STABILITY EVALUATION DURING STAGED CONSTRUCTION By Charles C.

Ladd,1 Fellow, ASCE (The Twenty-Second Karl Terzaghi Lecture)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Background 2.1 Stability Problems Classified According to Drainage and Loading Conditions 2.2 Types of Limiting Equilibrium Stability Analyses 2.3 Stability Analyses for Staged Construction: Historical Perspective 2.4 Undrained Strength Analysis (USA) 2.5 Definition of Undrained Shear Strength 3. Comparison of Effective Stress versus Undrained Strength Stability Analyses during Staged Construction 3.1 Conventional Effective Stress Analysis 3.2 Conceptual Comparison 3.3 Methodology for Case Histories of Embankment Staged Construction 3.4 Embankment on Connecticut Valley Varved Clay 3.5 Embankment Dam on James Bay Sensitive Clay 3.6 Upstream Tailings Dam 3.7 Conclusions from Case Histories 3.8 Overview of Current Practice 4. Soil Behavioral Issues 4.1 Preconsolidation Pressure: Significance 4.2 Preconsolidation Pressure: Evaluation 4.3 Factors Affecting Consolidated-Undrained Strength Testing 4.4 Sample Disturbance and Reconsolidation Techniques 4.5 Time Effects 4.6 Stress Systems for CK0U Test Programs 4.7 Components and Causes of Anisotropy 4.8 Effects of Anisotropy 4.9 Progressive Failure and Strain Compatibility 4.10 Comparison of Field and Laboratory Strengths 4.11 Strength Gain during Staged Construction 5. Recommended Methodology for Undrained Strength Analyses 5.1 Overview 5.2 Evaluation of Stress History and Consolidation Analyses 5.3 Laboratory Strength Testing 5.4 Stability Analyses 5.5 Comments on Design Process 'Prof, of Civ. Engrg., Massachusetts Inst, of Tech., Cambridge, MA 02139. Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1991. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on September 9, 1990. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 4, April, 1991. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/91/0004-0540/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper No. 25705.
540

6. Alternative Approaches for Stability Analyses 6.1 Stability Problems Classified According to Drainage Conditions and Definition of Factor of Safety 6.2 QRS Methodology 6.3 "Undrained" Effective Stress Analyses 6.4 Some General Comments 7. Monitoring Field Performance 7.1 Field Instrumentation 7.2 Evaluating Consolidation Behavior 7.3 Evaluating Foundation Stability 8. Summary and Conclusions 9. Acknowledgments 10. Appendix I. References 11. Appendix II. Notation ™ S3

3Ca

§§
c™3

nri

CO

o^r

S3

541

ABSTRACT: Staged construction uses controlled rates of load application to increase the foundation stability of structures founded on soft cohesive soils and to improve the slope stability of tailings dams. Because construction causes positive excess pore pressures and because actual failures usually occur without significant drainage, stability analyses should compute the factor of safety against an undrained failure as the most critical and realistic condition. This requires an undrained strength analysis (USA) that treats predicted or measured in situ effective stresses as equal to consolidation stresses in order to calculate variations in undrained shear strength during construction. The recommended USA methodology requires a detailed evaluation of changes in vertical stress history profiles, uses undrained strength ratios obtained from CK0U tests to account for anisotropy and progressive failure, and is more rational than stability evaluations based on UU and CIV triaxial compression testing. Conventional effective stress analyses should not be used for staged construction because the computed factor of safety inherently assumes a drained failure that can give highly misleading and unsafe estimates of potential instability.
1. INTRODUCTION

This paper concerns techniques to assess stability under static loads for projects characterized as follows: 1. "Soft-ground" construction, meaning that the imposed loading is sufficiently large to stress the cohesive foundation soils beyond their preconsolidation pressure and hence well into the normally consolidated range. Examples include embankments for transportation facilities, flood-control levees, water-retention and tailings dams, refuse landfills, storage tanks, and offshore gravity platforms. 2. Tailings dams constructed for the purpose of storing cohesive waste products from mining operations, especially those using the more economical upstream method,to contain the so-called "slimes" (Vick 1983). Since these projects generate positive excess pore water pressures within the underlying foundation soils or within the slimes, the most critical stability condition occurs during actual construction. In other words, drainage due to consolidation after each load application will progressively strengthen the most highly stressed soils and hence increase the factor of safety against a shear induced failure. In particular, the paper treats stability evaluation wherein the project design entails controlled rates of loading so that soil strengthening due to consolidation is sufficient to support the maximum required load safely. Such "staged construction" involves either a continuous, controlled rate of load application (e.g., during water testing of a storage tank or construction of a landfill or an upstream tailings dam) or construction in two or more stages (e.g., embankment filling over several seasons), or a combination of both. These projects may also include other techniques to improve stability during construction, prime examples being the installation of vertical drains to accelerate the rate of consolidation and the addition of temporary stability berms. As will be demonstrated, considerable controversy and confusion exist concerning what type of stability analysis should be used for staged construction projects, both during the design process and later to check stability during actual construction. Stability evaluations to assess the safety of existing structures also face this same technical issue. The paper first reviews background material regarding stability problems classified according to their drainage conditions and describes three types of stability analysis: (1) The common "total stress analysis"; (2) the common "effective stress" analysis;
542

" examination of alternative approaches (especially U. It is further useful to distinguish between loading versus unloading problems to differentiate construction that causes the total normal stresses acting within the soil mass to increase or decrease. excavations in stiff clays) since the factor of safety decreases with time due to swelling.g.and (3) a hybrid of these called an "undrained strength" analysis.S.1. Stability is therefore controlled by the drained strength of the soil corresponding to equilibrium (long-term) pore pressures. Staged construction projects inherently involve loading problems. Case 3—Partially Drained (Also Called Intermediate) This case applies to staged construction since loading problems produce positive excess pore pressures (ue > 0) and hence decreases in water content 543 . The writer adopts that notation. the initial in situ undrained shear strength of the cohesive soil controls stability during construction. whereas excavations entail unloading. It represents the critical condition for loading problems since the factor of safety increases with time due to consolidation.. in that the excess pore pressures caused by loading (or unloading) have dissipated (ue = 0) due to a slow rate of construction or sufficient time after construction. Case 1—Undrained (Also Called Short-Term or End-of-Construction) This case denotes situations wherein both construction and failure occur rapidly enough to preclude significant drainage. Case 2—Drained (Also Called Long-Term) This case represents the opposite extreme. recommended techniques for executing "undrained strength analyses. BACKGROUND 2. Three case histories illustrate the practical importance of this critical assumption. Brinch-Hansen (1962) proposed renaming the short-term/long-term classifications as UU and CD failures because of their direct analogy to laboratory unconsolidated-undrained and consolidated-drained shear tests. This case represents the critical condition for unloading problems that generate negative excess pore pressures (ue < 0) during construction (e. Stability Problems Classified According to Drainage and Loading Conditions Stability problems have historically been divided into three categories according to the drainage conditions that either exist or are considered critical during construction and during a potential failure. Two divergent approaches to evaluate stability during staged construction are then examined. The remaining parts of the paper then focus on soil behavioral issues related to predicting undrained strengths during staged construction. where it will become evident that the real issue concerns the assumed (or implied) drainage condition during potential failure. 2. practice based on results from triaxial compression testing). and recommendations regarding field instrumentation to monitor construction. respectively. Since there is negligible change in water content. respectively (Lambe and Whitman 1969). and the shear induced pore pressures are also zero (us = 0) due to a slow rate of shearing during failure.

e. The ESA and TSA types are first defined via their conventional application to unloading and loading problems. a conventional effective stress analysis computes the available shear strength.. this question basically entails treating staged construction either as a consolidated-drained or a consolidated-undrained failure. 1. Types of Limiting Equilibrium Stability Analysis This topic refers to the approach employed to compute the available shear strength and the resulting factor of safety for failure surfaces in cohesive soils when using a method of slices. Three types of analysis are considered here: (1) An effective stress analysis (ESA). i. leading to a description of an undrained strength analysis. In turn 544 . Specifically. respectively. Conventional Effective Stress Analysis Applied to Critical CD Case for Unloading Problem during construction. and (3) an undrained strength analysis (USA). cr' (c) DEFINITION OF FACTOR OF SAFETY (Bishop 1955. will failure occur so slowly that it approaches a drained condition or will it occur so rapidly that it approaches an undrained condition? In other words.2. As illustrated in Fig. along a potential failure surface using •xft = c' + o-p tan <$>' (1) where c' and §' define the Mohr-Coulomb effective stress failure envelope. However. Janbu 1973) FS = JsL = T HL T m m ton( tan<£m fr' FIG. sd = jff. The paper then reviews common approaches for staged construction. the types of analyses currently used to assess stability during staged construction make different assumptions regarding the drainage conditions during a potential failure. which basically computes in situ undrained shear strengths as a function of the preshear effective (consolidation) stresses. 2. and Tff and &ff = the shear stress and effective normal stress on the failure plane at failure. 1. (2) a total stress analysis (TSA). a CD case versus a CU case according to Brinch-Hansen's (1962) notation.(a) EXCAVATION IN STIFF CLAY Effective Normal Stress. respectively. will the shear induced pore pressure be essentially zero (us — 0) or significantly greater * than zero? As later shown.

(2) the differences in factors of safety (FS) computed based on force versus moment equilibrium.<r3)f = qf (4b) which equals the undrained shear strength of the soil.5(a. 2 is the equilibrium. corresponding to the critical CD case.. . the prudent value of u to use in Eq. such as Bishop (1955). 1 excavation in stiff clay (and similar unloading problems in overconsolidated cohesive soils). Those methods that have reasonable side force assumptions and that explicitly satisfy moment equilibrium when computing the factor of safety are recommended.'. i. In turn. Morgenstern and Price (1965). and u = the presumed pore pressure at failure.u = a'„ = <r„ — u (2) where as andCT„= the total normal stress. long-term pore pressure since this gives the drained strength. sd. j respectively. Since saturated cohesive soils of interest behave as frictionless materials in terms of total stress. Fredlund and Krahn (1977) compare commonly used methods of slices regarding: (1) The "side force" assumptions employed to estimate the magnitude of aff = CT. Eq.e.„ (5) 545 . i.. as commonly assumed. The commonly accepted definition of factor of safety as stated by Bishop (1955) is FS = available shear strength of soil shear stress required to maintain equilibrium (3a) Tff = c' + a* tan d>' FS = — — (3b) which equals sd/im for the CD case illustrated in Fig. 1. For the Fig.e. the factor of safety is defined as FS = T. Aa becomes (Skempton 1948a) s„ = 0. computes the available shear strength along a potential failure surface using s = c + tig tan <) j (4a) where c and c> = the intercept and slope of a total stress failure envelope.Off = (iff . The value of Tm also represents the mobilized shear strength of the soil. T «. and (3) the relative costs for computer time. and Spencer (1967). = c' + erg tan <|>' — (3c> If the degree of mobilization is the same for c' and tan cj>'. as applied to the UU case. then an alternate expression for the factor of safety becomes (Janbu 1973) FS = tan tym tan cb' — (3d) A conventional total stress analysis (TSA). (j> = 0.

5 since values of su are input directly for cj) = 0 materials.3.S." They advocated its use for staged construction. Eq. 3). others felt this approach to 546 . (1974). whereas a TSA based on subsequent field vane testing or undisturbed sampling and UUC testing would be cumbersome at best. this type of stability analysis basically treats staged construction as being equivalent to the consolidated-drained (CD) case. Stability Analyses for Staged Construction: Historical Perspective The designer of staged construction projects such as previously described must estimate both the initial strength of the cohesive soil and its rate of increase with time due to consolidation under the applied loads.„ in Eq. the effective stress and total stress ( j = 0) methods will not in general give equal values of FS. Bishop and Bjerrum (1960) realized this important fact since they noted the following: For factors of safety (FS) other than unity. However. 1 and 2) remains constant during a potential failure. noting that the greatest uncertainty lies in estimating the rate of pore pressure dissipation via consolidation theory and hence "field observations of pore pressure are advisable on important works. much U. the latter. As will be demonstrated. 1973). on the other hand. the <> former uses pore pressures under the actual loading conditions.. a factor of safety computed via an ESA using measured (prefailure) pore pressures inherently assumes that the effective normal stress (o^in Eqs. the method of slices for a TSA mainly serves to compute T. However. Total stress analyses (TSA) based on laboratory UU tests or field vane tests obviously cannot be used during design to predict the gain in strength due to dissipation of pore pressures and historically have been restricted to the end-of-construction UU case. Bishop and Bjerrum (1960) apparently did not consider this to be a serious practical limitation since they essentially endorsed effective stress analyses whenever field pore-pressure data are available.g. for which the UU case gives the minimum FS. practice still often relies on measured UUC strengths [e. and the value of FS "expresses the proportion of c' and tan < > then necessary for equilib}' rium" (i. Section 6. implicitly uses pore pressures related to those at failure in undrained shear. The classic paper by Bishop and Bjerrum (1960) recommended unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression (UUC) or field vane testing to obtain s„..g.. Bishop and Bjerrum (1960) proposed that an effective stress analysis (ESA) "is a generally valid method for analysing any stability problem and is particularly valuable in revealing trends in stability which would not be apparent from total stress methods. the ESA attracted many followers. all accept the premise that effective stresses control the strength of soil.A total stress analysis (TSA) as described previously represents the traditional approach for assessing stability for loading problems. 2. "Design and" (1978). On the other hand.e." Although others also realized the difficulty of making accurate pore pressure predictions during the design process [e. presumably since it could be readily used to check stability during construction based on measured pore pressures. In other words. Subsequent research has shown that measured field vane strengths need to be significantly reduced for highly plastic clays (Bjerrum 1972. "Slope Stability" (1982)]. In any case. Peck and Lowe (I960)]. Peck et al.2 of the paper treats potential errors in using UUC strength data. Moreover. these implied to have an accuracy of ±15%. However.

In any case. from Isotroplcally Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression (CIUC) Tests as Defined by A. and later became Q. an entirely different approach for predicting strength gain with consolidation evolved in the United States from Arthur Casagrande's early research into the strength of clays. where u'c equals the preshear consolidation stress. and slow (S). and perhaps earliest. Casagrande be dangerous (Brinch-Hansen 1962. Angle of Shearing Resistance <t>„. application of a USA to staged construction is that developed by Arthur Casagrande as an outgrowth of his research in the early 1940s into the strength of clays as measured in UU. which explicitly assumes an undrained failure when calculating factors of safety during staged construction. As quoted in Rutledge (1947). 2 for a normally consolidated clay. Undrained Strength Analysis (USA) A USA basically treats the in situ effective stresses as consolidation stresses. government agencies and many practitioners. QRS is referred to both as an "effective stress" and a "total stress" method. 2. In particular.S.FIG. Of particular interest to this paper is his manner of portraying results from isotropically consolidated-undrained triaxial compression (R = CIUC) tests as shown in Fig. believing that staged construction should be treated as a consolidated-undrained (CU) case. the relationship cu = <T}C tan <)>„. which he first called quick (Q). The most widespread. which are then used to estimate the corresponding in situ undrained shear strength. which is one reason for introducing a third type of analysis. denoted as cu to differentiate it from the su associated with undrained strength measurements used for conventional total stress analyses. the writer did not find a formal name for this methodology. Although it was adopted by major U. R. consolidated-quick (Qc). and CD triaxial compression tests. the undrained strength analysis (USA). and S (Casagrande and Wilson 1960). 547 (6) . Barron 1964). A more important reason lies in the fact that new techniques have been developed for estimating the in situ undrained strength of cohesive soils for both the UU and CU cases." Moreover. Casagrande states that the choice between using the UU or CU envelope for evaluating stability of a clay foundation "will depend on the thickness and consolidation characteristics of the clay and the rate at which load is applied to it.4. henceforth called the QRS approach. 2. CU.

"Design and" 1978). Relate undrained shear strength to consolidation stresses via a laboratory program of CK0U shear tests having different modes of failure. consistent with a < = 0 ( > analysis) gives the same failure height as an effective stress analysis using jff = qf cos 4>' acting on a surface inclined at a = 45 + <)>' / 2 .S. using consolidation analyses for design and piezometers during construction. Since cr/c equals cr#. Both attempt to minimize the adverse effects of sample disturbance (but in very different ways). and the closer it approximates the "true angle of internal friction" (meaning Hvorslev's value). Three case histories will illustrate these steps and also point out some of the simplifications used by the writer in executing a USA. Conduct stability analyses after inputting cu profiles calculated from the aforementioned information. say from a method of slices. meaning the effective overburden stress (<xio) and preconsolidation pressure {(T'P). In essence. Although first applied mainly to stability problems falling under the UU case. 1948c). 4.. — a3)f — qf acting on a rupture surface inclined at a = 45° to the horizontal (i. Army Corps of Engineers ("Stability of" 1970. the "more realistic is the position of the failure surface. this form of a USA will obviously give significantly lower factors of safety than a ESA (assuming that both analyses use measured prefailure pore pressures). Evaluate changes in stress history due to the proposed construction.) Because an undrained strength analysis should attempt to predict the available undrained 548 .was adopted in design manuals for the U. Definition of Undrained Shear Strength Following the earlier work of Terzaghi (1936) and Skempton (1948a. 2. and (2) the position of the critical rapture surface depends on the friction angle used in the analysis. 2. 1948b. wherein a}c equals the effective normal (consolidation) stress acting on a potential failure surface.5. namely the Recompression technique developed at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Bjerrum 1973) and the stress history and normalized soil engineering properties (SHANSEP) technique developed at MIT (Ladd and Foott 1974). say for staged filling on a natural clay deposit: 1.2 of the paper examines the QRS approach in more detail. recognize the importance of stress history." (Note: The same conclusions also apply to Rankine active and passive earth pressures for isotropic strength parameters.computed via a conventional ESA and since tan <j)' is significantly greater than tan c|)c„. these new techniques now enable a more rational and reliable form of a USA than the QRS approach for staged construction projects. Obtain the initial stress history of the soil. A second reason for introducing the USA occurred in the early 1970s with development of two new testing procedures for estimating the in situ undrained shear strength of clays. Section 6.5(cr.e. Bishop and Bjerrum (1960) used an analysis of the undrained failure of a vertical cut in a homogeneous saturated clay to illustrate two fundamental points: (1) A TSA using su = 0. a USA using either the Recompression or SHANSEP technique will involve the following basic components. and consider the effects of undrained stressstrain-strength anisotropy by running K0 consolidated-undrained (CK0U) tests having different modes of failure. 3.

Since staged construction was necessary.. others have used the same shear strength definition for undrained stability analyses [e:g.e. the error will be on the safe side by 10-15% for typical values of cos ((>'. Pilot et al. 1982. Lowe (1967). the real question concerns the actual location of the rupture surface during an undrained failure independent of how one estimates the available c„. The same approach also appears widespread for assessing stability during construction of tailings dams (Vick 1983. In summary. Fig. using measured pore pressures and the aforementioned definition of factor of safety. Conceptual Comparison Fig.2. After conceptually comparing the aforementioned form of a ESA with a corresponding undrained strength analysis (USA). and (5) the resulting factor of safety is basically defined via Eq. typically proceed as follows (Bishop and Bjerrum 1960. i. Nevertheless. Stauffer and Obermeyer 1988). 1. (4) values of c' and 4>' are determined from laboratory CD tests or from CU tests at maximum obliquity. the paper presents three case histories to further demonstrate the large practical differences in the safety implied by these two types of analyses. But it becomes more controversial when applied to the horizontal portion of a wedge or to a circular arc mode of failure. "Slope Stability" 1982. the writer defines c„ = Tff = qf cos <)>'. In essence. the foundation clay under the upper berm becomes normally consolidated before stage 2 filling. (2) measured pore pressures are obtained from piezometer data for determination of the existing effective normal stress (o-. Also. a total stress analysis (TSA) uses su = qf applied to a failure surface consistent with the c = 0 assumption whereas an undrained strength j > analysis (USA) uses cu = qf cos <)>' applied to the presumed actual location of the failure surface..') distribution.1. 3 as FS = tffhm — tan 4>'/tan §'m. which would 549 . The value of the vertical consolidation stress (a'J) is determined from estimates of the total vertical stress and from measurements of pore pressure. 3(ib) shows the stresses acting on a typical element for a horizontal failure surface. Johnson (1974). (3) o-. Tavenas et al. as commonly used to assess stability during staged construction on natural cohesive deposits. This approach should be correct when applied to active and passive wedges inclined at a = 45 ± 4>'/2. which leads to estimates of the available shear strength (s = %) along the potential failure surface. 3. 3. represents a conventional ESA. if the c„ = qf cos 4>' assumption is incorrect. which can be simulated by a laboratory direct simple shear test (Bjerrum and Landva 1966). is assumed equal to &# in Eq.shear strength on the most realistic potential failure surface. 1978. 3(a) illustrates the staged construction of an embankment after installation of vertical drains under the upper berm.'. COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVE STRESS VERSUS UNDRAINED STRENGTH STABILITY ANALYSES DURING STAGED CONSTRUCTION 3. Murray and Symons 1984): (1) A method of slices is used to compute the distribution of total normal stress (cr„) along the potential failure surface and the shear stress (Tm) required for equilibrium. Conventional Effective Stress Analysis Effective stress analyses (ESA). "Stability of" (1970)]. This form of an effective stress analysis.

e.1C) will be equated to the mobilized shear stress (T. a ESA inherently assumes a slow failure with complete dissipation of shear induced pore pressures (us = 0) equivalent to the consolidated-drained (CD) case previously described. o'n = v'vc =CT^. Since undrained shear of a normally consolidated clay will develop positive shear induced pore pressures {us > 0) and thus a lower effective normal stress at failure. The value of the horizontal consolidation shear stress (T.(a) FIELD SITUATION FOR PARTIALLY OR FULLY CONSOLIDATED CLAY FOUNDATION (b) STRENGTHS PREDICTED FROM ESA AND USA EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS. This represents the drained strength of the clay and the corresponding factor of safety becomes sd tan &>' FS = — = — Tm tan cj>. i.and. a USA inherently assumes a rapid failure corresponding to the consolidated-undrained (CU) case. the computed available shear strength equals rff at point 1. the undrained shear strength (T^ = c„ at point 2) will be less than sd. The prime reason for conducting stability analyses during construction is 550 . Comparison of Effective Stress and Undrained Strength Analyses for Evaluating Stability during Staged Construction typically be larger than hydrostatic.„ ' (7) In other words. A conventional ESA treats the existing effective normal stress as the effective normal stress at failure. hence. 3. In contrast.„) as obtained from overall equilibrium via a method of slices. And the factor of safety c„ FS = — Tm (8) will also be less than computed via a ESA. a' FIG..

the causes basically arise from an overestimate of the available resistance (sd or c„). or a combination of both. especially for failures having the potential to cause extreme environmental damage or loss of life. What then might lead to instability when the FS computed by either Eq. In contrast. an underestimate of the mobilized shear stress (T. 7 or 8 is reasonably greater than unity? Other than a significant error in the location of the presumed critical failure surface. a ESA a priori treats staged construction as a consolidateddrained (CD) case.05 m2/day to 0. The writer therefore concludes that the resulting factor of safety is potentially unsafe because it never considers the more critical possibility of an undrained shear failure and generally misleading because most failures during staged construction occur under essentially undrained conditions. an essentially undrained condition will prevail. 1983). etc.003 m2/day for typical clays having liquid limits between 30% and 90%.„). say over a period of several hours or even days. a conventional effective stress analysis that uses measured pore pressures. T„. then an undrained failure will be initiated independent of the prior > drainage conditions. But since large displacements usually occur during failures involving brittle soils within a time span of only seconds or minutes. the displacements are generally smaller and take longer to develop. — cj. Finally.obviously to guard against an unexpected failure. it should be emphasized that whenever the average shear stress along a potential failure surface reaches the average available undrained shear strength existing at that time (i. as would be expected for a fairly "brittle" foundation soil (Section 7). Since staged construction will load the underlying soil into a normally consolidated condition. 3. T. 50% pore pressure dissipation at the center will take from 30 minutes to 8 hours. Although accurate predictions of rates of displacement and of rates of pore pressure dissipation during a failure are not possible. the coefficient of consolidation will range from about 0. Hence. but rather that undrained conditions will generally prevail during actual failures that entail significant displacements. having a drainage height of 5 cm.. In other words. T. This reasoning should not imply that drainage may not occur during several hours or days preceding failure (although that may be true in most cases). gives an "instantaneous" factor of safety corresponding to the effective stress-pore pressure conditions existing prior to failure. such as illustrated in Fig. But the size of the zone undergoing significant straining is also generally much larger. undrained conditions certainly prevail during failures of tailings dams that lead to massive flow slides (Jeyapalan et al.„ too low due to error in fill weights or geometry. one can combine simple consolidation theory with field observations to obtain an idea of likely limits.e. such that little pore pressure dissipation should be expected. the prudent designer should always consider this possibility. For failures involving "ductile" foundation soils. For a "thin" rupture surface. Now consider whether the designer should assume that a failure will occur so slowly as to approach a drained (CD) condition or so rapidly as to approach an undrained (CU) condition. Moreover.„ increased due to unauthorized filling or partial removal of a stability berm. Possible examples include localized lower o"4 due to malfunctioning vertical drains. an undrained strength analysis (USA) inherently treats staged construction as a consolidated-undrained (CU) case wherein failure 551 . It inherently assumes that a potential failure will occur so slowly that the drained shear strength of the soil (sd) will resist failure. In summary.

The varved clay. which account for a stress reduction due to settlement of the fill.. except that zone 5 is slightly precompressed by 0. Computation of the increase in undrained shear strength (c„) with consolidation involved two simplifications: (1) Changes in stress history being restricted to increases in the vertical consolidation stress (o4). The figure also shows final vertical consolidation stress profiles after complete pore pressure dissipation under the berm. The USA used different stress history profiles for each of the five zones shown in Fig. This "long-term" case was selected both to simplify computation of the consolidation stress profiles needed for the USA and to preclude argument regarding the correct pore pressure regime (i. hydrostatic values) for the ESA. i.e. zones 2. whereas the in situ stresses obviously deviate from K0 conditions. Methodology for Case Histories of Embankment Staged Construction The paper presents results from design studies made for two projects wherein the ESA-USA comparison was made for conditions corresponding to complete consolidation of all the foundation clays under the imposed loading.1 ksf due to prior 552 . deposited in glacial Lake Hitchcock during retreat of the late-Pleistocene ice sheet. give too low factors of safety. 3.4-m) thick deposit of medium to soft varved clay at the site (Fig. 3.5 ± 0. which is less than the major principal consolidation stress (oic) except under the centerline. The 80-ft (24. and 5. Section 4. Fig.. has typical index properties as shown in Table 1... 4) required installation of vertical drains and staged construction with a stability berm and a surcharge to attain a 30-ft (9. The selected v'p profile assumed constant precompression below El. Most of the underlying foundation clay becomes normally consolidated.4. 5(a) plots the initial stress history applicable to zone 1 and preconsolidation pressure data measured via constant rate of strain consolidation (CRSC) tests.S. Embankment on Connecticut Valley Varved Clay This example design problem was performed as part of an MIT research program sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works in cooperation with the U. and crest (i. 3(a)] with anisotropic c„ values treated for the effects of progressive failure via the strain compatibility technique of Koutsoftas and Ladd (1985) as described later in Section 4. Ladd and Foott 1977). And since the undrained shear strength (c„) of normally consolidated soils is substantially less than the drained strength under field loading conditions.9. Fig. The site conditions are similar to those encountered in a 1972 MIT test program conducted at Amherst. The USA employed wedge-shaped failure surfaces [e. 3. 4.11 of the paper indicates that these simplifications tend to underpredict the available strength.e. a USA will give both safer and more reliable estimates of the actual factor of safety.3. Mass. Results from ESA and USA are compared for complete consolidation under the final embankment geometry.occurs so rapidly as to preclude dissipation of shear induced pore pressures. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (Ladd 1975. and (2) CK0U test data used to relate c„ to <r'vc for shearing in plane strain or triaxial compression and extension and in Geonor direct simple shear. 100 and higher values above due to desiccation.e. respectively).g.15-m) net increase in grade and to minimize postpavement settlements. slope.

55 WGIqcial TIL ^iftttwi -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 i i Medium-Soft 104.•M^5)-4»-(4)4. S = the normally consolidated value of T/<J'VC.5 108. (127-mm) diameter Osterberg samples. (%) (4) 15 37 27 (3) 39 66 54 .5-m) thick surcharge fill (Fig. /.305 m. wN (%) (2) 43 72 60 553 Liquid limit. 160 <Dyt(pcf) -FINAL GRADE rt = i2o p c f ^ \ . Design Problem for Highway Embankment on Connecticut Valley Varved Clay (1 ft = 0. and m = the strength increase exponent. culminating in a doctoral thesis (Sambhandharaksa 1977). MIT studied the stress-strain-strength anisotropy of Connecticut Valley varved clays for several years. These results can be approximated by the relationship 4" = S(OCR)'" (9) where T = c„ for a particular mode of failure.157 kN/m3) consolidation under the 5-ft (1.. The program included block and 5-in.5 I I I I i i ! I VERT CAL DRAINS I Varved CLAY I I I l I i I I I i l 80 I I ! ! I i i 60 I . and plane strain extension (PSE). 4. 1 pcf = 0. Table 2 presents the values of S and m that were used TABLE 1. Typical Index Properties of Connecticut Valley Varved Clay Component (1) "Silt" "Clay" Bulk Natural water content. ^ ! ' O l 2 0 116.-(l)-' 180 160 140 120 100 175- -rxT 4> = 3 5 ° y ( = 125 pcf SURCHARGE -©EL. both the Recompression and SHANSEP techniques and K0 consolidated-undrained (CK0U) tests sheared in compression. and direct simple shear on specimens having different overconsolidation ratios. direct simple shear (DSS).i i.5 *m:mm^mm (ft) 180 200 220 DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE FIG. extension. OCR = overconsolidation ratio = <J'P /o^. Application of the strain compatibility technique to the CK0U stressstrain data resulted in anisotropic undrained strength parameters for wedge shaped failure surfaces corresponding to shear in plane strain compression (PSC). 4). WL (%) Plasticity index.45 14i2 135 -+-=- i i i i i i ^ m ^ i l t y S A N D ^ = 3 0 .

Fig. especially at depth in spite of using 5-in.305 m. oio equals <s'vc in Eq. 5(b). 5(b) shows: (1) Significantly lower SHANSEP strengths for shearing parallel to the varves (jd) than for shearing across the varves in compression (TC) or in extension (TS). and c'/aj.01 and dV = 30° for shear across the varves in CU and CD triaxial compression and CU triaxial extension tests. The anisotropy of varved clays also causes substantial variations in the effective stress-strength parameters (Sambhandharaksa 1977): c'/<J'P = 0.85 are Trf = 0. whereas u'p becomes equal to a'vc for consolidation stresses that exceed the initial preconsolidation pressure of the varved clay deposit. and (3) a reversed trend for the laboratory UUC strengths. 9. Stress History and Undrained Strength Profiles for Connecticut Valley Varved Clay (1 ft = 0.74 ksf in zone 2 and Trf = 0. 5(b) also shows the computed gain in c„ due to full consolidation under the embankment loads via plots of the plane strain compression (PSC) TC for zones 3 and 5. (127-mm) diameter fixed piston samples. (2) peak strengths from Geonor field vane tests generally plotting above the SHANSEP values.90 ksf in zone 3.025 and $' = 20° for shear 554 . 1 ksf = 47. 5. Comparison of the initial (zone 1) undrained shear strength data presented in Fig.9 kPa) with the stress history profiles in Fig. For the initial stress history in zone 1. 5(a) to calculate the SHANSEP c„ profiles plotted in Fig.(a) STRESS HISTORY (ksf) + Peak * Remolded DSS PSC T C T d PSE r e FIG. Corresponding direct simple shear (DSS) strengths at El. = 0.

20 m (7) 0.225 1.16 1.26 ±0.16 ±0. "Estimated from data on other clays.00 — 1.015 0. Although wedged-shaped failure surfaces would have been more appropriate for the ESA. 6.00 0.00 0. and having 8 ft of settlement under the crest.12 c — "Mean ± one standard deviation from five test series.9 kPa) 555 .305 m.74 0.19 ±0.21 m (3) 0.83 Direct Simple Shear S (4) 0. The ESA used hydrostatic pore DISTANCE (ft) FIG. 6 shows the embankment geometry after full consolidation (U = 100%).00 0.00 — 1.26 1. Fig.05 ksf within the top 10 ft of clay for zones 1 and 2).00 — 1.01 0. ESA and USA Factors of Safety for Embankment on Connecticut Valley Varved Clay at 0 = 100% [from Ladd and Foott (1977)] (1 ft = 0.15 m (5) 0.25° — 0. 1 ksf = 47.015 0. parallel to the varves in conventional CD direct shear tests and CIUC tests run on specimens trimmed at 45°. b Mean ± one standard deviation from two test series.00 0. the analyses used Bishop circular arcs with <)>' = 25° and c' = 0 (except for c' = 0.02 0.225 ±0.215 — 0.03 0. Undrained Strength Parameters for Connecticut Valley Varved Clay and James Bay Sensitive Clay MODE OF FAILURE Compression Clay deposit (1) Connecticut Valley James Bay Marine (1) Intact* (2) Normally consolidated James Bay Lacustrine (1) Intact" (2) Normally consolidated S (2) 0.775 Extension S (6) 0.14 ±0.225 ±0.TABLE 2.

Thus. 3.6). The Embankment Stability Subcommittee (Ladd et al. Embankment Dam on James Bay Sensitive Clay This study was performed for Societe d'Energie de la Baie James (SEBJ) as part of the activities by a SEBJ "committee of specialists" to recommend techniques for designing embankment dams on soft sensitive clays for a hydroelectric project involving the Nottaway. The 4m crust has been weathered from freeze-thaw cycles.INDICES STRESS HISTORY (kPa) 100 200 300 FIG. Results from ESA and USA are compared for complete consolidation of the 18. (2) stage 1 construction having 6-m and 12-m thick berms. which assumes a slow drained failure. and Rupert rivers in northern Quebec. had a factor of safety almost double that from a USA corresponding to a rapid undrained failure of the foundation clay.5. and sensitivities increasing from about 30 to near 400 with depth. Broadback. a high liquidity index (IL = 1. 1983) selected the site of the B-6 powerhouse. The actual site has a thin Muskeg cover. The final geometry entailed the following for a 21-m net increase in grade: (1) Installation of vertical drains to 80 m from the centerline.50.5m thick foundation under the final cross section (but without impoundment). (1983)] pressures and gave a factor of safety (FS) = 2. located 90 km up the Broadback River. The next 8 m contain a relatively homogeneous. and Stress History at James Bay Site B-6 [from Ladd et al. Fig. for its example design problem. 7 shows the selected soil profile and related index properties.8 ± 0. low plasticity marine clay having 75% clay size fraction. the ESA. The USA used anisotropic c„ values with the Morgenstern-Price (1965) method of slices having active and passive wedges inclined at 50° and 30°. 7. The most critical location (bottom of wedge at El. Index Properties.8 for critical circles having a reasonable location within the foundation clay.86) gave FS = 1. with layers of silty sand. and (3) stage 2 construction the following summer. respectively. The properties of the underlying lacustrine clay are less well defined and also less homogeneous. within the varved clay. a thin transition zone 556 . Soil Profile.

1988). The parameters selected for normally consolidated clay involved judgment. one series of samples was tested with a'vc = a^o to obtain the initial undrained shear behavior of intact clay at the depths indicated in Fig. and till about 2 m deeper than selected for the problem. The s„(FV) within the marine clay remains nearly constant and agrees with the average c„ obtained from the CK0U test program (Lefebvre et al. -CLAY •++ Ve \ . which also considered field vane data. Specifically. The relatively constant <J'P within the marine clay is believed to be caused by some kind of cementation (Lefebvre et al. 7.• \ \ \ ! \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ T d \ Yd\ T c \ \ For U« 1 0 0 % Under 12m Upper Berm Lacust. Intact clay denotes soil consolidated to stresses less than the preconsolidation pressure. gave the preconsolidation pressure data plotted in Fig. corresponds to a constant precompression of about 35 kPa. 8 plots the initial anisotropic cu profiles for intact clay and those after complete consolidation under 12 m of fill. 9 is equivalent to assuming a constant cu/crp. but restricted to DSS testing for the lacustrine clay. 8. 1988). It also shows the mean peak strength from eight Nilcon field vane (FV) soundings run within a 5-m to 10-m radius from the block sample boring. Fig. The consolidation test program. Vane strengths within the 557 .&*& \ f§$l Initial Strength for Intact Clay FIG. selected at a shear strain of 2%. and using m = 1. Application of the strain compatibility technique to these data resulted in the anisotropic design strength parameters. presented in Table 2. The (J'M profile accounts for downward seepage at the site. Field Vane and Anisotropic Undralned Strength Profiles at James Bay Site B-6 between the marine and lacustrine clays. 1983. which ignores the small gain in c„ during recompression. run on block samples taken continuously down to 15 m with the Sherbrooke sampler (Lefebvre and Poulin 1979). and a second series was tested at a'vc increasing up to several times the in situ ap to measure the gain in c„ with consolidation at two depths within both layers. 7. The laboratory strength testing program included extensive CK0U triaxial compression and extension and Geonor direct simple shear tests run using the Recompression technique. since S varied with consolidation stress level.00 in Eq. The selected u'p profile for the lacustrine clay.10 -i UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH 20 30 40 50 75 —r1 i 1 --1 1 (kPa) 100 175 1 1 CRUST + Mean s u ( F V ) f r o m 8 profiles 1 1 i''+ + Marine CLAY 1 r ' ! IV1 \ • .

6. Nevertheless. 9 were still very high.2 for an overall crestto-toe failure. Inc. 8. but filled more rapidly.e. subsequent raises employed the upstream method via cycloning the mine tailings to produce a sand beach that forms the shell and slope of the dam and contains the cohesive slimes that are discharged into the upstream pond. gave a USA factor of safety (FS) = 2. (BCI) of Lakeland. but with significant scatter attributed to sandy layers. shown in Fig. Taking <)>' = 24° as a lower limit. 9 shows the final geometry for full consolidation (0 = 100%) under the embankment loads. The effective stress analyses employed Bishop circles and MorgensternPrice wedges with hydrostatic pore pressures since U = 100%. In558 . 9. (1983)] lacustrine clay tend to increase with depth. A site investigation in 1983 included: measurement of in situ pore pressures via piezometer probes and additional piezometers. 10).. and three borings with Osterberg fixed piston samples. After construction of a starter dam and initial filling in 1969 to El. ESA and USA Factors of Safety for Embankment Dam on James Bay Sensitive Clay at 0 = 100% [from Ladd et al. had failed the previous year. the resulting factors of safety in Fig. 9. The ESA used §' values of 20° and 28° as a conservative lower-bound range compared to the measured data. Upstream Tailings Dam The writer assisted Bromwell & Carrier. The most critical wedge. 3. Fig.220 in late 1981. A nearby dam of similar geometry.-J £ I 1 0 50 100 DISTANCE (m) 150 200 FIG. 155 and then more slowly since 1977 to reach El. and values of ^c and id for normally consolidated clay calculated as a'vc times the corresponding 5 parameter in Table 2. Florida during 1983-84 with the stability investigation of a tailings dam used to store slurried waste from processing of copper ore (Fig. values of c„ for intact clay (i.2. two Nilcon field vane soundings. Anisotropic cu profiles for the Morgenstern-Price analyses were calculated as follows: Boussinesq stress distribution used to obtain variations in a'vc throughout the foundation soils. Significant filling occurred in 1973-74 to El.85. <T'VC < a'p) taken equal to the TC and rd profiles plotted in Fig. Most of the foundation soils become normally consolidated and OCR = 1 CK0UC tests on the marine c|ay gave ()>' = 26 ± 2° at the peak strength and <(>' = 33 ± 4° at maximum' obliquity. the ESA gives a FS of about 5.

33 ± 0. The following summarizes CU test data obtained by R. laboratory of Woodward-Clyde Consultants. BCI successfully modeled pore pressures within the pond using a one-dimensional finite strain consolidation analysis (Bromwell 1984).5 below E l . Ip = 10 ± 3 % . 10) and attributed this to significant horizontal flow.6 k N / m 3 ).18.7%.1: Peak qf/v'vc = 0.1% and 4>' = 33. 11 summarizes pond conditions measured at boring B l .225 ± 0.1 to 19. 10. ESA and USA Factors of Safety for Upstream Tailings Dam (from Bromwell & Carrier.0%. Five CAUC with a 4 / ( < 0 > 1. THJO'L = 0.015 at 7 = 14 ± 2% and <)>' = 34 ± 1°. due to significant consolidation from downward seepage.5 ± 3.2 to better the slope of the dam gave peak respectively. strain compatibility and the likely beneficial 559 . The stress history data show pore pressures much less than hydrostatic.J. Fig. 5„(UUC)/CT^O averaged only 0.5 ± 1. In contrast. and 7. N.25% and 4>' = 26 ± 2°. 1 pcf = 0.24 and 0.30 times the measured vertical consolidation stress.) (1 ft = 0. Ladd in the Clifton. • • Five CIUC with a'c / o ^ > 1-5: Peak qf/a'c = 0.002 at 7 = 9.4 and Kc = o ^ / c C = 0.4 and 1. S.015 at 7 = 0. 11 also compares UUC and field vane strengths to c„ values computed as 0. and good agreement between the end-of-primary (EOP) oedometer u'p and the measured cr^. lL decreasing from about 1.28 at 7 = 4. Fig. two DSS tests consolidated with simulate the non-AT0 conditions existing under Tft/o4 = 0. After considering influence of three-dimensional • In addition.5 at El.5 ± 1. UJ or.0°.31 ± 0. _ 1 I I I I I I I I 400 600 800 1000 1200 DISTANCE (ft) FIG.2 300 y 200 UJ LU O LU 100 (T UJ Li. 100. > 1-5: Peak T„/CT. Inc. = CT„ — u within the "underconsolidated" slimes.XFV) typically plot within this range and the sensitivity decreased with depth from about four to two.157 kN/m 3 ) dex properties of the copper slimes obtained from borings Bl and B2 are: wL = 32 ± 3 % . Maximum obliquity q/<j'vc = 0.27 ± 0. The i'.305 m.C = 0. but measured much higher u values than predicted under the slope (see Fig. increasing from 115 to 125 pcf (18.015 at 7 = 11.55 ± 0.1 and 0. Four CK0UDSS with o^/o^.190 to 0.25 and 0.

Although both types of analyses require knowledge of the same prefailure effective stress conditions. whereas t. Undrained Strength and Stress History Data at Boring B1 of Upstream Tailings Dam (from Bromwell & Carrier. Conclusions from Case Histories Table 3 summarizes the results from the three examples. they give large differences in the computed factor of safety. whereas cp' > 30° produced FS s 2 for failure of the starter dam (note: treatment of the tailings sand as an infinite slope gives FS = 2. the FS = 2.4 ± 0.305 m. 3 C T ^ ^ l •*• Nilcon Field Vane OCTp s U from EOP oedometer from piezometers FIG.275 ± 0. Inc.) (1 ft = 0. 11.UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (ksf) 0 D STRESS HISTORY(ksf) 5 10 15 2 ^ 20 . 1 ksf = 47. Although an undrained failure is certainly 560 . 10 shows results from Bishop circular arc analyses using pore pressure contours measured two years after the last filling in late 1981. but anisotropic consolidation produced a much lower value (dV = 26°) at the peak undrained strength due to the small strain at failure. by a ratio of about two. BCI's program enabled direct computation of c„ as a fraction of the vertical effective stress for each slice and the circle having FS = 1.4 shown for the ESA corresponds to substantial failure through the slimes rather than minimum values for failures largely confined to granular soils.2 5 a 0 .7. the writer selected c„/ffi0 = 0.25 ± 0. The ESA used ()>' varying in 5° increments over a wide range. c„ was defined as T = q cos dV from triaxial tests and as 7h from DSS tests.+ K + H 40 ^ 60 x" o*+X + +\ +\ ^ \ \ + • \ \ \ o \ 80 C 100 L LJ Q 120 140 160 OUUC c /cr °XN\ o 1 1 0 u Jo = °. A conventional effective stress analysis inherently uses FS(ESA) = sd/im = tan <j>'/tan <>^ corresponding to a slow drained failure (CD case). Hence. Both sets of triaxial tests gave the same friction angle at maximum obliquity (d)' = 34°). due to differences in their definition of factor of safety. 1983).1 represents the critical location for the USA. Fig.1). the USA results are more credible given the failure of a similar dam during construction and the lower pore pressures used for these analyses than existed at the end of filling two years earlier. an undrained strength analysis uses FS (USA) = C„/T„ corresponding to a rapid undrained failure (CU case). In any case. 3.9 kPa) "end effects" during a potential failure (Azzouz et al. The circle shown is typical of the critical location for d)' s 25°.025 as the best estimate and range of the in situ undrained shear strength ratio for the USA. As before.

(1982). the writer reviewed results from analyses of embankment failures that occurred during fairly rapid construction.25 ±0.2 ±0. a ESA may not provide a reliable prediction of an impending failure.e. they are too shallow. would one expect smaller differences at lower factors of safety? Comparison of ESA and USA results should ideally follow changes in FS during staged construction projects that eventually led to failures and had sufficient information regarding stress history. would they both calculate a FS near unity? Since such comparisons could not be found. failures falling under the UU case. In any case.4 ±0.. not ESA minimum 2.9 Remarks (8) ESA gives shallow failure For crest-toe failure. Comparison of Effective Stress versus Undrained Strength Stabliity Analyses USA Example (1) Embankment: varved clay Embankment: sensitive clay Upstream tailings dam Comparison for (2) Long-term (U = 100%) Long-term (U = 100%) ESA strength (3) SHANSEP anisotropic c„ for wedge Recompression anisotropic c„ for wedge SHANSEP isotropic c„ FS (4) 1.35 During staged construction 1. and measured pore pressures. i. Although amazingly few definitive case histories exist in the literature.. or a combination thereof. appears to be quite the opposite for field loading problems. In particular.. the writer concludes that even when staged construction exists at a near failure condition. The examples in Table 3 also agree with the second observation. • Predict critical failure surfaces that tend to be significantly smaller than actually observed.50 Envelope (5) c|>' = 25° best estimate d>' = 24 ± 4° conservative FS (6) 2.7 2. to enable detailed analyses. in contrast to ESA. A partial explanation for this apparent anomaly can be obtained from 561 .TABLE 3. i. the generally accepted hypothesis (Skempton 1948a.4 1. one might still ask if the results in Table 3 are representative.e. it would appear that ESA generally: • Give reasonable FS values with clays of low plasticity. the normal stress computed from a simplified Bishop (or comparable) method of slices.1 4>' = 30 ± 4° best estimate 2. If both types of analysis were then made moments before an actual undrained failure. also much more likely).9 more critical (and.2 5.80 FS(ESA)/ FS(USA) (7) 1. etc. with conclusions quite similar to those contained in Pilot et al. in the writer's opinion. Bishop and Bjerrum 1960) that "<j> = 0" circular arc analyses predict the wrong location of failure surfaces. the selected c'-<$>' values. strength parameters. This review focused on case histories with sufficient pore pressure data for meaningful effective stress analyses. but tend to be unsafe with organic and highly plastic soils. not ESA minimum For slimes failure. The three examples in Table 3 show similar ratios of factors of safety in spite of substantial differences in the computed FS(USA) for an undrained failure. It is not clear whether this serious problem with ESA occurs due to errors in pore pressure distribution. In fact.

i. such as used for the tailings dam case history. the value of T. But now look at the error resulting from the two simplifications described in Section 3.8.3 that were used to compute the undrained shear strength for the USA (as done previously and also for the embankment case histories).23 ± 0.quantifying the conceptual comparison in Fig. which inherently assumes a slow drained failure. the use of effective stress analyses as proposed by Bishop and Bjerrum (1960) to check stability during staged construction attracted 562 . The aforementioned calculation gives ratios strikingly similar to those in Table 3. Although some engineers may conduct ESA with "low" c'-<f>' values and/or "high" u values in an attempt to guard against the possibility of an undrained failure. the simplified FS(USA) progressively errs on the safe side as the consolidated foundation clay approaches a failure condition. This occurs because of the definition of FS used in a ESA. the writer still expects FS(ESA)/FS(USA) ratios greater than about 1. but the resulting error tends to give safe rather than unsafe results. respectively.04 from CK0U direct simple shear tests. How then does the predicted stability vary with the level of shear stress required for equilibrium. Assume for simplicity that shear along the horizontal portion of the wedge fully controls stability. the writer concludes that conventional effective stress analyses employed to evaluate stability during staged construction based on measured prefailure pore pressures will generally give highly misleading and unsafe estimates of the factor of safety. 3. Taking d>' = 25 ± 5° and <(>' = 29 ± 5° as typical for CK0U triaxial compression tests at the peak undrained strength and maximum obliquity. both of these simplifications tend to underestimate the available c„ at low factors of safety since CU/<J'VC generally increases with increasing rju'^ = T. to remove undue conservatism. this approach should not be considered as a reliable replacement for a USA.11 presents data from so-called CAUDSS tests that quantify this beneficial effect). 7 and 8: tan §' tan $' FS(ESA) FS(USA) tan <|>. and CU/<J'VC = 0. And more sophisticated USA can be made. But even considering this error. In contrast.„/a^.. one obtains mean FS(ESA)/FS(USA) ratios of 2.4. an undrained strength analysis makes a more critical (and generally more realistic) assumption of no drainage during a potential failure. In summary.0 and 2.? From Eqs. In other words. Finally.C/CT^C = T.5 for factors of safety encountered with typical staged construction projects that use measured pore pressures with realistic failure surfaces and strength parameters. c„ (-) \Vvc/ t a n dj>' Cu_ N \oi/ (10) V'vc Hence.e. 3. In essence. a USA of the type used for the two embankment case histories does involve simplifications. the ratio is independent of FS provided that tan §' and CU/G'VC remain constant.. respectively. IC /O4 (Section 4. Overview of Current Practice As noted before.

It appears widely used to assess the stability of tailings dams. and. (|> = (j>c„) and the "effective stress analysis" means estimated or measured in situ effective stresses.e. (1982). most importantly. has a long history. and has been widely adopted in the United States. along with attempts to conduct "undrained" effective stress analyses. Rivard and Lu (1978). most importantly. "Slope Stability" (1982). and S envelopes rather than total versus effective stress analyses. DM-7 ("Stability Analysis" 1971) (attributed to James Gould) makes the following statement regarding foundation stability both during and after (long-term) staged construction: "Where additional pore pressures are developed during shear of compressible impervious materials.." In essence. in effective stress analysis with strengths c and <$> from CU tests.g. at least for construction involving governmental agencies. Section 31.3 of Wroth and Houlsby (1985). the influence of Arthur Casagrande as evidenced by the adoption of his "QRS" approach in design manuals by the U. In any case. but refer to Q.1. Section 6 addresses its potential limitations. how it varies throughout construction. which are treated as preshear consolidation stresses. And effective stress analyses are generally preferred on a conceptual basis by authors such as Janbu (1977. Army Corps of Engineers ("Stability of" 1970. 2 is called an effective stress analysis by the Navy ("Stability Analysis" 1971). First. R. But as also previously noted. Section 4 of the paper treats the significance and evaluation of the initial preconsolidation pressure (Section 5 covers changes 563 . and Section 5. others have long believed that staged construction should be treated as a consolidated-undrained (CU) case.many followers.S. Endorsements of this approach for embankment construction include Parry (1972). both due to the known limitations of conventional total stress analyses and the ability of ESA to take ready advantage of field piezometer data [e. 1979) and Schmertmann (1975). Tavenas and Leroueil (1980).4 of Lambe and Whitman (1969)]. The paper also proposes a new classification of stability evaluations to help avoid future confusion regarding the assumed drainage conditions during construction and at failure and the corresponding strength parameters. These include early papers on staged construction by Lobdell (1959) and BrinchHansen (1962) and. "Design and" 1978) and the 1961-1971 versions of the NAVDOCKS/NAVFAC DM-7. 2 (i. 4. . The design manuals of the US ACE make similar recommendations. . the QRS approach treats staged construction as a CU case. SOIL BEHAVIORAL ISSUES Execution of an undrained strength analysis entails assessment of the initial in situ undrained shear strength (c„) of the cohesive foundation soils and subsequent changes in c„ during staged construction. For example.. the "c and <|>" denote values from CIUC tests interpreted as shown in Fig. Murray and Symons (1984). utilize pore pressures . One major source of confusion lies in the fact that use of the §cu envelope in Fig. the relationship between c„ and stress history. whereas Article 36 of Terzaghi and Peck (1967) refers to its use by the USACE as a total stress analysis. basic soil behavioral issues affecting these parameters will be identified and summarized. Pilot et al. even those containing cohesive slimes. This process requires knowledge of the initial stress history of the deposit (cr^o and o-p).

due to drained creep: constant OCR versus depth. the relative importance of the aforementioned mechanisms is often unclear and usually impossible to prove. thin-walled sampling of 70-mrn-85-mm diameter.. Physico-chemical. 4. an accurate definition of the u'p profile is a major design issue since the initial stress history governs the initial in situ cu within a fairly narrow range independent of the physical preconsolidation pressure mechanisms. and still often called.in stress history) and then focuses on factors that should be considered in laboratory consolidated-undrained strength testing programs. the writer feels that the distinction between normally consolidated "young" versus "aged" clays (Bjerrum 1973) may give a misleading impression of the actual preconsolidation mechanisms. the mechanical and desiccation mechanisms will usually dominate and the main practical problem often entails measurement of the degree of "underconsolidation. 4.. This distinction has practical significance when attempting to select a u'p profile consistent with the geologic history of the deposit and in estimating the in situ state of stress. due to overburden removal or lower water table: constant a'p — <J'M versus depth. Preconsolidation Pressure: Evaluation Laboratory Tests Laboratory consolidation tests constitute one of the most important components of the exploration and testing program. the "maximum past pressure" that acted on the clay.. the profession now generally views <J'P as representing a yield stress that separates small strain "elastic" behavior from large strains accompanied by plastic (irrecoverable) deformation during onedimensional compression. the OCR of the latter may also include mechanical and physicochemical effects.2." i. In any case. from a practical viewpoint.1.e. (1985). Even though staged construction projects justify fixed-piston. Desiccation. (1985) include the following regarding four mechanisms that can cause overconsolidation (<J'P > u'M) within horizontal clay deposits with geostatic stresses.e. brittle deposits like the marine clay in Fig. the deposit is still consolidating with aio = o-p (e. sample dis564 . due to natural cementation and related phenomena: a'p probably variable. Mechanical. Aging (secondary compression). 4. unknown effect on K0 (Note: This mechanism may predominate in some sensitive. Examples cited in Table V of Jamiolkowski et al. probable deviations from KQ. Fig. For projects involving man-made deposits such as dredged materials and mineral processing wastes. 7). Preconsolidation Pressure: Significance Although originally considered. 3. whether K0 increases or remains essentially constant (writer's opinion) still controversial. 2. due to evaporation or freezing: variable ap decreasing with depth.g. Sample Disturbance. i. But with natural deposits. For this reason. and <j'p represents the dividing line between recompression having relatively little increase in c„ and virgin compression causing substantial strengthening of the foundation soils. 11). 1. K0 conditions. The following summarizes and updates pertinent conclusions from Jamiolkowski et al.

Incremental oedometer tests using a load increment ratio (AP/P) of unity are most common. And controlled gradient tests are less desirable because they vary the strain rate (Leroueil et al. For destructured (OCR = 1 ) specimens.e. with no change in the failure envelope.5 of Jamiolkowski et al. Test Equipment. except that AP/P should often be reduced to about 0." But are those data representative of most soft clays? The writer believes that they probably represent a special case based on results in Lefebvre and LeBoeuf (1987) from CU triaxial tests sheared at different strain rates on block samples of three highly sensitive Canadian clays.turbance may still affect the data adversely. but they require more sophisticated equipment and may seriously overestimate crp if run too fast. the decrease in peak strength was caused by higher pore pressures. and concludes "that hypothesis A is not correct. Wissa et al. In other words.. The controlled gradient test (Lowe et al. especially since laboratory data sometimes give mislead565 .g. Constant rate of strain tests should be run with modest excess pore pressures [e. which may explain the field observations reported by Leroueil (1988) for highly structured clays. Thus. (1985) and subsequent "Discussion to Session 2" illustrate the divergent views regarding whether the time required to reach the end-of-primary consolidation (tp) affects the location of the compression curve. but also used Schmertmann's (1955) technique and now the work per unit volume technique of Becker et al. Leroueil (1988) summarizes field data for four extremely compressible (highly structured) clays that show in situ virgin compression curves and values of o'p that fall well below those obtained from laboratory end-of-primary compression curves. this means using compression curves plotted at or shortly after the end-of-primary rather than at 24 hours (the latter typically reduces <rp by 10 ± 10%). with no change in pore pressure. 1971) give continuous data in much less time. 1985). Time Effects.. the empirically developed end-of-primary uniqueness concept (Mesri and Choi 1985b) that forms the basis for hypothesis A still appears most reasonable for general practice.5 to obtain a better defined curve in the vicinity of <yp. For more ordinary cohesive soils. 1986). 1969) and the constant rate of strain test (Smith and Wahls 1969. does significant creep occur only after the dissipation of excess pore pressures (hypothesis A) or does it also occur during primary consolidation (hypothesis B). as recommended by Mesri (1985)] so as not to overestimate ap. 1985. the decrease in peak strength at slower strain rates was caused by a decrease in the effective stress failure (yield) envelope. Holtz et al. Section 2. (1987) for soils having an ill-defined break in the compression curve. The writer relies mainly on the method of Casagrande (1936). a soil skeleton resistance produced by cementation bonds (i. Radiography can identify zones of excessive disturbance and is ideally suited to help select the most representative and best-quality soil for testing. For brittle intact (OCR > 1) specimens. Field Tests Site characterization programs should include in situ testing as an economical means of soil profiling and to assess spatial variability in engineering properties. the physico-chemical <r'p mechanism described previously) can be very strainrate dependent. Interpretative Technique. For incremental oedometer tests. Correlations of ap with the measured strain at a'M may prove useful (Lacasse et al.

Neither in situ nor laboratory UU-type tests have this capability. the undrained strength-consolidation stress relationship must be obtained from laboratory consolidated-undrained (CU) strength testing. for example. an undrained strength analysis (USA) requires predictions of the initial foundation strength and subsequent increases due to consolidation as functions of the initial stress history and how it changes during construction. FVT data generally provide reasonable strengths for preliminary design [say ±25% with Bjerrum's (1972) correction factor] and therefore should reflect spatial variations in stress history. For relatively homogeneous clay deposits (i. 1986ft) shows that universal correlations between penetration pore pressure-cone resistance data and stress history are not likely because the shear induced pore pressure. The initial undrained strength anisotropy governing stage 1 stability for the three elements on a wedge can be correctly 566 . Following are comments on three tests. Piezocone Penetration Test (CPTU). fibers. The clay foundation initially exists in a K0 < 1 condition with the angle between the major principal stress and the vertical depositional direction being zero (8 = 0°). as well as the practical limitations of available equipment. represents a small component of the total pore pressure measured either on the tip or behind the cone. with emphasis on their use to help interpolate and extrapolate laboratory preconsolidation pressure data. provided that one uses well-designed equipment and pays careful attention to deairing and calibration.4. Rational selection of an appropriate CU test program should consider pertinent soil behavioral issues. Schmertmann (1986) presents a suggested standard for performing the DMT developed by Marchetti (1980) to provide a simple. Consider. and Section 3. hence. Efforts to derive reliable undrained strengths from cone data also encounter problems (even after correction for the pore pressure-area ratio) and thus may require site-specific correlations. etc.)... 1985). the empirical relationship developed by Marchetti (1980) for Italian clays has limitations [e. the complex states of stress illustrated in Fig.2. Since the values of S^ and m vary significantly with soil type. Levadoux and Baligh 1986. absence of shells.= SWOCR)'" (11) Chandler (1988) and Section 2. Baligh (1986a. inexpensive means both for identifying soil types and estimating certain engineering properties. which varies with OCR. and.ing trends due to sample disturbance. quantitative estimates of a'p will require site-specific correlations.4 of Jamiolkowski et al. varves. such as the K0 and OCR of cohesive deposits.e. Lacasse and Lunne (1988)] and thus requires site-specific correlations for all major projects. Although the potential benefit of the OCR correlation is especially attractive. Field Vane Test (FVT). Marchetti Dilatometer Test (DMT).g. Factors Affecting Consolidated-Undrained Strength Testing As previously stated. granular layers.5 of Jamiolkowski et al. The data should be evaluated via log-log plots of undrained strength ratio versus overconsolidation ratio in order to use the relationship *«(FV) — 7 . (1985) illustrate this approach. 4. But the CPTU is ideally suited for rapid soil profiling and for estimating coefficients of consolidation (Campanella and Robertson 1988.3. 12.

Since practical solutions clearly must simplify the real problem. for element D in Fig. Hence. and progressive failure-strain compatibility.4. 4. cause internal migration of water. especially for element D. the paper next summarizes aspects of CK0U testing considered especially important: sample disturbance and consolidation stress history. and often produce highly variable strengths from unconsolidated-undrained (UU) type testing. 1985) alter the in situ soil structure. Sample Disturbance and Reconsolidation Techniques Although special large diameter samplers exist (Lefebvre and Poulin 1979. rotation of principal stresses (anisotropy). But subsequent consolidation under the stage 1 loading causes deviations from K0 conditions. frequently lead to substantial reductions in the effective stress of the sample (o-j).. Baligh et al. 12).e. 12. LaRochelle et al. and plane strain extension (PSE) tests. (1987) show significant disturbance from the straining associated with common thin-walled tube sampling based on theoretical analyses using the strain path method (Baligh 1985) and experimental studies. most projects utilize more conventional tube sampling (preferably fixed piston) due to their lower cost and the need for deep samples. consolidated-undrained (CU) tests must 567 . one needs to appreciate the potential errors caused by various simplifications. intermediate principal stress. but only for research. direct simple shear (DSS). Test devices having this theoretical capability now exist. Accurate predictions of its strength for the stage 2 USA would require applying consolidation stresses having cr[c acting at angle 82. The paper then compares laboratory-derived strengths with those inferred from case histories of failures and evaluates potential errors from using CK0U data to predict cu after non-Ko consolidation (i. 1981).-o FIG. followed by undrained shear with <j[f oriented at angle 83.•Stage 2 Stage I INITIAL CONDITION AFTER STAGE 1 CONSOLIDATION STAGE 2 FAILURE t . time effects. he" •°h« ho < o°vo vc °i'f a 3f Eh 'he 8. This effect and other sources of disturbance (Table 7 of Jamiolkowski et al. For this purpose. Example of Complex States of Stress During Staged Construction for Element D modeled in the laboratory via CK0U plane strain compression (PSC).

Specifically.'^shown as point 3. . The companion paper by Berre and Bjerrum (1973) states: "Provided that the reduction in water content . 9). [at point 3] .. and (4) use these with the stress history to compute c„ profiles. The latter should approximate the in situ K0. where the two principal variables are the vertical consolidation stress. is not too large. unless K0 is near unity. to obtain values of S and m in Eq. a'vc.laboratory KQ compression curves for a slightly overconsolidated soft clay. respectively. . SHANSEP assumes me568 . 13. . the results . . entails the following basic steps (for a given layer and mode of failure): (1) Establish the initial stress history. a-' (log scale FIG. Bjerrum (1973) presents the rationale underlying the Recompression technique long practiced by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. «-5-2»°p E \l \ \ {B]\ \ Recompression CK 0 U Test rr LU > [A]—[g] SHANSEP CK 0 U Tests i ~~EJ V E R T I C A L CONSOLIDATION STRESS. (3) express the results in terms of log undrained strength ratio versus log OCR (e. CIU tests have little merit. and also on specimens rebounded to varying OCR to measure overconsolidated behavior (points C and D). Although originally developed based on the empirical observation that it yielded reasonable results. Points 1 and 2 designate the in situ condition and the preshear effective stress for a UU test.u © In Situ Stress Test ©UUC ® 1- CK n tjAN. Therefore. as described by Ladd and Foott (1974) and Ladd et al. and the consolidation stress ratio. Test specimens following the Recompression technique are reconsolidated to a'vc =CT. and attention will focus on the Recompression and SHANSEP reconsolidation techniques employed for CK0U test programs.g. which shows hypothetical in situ and . Kc = cr'hc/crlc. The SHANSEP technique. 13. 13). both to help restore the in situ soil structure and to give more meaningful stressstrain-strength data.ICAL ST o < a: f Lab <o °"p ®--4x 0 \ ln Si. (2) perform CK0U tests on specimens consolidated well beyond the in situ a'„ to measure the behavior of normally consolidated clay (points A and B in Fig. These two techniques are illustrated in Fig. (1977)] be employed in order to minimize these adverse effects.5%-4% and conclude that destruction of natural bonding by sample disturbance more than offsets the strength gain due to the lower water content. (1977). the rationale for the SHANSEP reconsolidation technique to minimize disturbance effects was predicated on the assumption that natural clays exhibit normalized behavior. Consolidation Procedures for Laboratory CK0U Testing [after Ladd et al. Points A-D correspond to typical stresses used for SHANSEP. ." They quote typical volumetric strains of 1. should give a fair representation of the behaviour of clay in the field. .

Is strictly applicable only to mechanically overconsolidated and truly normally consolidated soils exhibiting normalized behavior. Is more accurate for highly structured.5). The Recompression and SHANSEP techniques both involve K0 consolidation. . 4. provided that the first step does not cross the "yield envelope" for isotropic consolidation (Germaine and Ladd 1988. But reliable stress-strain data also require high-quality samples (LaRochelle et al. 9 leading to a constant cu/u'p. many laboratories use a simplified technique via isotropic consolidation to (j'hc = K0v'vc. > 5-10 and IL > 1-1. 3. Lacasse et al. Finally. and for testing highly weathered and heavily overconsolidated crusts where SHANSEP is often difficult to apply." 3. such as typical of eastern Canada. dredged materials. Should not be used in truly normally consolidated soils (OCR = 1). SHANSEP may tend to underestimate strengths in deposits having significant physico-chemical effects and perhaps characterized by m = 1 in Eq. it should be recognized. 2. sensitive clays and with naturally cemented deposits. the reconsolidation procedure will lead to serious errors. Lacasse and Berre 1988).chanically overconsolidated behavior to represent all preconsolidation pressure mechanisms. 2. Has the distinct advantage of forcing the user to assess the in situ stress history and of developing normalized strength parameters that are necessary for all staged construction projects. check the reasonableness of the measured c «/°"rf) values. . followed by drained loading to reach u'vc. meaning a relatively low sensitivity and the preconsolidation pressure caused mainly by the mechanical-desiccation-aging mechanisms. when 569 . Hence. Although more research is needed to quantify the likely errors associated with using the Recompression and SHANSEP techniques for the wide range of sample qualities and soil types encountered in practice. 5. 1985). The SHANSEP technique: 1. On the other hand. . brittle clays (say S. obtained . Is probably preferred for testing conventional tube samples from low OCR deposits of "ordinary" clays. The Recompression technique: 1. 1981. Should always be accompanied by a thorough evaluation of the in situ stress history in order to: estimate K0. the writer offers the following guidelines and comments for CK0U test programs. Both approaches also require shearing in different failure modes to assess stress-strain-strength anisotropy. . Is preferred for strongly cemented soils (although often hard to identify). and recent deltaic deposits. Peck (1973) cautions that the Recompression technique "goes hand in hand with the most expert sampling" and when "samples of the necessary quality are not . This is reasonable. which is difficult and costly for triaxial testing without automation. Is clearly preferred when block quality samples are available. and hence involves obvious errors with highly structured. SHANSEP may significantly underpredict peak triaxial strengths (Tavenas and Leroueil 1985) and probably gives somewhat conservative design strengths after considering anisotropy and strain compatibility. such as encountered in tailings slimes. since reconsolidation toCT^O= °"p will clearly overestimate the in situ strength. and extrapolate and interpolate the "point" data versus OCR.

and no proven framework exists to select strain rates for CK0U testing.5%-l% per hour for triaxial tests. for which one should standardize the amount of aging in order to obtain consistent CK0U data.05 for pranging from several minutes to several hours. 570 . and the direction of the applied major principal stress relative to the vertical (depositional) direction denoted by the 8 angle (Fig. Aging effects are therefore most important with low OCR specimens. The writer recommends one log cycle since: With log (t/t„) much less than one. respectively. Laboratory UU and CU tests on cohesive soils show higher strengths with increasing strain rate (e) and hence decreasing time to failure (tf). both techniques should be considered for staged construction projects. Mesri and Castro (1987) show a unique relationship between the rate of secondary compression and the slope of the one-dimensional compression curve during both recompression and virgin compression for any given soil. where c„0 is the reference strength. 12). the resulting undrained strength ratios may be different because of the hysteresis loop exhibited by one-dimensional unload-reload cycles. that Recompression reloads the soil and SHANSEP usually unloads the soil to the relevant OCR. say at e = 1 % per hour. Time Effects Two types of time effects influence the behavior of CK0U tests: the time allowed for consolidation prior to shear.. have differing potentials for error. being higher for triaxial than for direct simple shear.)0)/A log e.1 ± 0. 4. The mechanisms responsible for this behavior are still poorly understood. The effect can be expressed in terms of X = (Ac„/c. and require relatively sophisticated CK0U testing. Changes in the values of b and 8 lead to different stress-strain responses due to the effects of o-2 and anisotropy. a log (t/ tp) much greater than one will take too long and the c„ data will need a correction for the increased &p. secondary compression equals one-dimensional drained creep) increases the stiffness and preconsolidation pressure (o£) and hence the undrained strength of normally loaded soils. significant pore pressures may develop during undrained shear due to preventing secondary compression. depending on the sample quality and soil type. Both also depend upon a careful assessment of the in situ history. and the mode of shearing . \ usually increases at very fast shearing rates. 4. Hence. and the strain rate (or rate of load application) used during shear.e. But general experience based on a balance between practicality and limited case histories has resulted in the following practice by many leading research-consulting laboratories: axial strain rate of 0. affects X. In summary. A may be much larger in high OCR soils. Stress Systems for CK0U Test Programs When comparing shear devices available for CK0U testing.5. and shear strain rate of 5% per hour for direct simple shear tests.6. The first type affects behavior due to the well-known fact that "aging" at constant effective stress (i. two variables usually suffice to describe the basic differences in the applied stress system (applied state of stress): the relative magnitude of the intermediate principal stress as defined by b = (CT2 — o-3)/(o-1 .dealing with overconsolidated deposits.a 3 ). explicitly for SHANSEP and implicitly for Recompression. The thorough literature survey by Lacasse (1979) and subsequent research indicate the following trends: CIUC tests on OCR = 1 clays typically give \ = 0.

1983) has the theoretical ability to cover much of the bversus-8 space in Fig. S(degrees) 2 FIG. Torsional shear hollow cylinder (TSHC): The apparatus developed at Imperial College (Hight et al. 14. 14. Comments regarding their usefulness for CK0U testing in practice follow [Jamiolkowski et al. but have very limited usefulness in practice regarding anisotropy (e.. True triaxial apparatus (TTA): Devices that can readily vary the principal stress magnitudes are well suited to study changes in b.DEVICE • CAPABILITY O Restricted band 8 ^ • TorS bandS O Varies 0 30 60 90 MAJOR PRINCIPAL STRESS DIRECTION.g.4). Such tests have been run on conventional tube samples of clay (Saada and Townsend 1981). Plane strain compression/extension (PSC/E): These devices can provide reliable CK0U data for plane strain shearing at 8 = 0° and 90° (Vaid and Campanella 1974). 1981). usually restricted to 8 = 0° as shown in Fig. but cannot achieve intermediate 8 angles. Direct simple shear (DSS): The Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) and MIT use the Geonor DSS (Bjerrum and Landva 1966) to simulate the horizontal 571 . 14 illustrates the combinations of b and 5 that can be achieved by laboratory shear devices. CK0U testing for staged construction projects should shear specimens at representative 8 angles to measure the stress-strain-strength anisotropy of the soil. which often approximates a plane strain condition (say with b = 0. but its use to date has been restricted to tests on sand. Stress Systems Achievable by Shear Devices for CK„U Testing [Modified from Germaine (1982)] Ideally. this research device is not yet ready for use in practice. Directional shear cell (DSC): The DSC has the unique ability to vary 8 between 0° and 90° under plane strain conditions by application of normal and shear stresses to four sides of a cubical sample constrained between two rigid end platens (Arthur et al. Such tests also should duplicate the in situ b value. (1985) provide additional details and references]. Although ideally suited for detailed studies of anisotropy. 14).3-0. = P 0 ) inherently cause b to increase from zero to unity as 8 varies from 0° to 90°. Fig. TSHC tests that maintain equal inner and outer pressures (P. which complicates interpretation of the data.

An inherent anisotropy arises from the "soil structure" developed at the microlevel (preferred particle orientations and interparticle forces) and also at the macrolevel for certain soils such as varved glacial-lake deposits.167/0.)/(AO-„ — Aoft) since Aav.portion of a failure surface as part of their standard procedure for evaluating anisotropy via the Recompression and SHANSEP techniques. Its use in practice is increasing even though the failure values of 0.g. Triaxial compression/extension (TC/E): Conventional CK0U triaxial tests can shear samples only at 8 = 0° and 90° with b = 0 and 1. Such testing should generally give conservative peak strengths for plane strain problems since Ladd et al. direction (8 angle) during monotonic shearing. qf(TC)/qf(PSC) = 0. which describes how the initial cross-anisotropic properties of a K0 consolidated clay change due to plastic strains caused by stresses (both shear and consolidation) applied during staged construction. the resulting cross-anisotropic behavior has two components.1) sin <$>' with Af = (Aw — ACT.40 and Af = 0.300 = 0. Assuming isotropic material properties with K0 = 1 — sin 4>'.02 (only four clays). • At 8 = 90°. However. Ideally.. Eq. (1985).50 and Af = 1. have come from PSC or TC. The next sections review the nature of strength anisotropy and summarize typical results. even though sin 4>' and Af also vary due to the effects of inherent anisotropy.233/0.78 for sin <K = 0.7.Ao-„)/(Aaft . where the normalized undrained strength ratio for low OCR clays sheared in compression and extension can be expressed as follows: qf(C) [K0 + (1 . respectively. 12 gives Ks = qf(E)/qf(C) = 0. — <J3) and 8 in the DSS remain illusive due to nonuniform and incomplete stress-strain conditions [e.82 ± 0. one should also consider the influence of evolving anisotropy. In summary. For natural clays having a one-dimensional strain history (K0 consolidation and rebound).333 = 0.K0)Af] sin $ ' 1 + (2Af — 1) sin d>' with Af = (Aw .00 and Ks = 0. 4. The combined effect of both components is of prime interest in practice. respectively. as first predicted by BrinchHansen and Gibson (1949) and called initial shear stress anisotropy by Jamiolkowski et al. since common shear devices cannot realistically simulate complex principal stress rotations 572 .5 (CJ. DSS.75..KQ)AJ\ sin <$>' = o4 1 + (2Af . Clays also exhibit directionally dependent undrained strengths whenever shearing starts from & K0 ¥= \ condition.05 (several clays). = Acr3 <?/(£) <s'vc = (12a) [1 ~ (1 .50 for sin cj>' = 0. qf(TE)/qf(PSE) = 0. (1977) quote: • At 8 = 0°. essentially all available data for assessing the undrained stressstrain-strength anisotropy of natural clays. Ladd and Edgers (1972)]. starting from K0 conditions. Subsequent data show these values as being typical of the initial undrained strength anisotropy for lean and plastic OCR = 1 clays. and PSE or TE tests. Components and Causes of Anisotropy Initial anisotropy denotes changes in the stress-strain-strength response of a soil with variations in the applied cr.Ao„) since Ao„ = Ao-3.92 ± 0.

.01 for northeastern U.11.25 or 0.35 t5 cc 0./O4 of only 0.40 0. these data and the literature clearly demonstrate that most OCR = 1 soils exhibit significant c„ anisotropy that generally becomes most important in lean clays. The OC (intact) 573 . 16(a) shows only slightly less c„ anisotropy with increasing OCR as measured in triaxial compression/extension and direct simple shear tests.20 H Q LLI LL) 0. and a very large increase in the shear strain at failure (yf) in going from TC to DSS to TE.S.1) gives results considered representative of mechanically overconsolidated clays. The SHANSEP CK0U test program run on the Atlantic Generating Station (AGS) moderately plastic marine clay (Ip — 43 ± 7%. (1983). Effects of Anisotropy Fig. 15 plots peak undrained strength ratios from CK0U triaxial compression/extension. deposits (Ladd 1987b). as illustrated by the data in Fig. I p (%) 90 100 FIG. especially if also sensitive. especially at low OCR.8.03 in TC and having no trend with Ip.30 I ho 0. generally much lower DSS strengths that tend to decrease with lower plasticity. Fig.16 ± 0. Varved clays represent a special case wherein horizontal (DSS) shearing gives an unusually low peak T.15 0. 12. 16(b) plots data from Recompression CK0U tests performed on block samples of the marine clay for the James Bay case history (see Fig. lL = 0. cemented lean clay. 7) as representative of a highly sensitive. < rr Q ATriaxial Compression (TO O Direct Simple Shear(DSS) V Triaxial Extension (TE) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PLASTICITY INDEX. Fig.0. Although triaxial testing tends to underestimate peak strengths for plane strain conditions (due to the b effect previously mentioned). Overconsolidated soils can also exhibit pronounced anisotropic behavior. 16. and even smaller ratios for shear in TE. and Various MIT and NGI Reports] such as illustrated in Fig. Vaid and Campanella (1974).. 4.6 ± 0.32 ± 0. The data show: qf/vL = 0..10 •z. Undrained Strength Anisotropy from CK0U Tests on Normally Consolidated Clays and Silts [Data from Lefebvre et al. 15. and Geonor direct simple shear tests run on various normally consolidated clays and silts (but excluding varved deposits). practice usually ignores evolving anisotropy except for special cases such as described in Section 4. especially at low /.

and T„ represents behavior within the passive (extension) zone. the solid symbols in Fig. Finally. 16. followed by significant strain softening.0 P /CT VC W±-A*M—rAs^gl A7-^AA 2. 17 plots shear stress. For a wedgeshaped failure surface. and (to) James Bay Sensitive Marine Clay via Recompression [B-6 Data from Lefebvre et al. These data indicate that the compression portion of a failure wedge will be strained beyond its peak strength and lose 574 . TC represents the resistance of the active (compression) portion. Fig. T„ starts from a negative value at consolidation and requires very large strains to reach its peak strength. Fig. 4. Progressive Failure and Strain Compatibility The paper now looks at how anisotropy affects undrained stress-strain behavior. The TC curve has a small yf. Also note the lower NC cu/(j'vc values relative to those at OCR near unity for intact clay. wherein large consolidation strains presumably destroyed most of the cementation bonds. rather than changes in peak strength. 16(b) shows very high strengths in TC compared to DSS and TE and much smaller yf values compared to the AGS clay. 16(b) show somewhat less cu anisotropy. which supports the view that SHANSEP yields conservative strengths for highly structured soils.0 0CR=^/av'c °-o°^ 4. OCR versus Undrained Strength Ratio and Shear Strain at Failure from CK„U Tests: (a) AGS Plastic Marine Clay via SHANSEP (Koutsoftas and Ladd 1985). (1983)] data are from specimens consolidated to the in situ OCR = 2. Trf simulates shear on the horizontal segment. as illustrated by the results for OCR = 1 samples of the AGS plastic clay. whereas NC denotes results for <J'VC ranging from 1.0 FIG.3 to 3 times the in situ u'p.9. 9. but much greater differences in yf.5 3.5 ± 1 and also up to the in situ preconsolidation pressure. versus shear strain from CK0U plane strain compression and extension and direct simple shear tests.0 2. For OC (intact) clay. the strength data for both soils in Fig. defined as shown in the figure (with 4>' = 35°). 16 closely follow straight lines on the log-log plot that define the 5 and m parameters used in Eq. For NC soil. and id falls between these extremes..

) 575 . For a "rational" selection of the strain level at which to determine the corresponding design strengths. the technique assumes that the shear strain all along a potential failure surface will be uniform at the moment of actual failure.3 - r^ / / • _ 1 ' 1 1 1 1 \ X-7 - ico cc < = / 0. 17 reaches a maximum value of Tave/(T^ = 0.305 + 0. Ladd (1975) developed the strain compatibility technique as an approximate methodology to account for progressive failure when conducting undrained strength analyses.g. one ideally should consider the relative contributions of each failure mode and the in situ OCR for all design conditions. / I ^ave 4(rc +T d + r e> c o UJ CK 0 U Data a t 0 C R = l Plotting: A Tc = q cos <p' for P S C O T d = T h for D S S o Z -0. (Note: an error in the selected strain should give conservative par rameters.2^_ 0 ' v r e = q cos t)b for PSE 1 1 1 1 1 p 1 I 16 18 4 6 8 10 12 14 SHEAR STRAIN.1 -. Based on this premise. 17. Thus. The average resistance for the OCR = 1 clay in Fig. called progressive failure.255 + 0.e.19) = 0. the writer selects a design strain level for the foundation clays that gives Tave values near the collective maximum for stress histories representative of critical stability conditions. progressive failure reduces the available resistance in this case by 10%. Y (%) FIG.. Normalized Stress-Strain Data for AGS Marine Clay Illustrating Progressive Failure and the Strain Compatibility Technique [after Koutsoftas and Ladd (1985)] resistance before the strengths along the horizontal surface and within the extension portion of the wedge can be fully mobilized. Hence. compared to an average of the peak strengths equal to 1/3 X (0.225 at 7 = 8%.. means that the in situ resistance that can be mobilized along an actual rupture surface will be less than the sum of the peak strengths for soils exhibiting strain softening. TC > Tf > T8. But such refinement is not practical.^f 0. As described in Koutsoftas and Ladd (1985). nor justified given the simplifying assumptions of the strain compatibility technique and typical uncertainties in the stress-strain and stress history data. e. Jd. i. This phenomenon. when the maximum average resistance is mobilized. the average resistance that can be mobilized at any given strain equals Tave = 1/3 x (TC + Td + Te) f° r a rupture surface having equal contributions of TC. but also yields anisotropic strength ratios that appear reasonable.25. and j e .

TABLE 4. Normally Consolidated Undrained Strength Ratios from CK»U Compression, Direct Simple Shear and Extension Tests Treated for Strain Compatibility
Index Properties
1 Number (1) 1 2 3 4 Soil (2) B2 marine clay B6 marine clay Resedimented BBC Connecticut Valley varved clay Great Salt Lake clay AGS marine clay Omaha, Nebr. clay Arctic silt A Arctic silt B EABPL clay Peak Cu/Kc h (5) 2.6 1.9 1.0 ?f(TC) T J ( D S S ) (7) (6) 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.20 0.16 1* Strain Compatibility cja'„ C/E testing" (13) TX by (14) SEBJ SEBJ MIT MIT

use ( ) %
(3) CL CL CL CL CH CH CH CH ML MH CH (4) 8.5 13 21 12 39 40 43 60 15 30 75

(%)
(8) 1.5 2 6 6

Tc

Trf

Te

Tavc

0)
0.26 0.26 0.265 0.21

(10) 0.22 0.225 0.20 0.15

(11) 0.09 0.16 0.135 0.20

(12) 0.19

0.215 TX 0.20 PS

0.185 PS

5 6 7 8 9 10

1.1 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.85

0.37 0.325 0.315 0.37 0.32 0.24

0.24 0.255 0.22 0.245 0.24 0.235

8 8 10 12 12 15

0.27 0.265 0.23 0.305 0.27 0.24

0.24 0.25 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.23

0.16 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.22

0.225 TX 0.225 PS

MIT MIT UBC MIT

0.215 TXC

0.24 TX MIT MIT 0.235 TX 0.23 PS/TXd MIT

"Design shear strain selected for strain compatibility. i"X = triaxial and PS = plane strain. c Triaxial TC increased by 5%. Approximate mean of plane strain and triaxial data.

Table 4 presents undrained strength ratios at OCR = 1 obtained from applying the strain compatibility technique to 10 soils having widely varying index properties and moderate to extensive CK0U data. The results are listed in order of increasing shear strain selected to obtain the strength parameters (which also considered overconsolidated data for soils 1-4 and 6) and range from a few percent in the two sensitive clays up to 10%—15% in the plastic clays and two Arctic silts. The average strengths fall within a narrow band, Tave/<, = 0.215 ± 0.02 SD (SD = standard deviation); they are 8 ± 4% less than the average of the peak strengths (data not shown); and those based on triaxial testing may err on the low side. The seven CL and CH clays (i.e., excluding the varved clay and two Arctic silts) show an amazingly consistent trend with plasticity index, with linear regression giving: ^ P = 0.20 + 0.045/p,
a'™

r = 0.75 (see Fig. 18) r = 0.9

Ks = - = 0.37 + 0.72/„

Hence, lean clays have pronounced undrained strength anisotropy even after considering strain compatibility. Such soils generally warrant wedge analyses using TC, Td, and te, rather than circular arc analyses using Tave. The same applies to varved clays. 4.10. Comparison of Field and Laboratory Strengths Larsson (1980) evaluated case histories of failures to obtain backcalculated
576

2 0.40 h< a: I 0.35 t(S> •z. Ul 0.30 CC HQ

A-LINE Above Below

Source of Strength Data Field Cu/a-p':Larsson(1980) Lab CK0U Tave/crv'c--Table 4 Lob CK0UDSSTh/o-v'c:MIT

o
D +

©

m
® -


*

O

0.25

UJ •z

g 0.20 Q
NOTE : Linear Regression Lines for Clay Data

0.15

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

10

20 30 40 50 60 70 P L A S T I C I T Y I N D E X , I p (%)

80

90

FIG. 18. Comparison of Field and Laboratory Undrained Strength Ratios for Nonvarved Sedimentary Soils (OCR = 1 for Laboratory CK„U Testing)

average values of the in situ undrained strength divided by the preconsolidation pressure, C,J<J'P. Most of the cases involved UU failures of relatively low OCR soils. Fig. 18 plots his results for loading failures (embankments, tanks, load tests, etc.) of nonvarved soils versus plasticity index. In spite of potential errors in both c„ and op, the data show a reasonably consistent pattern: • For inorganic clays (the Atterberg limits plot above Casagrande's A-line), Cu/vp = 0.235 ± 0.04 SD and strongly tends to increase with Ip based on 14 cases. • For organic clays and silts (the Atterberg limits plot below the A-line), a higher cu/a'p = 0.30 ± 0.06 SD and having little trend with Ip based on seven cases. Fig. 18 also plots T ave /o4 values from Table 4, excluding the varved clay. The laboratory derived ratios for the inorganic clays have T ave /o4. = 0.215 ± 0.015 SD and show less variation with /,, than the corresponding field data. These T ave /o4 values presumably give the in situ cu for infinitely long failures of OCR = 1 soils. For direct comparison with field-derived strengths, Tave should be increased by 10 ± 5% for typical "end effects" present in embankment failures (Azzouz et al. 1983) and reduced by (OCR)'"" 1 to account for decreases in c„ due to "unloading," the latter being 10% at OCR = 2 with m = 0.85. Hence, the two ratios in Fig. 18 should, in theory, be nearly identical. Indeed, the laboratory data support a "practically constant field . . . c„/o-p = 0.22 independent of plasticity index" that Mesri (1975) derived from Bjerrum's (1972) correlations of *„(FV)/o-io, o-p/o-^o and the field vane (x correction factor versus Ip. Finally, Fig. 18 also presents the peak undrained strength ratio measured at MIT from Geonor CK0UDSS tests on 25 OCR = 1 nonvarved soils, again
577

distinguishing between soils plotting above and below the A-line. Linear regression on 16 clays having T,,/CT^ = 0.225 ± 0.025 SD gives a relationship 5% above that for Tave/a^c. The data for nine silts and organic soils have TV,/o4 = 0.26 ± 0.035 SD and show no trend with Ip. Based on the aforementioned results, the writer makes the following observations and conclusions. 1. For inorganic clays with Ip = 25 ± 15%, good agreement exists between strengths backcalculated from field failures and those obtained from comprehensive CKQU tests treated for strain compatibility (Tave) and also from DSS tests (T,,). For more plastic clays, Larsson's data infer higher strengths than measured via CK0U tests, mainly based on two Swedish load tests. However, since three of the four Tave values (soils 5, 7, and 10 in Table 4) are supported by field observations, the writer places more credence in the laboratory relationship. 2. Silts and organic clays appear to have higher, and also more scattered, normalized strengths, as observed from a more limited number of field cases and laboratory CK0U tests. 3. Section 5.3 of the paper will recommend three approaches for obtaining undrained strength ratios for use in stability analyses, namely complete CK0U testing treated for strain compatibility; CK0UDSS tests; and empirical correlations based on the data in Fig. 18. 4.11. Strength Gain during Staged Construction As previously noted, estimates of the increases in c„ with consolidation for the two embankment case histories involved two simplifications: changes in consolidation stress being restricted to increases in o 4 , which are less than cr[c except under the center line; and CK0U test data used to relate c„ to (j'vc, whereas the actual consolidation stresses often deviate significantly from K0 conditions. The error from these simplifications should become most important within normally consolidated soil under a berm, e.g., for element D in Fig. 12. The error can be approximately evaluated by comparing data from CK0U versus CAU direct simple shear tests, the latter denoting tests wherein DSS specimens are consolidated with varying values of horizontal shear stress (Tte) prior to undrained shear. Fig. 19(a) plots the increase in peak strength for three normally consolidated clays as a function of the preshear T,,C, expressed as a fraction of the c„ = max T,, measured in conventional CK0UDSS tests. The results show significant strengthening, e.g., by 15%-30% at a stress ratio of 0.8. There is also a marked reduction in the strain at failure and those CAU tests having large c„ increases also tend to exhibit more pronounced strain softening, as illustrated in Fig. (b) for Boston Blue Clay. Thus, staged construction leading to normally consolidated soil under berms can produce a stress-strain response to horizontal shearing approaching that for shear in compression, i.e., much stiffer and stronger than measured in conventional CK0UDSS tests. When stability analyses based on strengths derived from CK0U data show marginal factors of safety, the writer recommends special CAUDSS testing to evaluate potentially higher undrained strength ratios for OCR = 1 soils encountered below embankment berms and under the slopes of tailings dams. If this had been done for the James Bay case history, the FS(USA) in Table 3 would probably have increased by at least 10% (assuming behavior similar to Boston Blue Clay). But the FS(USA) obtained for the embankment on
578

Other Data by MIT) varved clay would have remained unchanged since CAUDSS tests show no strength increase for this unusual soil type. S.^//°/^ o/ / /o is/ y u / / '?/ /4.30 (a) (b) a 0.20 --A-- 0.201 O 0.235 CK0U cu/cr'vc Sym 0.5 "BBC I o m o Tailings « 1.1.y 4. For the design of staged construction projects. 19. Ip=23.8 T \z&.2 5 a. Steps 3 and 4 fall under the CU case and would be repeated n times depending upon the project complexity. Copper Tailings and Atchafaiaya Clay.6 3 < o J.8 1.5% I L =0.6 0.4 "EABPL 0. . Steps 3 and 4 refer to stability evaluations during subsequent construction at some time t„ wherein the combination of the applied loads and either partial or full consolidation has altered the initial stress history and increased the available resistance. X ( % ) 8 FIG. Overview An undrained strength analysis (USA) denotes the use of limiting equilibrium analyses to obtain factors of safety wherein the available resistance against an undrained failure of cohesive soils is computed from knowledge of the current consolidation stresses and prior stress history combined with appropriate undrained strength-consolidation stress relationships.203 O 0. Ladd.4 0. and (b) Shear Stress versus Shear Strain for Boston Blue Clay (Note: Copper Tailings Data by R. 1. RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY FOR UNDRAINED STRENGTH ANALYSES 5. And the mean cu/a'vc ratio selected for the tailings dam case history did consider higher CAUDSS strengths because of its marginal stability.2=yf(%) Resedimented BBCHT.Soil 3 1. 5.4 / hc /o "vc Symbol 0 0. Steps 1 and 2 evaluate stability for the stage 1 loading assuming no drainage during construction (the UU case).0 STRESS RATIO:rhc(CAU)/cu(CK0U) 0 2 4 6 SHEAR STRAIN.223 0. Effect of Consolidation Shear Stress on Undrained Direct Simple Shear Behavior of Normally Consolidated Clay: (a) Increase in Peak Strength for Boston Blue Clay.10 —v— 0. such analyses would typically have the four steps shown in Table 5. so that the initial stress history of the deposit (o^ and ap governs the available undrained shear strength (c„). Table 5 also illustrates the experimental and theoretical components needed 579 .3 O 6 1.

furnish the information for step 1. Subsequent stability evaluations (steps 3 and 4) require knowledge of consolidation-flow parameters (e. laboratory CU test programs.. and selection of and input data for limiting equilibrium analyses. b Combined results give u'vc profiles at time t„. 3: stress history and c„ at t„ (step No. the initial state of stress (o-^o and K0) and the preconsolidation pressure (o-p). listed as El. and other approaches to obtain cu versus stress history relationships. 5. whereas reliable estimates of a'h0 = Kocr^ (required for realistic predictions of lateral deformations as described in Section 7 and also needed for Re580 . plus results from laboratory CU testing to obtain undrained strength ratios. 2. factor of safety for stage 1 (step No.2. 1: initial stress history and Components (1) Experimental analyses" El—Initial state variables E2—Undrained strength parameters E3—Consolidation-flow parameters Theoretical Analyses Tl—Stress distributionb T2—Consolidation" T3—Limiting equilibrium c„ (2) Step No. These. with and without vertical drains to accelerate consolidation rates) as part of the iterative design process. and drainage conditions (e.g. 1 plus) (4) Step No. permeability-compressibility properties) for use in theoretical stress distribution and consolidation analyses to predict vertical consolidation stress profiles at times t„.g. 1 plus) (3) Step No.. The analyses would typically vary the loading geometry. The initial state variables. For natural clay deposits having a one-dimensional strain history. Section 5 focuses on technical recommendations regarding consolidation analyses to predict changes in stress history. 3 plus) (5) X X X X X X X "Obtained from combined evaluation of in situ and laboratory test data. Evaluation of Stress History and Consolidation Analyses Evaluation of the initial stress history entails definition of the preconstruction in situ state of stress and the preconsolidation pressure. The limiting equilibrium analyses of step 2 then use the initial c„ profile to compute factors of safety for stage 1 construction. for the previous steps. 4: factor of safety at stage n (step No. refer to the soil profile (soil types and index properties and the ground-water conditions). Methodology for Conducting Undrained Strength Analyses During Design of Staged Construction Projects Step No.TABLE 5. rate of filling. Section 7 treats the use of undrained strength analyses during construction monitoring. o-^o can be accurately obtained from measurements of unit weights and the ground-water conditions.

c) will give poor estimates of pore pressures during consolidation for foundations with layers having different cv and mv values.2 of Jamiolkowski et al. the USA methodology requires explicit resolution of conflicts between the c„ profile developed in step 1 and values obtained from conventional in situ and laboratory strength testing. 1983). Proven techniques do not yet exist for directly measuring the in situ KQ from laboratory testing. the empirical K0 = f(§'. the assumption of constant values of the coefficient of consolidation (c„) and compressibility (m„ = dev/dcr[. OCR) relations given in Mayne and Kulhawy (1982) may suffice. and costs during design on the one hand. say rk = 1. which usually will be small.5. The value of rk depends on four characteristics of the deposit: (1) Anisotropy at the microfabric level. ch = rkcv. as with varved clays where rk = 10 ± 5 might 581 . As one example. For mechanically overconsolidated clay deposits. Experimental programs may also need more emphasis on direct measurements of permeability during incremental consolidation testing since values of k backcalculated from c„ and mv can be erroneous (Tavenas et al. The following text makes recommendations and identifies problems regarding consolidation analyses during final design for vertical drainage of natural deposits.0—1. (2) regular layering at the macrolevel.2 recommended using high-quality oedometer tests combined with in situ testing to assess spatial variability. For natural deposits. and Section 3. horizontal flow to installed vertical drains. One-Dimensional Consolidation of Natural Clays Although practice often relies on chart solutions based on conventional Terzaghi theory. Step 3 in Table 5 requires consolidation analyses to predict rates of pore pressure dissipation (increases in &vc) during construction. Evaluation of the initial ap profile constitutes the single most important task on most projects since it basically governs both the initial cu and the minimum stage 1 loading needed for substantial foundation strengthening. moderately overconsolidated deposits (large changes in both c„ and mv near a'p)\ and normally consolidated soils having highly stress-dependent parameters such sensitive clays. and tailings dams. (1985) assesses the pros and cons of using various types of field devices to measure K0. the ILLICON program described by Mesri and Choi (1985a) models soils having linear e-log k and nonlinear e-log a'vc relationships. Section 4.compression CK0U tests) are usually difficult. rk = kh/k„. needed to estimate the coefficient of consolidation for horizontal flow. These situations may warrant numerical analyses that use a nonlinear model of soil behavior and that incorporate submergence and changes in loads and boundary pore pressures. These predictions often strongly impact the project feasibility. Man-made deposits may warrant different techniques since these materials often exist in an "underconsolidated" state with o-^o = v'P increasing with time due to self-weight consolidation. Consolidation with Vertical Drains Installation of vertical drains to accelerate the rate of consolidation introduces two additional problems regarding reliable predictions of pore pressures during staged construction: evaluation of the anisotropic permeability ratio. and on the other also entail significant uncertainty. schedule. and assessment of the likely effects of soil disturbance caused by drain installation (assuming high-quality drains having negligible resistance to flow of water into and then out of the drain). In both cases.

. and (4) the presence of occasional thick sand-silt layers. which can result in "effective" c. 5. • Level A—For final design of all major projects and for sites where the foundation soils exhibit significant undrained stress-strain-strength anisot582 . Jamiolkowski et al.3 m .. Laboratory Strength Testing This section recommends procedures to obtain undrained strength ratio versus stress history (cj(j'vc versus OCR) relationships needed to calculate the initial cu profile and subsequent increases due to consolidation (steps 1 and 3 in Table 5. and Vick (1983) for empirical correlations. Morgenstern (1985). etc. Consolidation of Tailings (Slimes) Deposits The writer refers the reader to Sedimentation Consolidation (1984). consolidation models. Little information exists to guide the designer in selecting either the size of the smear zone or its reduced permeability.g. respectively). various augering and jetting techniques having typical diameters of 0. is better suited to evaluate characteristics No. values significantly less than the ch for undisturbed soil. first with the introduction in the late 1960s of moderate to negligible displacement sand drains (e. The writer does not suggest abandoning wick drains (although they may not be as cost effective as nondisplacement sand drains in highly sensitive or varved clays). As with consolidation of natural soils. 5 m) that could negate disturbance effects. whereas in situ testing with the piezocone. analysis of several case histories of drain performance (Ladd 1991) shows that the reduction in the effective ch with decreasing drain spacing is much larger than can be predicted by Barron's (1948) theory. but rather advocates the need for further experimental and theoretical research into disturbance effects caused by drain installation. Consolidation o/(1986). and Ladd (1987a) provide added guidance and extensive references on consolidation with vertical drains.0 . 1 and 2. But a more basic problem lies in the unrealistic model used to represent the disturbed zone. "Placement and" (1987). The recommendations are divided into three levels of sophistication and expense depending on the degree of refinement required for the undrained strength analyses. (1986). Vertical drain technology has changed dramatically. (1988). In addition. 3 and 4. Proper laboratory testing can measure characteristics No. and then in the 1970s with a wide variety of prefabricated wick drains that have essentially captured the market due to their very low cost. the effective ch can be less than the normally consolidated laboratory c„ at close drain spacings. In particular. nonlinear finite strain consolidation analyses may be needed for reasonable estimates of pore pressure dissipation rates within thick "underconsolidated" deposits.be typical (Ladd 1987b). But installation and withdrawal of the mandrel causes severe disturbance to the soil surrounding wick drains. Schiffman et al.. the sophistication of the model should be consistent with the extent and reliability of the soils data and the complexity of the boundary conditions. Attempts to predict this effect still largely rely on Barron's (1948) theoretical treatment that incorporates an incompressible smear zone around the drain having a permeability less than that for undisturbed soil. For example. Rixner et al. and field experience. (3) irregular layering at the macrolevel due to permeable seams and lenses. (1983). piezometers.3.

varved. 19. the writer recommends CK0U direct simple shear testing to obtain cu/(j[.) and for projects requiring predictions of lateral deformations during construction.1 and Te by 1. and sample quality (Section 4. The writer further recommends the SHANSEP reconsolidation technique. The CK0U tests use either Recompression or SHANSEP consolidation procedures depending upon the soil type.2 for application of the strain compatibility technique). as is typical of many soils.ropy or contain unusual features (fissuring.9). rather than Recompression. the results in Fig. The CU/<J'VC versus OCR relations obtained from properly executed and interpreted CK0U data should "exactly" simulate the in situ response for stage 1 construction. 16(b) show much higher values of S from tests on OC (intact) clay than from tests on NC (destructed) clay. whereas level C relies on empirical correlations. etc. use of log cu/v'vc ver583 . the log-log plot is very useful in presenting and evaluating test data. CAU direct simple shear tests can be used to evaluate potentially higher c u /o"ic values for OCR = 1 soils located below berms and slopes and are recommended when the CK0U parameters give marginal factors of safety. since level B involves "ordinary" soils. For example. The results in Fig. • Level C—For preliminary feasibility studies and to check the reasonableness of initial strengths inferred from in situ and laboratory UU-type test programs. Note that S may vary with stress level for high structured clays. Programs to obtain anisotropic cu/u'vc versus OCR relations at level A employ CKaU tests having different modes of failure to provide stress-strain data suitable for application of the strain compatibility technique (Section 4. but they involve errors on the safe side when used to compute strength increases during consolidation (Section 4. 9 (in Section 3.4). Selection of the failure modes used to assess the effects of anisotropy on undrained stress-strain behavior depends on which shear devices are available (Fig.11).4) with values of S and m corresponding to failure in compression (T C ). in situ OCR. and extension ( T J .05-1. 14). although the latter are usually replaced by triaxial compression/extension tests (triaxial data sometimes adjusted by increasing TC by 1. the writer favors a program of direct simple shear (DSS) and plane strain compression/extension (PSE/E) tests.1-1. For level B programs. direct simple shear (jd). As illustrated in Fig. the design parameters can be represented by Eq. Based on current capabilities. highly organic. In any case. The corresponding recommendations follow from the information presented in Section 4. and the potential impact of changes in b.J(j'vc versus log OCR relationship. respectively. Levels A and B require laboratory CU testing to provide anisotropic and isotropic (average c„) input strengths.c versus OCR relations for stability analyses using isotropic strength profiles. 18 indicate that the peak DSS strength should provide a reasonable estimate of the average undrained strength ratio along circular-arc or wedge-shaped failure surfaces for stage 1 construction on nonlayered sedimentary clays of low OCR. When the undrained strength data closely follow a linear log c. • Level B—For preliminary design and for final design of less important projects involving "ordinary" soils with low to moderate anisotropy. their proven ability to provide reasonable data on natural soils.

06 SD.015 Homogeneous CL and CH sedimentary clays of low to moderate sensitivity (Ip = 20%-80%): S = 0. and the addition of CAUDSS tests under conditions described for level A programs. especially for shear in extension.20. 13a. the results in Fig. which. 18 and limited comparisons suggest that other DSS devices may tend to give somewhat higher. = SP (13b) (13a) Based on the data in Fig. IL> 1): Sp = 0. the writer has concluded that: CL and CH clays tend to have lower. 18 can be used by readers to select values for S or Sp.75.20 + 0. m = 0.sus log OCR plots. Level B should not rely on isotropically consolidated triaxial compression testing since CIUC strengths will greatly exceed the in situ average for most soils. for m = 1. requires more soil and effort and a higher level of experience (hence greater costs) to obtain reliable data. respectively (Roscoe and Burland 1968).88(1 . However. Northeastern U.8. Sedimentary deposits of silts and organic soils (Atterberg limits plot below 584 • • .2 evaluates the use and interpretation of CIUC data when employed as part of the QRS methodology for stability analyses. more scattered strengths. one also has to estimate m. or simply S = 0. • • Sensitive marine clays (Ip < 30%.16 (assumes DSS failure mode predominates). with nominal SD = 0. Section 6. where Cs and Cc represent the slopes of the swelling and virgin compression lines. compared to DSS testing. 18 and other experience lead to the following recommendations (SD = standard deviation). should equal 1 — CJCC. In any case. An alternative program for level B can use CK0U triaxial compression and extension tests to estimate the average c„/o4 versus OCR relationship. in the form of .CJCC) ± 0. The writer's interpretation of Fig. If the results are first treated for strain compatibility. varved clays: S = 0.^ = 5(OCR)™ which. or simply m = 0. and the Tave/ <j'vc correlation line for clays is probably more reliable than the cu/ap line obtained from the case histories for highly plastic clays. rather than CU testing. 18 and the related text in Section 4. When applying Eq. m = 0.10.S.05/p. becomes -.22. Selection of strength parameters at level C uses empirical correlations. according to the "critical state" concepts used to formulate the Modified Cam-Clay model of soil behavior. He also favors the Geonor apparatus since it provided the data plotted in Fig. the average strength should be reasonable based on the data contained in Table 4 (except for varved clays due to their very low DSS strength). CK0U triaxial testing. less scattered undrained strength ratios than soils plotting below the A-line.

Morgenstem and Price (1965) or Spencer (1967). and finally selection of input strengths. It is assumed that final design analyses will use a computerized method of slices that satisfies moment equilibrium in computing factors of safety for circular-arc or wedge-shaped failure surfaces as recommended in Section 2. with nominal SD = 0. The required effort then becomes similar to a conventional effective stress analysis by replacing 4>' and cr/. means that consolidation testing usually represents the single most important experimental component for the design of staged construction projects. and C all require a careful assessment of the stress history of the foundation soils. the latter results should be checked by a "generalized" method of slices that satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. However. The writer's experience mainly involves embankment-type loadings. Levels A.g. or simply m = 0. 6 and 9).4. Stability Analyses This section deals with some practical aspects of executing limiting equilibrium stability analyses (component T3 in Table 5). either as "zones" or continuous profiles depending upon the computer code. The ability to search out the minimum FS automatically is obviously desirable. especially since most computer codes cannot automatically vary c„ with inclination of the failure surface. However. The same approach can also be followed for subsequent stages via the c„ values computed in step 3. (1981). with S and u'vc for applicable soils. First consider analyses using isotropic strengths. although restricted to circular arcs. as commonly done for Bishop (1955) circular-arc and Janbu (1973) wedge-shaped surfaces. m = 0. For the two embankment case histories (Figs. But this process can get rather cumbersome. a computer code that automatically calculates c„ = Sa'vc within OCR = 1 zones would greatly simplify the process. but excluding peats) and clays with shells: S = 0. This was done for the two embankment case histories. This fact. For construction involving substantial portions of normally consolidated soil. the input strengths had to be changed for each change in the horizontal location of 585 .05.8. the c„ values obtained from step 1 in Table 5 can be used directly as input data. especially regarding input of undrained strengths. step 3 in Table 5 would still be needed for natural deposits to identify OCR = 1 soils and to calculate c„ values for &vc less than &v. e. The aforementioned m versus (1 — Cs/Cc) relation is based on analysis of CK0UDSS data on 13 soils having maximum OCR's of 5-10. Inc.88 (1 . i. B. with inclinations of the active and passive wedges being specified at 45 ± c(//2 degrees. Bromwell & Carrier.. 5. For first stage construction.06 SD. separate computations to obtain vertical consolidation stress (o4) profiles..CJCC) ± 0. One notable exception is the three-dimensional slope stability program developed by Azzouz et al.2. either for preliminary design or to represent the average c„ for soils having low to moderate undrained strength anisotropy. did this for the tailings dam case history.the A-line. Analyses employing anisotropic strengths become significantly more complex. then c„ values. plus the observation that c„(ave)/o4 versus OCR for most soils (except varved clays) falls within a fairly narrow range.e.25. where wedge-shaped surfaces need evaluation.

and quite sandysilty soils. undrained strength ratios. recommendations for monitoring construction (Section 7) and consideration of environmental and other legal issues affecting project feasibility and the consequences of a failure. In the writer's view. 586 . there may be uncertainty about the drainage of some layers during a potential failure. including use of geotextiles and vertical reinforcement by stone columns and chemical admixtures. this methodology enables one to quantify the collective effects of uncertainty in the loads. degree of consolidation. In such cases. i. Another purely geotechnical aspect of staged construction projects would evaluate various foundation "stabilization" schemes. and (2) they often can employ the observational method (Peck 1969).g.e..1 ± 0. The results in Azzouz et al. shear induced pore pressures near zero. etc. and surcharging to reduce postconstruction settlements.. the design can be altered based on observations made during construction. The Terzaghi Lecture by Whitman (1984) gives background information on this important topic. 5. installation of vertical drains and longer construction times to increase the degree of consolidation and hence the available resisting moment. a reliability analysis can prove very helpful. But how can these valid reasons for a reduced risk of failure be translated into recommendations for a lower design factor of safety? For this purpose. The iterative design process also must include costs analyses for alternative construction schemes. (1983) show that "end effects" typically increase the conventional two-dimensional (i. especially when dealing with regulatory agencies. For construction involving fairly uniform loading and foundation conditions and having marginal stability. And with important projects having nonuniform geometries. In addition.04 SD based on 17 case histories of embankment failures.5. This might occur within partially saturated. the most common being stability berms and lightweight fill materials to decrease the net driving moment.the end wedges to correctly model TC and TC versus -rd along the horizontal surface. threedimensional stability analyses may be warranted. of course. especially those caused by secondary compression. e.e. Controversy may arise about acceptable design factors of safety. combined with more comprehensive stability evaluations. the writer would make runs treating these layers as both c'-<)>' and c„ materials in order to quantify the resulting uncertainty in factor of safety. the conventional factors of safety can therefore be increased by about 10% to take advantage of this beneficial effect. acceptable FS values for staged construction projects can often be less than normal for single-stage loadings causing comparable potential damage for two reasons: (1) Multistage projects usually have a more detailed site characterization program. on the nominal probability of a failure. Comments on Design Process Undrained strength analyses constitute. only one part of the overall design process. infinitely long failure) factor of safety by 1.. Mitchell (1981) and ASCE ("Placement and" 1987) provide useful guidance regarding other ground improvement techniques.. heavily overconsolidated. With either isotropic or anisotropic forms of an undrained strength analysis.

the first two cases are exactly analogous to laboratory unconsolidated-undrained and consolidated-drained shear tests. 6. respectively. 5 orEq. . respectively. divided by the mobilized shear stress (T. although Table 6 specifies that the soil can be either in a partially or fully consolidated state prior to an undrained failure. and sd = drained shear strength defined in Eq.6. Moore's (1970) modification of conventional effective stress analyses to account for shear induced pore pressures (us > 0). designation as the UU case and the CD case. As previously suggested by Brinch-Hansen (1962). Stability Problems Classified According to Drainage Conditions and Definition of Factor of Safety Table 6 presents a proposed classification system for defining the three principal cases of practical interest. 8) 2 Drained or long-term Consolidateddrained = CD case *</A« = 'an c|>'/tan <t>^ (Eq. Brinch-Hansen (1962) further designated the "intermediate" case 3 as the CU case "because of its similarity to a consolidated-undrained . 8) a T.„) required for equilibrium.1. provides a clearer definition. Hence. TABLE 6.„ = mobilized shear stress required for equilibrium. 1. 587 . short-term or end-ofconstruction Proposed description (3) No consolidation of soil with respect to applied stresses and undrained failure Full consolidation of soil with respect to applied stresses and drained failure (us = 0) Partial or full consolidation of soil with respect to applied stresses and undrained failure Proposed classification (4) Unconsolidatedundrained = UU case Definition of factor of safety" (5) •s«A™ or C„/T„ (Eq. " shear test. c„ = undrained shear strength obtained j > from techniques recommended in Section 5. . s„ = undrained shear strength obtained from conventional testing associated with typical < = 0 analyses. especially compared to "short-term" and "long-term. and Janbu's use of "undrained" effective stress analyses. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR STABILITY ANALYSES The paper now evaluates three other approaches for conducting stability analyses: the "QRS" methodology developed by Arthur Casagrande. But a clearer description of the classes of stability problems and their corresponding definition of factor of safety are desirable before assessing these approaches. 7) 3 Partially drained or intermediate Consolidatedundrained = CU case C„/T„ (Eq. Stability Problems Classified According to Drainage Conditions and Definition of Factor of Safety Case (1) 1 Common description (2) Undrained." The appropriate definitions for FS (column 5) are also widely accepted as being the available undrained and drained strengths.

Army Corps of Engineers ("Stability of" 1970. the writer interprets the "basic" QRS methodology when used to as588 .2. the U. Casagrande's (1941) Harvard Report No. The "basic" effective stress failure envelope is unique. defining FS = C„/T. the CU case is clearly the more critical and likely condition for staged construction projects. QRS Methodology As noted in Section 2. and s Triaxial Compression Tests [Adapted from A. He used Mohr circles and failure envelopes similar to those drawn in Fig. In reality. i. hence. As also noted earlier. it is hard to envision a drained failure {u„ = 0) occurring during any type of construction when significant excess pore pressures still exist due to that construction.U and CD cases represent limiting conditions to the more general CU case (Brinch-Hansen 1962). one obtains the same cj)' from CIUC and "slow" = S = CIDC tests. the UU case is the limiting critical condition for loading problems with soft soils and the CD case is the limiting critical condition for unloading problems with stiff soils.S. major U. For example. R. government agencies and many practitioners have used these envelopes when calculating factors of safety for staged construction on soft cohesive foundations. "Design and" 1978) and the Navy's DM-7 ("Stability Analysis" 1971). For stability analyses.e. Moreover. the QRS methodology treats staged construction as a CU case and evolved from research by Casagrande into the strength of clays as measured in laboratory triaxial compression tests. Failure Envelopes from Q. the available strength of soft clay foundations is determined by the Q envelope (obtained from UUC tests) for no consolidation and increases to the R envelope (defined by <j)c„) with consolidation. 6. 3 as Abstracted by Rutledge (1947)] As previously described in Section 3.S. 20." The excess pore pressure (AM) developed at failure in a conventional R = CIUC test run on normally consolidated soil is given by the difference between circle A (total stress) and circle B (effective stress). 20 to illustrate the following concepts of his "working hypothesis.„ is also appropriate. and.Mohr Circles FIG. Based on information contained in design manuals of the U..

From the continued widespread use of UUC testing. The values of c and 4>c„ defining the R envelope presumably come from a series of CIUC tests withCT^varying between the initial overburden stress (o^0) and the maximum anticipated stress. not total stresses. 13 in order to judge if they are reasonable. Reliance on UUC tests to obtain reasonable estimates of the initial undrained strength profile depends on a fortuitous compensation among three factors. the move in recent years to better sampling techniques can produce the opposite effect. 14 becomes c„ = a}c tan <|>c„ (Fig.e. However. namely the increased strength due to shearing at a very fast strain rate (60% per hour) and due to failure in triaxial compression (i. so that any net error in UUC strengths will always be conservative. but with c and 4>c„ replacing c' and 4>')3. 1. 14 in conjunction with a method of slices to obtain the factor of safety for full or partial consolidation of the foundation soils under the stress increments imposed during staged construction..sess foundation stability in conjunction with a method of slices and either estimated or measured pore pressures as follows. and may cause misleading trends with depth. For a constant qf/(r'c from CIUC tests on OCR = 1 soils. 2. it appears that many practicing engineers believe that sample disturbance will predominate. but strengths falling midway between the R and S envelopes for the long-term case. often produce large scatter. Bishop and Bjerrum (1960) apparently failed to recognize this important fact when concluding that Eq. 14 during construction of a "stable" embankment. Initial strengths usually obtained from UUC tests (perhaps supplemented by field and/or laboratory vane tests) to define the Q envelope. as illustrated by four examples in Table 7 of Germaine and Ladd (1988). "Stability Analysis" (1971) recommends using Eq. 14 both during staged construction and for the long-term fully consolidated case. say by 25%-50% or more in either direction. in situ shearing at 8 > 0° leads to lower strengths because of anisotropy) must be offset by a strength reduction due to sample disturbance. the slope of the R envelope represents an undrained strength ratio equal to 589 . Now consider the use of Eq. These compensating factors cannot be controlled. whereas the US ACE appears to recommend Eq. The writer concludes that UUC data can range from being unduly low to highly unsafe. QRS stability analyses are identical to an effective stress analysis. CIUC tests with a'c varying over the stress range of interest to define the R envelope. 14 will give unsafe results for foundation problems. 2 and Eq. which can be represented by c„ = c + <y'fc tan <j>c„ (14) where u}c = the normal effective (consolidation) stress acting on the potential failure surface (note: In this regard. 6). Potential problems associated with this methodology are now evaluated. This will be done for normally consolidated soils so that Eq. UUC data should always be compared to strengths predicted by Eq. the R envelope has been correctly criticized as having no rational basis and thus merits further examination. Thus. It should be emphasized that this strength envelope is used with in situ effective stresses. However.

25 b 3 U Ul Tan a>c '0.20 and 0.255 ± 0.33 ± 0..15 f TanaS c u =0. Eq. Also shown for comparison are trends based on CK0U test data for two clays exhibiting low and high degrees of anisotropy.05 SD. respectively). a (degrees) (15) ^ . For circular-arc analyses with the simplified Bishop (1955) method. 1 tan a tan (p. The QRS methodology usually uses a method of slices to computeCT/C= a'n = the normal effective (consolidation) stress acting on the potential failure surface with either predicted or measured pore pressures.3) Simplified I Trends From CK 0 U Data on Natural Clays 0.25 FIG.. the relation between normal and vertical effective stresses is given by a/. These cja'fc values are quite reasonable to slightly high compared to the ratios plotted in Fig.03 SD.£ 3 Low Anisotropy o UJ 2 O 0?0 1- < Lt <r rr 0. 1+ FS (16) where a = the inclination of the failure surface (positive and negative within the active and passive zones. Fig. 21 plots the computed undrained strength ratio versus a for two soils having tan <>„ = 0. Vick (1983) summarizes results for tailings slimes often having much higher ratios.30 l « Z o.. However. FS = I.3.S O . 18. values less than one at positive a (say under the crest of the fill) and values greater than one at negative a (under the toe). 21. Although the Cu/alc trends have been simplified via linear variation between compression 590 J. These may reflect test consolidation stresses that were too low compared to the in situ preconsolidation pressure since CIUC tests often need to be consolidated with <J'C/<J'P > 3-4 to achieve "truly" normally consolidated values.-. representative CIUC data on 30 natural clays and silts give qf/a'c = 0. 16 gives o^/o^.25 assuming (c FS = 1.> 0.20 1 High Anisotropy 60° 30° 0° -30° FAILURE SURFACE INCLINATION.QRS Computed c u » crf'c tan d>cu (Bishop circle. which leads to tan d>ra = 0. Undrained Strength Ratios from QRS Methodology Compared to Trends from CK0V Testing for Normally Consolidated Clay ~ = tan <> )„ 1 + Based on the writer's files and results presented in Mayne (1980).

" (UESA) (Janbu 1973. In contrast to Moore (1970). Moore (1970) correctly emphasized that a conventional effective stress analysis does not account for shear induced pore pressures and then developed equations to adjust results from such analyses in order to obtain the factor of safety against an undrained failure.g. defined as FS = C„/T.g.256 based on the measured CIUC qf/u'c of 0. 6. it may underestimate the factor of safety.. 12) and inherently assumes that the principal stress directions do not change during failure. Assessment of the potential errors in stability analyses based on the QRS methodology is difficult because both the location of the Q envelope derived from UUC tests and the computed strength variation along potential failure surfaces after consolidation can err in either direction. Two such attempts are reviewed.A) derived from triaxial compression tests. The last assumption is of particular concern since the corresponding factor of safety will be defined as FS = 1 / / = tan <f>'/tan fy'm. 10 supports this opinion since QRS gave a FS = 1.1 for circular-arc analyses with tan (j>c„ = 0. and a constant degree of mobilization. have long advocated and used an "undrained effective stress approach. the QRS methodology has been widely used in the United States and is certainly preferable to a conventional effective stress analysis or to direct use of CIUC qf/<s'c ratios. Janbu and his colleagues at the University of Trondheim. which the writer feels should be a vital component of all stability evaluations.33. In summary. With projects where tan 4>c„ is near Tavc/o4 and when overall stability is largely governed by failure with positive a angles in OCR = 1 soil. The tailings dam case history in Fig. "Undrained" Effective Stress Analyses Proponents of an "effective stress" approach to stability problems often argue that it provides a more fundamental understanding of undrained behavior or that the very same factors that make it difficult to estimate shear induced pore pressures accurately also affect accurate predictions of undrained shear strength (e. basic soil parameters (c'. the QRS approach obviously contradicts (inverts) real soil behavior.at a = +60° and extension at a = —30°. few persons have actually developed an effective stress based technique suitable for practical application to staged construction. which is 591 . both of which give unsafe results. QRS probably would have given unsafe results for deep wedge-shaped failure surfaces. The writer is therefore uncertain about its accuracy. QRS does not explicitly consider the stress history of the soil.cj>'. element D in Fig. Svano 1981). His approach requires knowledge of Skempton's pore pressure parameter Af for highly complex stress conditions (e. 473 of Lambe and Whitman 1969).„. all along the potential failure surface. Although no comparisons were made for the two embankment case histories.. Moreover. defined as / = tan §'m/ian 4>'. Janbu 1979. However. they developed techniques to predict prefailure conditions along a potential rupture surface for undrained or partially drained conditions starting from the initial state of stress in the ground. But the accuracy of this empirical form of an undrained strength analysis does depend on compensating errors that are difficult to quantify. Norway. Based on the writer's understanding of how Janbu would conduct stability analyses during the design of a staged construction project. p. it appears that a typical UESA involves the following simplifications: isotropic initial state of stress (K0 = 1).3.

practitioners must still evaluate and select types of stability analyses from those now available. The set of constitutive equations used by such a model can predict soil behavior for different stress paths and for both undrained and drained conditions. The availability of a realistic generalized soil model for use in numerical analyses such as the finite element method would provide a more rational approach and fewer limitations. As such. 20 is called a total stress approach by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and an effective stress approach by NAVFAC ("Stability Analysis" 1971).4. mainly for historical perspective. Some General Comments All of the techniques described thus far for stability evaluations make simplifying assumptions and entail an artificial separation of stress distributionconsolidation analyses on the one hand and limiting equilibrium analyses on the other. to obtain a FS = c„/ T. 2. one should refer to them as either drained or undrained strength analyses. Clearly identify which stability case is being evaluated (UU. For example. is very complex and probably involves more uncertainty than an undrained strength analysis of the type proposed in Section 5. To help clarify the process. an undrained strength analysis (USA) treats the same in situ effective stresses as consolidation stresses in order to compute the available re592 .„ against an undrained failure. the UESA must be carried one step further by somehow predicting the additional changes in effective stress during undrained shear to failure while maintaining the same loading conditions. This additional step. but his model still ignores creep effects that may be important with some projects. and also deal with conflicting terminology. Hence. Retain the conventional total stress analysis (TSA). The other types of analyses discussed in this paper require knowledge of the prefailure (equilibrium) in situ effective stresses and the basic difference between them is the assumed drainage conditions during failure. or CU in Table 6) and make sure that the selected type of analysis uses an appropriate definition for its factor of safety. For example. then a conventional effective stress analysis (ESA) would be called a drained strength analysis since it inherently computes the available resistance as being equal to the drained strength of the soil. 4. Recent research by Whittle (1987. In any case. adoption of this new approach in general practice first requires additional theoretical research and detailed evaluation via case histories of field performance. If one accepts the aforementioned. 1991) has successfully removed these major limitations. Hence. 5. to denote stability analyses wherein the available undrained strength for the UU case is literally computed as a function of the in situ total stresses. which was attempted by Moore (1970). 1. it is inconsistent to apply Janbu's undrained effective stress approach to the UU and CU cases since it inherently uses FS = tan 4>'/tan 44 corresponding to a drained failure. In contrast. 6. it is applicable only to the fully drained CD case. CD. Meanwhile.identical to that used for a conventional ESA. 3. use of the R envelope in Fig. the writer suggests the following. The highly innovative ModifiedCam Clay model (Roscoe and Burland 1968) has been used to predict foundation performance during staged construction in spite of the fact that it neglects soil-behavioral features such as stress-strain-strength anisotropy and strain softening and is further restricted to low OCR clays.

). The QRS approach is fairly simple to apply in practice. Field performance data would be needed to reach the following decisions: reduction in the stage 1 design fill elevation.1. and changes in the design surcharge thickness due to revised estimates of soil compressibility. and paving the third year after removal of the surcharge. As such. consider situations that arise during construction of a project such as shown in Fig. and develop suitable actions or modifications to handle all significant deviations from the design hypothesis. highways. Dunnicliff (1988) lists 593 • . timely measurements of the quantities to be observed. but it should provide more reliable factors of safety. the risk of excessive long-term deformations also exists. adoption of the observational method (Peck 1969) often permits maximum economy and assurance of satisfactory performance..e. a stage 2 loading the next year with a surcharge fill to reduce long-term secondary compression settlements. if stability proved worse than expected. for buildings. or addition of a temporary berm. As Peck emphasizes. • That the field instrumentation provide reliable. 7. but its empirical nature involves errors of unknown magnitude and direction. tanks. When used with precompression to reduce postconstruction settlements (e. MONITORING FIELD PERFORMANCE Staged construction always involves the risk of a stability failure since it requires significant strengthening of the foundation soils in order to achieve the design objectives. Precompression for a bridge approach embankment uses wick drains to accelerate the rate of consolidation and a stage 1 filling with a stability berm. Besides providing data essential for any meaningful assessment of foundation stability (which includes rates of consolidation) needed for routine construction control. the most probable conditions) and also for the most unfavorable likely conditions. changes in the design consolidation period after stage 1 or stage 2. 7. make predictions of their magnitudes based on the working hypothesis adopted for design (i.sistance against an undrained failure. Both risks occur due to uncertainties in the initial soil conditions. in the rates of loading and consolidation. etc. and in the methods of stability and settlement analysis. The USA methodology recommended in Section 5 requires more sophisticated engineering.. • That the engineer evaluate these data to ascertain the actual conditions and have the ability to implement corrective actions during construction. Field Instrumentation All staged construction projects that could result in undesirable performance should include field instrumentation. even if the design did not formally adopt the observational method. For these conditions. To illustrate the advantages of the observational method. in the soil compressibility and subsequent gain in strength. 22. provided that the design can be modified as construction progresses.g. it can be applied to both the UU and CU cases and should be used to evaluate stability during staged construction. successful application of this approach also entails the following items: That the designer select appropriate quantities to be monitored during construction.

M -Wick Drains at 1. effects of construction on adjacent property (legal protection).Dense SAND. number "to provide a meaningful picture of the scatter in results . to assess scatter in stage 1 settlements." and "to allow for inevitable losses resulting from malfunction and damage . 3. . " The instnimentation shown in Fig.V^Y^'-V "•.•>'••. Some requirements for the instrumentation are: 1.• :. . and advancing the state of the art of geotechnical engineering.0m —4*-Wick Drains at 1. plus observation wells in the sand blanket and piezometers in the underlying sand to obtain boundary pore pressures.5 m -A Y° 1 o ' FIG.~^nrsy~'snGE z 1 JL y^-STAGE 1 \ 1 1 1 SETTLEMENT n PLATFORM I] t ^ ALIGNMENT STAKE OBSERVATION WELL Possib e Temporary ]|: 1 1 i£ 100 h- W.i\^ W S i ' r . enhanced public relations. An inclinometer to measure lateral deformations beneath the toe of the fill. Settlement platforms as backup to the extensometer. . Peck (1988) states that "every instrument installed on a project should be selected and placed to assist in answering a specific question. 22.".—EXTENSOMETER 1 ° INCLINOMETER— : '••b &###BOT_TEXT###lt;-:-:--X:s iy':VrX. Alignment stakes might be placed at intermediate intervals for construction on "ductile" foundation clays.i •.' i Berm ' Q - ^ . .(••. 1 ' Dryinc CRUST UJ 95 UJ 90 o -0 o 1 o 1 . 594 . 22 illustrates one possible layout for use with the observational method as part of construction monitoring. The resulting data can be used to obtain in situ compression curves and rates of consolidation. and at least half of the gauges should be placed before the wick drains to measure both the initial groundwater conditions and any excess pore pressures caused by drain installation.^.^ ^ \ fe^ 1 ^ s N ^ Soft CLAY < > -O 1 O O .' W ^ W W ^ ^ J W W ^ ^ V .o PIEZOMETER 110 E 105 z^. Piezometer groups under the slope and berm to use with stress distribution analyses to obtain <s'vc profiles needed for undrained strength analyses and to measure rates of pore pressure dissipation. Vv.V. 5.'. Possible Layout of Instrumentation for Staged Construction of Embankment with Vertical Drains other potential benefits as follows: measurements of fill quantities (for payment).! 1 O 3 O 1 1 ' i. 1 . 2. and to define the embankment profile (note: These platforms can have internal rods anchored in the dense sand to serve as convenient bench marks)." but also in sufficient.iViS&nni J' o o ^^\ Stability . All piezometer groups include some redundancy.•HXK-i-^-. 4.•'.v ^ ^ . BlanWVMri L-:". Special effort should be made to install the piezometers near the midpoint between the drains in order to obtain representative pore pressures.'. Detailed measurements of settlement (an extensometer is a multipoint settlement gauge) and pore pressure versus depth under the centerline.'l..

applied loads. Techniques based on the Barron (1948) theory of consolidation for evaluating piezometer and settlement data in order to backcalculate the "effective" coefficient of consolidation (cA) for horizontal flow to vertical drains are now considered. The next sections of the paper offer guidance regarding interpretation of data from field instrumentation to evaluate consolidation behavior and to assess foundation stability. reading. He also correctly emphasizes that the designer should have ultimate control (either directly or via designated parties) over procurring. and periodic site visits by the designer. etc.9-2. at best. 7. and lateral displacements. lengths of vertical drains).h) where de = the equivalent drain spacing. An essential. This plot should give a linear relationship for constant boundary conditions and ch and negligible vertical drainage. but too often neglected. part of the overall monitoring program must also include continuous field inspection with detailed records of construction activities (especially fill elevations and. only to field behavior during periods of constant load for normally consolidated soil having a reasonably linear strain versus log v'vc curve. These techniques apply.Dunnicliff (1988) gives detailed guidance regarding selection and installation of specific types of instrumentation to measure settlements. where ue equals the measured excess pore pressure. and (2) to determine actual consolidation characteristics for comparison with those used for design in order to make improved predictions of future performance. This information is also needed to extend the measured piezometer data throughout the foundation soils as part of the first objective. accurate measurements of fill unit weights. The technique of Orleach (1983) avoids the resultant errors in ch due to uncertainties in both u0 and the actual piezometer tip location by plotting log ue versus time. and F„ = the drain spacing factor (F„ = 0. installing. pore pressures. Johnson (1970) describes the conventional approach for calculating field ch values from piezometers located at the midpoint between vertical drains. nonlinear log ue versus t portions of the data will identify errors in ue or changes in ch(u). Field coefficients of consolidation based on rates of pore pressure dissipation can then be calculated using d]Fn W/ cM = " — " (17) 8 (f2 .2. if used. The latter includes boundary drainage and pore pressure conditions and the compressibility-flow-stress history properties of the foundation soils. boundary pore pressures. Evaluating Consolidation Behavior Evaluation of the field consolidation behavior has two principal objectives: (1) To obtain in situ pore pressure distributions in order to compute profiles of vertical consolidation stress (cr^ = <rv — u) as part of undrained strength analyses to assess foundation stability. 595 . It requires knowledge of the initial excess pore pressure (u0) in order to compute changes in the degree of consolidation (Uh = 1 — ue/u0) with time. Besides being very simple.5). and interpreting the field instrumentation.

This may be especially true regarding pore pressure dissipation rates in cases involving construction on initially overconsolidated or highly structured clays. (or AM. > Ao-] if strain softening occurs). but only for conditions adhering to Terzaghi's original assumptions. The Asaoka (1978) technique can also be used to obtain cv values from piezometer and settlement data during consolidation with vertical drainage only. Section 3. which include errors due to uncertainties in both the "initial" settlement (i. predictions of consolidation rates for stability evaluations during subsequent loading should use ch(u) since consolidation stresses.2). Both of these errors can be eliminated for the case of radial drainage only (with constant ch. rather than settlements. (1969) and DAppolonia et al.e. etc. They further hypothesize that subsequent increases in the incremental B to near unity "is not due to the 596 . Plots of ue versus the applied major principal stress increment (AcrO for piezometers located beneath embankment fills typically show the following pattern during initial loading (for overconsolidated clay and no vertical drains or berms). The value of B = «<. (1978) to support their view that the high coefficient of consolidation of overconsolidated clays leads to significant pore pressure dissipation during initial loading "in all types of clays and for all rates of embankment construction" (the latter paper quoted a midclay depth B = 0. In contrast. and consolidation of thick slimes (see Section 5. realistic evaluations of field consolidation behavior will often need some type of numerical analysis. followed by local yielding (failure) and the formation of a zone of contained plastic flow. In particular. Hoeg et al.4. that caused by undrained shear deformations) and the final consolidation settlement. and further filling causes Aw„ = ACT. which can also predict final settlements. However. loading./Ao-l starts off being relatively small.. Tavenas and Leroueil (1980) cite the extensive study by Leroueil et al. Yield denotes the transition from "elastic" (recoverable) to "plastic" (irrecoverable) behavior and the locus of stress states causing yield defines the yield envelope.12 SD for embankments without drains). In any case. Since uniform layers with well-defined drainage boundaries seldom occur (compared to the simpler case of foundations with vertical drains).58 ± 0. this technique tends to overestimate ch(s) since it ignores the effect of vertical drainage on rates of settlement. as described herein.The conventional approach for analyzing field settlement data with vertical drains to obtain ch(s) requires knowledge of changes in the average degree of consolidation with time.6 of Jamiolkowski et al.. This may explain why field values of ch(s) often exceed ch(u) obtained from piezometers located within the central portion of foundation clays.) by using the Asaoka (1978) method of analysis. Within this zone. govern increases in undrained shear strength. (1971) interpreted such field data as representing undrained shear behavior with Skempton's A parameter being fairly low. evaluation of the same data has often led to quite different conclusions regarding in situ behavior. However. but then increases significantly such that the incremental B is near unity. plots of excess pore pressure (ue) versus applied stress are frequently used to infer when yielding first occurs and to derive undrained shear strengths and preconsolidation pressures for comparison with design values. the in situ shear stress equals the undrained shear strength. Now consider the use of field data to assess the yield characteristics of the foundation clay. (1985) describes practical problems with this approach.

etc.3.2)." The writer believes that the aforementioned picture of field behavior cannot be universally true for the following reasons: Rates of pore pressure dissipation during initial construction can vary within very wide limits. rate effects. or Ao„ plots should be evaluated and may prove useful.5) typically associated with staged construction. as neither ensures success. soil type. One employs limiting equilibrium stability analyses to obtain a quantitative measure of safety. usually in a more qualitative manner. which may justify numerical analyses to account for embankment rigidity and varying foundation stiffnesses.development of confined failure . Although ue versus ACT. the ability to detect and interpret properly the physical significance of changes in excess pore pressure versus applied stress during initial construction is a complex task that varies with the loading geometry and piezometer locations. with resultant differences attributed to disturbance of the oedometer test specimens. plus compressibility characteristics for comparison with laboratory oedometer data. Evaluating Foundation Stability The most important part of the field monitoring program for staged construction projects concerns foundation stability (including tailings slimes). Both approaches should be used. . • Abrupt changes from overconsolidated to normally consolidated field behavior are probably restricted to highly structured clays having a sharp break in the compression curve at cr'p. Mesri and Choi (1981). The following offers some guidance and comments on their relative merits.. Ladd et al. but merely to the passage of the clay to a normally consolidated state. The other uses the field instrumentation data. and the conditions causing "yield. 7." which can range from an undrained shear failure to consolidation beyond the yield envelope. Leroueil (1988) summarizes data for several highly structured clays (without vertical drains) wherein "strain rate" effects during primary consolidation were used to explain field settlements much larger than predicted from end-of-primary laboratory curves (but also see Section 4. This process needs detailed measurements throughout construction of the strains and pore pressures within "uniform" layers and reliable estimates of total vertical stress. Unfortunately.. In contrast. to infer (un)satisfactory performance during periods of actual loading. (1979) compare field and laboratory compression curves for two projects having vertical drains. (1972) and Pelletier et al.. (1969). in situ compression curves (e„ versus log v'vc) should give a more direct check on the design a'p profile. on potential differences between laboratory and field compression curves. which can be assessed by two general approaches.g. . little experience exists to predict the relative importance of disturbance. Theoretical research using realistic "generalized" models of soil behavior could clarify some of these issues. non-A'o stress conditions (including undrained shear deformations). Hence.2-1. the degree of drainage. Folkes and Crooks (1985)]. as suggested by Hoeg et al. 597 • . with B often being a poor indicator of actual degrees of drainage [e. • One would expect significant zones of contained plastic flow due to local overstressing (shear failure) at factors of safety (FS = 1. the soil type (meaning brittle versus ductile behavior) and disturbance due to drain installation.

Case histories of embankments on brittle clays. field instrumentation can provide clear evidence of foundation instability for construction on ductile soils. that continue with time. For this purpose. But these analyses entail considerable effort. such as encountered in eastern Canada. the monitoring program also should continuously use "graphical" interpretation of the field data to help detect potential foundation instability. The overall deformation magnitudes will be much larger. Although piezometer data are essential for undrained strength analyses and to evaluate field consolidation behavior.g. and also with loading rates sufficiently slow to allow "undrained" creep deformations. The answer depends to an important degree on the stress-strain characteristics of the foundation soil. Ladd (1972). rather than on a distinct surface. measurements of settlement and horizontal displacements may not detect an impending failure unless made very accurately. they apply only to specific locations and. such that even visual observations of alignment stakes may detect problem areas. even then. (1972).The limiting equilibrium analyses should calculate the factor of safety against an undrained failure since the CU case (Table 6) is the most critical and likely condition. they seldom provide a direct warning of foundation instability since the yield phenomenon described in Section 7. perhaps with the for598 . The revised definition for the foundation brittleness index (FBI) is FBI = (18) where c„ = average undrained strength mobililzed along the failure surface at failure. Hence. may give misleading answers due to uncertainties in the computational techniques and input parameters. Section 5 presents recommendations for doing this via undrained strength analyses (USA). Moreover. specifically those resulting from undrained shear deformations rather than consolidation. definition of failure becomes more nebulous as it reflects excessive deformations within a zone. show little prior warning of very abrupt failures having large displacements along well-defined rupture surfaces. In contrast. The value of FBI approaches unity for highly sensitive clays and approaches zero for insensitive soils. the writer would expect the soil characteristics and resultant response of foundations having limiting values of the foundation brittleness index as presented in Table 7.. LaRochelle et al. and dramatic pore pressure increases occur (if at all) only just prior to or during actual failures.2 typically occurs at factors of safety well above those used for design. The real question therefore concerns the usefulness of vertical and horizontal movements. For these soils. the writer modified Vaughan's (1972) field brittleness index developed to describe differing clay embankment behavior in order to distinguish between clay foundations having brittle versus ductile responses. Dascal et al. However. which preclude them as a routine means of assessing (un)satisfactory field performance during periods of rapid loading. Following Vaughan's (1972) logic (but now applied to natural rather than compacted clays). and cr = the average undrained shear stress at large strains after failure has occurred. (1974)]. which basically use vertical consolidation stresses and undrained strength ratios {CU/<J'VC) to compute c„ profiles throughout the foundation. Shear deformations during loading are small and difficult to measure and may not accelerate until only hours before failing [e.

10 and Ladd et al. 24 plots settlement data during stage 1 filling to El. Construction then stopped after removing some fill. (1974) summarize the properties of the soft organic silty clay (Ip = 33%. high shear deformations Behavior) modulus and due to high E„/c„.. Fig. 10 over a 240-ft (73-m) square area led to flattening of the slopes. After installing augured. Expected Soil Characteristics and Resultant Foundation Response for Limiting Values of Foundation Brittleness Index (FBI) Value of FBI = (<?„ cr)/c„ Undrained stress-strain behavior and typical soil type (2) Foundation Response During failure During loading (3) • (4) Very abrupt and large displacements due to large strength reduction along distinct rupture surface Large pore pressure increases along rupture surface (1) Near Unity • Small strain at • Small undrained (Brittle failure. (1969) describe the unexpected North slope failiure. Simons (1976)]. modulus shear deformations Behavior) due to low E„/c„.8. and driven sand drains within the central 120-ft (36. the stage 2 filling continued until large cracks developed along the easterly portion of FRT at El. Foundation instability during stage 1 construction to El. pronounced postpeak even at low FS strain softening having large zone of contained plastic flow • Little warning prior • Clays of high sensitivity (often to well-defined lean and/or failure cemented) Near Zero • Large strain at • Large undrained (Ductile failure. jetted.TABLE 7. and little postpeak strain softening especially at low FS having large zone of contained plastic flow • Organic and plastic • Ample warning clays of low prior to ill-defined sensitivity failure • • Relatively small but continuing deformations occurring within zone rather than along rupture surface • Small changes in pore pressure mation of cracks and a modest scarp in the fill [e.g. 23). removal of fill to El. (1969) and Simon et al. The remaining text discusses the use of settlement and horizontal displacement data for relatively ductile foundations via a case history of staged construction.5. the high settlement rates of the North (N) and Northeast (NE) settlement platforms (SP) relative to 599 . Although not evaluated during construction. which initially caused displacements of several feet that approximately doubled during the next two weeks.5-m) square portion of the test area. Ladd et al. followed by an overview of correlations between vertical and horizontal deformations. and added instrumentation. lL ~ 1) that had a constant initial strength [c„ = 250 psf (12 kPa)] and slightly decreasing preconsolidation pressure with depth. low. Foott and Ladd (1977). Maine for the purpose of evaluating different types of vertical sand drains (Fig. The case history involves the rectangular Fore River Test (FRT) section built on a tidal mud flat in Portland. 18.

Moreover. is highly dependent on the geometry of the problem and the relative magnitude of the consolidation settlements. The aforementioned results demonstrate that settlement data can warn of impending failures if they reflect much larger movements. compared to ordinary consolidation settlements. Fig. (1969)] the center show obvious signs of excessive undrained shear deformations nearly one week before the failure. Measurements of horizontal displacements generally show the clearest evidence of foundation instability since they directiy reflect deformations caused by undrained shear and are less affected by consolidation than settlement data. The settlement behavior along the East and South slopes similarly indicates instability problems before the development of noticeable cracking. 25 summarizes horizontal displacements (h) measured for the East 600 . For example. that are caused by excessive undrained shear deformations within the foundation. besides requiring ductile soil behavior. 23.(a) PLAN WITH SP LOCATIONS NORTH OFFSET ( f t ) FIG. Foundations with vertical drains also tend to negate monitoring based only on settlement data since fast rates of consolidation settlement mask vertical movements caused by undrained shear deformations. settlement data during the FRT stage 2 filling did not show evidence of foundation distress (Ladd et al.305 m) [after Ladd et al. which is probably typical for embankments having wide stability berms. 1969). the slope flattening caused an immediate reduction in settlement rates to values consistent with one-dimensional consolidation. This condition. Stage 1 Construction of Fore River Test Section (1 ft = 0.

(1974)] 601 .*>'.+2 -0.:.8 SLOPE INCLINOMETER SI-1 at EL.305 m) [after Simon et al.I8. '.-30 :/. I 0. 8 .4 Measured — o — FEECON — x — 215 227 < a 0. 0 P4.8 S 0.EAST SLOPE °TTP.8 100 105 110 fc^XX. ' i ' . P2 Soft Organic CLAY 0 EL.:. (1969)] EL.V.12 £ S l1 Flatten E Slope After Cracking Flatten S a w Slopes 9 d 8 -I _J U7 6 NOTE: Flatten Slope = 8H.V.•'.v\:v:.'•STAGE 2 '• • \ > > ^ IVATION — 20 EL. 24..•. 23 for SP Locations Installed at Fill EL.4 .•-§-".5 . SOUTH SLOPE 0.''•'.6 UJ Wlti-^wlikrt&v .305 m) [after Ladd et al.^.X

.-:-.v .'. '-STAGE 1 ' • ' • ' • \ • : E ' L .W/. 50 100 150 200 EAST OFFSET (ft) 0.6 \ NE 0.4 ^ -\ v-N xr xSE I CENTER N NORTH SLOPE - .! • i-—i <y*** 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 FILL ELEVATION ( f t ) oi- i» - 10 12 14 16 18 20 FILL ELEVATION ( f t ) FIG.2 e o. 25.2 CD = I73 195 8 ° _ „ _ .: . Settlement versus Time During FRT Stage 1 Filling (1 ft = 0.YA-Wfi •:.. Horizontal Displacements During FRT Stage 2 Filling (1 ft = 0.IV_ l _ l I See Fig.5 SAND DRAINS | -20 at 10 8 14 ft i AS 18 j- AS 3.2 FN v v..3 .:. ::'.-. iI H5 120 .-I8 • 0.-VSAND and GRAVEL^-:.-.i 125 130 CONSTRUCTION DAY (CD) FIG. ~ D -a-q.

Simon et al. The results in Fig. one should make predictions of undrained shear deformations. the effects of weaker zones and local yielding). they analyzed the relationship between the maximum horizontal displacement (hm) measured by inclinometers at the toe of the fill and the maximum (circa centerline) settlement (s). the slope inclinometer sheared off on CD230 and fill was removed on CD235 after large cracks appeared. (1979). In particular. • For major projects.. 17 having a computed FS(USA) about 10% higher than at maximum grade. 25 show that finite element analyses can make reasonable predictions. For 21 case histories involving simple loading geometries (see sketch in Fig. As an example. the shape of h versus depth (e. For convenience. 1974). (1974)].slope of FRT during stage 2 filling. During single stage construction of about 15 embankments without vertical drains on overconsolidated deposits: 1. strength. 26).09 SD. from consolidation during loading periods. The displacement rates at constant load also increased significantly due to undrained creep. DR. both to help select appropriate field instrumentation and for comparisons during construction monitoring. providing further evidence of very marginal stability some two weeks before cracks appeared in the fill. stiffness. and expected changes in h versus fill elevation for varying degrees of foundation consolidation and hence overall stability. nonlinear finite element analyses that consider the effects of initial shear stress and undrained strength anisotropy [e. but complex. Very sophisticated "generalized soil models" are required to predict the effects of these important. The plots of h versus fill elevation for the inclinometer and the alignment stakes both show significant changes in shape near E l . for the inclinometer in Fig. 602 • . but realizing that Ejcu can vary from less than 200 to over 2.g. which considers initial shear stress and undrained strength anisotropy and used a bilinear stressstrain curve (Simon et al. etc. the hm versus s slope will be called the deformation ratio. and modulus throughout the foundation soils.. Significant drainage during initial loading (due to high OC cv values) causes horizontal displacements much less than predicted from undrained analyses. resultant DR = dhjds = 0. in this case via FEECON.. 25 one would want to predict overall displacement magnitudes.000 with soil type and stress level (Foott and Ladd 1981). Tavenas et al. they evaluated changes in the hm versus s slope observed during and after construction and the shape of the horizontal displacement versus depth curves (h versus z) to arrive at several important conclusions.18 ± 0. (1979) demonstrate that correlations between horizontal displacements and vertical settlements can provide useful insight regarding the relative importance of undrained versus drained deformations within embankment foundations. However. = dhm/ds. The following summarizes principal conclusions from Tavenas et al. In the meantime. aspects of soil behavior. elastic analyses to predict general magnitudes of undrained horizontal displacements. the writer suggests: As a minimum. After reaching E l .g. FEECON also cannot account for undrained creep and strain softening or for increases in strength.5 at construction day 221. As part of the aforementioned observational method. even this type CI analysis (Lambe 1973) had problems due to uncertainties in K0. 18.

During subsequent consolidation over several years for 12 embankments having B/D ranging from 0." such that undrained shear deformations now dominate behavior. and considerable judgment. (1979).llv f «.JO.—lU- I %„ i a.9 to almost 10: 1. unless the thickness of normally consolidated soil increases with time. The maximum displacement of the h versus z curve more or less coincides with the location of the minimum undrained strength within the foundation. their possible effect on hm versus s correlations is of interest.3] 0.2 during this phase. 26 attempt to do this for an overconsolidated ductile foundation based on the Palavas site in Tavenas et al.2 0.e. Although the mechanisms causing this phenomenon are unclear.3 0. 26.7 0. partially drained and then undrained behavior during filling. DR = 0.6 0.3 o N OQ2 x EOC [FS=1.8 MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT. 3.UH. i.4 0.1 0.) -<-B: Vertical Drains EOC [FSM. Since staged construction often employs vertical drains to accelerate the rate of strength gain from consolidation. Then a relatively abrupt increase in horizontal displacements occurs when a significant zone of the foundation becomes "normally consolidated.%°!--^C: Vertical Drains 'S<U JO-— """"laJSl—-'A:No Drains L°!S. the writer feels that continued shear distortions due to (or similar to) undrained creep may be an important factor. Case B has an 603 .15.9 1.P ~ ASB •-.. (1979). z0. s (m) 0. This behavior has produced long-term lateral displacements several times larger than measured at the end of construction.5 0. The schematic relationships presented in Fig. The h versus z shape remains approximately constant.0 FIG. the writer's analysis of several wick drain projects. §0. followed by consolidation having a deformation ratio (DR) of 0. z0. Schematic Relationships Between Maximum Horizontal Displacement and Maximum Settlement for First-Stage Embankment Construction 2. The maximum horizontal displacement continues to increase linearly with settlement.9 ± 0.3] EOC rFS< 1 si 10.16 ± 0.A|lWAlwVtAf.5 < a.6 o 0.07 and can be affected by small changes in slope geometry. DR = 0.4 _i DEFINITIONS LOADING HISTORY Case '.^ritMUV. Case A represents construction without drains having the essential features described by Tavenas et al.K. 2. 1 / EOC Time tj.W*lUiMH~.

Therefore. the writer suggests plotting the following for monitoring foundation stability: 1.4 during filling (an approximate upper limit for stable foundations with vertical drains reviewed by the writer). During periods at constant load (highly recommended whenever stability becomes critical). etc. Classification of Stability Problems The factor of safety (FS) obtained from limiting equilibrium stability analyses is commonly defined as Available shear strength of the soil FS = 604 (19) . and tanks founded on soft cohesive soils. brittle versus ductile foundations. and the processes governing combined consolidation and creep behavior are poorly understood. but the vertical drains now cause significant drainage throughout filling (much larger s and slightly smaller hm at the end of construction). resulting in a much larger DR = 0. Stability evaluations to assess the safety of existing structures also face the same issue. 8. plots like Fig. Case C places more fill in less time. an increasing rate may imply excessive undrained shear deformations and impending failure. evaluation of changes in dh. one cannot now predict the effects on h„.identical loading history. and horizontal displacement (h). Besides maintaining detailed records of time versus fill height (H). 2.„/ds and dhm/dt as a function of H and time. Since dhm/dt should gradually decrease with time if controlled by consolidation. 4. Periodic h versus depth to detect weaker zones and to locate the maximum value (hm). 26 may still prove useful. More rapid consolidation also reduces DR after loading due to smaller effects of "undrained" creep. Nevertheless. especially within foundations having large zones of contained plastic flow. It should be emphasized that significant deviations from the schematic results in Fig. 3. landfills. with hm generally providing much clearer evidence of potential problems. and also a larger ratio during consolidation due to higher rates of creep. versus s relationships of changes in geometry (especially with berms). 26 can be expected since they are based on rather limited field evidence for simple loading geometries. j and hm versus H. embankments. interpretation of field deformation data to warn of foundation instability requires considerable experience and judgement and the use of different plots depending upon the particular problem. In conclusion. This paper treats the controversial issue of what type of stability analysis to use for the design of staged construction projects and to check stability during actual construction. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Staged construction uses controlled rates of loading to enable soil strengthening via consolidation in order to increase the foundation stability of dams. It is also used for the operation of many tailings waste storage dams. second versus first stage loadings. hm versus J to help detect partially drained versus undrained response and for comparison with prior behavior. settlement (s).

1. • Would be better described as a drained strength analysis." etc. • Computes sd = c' + a'B tan if'. • FS = c„/Tm> where c„ is the new undrained strength corresponding to the current in situ consolidation stress history. • FS = C„/T„.„ = the mobilized shear stress required for equilibrium.where T." "long-term"): • Full consolidation of soil with respect to the applied stresses and drained failure with zero shear induced pore pressures. • Therefore inherently assumes an undrained failure corresponding to the CU case. which is analogous to the three basic types of laboratory shear tests. Note that the UU and CD cases represent limiting conditions to the more general CU case." "intermediate"): • Partial or full consolidation of soil with respect to the applied stresses and undrained failure." "short-term. • FS = sd/-rm. the selected type of stability analysis should use (or compute) a shear strength consistent with the most likely drainage conditions during a potential failure. 3. 2. • Defines FS(USA) = cjtm. The paper recommends the following classification system. 1. UU case (replaces "undrained. A conventional effective stress analysis (ESA) that: • Treats the in situ effective stresses as equal to the effective stresses that will act on a potential failure surface at failure. The selected type of stability analysis therefore should compute the factor of safety against an undrained failure. A so-called undrained strength analysis (USA) that: • Treats the in situ effective stresses as equal to consolidation stresses. Stability Analyses for Staged Construction Current practice commonly uses a method of slices (with either predicted or measured pore pressures) to compute factors of safety by one of the following two types of analysis. stability evaluations should select the CU case as representing the most critical and realistic condition. • Uses these consolidation stresses to compute the available undrained strength within the foundation. • Defines FS(ESA) = sd/tm = tan cf>'/tan < m j > • Therefore inherently assumes a drained failure corresponding to the CD case. where sd is the available drained strength at the in situ effective stresses = c' + a'ff tan 4>'. Since staged construction produces positive excess pore pressures and since actual failures of cohesive soils usually occur without significant dissipation of shear induced pore pressures. Since Tm remains constant for a given failure surface. CD case (replaces "drained. 605 .): • No consolidation of soil with respect to the applied stresses and undrained failure. 2. where cu is the initial in situ undrained strength prior to construction. CU case (replaces "partially drained.

Section 3 presents a conceptual comparison of ESA and USA factors of safety (Fig. 3) and detailed results from three case histories (Table 3 and Figs. Use these relationships and the stress history profiles from the first and second components to compute cu values for USA. where Cs and Cc equal the slope of the swelling and virgin compression lines. respectively. • Level B—CKQU direct simple shear tests using SHANSEP. and m = 0. 4-11).05 for silts and organic clays plotting below the A-line. Establish changes in the vertical stress history during staged construction via consolidation analyses for design and piezometers during construction.22 ± 0. rather than an undrained. which requires high-quality laboratory oedometer tests. i.Cs/Cc). • Level C—Use cja'vc = 5(OCR)'". Establish the initial stress history of the deposit (profiles of <J'V0 and v'p). For example. This results from the inherent ESA assumption of a drained. and extension tests using either the Recompression (Bjerrum 1973) or the SHANSEP (Ladd and Foott 1974) reconsolidation technique and treated for strain compatibility (Section 4.3. Although the undrained strength analyses (USA) involved simplifying assumptions that tend to err on the safe side. The recommended approach for doing this evolved during the past 20 years from the important recognition of the close correlation between the in situ undrained strength ratio {cu/v'vc) and the overconsolidation ratio (OCR = o-p/o4) of cohesive soils and with the development of new laboratory strength testing procedures. The recommended USA methodology simplifies the real problem by only considering changes in vertical consolidation stress (CT^) and by using cu/(y'vc 606 • .88(1 . 4. There are three levels of sophistication to obtain CU/<J'VC versus OCR relationships: Level A—CK0U compression. failure. The latter use KQ consolidated-undrained (CK0U) tests to minimize the adverse effects of sample disturbance and to evaluate stress-strain-strength anisotropy.. This level enables anisotropic stability analyses. with values of S and m obtained from correlations presented in Section 5.25 ± 0. the writer concludes that conventional effective stress analyses (ESA) based on realistic strength parameters (c' and <))') and measured pore pressures can give highly misleading and unsafe estimates of actual factors of safety for staged construction. 3. supplemented by in situ testing to help assess spatial variability.e. which show FS(ESA)/FS(USA) ratios of about two. The recommended approach has four basic components: 1. S = 0.3). Janbu's "undrained effective stress" approach to stability analyses has the same inherent problem (Section 6.03 for homogeneous sedimentary clays plotting above Casagrande's A-line: S = 0.9). 2. direct simple shear. Methodology for Undrained Strength Analyses Undrained strength analyses (USA) require estimates of the initial in situ undrained shear strength (c„) of the cohesive foundation soils and subsequent increases in c„ during staged construction. Develop C„I<J'VC versus OCR relationships for the foundation soils as described herein. with CiJo'vc varying with inclination of the failure surface.

Gould kindly provided background material on the early work by A. Such analyses could also clarify the effects of partial drainage during loading and of contained plastic flow during consolidation on pore pressures and deformations within clay foundations. While constitutive relationships capable of modeling soil behavioral features such as anisotropy and strain softening have recently been developed. Jamiolkowski. Correlations between horizontal displacements and vertical settlements can be used to evaluate the relative importance of undrained versus drained deformations within embankment foundations. Army Corps of Engineers. It suggests new techniques for backcalculating field ch values for projects with vertical drains and describes how brittle versus ductile stress-strain characteristics of the foundation soil affect the use of field instrumentation to warn of impending failures. and J. Inc. This so called QRS approach uses UU and CIU triaxial compression test data in an empirical manner such that its accuracy depends on compensating errors that are difficult to quantify (Section 6. the Societe d'Energie de la Baie James (SEBJ) of Montreal. Don J.-J. Dunnicliff. Marcuson III and L. Pare.ratios obtained from CK0U test data. S. W. J. 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ESA-USA stability comparisons for the three case histories were made possible by the support of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the U. Monitoring Field Performance Section 7 summarizes the advantages of using the observational method (Peck 1969) during staged construction and recommendations for successful field instrumentation. J. M. M. Canada for the James Bay site. Inc. Lacasse. and Bromwell and Carrier. for the tailings dam.. The writer is indebted to a former doctoral student. other important aspects such as "rate effects" are still poorly understood. Casagrande leading to the QRS methodology. which should be on the safe side.11. The resultant errors. Research Needs Current capabilities for assessing foundation stability make simplifying assumptions and entail an artificial separation of stress distribution-consolidation analyses on the one hand and limiting equilibrium analyses on the other. The availability of a realistic generalized soil model for use in numerical analyses would provide a more rational approach. M. The recommended USA methodology differs significantly from that developed for staged construction by Arthur Casagrande in the 1940s. The field performance data presented in Section 7 were obtained for Haley and Aldrich. Bromwell. for pertinent references and help in developing soil behavior correlations. other than those cited in the references. can be reduced by the special direct simple shear testing described in Section 4. S. G.S. Bromwell. Lacasse. McAnear did likewise regarding its use by the U.2). Key persons who helped with analyses. geotechnical consultant for the project. Detailed comments on the first (1988) draft by L.S. DeGroot. F. P. 607 . include L. G. Federal Highway Administration for the varved clay site.

K. 1-54. 437-501. "The relevance of the triaxial test to the solution of stability problems.. Discussion of "Stability coefficients for earth slopes. England. REFERENCES Arthur." Geotechnique. M." Proc." Proc." Proc. (1985). Conference on Soil Mech. Moscow. APPENDIX I. and Found. Baligh. A. F. P. L." Proc. Brinch-Hansen. A. "Strain path method. II: Pore pressures. (1955). E." Geotechnique. Engrg. R. L. S. Engrg. 1st Int. Engrg. Bjerrum. C.S. Germaine. Crooks. M. L. S.. Balkema Publishing. M. A. 608 . and likewise for J.S. I: Shear stresses. K." Proc.. London. Azzouz. London. R. J. C. "The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. "Embankments on soft ground: SOA Report. on Penetration Testing. 8th Int. 111-159. 3. Engrg. 1108-1136. ASCE. S. 7-17." Soils and Foundations. ASCE. Stockholm. Baligh. 718-754. Been.. and Jefferies. 39-49. (1964). (1986a). (1981). 487-501.. 516-540. 10. (1949). 113(7). and S. 549-564. R. "Relationship between stability analyses with total and effective stress." J. and Found. on Laboratory Shear Strength of Soil. 18(4).R. Sweden. 1.G. England. H. T. "Disturbance due to 'ideal' tube sampling. A. Christian on the final version." Proc. M." Geotechnique. ASCE. Brinch-Hansen.. J. 113. L. "Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays: SOA Report. England. G. "Current status of the piezocone test. Symp. L." Proc.." Geotechnique. Geotech. (1983)." Geotechnique. (1948). 8th Int. ASCE. Vick are greatly appreciated. U. M. C. M.. Symp. E. (1936). (1987). C.. G. 16(1). A. England. Engrg.. (1973). "Work as a criteriqn for determining in situ and yield stresses in clays. (I960). M. "Stress path tests with controlled rotation of principal stress directions.. Azzouz. 3. Morgenstem. 1. Bromwell. D. Engrg. ASCE. "Observational procedure of settlement prediction. (1986b). M. Bjerrum. (1962)." J. 111(9). Res. W. and Ladd. (1972). 360361. London. U. W. C. A.. A. M. (3).-T... Baligh.. 1-20. J. Asaoka. Mass. 1st Int." Trans. 36(4). London. ML. 343-346. (1966). 275—295. Azzouz. 5(1). Conference on Soil Mech. Baligh. (1987). and Bjerrum. and Landva. and Found. Cambridge. 60-64. Mesri. 109(5). A. Geotech. M. and Ladd.. A. R. 28-41. and Bjerrum. 10th Int. Japan." Proc. A. 87-101. 93-116. (1988). Barron. Casagrande.. "Shear strength of normally consolidated clays. 739-757.S." Canadian Geotech. L. S. (1973).. J. England. "Direct simple shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. A." / . Baligh. England. Becker.. on Sedimentation-Consolidation Models: Predictions and Validation. G. Moscow. "Undrained deep penetration. "Consolidation of mining wastes. "The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance. Bishop. Geotechnique. Bishop and N. J. C. (1981). W. T. T. R. ASCE. and Robertson.R. Berre. and Found. 36(4). A. Baligh. Engrg.. A. STP 740. Bjerrum. J. 24(4). Barron.. Campanella. M. ASCE.. G. "Undrained shear strengths of anisotropically consolidated clays." by A.." Sols-Soils. 730-734. C. 3. "Three-dimensional stability analysis of four embankment failures. 14(4). Geotech. R. (1984).. (1978). London.. Conference on Soil Mech.S. and Ladd. 471-485. and Chin. "Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells. and Gibson.. "Undrained deep penetration. Conference on Soil Mech. M. ASTM. "Corrected field vane strength for embankment design. 2. London.. 189-204.1." Symp. Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures. Bekenstein.. 1(3). Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. Bishop.

ASCE. at Cambridge. Res.. (1985). Dascal. J. Div. (1977). Holtz. J. 107(8). 768776. and LaRochelle. T. Geotech. 1. Germaine.. Duncan. (1981). Washington." J. and Rolfsen. C. (1986). J. Janbu. Hirschfeld and S. C. 9th Int.. London.. 429-439. ASTM STP 892. ASCE. ASTM. J. ASTM STP 977. (1972). J. (1977)..." Geotechnique. Jeyapalan. 101-115.." Proc. T. "New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils: Theme Lecture 2." J. Gens. Poulos. and Lancellotta. Tavenas.. and Found. eds. John Wiley and Sons. Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures. D. (1973). Conference on Soil Mech. J. (1979). (1983). Jamiolkowski." Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock. P." Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils: Field and Laboratory Studies. M. T. B. C.. ASCE.. Townsend. M. J.." Canadian Geotech. N. Andersland. P. 407-426." Proc. N. Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field performance. J. "The in-situ measurement of the undrained shear strength of clays using the field vane: SOA paper. (1971). Engrg. 97(6). 1079-1094. C." Canadian Geotech. Folkes. J. 1123-1130. STP 1014. 13-44. 14(3). R. London..." Geotechnique..." Proc. Lancellotta. Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures: Part 1. Jamiolkowski.." Proc. M. San Francisco. "Testing equipment. 1." (1978). (1985). A. Foott. T. Germaine. Tournier. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science. J. "Triaxial testing of saturated cohesive soils: SOA paper. (1986). D. "Design and construction of levees." J. "Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis. Army Corps of Engineers.. "Precompression and speeding up consolidation: General report speciality session 6." Embankment-dam engineering.. G. 3. O. 57153. W. and Crooks. and Ladd. 27(2).... England. C. C.. Fredlund.. Engrg. Inc.." Geotechnique. (1988). 2nd Int. "Lessons from oedometer tests on high quality samples. U. Engrg. R. C. London." Proc.. Hight.. K. D. J.. 112(8). C . and Wolski. H. D. Chandler. J. H. 2. R. J. 19(1). Tokyo.C. Janbu. "Design analysis for gravity platform foundations. "Development of the directional shear cell for measuring cross-anisotropic clay properties. New York." Proc. D. R. C. N. (1983). and Symes. G. 8th European Conference on Soil Mech. R.. 11th Int. "Behaviour of Atchafalaya levees during construction.. Conference on Soil Mech. 421-459. (1983). "Undrained settlement of plastic and organic clays. and Ladd.. M. D. Janbu. 549-566. and Found. Engrg. H. 33(4). "Slope stability computations. O. N. techniques and errors: Moderators' Report. K. (1969). A. (1960). London. R. R. B. Session 2. B. 129-158. "Failure of a test embankment on sensitive clay. Div. "Undrained behaviour of quick clay under load tests at Asrum. (1977). C. N. Consolidation of soils: Testing and evaluation. Yong and F.. N. Dunnicliff. 4 7 86. and Poulos. N.S. Office of the Chief of Engineers. ASTM. and Lancellotta.. Jamiolkowski. R. (1988). England. and Found. 881-897. D.Y. 22(3).Y.Casagrande. M. New York. "Effective stress paths and yielding in soft clays below embankments. Massachusetts. 355-384. Engrg. Foott. 357-374.. E. and Found. Ladd. and Seed. Hoeg. W. and Ladd. J. W. Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. Lambe. Helsinki. Geotech. eds. Germaine. John Wiley and Sons. A." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1988). 137-160. F. 1201-1226. and Rrahn. S. England. ASCE. and Wilson. (1982). Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1913. "The development of a new hollow cylinder apparatus for investigating the effects of principal stress rotation in soils.. "Evaluation of pore pressures beneath an embankment. "Slopes and excavations in normally and lightly overconsolidated clays: SOA Report. R. 1. ASCE. D'Appolonia. J. Soil Mech. "Analysis of flow failures 609 ..

. of Transp. SEBJ. E. and Foundations Div. Ladd. 421-494. C. Symp. Lacasse.. 887-892. "Characteristics and engineering properties of Northeastern varved clays. and Found. Engrg. Ladd. G.. C.Y. Foott. C . P. Montreal.. 1. D. C. R. J.. (1972). B. John Wiley and Sons. S. 2. ASCE. R. Lessard. 96(1). Rixner. San Juan. C . and Lefebvre. D. andLeroueil. Tavenas. Conference on Soil Mech. K. (1991). C. Engrg. Johnson. C. (1985). Lacasse. "New design procedure for stability of soft clays. of Civ. 18(1). "Use of precompression and vertical drains for stabilization of foundation soils. England. ASCE.. G. N. M. C. (1988). C . C . Puerto Rico. C. L. (1972). C. and Foott. MA. Conference on Soil Mech." Proc." GeoConsult lecture series on soft ground construction. S. C . Engrg.. K. Ladd. Washington.. 9th Int. 627-634. 149-202." Proc. Ladd. 111(3)." Notes for Foundations and Soil Mechanics Group. M.of mine tailings dams. T. (1969). Engrg.. J. 1-48. Ladd. 763-786. J. Balkema Publishing. and Lunne.. "Consolidated-undrained direct simple shear tests on saturated clays. Lambe. MIT. C. Sarrailh. S. G.. Conference on Analysis and Design in Geotech. C. 2.. V. R. ASCE (In preparation). (1977). Geotech. Trak.. Schlosser. Ladd. T. C . A. Cambridge. Mesri. 109(2). Geotech. Johnson. and Poulos. Lambe. 1st Int. Dept. T.. P. Ladd.S.. P. and Found. (1977).. G. U. D. Dept. T. ASCE. "Effects of disturbance on the performance of vertical drains. (1988). J. C. 145-175.. F. LaRochelle. H. "Performance of embankments with sand drains on sensitive clay. and Found. 52-66. Dascal. 2. "Triaxial testing methods for soils: SOA paper. (1970)." Canadian Geotech. GeoConsult.." Research Report R75-7. ASCE. ASCE. Canada. C. (1969).." Research Report R72-82.. W. M. Ladd. (1981)." J. "Design strengths for an offshore clay. (1987b). New York.. Geotech. Law. C. R. Engrg. Orlando. 337-355. 101-128. "Calibration of dilatometer correlations. Div. Mexico City. Cambridge. and Berre. Koutsoftas. Roy. Lacasse. Lefebvre.. G. LaRochelle. Ladd.. Ladd. "Report of the embankment stability subcommittee. C . F. Soil Mech. "Foundation design of embankments constructed on Connecticut Valley varved clays. 100(7).. Tavenas. and Johnson. (1975)." J. on Penetration Testing. London. and Whitman. C. 539-548. C. Engrg. Lacasse. Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures: Part 1." Internal Report 40007-1." J. C . MIT. Conference on Soil Mech. (1972). "Analysis and design relating to embankments. (1974)." Geotechnique. Annexe II. S.. "Test embankment on sensitive clay. Norwegian Geotech.. Dept.. and Ladd. "Effect of load duration on undrained behavior of clay and sand-literature survey. and Gifford. C. Ladd. S. Geotech. C.. ASCE. Engrg. 211-242. "Failure of a test em610 . Metropolitan Section of ASCE. Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures: Part 1. Inst. (1974). (1983). 2.. "Foundation precompression with vertical sand drains. S. W. (1974). and Foott. "Foundation design of embankments constructed on varved clays. New York. Soil mechanics. Ladd." J. J. 439 p. N. and Edgers. and Tavenas... of Civil Engrg." Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock.. ASTM STP 977.. ASCE. C." Proc. 7th Int.. "Block sampling of sensitive clays. Berre. (1985)." Proc. and Roy.. 23(2). J. F." Proc." Proc. O." J. (1973). S. 1.C. "Causes of sampling disturbance and design of a new sampler for sensitive soils. G." FHWA TS-77-214. "Stress-deformation and strength characteristics: SOA report. "Predictions in soil engineering: 13thRankine Lecture. F. Ishihara. C. 264-289. 150-171. 1." Committee of Specialists on Sensitive Clays on the NBR Complex. Aldrich.. A. Engrg.Y.. Mass." Proc. "Embankment failure on organic clay. T. (1987a). C. H. Engrg. Inc. (1979). 11th Int. T. 1st Ed.

"Report of the testing subcommittee. 61-76. (1985a). Mieussens. Engrg.. S. S. Session 2 on laboratory testing-new procedures and data acquisition techniques." J. J. on Soil Mech. ASCE. (1988). 113(3). ASCE. Lobdell. G. J. (1987).. 5. "Rate of constructing embankments on soft foundation soils. Geotech. G. "Stability analysis of embankments.. ASCE. (1980). W. F. Engrg. and Choi. and Choi. 11th Inter." Canadian Geotech. 10th Int. Canadian Geotech. "In situ tests by flat dilatometer. (1980). and Bouchard. 707-728. Larsson. 509-565.. ASCE. 66-82." Canadian Geotech.. S. (1987). Y. ASCE. G. 18(3). 11(1). Levadoux. ASCE. "Construction pore pressures in clay foundations under embankments.. 35(2). Y. Leroueil. 95(1). Conference on Soil Mech. Ill. Soil Mech. 113(5)..bankment on a sensitive Champlain clay deposit.. 16(1).." Committee of Specialists on Sensitive Clays on the NBR Complex. Div. 441-464. 142-164. (1979). V. Conference on Soil Mech. V. 85-107. (1969). Geotech.. J. "The uniqueness of the end-of-primary (EOP) void ratio-effective stress relationship. G. R. 155-185. C. and Found." Soils and Foundations. and Found.. Engrg." Canadian Geotech. ASCE. ASCE. C . "Tenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Recent developments in consolidation of natural clays. Jonas. and Castro. 1219-1242. "Geotechnical aspects of environmental control: Theme Lecture 3. Mesri." J. Engrg." Proc. 476-489.. and Baligh.. (1975). Engrg." Proc. and Tavenas. 85(5). Div.. 108(6). G. ASCE. (1967). ASTM STP 1014.. (1986). and LeBoeuf. "A new method of sampling in sensitive clay." J.. Mitchell. (1970). 15(1). G. J. C." J. Part II: Generalized behaviour. 77-97. Canada. Mesri. Geotech. E." Canadian Geotech. Div. and Price.. 112(7). R. Leroueil. Tavenas. Moore. C . Geotech. 460-462.. Soil Mech. E. Div. 851-872. D. Engrg. 587-590. Ladd. Marchetti. (1978). 2. R. 111(4). G. J. Mesri. Y." Proc. (1985). and Foundation Engrg. 106(3). M. J." J. ASCE. C. K." Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils: Field and Laboratory Studies. 106(11). F." J. 11th Int.. Mayne. Mayne. J. N. P." Canadian Geotech. Engrg. (1982).. "Rate effects and cyclic loading of sensitive clays. Engrg. and Found. 11th Int.. 591-602. England. 1.. 1-33." Geotechnique. Mesri. K.." J.. 10(3). Tavenas... Engrg. San Francisco. A. Foott. Ladd and R. 2689-2690. R. F. J. "Ca/Cc concept and K0 during secondary compression. Discussion of "The behaviour of embankments on clay foundations. "Settlement analysis of embankments on soft clays. "Comparison of field vane and laboratory undrained shear strengths in soft sensitive clays. S. 4. Morgenstern. 233-246. Geotech. and Peignaud. Div. (1983). "The factor of safety against undrained failure of a slope. K. Kabbaj. G.-N. 299-321. ASCE. W. and Found. J. H.. Mesri.. 409-412. 230-247. Lefebvre. M. Montreal." by F. "Consolidation after undrained piezocone penetration. and Found. "An analysis of the stability of general 611 . Geotech." J. Soil Mech. C. Div. 101(4). Lefebvre." / . "Cam-clay predictions of undrained strength. SEBJ. P.. "Ka-OCR relationships in soil. P. Lefebvre. C . 17(4). 93(4). "Soil improvement: SOA report. Lowe. "Stress-strainstrain rate relation for the compressibility of sensitive natural clays.. (1980). (1981). Annexe I. Mesri. (1985b). Lowe. Engrg. J. G. London. Leroueil. Japan. Ladd. Mesri. (1959). (1985). "Undrained shear strength in stability calculation of embankments and foundations on soft clays.. J. G. (1988). Geotech. Tavenas and S.." Proc. Morgenstern. Discussion of "New design procedure for stability of soft clays.. (1981). and Obrician. and Poulin.. F.." by C.. Geotech. Leroueil. G. 226-233. I: prediction. J. Engrg. San Francisco. in. "Controlled gradient consolidation test. Conference on Soil Mech. J. 81-91. N. and Kulhawy. 25(1). H.. and Found. Conf.-J. K. Div. "Discussion. and Choi. M. and Pare. 159-180.. M.. Lefebvre. (1985).." J. L.. (1965).

B. Massachusetts. Cambridge. B. John Wiley and Sons. 1-178. (1960). Soil improvement^ ten year update. Testing J. R. (1986). P. T. R. "State-of-the-art: Laboratory strength testing of soils. I. and Lowe. Townsend. "Settlement and stability of embankments on soft subsoils. ASTM STP 740. B. G. and Burland. 321-352. 12... H..C. Simon. L. Cambridge University Press. Inc. Miss. 21." Ground movements and their effects on structures. S.. Foreword to Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field performance.. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science. and Townsend. Res. (1974). "Stability analysis for low embankments on soft clays." Symp. J. 34-43.. 2(1).. J. N. 175-179. Sambhandharaksa. Olson. Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. "Estimation of consolidation properties of clay from field observations. 4." Proc. (1955). "Behavior and properties of hydraulic fills. eds.. "On the generalized stress-strain behaviour of 'wet' clay.S. at Cambridge. C. (1947). 2. (1981). England. 433-450." Proc. D.. P. W.. Shear Strength of Soil. Vicksburg. Specialty Conference on Hydr. J. Rixner.. 1-135. (1986). "Placement and improvement of soils: Committee Reports. on Lab. Pelletier. "Suggested method for performing the flat dilatometer test. H. C.R. R. R. England.. and Thornbum.. "Techniques to evaluate the field performance of vertical drains. K. Hanson. Speciality Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties. Foundation engineering. 1201-1233..S. ASTM. ASCE. 15(1). 120. J.. S. N.. session 4. "Analysis of undrained 612 . R. Y. Roscoe. Saada. 643-668." Proc. C. J.. Christian. P. Conference on Soil Mech. R. Cambridge.. J. S. John Wiley and Sons. H. Pilot. R. R.2. Rivard.." FHWA/RD-86/168." Proc. R. J.. England. Massachusetts. "Shear strength of soft fissured clays. B. Schmertmann. H. 93-101. I. by J. and Smith." Geotech. Peck. E. D." Trans. H. 166-202. "Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics: 9th Rankine Lecture. A. (1969). and Gibson. J. F. engineering guidelines. Peck. Parry. Rutledge. (1984). on Stress-Strain Behaviour of Soils." Proc. and Rixner.slip surfaces. (1978). E. vii— ix. (1988). 1137-1140.. ASCE." Geotech. "Discussion in Main Session 4. (1988). Sedimentation consolidation models: Predictions and validation. F. 19(2). U. S. and Found. Peck. R. J. 79-93. Engrg.. Federal Highway Admin. 8th Int. R. ASCE. C. New York." Soil Mechanics Fact Finding Survey. Schiffman. Moscow. London. M. J. 7-77. Fill Structures.." Geotechnique. and LaRochelle. "Discussion on measurement of in situ shear strength. (1983).. (1982).S. Washington. "Stress-strain-strength anisotropy of varved clays. (1973). H. Inc. Boulder." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. R." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Shear strength of undisturbed cohesive soils: Moderators' report." (1987).. R. G. (1975). ASCE. 9(2).. Univ. ASCE. GSP No. J. Ill." Canadian Geotech. and Ladd. B.Y. Cambridge.. GSP No. "Prefabricated vertical drains. New York.. Vol. (1972). Progress Report. E. Testing J. H. C. J. Surrey University Press. (1977). P.Y. (1979). N. Schmertmann. ASCE. (1984). ed. Murray. S. 15(3). London. "The undisturbed consolidation of clay. Schmertmann. Yong and F. at Cambridge. Peck. Dunnicliff. 171-187. and Lu. B. J." Canadian Geotech. G. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.. Orleach. Kraemer. J. (1974). 382-390. Vick.. A. (1968).. Trak. Welsh. 19(4)." Engineering plasticity. U. 535-609. B. and Symons. Waterways Experiment Station. England." Geotechnique. "Review of the cooperative triaxial shear research program of the Corps of Engineers. "Effective stress analysis of the stability of embankments on soft soils. T. Peck... J. Roscoe Memorial Symp. 99-100.

" (1982). Svano. Naval Facilities Engrg.. J. Conference on Soil Mech. New York. "A study of the geotechnical properties of some postglacial clays. 16(3). F.. 5.. Geotech. San Francisco. Conference on Soils Mech. Tavenas. Tavenas. Mass." J. "A study of the immediate triaxial test on cohesive soils. Whitman. (1988). Jean. E. (1948b).. J. 54-56. Spencer. 629-644. "The behaviour of embankments on clay foundations. W. 7-22. 236-260. Tavenas. Planning.. Tavenas.. F. Skempton." Geotechnique. 17(2). Soil Mech. 1. C .. 2nd Ed.. S. A. and Campanella. of the Navy. Leblond. "A constitutive model for overconsolidated clays with appli613 . Army Corps of Engineers. Vaughan.." Proc. 100(3). Inc.. Discussion of "New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. and Leroueil. Vaid." Proc." Proc.. P. Proc. 110(2)." Canadian Geotech.Y. Chapter 7. "The shearing resistance of saturated soils and the angle between the planes of shear." Proc. K. New York. F. Dept. Design manual 7: Soil mechanics. "Lateral displacements in clay foundations under embankments. "Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical engineering: 17th Terzaghi Lecture. 20(4). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Cambridge Univ. 924-939. R. D." by Jamiolkowski et al. Simons. and Leroueil. ASCE. P." Geotechnique. England. ASCE. K. D. (1948a). (1936). Fill Structures. Oslo." (1970). "The < = 0 analysis for stability and its theoretical f > basis. 192196. W. ASCE. R. ASCE.. W. 2nd Int. (1969). "Field studies of the stability of embankments on clay foundations. 1 312. Command. (1987). U. 7 . (1981).. A. R. E. "The stability of stage-constructed embankments on soft clays. "A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces. 21." (1971). Skempton." Proc. Command. 11th Int. on Stress-Strain Behaviour of Soils. Stauffer. Mieussens. and Wahls. (1967). and Leroueil. Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1902.Y. 1st Int.. Roscoe Memorial Symp. (1980).. 1. D.. and Found. N.. Engrg. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Engineering. E." thesis presented to the Norwegian Institute of Technology. 11—26. Geotech. Engrg. (1979). John Wiley and Sons. R. J... Engrg.. 145-188. Smith. of the Navy.1: Soil mechanics. at Trondheim.. and earth structures. Conference on Soil Mech. S." Proc. GSP No. "Stability of earth and rock fill dams.C. Whittle. and Found. Conference on Analysis and Design in Geotech. "Pore water pressure conditions in tailings dams. (1967). Part I: Methods of laboratory measurement. P. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.C. G. Speciality Conference on Hydr. 72-78." Canadian Geotech.behavior of loads on clay. "Undrained effective stress analyses. 207-224. Washington. and Leroueil.. "Consolidation under constant rates of strain. and Peck. "Stability analysis. Blanchet. Tavenas. Norway. London. and Obermeyer. "Undrained failure of clay embankments. John Wiley and Sons.. Terzaghi. Naval Facilities Engrg. J. 2693-2694. Engrg. (1976). Garneau. "Triaxial and plane strain behavior of natural clay.." Canadian Geotech. Washington.. 283305. S. Washington. Conference on Soil Mech. ASCE. 95(2). Design and Analysis of Tailings Dams. "Slope stability and protection. Terzaghi. 532-550. Design Manual 7. S. P. and Found. N. Inc. J. (1985). P. 1. (1983). G. A. 51-84.. 2nd Int. 15(2). and Found. 183-209." J. Engrg. Div. Div. 1. F. Office of the Chief of Engineers. (1972). Engrg.. B." Canadian Geotech. R. (1983). V. (1978). Dept. A. 683-691. Rotterdam. S. 519-539. R. Table 2. 1(1). Skempton. E." Laurits Bjerrum Memorial Volume. Rotterdam." J. Y. foundations. Engrg. N. "The permeability of natural soft clays.. J.C.. 17(1).S. G. R.. (1984). R. A. F. Vick. (1974). H. (1948c). and Found.. Cambridge.. F. and Bourges.

Whittle. coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Z. 614 . G. undrained shear strength. standard deviation.5(a„ — crh) or 0. and Heiberg. 1. S. "Consolidation at constant rate of strain. A. isotropically consolidated-undrained shear test. APPENDIX II. England (in Press). undrained shear strength from UU-type tests. E. "Evaluation of a model for predicting the behaviour of overconsolidated clays. Davis. (1971). TC TE TSA U USA = = = = = = = = = = = = '= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = compression.3 )/(CT. Casagrande's notation for UU. 11th Int. coefficient of consolidation for horizontal drainage. A. horizontal displacement. J. strength rebound exponent. Div. sensitivity = su (undisturbed)/su (remolded). ratio of horizontal to vertical consolidation stress. triaxial compression. 1393-1413. (1985). plane-strain extension. "Soil mechanics-property characterization and analysis procedures: Theme Lecture 1. 11. and Found. and Found. H.. consolidated-drained. total stress analysis. Christian. plane-strain compression. London.. San Francisco.cation to the cyclic loading of friction piles. cohesion intercept in terms of effective stress. K0 consolidated-undrained shear test. average degree of consolidation. J. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science. (1991). T. drained shear strength. effective stress analysis. b c CD CIU CIUC CK0U CU c' ch cu cv DSS E Eu ESA h II Kc K0 m PSC PSE QRS 1 a h f S SD s Sd Su s. P. undrained strength ratio at OCR = 1. T. 97(10). direct simple shear. at Cambridge. plasticity index. Massachusetts." J. undrained strength analysis. Soil Mech. q at failure. Engrg. liquidity index. coefficient of consolidation for vertical drainage. . Wroth. NOTATION The following symbols are used in this paper: (°"2 0. and Houlsby.5(0"! — a 3 )..CT3).." Proc. and CD shear tests." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.. E. extension. vertical settlement. 1-55. isotropically consolidated-undrained TC test. Wissa. consolidated-undrained. C. CU." Geotechnique. undrained Young's modulus. 0. Conference on Soil Mech. ASCE.. triaxial extension.

T for shear along horizontal failure surface. horizontal T at consolidation. = o4 = c^o = o-i. horizontal effective stress. T for shear in compression. effective stress on failure plane at failure. consolidation stress on failure plane. excess pore pressure. horizontal T or T in DSS test. field vane correction factor. major. angle between direction of (xv and vertical. friction angle in terms of total stresses. natural water content. plastic limit.'. shear strain. mobilized shear stress required for equilibrium.o. vertical effective stress. liquid limit. = = < o-. = <t>m = uu uuc u unconsolidated-undrained. -e- 615 .3 = <TV = T = = 'ave = Tc Trf = Te = T # = T* = T*c = = Tm = <t>cu = *. c> from CIUC tests plotted as per Fig. shear stress. and mobilized value of <j>'. isotropic consolidation stress. intermediate. major principal stress at failure. in situ initial vertical effective stress. vertical consolidation stress. j friction angle in terms of effective stresses. 2. effective normal stress. preconsolidation pressure. shear strain at failure. shear induced pore pressure. UU triaxial compression test. 1/3 X (Tc + Td + T„).o" 2 . horizontal consolidation stress.= = = ue = us = wL = wN = w„ = 8 = 7 = 7/ = 7< = = (A = V'c = Vfc <*# = ori = = CTte <T. total unit weight. pore (water) pressure. T for shear in extension. minor principal stresses. T on failure plane at failure.

Intereses relacionados

.-:-.v .'. '-STAGE 1 ' • ' • ' • \ • : E ' L .W/. 50 100 150 200 EAST OFFSET (ft) 0.6 \ NE 0.4 ^ -\ v-N xr xSE I CENTER N NORTH SLOPE - .! • i-—i <y*** 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 FILL ELEVATION ( f t ) oi- i» - 10 12 14 16 18 20 FILL ELEVATION ( f t ) FIG.2 e o. 25.2 CD = I73 195 8 ° _ „ _ .: . Settlement versus Time During FRT Stage 1 Filling (1 ft = 0.YA-Wfi •:.. Horizontal Displacements During FRT Stage 2 Filling (1 ft = 0.IV_ l _ l I See Fig.5 SAND DRAINS | -20 at 10 8 14 ft i AS 18 j- AS 3.2 FN v v..3 .:. ::'.-. iI H5 120 .-I8 • 0.-VSAND and GRAVEL^-:.-.i 125 130 CONSTRUCTION DAY (CD) FIG. ~ D -a-q.

Simon et al. The results in Fig. one should make predictions of undrained shear deformations. the effects of weaker zones and local yielding). they analyzed the relationship between the maximum horizontal displacement (hm) measured by inclinometers at the toe of the fill and the maximum (circa centerline) settlement (s). the slope inclinometer sheared off on CD230 and fill was removed on CD235 after large cracks appeared. (1979). In particular. • For major projects.. 17 having a computed FS(USA) about 10% higher than at maximum grade. 25 show that finite element analyses can make reasonable predictions. For 21 case histories involving simple loading geometries (see sketch in Fig. As an example. the shape of h versus depth (e. For convenience. 1974). (1974)].slope of FRT during stage 2 filling. During single stage construction of about 15 embankments without vertical drains on overconsolidated deposits: 1. strength. 26).09 SD. from consolidation during loading periods. The displacement rates at constant load also increased significantly due to undrained creep. DR. both to help select appropriate field instrumentation and for comparisons during construction monitoring. providing further evidence of very marginal stability some two weeks before cracks appeared in the fill. stiffness. and expected changes in h versus fill elevation for varying degrees of foundation consolidation and hence overall stability. nonlinear finite element analyses that consider the effects of initial shear stress and undrained strength anisotropy [e. but complex. Very sophisticated "generalized soil models" are required to predict the effects of these important. The plots of h versus fill elevation for the inclinometer and the alignment stakes both show significant changes in shape near E l . for the inclinometer in Fig. 602 • . but realizing that Ejcu can vary from less than 200 to over 2.g. which considers initial shear stress and undrained strength anisotropy and used a bilinear stressstrain curve (Simon et al. etc. the hm versus s slope will be called the deformation ratio. and modulus throughout the foundation soils.. Significant drainage during initial loading (due to high OC cv values) causes horizontal displacements much less than predicted from undrained analyses. resultant DR = dhjds = 0. in this case via FEECON.. 25 one would want to predict overall displacement magnitudes.000 with soil type and stress level (Foott and Ladd 1981). Tavenas et al. they evaluated changes in the hm versus s slope observed during and after construction and the shape of the horizontal displacement versus depth curves (h versus z) to arrive at several important conclusions.18 ± 0. (1979) demonstrate that correlations between horizontal displacements and vertical settlements can provide useful insight regarding the relative importance of undrained versus drained deformations within embankment foundations. However. = dhm/ds. The following summarizes principal conclusions from Tavenas et al. In the meantime. aspects of soil behavior. elastic analyses to predict general magnitudes of undrained horizontal displacements. the writer suggests: As a minimum. After reaching E l .g. FEECON also cannot account for undrained creep and strain softening or for increases in strength.5 at construction day 221. As part of the aforementioned observational method. even this type CI analysis (Lambe 1973) had problems due to uncertainties in K0. 18.

During subsequent consolidation over several years for 12 embankments having B/D ranging from 0." such that undrained shear deformations now dominate behavior. and considerable judgment. (1979).llv f «.JO.—lU- I %„ i a.9 to almost 10: 1. unless the thickness of normally consolidated soil increases with time. The maximum displacement of the h versus z curve more or less coincides with the location of the minimum undrained strength within the foundation. their possible effect on hm versus s correlations is of interest.3] 0.2 during this phase. 26 attempt to do this for an overconsolidated ductile foundation based on the Palavas site in Tavenas et al.2 0.e. Although the mechanisms causing this phenomenon are unclear.3 0. 26.7 0. partially drained and then undrained behavior during filling. DR = 0.6 0.3 o N OQ2 x EOC [FS=1.8 MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT. 3.UH. i.4 0.1 0.) -<-B: Vertical Drains EOC [FSM. Since staged construction often employs vertical drains to accelerate the rate of strength gain from consolidation. Then a relatively abrupt increase in horizontal displacements occurs when a significant zone of the foundation becomes "normally consolidated.%°!--^C: Vertical Drains 'S<U JO-— """"laJSl—-'A:No Drains L°!S. the writer feels that continued shear distortions due to (or similar to) undrained creep may be an important factor. Case B has an 603 .15.9 1.P ~ ASB •-.. (1979). z0. s (m) 0. This behavior has produced long-term lateral displacements several times larger than measured at the end of construction.5 0. The schematic relationships presented in Fig. The h versus z shape remains approximately constant.0 FIG. the writer's analysis of several wick drain projects. §0. followed by consolidation having a deformation ratio (DR) of 0. z0. Schematic Relationships Between Maximum Horizontal Displacement and Maximum Settlement for First-Stage Embankment Construction 2. The maximum horizontal displacement continues to increase linearly with settlement.9 ± 0.3] EOC rFS< 1 si 10.16 ± 0.A|lWAlwVtAf.5 < a.6 o 0.07 and can be affected by small changes in slope geometry. DR = 0.4 _i DEFINITIONS LOADING HISTORY Case '.^ritMUV. Case A represents construction without drains having the essential features described by Tavenas et al.K. 2. 1 / EOC Time tj.W*lUiMH~.

Therefore. the writer suggests plotting the following for monitoring foundation stability: 1.4 during filling (an approximate upper limit for stable foundations with vertical drains reviewed by the writer). During periods at constant load (highly recommended whenever stability becomes critical). etc. Classification of Stability Problems The factor of safety (FS) obtained from limiting equilibrium stability analyses is commonly defined as Available shear strength of the soil FS = 604 (19) . and tanks founded on soft cohesive soils. brittle versus ductile foundations. and the processes governing combined consolidation and creep behavior are poorly understood. but the vertical drains now cause significant drainage throughout filling (much larger s and slightly smaller hm at the end of construction). resulting in a much larger DR = 0. Stability evaluations to assess the safety of existing structures also face the same issue. 8. plots like Fig. Case C places more fill in less time. an increasing rate may imply excessive undrained shear deformations and impending failure. evaluation of changes in dh. one cannot now predict the effects on h„.identical loading history. and horizontal displacement (h). Besides maintaining detailed records of time versus fill height (H). 2.„/ds and dhm/dt as a function of H and time. Since dhm/dt should gradually decrease with time if controlled by consolidation. 4. Periodic h versus depth to detect weaker zones and to locate the maximum value (hm). 26 may still prove useful. More rapid consolidation also reduces DR after loading due to smaller effects of "undrained" creep. Nevertheless. especially within foundations having large zones of contained plastic flow. It should be emphasized that significant deviations from the schematic results in Fig. 3. landfills. with hm generally providing much clearer evidence of potential problems. and also a larger ratio during consolidation due to higher rates of creep. versus s relationships of changes in geometry (especially with berms). 26 can be expected since they are based on rather limited field evidence for simple loading geometries. j and hm versus H. embankments. interpretation of field deformation data to warn of foundation instability requires considerable experience and judgement and the use of different plots depending upon the particular problem. In conclusion. This paper treats the controversial issue of what type of stability analysis to use for the design of staged construction projects and to check stability during actual construction. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Staged construction uses controlled rates of loading to enable soil strengthening via consolidation in order to increase the foundation stability of dams. It is also used for the operation of many tailings waste storage dams. second versus first stage loadings. hm versus J to help detect partially drained versus undrained response and for comparison with prior behavior. settlement (s).

1. • Would be better described as a drained strength analysis." etc. • Computes sd = c' + a'B tan if'. • FS = c„/Tm> where c„ is the new undrained strength corresponding to the current in situ consolidation stress history. • FS = C„/T„.„ = the mobilized shear stress required for equilibrium.where T." "long-term"): • Full consolidation of soil with respect to the applied stresses and drained failure with zero shear induced pore pressures. • Therefore inherently assumes an undrained failure corresponding to the CU case. which is analogous to the three basic types of laboratory shear tests. Note that the UU and CD cases represent limiting conditions to the more general CU case." "intermediate"): • Partial or full consolidation of soil with respect to the applied stresses and undrained failure." "short-term. • FS = sd/-rm. the selected type of stability analysis should use (or compute) a shear strength consistent with the most likely drainage conditions during a potential failure. 3. 2. • Defines FS(USA) = cjtm. The paper recommends the following classification system. 1. UU case (replaces "undrained. A conventional effective stress analysis (ESA) that: • Treats the in situ effective stresses as equal to the effective stresses that will act on a potential failure surface at failure. The selected type of stability analysis therefore should compute the factor of safety against an undrained failure. A so-called undrained strength analysis (USA) that: • Treats the in situ effective stresses as equal to consolidation stresses. Stability Analyses for Staged Construction Current practice commonly uses a method of slices (with either predicted or measured pore pressures) to compute factors of safety by one of the following two types of analysis. stability evaluations should select the CU case as representing the most critical and realistic condition. • Uses these consolidation stresses to compute the available undrained strength within the foundation. • Defines FS(ESA) = sd/tm = tan cf>'/tan < m j > • Therefore inherently assumes a drained failure corresponding to the CD case. where sd is the available drained strength at the in situ effective stresses = c' + a'ff tan 4>'. Since staged construction produces positive excess pore pressures and since actual failures of cohesive soils usually occur without significant dissipation of shear induced pore pressures. Since Tm remains constant for a given failure surface. CD case (replaces "drained. 605 .): • No consolidation of soil with respect to the applied stresses and undrained failure. 2. where cu is the initial in situ undrained strength prior to construction. CU case (replaces "partially drained.

Section 3 presents a conceptual comparison of ESA and USA factors of safety (Fig. 3) and detailed results from three case histories (Table 3 and Figs. Use these relationships and the stress history profiles from the first and second components to compute cu values for USA. where Cs and Cc equal the slope of the swelling and virgin compression lines. respectively. • Level B—CKQU direct simple shear tests using SHANSEP. and m = 0. 4-11).05 for silts and organic clays plotting below the A-line. Establish changes in the vertical stress history during staged construction via consolidation analyses for design and piezometers during construction.22 ± 0. rather than an undrained. which requires high-quality laboratory oedometer tests. i.Cs/Cc). • Level C—Use cja'vc = 5(OCR)'". Establish the initial stress history of the deposit (profiles of <J'V0 and v'p). For example. This results from the inherent ESA assumption of a drained. and extension tests using either the Recompression (Bjerrum 1973) or the SHANSEP (Ladd and Foott 1974) reconsolidation technique and treated for strain compatibility (Section 4.3. Although the undrained strength analyses (USA) involved simplifying assumptions that tend to err on the safe side. The recommended approach for doing this evolved during the past 20 years from the important recognition of the close correlation between the in situ undrained strength ratio {cu/v'vc) and the overconsolidation ratio (OCR = o-p/o4) of cohesive soils and with the development of new laboratory strength testing procedures. The recommended USA methodology simplifies the real problem by only considering changes in vertical consolidation stress (CT^) and by using cu/(y'vc 606 • .88(1 . 4. There are three levels of sophistication to obtain CU/<J'VC versus OCR relationships: Level A—CK0U compression. failure. The latter use KQ consolidated-undrained (CK0U) tests to minimize the adverse effects of sample disturbance and to evaluate stress-strain-strength anisotropy.. This level enables anisotropic stability analyses. with values of S and m obtained from correlations presented in Section 5.25 ± 0. the writer concludes that conventional effective stress analyses (ESA) based on realistic strength parameters (c' and <))') and measured pore pressures can give highly misleading and unsafe estimates of actual factors of safety for staged construction. 3. supplemented by in situ testing to help assess spatial variability.e. which show FS(ESA)/FS(USA) ratios of about two. The recommended approach has four basic components: 1. S = 0.3). Janbu's "undrained effective stress" approach to stability analyses has the same inherent problem (Section 6.03 for homogeneous sedimentary clays plotting above Casagrande's A-line: S = 0.9). 2. direct simple shear. Methodology for Undrained Strength Analyses Undrained strength analyses (USA) require estimates of the initial in situ undrained shear strength (c„) of the cohesive foundation soils and subsequent increases in c„ during staged construction. Develop C„I<J'VC versus OCR relationships for the foundation soils as described herein. with CiJo'vc varying with inclination of the failure surface.

Gould kindly provided background material on the early work by A. Such analyses could also clarify the effects of partial drainage during loading and of contained plastic flow during consolidation on pore pressures and deformations within clay foundations. While constitutive relationships capable of modeling soil behavioral features such as anisotropy and strain softening have recently been developed. Jamiolkowski. Correlations between horizontal displacements and vertical settlements can be used to evaluate the relative importance of undrained versus drained deformations within embankment foundations. Army Corps of Engineers. It suggests new techniques for backcalculating field ch values for projects with vertical drains and describes how brittle versus ductile stress-strain characteristics of the foundation soil affect the use of field instrumentation to warn of impending failures. and J. Inc. This so called QRS approach uses UU and CIU triaxial compression test data in an empirical manner such that its accuracy depends on compensating errors that are difficult to quantify (Section 6. the Societe d'Energie de la Baie James (SEBJ) of Montreal. Don J.-J. Dunnicliff. Marcuson III and L. Pare.ratios obtained from CK0U test data. S. W. J. 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ESA-USA stability comparisons for the three case histories were made possible by the support of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the U. Monitoring Field Performance Section 7 summarizes the advantages of using the observational method (Peck 1969) during staged construction and recommendations for successful field instrumentation. J. M. M. Canada for the James Bay site. Inc. Lacasse. and Bromwell and Carrier. for the tailings dam.. The writer is indebted to a former doctoral student. other important aspects such as "rate effects" are still poorly understood. Casagrande leading to the QRS methodology. which should be on the safe side.11. The resultant errors. Research Needs Current capabilities for assessing foundation stability make simplifying assumptions and entail an artificial separation of stress distribution-consolidation analyses on the one hand and limiting equilibrium analyses on the other. The availability of a realistic generalized soil model for use in numerical analyses would provide a more rational approach. M. The recommended USA methodology differs significantly from that developed for staged construction by Arthur Casagrande in the 1940s. The field performance data presented in Section 7 were obtained for Haley and Aldrich. Bromwell. for pertinent references and help in developing soil behavior correlations. other than those cited in the references. can be reduced by the special direct simple shear testing described in Section 4. S. G.S. Bromwell. Lacasse. McAnear did likewise regarding its use by the U.2). Key persons who helped with analyses. geotechnical consultant for the project. Detailed comments on the first (1988) draft by L.S. DeGroot. F. P. 607 . include L. G. Federal Highway Administration for the varved clay site.

K. 1-54. 437-501. "The relevance of the triaxial test to the solution of stability problems.. Discussion of "Stability coefficients for earth slopes. England. REFERENCES Arthur." Geotechnique. M." Proc." Proc." Proc. (1985). Conference on Soil Mech. Moscow. APPENDIX I. and Found. Baligh. A. F. P. L." Proc. Brinch-Hansen. A. "Strain path method. II: Pore pressures. (1955). E." Geotechnique. Engrg. R. L. S. Engrg. 1st Int. Engrg. Bjerrum. C.S. Germaine. Crooks. M. L. S.. Balkema Publishing. M. A. 608 . and likewise for J.S. I: Shear stresses. K." Proc.. London. Azzouz. London. R. J. C. "The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. "Embankments on soft ground: SOA Report. on Penetration Testing. 8th Int. 111-159. 3. Engrg. 1108-1136. ASCE. S. 7-17." Soils and Foundations. ASCE. Stockholm. Baligh. 718-754. Been.. and Jefferies. 39-49. (1964). (1986a). (1981). 487-501.. 516-540. 10. (1949). 113(7). and S. 549-564. R. "Relationship between stability analyses with total and effective stress." J. and Found. on Laboratory Shear Strength of Soil. 18(4).R. Sweden. 1.G. England. H. T. "Disturbance due to 'ideal' tube sampling. A. Christian on the final version." Proc. M." Geotechnique. ASCE. Brinch-Hansen.. J. 113. L. "Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays: SOA Report. England. G. "Current status of the piezocone test. Symp. L." Proc.." Geotechnique. Geotech. (1983)." Geotechnique. (1948). 8th Int. ASCE. Vick are greatly appreciated. U. M. C. M.. Symp. E. (1936). (1987). C.. G. 16(1). A. England. Engrg.. (1973). "Work as a criteriqn for determining in situ and yield stresses in clays. (I960). M. "Stress path tests with controlled rotation of principal stress directions.. Azzouz. 3. Morgenstem. 1. Bromwell. D. Engrg. ASCE. "Observational procedure of settlement prediction. (1986b). M. Bjerrum. (1962)." J. 111(9). Res. W. and Ladd. (1972). 360361. London. U. W. C. A.. A. M. (3).-T... Baligh.. 1-20. J. Asaoka. Mass. 1st Int." Trans. 36(4). London. ML. 343-346. (1966). 275—295. Azzouz. 5(1). Conference on Soil Mech. Baligh. (1987). and Bjerrum. and Landva. and Found. Cambridge. 60-64. Mesri. 109(5). A. Geotech. M. and Ladd.. A. R. 28-41. and Bjerrum. 10th Int. Japan." Proc. A. 87-101. 93-116. (1988). Barron. Casagrande.. "Shear strength of normally consolidated clays. 739-757.S." Canadian Geotech. L. S. (1973).. J. England. "Direct simple shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. A." / . Baligh. England. Becker.. on Sedimentation-Consolidation Models: Predictions and Validation. G. Moscow. "Undrained deep penetration. "Consolidation of mining wastes. "The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance. Bishop. Geotechnique. Bishop and N. J. C. (1981). W. T. T. R. ASCE. and Robertson.R. Berre. and Found. 36(4). A. Baligh. Engrg.. A. STP 740. Bjerrum. J. 24(4). Barron.. Campanella. M. ASCE.. G. "Undrained shear strengths of anisotropically consolidated clays." by A.." Sols-Soils. 730-734. C. 3. "Three-dimensional stability analysis of four embankment failures. 14(4). Geotech. R. (1984).. (1978). London.. Conference on Soil Mech.S. and Ladd. 471-485. and Chin. "Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells. and Gibson.. "Undrained deep penetration. Conference on Soil Mech. M. ASTM. "Corrected field vane strength for embankment design. 2. London.. 189-204.1." Symp. Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures. Bekenstein.. 1(3). Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. Bishop.

ASCE. at Cambridge. Res.. (1985). Dascal. J. Div. (1977). Holtz. J. 107(8). 768776. and LaRochelle. T. Geotech. 1. Germaine.. Duncan. (1981). Washington." J. and Rolfsen. C. (1986). J. Janbu. Hirschfeld and S. C. 9th Int.. London.. 429-439. ASTM STP 892. ASCE. ASTM. J. ASTM STP 977. (1972). J. (1977)..." Geotechnique. Jeyapalan. 101-115.." Proc. T. "New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils: Theme Lecture 2." J. Gens. Poulos. and Lancellotta. Tavenas.. and Found. eds. John Wiley and Sons. Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures. D. (1973). Conference on Soil Mech. J. (1979). (1983). Jamiolkowski." Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock. P." Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils: Field and Laboratory Studies. M. T. B. C.. ASCE.. Townsend. M. J.." Canadian Geotech. N. Andersland. P. 407-426." Proc. N. Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field performance. J. "The in-situ measurement of the undrained shear strength of clays using the field vane: SOA paper. (1971). Engrg. 97(6). 1079-1094. C." Canadian Geotech. Folkes. J. 1123-1130. STP 1014. 13-44. 14(3). R. London..." Geotechnique..." Proc. Lancellotta. Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures: Part 1. Jamiolkowski.." Proc. M. San Francisco. "Testing equipment. 1." (1978). (1985). A. Foott. T. Germaine. Tournier. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science. J. "Triaxial testing of saturated cohesive soils: SOA paper. (1986). D. "Design and construction of levees." J. "Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis. Army Corps of Engineers.. "Precompression and speeding up consolidation: General report speciality session 6." Embankment-dam engineering.. G. 3. O. 57153. W. and Crooks. and Ladd. 27(2).... England. C. C.. Fredlund.. Engrg. Inc.." Geotechnique. (1988). 2nd Int. "Lessons from oedometer tests on high quality samples. U. Engrg. R. C. London." Proc.. Hight.. K. D. J.. 112(8). C . and Wolski. H. D. Chandler. J. H. 2. R. J. 19(1). Tokyo.C. Janbu. "Design analysis for gravity platform foundations. "Development of the directional shear cell for measuring cross-anisotropic clay properties. New York." Proc. D. R. C. N. (1983). and Symes. G. 8th European Conference on Soil Mech. R.. 11th Int. "Behaviour of Atchafalaya levees during construction.. Conference on Soil Mech. 421-459. (1983). "Undrained settlement of plastic and organic clays. and Ladd.. M. D. Janbu. 549-566. and Found. Engrg. H. 33(4). "Slope stability computations. O. N. techniques and errors: Moderators' Report. K. (1969). A. (1960). London. R. R. B. Session 2. B. 129-158. "Failure of a test embankment on sensitive clay. Div. "Undrained behaviour of quick clay under load tests at Asrum. (1977). C. N. Consolidation of soils: Testing and evaluation. Yong and F.. N. Dunnicliff. 4 7 86. and Poulos. N.S. Office of the Chief of Engineers. ASTM. and Lancellotta.. Jamiolkowski. R. (1988). England. and Found. 881-897. D.Y. 22(3).Y.Casagrande. M. New York. "Effective stress paths and yielding in soft clays below embankments. Massachusetts. 355-384. Engrg. Foott. 357-374.. E. and Found. Ladd. and Seed. Hoeg. W. and Ladd. J. W. Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. Lambe. Helsinki. Geotech. eds. Germaine. John Wiley and Sons. A." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1988). 137-160. F. 1201-1226. and Rrahn. S. England. ASCE. and Wilson. (1982). Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1913. "The development of a new hollow cylinder apparatus for investigating the effects of principal stress rotation in soils.. "Evaluation of pore pressures beneath an embankment. "Slopes and excavations in normally and lightly overconsolidated clays: SOA Report. R. 1. ASCE. D'Appolonia. J. Soil Mech. "Analysis of flow failures 609 ..

. of Transp. SEBJ. E. and Foundations Div. Ladd. 421-494. C. Symp. Lacasse.. 887-892. "Characteristics and engineering properties of Northeastern varved clays. and Found. Engrg. Ladd. G.. C.Y. Foott. C . P. Montreal.. 1. D. C. R. J.. (1972). B. John Wiley and Sons. S. 2. ASCE. R. Lessard. 96(1). Rixner. San Juan. C . and Lefebvre. D. andLeroueil. Tavenas. Conference on Soil Mech. K. (1991). C. Engrg. Johnson. C. (1985). Lacasse. "New design procedure for stability of soft clays. of Civ. 18(1). "Use of precompression and vertical drains for stabilization of foundation soils. England. ASCE.. G. N. M. C. (1988). C . C . Puerto Rico. C. L. (1972). C. and Foott. MA. Conference on Soil Mech." Proc." GeoConsult lecture series on soft ground construction. S. C . Engrg.. K. Ladd. Washington.. 9th Int. 627-634. 149-202." Proc. Ladd. 111(3)." Notes for Foundations and Soil Mechanics Group. M.of mine tailings dams. T. (1969). Engrg.. J. 1-48. Ladd. 763-786. J. Balkema Publishing. and Lunne.. "Consolidated-undrained direct simple shear tests on saturated clays. Lambe. MIT. C. Sarrailh. S. G.. Conference on Analysis and Design in Geotech. C. 2.. V. R. ASCE (In preparation). (1977). Geotech. Trak.. Schlosser. Ladd. T. C . A. Cambridge. Mesri. 109(2). Geotech. Johnson. and Poulos. Lambe. 1st Int. Dept. T.. P. Ladd.S.. P. and Found. (1977).. G. U. D. Dept. T. ASCE. "Effects of disturbance on the performance of vertical drains. (1988). J. C. 145-175.. F. LaRochelle. H. "Performance of embankments with sand drains on sensitive clay. and Found. 52-66. Dascal. 2. "Triaxial testing methods for soils: SOA paper. (1970)." Canadian Geotech. GeoConsult.." Research Report R75-7. ASCE. ASCE. Canada. C. (1969).." Research Report R72-82.. W. M. Ladd. (1981)." J. "Design strengths for an offshore clay. (1987b). New York.. Geotech. Law. C. R. Engrg. Orlando. 337-355. 101-128. "Calibration of dilatometer correlations. Div. Mexico City. Cambridge. and Berre. Koutsoftas. Roy. Lacasse. Lefebvre.. G. LaRochelle. Ladd.. Ladd. "Report of the embankment stability subcommittee. C . F. Soil Mech. "Foundation design of embankments constructed on Connecticut Valley varved clays. 100(7).. Tavenas. and Johnson. (1975)." J. on Penetration Testing. London. and Whitman. C. 539-548. C. Engrg. Lacasse. Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures: Part 1." Internal Report 40007-1." J. C . MIT. Conference on Soil Mech. (1972). "Analysis and design relating to embankments. (1974)." Geotechnique. Annexe II. S.. "Test embankment on sensitive clay. Norwegian Geotech.. Dept.. and Ladd. "Effect of load duration on undrained behavior of clay and sand-literature survey. and Gifford. C. Ladd. S. Geotech. C.. ASCE. Engrg. 211-242. "Failure of a test em610 . Metropolitan Section of ASCE. Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures: Part 1. Inst. (1974). (1983). 2.. "Foundation precompression with vertical sand drains. S. W. (1974). and Foott. "Foundation design of embankments constructed on varved clays. New York. Soil mechanics. Ladd." J. J. 439 p. N. and Edgers. and Tavenas... of Civil Engrg." Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock.. ASTM STP 977.. ASCE. C." Proc. 7th Int.. "Block sampling of sensitive clays. Berre. (1985)." Proc. and Roy.. 23(2). J. F." Proc." Proc. O." J. (1973). S. 1.C. "Causes of sampling disturbance and design of a new sampler for sensitive soils. G." FHWA TS-77-214. "Stress-deformation and strength characteristics: SOA report. "Predictions in soil engineering: 13thRankine Lecture. F. Ishihara. C. 264-289. 150-171. 1." Committee of Specialists on Sensitive Clays on the NBR Complex. Aldrich.. A. Engrg.Y.. Mass." Proc. "Embankment failure on organic clay. T. (1987a). C. H. Engrg. Inc. (1979). 11th Int. T. 1st Ed.

"Report of the testing subcommittee. 61-76. (1985a). Mieussens. Engrg.. S. S. Session 2 on laboratory testing-new procedures and data acquisition techniques." J. J. on Soil Mech. ASCE. (1988). 113(3). ASCE. Lobdell. G. J. (1987).. 5. "Rate of constructing embankments on soft foundation soils. Geotech. G. "Stability analysis of embankments.. ASCE. (1980). W. F. Engrg. and Choi. and Choi. 11th Inter." Canadian Geotech. 10th Int. Canadian Geotech. "In situ tests by flat dilatometer. (1980). and Bouchard. 707-728. Larsson. 509-565.. ASCE. 66-82." Canadian Geotech.. S. (1987). Y. ASCE. G. 18(3). 11(1). Levadoux. ASCE. "Construction pore pressures in clay foundations under embankments.. 35(2). Y. Leroueil. 95(1). Conference on Soil Mech. Ill. Soil Mech. 113(5)..bankment on a sensitive Champlain clay deposit.. 16(1).." Committee of Specialists on Sensitive Clays on the NBR Complex. Div. 441-464. 142-164. (1979). V. Conference on Soil Mech. V. 85-107. (1969). Geotech.. J. "The uniqueness of the end-of-primary (EOP) void ratio-effective stress relationship. G. R. 155-185. C. and Found." Soils and Foundations. and Found.. Engrg." Canadian Geotech. ASCE. ASCE. C . "Tenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Recent developments in consolidation of natural clays. Jonas. and Castro. 1219-1242. "Geotechnical aspects of environmental control: Theme Lecture 3. Mesri." J. Engrg." Proc. 476-489.. and Baligh.. (1975). Engrg." Proc. and Tavenas. 85(5). Div.. 108(6). G. ASCE. (1967). ASTM STP 1014.. (1986). and LeBoeuf. "A new method of sampling in sensitive clay." J.. Mitchell. (1970). 15(1). G. J. C." J. Part II: Generalized behaviour. 77-97. Canada. Mesri. Geotech. E." Canadian Geotech. Div. and Price.. 112(7). R. Leroueil. Tavenas. Moore. C . Geotech. 460-462.. Soil Mech. E. Div. 851-872. D. Engrg. 587-590. Ladd. Marchetti. (1978). 2. R. 111(4). G. J. Mesri. Y." Proc. (1985). and Foundation Engrg. 106(3). M. J." J. ASCE. C. K." Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils: Field and Laboratory Studies. 106(11). F." J. 11th Int.. Mayne. Mayne. J. N. P." Canadian Geotech. Engrg. (1982).. "Rate effects and cyclic loading of sensitive clays. Engrg. and Found. 11th Int.. 591-602. England. 1.. 1-33." Geotechnique. Mesri. K.." J.. 10(3). Tavenas... Engrg. San Francisco. A. Foott. Ladd and R. 2689-2690. R. F. J. "Ca/Cc concept and K0 during secondary compression. Discussion of "The behaviour of embankments on clay foundations. "Settlement analysis of embankments on soft clays. "Comparison of field vane and laboratory undrained shear strengths in soft sensitive clays. S. 4. Morgenstern. 233-246. Geotech. and Peignaud. Div. (1983). "The factor of safety against undrained failure of a slope. K. Kabbaj. G.-N. 299-321. ASCE. W. and Found. J. H.. Mesri.. 409-412. 230-247. Lefebvre. M. Montreal." by F. "Consolidation after undrained piezocone penetration. and Found. "An analysis of the stability of general 611 . Geotech." J. Soil Mech. C. Div. 101(4). Lefebvre." / . "Cam-clay predictions of undrained strength. SEBJ. P.. "Ka-OCR relationships in soil. P. Lefebvre. C . 17(4). 93(4). "Soil improvement: SOA report. Lowe. "Stress-strainstrain rate relation for the compressibility of sensitive natural clays.. (1980). (1981). Annexe I. Mesri. (1985b). Lowe. Engrg. J. G. London. Leroueil. Japan. Ladd. Mesri. (1959). (1985). "Undrained shear strength in stability calculation of embankments and foundations on soft clays.. J. G. (1988). Geotech. Tavenas and S.." Proc. Morgenstern. Discussion of "New design procedure for stability of soft clays.. (1981). and Obrician. and Poulin.. F.." by C.. Geotech. Leroueil. G. 226-233. I: prediction. J. Engrg. San Francisco. in. "Controlled gradient consolidation test. Conference on Soil Mech. J. 81-91. N. and Kulhawy. 25(1). H.. and Found. Conf.-J. K. Div. "Discussion. and Choi. M. and Pare. 159-180.. M.. Lefebvre. (1985).." J. L.. (1965).

B. Massachusetts. Cambridge. B. John Wiley and Sons. 1-178. (1960). Soil improvement^ ten year update. Testing J. R. (1986). P. T. R. "State-of-the-art: Laboratory strength testing of soils. I. and Lowe. Townsend. "Settlement and stability of embankments on soft subsoils. ASTM STP 740. B. G. and Burland. 321-352. 12... H..C. Simon. L. Cambridge University Press. Inc. Miss. 21." Ground movements and their effects on structures. S.. Foreword to Geotechnical instrumentation for monitoring field performance.. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science. and Townsend. Res. (1974). "Stability analysis for low embankments on soft clays." Symp. J. 34-43.. 2(1).. J. N. 175-179. Sambhandharaksa. Olson. Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. "Estimation of consolidation properties of clay from field observations. 4." Proc. (1955). "Behavior and properties of hydraulic fills. eds.. "On the generalized stress-strain behaviour of 'wet' clay.S. at Cambridge. C. (1947). 2. (1981). England. 433-450." Proc. D.. P. W.. Shear Strength of Soil. Vicksburg. Specialty Conference on Hydr. J. Rixner.. 1-135. (1986). "Placement and improvement of soils: Committee Reports. on Lab. Pelletier. "Suggested method for performing the flat dilatometer test. H. C.R. R. R. England.. and Thornbum.. "Techniques to evaluate the field performance of vertical drains. K. Hanson. Speciality Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties. Foundation engineering. 1201-1233..S. ASTM. ASCE. 15(1). 120. J.. S. N.. session 4. "Analysis of undrained 612 . R. Y. Roscoe. Saada. 643-668." Proc. C. J.. Christian. P. Conference on Soil Mech. R. Cambridge.. J. S. John Wiley and Sons. H. Pilot. R. R.2. Rivard.." FHWA/RD-86/168." Proc. R. J.. England. Massachusetts. "Shear strength of soft fissured clays. B. Schmertmann. H. 93-101. I. by J. and Smith." Geotech. Peck. E. D." Trans. H. 166-202. "Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics: 9th Rankine Lecture. A. (1969). and Gibson. J. F. engineering guidelines. Peck. Parry. Rutledge. (1984). on Stress-Strain Behaviour of Soils." Proc. and Rixner.slip surfaces. (1978). E. vii— ix. (1988). 1137-1140.. ASCE." Geotech. "Discussion in Main Session 4. (1988). Sedimentation consolidation models: Predictions and validation. F. 19(2). U. S. and Found. Peck. R. J. 79-93. Engrg.. Federal Highway Admin. 8th Int. R. ASCE. C. New York." Soil Mechanics Fact Finding Survey. Schiffman. Moscow. London. M. J. 7-77. Fill Structures.." Geotechnique. and LaRochelle. "Discussion on measurement of in situ shear strength. (1983).. (1982).S. Washington. "Stress-strain-strength anisotropy of varved clays. (1973). H. Inc. Boulder." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. R." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Shear strength of undisturbed cohesive soils: Moderators' report." (1987).. R. G. (1975). ASCE. 9(2).. Univ. ASCE. GSP No. J. Ill." Canadian Geotech. and Ladd. B.Y. Cambridge.. GSP No. "Prefabricated vertical drains. New York.. Vol. (1972). Progress Report. E. Testing J. H. C. J. Surrey University Press. (1977). P.Y. (1979). N. Schmertmann. ASCE. (1984). ed. Murray. S. 15(3). London. "The undisturbed consolidation of clay. Schmertmann. Yong and F. at Cambridge. Peck. Dunnicliff. 171-187. and Lu. B. J." Canadian Geotech. G. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.. Orleach. Kraemer. J. (1974). 382-390. Vick.. A. (1968).. Trak. Welsh. 19(4)." Engineering plasticity. U. 535-609. B. and Symons. Waterways Experiment Station. England." Geotechnique. "Review of the cooperative triaxial shear research program of the Corps of Engineers. "Effective stress analysis of the stability of embankments on soft soils. T. Peck... J. Roscoe Memorial Symp. 99-100.

" (1982). Svano. Naval Facilities Engrg.. J. Conference on Soil Mech. New York. "A study of the geotechnical properties of some postglacial clays. 16(3). F.. 5.. Geotech. San Francisco. Conference on Soils Mech. Tavenas. Tavenas. Mass." J. "A study of the immediate triaxial test on cohesive soils. Whitman. (1988). Jean. E. (1948b).. J. 54-56. Spencer. 629-644. "The behaviour of embankments on clay foundations. W. 7-22. 236-260. Tavenas. Planning.. Tavenas.. F. Skempton." Geotechnique. 17(2). Soil Mech. 1. C .. 2nd Ed.. S. A. and Campanella. of the Navy. Leblond. "A constitutive model for overconsolidated clays with appli613 . Army Corps of Engineers. Vaughan.." Proc. 100(3). Inc.. Discussion of "New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. and Leroueil. Vaid." Proc." Proc.. P. Proc. 110(2)." Canadian Geotech.Y. Chapter 7. "The shearing resistance of saturated soils and the angle between the planes of shear." Proc. K. New York. F. Dept. Design manual 7: Soil mechanics. "Lateral displacements in clay foundations under embankments. "Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical engineering: 17th Terzaghi Lecture. 20(4). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Cambridge Univ. 924-939. R. D." by Jamiolkowski et al. Simons. and Leroueil. ASCE. P." Geotechnique. England. ASCE. K. D. (1948a). (1936). Fill Structures. Oslo." (1970). "The < = 0 analysis for stability and its theoretical f > basis. 192196. W. ASCE. R. ASCE.. W. 2nd Int. (1969). "Field studies of the stability of embankments on clay foundations. 1 312. Command. (1987). U. 7 . (1981).. A. R. E. "The stability of stage-constructed embankments on soft clays. "A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces. 21." (1971). Skempton." Proc. Command. 11th Int. on Stress-Strain Behaviour of Soils. Stauffer. Mieussens. and Wahls. (1967). and Leroueil. Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1902.Y. 1st Int.. Roscoe Memorial Symp. (1980).. 1. D.. and Found. N.. Engrg. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Engineering. E." thesis presented to the Norwegian Institute of Technology. 11—26. Geotech. Engrg. (1979). John Wiley and Sons. R. J... Engrg.. 145-188. Smith. of the Navy.1: Soil mechanics. at Trondheim.. and earth structures. Conference on Soil Mech. S." Proc. GSP No. "Stability of earth and rock fill dams.C. Whittle. and Found. Conference on Analysis and Design in Geotech. "Pore water pressure conditions in tailings dams. (1967). Part I: Methods of laboratory measurement. P. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.C. G. Speciality Conference on Hydr. 72-78." Canadian Geotech.behavior of loads on clay. "Undrained effective stress analyses. 207-224. Washington. and Leroueil.. "Consolidation under constant rates of strain. and Peck. "Stability analysis. Blanchet. Tavenas. Norway. London. and Obermeyer. "Undrained failure of clay embankments. John Wiley and Sons.. Terzaghi. Naval Facilities Engrg. J. 2693-2694. Engrg. (1976). Garneau. "Triaxial and plane strain behavior of natural clay.." Canadian Geotech. Washington.. 283305. S. Washington. Conference on Soil Mech. ASCE. 95(2). Design and Analysis of Tailings Dams. "Slope stability and protection. Terzaghi. 532-550. Design Manual 7. S. P. and Found. N. Inc. J. (1985). P. 1. (1983). G. A. 51-84.. 2nd Int. 15(2). and Found. 183-209." J. Engrg. Div. Div. 1. F. Office of the Chief of Engineers. (1972). Engrg.. B." Canadian Geotech. R. (1983). V. (1978). Dept. A. 683-691. Rotterdam. S. 519-539. R. Table 2. 1(1). Skempton. E." Laurits Bjerrum Memorial Volume. Rotterdam." J. Y. foundations. Engrg. N. "The permeability of natural soft clays.. J.C.. 17(1).S. G. R.. (1984). R. A. F. Vick. (1974). H. (1948c). and Found.. Cambridge.. F. and Bourges.

Whittle. coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Z. 614 . G. undrained shear strength. standard deviation.5(a„ — crh) or 0. and Heiberg. 1. S. "Consolidation at constant rate of strain. A. isotropically consolidated-undrained shear test. APPENDIX II. England (in Press). undrained shear strength from UU-type tests. E. "Evaluation of a model for predicting the behaviour of overconsolidated clays. Davis. (1971). TC TE TSA U USA = = = = = = = = = = = = '= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = compression.3 )/(CT. Casagrande's notation for UU. 11th Int. coefficient of consolidation for horizontal drainage. A. horizontal displacement. J. strength rebound exponent. Div. sensitivity = su (undisturbed)/su (remolded). ratio of horizontal to vertical consolidation stress. triaxial compression. 1393-1413. (1985). plane-strain extension. "Soil mechanics-property characterization and analysis procedures: Theme Lecture 1. 11. and Found. and Found. H.. consolidated-drained. total stress analysis. Christian. plane-strain compression. London.. San Francisco.cation to the cyclic loading of friction piles. cohesion intercept in terms of effective stress. K0 consolidated-undrained shear test. average degree of consolidation. J. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Science. (1991). T. drained shear strength. effective stress analysis. b c CD CIU CIUC CK0U CU c' ch cu cv DSS E Eu ESA h II Kc K0 m PSC PSE QRS 1 a h f S SD s Sd Su s. P. undrained strength ratio at OCR = 1. T. 97(10). direct simple shear. at Cambridge. plasticity index. Massachusetts." J. undrained strength analysis. Soil Mech. q at failure. Engrg. liquidity index. coefficient of consolidation for vertical drainage. . Wroth. NOTATION The following symbols are used in this paper: (°"2 0. and Houlsby.5(0"! — a 3 )..CT3).." Proc. and CD shear tests." thesis presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.. E. extension. vertical settlement. 1-55. isotropically consolidated-undrained TC test. Wissa. consolidated-undrained. C. CU." Geotechnique. undrained Young's modulus. 0. Conference on Soil Mech. ASCE.. triaxial extension.

T for shear along horizontal failure surface. horizontal T at consolidation. = o4 = c^o = o-i. horizontal effective stress. T for shear in compression. effective stress on failure plane at failure. consolidation stress on failure plane. excess pore pressure. horizontal T or T in DSS test. field vane correction factor. major. angle between direction of (xv and vertical. friction angle in terms of total stresses. natural water content. plastic limit.'. shear strain. mobilized shear stress required for equilibrium.o. vertical effective stress. liquid limit. = = < o-. = <t>m = uu uuc u unconsolidated-undrained. -e- 615 .3 = <TV = T = = 'ave = Tc Trf = Te = T # = T* = T*c = = Tm = <t>cu = *. c> from CIUC tests plotted as per Fig. shear stress. and mobilized value of <j>'. isotropic consolidation stress. intermediate. major principal stress at failure. in situ initial vertical effective stress. vertical consolidation stress. j friction angle in terms of effective stresses. 2. effective normal stress. preconsolidation pressure. shear strain at failure. shear induced pore pressure. UU triaxial compression test. 1/3 X (Tc + Td + T„).o" 2 . horizontal consolidation stress.= = = ue = us = wL = wN = w„ = 8 = 7 = 7/ = 7< = = (A = V'c = Vfc <*# = ori = = CTte <T. total unit weight. pore (water) pressure. T for shear in extension. minor principal stresses. T on failure plane at failure.

","doc_promotions_enabled":false,"static_promo_banner_cta_url":"https://www.scribd.com/"},"eligible_for_exclusive_trial_roadblock":false,"eligible_for_seo_roadblock":false,"exclusive_free_trial_roadblock_props_path":"/doc-page/exclusive-free-trial-props/64163537","flashes":[],"footer_props":{"urls":{"about":"/about","press":"/press","blog":"http://literally.scribd.com/","careers":"/careers","contact":"/contact","plans_landing":"/subscribe","referrals":"/referrals?source=footer","giftcards":"/giftcards","faq":"/faq","accessibility":"/accessibility-policy","faq_paths":{"accounts":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246346","announcements":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246066","copyright":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246086","downloading":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/articles/210135046","publishing":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246366","reading":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246406","selling":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246326","store":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246306","status":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001202872","terms":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246126","writing":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246366","adchoices":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/articles/210129366","paid_features":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/sections/202246306","failed_uploads":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210134586-Troubleshooting-uploads-and-conversions","copyright_infringement":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210128946-DMCA-copyright-infringement-takedown-notification-policy","end_user_license":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210129486","terms_of_use":"https://support.scribd.com/hc/en-us/articles/210129326-General-Terms-of-Use"},"publishers":"/publishers","static_terms":"/terms","static_privacy":"/privacy","copyright":"/copyright","ios_app":"https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scribd-worlds-largest-online/id542557212?mt=8&uo=4&at=11lGEE","android_app":"https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.scribd.app.reader0&hl=en","books":"/books","sitemap":"/directory"}},"global_nav_props":{"header_props":{"logo_src":"/images/landing/home2_landing/scribd_logo_horiz_small.svg","root_url":"https://www.scribd.com/","search_term":"","small_logo_src":"/images/logos/scribd_s_logo.png","uploads_url":"/upload-document","search_props":{"redirect_to_app":true,"search_url":"/search","query":"","search_page":false}},"user_menu_props":null,"sidebar_props":{"urls":{"bestsellers":"https://www.scribd.com/bestsellers","home":"https://www.scribd.com/","saved":"/saved","subscribe":"/archive/pmp_checkout?doc=64163537&metadata=%7B%22context%22%3A%22pmp%22%2C%22action%22%3A%22start_trial%22%2C%22logged_in%22%3Afalse%2C%22platform%22%3A%22web%22%7D","top_charts":"/bestsellers","upload":"https://www.scribd.com/upload-document"},"categories":{"book":{"icon":"icon-ic_book","icon_filled":"icon-ic_book_fill","url":"https://es.scribd.com/books","name":"Libros","type":"book"},"news":{"icon":"icon-ic_articles","icon_filled":"icon-ic_articles_fill","url":"https://es.scribd.com/news","name":"Noticias","type":"news"},"audiobook":{"icon":"icon-ic_audiobook","icon_filled":"icon-ic_audiobook_fill","url":"https://es.scribd.com/audiobooks","name":"Audiolibros","type":"audiobook"},"magazine":{"icon":"icon-ic_magazine","icon_filled":"icon-ic_magazine_fill","url":"https://es.scribd.com/magazines","name":"Revistas","type":"magazine"},"document":{"icon":"icon-ic_document","icon_filled":"icon-ic_document_fill","url":"https://es.scribd.com/docs","name":"Documentos","type":"document"},"sheet_music":{"icon":"icon-ic_songbook","icon_filled":"icon-ic_songbook_fill","url":"https://es.scribd.com/sheetmusic","name":"Partitura","type":"sheet_music"},"summary":{"icon":"icon-ic_globalnav_snapshot","icon_filled":"icon-ic_globalnav_snapshot_fill","url":"https://es.scribd.com/snapshots","name":"Instantáneas","type":"summary"}},"nav_categories":["mixed","book","audiobook","magazine","document","sheet_music"],"selected_content_type":"mixed","username":"","search_overlay_props":{"search_input_props":{"focused":false,"keep_suggestions_on_blur":false}}}},"recommenders":{"related_titles_recommender":{"ids":[142312790,183191490,210957680,228835696,175053528,193989770,266178702,186385575,177088414,209072585,259620304,45268888,168777713,130718802,200400100,242762216,257633028,70109292,85827984,76377265,145576228,129883967,248386071,55996916,257195829,149313023,90754295,86623114,46873250,189891030,274954657,274954782,274954403,240318426,241506091,67008741],"title_link":null,"title":null,"track_opts":{"compilation_id":"CJYCXf9cyQNDhbGJNs9kGfHc4ys=","module_id":"ehTXPcVmL3lhUkAbznHSOcvytYE=","widget_name":"right sidebar","track_id":"flattened_recommender"}},"footer_recommenders":{"recommenders":[{"ids":[142312790,183191490,210957680,228835696,175053528,193989770,266178702,186385575,177088414,209072585,259620304,45268888,168777713,130718802,200400100,242762216,257633028,70109292,85827984,76377265,145576228,129883967,248386071,55996916,257195829,149313023,90754295,86623114,46873250,189891030],"title_link":null,"title":"Documents Similar To Ladd Terzaghi Lecture","track_opts":{"compilation_id":"CJYCXf9cyQNDhbGJNs9kGfHc4ys=","module_id":"MPMmRG7DwSf+w8n/5wjGM/6g70s=","widget_name":"document_carousel"}},{"ids":[274954657,274954782,274954403,240318426,241506091,67008741],"title_link":null,"title":"More From Vinnie Hung","track_opts":{"compilation_id":"CJYCXf9cyQNDhbGJNs9kGfHc4ys=","module_id":"59mTtEIxoLrZDzXOZyCFgXTihyg=","widget_name":"document_carousel"}}]},"seo_new_docs_recommenders":{"recommenders":[]},"documents":{"45268888":{"type":"document","id":45268888,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/45268888/149x198/0747d9cdfe/1539694231?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/45268888/298x396/9e7eb1154a/1539694231?v=1","title":"Duncan and Chang 1970","short_title":"Duncan and Chang 1970","author":"joshlippert","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":45268888,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"9eaye3tIsoagXm5paqp0ioOkeB8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/45268888/Duncan-and-Chang-1970","top_badge":null},"46873250":{"type":"document","id":46873250,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/46873250/149x198/1e34c57174/1539141499?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/46873250/298x396/05df670066/1539141499?v=1","title":"The Mechanics of Soils ATKINSON","short_title":"The Mechanics of Soils ATKINSON","author":"Febrianto Ch","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":46873250,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"u6zcaeiFwJmw4qTXKSHRYqMgdvQ="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/46873250/The-Mechanics-of-Soils-ATKINSON","top_badge":null},"55996916":{"type":"document","id":55996916,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/55996916/149x198/f879adfb3f/1494291487?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/55996916/298x396/214603e6e7/1494291487?v=1","title":"Atkinson & Bransby","short_title":"Atkinson & Bransby","author":"Laetitia Coetzee","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":55996916,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"EZHRVQVQkz5hWDajajcK3XQTL50="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/55996916/Atkinson-Bransby","top_badge":null},"67008741":{"type":"document","id":67008741,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/67008741/149x198/8b332b8338/1317435458?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/67008741/298x396/4f5a6b84f2/1317435458?v=1","title":"Holtz & Kovacs - An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering","short_title":"Holtz & Kovacs - An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering","author":"Vinnie Hung","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":67008741,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"3lFmeN6oosyGd8zUxP0wJS4fvUE="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/67008741/Holtz-Kovacs-An-Introduction-to-Geotechnical-Engineering","top_badge":null},"70109292":{"type":"document","id":70109292,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/70109292/149x198/22958f292e/1504594938?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/70109292/298x396/11b962fd1f/1504594938?v=1","title":"Vesic (1973) Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations","short_title":"Vesic (1973) Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations","author":"Juan Felipe Zambrano Bustillo","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":70109292,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"uSwMU6bhwgvgBWqMnYXQlY3+Jw8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/70109292/Vesic-1973-Analysis-of-Ultimate-Loads-of-Shallow-Foundations","top_badge":null},"76377265":{"type":"document","id":76377265,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/76377265/149x198/a25dadee4a/1486345427?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/76377265/298x396/0ebe26b6be/1486345427?v=1","title":"1990 Prof. J.B. Burland on the Compressibility and Shear Strength of Natural Clays Vol. 40 No. 3 Pp 329-378","short_title":"1990 Prof. J.B. Burland on the Compressibility and Shear Strength of Natural Clays Vol. 40 No. 3 Pp 329-378","author":"Mikis Palates","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":76377265,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"IgGGnbo3RKllYC71So4eRnnNzfo="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/76377265/1990-Prof-J-B-Burland-on-the-Compressibility-and-Shear-Strength-of-Natural-Clays-Vol-40-No-3-Pp-329-378","top_badge":null},"85827984":{"type":"document","id":85827984,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/85827984/149x198/5d410595f8/1402524859?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/85827984/298x396/938acece43/1402524859?v=1","title":"Peck 1969 Observational Method Advantages and Limitations","short_title":"Peck 1969 Observational Method Advantages and Limitations","author":"Iyata Rogers","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":85827984,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"l5jdrgjto3b5CHqfkt8r9QRO2jA="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/85827984/Peck-1969-Observational-Method-Advantages-and-Limitations","top_badge":null},"86623114":{"type":"document","id":86623114,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/86623114/149x198/9a52bc85de/1332655726?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/86623114/298x396/9a1b90235e/1332655726?v=1","title":"Terzaghi Lecturers","short_title":"Terzaghi Lecturers","author":"Kent Thomas","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":86623114,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"h6PlWIA3QvqlKS0vne7AtpAdB8A="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/86623114/Terzaghi-Lecturers","top_badge":null},"90754295":{"type":"document","id":90754295,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/90754295/149x198/74a2eeb930/1515184172?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/90754295/298x396/540e749176/1515184172?v=1","title":"Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice","short_title":"Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice","author":"okakavta","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":90754295,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"Nx+ImPItvK2kqR9Qb7eeYyu6wUU="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/90754295/Cone-Penetration-Testing-in-Geotechnical-Practice","top_badge":null},"129883967":{"type":"document","id":129883967,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/129883967/149x198/18275735f0/1517802463?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/129883967/298x396/388dbd2927/1517802463?v=1","title":"Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition - Karl Terzaghi, Ralph B. Peck, Gholamreza Mesri - 1996","short_title":"Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition - Karl Terzaghi, Ralph B. Peck, Gholamreza Mesri - 1996","author":"Jesus Antonio Hernandez Castro","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":129883967,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"v6iryQI452xgN7Esk+orex5ZgHY="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/129883967/Soil-Mechanics-in-Engineering-Practice-3rd-Edition-Karl-Terzaghi-Ralph-B-Peck-Gholamreza-Mesri-1996","top_badge":null},"130718802":{"type":"document","id":130718802,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/130718802/149x198/8c96ca5d77/1513726387?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/130718802/298x396/341d9be9f6/1513726387?v=1","title":"Taylor-1948-Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics","short_title":"Taylor-1948-Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics","author":"Sormany Oliveira","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":130718802,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"0ytCTprnU+3UbVenBglBaXR/w8c="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/130718802/Taylor-1948-Fundamentals-of-Soil-Mechanics","top_badge":null},"142312790":{"type":"document","id":142312790,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/142312790/149x198/a99b59b42c/1486822994?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/142312790/298x396/071b40ab71/1486822994?v=1","title":"Leroueil & Hight. State of the Art Report, General Behaviour of Geomaterials. 2003.","short_title":"Leroueil & Hight. State of the Art Report, General Behaviour of Geomaterials. 2003.","author":"Guillermo Andres Soto Conde","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":142312790,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"Ah1W5Dh4J9TmwOTmBKaH4aQsRlc="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/142312790/Leroueil-Hight-State-of-the-Art-Report-General-Behaviour-of-Geomaterials-2003","top_badge":null},"145576228":{"type":"document","id":145576228,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/145576228/149x198/38aaa28483/1428778551?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/145576228/298x396/a894cc018f/1428778551?v=1","title":"Residual Soils","short_title":"Residual Soils","author":"Franco Olivera Martinez","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":145576228,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"SAysbLQcVQ1cB+vpEorRoBF+B+8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/145576228/Residual-Soils","top_badge":null},"149313023":{"type":"document","id":149313023,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/149313023/149x198/58c637bad2/1522434158?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/149313023/298x396/c73b7aa930/1522434158?v=1","title":"Soft Clay Behaviour","short_title":"Soft Clay Behaviour","author":"Ajay Sastry","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":149313023,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"OCGPZKI/XJ2sUCKg0FWKo42sZzs="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/149313023/Soft-Clay-Behaviour","top_badge":null},"168777713":{"type":"document","id":168777713,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/168777713/149x198/82349ad6cc/1532443304?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/168777713/298x396/3e1d1ed419/1532443304?v=1","title":"Rankine Lectures 1981 to 1990","short_title":"Rankine Lectures 1981 to 1990","author":"Scott Downs","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":168777713,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"ojcyQ+wTvqjVOwP4LrnroRx2b4E="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/168777713/Rankine-Lectures-1981-to-1990","top_badge":null},"175053528":{"type":"document","id":175053528,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/175053528/149x198/fd28f24776/1538631181?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/175053528/298x396/11e560e370/1538631181?v=1","title":"Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock STP977.pdf","short_title":"Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock STP977.pdf","author":"track0026","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":175053528,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"t1XHAki9h8h3NcyDQfWZgwFkd0s="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/175053528/Advanced-Triaxial-Testing-of-Soil-and-Rock-STP977-pdf","top_badge":null},"177088414":{"type":"document","id":177088414,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/177088414/149x198/6bc4a27c9f/1505528401?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/177088414/298x396/57fd266124/1505528401?v=1","title":"shansep.pdf","short_title":"shansep.pdf","author":"Renan Dela Cruz","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":177088414,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"RI2wjH8ED/ZYo6s7QPvBAoAz5bw="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/177088414/shansep-pdf","top_badge":null},"183191490":{"type":"document","id":183191490,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/183191490/149x198/024d6a8fb9/1485822176?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/183191490/298x396/16168b2dd1/1485822176?v=1","title":"Skempton pore pressure coefficients A and B.pdf","short_title":"Skempton pore pressure coefficients A and B.pdf","author":"Roda Cadiz","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":183191490,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"8vD3UemvVmNvpcn/XSnWfGeI6AM="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/183191490/Skempton-pore-pressure-coefficients-A-and-B-pdf","top_badge":null},"186385575":{"type":"document","id":186385575,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/186385575/149x198/b74651a19c/1430926403?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/186385575/298x396/43a7c03ca8/1430926403?v=1","title":"1985 Residual Strength of Clays in Landslides Skempton GE350101","short_title":"1985 Residual Strength of Clays in Landslides Skempton GE350101","author":"ofelix505","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":186385575,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"gLKP1pewjH0ShbqE0Ic+G6d9MV8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/186385575/1985-Residual-Strength-of-Clays-in-Landslides-Skempton-GE350101","top_badge":null},"189891030":{"type":"document","id":189891030,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/189891030/149x198/b7dc03adcf/1536532496?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/189891030/298x396/39cdaf5b66/1536532496?v=1","title":"Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th","short_title":"Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th","author":"yusefmejia","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":189891030,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"J+oV/bY17zXzkUBXsHy/VWFEhu4="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/189891030/Canadian-Foundation-Engineering-Manual-4th","top_badge":null},"193989770":{"type":"document","id":193989770,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/193989770/149x198/a676e9811b/1504594948?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/193989770/298x396/401f5f38f6/1504594948?v=1","title":"Ladd Foott","short_title":"Ladd Foott","author":"Scott Downs","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":193989770,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"NxwurJ8bxQPYRJSzX1ADKrd07Po="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/193989770/Ladd-Foott","top_badge":null},"200400100":{"type":"document","id":200400100,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/200400100/149x198/af441e316c/1539671648?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/200400100/298x396/e4efacf827/1539671648?v=1","title":"Geotechnics Soft Soils","short_title":"Geotechnics Soft Soils","author":"liselio","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":200400100,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"f8C0cSzNgB8vgHLPfMg++MkiwUw="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/200400100/Geotechnics-Soft-Soils","top_badge":null},"209072585":{"type":"document","id":209072585,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/209072585/149x198/c0e68d080e/1486879704?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/209072585/298x396/d8f1d01ca7/1486879704?v=1","title":"Engineering Manual for Settlement Studies by J.M. Duncan and A.L. Buchignani","short_title":"Engineering Manual for Settlement Studies by J.M. Duncan and A.L. Buchignani","author":"Roda Cadiz","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":209072585,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"0KBgy5LcmhUz96r3cy1/mZgHz24="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/209072585/Engineering-Manual-for-Settlement-Studies-by-J-M-Duncan-and-A-L-Buchignani","top_badge":null},"210957680":{"type":"document","id":210957680,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/210957680/149x198/8ade0fb83a/1440533178?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/210957680/298x396/732326cb6f/1440533178?v=1","title":"Ladd - Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site Characterization","short_title":"Ladd - Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site Characterization","author":"hartonowu","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":210957680,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"8Y6VP86X3jcXGvqnYsCag6QlIEQ="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/210957680/Ladd-Recommended-Practice-for-Soft-Ground-Site-Characterization","top_badge":null},"228835696":{"type":"document","id":228835696,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/228835696/149x198/a19c6507b5/1521931684?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/228835696/298x396/fb292aacd9/1521931684?v=1","title":"Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes - Idriss and Boulanger - 2008","short_title":"Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes - Idriss and Boulanger - 2008","author":"Eky Yanuar","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":228835696,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"jj+99FjGYeRYBgJgDrrVXPGStWc="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/228835696/Soil-Liquefaction-During-Earthquakes-Idriss-and-Boulanger-2008","top_badge":null},"240318426":{"type":"document","id":240318426,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/240318426/149x198/12a4d1ca3d/1425588440?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/240318426/298x396/5cef79292a/1425588440?v=1","title":"ASTM C1103-3","short_title":"ASTM C1103-3","author":"Vinnie Hung","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":240318426,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"EvId5tzSfmGPtmGgbGVKAEfrC9g="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/240318426/ASTM-C1103-3","top_badge":null},"241506091":{"type":"document","id":241506091,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/241506091/149x198/4950a56f81/1412110591?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/241506091/298x396/8a949202dd/1412110591?v=1","title":"Corrosion Protection of Rock Bolts by Epoxy Coating","short_title":"Corrosion Protection of Rock Bolts by Epoxy Coating","author":"Vinnie Hung","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":241506091,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"ZnFjmsf0aGS3k8oY9sdTCSYp1t8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/241506091/Corrosion-Protection-of-Rock-Bolts-by-Epoxy-Coating","top_badge":null},"242762216":{"type":"document","id":242762216,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/242762216/149x198/b932a30be0/1522240746?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/242762216/298x396/f693e0f38a/1522240746?v=1","title":"A Short Course in Geotechnical Site Investigation.pdf","short_title":"A Short Course in Geotechnical Site Investigation.pdf","author":"Frapint","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":242762216,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"wBTq+Xcc8YsUPWTCg0N7WN9uQMA="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/242762216/A-Short-Course-in-Geotechnical-Site-Investigation-pdf","top_badge":null},"248386071":{"type":"document","id":248386071,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/248386071/149x198/816bf21f85/1509447888?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/248386071/298x396/e718e0bcf1/1509447888?v=1","title":"A.W. Bishop the Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test P234-Libre","short_title":"A.W. Bishop the Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test P234-Libre","author":"k41zen","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":248386071,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"oEFhexE74fWc4dtfaME6XwEHwt8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/248386071/A-W-Bishop-the-Measurement-of-Soil-Properties-in-the-Triaxial-Test-P234-Libre","top_badge":null},"257195829":{"type":"document","id":257195829,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/257195829/149x198/67c8e2b652/1518360883?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/257195829/298x396/b9cde21dc4/1518360883?v=1","title":"Deep Excavations Foundations","short_title":"Deep Excavations Foundations","author":"bannasengineer","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":257195829,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"yXhlTJR+61+gggCnJD+d2AALy2k="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/257195829/Deep-Excavations-Foundations","top_badge":null},"257633028":{"type":"document","id":257633028,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/257633028/149x198/ce0d8763a3/1528082523?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/257633028/298x396/7b07d0d176/1528082523?v=1","title":"Relevance of the Triaxial Test Bishop","short_title":"Relevance of the Triaxial Test Bishop","author":"RodneyXerri","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":257633028,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"J/GiiAAjO+bz+nwK5LX392oDBPI="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/257633028/Relevance-of-the-Triaxial-Test-Bishop","top_badge":null},"259620304":{"type":"document","id":259620304,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/259620304/149x198/3db9806625/1538706723?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/259620304/298x396/9730c0317a/1538706723?v=1","title":"Correl Soils Properties Carter&Bentley","short_title":"Correl Soils Properties Carter&Bentley","author":"valmorebocanegralond","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":259620304,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"VmSf8neM24RB1xogSlTkwXQM4g8="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/259620304/Correl-Soils-Properties-Carter-Bentley","top_badge":null},"266178702":{"type":"document","id":266178702,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/266178702/149x198/d7346691f4/1536380850?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/266178702/298x396/3e13dc7595/1536380850?v=1","title":"Very soft soil","short_title":"Very soft soil","author":"amanj2009","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":266178702,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"7q5a1RsetOxyIB6MCa8QPfTUmjo="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/266178702/Very-soft-soil","top_badge":null},"274954403":{"type":"document","id":274954403,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/274954403/149x198/e6e2acaba4/1439873698?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/274954403/298x396/e709ad4f68/1439873698?v=1","title":"Foam Roller Handout","short_title":"Foam Roller Handout","author":"Vinnie Hung","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":274954403,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"Zco/bkdCG9Ydk3yWQbce9EFJ6tE="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/274954403/Foam-Roller-Handout","top_badge":null},"274954657":{"type":"document","id":274954657,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/274954657/149x198/08e0b126a1/1439873832?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/274954657/298x396/4986eb7dc1/1439873832?v=1","title":"Sportsmed Foam roll guide","short_title":"Sportsmed Foam roll guide","author":"Vinnie Hung","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":274954657,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"7bal1bQtE0zeIpj4BHuQSIHA51s="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/doc/274954657/Sportsmed-Foam-roll-guide","top_badge":null},"274954782":{"type":"document","id":274954782,"thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/274954782/149x198/75eab0c37d/1439873992?v=1","retina_thumb_url":"https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/274954782/298x396/344a11781d/1439873992?v=1","title":"Guidance for Reference Testimonial","short_title":"Guidance for Reference Testimonial","author":"Vinnie Hung","tracking":{"object_type":"document","object_id":274954782,"track":"flattened_recommender","doc_uuid":"YEbrP91VREe7ddz7VvGFdcJAunA="},"url":"https://www.scribd.com/document/274954782/Guidance-for-Reference-Testimonial","top_badge":null}}},"seo_roadblock_props_path":"/doc-page/seo-roadblock-props/64163537","signup_context":null,"toolbar":{"search_path":"/search-4gen?allowed_pages=1%2C2%2C3%2C37%2C38%2C39&auth_token=AX3HTo%2BqEnZxdSVT3LBSLjqbN28%3D&authenticity_token=oDxmQ4llqJqs5qSgcK6Y68BtyEnj%2FgGPs5DNjGcTjLqm2n9HdTXz1Yk9m64SQW1u5t%2BrprxDnqheE2OJRpghVQ%3D%3D&expires=1540437012&wordDocumentId=64163537&wordUploadId=67113176"},"renewal_nag_props":null}-->