Advertisement

Recommended Practice for Soft Clay Characterization with a Focus on Settlement and Stability Analysis

  • Vikas ThakurEmail author
  • Samson Abate Degago
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Geotechnical Engineering book series (DGE)

Abstract

The representativeness and applicability of engineering parameters for geotechnical design is linked to the quality of site characterization. Over the years, a significant effort has been made to improve and refine the in situ testing and soil sampling techniques. Despite these, there is overwhelming evidence that conventional tube and piston samplers are still commonly used for soft soils. Keeping this in mind, the paper aims to guide the readers about the consequences of sample disturbances on strength and deformation behavior of soft clays. In addition, recommendations are made to help them to assign degree of confidence to the soil parameters to be used in settlement and stability analysis.

Keywords

Soft clays Sample disturbances Soil sampling Field and laboratory testing Pre-consolidation pressure Undrained shear strength 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper acknowledge the R&D and the funding partners of Natural Hazards—Infrastructure for Floods and Slides Program—NIFS (www.naturfare.no). The OFFPhD program by the Research council of Norway (www.rcn.no) and Norwegian Public Roads Administration are gratefully acknowledged for their supports. It is worth mentioning that this paper partly presents a summary of the work that has been presented in various arenas including at 17th Nordic geotechnical meeting (NGM). Readers are encouraged to refer Thakur et al. [48] and Degago and Grimstad [14] for further details.

References

  1. 1.
    Amundsen, H.A., Thakur, V., Emdal, A.: Sample disturbance in block samples of low plastic soft clays. In: 17th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Island (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amundsen, H.A., Thakur, V.: Storage duration effects on soft clay samples. Accepted for publication in Geotechnical Testing Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20170426. ISSN 0149-6115 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amundsen, H.A.: Storage duration effects on Norwegian low-plasticity sensitive clay samples. PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. ISSN 1503-8181 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berre, T.: Effect of sample disturbance on triaxial and oedometer behaviour of a stiff and heavily overconsolidated clay. Can. Geotech. J. 51 896–910 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bjerrum, L.: Engineering geology of Norwegian normally consolidated marine clays as related to settlements of buildings. Géotechnique 17(2), 81–118 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooker, E.W., Ireland, H.O.: Earth pressure at rest related to stress history. Can. Geotech. J. 2(1), 1–15 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burland, J.B.: On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Géotechnique 40(3), 329–378 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casagrande, A.: The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Boston, vol. 3, Discussion D-34, 60 (1936)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeGroot, D.J., Poirier, S.E., Landon, M.M.: Sample disturbance-Soft clays. Stud. Geotech. Mech. 27(3–4), 91–105 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Degago, S.A., Grimstad, G., Jostad, H.P., Nordal, S., Olsson, M.: Use and misuse of the isotache concept with respect to creep hypotheses A and B. Géotechnique 61, 897–908 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Degago, S.A., Grimstad, G.: Potential application of satellite data in evaluation of field creep calculation. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul, pp. 715–720 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Degago, S.A., Jostad, H.P., Olsson, M., Grimstad, G., Nordal, S.: Time- and stress-compressibility of clays during primary consolidation. In: Proceedings of the 7th NUMGE, Trondheim, pp. 125–130 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Degago, S.A., Nordal, S., Grimstad, G., Jostad, H.P.: Analyses of Väsby test fill according to creep hypothesis A and B. In: Proceedings of the 13th IACMAG, Melbourne, vol. 1, pp. 307–312 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Degago, S.A., Grimstad, G.: Evaluation of soil parameters for creep calculations of field cases. In: 17th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Island (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Degago, S.A.: On creep during primary consolidation of clays. Ph.D. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Degago, S.A., Grimstad, G.: Significance of sample quality in settlement analysis of field cases. In: Proceedings of the 8th NUMGE, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 153–158 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grimstad, G., Degago, S.A., Nordal, S., Karstunen, M.: Modeling creep and rate effects in structured anisotropic soft clays. Acta Geotech. 5, 69–81 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grimstad, G., Degago, S.A: A non-associated creep model for structured anisotropic clay (n-SAC). In: 7th European Conferences NUMGE, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 3–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grimstad, G., Mehli, M., Degago, S.A.: Creep in clay during the first few years after construction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Buenos Aires, pp. 915–922 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gylland, A., Sandven, R., Emdal, A., Thakur, V.: Extended interpretation basis for the vane shear test. In: 17th NGM, Iceland (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hermann, S., Jensen, T.G.: CPTU combined with block sampling gave cost saving solutions for Nykirke railway crossing. In: Proceedings of Norwegian Geotechnical Day, Oslo, Paper No. 32 (In Norwegian) (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hvorslev, M. J.: Uber die Festigkeilesigenschaften gestorter bindiger Boden. Ingeniorvidenskabelige Skrifter, A, No. 45, Copenhagen (1937)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Janbu, N.: Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial tests. In: Proceedings of the third European Conference Soil Mechanics, Wiesbadem, vol. 1, pp. 19–25 (1963)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Janbu, N.: The resistance concept applied to deformations of soils. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, vol. 1, pp. 191–196 (1969)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karlsrud, K., Hernandez-Martinez, F.G.: Strength and deformation properties of Norwegian clays from laboratory tests on high-quality block samples. Can. Geotech. J. 50(12), 1273–1293 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karlsrud, K., Lunne, T., Kort, D.A., Strandvik, S.: CPTU correlations for clays. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 16, Osaka, vol. 2, pp. 693–702 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karlsrud, K., Lunne, T., Kort, D.A., et al.: CPTU correlations for clays. In: 16th ICSMFE 16, vol. 2, pp. 693–702 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lacasse, S., Berre, T., Lefebvre, G.: Block sampling of sensitive clays. In: Proceeding of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, pp. 887–892 (1985)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ladd, C.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., Poulos, H.G.: Stress-deformation and strength characteristics. State-of-the-art report. In: Proceedings of 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, vol. 2, pp. 421–494 (1977)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larsson, R., Mattsson, H.: Settlements and shear increase below embankments. SGI Rep. 63, 88p (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leroueil, S., Kabbaj, M.: Discussion of ‘Settlement analysis of embankments on soft clays’ by Mesri & Choi. ASCE 113(9), 1067–1070 (1987)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leroueil, S.: Compressibility of clays: fundamental and practical aspects. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 122(7), 534–543 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leroueil, S.: Šuklje Memorial Lecture: The isotache approach. Where are we 50 years after its development by Professor Šuklje? In: Proceedings of the 13th Danube European Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Ljubljana, vol. 2, pp. 55–88 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Long, M., El Hadj, N., Hagberg, K.: Quality of conventional fixed piston samples of Norwegian soft clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135(2), 185–198 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lunne, T., Berre, T., Strandvik, S.: Sample disturbance effects in soft low plastic Norwegian clay. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Developments in Pavement Mechanical, Rio de Janeiro (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., Powell, J.J.M.: Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Blackie Academic & Professional (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lunne, T. and Andersen, K.H.: Soft clay shear strength parameters for deepwater geotechnical design. In: Proceedings of the 6th OSIG, London, UK, pp. 151–176 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mesri, G.: Primary and secondary compression. In: Germaine, J.T., Sheahan, T.S., Whitman, R.V. (eds.) Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction, vol. 119, pp. 122–166. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mesri, G., Feng, T.W., Shahien, M.: Compressibility parameters during primary consolidation. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Compression and Consolidation of Clayey Soils, Hiroshima, vol. 2, pp. 1021–1037 (1995)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sallfors, G.: Preconsolidation pressure of soft high plastic clays. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden (1975)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sandven, R., Gylland, A., Montafia, A., Kåsin, K., Pfaffhuber, A.A.: In situ detection of sensitive clays—Part I and II: Results. In: Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Iceland (2016)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schjetne, K.: The measurement of pore pressure during sampling. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian ISSMFE, Special Session on Quality in Soil Sampling, Bangkok, p. 12016 (1971)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Skempton, A.W.: The ☐ = 0 analysis of stability and its theoretical basis. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 72–78 (1948a)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stolle, D.F.E., Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G.: Consolidation model for a creeping clay. Can. Geotech. J. 36(4), 754–759 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stolle, D.F.E., Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G.: Consolidation model for a creeping clay. Can. Geotech. J. 36(4), 754–759 (1999)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Šuklje, L.: The analysis of the consolidation process by the Isotaches method. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, vol. 1, pp. 200–206 (1957)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thakur, V.: Characterization of sensitive soft clays for design purposes. Dev. Geotech. Eng. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0505-4Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thakur, V.K.S., Fauskerud, O.A., Gjelsvik, V., Christensen, S.O., Oset, F., Nordal, S., Viklund, M., Strand, S.-A.: A procedure for the assessment of the undrained shear strength profile of soft clays. In: Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting (2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thakur, et al.: Recommended practice for use of strength anisotropy. In: 2nd IWLSC. Springer Book Series on Natural Hazards (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Public Roads AdministrationTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations