Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Getting high-quality samples in ‘sensitive’ soils for advanced laboratory tests

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laboratory tests are well recognized as highly appropriate for defining the engineering properties of geomaterials, in terms of constitutive law parameters for modeling geotechnical engineering problems. The strong development of advanced techniques, both in equipment and in data interpretation, has increased the confidence in laboratory testing, while on the other hand the limitations due to the quality of soil sampling with depth and the spatial representativeness of the samples are less consensual. Still, the development of new methods for assuring high-quality samples is increasing, together with sampling quality assessment by non-destructive methods using vibration wave velocities. Interpretation methods of in situ tests for ground characterization have also evolved significantly, increasing the reliability of these methods. Their versatility to cover large areas on site and the fact that these tests are, in principle, performed at the actual state (physical and stress) conditions, as well as the improvements in the correlations between field tests and hydraulic and geomechanical parameters, allow joining the quality of data and theoretical approaches, namely through critical state soil mechanics. This keynote paper discusses some of the aspects that can and should enable the association of ground characterization from laboratory testing over undisturbed samples used in more or less advanced tests, enhancing the determinant conditioning factor, that is, the sampling technique to get representative specimens and the way this is assessed. The confidence that we expect to have on the geomechanical parameters that we need for our geotechnical activities will mostly depend on this in view of the high uncertainties of the parametrical correlations with in situ test data, therefore, important in ground characterization. This is especially relevant in sensitive soils, such as soft fine soils, loose sandy soils, or young residuals soils. These have or can have “weak” equilibria of the interparticle micro- and macrostructures (or their arrangement, fabric) that will change substantially their properties if samples are collected and conditioned with processes that do not preserve that intrinsic “ADN”. The change in these natural conditions can be evaluated by techniques of quality assessment, which will be discussed in what follows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
Fig. 40
Fig. 41
Fig. 42
Fig. 43
Fig. 44

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersen A, Kolstad P (1979) The NGI 54-mm samplers for undisturbed sampling of clays and representative sampling of coarser materials. In: Proc. Int. Symp. Soil Sampling, Singapore, pp 13–21

  2. Ashi J (1997) Computed tomographic scan image analysis of sediments. In: Proc. Of the Ocean Drillings Program, Scientific Results, vol 156, pp 151–159

  3. Arroyo M, Pineda JA, Sau N, Devicenzi M, Perez N (2015) Sample quality examination on silty soils. In: Geotechnical engineering for infrastructure and development. Institution of Civil Engineers, UK, pp 2873–2878. doi:10.1680/ecsmge.60678.vol6.445

  4. ASTM D6519–08 (2008) Standard practice for sampling of soil using the hydraulically operated stationary piston sampler. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. http://www.astm.org

  5. Baligh MM (1985) The strain path method. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 111(GT9):1108–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baligh MM, Azzouz AS, Chin CT (1987) Disturbance due to ‘ideal’ tube sampling. J Geotech Eng 113(7):739–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Besenzon D (2013) The use of seismic waves for geotechnical characterization. MSc Thesis, Universitá Degli Studi di Padova, Facoltá de Ingegneria

  8. Clayton CRI, Siddique A, Hopper RJ (1998) Effects of sampler design on tube sampler disturbance-numerical and analytical investigations. Geotechnique 48(6):847–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clayton CRI, Simons NE, Matthews MC (1995) Site investigation, 3rd edn. University of Surrey, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cubrinovski M, Bradley BA, Wotherspoon L, Green RA, Bray JD, Wood C, Pender M, Allen J, Bradshaw AS, Rix G et al (2011) Geotechnical aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44(4):205–226

    Google Scholar 

  11. DeGroot DJ, Ladd CC (2012) Site characterization for cohesive soil deposits using combined in situ and laboratory testing. In: Rollins K, Zekkos D (eds) Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice: Keynote Lectures from GeoCongress 2012, Geotechnical Special Publication, 2012, No. 226. ASCE Geo‐Institute, pp 565–608

  12. Delage P, Lefebvre G (1984) Study of the structure of a sensitive Champlain clay and of its evolution during consolidation. Can Geotech J 21(1):21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Diamond S (1970) Pore size distributions in clays. Clays Clay Miner 18(1):7–23. doi:10.1346/CCMN.1970.0180103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Díaz JI, Ercilla G (1993) Holocene depositional history of the Fluviá—Muga prodelta, northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Mar Geol 111(1):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Donohue S, Long M (2010) Assessment of samples quality in soft clay using shear wave velocity and suction measurements. Géotechnique 60(11):883–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Duliu OG (1999) Computer axial tomography in geosciences: an overview. Earth Sci Rev 48:265–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dyvik R, Madhus C (1985) Laboratory measurements of Gmax using bender elements”. In: Proceedings ASCE Annual Convention: Advances in the art of testing soils under cyclic conditions, Detroit, pp 186–197

