore pressure measured on Sample 25gUC, but the difference is not large. The Y2 surface is plotted in Figure 8.53 and seems to be centred on the initial stress point. An elliptical shape is suggested by the type and the number of tests performed, although the reasons for this shape are not clear and probably more tests on different directions are needed to define the Y2 shape with better accuracy. The centred position of the Y2 surface might also be due to the fact that the reloading part of the approach stress path might have moved inside the recent stress history surface, so that the outgoing stress paths were not affected by recent stress history effects. This seems contradictory, though, with the centred shape obtained for samples from Units C and B2(c), whose approach stress path (Figure 8.1) was sufficiently long to believe that it moved outside the recent stress history surface. As discussed in the next section, probable counteracting effects of stress history and failure line vicinity influenced the Y2 shape. There does not seem to be any influence on the Y2 surface of the preexisting fissures along which Samples 23gUE and 25gUC failed. The tests were conducted at slightly different strain rates, which are reported in the figure. The contour of the Y2 surface is probably slightly affected by rate effects, which induce the yield points of the samples loaded at faster rates to plot slightly above the others. The effect of the strain rate, though, seems very small. The contour of the Y2 surface is characterized by the same incremental strain energy of between 3-4x10-4kJ/m3 (Table 8.9). (e) Stiffness degradation Stiffness degradation curves are plotted in Figure 8.54 for Samples 22.6gUC, 23gUE and 25gUC and arrows on the figure indicate the Y2 yield points. The three curves are virtually coincident, although a faster degradation would have 358

been expected for Sample 23gUE, which was sheared towards the failure line in extension. The reasons for this are not clear. Probably the stress state was sufficiently far from the failure line and was not influenced by this or its effects might be counteracted by recent stress history effects. Considering only recent stress history, Sample 23gUE would be expected to be stiffer than Sample 22.6gUC because it has a larger angle of rotation from the approach stress path. Recent stress history effects will be discussed in the next chapter and it will be shown there that there exists a relationship between consolidation strains and creep strains that allow the effects of recent stress history to be seen. For both samples 22.6gUC and 23gUE, creep was allowed to reduce to negligible values before shearing, and the approach stress path was chosen so that a minimum disturbance would be applied to the samples. If this was the case, and if the initial stress state of the samples was sufficiently far from the failure line, the creep period at the current stress state would have been able to erase the effects of strains developed during the approach stress path, so that the creep in effect became the recent stress history for the samples and induced both samples to behave similarly, regardless the angles of rotation of the shearing paths from the direction of the approach stress path. If the effects of strains induced in the samples in the approach stress path had not been erased by the creep at the in situ stress, a stiffer behaviour would have been expected for the sample sheared in extension due to the larger angle of rotation that this forms with the direction of the approach stress path. In this case, the identical stiffness behaviour of the two samples is only explained if counteracting effects of the recent stress history and the proximity of the failure line are assumed, so that the stiffer behaviour induced by the recent stress history is counteracted by the softening induced by the proximity of the failure line in extension. These difficulties in distinguishing the influence of different factors on the sample behaviour, led to a separate study of the effects of recent stress history, but starting from isotropic stress states, which will be discussed in Chapter 9.

The stiffness degradation curves of Samples 25gUC and 23gUE do not seem to be affected by the pre-existing fissures along which these samples failed. Their stiffnesses had already reached very low values when the failure planes

359

formed, so probably at small to medium strains these were still closed and did not influence the stiffness degradation of the whole sample.

8.4 Unit A3
A total number of seven samples, (31.4gUE, 36.3g, 33.5gkUC, 36lgUC, 36.3gUE, 36.5gDC and 38.7lgUC) were consolidated to the in situ stress state for this unit, corresponding to p=510kPa and q=-126kPa. The 100mm Samples 36lgUC and 38.7gUC followed the long approach stress paths, as described in Appendix 5.1 and were then sheared undrained to failure. The other samples were consolidated along the short approach stress paths. The 38mm Sample 36.3g was loaded along a ko path from the in situ stress state, but was not sheared due to a compressor failure. The 38mm Sample 33.5gkUC was compressed at constant q from the in situ state, then joined the anticipated ko path with a p constant compression. After further compression along the ko path it was finally sheared undrained from a compressive anisotropic state.

Dynamic probes were conducted on Samples 31.4gUE, 36.5gDC and 36.3UE along the approach stress path and static probes were conducted on Samples 31.4gUE and 36.3gUE, although the latter sample was not sheared successfully to failure as a leak occurred and the test was abandoned. Sample 31.4gUE actually belongs to Sub-Unit B2(a), but, at the time of testing, it had been believed to belong to Unit A3 because, as mentioned before, uncertainties still existed about the division of the lithological units until the later stages of the research. The behaviour of this sample was useful for the investigation of the relationship between the effects of the initial stress states and the lithology of the clay on its behaviour. Figure 8.55 shows the approach and the outgoing stress paths for all the samples.

Finally, for Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a), after static probes at the in situ stress state of its own unit, it was re-consolidated to the in situ stresses of the Unit A3 and subjected again to static probes before shearing to failure. In the analysis of the results of the tests in this unit, the comparison between the

360

samples that naturally belong to Unit A3 and those that were consolidated to the stress state of this unit will be highlighted. 8.4.1 Bender elements tests

The bender element tests were performed along the approach stress paths shown in Figure 8.55 and the results are given in Table 8.10. Two interpretation methods were applied as discussed for the other units, giving similar results, and the arrival times at the in situ stresses for the three samples are shown in Figures 8.56-8.58. Table 8.10 also includes the shear moduli measured on Sample 24g37DC consolidated to the in situ stress state for Unit A3. For Samples 36.5gDC and 36.3gUE that belong to Unit A3, the values of Ghh and Ghv are similar and are generally slightly larger than those measured on Samples 31.4gUE and 24g37DC that naturally belong to Sub-Unit B2(a). The correlation between the lithology of the clay and shear modulus will be discussed in detail in Section 8.5. 8.4.2 Static probes

The periods chosen for the probes and the creep rates before probing are shown in Figures 8.59 and 8.60. Virtually no creep could be measured before starting the probes.

The drained probes were stress controlled at rates of 0.3kPa/h, corresponding to strain rates between 0.0002-0.0006%/h. In Figures 8.61-8.67, the results of the probes are shown. The axial and radial probes on Sample 36.3gUE are plotted separately with those on Samples 24g37DC and 31.4gUE for clarity. In axial compression, the three samples behaved similarly, giving similar Youngs moduli and Poissons ratios (Figures 8.61 and 8.62). In radial compression (Figures 8.63 and 8.64), Sample 36.3gUE shows a stiffer response than the other two samples, which are in good agreement, as shown in a summary graph in Figure 8.65. In the horizontal direction, therefore, the lithology of the clay seems to have an influence on the sample behaviour that does not depend only on the stresses applied. The larger horizontal stiffness in Unit A3 in comparison with Sub-Unit B2(a) is consistent with the different structures of the clays from these 361

units observed in the SEM analyses (see Chapter 6), so that the larger horizontal stiffness in Unit A3 could be attributed to the more packed and orientated structure of the clay in this stratum. In Section 8.5, the effects of the lithological units on the small strain behaviour of the clay will be discussed in detail.

The bulk and shear moduli were measured from the probes shown in Figures 8.66 and 8.67.

The monotonic loadings of the samples tested at this stress level are shown in Figure 8.68. The axial compressions of the undrained Samples 36lgUC and 38.7lgUC are coincident, although Sample 36lgUC was sheared at a strain rate of 0.01%/h, about 10 times faster than Sample 38.7lgUC, which was sheared at a rate of about 0.001%/h. The axial compressions of the drained samples, 36.5gDC and 24g37DC, are similar, although they were sheared at different shear rates of 0.002%/h and 0.005%/h respectively. Their stress-strain curves are however slightly stiffer than the static probes, as shown in Figure 8.69, where the monotonic loadings are compared with the static Probe 36.3gUE-ac. The static probe was performed at a strain rate ten times slower than the monotonic loadings and its slightly less stiff behaviour is probably influenced by this. The strain rate effect seems very small and the fact that for the same strain rate differences only the drained samples seem to be affected by strain rate effects might suggest that undissipated pore pressures might be a factor.

Sample 36lgUC failed in compression along a pre-existing fissure, which induced a reduction of its strength. As already discussed in the previous sections, the small strain behaviour of this sample did not seem to be affected by the presence of the fissure and it behaved like other intact samples. It was shown in Section 7.3.7 that also at medium strains the pre-existing fissures did not affect the behaviour (see Figure 7.69), unless multiple failure planes formed. This suggests that perhaps the pre-existing fissures only influence the sample behaviour when displacements start to occur along them.

362

8.4.3

Elastic parameters

The elastic parameters measured from the above tests are summarised in Tables 8.11 and 8.12. As mentioned, the drained Youngs moduli in the vertical direction are similar for samples that naturally belong to Unit A3 and those that belong to Sub-Unit B2(a). The undrained moduli in the vertical direction, though, are larger for the samples from Unit A3 than for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a). Horizontally, Sample 36.3gUE, from Unit A3 is slightly stiffer and shows a slightly larger Poissons ratio hv. The other Poissons ratios hh and vh are nearly zero for all the samples, as for the other lithological units. The ratio Eh/Ev is between 2.4 for the samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and 2.6 for the sample from Unit A3. The combinations of the elastic parameters respect the boundary conditions and predict the bulk modulus, the equivalent shear modulus and the undrained parameters quite well for each sample. 8.4.4 Kinematic surfaces

In Figure 8.70, the Y1 surface is shown in both stress and strain planes. The difference between the original lithological units of the samples is highlighted in the graphs, but all the points seem to plot on a unique contour for the elastic region. In the stress plane, the Y1 surface seems centred around the initial stress state, and a small influence of the strain rates can probably be observed, so that the yield stresses found from the monotonic loadings, sheared faster, plot slightly above those found from the drained probes, at lower strain rates. There is no evidence of effects of the pre-existing fissures along which Samples 36lgUC and 31.4gUC failed. All the points on the Y1 contour are characterized by the same incremental strain energy of about 1.2-3x10-5kJ/m3 (Table 8.13).

The Y2 surface was again identified for each sample considering the relationships between shear and volumetric strains for drained tests and the relationship between the pore pressure and the deviatoric stress for the undrained tests. The 38mm Samples 36.3g and 33.5gkUC were also used. The data are plotted in Figure 8.71. The yield stresses derived from the above curves plot

together around a unique contour, as shown in Figure 8.72. In the stress plane,

363

the Y2 surface seems again to be quite centred around the initial stress state and there does not seem to be an influence of the pre-existing fissures along which Samples 36lgUC and 31.4gUC failed. It is difficult to notice differences due to the strain rates, which were about 0.015%/h for the undrained samples and 0.002%/h for the drained samples. Samples 31.4gUE and 36.3gUE, although undrained, were stress controlled at the beginning of the shearing, at a rate of 2kPa/h, corresponding to strain rates of 0.0005%/h, comparable to the strain rates of the shear probes. As mentioned above, Sample 36.3gUE could not be sheared successfully to failure. The contour of the Y2 surface is characterized by the same value of incremental strain energy of around 3-4x10-4kJ/m3, with the exception of Samples 31.4gUE, which showed a lower value of 0.8x10-4kJ/m3 (Table 8.13). 8.4.5 Strain rate dependency

For all the units, a small strain rate effect was observed that influenced the location of the yield stress Y1, which was slightly larger for faster strain rates. This effect, though, seems also to be associated with the test procedures so that drained tests showed larger strain rate effects than undrained tests, which seemed strain rate independent (see Figures 8.68, 8.69). Within the strain rate range used for the drained probes (0.0002-0.0006%/h), no significant strain rate effects could be observed in the definition of Y1 and only small effects appeared for an increase in the rates of at least one order of magnitude. The stress-strain relationships and therefore the elastic parameters, seemed only slightly influenced by strain rate effects (Figure 8.69), so that the maximum difference between drained probes performed at rates with one order of magnitude difference of strain rates, was not larger than 3-4% (see Table 8.14). This is consistent with the literature (Tatsuoka et al., 1998). The strain rate did not seem to have any effect on the location of the Y2 yield points. The fact that the stressstrain relationship of drained probes are more affected by strain rate effects, which only appear for the strain rate changes larger than a certain order, suggests that pore pressure effects might be involved in the strain rate effects. The identification of Y2 accounts for pore water pressure as it is defined by the relationships between strains or between stresses and the pore pressure. This

364

suggests that, when dealing with strain rate effects, pore water pressure dissipation has be taken into account. 8.4.6 Stiffness degradation

The stiffness degradation curves with strain are plotted in Figure 8.73 for Samples 36lgUC, 36.5gDC, 38.7lgUC that naturally belong to Unit A3. The Y2 yields points correspond to the strains when the stiffness curves start to bend downwards more rapidly. There is virtually no difference between the stiffness degradation of the two undrained samples 36lgUC and 38.7lgUC, at small and medium strains, although Sample 36lgUC failed along a pre-existing fissure. The stiffness degradation for the drained Sample 36.5gDC, also plotted in Figure 8.73, is faster than for the undrained tests. In Figure 8.74, the stiffnesses of the two drained samples 36.5gDC and 24g37DC are compared. The two samples naturally belong to two different units but were consolidated to the same stresses, and show a similar stiffness degradation with strain. The stiffness degradation curve of Sample 31.4gUE is also included in Figure 8.74. This sample seems to have the same stiffness degradation curve as the two samples sheared in drained compression, even if the stress state is moving more quickly towards the failure line. Recent stress history effects might have affected the behaviour of these samples, as discussed in Section 8.3.1 for Sub-Unit B2(a).

8.5 Influence of the lithological unit

8.5.1

Elastic parameters

Table 8.14 summarises the elastic parameters measured in the different lithological units using averages of the results from the static and dynamic probes on each sample. The variation of the parameters with depth is shown in Figures 8.75-8.77.

In each lithological unit, the clay is stiffer horizontally than vertically, as demonstrated by Ghh and Eh being greater than Ghv and Ev respectively and by the

365

values of the Poissons ratios. The shear moduli Ghh and Ghv increase with depth, but their ratio Ghh/Ghv is almost constant around 2, being smaller, around 1.8 only for shallower depths, as shown in Figure 8.78. This is consistent with literature data (see Table 3.3). The Youngs moduli Ev and Eh also vary with depth, increasing particularly in the horizontal direction, so that the ratio Eh/Ev increases from about 1.5 in Unit C to about 2.6 in Unit A3. The Poissons ratios hh and vh are both approximately zero, but hv seems to increase with depth, which is consistent with the increase in horizontal stiffness with depth. The lower value of hv in Unit C might reflect the more open and less orientated structure of the clay in this unit.

The bender elements readings taken during the isotropic parts of the approach stress paths to the in situ stress state are plotted in Figure 8.79 for the different lithological units. The data obtained from the tests on samples from Sub-Unit B2(b), which will be discussed in Chapter 9, are also included in the graphs. The shear modulus Ghv does not seem to be greatly influenced by the stresses applied and the curves in the logG-logp plane are almost flat. The shear modulus Ghh, instead, seems to be more influenced by the stresses applied. The shear moduli in both directions plot on different lines that clearly depend on the lithology of the clay. A unique line seems to exist for all the sub-units of Unit B2 and this line plots between the lines for Unit A3 and Unit C, which is the lowest. The gradient of these lines seems to be around 0.2. The behaviour of London Clay, therefore, is not only affected by the stresses applied, as might be interpreted from Figures 8.75 and 8.76, but clearly seems to depend on the lithological characteristics of the clay. The nature of the clay does not seem to have an influence, but this behaviour seems consistent with the observed variation of the structure of the clay in the different lithological units from an open structure to a structure that becomes more packed and orientated with depth. In Figure 8.80, the results at higher stresses analysis are also included. The data refer to Gvh as they were measured on a sample having vertically mounted bender elements in the high pressure triaxial apparatus. The trend of Gvh variation with pressure is consistent with the variation of Ghv, which confirms that Ghv is about equal to Gvh for London Clay, as discussed in Section 3.5.7.

366

The trend of the variation of shear moduli with stresses holds also when the initial volume of the soil is considered by normalising the pressures by the equivalent pressure p*e. This normalisation is shown in Figure 8.81. For overconsolidated clay, the relationship between G and p, from Viggiani & Atkinson (1995) is: G=ApnOCRM (8.1)

Where OCR is the overconsolidation ratio and A, n, and M are constants for each soil. In Figure 8.81, the shear moduli should have been normalised by pn, but no tests on reconstituted samples were available to define the value n, which defines the gradient of the logG:logp line for normally consolidated clays and is usually assumed to be between about 0.3 and 0.6 (see Section 3.5.7).

The influence of lithology on the elastic parameters is also confirmed by comparing samples from Units C and B2(c) that were consolidated to the same stress point and subjected to the same approach stress path. The samples from the two units showed different elastic parameters, which were larger for Sub-Unit B2(c) than for Unit C (Table 8.10). Similarly, Samples 24g37DC and 31.4gUE, from Sub-Unit B2(a), when consolidated to the stress state of Unit A3, showed larger elastic parameters than those measured on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a), due to the larger stresses applied, but these values were still smaller than those measured on samples that naturally belong to Unit A3 (Table 8.14). The trend shown by the shear moduli in Figure 8.75-8.77 and the values of the elastic parameters in Table 8.14 demonstrate a stiffer response for samples from deeper units. This behaviour is unlikely to depend on the nature of the clay, because, in this case, similar behaviour would be expected from samples having similar intrinsic proprieties, such as for Units C and A3. The index proprieties and the reconstituted samples showed, in fact, similarities in the intrinsic proprieties of the clay from these units that contain more silt particles, in comparison with the clay from Unit B2, which is more plastic (see Figures 6.24 and 6.25). The differences of stiffness of the clay in the elastic region are more

367

likely to be due to the structure of the clay, which is more packed and orientated in sub-horizontal domains for the deeper units (see Chapter 6). This is also confirmed by the horizontal stiffness being larger and more dependent on the unit than the vertical stiffness. 8.5.2 Kinematic Surfaces

(a) Y1 surface In Figure 8.82, the elastic surfaces derived for each unit are plotted together in a plane of stress changes from the initial stress points, so that the initial stress states for the different units coincide. The size of the Y1 surfaces for Unit C and Sub-Unit B2(c) are smaller than the surfaces of the deeper units. The shapes of the surfaces also seem slightly different, being more rounded for Units C and B2(c) and more elongated for the deeper units, B2(a) and A3, although this could just be due to a lack of data points in the directions of anisotropic swelling and compression for the deeper units.

In Figure 8.82b, the Y1 surfaces are plotted in a strain plane. There is some scatter in the results, particularly on the extension side for Unit B2(c), but the shapes of the Y1 surfaces seem qualitatively similar. There do not seem to be appreciable differences between the strains at the Y1 yield points for the different lithological units, which is consistent with the literature. Simpson et al (1975) and Jardine (1995) found that the region of larger stiffness is defined by similar strain values. Following Burland & Georgiannou (1996), the values of the incremental strain energy were considered to define the contours of the kinematic surfaces and similar values of incremental strain energy were found for all the units, independently of the consolidation stresses and on the lithology of the clay. The significance of the incremental strain energy was discussed in Section 2.4 and the analysis in terms of energy will be discussed in the next section.

The data in Figure 8.82 refer to changes of stresses from the initial stress state for samples that had been consolidated to different stresses. These differences are taken into account in Figure 8.83, where the stress contours of the elastic

368

surfaces are normalised by the corresponding initial effective stresses for each unit. In a normalised plane, all the Y1 surfaces for the different lithological units seem to plot together on a unique curve. The Y1 surface seems centred on the initial stress state and there does not appear to be any influence of the preexisting fissures along which some of the samples failed at large strains. If the slight differences in the Y1 yield locus shape identified in Figure 8.82 are ignored, a unique locus may be identified for all units on the normalised plot. (b) Y2 surface In each unit Y2 has been found to correspond to the point at which stiffness degradation accelerates and, although the soil behaviour does not seem recoverable within this region, it will be shown in Chapter 9 that the plastic strains developed in this region do not cause hardening.

In Figure 8.84 the Y2 surfaces for the different units are plotted together in a plane of stress changes. The Y2 surfaces seem to have different sizes and orientations, which can be better seen when the consolidation stress paths for the different units are also considered (Figure 8.85). The size of the Y2 surface seems smaller for shallower units, where also the Y2 surface is more orientated towards the compression side, probably due to the combined effects of the closer proximity of the failure line in extension and perhaps a recent stress history of the clay from these depths because of the different approach paths used (see Section 8.2.5).

In Figure 8.86, the initial consolidation stresses are taken into account, and the Y2 yield stresses have been normalised by their corresponding initial effective stresses. Again ignoring the differences in the shape apparent in Figure 8.85, a unique Y2 surface may now be identified, which is independent of the lithological unit of the clay. The Y2 surface seems to be quite well centred on the initial stress state, although probably not symmetric in the stress plane. More data points are needed, particularly on the extension side, to define better the Y2 locus.

369

The comparison of the clay behaviour for the different lithological units suggests that the lithology of the London Clay influences the small strain behaviour of this soil in such a manner that the magnitude of the various stiffness parameters not only depend on the stresses applied but are also influenced by the structure of the clay. The sizes of the kinematic surfaces, instead, seem to be dependent mostly on the stresses applied, so that, when the initial stresses are taken into account, it is difficult to appreciate differences between samples that belong to different lithological units. 8.5.3 Strain energy

Burland & Georgiannou (1996) showed that the soil stiffness can be characterised by the contour of the incremental strain energy (U=aa+2rr). This parameter was found to be useful in this research to compare the strain energy associated to different samples starting from different stress conditions. An analysis in terms of absolute energy (U= aa+2rr), was also conducted, which gave qualitatively similar results, but was found not to be very effective in representing the behaviour of the clays from different depths. The absolute strain energies developed by the samples during the consolidation stress paths were different depending on the consolidation stress paths and on the natural variability of the specimens. Typically, the total strain energy developed by the shallower samples, from Units C and B2(c), during the approach stress paths was between 0.5-1kJ/m3, while for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and Unit A3, the total strain energy ranged between 1-2kJ/m3 and 5-6kJ/m3 respectively. When loading from the in situ stress state, particularly in the small strain region, the change in strain energy is up to five orders of magnitude smaller than the total energy developed during the approach stress path. The variability of the values of the initial strain energy, even for samples from the same units consolidated to the same stresses, did not effectively allow an understanding to be developed of the differences in strain energy developed during the outgoing stress paths. The variability in the initial strain energy values arises from both the difference in strains developed during the approach stress paths and from the difference in stresses. Even for samples consolidated to the same stress state, the scatter in the initial stress values was 370

between 0.5-2kPa, which is small considering the consolidation stresses, but is quite large when used for the calculation of the strain energy at the yield points, which involve maximum stress changes that do not exceed 2kPa. Similar differences in the strain values also affected the calculation of the total strain energy. If the incremental strain energy is used, instead, a reference value of

zero is fixed at the in situ stress state for all the samples, regardless their approach stress paths, which was found to be convenient for comparing the different samples.

The incremental strain energies for samples from different lithological units during their outgoing stress paths are shown in Figures 8.87-8.89 in the plane of changes of radial and axial effective stresses. Incremental strain energy levels between 10-4 and 10-1kJ/m3 are considered. For each lithological unit, elliptic contours of the strain energies appear, having the long axis parallel to the horizontal direction, which indicates a stiffer behaviour of the clay in the horizontal direction (Burland & Georgiannou, 1996). The ellipses seem

asymmetrical and orientated towards the compression side, probably due to the closer proximity of the failure line in extension.

In Figure 8.90, the incremental strain energies for the different lithological units are plotted together. At very small strains, the contours of the incremental strain energy of all the samples are similar and there exists a unique contour for the 10-4kJ/m3 incremental strain energy, which approximately corresponds with the contour of the Y2 surfaces and confirms the coincidence of the normalised contours of the Y2 surfaces for the different units. At larger strains, the contours of the incremental strain energies for samples from Sub-Units B2(a) and B2(c) and Unit A3 coincide and are larger than the contours defined for the samples from Unit C. From the definition of the incremental strain energy, this difference can only be attributed to differences in the structure of the clay from the various lithological units. The scatter of the data for the incremental strain energy of the deeper units does not allow an investigation of any differences in structure between Units B2 and A3. These differences, however, are minor in comparison with the differences between these units and Unit C, so that only this major difference is highlighted in the data shown in Figure 8.90. 371

8.6 Effect of fissures on the elastic parameters


The fissured nature of the London Clay suggests that medium and large London Clay specimens are more likely to contain fissures (Skempton et al., 1969; Bishop et al., 1965; Sandroni, 1977; Costa-Filho, 1984). In Chapter 7, it was found that the pre-existing fissures only influence the large strain behaviour of the clay if they are orientated in such directions that are compatible with a failure mode. The investigation of the effects of pre-existing fissures in the samples at large strains was conducted after testing because usually it was not possible to see fissures during the trimming process. In the cases when preexisting fissures were noticed before testing, these never coincided with the failure plane. For this reason, though, only the orientation of fissures compatible with a failure mode could be identified with a post-testing analysis.

The analyses of the data in the previous sections showed that the pre-existing fissures did not have any effect on either the elastic parameters or the sizes of the kinematic surfaces Y1 and Y2. As mentioned in Section 8.4.1, the bender element signals did not detect any inconsistencies due to pre-existing fissures for any of the samples analysed in this chapter. However, the failure plane observed after testing does not always interrupt the travel path of the signal. The bender element signals could not be read only in one case, for Sample 11.9DE, from Sub-Unit B2(c). This sample was tested at an early stage of the research, when the modified approach stress path for the shallower units had not yet been adopted and the in situ stress state was believed to be at p=230kPa and q=-180 (see Appendix 5.1). The sample was being unloaded at constant p to reach this stress state and bender element tests were being performed during the approach stress path. At p=280 and q=-140 the shear moduli calculated on this sample with dynamic probes were 123MPa and 62MPa for Ghh and Ghv respectively, which were compatible with those found on other samples from the same unit at similar stress levels. For q values lower than 160kPa, though, the bender element signal could not be read, as the receiving signal appeared confused and anomalous. Soon after a shear plane was observed in the sample and the sample failed prematurely, prior to reaching the desired stresses. The confused received signal was therefore thought to be due to the presence of the failure plane through the 372

sample, which was inclined at 25o to the horizontal and cut the travel path of the shear wave. Since the sample did not mobilise its intact strength, it is likely that the fissure along which the samples sheared was already present in the sample before testing, and, beyond a certain stress level, p= 280kPa and q=-160kPa, it moved causing failure. The failure plane could be detected because some movement had occurred along it. This and the fact that the bender element signals could be read until this stress level, suggest that this fissure was closed and no movements had occurred along it below these stresses. Only when displacements occurred along the failure plane could the signal not be read, probably due to the discontinuity created by the shear plane. Unfortunately no electronic data for these bender elements tests are available.

Bender element tests were performed on Sample 17.3SH after it had been sheared to failure. This sample, from about 17m depth, was sheared undrained to failure from an isotropic state (see Section 5.3.5). After testing, the sample was taken back to isotropic conditions to remove the effects of any induced stress anisotropy, and bender element tests were again performed. The objective was to identify whether it was possible to read the wave signal sent through a sheared sample. No difficulties were found in reading and interpreting the wave signal, but the failure plane formed on this sample was such that it did not intercept the shear wave path. It was of Type 1a in Figure 7.48, (see Table 7.4 and Appendix 7.1) and was localised near the top platen. The bender element signal continued to travel trough the continuum part of the sample and did not intercept the discontinuity of the shear plane. In Figure 8.91 the wave signal through the sheared sample is shown. The range of frequencies in which the signal could be read was between 3-5kHz, lower than the range usually used, perhaps as a result of the destructuration of the sheared sample.

The results of Tests 11.9DE and 17.5SH seem to demonstrate that, when closed, the fissures present in the London Clay do not influence the sample behaviour at small strains. These conclusions are supported by the fact that the stiffness degradation curves of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures are not different from those of samples that mobilised their intact strength. The stiffness reduces to very low values before the strength on the fissures is 373

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

374

Stress state* A A B O after probes p [kPa] 200 220 260 260 260 q [kPa] 0.0 0.0 0.0 -85 -85 79 81 87 Ghh [MPa] 78

7gUC Ghv [MPa] 44 80 43 47 47 86 81 86 Ghh [MPa]

7gUE Ghv [MPa]

35 42 46 47

Table 8.1: Shear moduli during the consolidation stress paths for samples from Unit C (*refer to Figure 8.1)

375

Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 7gUC ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 rc3 pconst qconst 7gUE ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst1 pconst2 79 77 73 115 0.03 0.00 -0.03 0.45 35 34 39 74 88 61 81 80 121 140 113 -0.06 -0.01 -0.11 -0.08 -0.09 0.52 0.46 0.63 47 45 46 29 79 79 65 34 Eh [MPa] vh hh hv Geq [MPa] Eq. A5.18 K [MPa] Eq. A5.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq. A5.20 Euv [MPa] 103

Undrained Euh Eq. A5.21 138 [MPa] Eq.A5.22 200

117

198

Table 8.2: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit C

376

Strain Energy U at the in situ state Test 7gUC ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 rc3 pconst qconst 7gUE ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst1 pconst2 7gkUC 0.6 0.4 Probe [kJ/m3] 1.1

Incremental Strain Energy U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 1.0 / 0.8 / 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 / 0.8 0.7 0.7 / 0.9 6.2 3.3 Y2 E-4 [kJ/m3] 4.3

Table 8.3: Strain energy at the in situ and yield stresses for Unit C

Stress state* A B O after probes p [kPa] 218 260 260 260 q [kPa] 0.0 0.0 -85 -85 141 128 133 Ghh [MPa]

11gUC Ghv [MPa] Ghh

12.5gUC Ghv [MPa] 56 60 60 59

[MPa] 101

61 70 69

121 115 115

Table 8.4: Shear modulus during the approach stress paths for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (*refer to Figure 8.18)

377

Drained

Undrained K Eq. Eq. [MPa] A5.19 [MPa] [MPa] Jqp Jpq Eq. A5.20 [MPa] Euv Eq. A5.21 [MPa] Eq.A5.22 Euh

378
Test Probe 11gUC
ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 re pcon qcon1 qcon2

Ev [MPa]

Eh [MPa]

vh

hh

hv

Geq [MPa] A5.18

135 141 99 212 237 272

0.26 0.23 -0.08 -0.08 -0.07 0.06 0.82 0.74 0.79 122 59 90 115 92 115 103 121 182 182 140

12.5gUC
ac1 ac2 ae rc pcon

145 140 74 232

0.03 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.5 126 158 81 91 131

Table 8.5: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c)

Strain Energy U Test Probe at the in situ state [kJ/m3] 11gUC ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 re pcon qcon1 qcon2 12.5gUC ac1 ac2 ae rc pcon -0.1 -1.1

Incremental Strain Energy U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 1.0 / 0.8 / 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 / 0.8 0.7 0.7 / 0.94 6.2 3.3 Y2 E-4 [kJ/m3] 4.3

Table 8.6: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c)

379

Stress state* A A A 1 2 B 1 3 C D 2 O after probes p [kPa] 254 521 356 369 393 420 420 420 420 390 365 420 420 q [kPa] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35 -104 -194 -216 -208 -156 -156

22.6gUC Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa] Ghh

23gUE Ghv [MPa]

24g37DC Ghh [MPa] 139 Ghv [MPa] 79

[MPa]

182

86 156 145 157 71 74 72 71 71 173 91 134 76

155

78

153 143

164 165 161 166 170 171

77 76 76 75 81 81 159 159 75 74 180 182 91 91 159 154 73 77 178 179 87 80

Table 8.7: Shear moduli during the approach stress paths for the samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (*refer to Figure 8.38)

380

Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 22.6gUC ac rc pconst 23gUE ac1 ac2 rc 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 25gUC 144 148 114 270 317 136 120 313 -0.01 0.15 -0.01 -0.24 -0.11 0.74 0.86 89 76 70 72 50 117 138 196 0.14 0.12 -0.01 0.96 62 96 143 110 285 0.02 -0.16 0.84 70 66 61 55 116 190 Eh [MPa] vh hh hv Geq [MPa] Eq. A5.18 K [MPa] Eq. A5.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq. A5.20 Euv [MPa] 220

Undrained Euh Eq. A5.21 223 [MPa] Eq.A5.22 386

212

364

248

398

Table 8.8: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a)

381

Strain Energy U Test Probe at the in situ state [kJ/m3] 22.6gUC ac rc pconst 23gUE ac1 ac2 rc 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 25gUC 0.5 -0.9 -1.5 1.0

Incremental Strain Energy U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 0.9 / 1.2 1.5 1.1 / 1.0 / 0.9 2.4 0.9 2.3 2.4 1.0 0.9 0.9 3 3 4 Y2 10-4 [kJ/m3] 4

Table 8.9: Incremental strain energy for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a)

382

Stress state* A 1 2 B 3 2 C 4 D 5 O after probes p [kPa] 330 375 430 510 510 510 510 472 453 466 507 q [kPa] 0 0 0 0 -20 -106 -154 -168 -178 -165 -125

24g37DC Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa]

31.4gUE Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa]

36.5gDC Ghh [MPa] 217 220 210 Ghv [MPa] 97 97 97 121 115

36.3gUE Ghh [MPa] Ghv [MPa]

198 225

102 84

191

88

245 226

217 179 185 200 97 83 86 229 230 226 241 196 196 98 98 190 189 94 94 237 115 115 112 112 117 211 211 217 200 198

95 105 93 96

102 101

Table 8.10: Shear moduli for samples consolidated along the approach stress paths used for Unit A3 (*refer to Figure 8.55)

383

Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 36.3gUE ac rc1 rc2 qconst pconst 36.5gDC 36lgUC 38.6gUC 171 -0.15 263 294 141 391 390 0.14 -0.02 -0.02 1.17 1.16 139 121 134 72 246 62 173 Eh [MPa] vh hh hv Geq [MPa] Eq. A5.18 K [MPa] Eq. A5.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq. A5.20 Euv [MPa] 294

Undrained Euh Eq. A5.21 251 [MPa] Eq.A5.22 458

Table 8.11: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Unit A3

384

Drained Test Probe Ev [MPa] 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst qconst 31.4gUE ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 149 149 352 0.15 0.13 -0.04 -0.02 1.26 0.79 112 75 122 113 63 171 173 171 143 140 147 337 Eh [MPa] -0.04 0.07 0.11 0.05 -0.11 0.78 78 77 54 88 73 63 196 179 vh hh hv Geq [MPa] Eq. A5.18 K [MPa] Eq. A5.19 Jqp [MPa] Jpq [MPa] Eq. A5.20 Euv [MPa]

Undrained Euh Eq. A5.21 253 [MPa] 420

249

430

Table 8.12: Elastic parameters derived from static probes and monotonic loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3

385

Strain Energy U Test Probe at the in situ state [kJ/m3] 36.3gUE ac rc1 rc2 qconst pconst 36.5gDC 36lgUC 38.6gUC 24g37DC ac1 ac2 ae rc pconst 31.4gUE ac1 ac2 rc1 rc2 pconst qconst 8.4 3.5 5.8 5.1 2.6 4.5

Incremental Strain Energy U at Y1 10-5[kJ/m3] 4.0 1.3 / 1.6 2.5 3.1 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.2 Y2 E-4 [kJ/m3] /

0.8 2.8

/ 0.9 2.8 /

Table 8.13: Incremental strain energy for samples from Unit A3 and Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3

386

Depth Unit Test [m] C 7gUC 7gUE B2(c) 11gUC 12.5gUC 22.6gUC 23gUE B2(a) 24g37DC 24g37DC* 25gUC 31.4gUE* 36.3gUE A3 36.5gDC 36lUC 38.6gUC 31.4 36.3 36.5 36 38.6 7 7 11 12.5 22.6 23 24 36

Ghh [MPa] 87 86 128 115 170 159 180 189 190 211 228

Ghv Ghh/Ghv [MPa] 47 47 70 59 81 75 91 94 94 102 117 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0

Ev [MPa] 81 76 125 120 110 128 135 143 149 141 171

Eh Eh/Ev [MPa] 125 115 240 232 285 313 294 330 351 402 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.6

vh

hh

hv

Euv [MPa]

-0.04 -0.02 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.14 -0.15

-0.09 -0.03 -0.03 0.01 -0.16 0.01 -0.18 -0.05 -0.04 -0.02

0.54 0.45 0.87 0.50 0.84 0.96 0.82 0.76

103 193 182 220 190

196 1.04 1.17 196 294 263 294

*consolidated to the stress state of the Unit A3

Table 8.14: Average of the independent elastic parameters measured in the static and dynamic probes on samples from different lithological units

387

A 0 200 -20 220

A' 240

B 260 280

p'[kPa]

300

-40 q [kPa] -60 7gUC*

7gkUC

-80 in situ state -100 * samples used for static probes stresses for the bender element tests 0 7gUE*

Figure 8.1: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE

388

12 Frequency Method 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 D/ 3 4 5


Ghh Ghv theoretical line

p'=260kPa ; q=-86kPa

(a)

12 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0

Ghh first arrival Gvh first arrival frequency method

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 arrival time [sec] (b)

Figure 8.2: Measurements of the arrival time with bender elements for Sample 7gUC at the in situ stress point, (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods 389

12 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 D/ (a)

p'=260kPa ; q=-86kPa

G hh G hv theoretical line

Ghh first arrival

12 10 frequency [kHz] 8 6 4 2 0 300 400 500 600 arrival time [sec] (b)

Ghv first arrival frequency method

700

800

Figure 8.3: Arrival time from the interpretation of the bender element signals for Test 7gUE at the in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method

390

0.002 0.0015 0.001 da/dt [%/h] 0.0005 0 0 -0.0005 -0.001 4 8 12 16 20 24 time [h]

Figure 8.4: Creep rates in the 24h before starting the probes on the samples from Unit C

251

250 7gUC MHPP [kPa]

249 239

7gUE 238 periods chosen for probing 237 12:30 16:30 20:30 0:30 time [h] 4:30 8:30 12:30

Figure 8.5: Change of pore pressure with time due to temperature fluctuation and periods chosen for probing

391

2 a [kPa] 1 Y1 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 a [%]

Ev

-1

7gUC-ac1 7gUC-ac2
-2 (a) 0.002 vh 0.001

r [%] -0.003 -0.002

0 -0.001 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 a [%] 0.003

-0.002 (b)
Figure 8.6: Axial probes on Sample 7gUC. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains

392

2 a [kPa] Y1 1

Ev
0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 a [%]

-1 Y1 -2 (a)
7gUE-ac1 7gUE-ac2 7gUE-ae

r [%] -0.003 -0.002

0.002 0.001 0

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002

0.001 vh

0.002

0.003 a [%]

(b)
Figure 8.7: Axial compression for Test 7gUE. Axial strains plotted against (a) axial stress and (b) radial strains

393

2 r [kPa]

Eh/(1-hh) 1

0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 r [%]


7gUC-rc1 7gUC-rc2 7gUC-rc3 7gUE-rc 7gUC-re

-1

-2 (a) 0.0005 -2h v/(1-hh ) 0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 a [%] -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 r [%]

-0.001

-0.0015 (b)
Figure 8.8: Radial compression probes on Samples 7gUE and 7gUE radial strains plotted against (a) cell pressure (b) axial strains

394

1.6 G eq q [kPa] 1.2

Y1

0.8 (a) 0.4 7gUC-pconst 7gUE-pconst1 7gUE-pconst2 0 2 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.002

0 s [%]

1.6

q [kPa]

1.2 Jqp 0.8 (b)

0.4

0 0 0.0004 0.0008 s [%] 0.0012 0.0016 0.002

Figure 8.9: Probes at constant p' on samples from Unit C (a) equivalent shear modulus and (b) coupling modulus

395

2 p' [kPa] Y1 1 K

0 -0.001 0 0.001 v [%] 0.002 0.003

-1

7gUC-qconst -2 (a) 2 p' [kPa]

1 Jpq 0

-0.001

s [%]

0.001

0.002

-1

-2 (b)
Figure 8.10: Constant q probe for samples from Unit C (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus 396

0.004 da/dt [%/h]

Y1 7gUC 0.002

0 -0.003 7gUE Y1 -0.002 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 a [%] 0.003

-0.004

7gUC-ac1 7gUC-ac2 7gUE-ac1 7gUE-ac2 7gUE-ae 7gUE 7gUC

Figure 8.11: Strain rates for the probes and the monotonic loading tests for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE

397

2 q [kPa] 7gUC 1 Y1 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 a [%] 0.003 E uv

7gUE -1

-2
Figure 8.12: Monotonic shearing of samples 7gUC and 7gUE

398

q [kPa]

1 7gUC

Y1

0 -2 p' [kPa] -1 0 1 2

(a)

-1 7gUE

-2 drained probes undrained monotonic loading 0.003 s [%] Y1 0.0015

0 -0.003 -0.0015 v [%] -0.0015 0 0.0015 0.003

(b)

-0.003
Figure 8.13: Contour of the Y1 surface for Unit C in (a) stress space and (b) strain space

399

0.04 s [%]

Y2 0.02

0 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 v [%]

-0.02

-0.04

Figure 8.14: Y2 yield point for Sample 7gkUC


15 q [kPa] 7gUC 10 Y2

0 -15 -10 -5 -5 0 5 10 15 u [kPa]

-10 7gUE -15

Figure 8.15: Y2 yield points for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE

400

q [kPa]

15

10 7gUC 5 Y1 0 -15 -10 -5 -5 0

Y2 7gkUC

(a) 5 7gUE 10 15 p' [kPa]

-10

strain rates 0.002% /h 0.0015%/h 0.006% /h

-15 0 200 q [kPa] -20 220 240 260 280 300 p' [kPa]

-40

-60 (b) -80

-100
Figure 8.16: Y2 and Y1 surfaces for Unit C (a) plane of stress increments (b) plane of absolute stresses showing the approach stress path

401

150

Geq 7gUC 7gUE 100 G [MPa]

change from stress to strain control 50 Y2

7gUC

7gUE

Y2

0 0.0001 0.001 0.01 s [%] 0.1 1 10

Figure 8.17: Stiffness degradation curves for Samples 7gUC and 7gUE sheared to failure

402

A 0 200 -20 220 240

B 260 280

p'[kPa]

300

-40 q [kPa]

-60 11gUC* 12.5gUC* -80 0 in situ state -100 11gDE * sample s used for static probes stresses for the bender element tests

11gkUC

Figure 8.18: Consolidation stress paths and stresses for the bender element tests for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c)

403

12 p'=260kPa ; q=-85kPa frequency [kHz] 8

4 1/t arr 0 0 2 D/ 4

Ghh Ghv theoretical line

(a)
15 output signal [arbitrary unit] 10 5 0 0 -5 -10 -15 arrival time [msec] [sec] 500 1000 1500 2000

Ghv
transmitter

first arrival
receiver

frequency=5kHz

(b)
12 frequency [kHz]

8
Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method

0 300 400 500 arrival time [sec] 600 700

(c)

(c)

Figure 8.19: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 11gUC (a) frequency method (b) first arrival method for Ghv (c) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method

404

12 p'=260kPa ; q=-85kPa frequency [kHz]

4 1/t arr 0 0 2 D/ 4

Ghh Ghv theoretical line

(a)

Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method

12

frequency [kHz]

4 (b) 0

500 600 700 arrival time [sec] Figure 8.20: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 12.5gUC

300

400

(a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency method

405

302
12.5gUC 11gUC

M HPP [kPa]

300 238

236 22:00 3:00 8:00

periods chosen for probing 13:00 18:00 23:00 time [h]

Figure 8.21: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure with temperature during the day for samples from Sub-unit B2(c)

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002 da/dt

0 0 -0.0002 5 10 15 20 25 time [h]

-0.0004

-0.0006
Figure 8.22: Creep rates for Samples 11gUC and 12.5gUC in the 24 hours before probing

406

a [kPa]

0.8

12.5gUC-ac1 0.6

0.4

0.2 Ev 0 0 0.0001 0.0002 (a) 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 a [%] load unload

0.0001 r [%]

0 0 -0.0001 vh -0.0002 (b) Figure 8.23: Linear elastic behaviour in an axial compression probe on
Sample 12.5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005 a [%]

407

a [kPa]

Y1 1

Ev 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 a [%]

-1 Y1
11gUC-ac1 11gUC-ac2 11gUE-ae

-2 (a) 0.002 r [%] 0.001 vh 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 (b)
Figure 8.24: Axial compression probes on Sample 11gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

0.001

0.002

0.003 a [%]

408

a [kPa]

2 Y1 1 Ev 0

-0.003

-0.002

-0.001

0.001

0.002

0.003 a [%]

-1 Y1 -2 (a) 0.002 0.001 vh 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 (b)


Figure 8.25: Axial compression and extension probes on Sample 12.5gUC (a) stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains
12.5gUC-ac2 12.5gUC-ae

r [%]

0.001

0.002

0.003 a [%]

409

r [kPa]

h/(1-hh) 0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 r [%]

-1

12.5gUC-rc 11gUC-rc1 11gUC-rc2 11gUC-re

-2 0.0005 a [%]

(a)

-2hv/(1-hh) 0 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 r [%]

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005 -0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015 (b)
Figure 8.26: Radial compression and extension probes for samples from SubUnit B2(c), radial strains plotted against (a) radial stress and (b) axial strain

410

2 Y1 q [kPa] 1

G eq 0 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 s [%] 0.0015 0.002

-1 (a) q [kPa] 3 11gUC-pconst 12.5gUC-pconst 2

1 J qp 0 -0.0005 -1 (b)
Figure 8.27: Probes at constant p on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) shear modulus (b) coupling modulus

0.0005 0.001 v [%]

0.0015

0.002

411

2 p' [kPa]

Y1 1 K 0

-0.001

0.001

0.002

0.003 v [%]

-1 unsuccessful probe -2 (a) 2 p' [kPa]

11gUC-qconst1 11gUC-qconst2 12.5gUC-qconst

Jpq 0 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 s [%]

-1

-2 (b)
Figure 8.28: Constant q probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus 412

0 0

time of probing [h] 4 6

10

u [kPa]

-0.4

start of the reversal path

-0.8

-1.2

12.5gUC-qconst

(a )

1 a[%] 0.002

-0.003

-0.002

-0.001 Y1

0 0

a [kPa] 0.001

0.003

-1

-2 (b)
Figure 8.29: Constant q probe on Sample 12.5gUC replotted as an undrained test (a) change of pore water pressure at the mid-height during the probe (b) stress-strain curve

413

12.5gUC-ae 1

0 -0.0025 -0.002 a [%] -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 Ev -1 Y1 -2 (a) 0.002 0

0.0015 r [%] 0.001 0.0005 vh 0 -0.0025 -0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 a [%] (b)
Figure 8.30: Hysteretic behaviour in a cyclic probe on Sample 12.5gUC (a)stress-strain plot (b) axial and radial strains

-0.0005

414

a [kPa]

2 q [kPa]

1 E uv Y1 0

-0.003

-0.002

-0.001

0.001

0.002

0.003 a [%]

-1
11gUC 12.5g UC

-2
Figure 8.31: Monotonic loadings for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c)

415

12.5gUC 1 11gUC

0 -2 -1 0 1 p' [kPa] 2

-1 11gUC-probes 12.5gUC-probes monotonic loadings (a) 0.003 s [%]

-2

0.0015

0 -0.003 -0.0015 0 0.0015 v [%] 0.003

-0.0015

-0.003 (b)

Figure 8.32: Y1 yield points for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress space (b) strain space

416

q [kPa]

15

10 q [kPa]

Y2

0 0 5 u [kPa] 10 15

Figure 8.33: Y2 yield point for Sample 12.5gUC


15

10 q [kPa]

5 Y1

Y2

0 0 5 u [kPa] 10 15

Figure 8.34: Y2 yield point for Sample 11gUC

417

0.04 s [%] 0.02 Y2 0 -0.04 -0.02 Y2 0 0.02 v [%] 0.04 -0.02 11gkUC 11gDE -0.04
Figure 8.35: Y2 yield points for Samples 11gkUC and 11gDE 418

q [kPa]

15

10 12.5gUC 5 11gUC Y1 0 -15 -10 -5 -5 11gDE -10 strain rates 0.0005%/h 0.01%/h -0.0005% /h 0.01%/h 260 280 300 p' [kPa] 0 5 10 15 p' [kPa] 11gkUC (a) Y2

-15 0 200 q [kPa] -20 220 240

-40

(b) -60

-80

Y2

-100
Figure 8.36: Y2 surface for Sub-Unit B2(c) (a) stress increment space (b) absolute stress space showing approach stress path 419

150

Y2 100 G [MPa]

11gUC 12.5gUC 11gDE G eq 11gUC G eq 12.5gUC

50

change from stress to strain control for Sample 11gUC

0 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 s [%] 0.1 1 10

Figure 8.37: Stiffness degradation for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c) sheared from their in situ stress state

420

p' [kPa] 200 0 A" 300 A' 1' 400 B 2' 3' 500 A 600

-100

22.6gUC * 25gUC

24.2gkUC 1 O 2 C 23gUE* 24g37DC*

q [kPa]

22gsUC 24gsUC -200

-300

* samples used for static probes -400 stress states for the bender element tests

Figure 8.38: Consolidation stress paths for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) and stress states for the bender element tests

421

12 p'=420kPa ; q=-156kPa frequency [kHz]

Ghh Ghv theoretical line

0 0 2 D/ (a) 4 6

16

G hh first arrival method G hv first arrival method frequency method

12 frequency [kHz]

0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [sec] (b) 600 700

Figure 8.39: Interpretation of the bender element signals for Sample 22.6gUC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods

422

16

frequency [kHz]

12

p'=420kPa ; q=-156kPa

G hh G hv theoretical line

0 0 2 D/ (a) 4 6

16

Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method

12 frequency [kHz]

0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [sec] (b)


Figure 8.40: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Sample 23gUE at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods

600

700

423

16

frequency [kHz]

12

p'=420kPa ; q=-156kPa

G hh G hv theoretical line

0 0 2 D/ (a) 4 6

16

Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method

12 frequency [kHz]

0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [msec] (b)


Figure 8.41: Interpretation of the bender element signal for Samples 24g37DC at its in situ stress state (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the first arrival and the frequency methods

600

700

424

235

234 208 MHPP [kPa]

207

206

probing times 205

22.6gUC 23gUE 24g37UC

23:00 3:00 7:00 11:00 time [h] Figure 8.42: Variation of the mid-height pore pressure during the day and

11:00

15:00

19:00

periods chosen for the static probes


0.0006

0.0004

0.0002 da /dt [%/h]

0 0 -0.0002 4 8 12 16 20 24 time [h]

-0.0004

-0.0006

Figure 8.43: Creep strain rates for samples from Sub-unit B2(a) in the 24 hours before probing 425

2 a [kPa] Y1 1 Ev 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 a [%] 0.003

-1 22.6gUC-ac 23gUE-ac1 23gUE-ac2 -2 (a) 0.002 r [%]

0.001

vh

0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 a [%] 0.003

-0.002 (b)
Figure 8.44: Axial compression and extension probes on Samples 22.6gUC and 23gUE (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

426

2
a [kPa]

1 Y1 Ev 0

-0.003

-0.002

-0.001

0.001

0.002 a [%]

0.003

-1
24g37DC-ac1 24g37DC-ac2 24g37DC-ae

-2 (a)
r [%]

0.002 0.001
vh

0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 (b)


Figure 8.45: Axial compression probes for Sample 24g37DC (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

0.001

0.002 a [%]

0.003

427

2 r [kPa]

1 E h/(1-h h) 0

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005

0.0005

0.001 r [%]

0.0015

-1
24g37DC-rc1 24g37UC-rc2 22.6gUC-rc 23gUE-rc

-2 (a) a [%] 0.0005

0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 -0.0005 -2hv/(1-hh) -0.001 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 r [%]

-0.0015 (b)
Figure 8.46: Radial compression probes for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

428

2 Y1 q [kPa] 1 G eq 0 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 s [%] 0.0015 0.002 22.6gUC-pconst 24g37DC-pconst

-1 (a) 3

q [kPa]

1 Jqp 0

-0.0005

0.0005 0.001 v [%]

0.0015

0.002

-1 (b)

Figure 8.47: Constant p' probes on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus

429

2 p' [kPa]

Y1 K

0 -0.001 0 0.001 v [%] 0.002 0.003

-1
24g37DC-qconst

-2 (a) 2

1.6

p' [kPa]

1.2

0.8

0.4 Jpq 0 -0.001 0 S [%] 0.001 0.002

(b) Figure 8.48: Constant q probe on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a)
bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus

430

q [kPa]

22.6gUC 25gUC

Y1

E uv 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 a [%] 0.003

-1 strain rates [%/h] -0.002 0.015 -2

23gUE

Figure 8.49: Monotonic loadings on samples from Sub-Unit B2(a)

431

2 25gUC 22.6gUC q [kPa] 1 Y1 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 p' [kPa] (a)

-1

23gUE -2
undrained loads drained probes

0.003 s [%] 0.0015

0 -0.003 -0.0015 0 0.0015 0.003 v [%] (b)

-0.0015

-0.003
Figure 8.50: Elastic surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress plane (b) strain plane 432

0.04 s [%] 0.02 Y2 0 -0.04 -0.02 0 Y2 0.02 0.04 v [%] -0.02

22gsUC 24gsUC 24.2gkUC 24g37UC

-0.04

Figure 8.51: Y2 yield points for drained loadings of samples from Sub-Unit B2(a)
20 q[kPa]
22.6gUC 25gUC

10
Y2

0 -20 -10 0 10 u [kPa] 20

-10
Y2 23gUE

-20

Figure 8.52: Y2 yield points for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared undrained 433

22.6gUC 10 25gUC 5 22gsUC 24gsUC 0 -15 -10 ? strain rates 0.001%/h -0.015% /h 0.015 0.002%/h 0.015%/h -0.001% /h -0.001% /h 0 q [kPa] 300 -50 350 400 ? -10 -5 -5 0

q [kPa]

15

Y2

Y1 5

24g37UC 10 15 p' [kPa]

23gUE ?

-15 (a)

450

500

550 p' [kPa]

-100

-150

Y2

(b)

-200

-250 Figure 8.53: Y2 surface for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) (a) stress increment

plane (b) absolute stress plane showing approach stress path

434

150

100 G [MPa] Y2

23gUE 25gUC 22.6gUC G eq 22.6gUC G eq 24g37DC

50

0 0.0001 0.001 0.01 s [%] 0.1 1 10

Figure 8.54: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) sheared from the in situ stress state

435

p' [kPa] 320 0


A 1 2 3 B

360

400

440

480

520

-40

-80 q [kPa]

36.5gDC 24g37DC 36lgUC 38.7lgUC 36.3gk 4

-120
O * samples used for the static probes

33.5gkUC

-160

stress states for bender element tests

6 5

C'

36.3gUE* 31.4gUE*

-200

Figure 8.55: Approach stress paths for samples from Unit A3 and stress states for the bender element tests

436

12

frequency [kHz]

4
Ghh Ghv theoretical line

0 0 1 2 D/ (a) 3 4 5

12
Ghh first arrival method

frequency [kHz]

Ghv first arrival method frequency method

0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [sec] (b) 600 700

Figure 8.56: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.5gDC at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods

437

12

frequency [kHz]

4
Ghh Ghv theoretical line

0 0 1 2 D/ (a) 3 4 5

12

Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method

frequency [kHz]

0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [sec] (b) 600 700

Figure 8.57: Interpretation methods for the bender element tests for Sample 36.3gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods

438

12

frequency [kHz]

4
Ghh Ghv theoretical line

0 0 2 D/ (a)
Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method

12

frequency [kHz]

0 200 300 400 500 arrival time [sec] (b) 600 700

Figure 8.58: Interpretation methods for the bender element signals on Sample 31.4gUE at its in situ stress point (a) frequency method (b) comparison between the arrival times obtained from the two interpretation methods

439

208 24g37DC 206

MHPP [kPa]

204

202 31.4gUE 200 136 134 periods chosen for probing 132 36.3gUE

7:00 13:00 19:00 time [h] Figure 8.59: Changes of pore water pressure at the mid-height with time for

19:00

1:00

the samples from Unit A3

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002 da/dt [%/h]

0 0 -0.0002 6 12 time [h] 36.3gUE 31.4gUE 24g37DC 18 24

-0.0004

-0.0006

Figure 8.60: Creep rates for samples from Unit A3 in the 24 hours before starting the static probes 440

2 Y1

a [kPa]

Ev 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 a [%]

-1

-2

31.4gUE-ac1 31.4gUE-ac2 36.3gUE-ac

(a) 0.002 r [%]

0.001

vh

0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 a [%]

-0.002 (b) Figure 8.61: Axial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and
Sample 31.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain

441

a [kPa]

Y1 1

Ev 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 a [%]

-1 24g37DC-ac1 24g37DC-ac2 24g37DC-ae 36.3gUE-ac (a) 0.002 r [%]

-2

0.001

vh

0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 a [%]

-0.002 (b) Figure 8.62: Axial compression probes on Sample 24g37DC consolidated to
the in situ stress state of Unit A3 in comparison with the axial compression probe on Sample 36.3gUE (a) stress-strain (b) radial and axial strain

442

2 r [kPa]

1 E h/(1-hh ) 0

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005 -1

0.0005

0.001 r [%]

0.0015

-2 (a) 0.0005 a [%]

31.4gUE-rc1 31.4gUE-rc2 36.3gUE-rc1 36.3gUE-rc2

0 0 0.0005 0.001 r [%] 0.0015

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005 -0.0005

-2hv/(1-hh) -0.001

-0.0015 (b)
Figure 8.63: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 31.4gUE from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

443

2 Y1 r [kPa] 1 E h/(1-hh )

0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 r [%] 0.0015

-1 24g37DC 36.3gUE-rc1 36.3gUE-rc2 (a)

-2

0.0005 a [%]

0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 r [%] 0.0015

-0.001 -2hv/(1-hh) -0.0015 (b)


Figure 8.64: Radial compression probes on Sample 36.3gUE from Unit A3 and on Sample 24g37DC from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

444

2 r [kPa]

1 Eh/(1-hh) 0

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005

0.0005

0.001 r [%]

0.0015

-1 31.4gUE-rc2 36.3gUE-rc2 24g37DC -2 (a) 0.0005 a [%] -2hv /(1-hh) 0 0 0.0005 0.001 r [%] 0.0015

-0.0015

-0.001

-0.0005 -0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015

(b) Figure 8.65: Comparison between the radial compression on Sample 36.3gUE

from Unit A3 and on Samples 31.4gUE and 24g37DC from Sub-unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ state of Unit A3 (a) stress-strain plot (b) radial and axial strains

445

q [kPa]

1 G eq 0 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 s [%] 0.0015 0.002


24g37DC 31.4gUE 36.3gUE

-1 (a) 3

q [kPa]

1 J qp 0 -0.0005 -1 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 v [%]

(b) Figure 8.66: Constant p' probes for Samples 36.3gUE, 31.4gUE, 24g37DC (a)
equivalent shear modulus (b) coupling modulus

446

2 p' [kPa]

Y1 1 K

0 -0.001 0 0.001 v [%] 0.002 0.003

-1
24g37DC 36.3gUE 31.4gUE

-2

(a)

2 p' [kPa]

1 J pq

0 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 s [%]

-1

-2 (b)
Figure 8.67: Constant q probes for Samples 36.3gUE and 31.4gUE (a) bulk modulus (b) coupling modulus 447

38.7lgUC 36lgUC q [kPa] 2 Y1

Sub-Unit B2(a ) Unit A3

E uv 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 31.4gUE -1 0 0.001 (a) 0.002 0.003 a [%]

-2 36.5gDC

2 Y1 a [kPa] 1 24g37DC Ev 0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -1


Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A3

(b) 0.002 0.003 a [%]

0.001

-2

Figure 8.68: Monotonic loadings on samples consolidated to the in situ stress state for Unit A3 (a) undrained tests (b) drained tests

448

36.5gDC 24g37DC 2

a [kPa]

36.3gUE-ac 1

0 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -1


strain rates 0.005%/h 0.002%/h 0.0002%/h

0.001

0.002 0.003 a [%]

-2

Figure 8.69: Strain rate effects on the stress-strain behaviour of drained samples

449

38.7lgUC

2 36lgUC

24g37UC 36.5gDC

0 -2 -1 0 1 p' [kPa] 2

(a)

-1 q [kPa] 31.4gUE 36.3gUE -2 Unit A3 monotonic loadings 36.3gUE static probes Unit B 2(a) monotonic loadings Unit B 2(a) static probes

s [%]

0.003

0.0015

0 -0.003 -0.0015 -0.0015 0 0.0015 0.003 v [%]

(b)

-0.003

Figure 8.70: Y1 yield points for samples from Unit A3 and samples from SubUnit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress of Unit A3 (a) stress space (b) strain space 450

q [kPa]

15 36lgUC 38.7lgUC 10 Y2 5

0 -15 -10 -5 -5 31.4gUE Y2 36.3gUE -10 0 5 10 15 u [kPa]

-15 0.04

(a)

36.5gDC s [%] 36.3g 0.02 Y2 Y2 33.5gkUC 0 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 v [%]

-0.02

-0.04 (b)

Figure 8.71: Y2 yield points for samples loaded from the in situ stress state of Unit A3 (a) undrained shearing (b) drained loading

451

q [kPa]

15 36.5gDC 24g37UC 36.3g

38.7lgUC

10 36lgUC 5

? Y1 0 -15 -10 ? -5 -5 0 33.5gkUC 5 36.3gUE 31.4gUE 10 15 p' [kPa]

? strain rates 0.0015%/h -10 0.002%/h -0.0005% /h 0.002%/h (D=38mm) -15 0.002%/h -0.0005% /h 0 q [kPa] 400 -40 440 480 520

(a)

560 600 p' [kPa]

-80 (b) -120 Y2 -160

-200
Figure 8.72: Y2 surface for samples from Unit A3 and samples from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress for Unit A3 (a) relative stress space (b) absolute stress space and approach stress path 452

150

100 G [MPa]

Y2

36lgUC 38.7lgUC 36.5gDC G eq 36.3gUE

50

0 0.0001 0.001 0.01 s [%] 0.1 1 10

Figure 8.73: Stiffness degradation curves for samples from Unit A3

453

150

100 G [MPa]

Y2

24g37DC 31.4gUE 36.5gDC Geq 31.4gUE G eq 24g37DC

50

0 0.0001 0.001 0.01 s [%] 0.1 1 10

Figure 8.74: Comparison between the stiffness degradation curves of samples from Units A3 and B2(a)

454

G [MPa] 0 0 Gh h Gh v C consolidate d to the stress state of Unit A 3 50 100 150 200 250

10 B 2(c) depth below ground level [m]

B 2(b) 20

B 2(a) 30 B1

A3 40
Figure 8.75: Variation with depth of shear moduli in vertical and horizontal planes

455

0 0

100

Young's Modulus [MPa] 200 300 Eh Ev

400

500

consolidate d to the stress state of Unit A 3

10 B 2(c) depth below ground level [m]

B 2(b) 20

B 2(a) 30 B1

A3 40
Figure 8.76: Variation with depth of Young's moduli in vertical and horizontal directions

456

-0.5 0

Poisson's ratios 0.5

1.5

10 B 2 (c) depth below ground level [m]

B 2 (b) 20

B 2 (a) 30 B1

A3 40 hh vh hv consolidated to the stress state of Unit A 3

Figure 8.77: Variation of Poisson's ratios with depth 457

0 0

Ghh/Ghv and Eh/Ev [MPa] 1 2

10 B 2(c) depth below ground level [m]

B 2(b) 20

B 2(a) 30 B1

A3 40 Ghh/G hv Eh/Ev consolidated to the stress state of Unit A3

Figure 8.78: Variation of shear and Youngs moduli ratios with depth

458

1000

A3 Gh h [MPa] B2 100

10 100 p' [kPa] (a) 1000 1000


Unit C sub-unit B 2(c) sub-unit B 2(b) sub-unit B 2(a) Unit A3

Gh v [MPa]

100

A3 B2 C

10 100 p' [kPa] (b) 1000

Figure 8.79: Change of shear modulus with effective stress (a) Ghh (b) Ghv

459

1000

Unit C Sub-Unit B 2 (c) Sub-Unit B 2 (b) Sub-Unit B 2 (a) Unit A 3 A3 G vh B2 C

Ghv and Gvh [MPa]

100

10 100 1000 p' [kPa] 10000

Figure 8.80: Change of shear moduli Ghv and Gvh at high stresses

460

1000

A3 Ghh [kPa]

100 C

B2

Unit C Sub-unit B 2(c) Sub-unit B 2(b) Sub-unit B 2(a) Unit A 3

10 0 4 8 p*e/p'
Figure 8.81: Normalised relationship between shear moduli Ghh and stresses

12

16

20

461

q [kPa]
1.5 A3 B 2(c) C 0 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 p' [kPa] 3 B 2(a) -1.5

-3 (a)

Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3

s [%]
-0.004 -0.002

0.002

0.001

0 0 -0.001 0.002

v [%]

0.004

-0.002 (b)
Figure 8.82: Y1 yield locus for different lithological units (a) stress space (b) strain space

462

0.008 q/p'o 0.004 Y1 0 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 p'/p'o 0.008 -0.004

-0.008

Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3

Figure 8.83: Normalised Y1 yield locus for different lithological units

463

q [kPa]

15

10 A3 B 2(c) 5 C

0 -15 -10 -5 -5 B 2(a) -10 Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3 0 5 10 p' [kPa] 15

-15

Figure 8.84: Y2 yield locus for different lithological units

464

0 200 300 400 500 p' [kPa] 600

B 2(c) -100

A3 q [kPa] B 2(a)

-200

Y1 Y2 -300

Figure 8.85: Contours of the kinematic regions and approach stress paths for different lithological units

465

0.04 q/p'o

Y2 0.02

0 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 p'/p'o 0.04

-0.02

-0.04

Unit C Sub-Unit B 2(c) Sub-Unit B 2(a) Unit A 3

Figure 8.86: Normalised Y2 yield locus for samples from different lithological units

466

'a [kPa] -100 -80 -60 -40

80 60 40 20 0

-20 -20 -40 -60 -80

20

40

60 80 'r [kPa]

100

incremental strain energy [kJ/m3] 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1

Figure 8.87: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit C

467

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

20

40

60 80 'r [kPa]

100

20

40

60 80 100 'r [kPa]

80 'a [kPa] -100 -80 -60 'r [kPa] -40 60 40 20 0 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 open points=samples from Unit A 3 solid points=samples from Sub-Unit B 2(a) consolidate d to the state of Unit A 3 0 20 40 60 80 100

incremental strain energy [kJ/m3] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1

Figure 8.89: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from Unit A3 and from Sub-Unit B2(a) consolidated to the in situ stress state of Unit A3

469

80 'a [kPa] -100 -80 -60 'r [kPa] -40 60 40 20 0 -20 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 20 40 60 80 100

solid points=samples from Unit C

incremental strain energy [kJ/m3] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1

Figure 8.90: Contours of different incremental strain energies for samples from different lithological units

470

80
direction= HH 3kHz 4kHz 5kHz

output voltage [arbitrary unit]

40

(a)

-40
first arrival

-80 -0.5 0
direction=HV

0.5 1 arrival time [ms]

1.5

80

3kHz 4kHz 5kHz

output voltage [arbitrary unit]

40

(b)

-40

first arrival

-80 0 1 2 arrival time [ms] 3 4

Figure 8.91: Bender element signal through a sheared sample (a) horizontal polarisation and horizontal propagation (b) vertical polarisation and horizontal propagation 471

EFFECTS OF RECENT STRESS HISTORY

9.1

Introduction

In this chapter, the influence of recent stress history on the behaviour of the clay will be discussed on the basis of the results of the tests on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH. The test procedures for these samples were described in detail in Section 5.3.5. The samples were consolidated to their equivalent isotropic in situ stress state and subjected to a set of stress path rotations and undrained probes. One of the samples tested started from a slightly anisotropic state of q=-10kPa. This deviatoric stress, though, was sufficiently small to consider the stress state nearly isotropic. Starting from an isotropic state was a necessary choice to avoid interacting effects due to the vicinity of the failure lines in extension or compression, which might induce a softer response and obscure the effect of recent stress history (see Section 2.5.2).

In the tests, the influences of three main factors were considered, which are the angle of rotation between the outgoing path a the approach stress path, the nd length of the approach stress path and the creep rates before probing. The

analysis of the results will be conducted focussing on the strains involved. Only angles of rotation of 0o and 180o were supposed to be used in the probes because, from the literature, these angles were expected to give the more distinguishable results. However, the effective angles of rotation were different from the nominal values of 0o and 180o because the probes were undrained. Two cases were

considered, which had different lengths of the approach stress path. In the first case, the samples were subjected to a small approach stress path that coincided approximately with the dimension of the Y2 surface for this depth. They were then subjected to undrained shear probes either directly after reaching the initial stress state or after the creep had reduced to negligible values. In the second

case, the samples were subjected to a long approach stress path of about 100kPa and then to undrained probes after the creep had reduced. 473

The approach stress paths were conducted at low stress rates to avoid the development of significant excess pore pressures, which was controlled to be lower than 5% of the current effective stress. The rate of loading was further reduced in the proximity of the initial stress state so that it could be reached in a fully drained condition. The shear probes were undrained, stress controlled and, in most cases, were conducted in extension.

9.2 Case 1: short approach stress path


Two sets of tests were conducted with the approach stress path length corresponding to about 10kPa, which is, approximately, the dimension of the Y 2 surface estimated for Sub-unit B2(b) . The two sets of tests differed in the rate of creep allowed before starting the shear probes and were conducted on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH. For Sample 17SH, the creep rate was allowed to reduce before probing, while no creep was allowed for Sample 17.3SH. 9.2.1 Creep allowed

The first set of tests was conducted on Sample 17SH consolidated to the stress state of p=330kPa and q=-10kPa, indicated as Point O in Figure 9.1. From this stress state, the sample was extended at p constant, to q=-20kPa (Point C in Figure 9.1) and re-compressed back to q=-10kPa at a rate of 1.5kPa/h. The stresses were held at Point O for a few days, until the creep rates had reduced to negligible values and then an undrained extension probe was performed having a 157o rotation from the approach stress path. This stress controlled probe, referred as 17-157o e, was supposed to reach a minimum q of about 30kPa, but problems in the control system caused the control to stop at about 25kPa after which creep developed. This problem, though, did not compromise the probe results. At the end of the probe, the sample was compressed from the Point O in Figure 9.1 to Point B at q=0kPa at constant p and then brought back to Point O at a rate of 1.5kPa/h. Creep was allowed reduce to negligible values before the new probe in extension was performed having a 23o rotation from the approach stress path. This second probe will be called 17-23o e. 474

The strains developed by the samples during the approach stress paths for both probes are summarised in Table 9.1 and were of the order of 0.005% for the volumetric strain. The creep rates before probing are shown in Figure 9.2a. The axial strain rates are considered due to the better resolution of the local LVDTs. The values measured of about 10-4 %/h, were of the same order of magnitude as the resolution of the local LVDTs. The undrained probes were conducted at a rate of 5kPa/h, corresponding to strain rates of about -0.003%/h (Figure 9.2b), around 30 times faster than the creep strains. The stress-strain curves for Probes 17-157o e and the 17-23o e are shown in Figure 9.3. The data for the two probes seem coincident and cannot be distinguished. Similarly, no difference can be seen in the stiffness degradation curves for the two probes, as shown in Figure 9.4. Not only is the elastic

stiffness for the two probes the same, as expected from probes starting from the same stress state, but also the stiffness degradation with strains is the same, regardless the different approach stress paths. There does not seem to be any effect of the recent stress history on the stress-strain and stiffness behaviour for these samples, which had not been strained greatly during the approach stress path and that had been allowed to creep until the creep strains reduced to negligible values.

A set of tests identical to that described above was performed on Sample 17.3SH before conducting the probes described below, obtaining identical results. 9.2.2 Creep not allowed

The probes performed on Sample 17.3SH started from a stress state of p=330kPa and q=0kPa, which corresponds to the Point A in Figure 9.5. From the state at A, the sample was consolidated at constant p to a deviatoric stress of q=10kPa, (A to O in Figure 9.5) and held at this stress state for three hours before performing an undrained shear probe in compression that had a rotation of about 75o from the direction of the approach stress path and reached a maximum

475

q of about 37kPa. The creep time of three hours was chosen to be in agreement with the procedures of the tests conducted by Atkinson et al. (1990). After the shear probe, the sample was re-consolidated from O to B and back to O and, after three hours at the Point O, it was sheared undrained in compression with a 105o rotation from the approach stress path. The two shear probes will be named 17.3-75o c and 17.3-105o c respectively. The approach stress paths were conducted at stress rates of about 0.5kPa/h, which is lower than the rate used for the set of probes discussed in Section 9.2.1, due to organizational problems with the timing of the probes. The shear probes had to be carried out under observation and, considering that only three hours at constant stresses could be allowed, the approach stress paths had to be performed during the night. As shown below, the use of a slower strain rate for the approach stress path did not affect the results in comparison with the probes described in Section 9.2.1 because in that case the creep rates were allowed to reduce before probing. A condition of full drainage was ensured in both cases.

The strains developed during the approach stress paths are summarised in Table 9.2 and are in the order of 0.015% for the volumetric strain. The creep rates before probing are shown in Figure 9.6, where also the strain rates during the approach stress paths are included. In the three hours when the load was h eld constant, the creep rates had started to reduce from the rates during loading, but were still about 0.0006%/h when the probes started. The shear probes were stress controlled at a rate of 5kPa/h, which corresponded to strain rates of about 0.003%/h at the beginning of the probes, around five times faster than the creep strain rates. For axial strains larger than 0.004%, the strain rates started to increase, particularly for sample 17.3-75o c, as shown in Figure 9.6b. The stressstrain curves for the two probes in Figure 9.7 show that the response for Probe 17.3-105o c is stiffer than the response of Probe 17.3-75o c and this is confirmed by the stiffness degradation curves of the two probes shown in Figure 9.8. The two probes have the same elastic stiffness, but the sample with the lower angle of rotation from the approach stress path has a stiffness that degrades faster.

476

The recent stress history therefore influences the sample behaviour if the creep is not allowed to reduce, even after an approach stress path that had not produced large strains.

9.3 Case2: long approach stress path


On Sample 17.3SH, two more undrained shear probes were performed in extension after long consolidation stress paths of about 100kPa. The

consolidation paths and the probes are shown in Figure 9.9. From the initial stress state of p=330kPa and q=0kPa the sample was consolidated at constant p to q=100kPa and back to 0kPa (O-B-O in Figure 9.9). The stresses were held at the Point O to allow the reduction of the creep strains and then an undrained shear probe in extension was performed, having a 30o rotation from the direction of the approach stress path. After the probe, the sample was re-consolidated at constant p to the stress state of q=-100kPa and back to q=0kPa (O-C-O in Figure 9.9) and, after creep had reduced to negligible values, subjected to a second undrained probe in extension, having a 150o rotation from the approach stress path. These probes will be named 17.3-L30o e and 17.3-L150o e, where the L refers to the long approach stress path.

The strains developed during the approach stress paths are summarised in Table 9.3 and are of the order of 0.2% for the volumetric strain. The creep rates before probing are shown in Figure 9.10a and were of the order of 10-4 %/h, and were virtually not measurable. The probes were stress controlled at a stress rate of 5kPa/h, corresponding to initial strain rates of about -0.003%/h, around 30 times faster than the creep rates. For axial strains higher than 0.004%, the strain rates started to increase, particularly for Sample 17.3-L30o e, as shown in Figure 9.10b. The stress-strain curves for the two probes are shown in Figure 9.11 and clearly demonstrate a stiffer response for Probe 17.3-L150o e than for Probe 17.3-L30o e. The stiffness degradation curves for the two curves also confirm this result (Figure 9.12), showing that, from the same elastic stiffness, the probe of 30o rotation has a stiffness that degrades faster than that for a probe of 150o rotation. The recent stress history, therefore, seems to influence the clay

477

behaviour, even when a long time for the creep reduction had been allowed, if the strains developed by the sample during the approach stress path are significant.

From the analyses conducted, there seems to emerge a relationship between the strains developed during the approach stress path and the creep. For a length of the approach stress path that is below the Y region, which corresponds to no 2 large strains being developed in the samples during the approach stress paths, the recent stress history affects the sample behaviour only if no creep is allowed before probing. However, if creep is allowed before probing, then the strains developed during the approach stress path become important. For axial strains rates that are high relative to the creep rate, the effect of the angle of rotation from the previous stress path can only be seen if sufficient strains developed during the approach path. If the sample is not strained sufficiently during the approach stress path, the rest time at the initial state becomes its recent stress history and is able to delete the effects of the angle of rotation. A question then arises about the threshold strains above which the effects of the recent stress history would be seen.

The existence of some conditions that allow the effects of recent stress history to be seen re-opens the debate on the existence of recent stress history effects. The results of the present research are in agreement with both the study conducted by Atkinson et al. (1990) who observed effects of recent stress history and with the tests performed by Clayton & Heymann (2001), who could not see the recent stress history effects, although the writer does not agree with their conclusions. These studies were discussed in Section 2.5.2, but a re-

interpretation of those results could be attempted here on the basis of the results of the present research. Atkinson et al. (1990) used a stress rate of 5kPa/h for their consolidation path that was about 90kPa long. Although only the stresses involved were mentioned, this stress path seems sufficient to induce the development of large strains on a reconstituted sample. The authors then allowed three hours of creep before probing because, above that time, they could not measure further strains with the instrumentation they were using. The probes in the present research, conducted with a better resolution instrumentation, 478

demonstrated that even using lower consolidation rates and a short approach stress path, three hours are not sufficient for the creep strains to reduce to values that do not affect the behaviour of natural London Clay samples. The effects of recent stress history observed by Atkinson et al. (1990), therefore, could be due to the large strains developed during the approach stress path and, possibly, to the combined effect of these strains with residual creep strains.

Clayton & Heymann (2001), instead, were unable to see any effect of recent stress history on Bothkennar clay samples subjected to shear probes having different angles of rotation from an approach stress path of about 9kPa and creep strains that had reduced to negligible values before probing. The stress path they used, though, had comparable dimensions to the Y2 surface measured on Bothkennar clay (Smith & Jardine, 1992). It is likely that the sample had not been subjected to large strains during the approach stress path and therefore the rest time at the constant stresses before probing became its recent stress history deleting the effects of the previous stress paths.

The examples considered above started from isotropic stress states, which seem to the writer to be more appropriate to investigate the effects of recent stress history. Clayton & Heymann (2001) included in their recent stress history study the results of probes on London Clay samples tested from an initial anisotropic state. They found that the stress path that moved towards the failure line had stiffnesses that degraded faster than those of a stress path that moved towards the compression side. The type of approach stress path they used,

though, had also a lower angle of rotation for the stress path that moved towards the failure line and the two effects might therefore have been superimposed. The results discussed in Chapter 8 demonstrated that the effects of the angle of rotation and the effects induced by the presence of the failure line, can cancel each other out when they have opposite effects.

479

9.4 Effects of angle of rotation on the kinematic surfaces


The results of the probes described above were also used to investigate the effects that creep and angles of rotation produced on the yield surfaces. The results of the analyses conducted in Chapter 8 will be used here for comparison. Samples 17SH and 17.3SH belong to the lithological Sub-Unit B2(b) , for which no other samples were tested at small strains, but the results of the analyses discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 suggest that similarities could be found between this sub-unit and the others, particularly in a normalised plane. 9.4.1 Shear modulus

Bender element tests were carried out before each shear probe and the results are summarised in Table 9.4. The shear moduli for Samples 17SH and 17.3SH are slightly different, probably due to inhomogeneities between the two samples, but, after the different consolidation stress paths, the shear moduli Ghh and Ghv did not change greatly in either of the samples. The measurements of the moduli are qualitatively similar to those described in Chapter 8 for samples from other units and the two interpretation methods used showed perfect agreement in the results. The values measured are consistent with those found for other

lithological units and with the values expected for samples from this depth. 9.4.2 Elastic surface

In Figures 9.13-9.14, the stress-strain curves used to identify the elastic yield surface Y1 are shown. The identification of the yield stresses was not easy, particularly for probes 17.3-105o c and 17.3-75o c, and separate analyses of the radial strains and the Youngs moduli supported the suggested values, which are tentatively indicated by arrows in the figures. In Figure 9.15 those values are plotted in a plane of stresses p-q and the Y surface for samples from Sub1 Unit B2(a), identified in Chapter 8, is also added to the graph f r comparison. As o discussed in Chapter 8, the Y1 surface of the Sub-Unit B2(a) was found from probes on samples that had been subjected to an approach stress path that, while re-tracing the geological history of the clay, created a minimum disturbance to ts i structure. These samples were also allowed to creep until the creep rates had 480

reduced to negligible values before probing.

In the investigation on the recent

stress history, those probes that had a short approach stress path and creep rates reduced before shearing, 17-23o e and 17-157o e, are most similar to the probes performed on the samples from the Sub-Unit B2(a), and they seem to yield at the same values at which the samples from the Sub-Unit B2(a) yielded. The angles of rotation from the approach stress path have no effects on the yielding of these samples.

The probes that had been subjected to larger strains before shearing with creep rate reduction, 17.3-L30o e and 17.3-L150o e, yielded at slightly larger stresses than those measured for Sub-Unit B2(a), particularly Probe 17.3-L150o e, with the larger angle of rotation. The difference, though does not seem to be large and might be due to the strain rate effects, as these probes were performed at strain rates around ten times faster than those used for the probes in Sub-Unit B2(a). The probes that had no creep rates reduction, Probes 17.3-75o c and 17.3-105o c, yielded at larger stresses than those found for the Sub-Unit B2(a) and at different values for the two angles of rotations. The identification of the yield stresses on these probes was not easy and the suggested values might not be the true yield stresses because they are affected by creep strain effects.

In Figure 9.16, the yield points are plotted in a plane of stresses normalized by the initial effective stress po . In this plane, a unique Y1 contour was found for all the lithological units (Section 8.5.2). Only the yield stresses of the probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e, though, plot on this contour, whereas the yield stresses of the other probes plot further out.

The axial strains at which the yields occurred are similar to the yield strains found for all the other units, with the exception of the cases in which the creep rates were not allowed to reduce. As mentioned before, this is due to the interaction of creep strains on the strains developed by the loading.

The undrained Youngs moduli found from the probes are included in Table 9.4. Consistently with the discussion for the Y yield stresses, the probes with the 1 481

short approach stress path and the creep reduced (17-23o e and 17-157o e) show virtually no difference in the Euv values for the two angles of rotation. The other probes, performed on a different sample, show similar values of Euv except for
u the probe at 75o rotation with no creep allowed, which shows a lower E v . The

value identified for this probe, though, as mentioned above, is not the true undrained Youngs modulus because of the influence of creep strain effects. This is confirmed by the fact that the shear moduli, which were calculated with the bender elements and were not affected by strain rates, are similar. The elastic

parameters derived from the probes are not sufficient to calculate the equivalent shear moduli to be compared with the measured values. 9.4.3 Y2 surface

The yield stresses for the Y surface were identified as described in Chapter 8 2 from the change in deviatoric stress with pore pressure. The graphs are shown in Figures 9.17-9.19 and the stresses identified are plotted in the stress plane p-q in Figure 7.20. The Y surfaces of the Sub-UnitsB2(c) and B are also included 2 2(a) in the graph. The Y2 yield points for the Samples 17SH and 17.3SH seem to plot between the surfaces of the other two sub-units, which was expected considering the depth of these samples. However, in the probes where the sample had been taken to relatively large strains during the approach stress path, the Y yields, for 2 both angle of rotation 30o and 150o , plot together at slightly lower stresses, suggesting a reduction of the Y2 region caused by the approach path strains. In Figure 9.21 the normalized Y2 contour is shown, which was found to be unique for all the lithological units. The probes that had been subjected to short approach stress paths plot on this contour, while the probe that was subjected to a long approach stress path plots at lower stresses. As for Y , the axial strains associated 1 to the Y2 yields are similar to those found for other lithological units. 9.4.4 Effect of creep

The comparison between the results from probes that differed only in the creep rates before shearing suggests interesting features for the sample behaviour with regard to bubble type models. In Probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e, the creep rates were completely reduced before shearing and no differences could be 482

noticed between the location of the Y1 and Y2 yield stresses and the elastic parameters for both angles of rotation. In Probes 17.3-75o c and 17.3-105o e, instead, the reduction of the creep rates had not been allowed before shearing and the yielding for both the Y1 and the Y regions occurred at larger stresses for the 2 probe at 105o rotation than for the probe at 75o rotation. These features are consistent with the behaviour hypothesized in the bubble model, where the elastic bubble is dragged with the stress point. It is thought that the elastic bubble re-centres around the current point when the stresses are held constant to allow creep. In probes where creep had been allowed before shearing, the Y surface is 1 expected to be centred and symmetric around the stress state, and in each direction the yield should therefore be at the same distance from the initial stress state. In the probes where the creep had not been allowed, instead, the Y1 surface is expected to be asymmetric around the initial stress point and orientated towards the direction of the approach stress path. In this case, for 150o rotation, the stress state moves inside the Y bubble towards the direction of the approach 1 stress path and therefore towards the larger side of the Y bubble. This probably 1 caused the increased dimension of the Y1 for the 150o rotation. The Y surface, 2 instead, seems only to be affected by the destructuration strain applied to the samples that result in a reduced dimension of the surface.

483

Test 17SH Approach stress path C-O B-O 0.006 -0.004 0.004 -0.005 0.001 0.0006 0.002 -0.004 v [%] a [%] r [%] s [%]

Table 9.1: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17-23o e and 17-157o e (refer to Figure 9.1)

Test 17.3SH, approach stress path below Y2 Approach stress path A-O B-O 0.021 -0.005 0.019 0.0042 0.001 0.0001 0.012 0.0001 v [%] a [%] r [%] s [%]

Table 9.2: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.3-75o c and 17.3-105o c (refer to Figure 9.5)

Test 17.3SH approach stress path outside Y2 Approach stress path C-O B-O -0.17 0.2 -0.08 0.14 -0.04 0.03 -0.02 0.07 v [%] a [%] r [%] s [%]

Table 9.3: Strains developed during the approach stress paths for Probes 17.3L30o e and 17.3-L150o e (refer to Figure 9.9)

484

Approach stress path

Creep *

Probe 17-23 e 17-157


o e o

Ghh [MPa] 146 148 130 129 128


e

Ghv [MPa] 72 71 64 64 66 65

Euv [MPa] 174 189 134 217 195 215

Short

17.3-75o c 17.3-105o c * * 17.3-L30o e 17.3-L150


o

Long

126

Table 9.4: Elastic parameters for probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH

485

p' [kPa] 320 0 B 330 340 350

157 o -10 q [kPa] O 17SH-23 oe 23o C 17SH-157 oe

-20

-30

Figure 9.1: Approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17SH

486

0.0012

0.0008

0.0004 da /dt [%/h]

arrival at the initial sta te 0 4 8 12 16 time [h]

-0.0004

-0.0008

before 17-23oe before 17-157oe

-0.0012 a [%] -0.01 -0.008 -0.006

(a)

-0.004

-0.002

0 0

-0.004
17-23o e 17-157o e

-0.006 (b)
Figure 9.2: Strain rates for Sample 17SH (a) creep strains before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes

da/dt [%/h]
487

-0.002

-0.016

-0.012

s [%] -0.008

-0.004

17-23oe 17-157o e

-12

-16

-20

-24

-28

Figure 9.3: Stress-strain curves for the probes on Sample 17SH after a short approach path

488

q [kPa]

120

80 17-157 oe G [MPa]

17-23 o e

40

0 0.0001 0.001 s [%] 0.01

Figure 9.4: Shear stiffness for the probes on Sample 17SH

489

40

17.3 -105 oc

30

17.3 -75oc

q [kPa]

20

B' Y2

10 O'

0 300 310 320 p' [kPa] 330 A 340

Figure 9.5: Short approach stress paths and shear probes for Sample 17.3SH

490

0.002 before 17.3-75o c arrival at the stress state

0.001 da /dt [%/h]

0 0 5 10 time [h] -0.001 15 20 25

(a) -0.002 0.006 0.005 0.004 da /dt [%/h] 0.003 0.002


17.3-75oc

0.001 0 0 0.005 0.01 a [%] (b)

17.3-105o c

0.015

0.02

0.025

Figure 9.6: Strain rates for the short approach stress paths of Sample 17.3SH (a) creep rates before the shear probes (b) strain rates during the probes

491

40

30

q [kPa]

20

10
17.3-75oc 17.3-105o c

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 s [%] 0.02 0.025

Figure 9.7: Stress-strain curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.2SH

492

120

100

80 17.3-105 oc G [MPa] 60

40 17.3-75 o c

20

0 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 s [%] 0.01 0.1

Figure 9.8: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes within the Y2 region of Sample 17.3SH

493

40

B" q=100kPa

20 Y2 q [kPa] O" 0 300 320 340 p' [kPa] 360

17.3 -L30 oe 17.3 -L150 oe

380

400

-20

-40

C" q=-10 0kPa

Figure 9.9: Approach stress paths above Y2 and shear probes for Sample 17.3SH

494

0.002 17.3-L30o e 17.3-L150o e 0.001 da/dt [%/h]

0 0 10 20 30 40 time [h]

-0.001

-0.002 a [%] -0.008

(a) -0.012 17.3-L30 oe 17.3-L150 oe -0.001 -0.004 0 0

-0.016

-0.002 da/dt [%/h]


495

-0.003

-0.004 -0.005

-0.006 (b)
Figure 9.10: Strain rates for Sample 17.3SH subjected to a long stress path (a) creep strain rates before probes (b) strain rates during the probes

-0.03

-0.02

s [%]

-0.01

0 0

-10

-20

17.3-L30oe 17.3-L150oe

-30

Figure 9.11: Stress-strain curves for the shear probes on Sample 17.3SH after long approach stress path

496

q [kPa]

120

80

G [MPa]

17.3-L150 o e

40

17.3-L30 o e

0 1E-005 0.0001 0.001 s [%] 0.01 0.1

Figure 9.12: Stiffness degradation curves for the probes on Sample 17.3SH after a long stress path

497

3 q [kPa]
498

Y1 2 17.3-105o c

17.3-75 oc

Y1 0 -0.002 -0.001 Y1 17-23 oe -1 0 0.001 a [%] 0.002

Y1 17-157 o e

-2

-3 Figure 9.13: Yield points for the linear elas tic region of samples subjected to short approach stress paths

3 q [kPa] -0.002 -0.001 17.3-L30 o e Y1 -1 17.3-L150 o e -2 Y1 -3 Figure 9.14: Yield points for the linear elastic region of S ample 17.3SH subjected to a long approach stress path
499

0 0 0.001 a [%] 0.002

4 Yie ld points for Sub-Unit B 2(a) short approach stress path, creep short approach stress path, no creep long approach stress path, creep 2 Y 1 B 2(a) 17.3-75 oc 0 -4 -2 17.3-L30o e 17. 3-L150 oe -2 0 17-157 oe 17-23oe 2 p' [kPa] 4 q [kPa] 17.3-105o c

-4 Figure 9.15: Yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH and the contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a)

500

0.012 Yield p oints for o ther lithological units sh ort ap proach str ess path, creep sh ort ap proach str ess path, n o creep lon g ap proach stress path, creep 0.006 q/p'o 17.3 -105 o c

Y1 17.3- 75
o c

0 -0.012 -0.006 1 7.3-L 30oe 17.3- L150 o e -0.006 17 -23oe 17 -157 oe 0 0.006 p'/p'o 0.012

-0.012

501

Figure 9.16: Normalized yield stresses for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH and normalized contour of the elastic region for Sub-Unit B2(a)

502

0 -16 -12 -8 u [kPa] -4 -4 0

17-157o e

-8

17-23o e

-12

-16

Figure 9.17: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17SH


16 q [kPa]

12 17.3-L150o c

8 17. 3L 30oc 4 Y2

0 0 4 8 12 u [kPa] 16

Figure 9.18: Y2 Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.3SH where the creep was not allowed

q [kPa]

Y2

503

0 -16 -12 -8 u [kPa] -4 0

-4 Y2 17-105 o e -8 q [kPa]

17-75o e

-12

-16

Figure 9.19: Y Yield points for the probes on Sample 17.3SH subjected to long 2 approach stress path

504

15

Y 1 yield po ints Y 2 yield po ints for Sub -Un its B 2(c) and B2 (a ) sho rt ap pro ach stress p ath, no creep lon g ap proach stress path, creep sho rt ap pro ach stress p ath, no creep

p' [kPa] 10 17 .3-1 05 o c 5 17.3 -75 oc q [kPa] Y1 0 -10 -5 17. 3-L30 oe 17 .3-L15 0o-5 e 17 -15 7 oe 17- 23 oe -10 0 5 10 Y 2 B2(a ) Y 2 B2(c )

-15

15

-15

Figure 9.20: Y2 yield points for the probes on Samples 17SH and 17.3SH and the contour of Y2 for Sub-Unit B2(a)

505

0.04 q/p'o Y 1 yield poin ts for all other lithological units Y 2 yield poin ts for all lithological units short approac h stress path, creep allowed short approac h stress path, no creep long approac h stress path, creep allowed Y2

17.3-105 oc 17.3-75 oc

0.02

Y1 0 -0.04 -0.02 17.3-L1 50 oe 0 0.02 p'/p'o 0.04

17.3-L30oe -0.02

17-157 oe 17-23o e

-0.04

Figure 9.21: Normalized yield of the Y2 region for the probes on samples 17SH and 17.3SH and normalized contour of the Y region for the 2 other lithological units

506

10 CONCLUSIONS
This research aimed at finding a framework for the London Clay relating the engineering proprieties of this material to its geological features. Samples from different depths were tested, belonging to different lithological strata of the London Clay. For each stratum, the large and small strain behaviour was

investigated, which involved triaxial and oedometer tests on natural and reconstituted samples and the use of high accuracy instrumentation for the measurements of strains. A comparison between the mechanical responses of samples from different lithological units allowed the identification of a relationship between the engineering properties and the geology of London Clay.

Five main lithological units, C, B2, B1, A3 and A2 exist at Heathrow T5 (Hight et al., 2003; Mannion, 2005), but this research concentrated on Units C, B2 and A3. No samples from Unit B1 were available for testing, as the nature of this layer usually does not allow the recovery of good quality samples. For Unit A2, only oedometer tests were performed. Three main sub-units were also identified in Unit B2, B2(c), B2(b) and B2(a). The differences in the lithology of the clay were revealed by both the nature and the structure of the clay in the different units. The nature of the clay influenced its intrinsic behaviour, but did not seem to affect its intact behaviour as much as the structure of the clay, which was dominant in determining the differences in the mechanical response of samples from different lithological units.

The differences in the nature of the clay from different lithological strata were revealed particularly by the grading curves and also by the Atterberg limits and water content distributions with depth, although slightly less clearly. Within each stratum, the characteristics of the clay seemed fairly uniform and showed similarity in mineralogy and grading, so that a unique NCL* and CSL* could be found for each unit. The location of the NCL*s and CSL*s depended on the stratum, although NCL* and CSL* had the same offset for all strata. The more plastic units had an NCL* and CSL* plotting above the others in the v-lnp 507

plane, however, the parameters , and M and C*c and C*s were unique for the clay, regardless its lithology, so that the NCL* for all strata were parallel. In Unit B2, the gradings, the index properties and microfossil analyses (Mannion, 2005) highlighted the presence of a stratum, B2(c), with different characteristics from the lower strata, probably as result of the vicinity of the lithological boundary. This was reflected in a different NCL* for this sub-unit.

The mechanical response of undisturbed samples did not seem greatly influenced by its nature, but was dominated by the structure of the clay from the different strata. The microstructure of samples from Unit C, Sub-Unit B2(a) and Unit A3 was investigated with SEM and showed that a probable originally flocculated fabric for this clay developed into a cardhouse fabric at shallower depths and into a bookhouse fabric at greater depths, perhaps as result of compression. Domains with sub-horizontal orientations were typical of the deepest Unit A3 and probably were responsible for an increase in the horizontal stiffness of the clay from deeper strata. A compact, but not orientated structure characterised Unit B2, and an open structure emerged for the shallowest Unit C, for which SEM, X-ray, and microfossil analyses also confirmed that the clay had experienced no weathering processes. The microstructure of the clay explained its small strain behaviour being stiffer horizontally than vertically. The ratio between the horizontal and vertical moduli increased with depth, though, consistently with the sub-horizontal orientation of the particle domains in deeper units.

The presence of coarser grains seemed to characterise Units C and A3, for which the index properties showed a similarity in nature, although X-ray diffraction analysis revealed similarities in the composition of Units C and B2, which also showed similarities in their mechanical behaviour. In no unit could a general calcite coating be seen that would create a strong bonding between the particles and only localised calcite crystals could be identified in some strata, which could only provide a minor localised bonding for the clay. The compression behaviour of the intact samples in fact showed that the compression

508

curves did not converge towards the intrinsic compression lines but retaining stable elements of structure even at higher stresses and large strains.

Both the shearing and compression behaviour of the clay was affected by the structural differences between the units, although these differences were more evident in compression and in the strength envelopes at higer pressures. Samples from units having an open structure, such as Units C and B2, were more compressible and had lower strengths than samples from units with a more packed and orientated structures, such as Unit A3, despite the similarity in nature between Units A3 and C. Likewise, in Unit B2, a fairly uniform behaviour could be found, with a unique compression curve and strength envelope, despite the presence of lithological sub-units having different index and intrinsic properties. The differences between the strength envelopes of the clay from different units at low pressures were not large and the intact SBSs plotted fairly close to the SBS*s. At higher pressures, though, the strength envelopes of clays with more orientated structure plotted above the envelopes of clay with the more open structure and the intact SBSs also extended well above the intrinsic SBS*.

These differences in the clay structure for the different units, however, were found to be not consistently represented by the Stress Sensitivity and the Void Index, which only seemed to reflect in the depth of the samples. A normalisation that accounts for the initial void ratio relative to the ICL shows that shallower samples have more structure than deeper samples, contradicting the stiffness and the strength behaviour of the clay. The structural features of such a clay, having a fabric dominated structure, seem more effectively represented by a new normalising parameter, en, that is calculated relative to the intrinsic swelling curves as well as the intrinsic compression line.

Structural changes to the intact clay were caused by swelling, but these only affected its compression behaviour inducing lower stress sensitivities and did not affect the strengths of the samples. Anisotropic stresses applied during compression to higher stresses did not seem to induce differences in the strength of the clay compared to isotropic compression.

509

At small strains, both the microstructure of the clay and the stresses applied influenced the clay behaviour, particularly its elastic parameters. The size of the kinematic surfaces, though, mainly depended on the consolidation pressures, so that, when the stresses were normalised by the initial state, unique kinematic surfaces Y1 and Y2 appeared for the clay for all strata. The region of purely elastic behaviour of London Clay did not exceed an overall radius of about 2kPa. Constant values of incremental strain energy were found to be associated with the yield surfaces.

Strain rate effects were found to influence slightly the behaviour at small strains, although undissipated pore water pressures had to be accounted for. In the study at small strains, creep rate effects were removed by allowing creep rates to reduce to negligible values before conducing any probes. The relationship between creep strains and strain developed during shearing was then analysed separately considering recent stress history effects. Stress history effects were found to be less important than strain history effects. A relationship could be found between the stress-strain behaviour of samples subjected to different stress path rotations, strains developed during the approach stress paths and creep strains. When the samples had not experienced large strains during the consolidation stress paths, then creep could erase the influence of the approach stress path on the outgoing stress path. However, when large strains developed during the approach stress path, stress history effects are evident and induce stiffer behaviour for the outgoing stress path having the larger angle of rotation from the approach stress path. In studying recent stress history effects the influence of other interacting parameters, such as the vicinity of the failure lines, had to be avoided.

The effect of fissures on the samples behaviour was analysed at both large and small strains,. The distribution of the fissures on site was not recorded in this study and only a post-test analysis of the fissures was conducted. From this analysis, there seemed to be a larger occurrence of samples that sheared along pre-existing fissures from Sub-Unit B2(a). Natural fissures were distinguished from fissures formed as consequence of drying during the sample preparation. Fissures due to drying did not affect the mechanical behaviour of the samples, 510

while natural fissures only affected the large strain behaviour if they were orientated in directions compatible with the shearing mode. The strength on fissures was lower than the intact strength, consistent with the literature, but these fissures did not seem to affect either the elastic parameters or the sizes of the kinematic surfaces.

High quality rotary core samples were used for most of the work and their behaviour was found to be similar to that of block samples. No sample size effects were also evident apart from the greater likelihood that larger samples would contain fissures.

10.1 Suggestions for future work


This research work has highlighted the importance of accounting for lithology when dealing with natural soils. An investigation of Unit A2 at both large and small strain is currently being undertaken to complete the picture of the behaviour of the more common London Clay strata. The fissured nature of this material also suggested the need for an accurate investigation of the distribution of fissure in situ for a better understanding of the influence of fissures on the bulk behaviour of the clay. A new construction phase of Heathrow T5 will soon give the opportunity to complete this aspect of the work.

High pressure tests were attempted in this research, but the pressures used were not high enough to cause significant destructuration of this material, for which the use of even higher pressures is required.

Further research testing is required to provide more comprehensive data to examine soil behaviour on the wet-side (i.e. with normally consolidated samples).

An investigation on the stiffness of reconstituted samples with bender element tests is also currently being undertaken to enable normalisation of the results of natural samples.

511

REFERENCES
Abdulhadi N., Triaxial testing on reconstituted London Clay. . MSc dissertation, Imperial College London, University of London. Al-Tabbaa A. (1987), Permeability and stress-strain response of speswhite kaoline. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge. Al-Tabbaa A. and Muir Wood D.M. (1989), An experimentally based bubble model for clay. Numerical methods in Geomechanics NUMOG III, Elsevier Applied Science, pp.91-99. Amorosi, (2004), personal communication. Amorosi A. and Rampello S. (1998), The influence of natural soil structure on the mechanical behaviour of a stiff clay. The geotechnics of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Evangelista & Picarelli eds Balkema Rotterdam, pp. 395-402. Atkinson J.H., Richardson D. and Stallebrass S.E. (1990) Effect of stress h istory on the stiffness of overconsolidated soil, Gotechnique, 40, No.4, pp.531-540. Atkinson J. H. (1973), The deformation of undisturbed London Clay, PhD. Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London. Baudet B. and Stallebrass S. (2004), A constitutive model for structured clays. Gotechnique, 54, No.4, pp.269-278. Bjerrum L. (1967), Engineering geology of Norwegian normally-consolidated marine clays as related to settlements of buildings, Gotechnique, 17, No.2, pp.81-118. Bishop, A.W. (1966), Soils and soft rocks as engineering materials. Inaugural Lecture, Imperial College, University of London. Bishop A.W. and Henkel D.J. (1957), The measurement of soil properties in the triaxial tests, Edward Arnold LTD, London. Bishop A.W., Webb D.L. and Lewin P.I. (1965), Undisturbed samples of London Clay from the Ashford Common shaft: strength-effective stress relationships, Gotechnique, 15, No.1, pp.1-31.

513

Bishop A.W. and Little A.L (1967), The influence of the size and orientation of the sample on the apparent strength of the London Clay at Maldon, Essex. Proc. Geotech. Conf., Oslo, 1, pp.89-96. Bishop A.W. and Wesley L.D. (1975), A hydraulic triaxial apparatus for controlled stress path testing, Gotechnique, 25, No.4, pp.657-670. Blyth F.G.H. and De Freitas M.H. (1984), A geology for Engineers, Edward Arnold, 7th Edition. British Geological Survey (2004), Geology of London, Special Memoir 256,257,270 and 271 (England and Wales). Keyworth, Nottingham. British Standard Institution (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. BS 1377, British Standard Institution, London. Burland J. B. (1990), On the compressibility and shear strength of natural soils. Gotechnique, 40, No. 3, pp.329-378. Burland J.B. and Georgiannou V.N. (1991), Small strain stiffness under generalised stress changes. Proc. 10th ECSMFE, Florence, Vol.1, pp.41-44. Burland J. B., Rampello S., Georgiannou V.N. and Calabresi G. (1996), A laboratory study of the strength of four stiff clays. Gotechnique, 46, No.3, pp.491-514. Cafaro F. and Cotecchia F. (2001), Structural degradation and changes in the mechanical behaviour of a stiff clay due to weathering. Gotechnique, 51, No.5, pp.441-453 Calabresi G. and Scarpelli G. (1985), Effect of swelling caused by unloading in overconsolidated clays, Proc. 11th ICSMFE, San Francisco 1, pp.411-414. Callisto L. (1996), Studio sperimentale su unargilla naturale: il comportamento meccanico dellargilla di Pisa. PhD Thesis, Univerista La Sapienza, Rome. Callisto L. and Rampello S. (2004), An interpretation of structural degradation for three natural clays. Can. Getech. J., Vol.41, pp.392-407 Casagrande A. and Carrillo, (1944), Shear Failure on Anisotropic Materials. Proc. Boston Soc. of Civil Eng. Vol. 31, pp.74-87. Chandler R.J. (1966), The measurement of residual strength in triaxial compression, Gotechnique, 16, No.3, pp.181-186. Chandler R.J. (1968), A note on the measurement of strength in the triaxial compression tests, Gotechnique, 18, No.2, pp.261-266.

514

Chandler R.J. (1972), Lias clay: Weathering processes and their effect on shear strength, Gotechnique, 22, No.4, pp.403-431. Chandler R.J. (2000) Clay sediments in Depositional Basin: the Geotechnical Cycle. Quart. Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Vol.33, pp.7-39. Chandler R.J. (2002) personal communication Chandler R.J. and Apted J.P. (1988), The effects of weathering on the strength of London Clay, Quart. Journal of Engineering Geology, London, Vol.21, pp.5968 Clayton C.R.I. and Heymann, G. (2001), Stiffness of geometerials at very small strains. Gotechnique, 51, No. 3, pp.245-255 Coop M.R. (2005), personal communication Coop M.R. and Cotecchia F. (1995), The compression of sediments at the archeological site of Sibari. Proc. 11th ECSMFE, Copenhagen 1, pp.19-26. Coop M.R., Atkinson J.H. and Taylor R.N. (1995), Strength, yielding and stiffness of structured and unstructured soils, Proc. 11th ECSMFE,

Copenhagen 1, pp.55-62. Costa Filho L.M. (1984) Technical note: A note on the influence of fissures on the deformation characteristics of London Clay. Gotechnique, 34, No.2, pp.268-2672 Cotecchia F. (1996), The effects of structure on the properties of an Italian Pleistogene clay. PhD Thesis, University of London. Cotecchia F. (2003), Mechanical behaviour of the stiff clays from Montemesola Basin in relation to their geological history and structure Characterization and Engineering Proprieties of Natural Soils, Tan et al. eds. Cotecchia F and Chandler R.J. (1997) The influence of structure on the prefailure behaviour of a natural clay Gotechnique, 47, No.3, pp.523-544. Cotecchia F and Chandler R.J. (2000), A general framework for the mechanical behaviour of clay Gotechnique, 50, No.4, pp.431-447. Cuccovillo T. and Coop M.R. (1997), The measurements of local axial strains in triaxial tests using LVDTs. Gotechnique, 47, No. 1, pp.167-171. Fearon R.E. and Coop M.R. (2000) Reconstitution-what makes an appropriate reference material? Gotechnique, 50, No.4, pp.471-477.

515

Fookes P.G. and Denness B. (1969), Observational studies on fissure patterns in cretaceous sediments of South-East England, Gotechnique, 19, No.4. Fookes P.G. and Parrish D.G. (1969), Observations on small-scale structural discontinuities in the London Clay and their relationship to the regional geology. Quart. Journal of Engineering Geol. Vol. 1, pp.217-240. Gens A. (1982), Stress-strain and strength of a low plasticity clay, PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London. Georgiannou V.N. (1988), The Behaviour of Clayey Sands under Monotonic and Cyclic Loading, PhD Thesis, University of London. Georgiannou V.N. and Hight D.W. (1994), The effects of Centreline Tube Sampling Strains on the Undrained Behaviour of Two Stiff Overconsolidated Clays. Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol.17, No.4, pp.475-487. Head, K.H. (1980), Manual of soil laboratory testing, 3Vols, London, Plymouth, Pentek. Hight D.W. (1983), Laboratory investigation on sea bed clays, PhD Thesis, University of London. Hight D.W. (2002), personal communication Hight D.W., Jardine R.J. and Gens A. (1987), The behaviour of soft clays, Embankments on soft clays, Public works Research Centre, Athens, Ch.2, pp.33-158. Hight D.J. and Jardine R.J. (1993), Small strain stiffness and strength characteristics of hard London Clay Tertiary clays. Proc. Int. Symp. On Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Athens, Greece, Vol. 1, pp.533-522, Balkema, Rotterdam, Hight D.W., McMillan F., Powell J.J.M., Jardine R.J. and Allenou C.P. (2003). Some characteristics of London Clay. Proc. Conf. Characterisation and Engineering, National University Singapore. Tan T.S., Phoon, K.K., Hight D.W., Lerouil S. (eds). Balkema, Vol. 2, pp851-907. Hight D.W., Bennel J.D., Chana B., Davis P.D., Jardine R.J. and Porovic E. (1997), Wave velocity and stiffness measurements of the Crag and Lower London Tertiaries at Sizewell. Gotechnique, 47, No.3, pp.451-474. Horvslev M.J. (1937), Uber die Festigkeitseirgenschaften Gestorter Bindiger Boden. Danmarks Naturvidenskabelige Samfund. Ingeniorvidenskabelige

Skrifter, A, No 45. 516

Huggett J. (2005), personal communication Huggett J.M. and Gale A.S. (1998), Petrography and diagenesis of the Thames Group at Whitecliff Bay. Proc. Geologist Association, 109, pp.99-113. Jardine R.J. (1985), Investigation of pile-soil behaviour with special reference to the foundations of offshore structures. PhD Thesis, University of London. Jardine R.J. (1992), Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil stiffness. Soils and foundations, Vol.32, No. 2, pp.111-124. Jardine R.J. (1995), One perspective of the pre-failure deformation

characteristics of some geomaterials. Proc. of the Int. conference on the prefailure deformation characteristics of geomaterials, Hokkaido, Japan, Vol.2, pp. 855-885. Jardine R.J. (2004), personal communication Jardine R.J., Symes M.J. and Burland J.B. (1984), The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus, Gotechnique, 34, No.3, pp.323-340. Jardine R.J., St John H.D., Hight D.W. and Potts D.M. (1991), Some practical applications of a non-linear ground model. Proc. 10th ECSMFE, Florence, Vol.1, pp.223-228. Jardine R.J. and Smith P.R. (1991), Evaluation of design parameters for multistage construction, Geo-coast 91 Int Conf., Yokohama, Port & Harbour Res. Ints. Yokosuka, Vol.1, pp. 197-202. Jardine R.J., Gens A., Hight D.W. and Coop M.R., (2004), Development in understanding Soil Behaviour. Advances in Geotechnical Engineering: The Skempton Conference. Jardine, R.J., Potts, D.M. & Higgins, K.G. eds., Thomas Telford, London, 2003, 103-206. Jovicic V. and Coop M.R. (1997), Stiffness of coarse-grained soils at small strains. Gotechnique, 47, No.3, pp.545-561. Jovicic V. and Coop M.R. (1998), The measurement of stiffness anisotropy in clays with bender element tests in the triaxial apparatus. Geotechnical testing journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 21, No1, pp.3-10. Jovicic V., Coop M.R. and Simic, M. (1996), Objective criterial for determining Gmax from bender element tests. Gotechnique, 46, No.2, pp.357-362. Kavvadas M. and Amorosi, A. (2000), A constitutive model for structured clays, Gotechnique, 50, No.3, pp.263-273.

517

King C. (1981), The stratigraphy of the London Basin and associated deposits. Tertiary Research Special Paper, Vol. 6, Backhuys, Rotterdam. King C. (1991), Stratigraphy of the London Clay (Early Eocene) in the Hampshire Basin. PhD Thesis, Kingstone Polytechnic. Klotz E.U., (2000). The influence of state on the capacity of driven piles in sands. PhD thesis, City University, London. Kuwano R. (1999), The stiffness and yielding anisotropy of sand. PhD. Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London Lambe T.W. and Whitman R.V. (1969), Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. La Rochelle P., Leroueil S., Trak B., Blais-Leroux L. and Tavenas F. (1988), Observational approach to membrane and area corrections in triaxial tests. Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock, Donaghe, Chaney Silver eds Leroueil S., Tavenas F. and Locat J. (1984), Discussion on: Correlations between index tests and the properties of remoulded clays- Carrier W.D. and Beckman J.F., 1984 Gotechnique, 35, No.2, pp.223-226. Leroueil S. and Vaughan P. R. (1990), The General and Congruent Effects of Structure in Natural Soils and Weak Rocks. Gotechnique, 40, No.3, pp.467488. Lings M.L. (2001), Drained and undrained anisotropic elastic stiffness

parameters. Gotechnique, 51, No.6, pp.555-565. Lings M.L., Pennigton D.S. and Nash D.F. (2000), Anisotropic stiffness parameters and their measurement in a stiff natural clay. Gotechnique, 50, No.2, pp.109-125. Love A.E.H. (1927) A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity. Dover publications, New York. Lupini J.F., Skinner A.E. and Vaughan P.R. (1981), The drained residual strength of cohesive soils. Gotechnique, 31, No.2, pp.181-213. Ma J.D.H (2003), Behaviour of intact London Clay in oedometer tests. MSc dissertation, Imperial College London. Maguire W.M. (1975), The undrained strength and stress-strain behaviour of brecciated Upper Lias clay. PhD Thesis, University of London. Mannion W. (2004), Stratigraphical studies relevant to the geotechnics of the London Basin. MPhil transfer report, Imperial College London. 518

Marsland A. (1971), The shear strength of stiff fissured clays. Stress-strains behaviour of soils, Roscoe Memorial Symposium, pp.59-68. Cambridge: G.T. Foulis. Marsland A. and Butler M.E. (1967), Strength measurements on stiff fissured Barton Clay from Hampshire. Proc. Geotech. Conf. Oslo 1, pp.139-145. Mayne P.W. and Kulhawy F.H. (1982), Ko -OCR relationship in soil. ASCE, GT6, Vol.108, pp.851-872. Mitchell J.K. (1960) Fundamental aspects of thixotropy in soils. Journal of SMFE Div., Proc of ASCE, 83 No3, pp.19-52. Momoya Y. (1998), Effects of the period and stress path of consolidation on consolidation characteristics of clays. MSc Thesis, University of Tokyo (in Japanese). Momoya Y. Ishii T. and Tatsuoka F. (1998), Strain-rate dependency of deformation on NC clay and prediction of undrained creep. Proc. 33rd Japan National Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, JGS, Yamaguchi 1, pp.615-616 (in Japanese). Nishimura S. (2005), Laboratory study on anisotropy of natural London Clay. PhD thesis to be submitted to Imperial College London. OBrien N.R. and Slatt R.M. (1990), Argillaceous Rock atlas, Springer Velag. Pennington D.S., Nash D.F.T. and Lings M.L. (1997), Anisotropy of Go shear stiffness in Gault clay. Gotechnique, 47, No.3, pp.391-398. Pickering D.J. (1970), Anisotropic elastic parameters for soils. Gotechnique, 20, No.3, pp.271-276. Porovic E. and Jardine R.J. (1995), Some observations on the static and dynamic shear stiffness of Ham River sand. Pre-failure deformation of geomaterials, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol.1, pp.25-30. Pun A. (2003), The influence of structure on the compression behaviour of London Clay. MSc dissertation, Imperial College London. Puzrin A.M. and Burland J.B. (1998), Non-linear model of small-strain behaviour of soils, Gotechnique, 20, No.4, pp.217-233. Qadimi A., (2005), The cyclic response of a carbonate sand through critical state soil mechanics. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London. Rampello S. (1989), Effetti del rigonfiamento sul compartamento di argille fortemente sovraconsolidate. PhD Thesis, University of Rome. 519

Richardson D. (1998), Investigation of threshold effects in soil deformations. PhD Thesis, City University, London. Ridley A.M. and Burland J.B. (1993), A new instrumentation for the measurement of soil moisture suction. Gotechnique, 43, No.2, pp.321-324. Rolo R. (2003), The anisotropic stress-strain-strength behaviour of brittle sediments. PhD Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London. Sandroni S. (1977), The strength of London Clay in total and effective stress terms, PhD Thesis, University of London Santucci de Magistris F. (1998), Internal report, Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, University of Tokyo Schmertmann, J.H. (1969), Swell Sensitivity. Gotechnique, 19, No.41, pp.530533. Sides G. and Barden L. (1970), The microstructure of dispersed and flocculated samples of kaolinite, illite and montmorillonite, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 8, pp.391-399. Simpson B. (1992), Retaining Structures: displacement and design.

Gotechnique, 42, No.4, pp.541-576. Simpson B., ORiordan N.J. and Croft O.D. (1979), A computer model for the analysis of ground movements in London Clay. Gotechnique, 29, No.2, pp.149-175. Simpson B., Calabresi G., Sommer H. and Wallays (1981), Design parameters for stiff clays. State of the art report, Session 4, Proc.7th European Conf. on Soil Mech Geoth. Eng., Brighton 5, pp.91-125. Simpson B., Atkinson J.H. and Jovicic V. (1996), The influence of anisotropy on calculations of ground settlements above tunnels. Proceedings, Geothecnical Aspects of underground construction in soft ground, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.591-595. Skempton A.W. (1944), Notes on the compressibility of clays. Q.J. Geological Soc. No.100, pp.119-135. Skempton A.W. (1961), Horizontal stresses in an overconsolidated Eocene clay, Proc. 5th ICSMFE, Paris 1, pp.351-357. Skempton A.W. (1964), Long term stability of clay slopes. Gotechnique, 14, No.2, pp.77-101. 520

Skempton (1970), The consolidation of clays by gravitational compaction. Q.J. Geological Soc. No.125, pp373-411. Skempton A.W. (1977), Slope stability of cutting in brown London Clay. Proc.9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Fund. Eng., Tokyo, 3, pp.261-270. Skempton A.W. and La Rochelle P. (1965), The Bradwell slip: a short-term failure in London Clay. Gotechnique, 15, No.3, pp.221-242. Skempton A.W. and Henkel D.J. (1957), Tests on London Clay from deep borings at Paddington, Victoria and the South Bank. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. S.M. & F.E., London, 1, pp. 100-106. Skempton A.W. and Northey R.D. (1952), The sensitivity of clays.

Gotechnique, 3, No.1, pp.30-53. Skempton A.W. and Petley D.J. (1967), The strength along structural discontinuities in stiff clays. Proc. Geotech. Conf., Oslo, 2, pp.29-46. Skempton A.W., Schuster F.R.S. and Petley D.J. (1969), Joints and fissures in the London Clay at Wraysbury and Edgware, Gotechnique, 19, No.2, pp.205217 Shirley D.J. and Hampton L.D. (1997), Shear Wave Measurements in Laboratory Sediments. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, Vol.63, No3, pp.607-613. Smart P. and Tovey N.K., (1982), Electron microscopy of soils and sediments: examples, Oxford University Press, p.178. Smith P.R. and Jardine R.J. (1991), The use of triaxial tests for prediction of settlements. Geo-Coast 91, Yokohama, Vol.1/17, pp.89-91. Smith P., Jardine R.J. and Hight D.W. (1992), The yielding of Bothkennar clay, Gotechnique, 42, No.2, pp.257-274 Som N.N. (1968), The effects of stress path on deformation and consolidation of London Clay. PhD Thesis, University of London Stallebrass S.E. and Taylor R.N. (1997) The development and evaluation of a constitutive model for the prediction of ground movements in

overconsolidated clay, Gotechnique, 47, No.2, pp.235-353. Standing J.R. and Burland J.B. (1999), Ground characterisation to explain JLEP Tunnelling Volume Losses in the Westminster area. Report to LUL. Standing J.R. and Burland J.B. (2005a), Investigationg variations in tunnelling volume loss a case study, Proc. Int. Conf. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft ground, Amsterdam, Balkema, in print 521

Standing J.R. and Burland J.B. (2005b), An investigation into unexpected tunnelling volume losses in the Westminster area, London, submitted to Gotechnique Takahashi A. Jardine R.J. and Dennis W.H. (2005), Swelling effects on mechanical behaviour of natural London Clay. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Osaka, in print. Tatsouka F., Santucci de Magistris F., Hayano K., Momoya Y. and Koseki J. (1998), Some new aspects of time effects on the stress-strain behaviour of stiff geomaterials. 2HSSR, Napoli, 1998. Terzaghi K. (1944), Ends and means n Soils Mechanics, Engineering Journal i (Canada), Vol.27, p.608. Vaughan P.R. (1997), Engineering behaviour of weak rock: Some answers and some questions. Proc. Of the First Int. Conf. On Hard Soils and Soft Rocks, 3, pp.1741-1765. Rottherdam: Balkema. Vaughan P.R., Hight D.W., Sodha V.G. and Walbanke H.J. (1978), Factors controlling the stability of clays fills in Britain. Clay Fills, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp.203-217. Veniale, F. (1985), The role of microfabric in clay soil stability, Miner. Petrogr. Acta, Vol. 29-A, pp.101-119. Viggiani G. and Atkinson J.H. (1995), Interpretation of bender element tests, Gotechnique, 45, No.1, pp.149-154. Viladesau E. (2003), Effects of swelling on the strength of London Clay, Imperial College London, internal report. Walsh J.B. (1965), The effects of cracks on the uniaxial elastic compression of rocks. J. Geotech. Res. 70, pp.5249-5257. Ward W.H., Marsland A. and Samuels S.G. (1965), Proprieties of the London Clay at the Ashford Common shaft: in-situ and undrained strength tests Gotechnique 15, No.4, pp.321-344. Ward W.H., Samuels S.G. and Butler, M.E. (1959), Further studies of the proprieties of London Clay Gotechnique, 9, No.2, pp.33-58. Webb D. L. (1964), The mechanical proprieties of undisturbed samples of London Clay and Pierre shale. PhD. Thesis, University of London. Wroth C.P. (1972), Some aspects of the elastic behaviour of overconsolidated clay. Proc. Roscoe Memorial Symp., Foulis, pp.347-361. 522

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

523

APPENDIX 5.1

Calculation of the in situ stress states and approach stress paths For the samples that were consolidated to the in situ stress states, four representative depths were chosen; 35m for samples from 34 to 40m, 25m for samples from 22 to 32.5m, 10m for samples from 10 to 12.5m and 7m for the block samples from the top of the London Clay. For these representative depths the in situ stresses p and q were calculated considering the geometry of the site, sketched in Figure A5.1 and the ko profile suggested by Hight et al., (2003) (Figure A5.2), which was derived from the suction measurements on thinwalled samples (see Section 3.5.3). About 5.5m of gravel was assumed to overlay about 52m of London Clay. The site investigation showed that the w ater table was 1.5m above the top of the clay and the pore water pressure was found to be hydrostatic. Table A5.1 shows the stresses used. For samples from 10m and 7m the same in situ stress point was used as discussed in Section 5.3.5.

The geological stress history of the London Clay at the site was simulated for each representative depth, the same stress history being assumed for samples from 10 and 7m depths. Three geological phases were supposed: the deposition of clay, the erosion of clay and the deposition of gravel. It was assumed that about 175m of the upper part of the clay above the present level have been eroded at this location (Skempton & Henkel, 1957; Chandler, 2000). The OCR values are shown in Table A5.1. Figure A5.3 sketches the geological stress paths for the three depths. The values of ko used were:
k o = 1 sin '

Phase I:

(A5.1) (A5.2)

Phase II: k o = (1 sin ' )OCR sin '


OCR 3 OCR Phase III: k o = k oNC + 1 1 sin ' OCR 4 max OCRmax

(A5.3)

A1

as

suggested

by

Mayne

&

Kulhawy

(1982),

where

OCR

is

the

overconsolidation ratio. Table A5.2 shows the details of the geological stress paths.

The final in situ stresses derived from the geological stress history were different from those calculated using the geometry of the site and the ko values suggested by Hight et al. (2003). This difference might arise from the fact that the simulation of the geological stress path was very simplistic. Taking into consideration the influence of the sea level changes during the depositional process and the presence of the lithological units, it is likely that several cycles of deposition and erosion occurred in the London Clay at different stages of its geological life (Chandler, 2002), before the final deposition of the gravel. The development of bonding during the geological history of the clay was also neglected. These factors might have caused changes of k and moved the in situ o stress point.

Considering the difficulty in simulating a more complex geological history of the clay, the simplified three phase geological stress path was assumed to be valid, but it was shifted, keeping the stress paths parallel, in order to match the measured in situ stress points (Figure A5.4). The re-loading stress path due to the deposition of the gravel is likely to reproduce quite realistically the last geological event on this site and it is expected to have a more significant influence on the sample behaviour, therefore the simplified assumption made by shifting the geological stress paths was considered adequate. Two stress path approaches were used, in agreement with the research group involved in the London Clay project. Long geological stress path This approach stress path is illustrated in Figure A5.5a. It consisted of isotropic compression to a maximum effective stress determined at the intersection of the geological unloading line with the isotropic axis (A to B), unloading along the k line (B to C) and reloading to the in situ stress point (C to o O). Table A5.2 shows the stresses used for the approach stress paths for each depth. This approach stress path was performed only on two samples from A2

35m depth (Tests 36lgUC, 38.7lgUC), because large volumetric strains of about 2% developed during the isotropic compression. These large strains might induce excessive disturbance to the sample structure, and therefore a second stress path was chosen for all the other tests. Short geological stress path This approach stress path, illustrated in Figure A5.5b, consisted of isotropic compression to the mean effective stress corresponding to the in situ stress (A to B), unloading at constant p to reach the stress point on the geological unloading curve (B to C), and then unloading and reloading along the geological stress path to the in situ point (C to C and C to O). Maximum limits of 1% volumetric strain and 0.5% axial strain were imposed for this second approach stress path. Only in a few cases were these limits slightly exceeded. 10 and 7m depths An atypical stress path was followed by the samples from 10m and 7m depth, because the calculated in situ stress points could not be reached as failures in extension would occur. Initial tests attempted on samples from 10m depth

showed that the fixed limits of 0.5% axial strain and 1% volumetric strain imposed for the short geological stress path could not be respected and one sample also failed on a pre-existing fissure before reaching the in situ stress state. It was therefore decided to stop the approach stress path at a stress point along the constant p unloading, which could safely be reached by all the samples from 7m and 10m depths without exceeding the strain limits. This stress point corresponded to p=260kPa and q=-86kPa and was assumed to be the new representative in situ stress point for samples from this depth. The modified stress path for these depths is shown in Figure A5.5c. Special cases Test 24g37DC In this test, the sample, from 24m depth, was consolidated along the 25m stress path to its reference in situ stress state. From this point, after performing probes, the sample was re-consolidated to the 37m in situ state following the A3

stress path sketched in Figure A5.5d. Probes were again performed at this point before shearing the sample to failure. Test 31.4gUE The sample used for this test was from 31.4m depth. Although it belongs to Unit B2 , it was consolidated to the 35m depth stress point by following the 35m approach stress path because, at the time of testing, the division into lithologcial units was not yet clear and this sample was believed to belong Unit A3 . Test 25.4aUE This test was supposed to follow a long approach stress path to the in situ stress state of the reference depth 25m, but a computer crash occurred during the test, which changed the calibration factor of the load cell. The final stress state did not coincide therefore with the expected state. For this reason the letter a in the name of this sample indicates an anisotropic stress condition of p=440kPa and q=-20kPa. Test 11.9DE This test was performed in a earlier stage of the research, when the in situ effective stress of p=260kPa and q=220kPa was supposed to be reached following the stress path for 10m depth. The sample, though, failed prematurely along a pre-existing fissure during the constant p stage. After this test the stress path for 7m and 10m was modified as described above.

A4

Depth from ground level [m] 7 25 36 5 [m] Thickness of gravel

Depth from top of LC [m] 1 20 30 3 1.5 1.3 21 ko


Cclay Iv

OCR

kN/m3

[kPa] 111 309 426 16.0 6.5 5.0

[kPa] 258 413 508

[kPa] -222 -157 -124

Table A5.1: Tests from the in situ stress point: in situ stresses

Unit

Sample Reference name depth


7gUC 7gUE 7kUC 11gUC 11gkUC 11gDE 12.5gUC 22gsUC 22.6gUC 23gUE 24g37DC 24.3gkUC 24.4gsUC 25gUC 31.4gUE 33.5gkUC 36.3g 36.3gUE 36.5gDC 36lgUC 38.7lgUC "7m"

In situ stresses
p' q [kPa] [kPa]

Approach stress path

260 "10m"

-220 A - B' - O' (Figure A5.5(c))

B' (p'=260kPa ; q=0kPa) O' (p'=260kPa ; q=-86kPa)

B2

B2

"25m"

420

B B' -155 A - B' - C' - C - O C' (Figure A5.5(b)) C

(p'=820kPa ; q=0kPa) (p'=420kPa ; q=0kPa) (p'=420kPa ; q=-195kPa) (p'=365kPa ; q=-209kPa)

510 "35m" 510

A3

A - B' - C' - C - O B (p'=820kPa ; q=0kPa) (Figure A5.5(b)) B' (p'=420kPa ; q=0kPa) C' (p'=420kPa ; q=-195kPa) C (p'=365kPa ; q=-209kPa) A-B-C-O -125 (Figure A5.5(a)) -125

Table A5.2: In situ stresses and approach stress paths (refer to Figure 5.5)

A5

17.5m OD 5.5m Terrace gravel 1.5m


ic ic s at osta yd ydr u uh

52m

London Clay

Figure A5.1: Sketch of the geometry of the site

0 0

ko 2

10

20 depth [m]

30

40

50

60

Figure A5.2: ko profile derived from suction measurements on thin-walled samples (Hight et al. 2003)

A6

q [kPa]

: e1 has P

lay of c on i osit dep

Phase 2: erosion of clay

Phase 3: deposition of gravel

p' [kPa]

Figure A5.3: Schematic geological stress history of London Clay at T5

1000

750 q [kPa]

500

10m 25m 37m 10m 25m 37m 10m 25m 37m

assumed geological history

shifted curves

Hight et al 2003

250

0 0 -250 p' [kPa]


Figure A5.4: Estimated geological stress paths, shifted stress paths and in situ stress points for the three reference depths

400

800

1200

1600

A7

q A O C
(a)

q B
P

A O C

B
P

C
(b)

q A B O C C
(c) P

25m A O E C
(d)

35m

B O D
P

Fai lure line

NOT TO SCALE

Figure A5.5: Approach stress paths to the in situ stress states (a) long path for 25m and 37m depths ((b) short path for 25m and 37m depths (c) path for 7m and 10m depths (d) path of Test 24g37DC

A8

APPENDIX 5.2

Measurements of the elastic parameters The elastic parameters of the clay were measured by performing bender element tests and small stress controlled drained probes following the analysis described in Section 2.4.

The set of bender elements mounted on the samples allowed the measurements of the shear moduli Ghh and Ghv , which were calculated using Equations 2.21 and 2.22. For these equations, the arrival time was determined interpreting the bender element signal with both the first arrival method and the frequency method, as described in Section 2.5.1. Figures A5.6 and 5.7 show two examples of the interpretation methods. Sinusoidal waves were used with frequencies in the range 2-12kHz. Usually a clear signal was obtained, as shown, for example, in Figure A5.6. The two interpretation methods always gave values in good agreement. The arrival time determined with the first arrival method could be influenced by near field effects, so that it decreased slightly with increasing frequency, as shown in Figure A5.8, where the arrival times determined by the two methods are shown for different frequencies. The arrival time determined with the frequency method usually coincided with the values determined with the first arrival method using higher frequencies and was used in Equations 2.21 and 2.22 for the calculation of the shear moduli. A detailed analysis of the interpretations at the different depths will be given in Chapter 8.

The drained probes were chosen so that the elastic parameters could be measured from the equations:

a =

2v 1 ' a vh r' Ev Ev

(A5.4)

A9

r =

vvh 1 v hh ' a + r Ev Eh

(A5.5)

For axial compression or extension, r=0 reducing the equations (A5.4) and (A5.5) to:

a =

1 ' a Ev

(A5.6)

r =

v vh ' a Ev

(A5.7)

The vertical Young modulus Ev in compression or extension and the Poissons ratio vh were directly measured from Equations A5.6 and A5.7:
' Ev = a a r' = 0

(A5.8)

v vh = r a 'r = 0

(A5.9)

For radial compression, a =0, reducing Equations 5.4 and A5.5 to:

a = r =

2vvh r' Ev

(A5.10)

1 v hh r Eh

(A5.11)

and so the horizontal Youngs modulus Eh and the other Poissons ratios hh and

vh were derived following Kuwano (1999) and the three parameters formulation
suggested by Lings et. al. (2000). A parameter F was directly measured from the probes, where:

Fh =

Eh 1 v hh

(A5.12)

A10

Having measured the shear modulus Ghh using the bender elements, the horizontal Youngs Modulus was calculated from:

Eh =

4Fh Ghh Fh + 2Ghh

(A5.13)

The Poissons ratio hh was calculated from the combination of Equations A5.12 and A5.13, and vh was calculated using the average value from the equations:

v hv = v hv =

a (1 v hh ) r 2
E h a 2 r

(A5.14)

(A5.15)

Probes at constant p and constant q were also performed. These probes allowed measurements of the bulk modulus K, the equivalent shear modulus Geq and the coupling moduli Jpq and Jqp , from the constitutive equations written in terms of triaxial variables (Atkinson et al., 1990):

v =

p ' q + K J pq

(A5.16)

p ' q + s = J pq 3G eq

(A5.17)

For an elastic material the compliance matrix has to be symmetrical, therefore Jpq =Jqp ,=J. The parameters measured from the constant p and constant q probes, from Equations A5.16 and A5.17, were then compared with those calculated by using the other elastic parameters derived from the constant r and a probes and bender elements:

G eq = K=

3 4[(1 + 2vvh ) / Ev + (1 v hh ) / 2E h ]

(A5.18) (A5.19)

1 [(1 4v vh ) / Ev + 2(1 vhh ) / Eh ]

A11

J=

3 2[(1 v vh ) / Ev (1 v hh ) / E h ]

(A5.20)

This comparison enabled a check to be made of consistency of the elastic parameters.

The undrained parameters were also calculated as combination of the drained parameters using the formulation proposed by Lings (2001). As discussed in Section 2.5.1, the mapping is only possible from drained to undraned parameters and the calculated values were compared with the values measured directly from undrained tests. For undrained conditions, vh =0.5 and the other undrained elastic parameters can be derived from:

Evu =
Ehu = v
u hh

Ev [2(1 v hh ) Ev + (1 4vvh ) Eh ] 2 2(1 vhh ) E v 4v vh E h


Eh 2(1 vhh ) E v2 + (1 4vvh ) Ev E h
2 hh 2 v

(A5.21)

2 (1 v ) E + (1 2vvh 2v vh v hh ) Ev E h v vh Eh2 2 2 2 (1 v hh ) Ev2 + (v hh 2vvh 2vvh v hh ) Ev E h + v vh E h 2 2 (1 vhh ) E v2 + (1 2vvh 2vvh v hh ) Ev E h vvh Eh2 u u v vh Eh Evu

(A5.22)

(A5.23)

u v hv =

(A5.24)

A12

first arrival

Received wave

arrival time Transmitted trasmitter wave

Figure A5.6: Shear wave signal and first arrival time


12 p'=260kP a ; q=-85kP a frequen cy [M Hz] 8

4 1/t a rr 0 0 2 D/ 4

(a)
Ghh Ghv theoretical line

Figure A5.7: Arrival time determined with the frequency method


12 frequency [MHz]

8
Ghh first arrival method Ghv first arrival method frequency method

0 300 400 500 600 arrival time [sec] 700

(c)

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

A13

A14

APPENDIX 7.1

Shear planes The figures in this appendix show schematic drawings of the shear planes formed in samples from different lithological units.

60o 38o 48o 55o

7gUC
D=100mm

7gkUE Unit C

7gkUC
D=38mm

Figure A7.1: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Unit C

A15

45o 55o 50o 60o 46o 70o 68o

11gDE
D=38mm

11kUC

12.5iUC
D=50mm

65o
o 28o 55

60o 40o 54o 25o

45o 15o 55o

40o

20o 25o

11.4iUC

11.7iUC

11.9DE

35o

68o 10o 40o

12.5gUC
D=100mm

Sub-unit B2(c)
Figure A7.2: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Sub-Unit B2(c)

A16

69o 57o

14iUC
68o 75o 57o

16.8UC

62o

60o

25o 65o

19.8isUC

21.7isUC
D=38mm

22gsUC

20o 20o 10o 35o 25o 30o 30o 15o 60o

13gUE

16.6iUC

17SH

48o 55o

17.3SH
D=100mm

17.5SH

Sub-unit B2(b)

Figure A7.3: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Sub-Unit B2(b)

A17

64o

49o 75o 54o

54o 70o 60o 55o

22.6ikUC

23.6iUC

24gsUC

24.2gkUC

68o 55o 58o

72o 45o

26UC

28DC

28.5UC
D=38mm

31IUC

Sub-unit B2(a) Figure A7.4: Shear plane characteristics for 38mm diameter samples from Sub-Unit B2(a)

A18

17o 64o 15o 50o 24o 55o 15o 40o 50o

22.6gUC

23gUE

23.7UC

24g37DC

15o

45o 18o

30o 67o 15o 10o 30o 70o

10o

25aUC

25.4aUE

26.3UC

26.5iUC

60o 30o 8o 50o

5o

27UC

31.4GUE
D=100mm

Sub-unit B2(a) Figure A7.5: Shear plane characteristics for 100mm diameter samples from Sub-Unit B2(a)

A19

58o 56o

50o 53o 56o 18o 67o 12o 76o

33.5gkUC

37DC
D=38mm

38iUC

38UC

30o 40o 52o 55o 56o 61o

34.4iUC
(D=50mm)

36lgUC

36.5gDC

37isUC
67o

50o

First plane

59o 63o 65o 53o 25o

43o

38.2iUC

38.5UC
D=100mm

38.7lgUC Unit A3

40iUC

Figure A7.6: Shear plane characteristics for samples from Unit A3

A20

Оценить