  18. Emdal A, Gylland A, Amundsen HA, Ksin K, Long M (2016) Mini-block sampler. Can Geotech J 53(8):1235–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ferreira C (2009) The use of seismic wave velocities in the measurement of stiffness of a residual soil. PhD Thesis, University of Porto

  20. Ferreira C, Mendonça AA, Viana da Fonseca A (2004) Assessment of sampling quality in experimental sites on residual soils from Porto granite. In: Proc. of the 9th Portuguese conference on geotechnics, vol 1. SPG, Lisbon, pp 27–38 (in Portuguese)

  21. Ferreira C, Viana da Fonseca A, Nash D (2011) Shear wave velocities for sample quality assessment on a residual soil. Soils Found 51(4):683–692 (Special Issue on “Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials”, Elsevier)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gasparre A, Hight DW, Coop MR, Jardine RJ (2014) The laboratory measurement and interpretation of the small-strain stiffness of stiff clays. Géotechnique 64(12):942–953. doi:10.1680/geot.13.P.227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gimias (2011) Graphical interface for medical image analysis and simulation, Gimias_v1.2.0. Centre for Computational Image and Simulation Technologies in Biomedicine (CISTIB)/Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona. http://www.gimias.org

  24. Hight DW (1986) Laboratory testing: assessing BS 5930. In: Proc. 20th regional meeting of the Engineering Group of the Geological Society, University of Surrey, pp 43–52

  25. Hight DW, Boese R, Butcher AP, Clayton CRI, Smith PR (1992) Disturbance of the Bothkennar clay prior to laboratory testing. Géotechnique 42(2):199–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang AB, Tai YY, Lee WF, Ishihara K (2008) Sampling and field characterization of the silty sand in Central and Southern Taiwan. In: 3rd international conference on site characterization (ISC-3), Taipei. Taylor & Francis, pp 1457–1463

  27. Hvorslev MJ (1949) Subsurface exploration and sampling of soil for civil engineering purposes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg

  28. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. In: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland

  29. ISSMGE, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (1981) Manual for the sampling of soft cohesive soils, ISSMFE Sub-committee on Soil Sampling. Japanese Geotechnical Society, p 129

  30. Ismail MA, Rammah KI (2005) Shear-plate transducers as a possible alternative to bender elements for measuring Gmax. Géotechnique 55(5):403–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jamiolkowski M (2014) Geotechnical characterization of a tailings deposit in Poland—an update. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas

  32. Jamiolkowski M, Masella A (2015) Geotechnical characterization of copper tailings at Zelazny Most Site. In: Marchetti, Monaco, Viana da Fonseca (eds) Keynote Lecture, DMT’15 The 3rd Int. Conf. on the Flat Dilatometer, Rome, pp 25–42. ISBN 979-12-200-0116-8

  33. Kazuo T, Kaneko S (2006) Undisturbed sampling method using thick water-soluble polymer solution Tsuchi-to-Kiso. J Jpn Geotech Soc 54(4):145–148 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kelly RB, Pineda JA, Bates L, Suwal L, Fitzallen I (2017) Site Characterisation for the Ballina Field Testing Facility. Géotechnique 67(4):279–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Krage C, Albin BM, DeJong JT, DeGroot D (2016) The influence of in situ effective stress on sample quality for intermediate soils. In: Proc. 5th international conference in geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, ISC’5

  36. Ladd CC, Lambe TW (1963) The strength of undisturbed clay determined from undrained tests. In: Symp. on laboratory shear testing of soils, ASTM, pp 342–371

  37. Ladd CC, DeGroot DJ (2003) Recommended practice for soft ground site characterization. In: The Arthur Casagrande Lecture, 12th Pan. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng., MIT, vol 1, pp 3–57

  38. Landon MM, DeGroot DJ, Sheahan TC (2007) Non-destructive sample quality assessment using shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(4):424–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. La Rochelle P, Sarrailh J, Tavenas F, Roy M, Leroueil S (1981) Causes of sampling disturbance and design of a new sampler for sensitive clays. Can Geotech J 18(1):52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee WF, Ishihara K, Chen CC (2012) Liquefaction of silty sand—preliminary studies from recent Taiwan, New Zealand and Japan earthquakes. In: Proc. Int. Symp. Engineering lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Tokyo

  41. Lefebvre G, Poulin C (1979) A new method of sampling in sensitive clay. Can Geotech J 16:226–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lo Presti DCF (1995) General report: measurement of shear deformation of geomaterials in the laboratory. In: Shibuya, Mitachi, Miura (eds) Pre-failure deformation of geomaterials. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1067–1088

  43. Lunne T, Berre T, Strandvik S (1997) Sample disturbance effects in soft low plasticity Norwegian clay, Recent developments in soil and pavement mechanics. Balkema, Rio de Janeiro, pp 81–92

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mathijssen FAJM, Boylan N, Long M (2008) Sample disturbance of organic soils. In: Huang, Mayne (eds) Proc. geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, pp 1481–1488

  45. Marcuson WF, Franklin AG (1979) State of the art of undisturbed sampling of cohesionless soils. Miscellaneous Paper—US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, (GL-79-16)

  46. Markham CS, Bray JD, Riemer MF, Cubrinovski M (2016) Characterization of shallow soils in the central business district of Christchurch, New Zealand. Geotech Test J 39(6):922–937. doi:10.1520/GTJ20150244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mitchell JK (1976) Fundamentals of soil behaviour. Wiley

  48. Mori K, Sakai K (2016) The GP sampler: a new innovation core sampling. Aust Geomech 51(4):131–166 (ABN 89 615 696 393. Sydney)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nash DFT, Lings ML, Benahmed N, Sukolrat J, Muir Wood D (2006) The effects of controlled destructuring on the small strain shear stiffness Go of Bothkennar clay. In: Ling, Callisto, Leshchinsky, Koseki (eds) Geomechanics: laboratory testing, modeling and applications. A coll of papers of the geotech symposium in Rome

  50. Ng CWW, Wang Y (2001) Field and laboratory measurements of small strain stiffness 503 of decomposed granites. Soils Found 41(3):57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ng CWW, Leung EHY (2007) Determination of shear–wave velocities and shear moduli of completely decomposed tuff. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(6):630–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ng CWW, Leung EHY, Lau CK (2004) Inherent anisotropic stiffness of weathered geomaterial and its influence on ground deformations around deep excavations. Can Geotech J 41(1):12–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Orsi TJ, Anderson AL (1999) Bulk density calibration for X-ray tomographic analyses of marine sediments. GeoMar Lett 19:270–274

    Google Scholar 

  54. Osterberg J (1973) An improved hydraulic piston sampler. In: Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Foundation Eng, vol 1.2, pp 317–321

  55. Pineda JA, Arroyo M, Sau N, Pérez N, Gens A (2012) Testing block samples from silty deposits. In Coutinho, Mayne (eds) ISC4, Porto de Galinhas. Taylor & Francis Group, Brazil, pp 1815–1823

  56. Pineda JA, McConnell A, Kelly RB (2014) Performance of an innovative direct-push piston sampler in soft clay. In: Proc. 3rd symposium on cone penetration testing, CPT14, Las Vegas, CPT14 Press, pp 279–288

  57. Pineda JA, Suwal LP, Kelly R (2014) Sampling and laboratory testing of Ballina clay. Aust Geomech 49(4):27–38

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pineda JA, Suwal L, Kelly RB, Bates L, Sloan SW (2016) Characterization of the Ballina clay. Geotechnique 66(7):556–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pineda JA, Liu XF, Sloan SW (2016) Effects of tube sampling in soft clay: a microstructural insight. Geotechnique 66(12):969–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rocchi I, Coop MR (2015) The effects of weathering on the physical and mechanical properties along a profile of a granitic saprolite. Géotechnique (in press)

  61. Romero E (1999) Characterization and thermos-hydro-mechanical behaviour of unsaturated Boom clay: an experimental study. PhD Thesis, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona

  62. Sau N (2013) CAT scanner as a tool for geotechnical simple inspection. MSc Thesis, Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, UPC, Barcelona

  63. Sau N, Arroyo M, Perez N, Pineda JA (2015) Using CAT to obtain density maps in Sherbrooke specimens of silty soils. In: Soga, Kumar, Biscontin, Kuo (eds) International symposium on geomechanics from micro to macro, IS-Cambridge 2014. CRC Press, pp 1153–1158

  64. Shibuya S (2000) Assessing structure of aged natural sedimentary clays. Soils Found 40(3):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Singh S, Seed HB, Chan CK (1982) Undisturbed sampling of saturated sands by freezing. J Geotech Eng Div 108(GT2):247–264 (ASCE)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Stringer M, Beyzaei C, Cubrinovski M, Bray J, Riemer M, Jacka M, Wentz R (2015) Liquefaction characteristics of Christchurch silty soils: Gainsborough Reserve. In: 6th Int. conf. on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Christchurch

  67. Stringer ME, Cubrinovski M, Haycock I (2016) Experience with Gel-Push sampling in New Zealand. In: Proc. 5th international conference in geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, ISC’5

  68. Sukolrat J, Nash DFT, Benahmed N (2008) The use of bender elements in the assessment of disturbance of soft clay samples. In: Huang, Mayne (eds) Proc. geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, pp 1489–1495

  69. Tan TS, Lee FH, Chong PT, Tanaka H (2002) Effect of sampling disturbance on properties of Singapore clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(11):898–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Tanaka H (2008) Sampling and sample quality of soft clays. In: Huang, Mayne (eds) Keynote lecture. Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization, pp 139–157

  71. Tanaka H, Sharma P, Tsuchida T, Tanaka M (1996) Comparative study on sample quality using several types of samplers. Soils Found 36(2):57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Taylor ML, Cubrinovski M, Haycock I (2012) Application of new ‘Gel-push’ sampling procedure to obtain high quality laboratory test data for advanced geotechnical analyses. In: Proc. New Zealand Society of earthquake engineering conference, Paper No. 123, Christchurch

  73. Terzaghi K, Peck R, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  74. Viana da Fonseca A (1998) Identifying the reserve of strength and stiffness characteristics due to cemented structure of a saprolitic soil from granite. In: 2nd international symposium on hard soils—soft rocks, Naples, vol 1. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 361–372

  75. Viana da Fonseca A (2003) Characterising and deriving engineering properties of a saprolitic soil from granite, from Porto. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight D, Leroueil S (eds) Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, vol 2. Balkema, Swets & Zeitlinger, Netherlands, pp 1341–1378

  76. Viana da Fonseca A, Coutinho RQ (2008) Characterization of residual soils. In: Huang A-B, Mayne P (eds) Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization. Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 195–248. ISBN 978-0-415-46936-4

  77. Viana da Fonseca A, Topa Gomes A (2010) Project and construction of Underground stations and tunnels (TBM and NATM) in heterogeneous masses for Metro do Porto. In: Aula PAYMACotas (ed) Excavations and tunnels in granite. Universitat Politècnicade Catalunya, Barcelona, pp 79–123

  78. Viana da Fonseca A, Carvalho J, Ferreira C, Santos JA, Almeida F, Pereira E, Feliciano J, Grade J, Oliveira A (2006) Characterization of a profile of residual soil from granite combining geological, geophysical and mechanical testing techniques. Geotech Geol Eng 24(5):1307–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. da Fonseca Viana, Ferreira C, Fahey M (2009) A framework interpreting bender element tests, combining time-domain and frequency-domain methods. Geotech Test J 32(2):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  80. Viana da Fonseca A, Coop M, Fahey M, Consoli N (2011) The interpretation of conventional and non-conventional laboratory tests for challenging geotechnical problems, deformation characteristics of geomaterials. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 84–119

  81. Viana da Fonseca A, Amaral MF, Panico F, Rios S (2014) Indexation of dynamic and static geomechanical properties of a cemented aggregate for transportation engineering. J Transp Geotech 1:31–44 (Elsevier)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Washburn EW (1921) Note on a method of determining the distribution of pore sizes in a porous material. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 7:115–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Yanagisawa N, Kaneko S, Tani K, Sakai K (2004) Experimental study on a new method of undisturbed sampling using high-concentration water-soluble polymer. In: 32nd symposium on rock mechanics, Japanese Soc. of Civil Engineering, pp 311–316 (in Japanese)

  84. Yokoi Y, Sakai K, Yukawa H, Orihara K (2015) Application of gel-push (GP) sampling method to slaking prone residual soil and reclaimed sand in Singapore. In: Proceedings of international conference on soft ground engineering, Singapore

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work in FEUP was supported by FCT by the project PTDC/ECM-Geo/1780/2014, Liquefaction Assessment Protocols to Protect Critical Infrastructures Against Earthquaker Damage, financed the European Communion Operational Program for Competitive Factors, COMPETE and developed under the activities of the Institute of R&D in Structures and Construction (CONSTRUCT). The first wants to thank Dr. Cristiana Ferreira for her continuous collaboration, as well as for the interaction with Dr. Mori, a recognized expert on the subject who has shared a lot of his knowledge for this work. The second author wants to thank Assoc. Prof. Marcos Arroyo and Núria Sau (UPC, Barcelona) as well as the Spanish Ministry of Science and IGEOTEST for the support provided through the research Project TRA2009_0076. The support provided by all contributing partners to the ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Sciences and Engineering at the University of Newcastle, Australia (Advanced Geomechanics, Coffey Geotechnics and Douglas Partners, and the NSW Science Leveraging Fund of NSW) is also acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CONSTRUCT-GEO–Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    António Viana da Fonseca

  2. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Jubert Pineda

Authors
  1. António Viana da Fonseca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jubert Pineda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to António Viana da Fonseca.

Additional information

This paper was selected from GeoMEast 2017—Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Viana da Fonseca, A., Pineda, J. Getting high-quality samples in ‘sensitive’ soils for advanced laboratory tests. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2, 34 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-017-0086-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-017-0086-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation