Invited paper

EVALUATION OF SAMPLE QUALITY BY NONDESTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE METHODS

Hiroyuki Tanaka1 and Vuthy Horng2
Professor, Hokkaido University, Japan, Tel. +81 11 706 6193, Fax. +81 11 706 7204, Email: tanaka@eng.hokudai.ac.jp 2 Institute of Technology of Cambodia (Formerly PhD Student, Hokkaido University) Tel. +855 78 59 83 83, E-mail:vuthy@itc.edu.kh
1

Abstract
Effects of sample disturbance on the undrained shear strength were investigated from samples with various qualities, retrieved by different types of samplers at the Takuhoku site, Sapporo, Japan. Sample disturbance, caused by difference in sampling tube geometry, was evaluated by two nondestructive methods: measurement of residual effective stress (p'r) by ceramic disc; and shear wave velocity (Vs), and thus maximum shear modulus (GBE), by bender element. Sample quality was also evaluated by three types of destructive test, i.e., shear tests: unconfined compression, fall cone and triaxial recompression tests. Geometry effects of the sampling tube, for example, thickness of the tube wall, edge angle, and existence of a piston were carefully examined. It was found from these studies that the small edge angle of a tube sampler is important to obtain high quality sample. In addition, the existence of a piston does not have a significant effect on the strength properties.

Keywords: Clay, Drilling, Sample Disturbance, Sample Quality, Sampling Tube, Shear Modulus,
Site Investigation, Suction

Introduction
High quality samples are required to interpret in situ soil properties, such as permeability, compressibility, and shear strength characteristics, in order to provide designs that are not overly conservative and decrease the cost of construction. Geotechnical properties of soils are estimated from either in situ or laboratory tests. One of the most important restrictions of laboratory test results is sample disturbance. Over the last few decades, considerable efforts have been made to improve sampling techniques, including designs of the sampling tubes, to correct soil parameters, for example, compressibility and shear strength measured from poor quality sample. Traditionally, sample quality has been assessed by the following values and features: i) shear strength, strain at failure, and Youngs modulus from unconfined compression or triaxial tests; ii) the shape of the e-logp' curve, where e is the void ratio and p' is the effective consolidation pressure, preconsolidation pressure, or compression index from oedometer test; iii) volumetric strain caused by recompression to the in situ effective stress (Andresen and Kolstad, 1979), or the ratio e/e0, where e is the change in void ratio during the recompression process to the in situ effective stresses and e0 is the initial void ratio, which was proposed by Lunne et al. (1997). However, these criteria do not possess an absolute value, but are strongly dependent on the properties of the local area (for example, see Tanaka, 2000). If sample quality is examined for every sample along the sampler, these evaluation methods are time consuming and costly. The methods described above are destructive methods used to determine sample quality, thus further laboratory testing to determine soil properties cannot be carried out after revealing high or low sample quality.

29

Two nondestructive methods were used to evaluate sample quality, measurements of suction (sometimes called residual effective stress) using a ceramic disc and maximum shear modulus by bender element (BE) test. After sample extrusion, the sample was placed on a ceramic disc with a high air entry value. Following suction measurement, the sample was embedded with BE plates at the bottom and the top, and the shear wave travel time (t) was measured, from which the shear wave velocity (Vs) and maximum shear modulus (GBE) were calculated. Tests were performed on every sample in the sampling tube, including the upper and lower parts, which are in general not used for mechanical testing, as they are considered to be disturbed. After carrying out these non-destructive tests, three kinds of mechanical tests were carried out as destructive tests,: unconfined compression test (UCT), fall cone test (FCT), and triaxial recompression test (CKoUC). To obtain soil sample with different sample quality, various samples were prepared, based on the Japanese Standard Sampler. In this study, these geometries of the Standard Sampler are changed to identify main factors governing sample quality of soft clayey soils. Therefore, it is imperative that more systematic and efficient methods be employed to identify main factors of geometry design and mechanisms of the sampling tube influencing sample quality of soft clayey soils. The Takuhoku site, located near Sapporo, Japan, was chosen as a test site due to the near-uniform ground conditions with depth.

Samplers Used in this Study and Sampling Site

Samplers Samplers used in this study are indicated in Table 1. The first sampler, which is the standard tube currently used in Japan, consist of an inside diameter of 75 mm, a length of 1.0 m (the sample length is 0.8 m), and an edge angle of 6o. The thickness of the tube wall is 1.5 mm, which corresponds to an area ratio of 8.2%. Material of the sampling tube is stainless steel. More details of this sampler may be referred to JGS (1998) and Tanaka et al. (1996). In this study, more geometrically different tube samplers consisting of the same inside diameter of 75 mm were designed. The fourth tube sampler, 90 oF10, has edge angle of 90o and wall thickness of 10 mm, resulting in an area ratio of 60.4%. The last sampler, 6oF1.5 (O), is the 6oF1.5 without using fixed piston (an open drive sampler) during sampling. Table 1. Main characteristics and dimensions of tube samplers used in this study Sampling Depths (Upper Layer) (m) 13 12 14 11 15 Sampling Depths (Lower Layer) (m) 22 21 23 20 24
30

Field Samplers 6oF1.5 6oF10 90oF1.5 90oF10 6oF1.5(O)

Edge Angle (o) 6 6 90 90 6

Tube Thickness (mm) 1.5 10 1.5 10 1.5

Area Ratio (%) 8.2 60.4 8.2 60.4 8.2

Piston

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Sampling Site Sampling was carried out at the Takuhoku site, Sapporo, Japan. The detailed properties may be referred to Horng et al. (2010) and are briefly mentioned in this paper. The main geotechnical properties of this site are shown in Fig. 1. The deposits consist of 5 m fill and peat followed by a 4.5 m silty sand deposit, overlying the clay layers investigated in this study. A sandy silt layer at a depth of 15 to 18.5 m separates the soil profile into the upper and lower clay layers. Sampling was carried out at two different depths: the upper (10~15 m) and lower (20~24 m) clay layers as indicated in Fig. 1. The ground water table is located at about 3 m below the ground surface. The natural water content varies between 60 and 70 % and the plasticity index (Ip) is about 45~53 and 50~63 for the upper and lower clay layers, respectively. The yield consolidation pressure (py), which was measured by CRS oedometer at a strain rate of 0.02%/min (3.310-6/s), is somewhat lower than the in situ effective overburden pressure ('vo), which is calculated by assuming that the pore water pressure distribution is hydrostatic. The fill material at ground surface was placed in the 1960s, thus it is believed that the sampling clayey soil is still undergoing consolidation. More details of this investigation can refer to Horng et al. (2010).

Figure 1. Takuhoku soil profiles

31

The field vane test (FVT), using a vane blade of 40 mm in diameter and 80 mm in height and the piezocone test (CPT) were carried out to measure mechanical properties of the site. From the CPT test, the undrained shear strength was calculated using the relation su(CPT)=(qt-vo)/Nkt, where qt is the point resistance of the piezocone, vo is the total overburden pressure, and Nkt is the cone factor. By equating the undrained shear strengths of CPT and FVT, the cone factor Nkt was able to be calculated. In this site Nkt was estimated to be 11.5. The undrained shear strengths from the unconfined compression test (UCT) are also plotted in this figure, where the soil samples were retrieved by the Japanese standard fixed piston sampler (6oF1.5 in Table 1). The mean undrained shear strengths for the upper and lower sampling depths are approximately 20 kPa and 40 kPa, respectively.

Laboratory Testing Methods

Suction Measurement When a soil sample is extracted from the ground to the atmosphere, some amount of the effective stress remains in the soil sample in the form of negative or suction pressure. Ideally the value of the residual effective stress or suction (p'r) should be equal to the mean in situ effective confining pressure (p'm=('vo+2'ho)/3), where 'vo and 'ho are the in situ vertical and horizontal effective stresses, respectively. However p'r is generally somewhat smaller than the in situ p'm due to sample disturbance caused by the process of sampling, transportation, storage, extrusion from the sampler, and preparation of the specimen for laboratory testing. Thus, the residual effective stress can be a soil parameter for the evaluation of sample quality to compare with the in situ p'm. However, measurement or estimation of 'ho is rather difficult. Therefore, in this paper, 'vo will be normalized, as explained in further detail below. The apparatus used for measuring suction is illustrated in Fig. 2. The air entry value of the ceramic disc was 240 kPa. Before testing of p'r, the ceramic disc and the connection between the ceramic disc and transducer were completely de-aired and saturated. After placing the specimen on the ceramic disc, the negative pore water pressure gradually decreased and became constant. The constant absolute value of this negative pressure measured by a pressure transducer was defined as the suction value or residual effective stress (p'r). The time duration for a constant value of p'r in this study was approximately 20 minutes. However, all specimens were placed on the ceramic disc for about one hour. During the suction measurement, a specimen was wrapped by plastic film and covered by an acryl box to avoid loss of water content. The measurement was done under atmospheric condition and cavity pressure (larger than 100 kPa) was not generated since the suction value was less than 100 kPa for all samples in this study.
Time (min)
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 2. Suction measuring system by ceramic disc

32

Suction (kPa)

Sample 1 Sample 2

Bender Element Test Among devices measuring G, the bender element (BE) test is a simple and very fast method. The details of the BE test have been described by several researchers (Viggiani and Atkinson, 1995; Shibuya et al. 1997; Kawaguchi et al., 2001). After measuring p'r, the BE test was performed to measure shear wave velocity (Vs) of the sample. The test equipment and dimensions of BE is illustrated in Fig. 3. A pulse with various types of wave forms such as sine and square over a wide range of frequency was input by a function generator through the transmitter BE at the top of the sample. The wave propagated through the sample and was detected by the BE receiver plate at the bottom. The shear wave travel time (t) was defined as start-to-start between two instants of the generated wave and the first deflection of the received wave (Kawaguchi et al., 2001). The travel distance (L) was defined as tip-to-tip distance between the transmitter and the receiver of BE plates (Viggiani and Atkinson, 1995). Thus, the shear wave velocity can be calculated from Eq. (2);

Vs=L/t (2)
From the theory of shear wave propagation in an elastic body, the shear modulus from the BE test (GBE) can be calculated from Eq. (3);

GBE=tVs2 (3)
(3) where t is the bulk density of soil. Unconfined Compression Test (UCT) The undrained shear strength (qu/2) from UCT is widely used for stability designs in geotechnical engineering and this type of test is believed to be the most sensitive to sample disturbance (Lacasse et al., 1985; Tanaka et al., 1996; Mitachi et al., 2001). UCT was carried out by the Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS A 1216:2009): the specimen was trimmed by a wire saw to the diameter and height of 35 and 80 mm, respectively. The specimen was compressed at a constant strain rate of 1%/min.

BE Transmitter Receiver

Length (mm) 10.5 8.0

Width (mm) 11.0 11.0

Thickness (mm) 1.7 1.7

Figure 3. Bender element equipments

33

Fall Cone Test (FCT) FCT has been used to measure the undrained shear strength mostly in Scandinavian countries. FCT is not used in Japan for measuring the undrained shear strength, but for determining the liquid limit, also obtained by the Casagrande test. In this study, FCT was used to measure undrained shear strength, following the standard of the Japanese Geotechnical Society (JGS 0142-2009) by using a cone with a tip angle of 60o and mass of 60 g. The cone was allowed to fall freely under its own weight from a position at rest with the cone tip just touching the surface of the soil sample. The undrained shear strength of FCT was calculated following the equation of su=k(mg/d2), where m is mass of cone (= 60 g), g is earth gravity acceleration, d is depth of penetration of cone tip into a soil specimen after 5 seconds, and k is the cone factor depending on the angle of the cone tip. k=0.29 was assumed according to Wood (1990) for the cone angle of 60o in this study. Triaxial Recompression Test (CKoUC) The triaxial test specimen size was the same size as that of UCT in this test. A back pressure of 200 kPa was applied in order to obtain high saturation. For estimating the in situ strength, a recompression test was employed, where the specimen was consolidated under the same effective stress condition as that of the in situ. Note that the soil profile in Fig. 1 shows that the objective sampling clay layers are under consolidation caused by the filling. Thus, consolidation was done in the vertical direction by a pressure 0.8 times the yield consolidation pressure, p'y, which was measured by the constant rate of strain oedometer (CRS) test under a strain rate of 0.02 %/min. The reasons for using a coefficient of 0.8 are to avoid the overestimation of p'y from the CRS under relatively high strain rate and possibility for overestimating the strength due to large consolidation pressure. The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (Ko) was estimated to be 0.55 from Koconsolidation triaxial test at the normally consolidated state. The consolidation stresses were kept for about 24 hours. After complete consolidation, the specimen was sheared under undrained conditions at an axial strain rate of 0.1%/min. The shearing was done until the axial strain reached 15%.

Evaluation of Sample Quality by Non-Destructive Methods

Profiles of pr/vo and GBE/Gf of the Best Samples General In order to characterize soil properties at the investigated site from a view point of sample quality, p'r and GBE were measured on samples retrieved by the JPN standard sampler (designated as 6oF1.5 in Table 1) and the location of these samples is in the middle of the sampling tube: i.e., the best quality is guaranteed, as described later. The variation of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf ratio to the depth is presented in Fig. 4. It can be seen in this figure that the normalized values of p'r/'vo slightly increases with depth, and its values are about 1/5 at the upper investigated depth and 1/3 at the lower depth. Ladd and Lambe (1963) measured p'r by the unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial test and found that for the Kawasaki clay (a Japanese marine clay), the p'r/'p ratio ranged from 0.11 to 0.43 with an average value of 0.28, where 'p is the residual effective stress in the perfect sample, and they reported that the 'p was in the range of 0.560.05 of 'vo. Thus, the p'r/'vo ratio was round 0.14, which is quite low compared with this study. Tanaka et al. (1996) studied residual effective stress due to sample disturbance and has shown that p'r/'vo was in the order of 1/5 to 1/6 for high quality samples. From the depth
34

of 10 to 15 m (upper clay layer),the p'r/'vo in this study is approximately 1/5 the value reported by Tanaka et al. (1996), but below 15m the ratio linearly increases and is larger than 1/5. In addition to the p'r/'vo ratio, GBE/Gf is also plotted in the same Fig. 4. Contrary to p'r/'vo, the normalized ratio along the depth is relatively constant ranging from around 0.45 to 0.73 with an average of 0.57. It is interesting to compare the present results with those conducted by Landon et al. (2007). They measured BE shear wave velocity (VBE) in the same manner as in this study for samples from Boston Blue Clay, retrieved by the Sherbrooke, the fixed piston, the free piston, and the SPT split spoon samplers. The VBE was normalized with Vf from the field seismic piezocone for comparing sample quality among those samplers. But in this study since GBE/Gf are used to compare sample quality, the normalized VBE/Vf of Landon are converted to GBE/Gf. They found that the GBE/Gf ratios were in the range of 0.49~0.64, 0.42~0.49, 0.09~0.25, and 0.09~0.16 for samples retrieved by the Sherbrooke, the fixed piston, the free piston and the SPT split spoon samplers, respectively. It is revealed that the normalized ratios (GBE/Gf) obtained from this study are as high as those of Sherbrooke samples conducted by Landon et al. (2007). Location Figs. 5 through 12 show a comparison of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf ratios measured by various samplers with different geometries. The disturbance at the lower edge tip may be caused by the suction created by withdrawal of the sampler. The upper part of sample in a sampling tube may suffer from the borehole drilling or extensive straining by removal of the overburden pressure. In addition, it is inferred that, because of long travel distance, the upper part of sample is damaged by frictional force between the inside wall and the sample during both sampling and extrusion.

Figure 4. p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf of the best quality samples along the depth (Takuhoku)
35

Effect of Edge Angle Figs. 5 and 6 show the effects of the edge angles of the sampler. Fig. 5 shows test results from the upper clay layer using two pairs of samplers with different edge angles: 6oF1.5 and 90oF1.5; 6oF10 and 90oF10. The same pairs of sampler were also used for the lower clay layer as shown in Fig. 6. The first pair of the samplers, 6oF1.5 and 90oF1.5, have the same dimensions, with the exception of the edge angles (6o and 90o, respectively). From the figures it can be seen that the normalized values of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf for samples retrieved by 6o edge angle samplers are higher than those of 90o for both clay layers. It is interesting to note from the Figs. 5 and 6 that the difference in p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf for the thin wall samplers, 6oF1.5 and 90oF1.5, is much smaller than those of the thick wall samplers, 6oF10 and 90oF10. It implies that the influence of the edge angle is more pronounced on sample disturbance when the sampler has a thicker wall. Effect of Area Ratio Figs. 7 and 8 show the results of the two pairs of different area ratio samplers, 6oF1.5 and 6oF10; and 90oF1.5 and 90oF10. The values of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf of samples retrieved by both 6o edge angle show no noticeable difference between 1.5 and 10 mm thickness samplers. But in the case of a larger edge angle (90o), sample quality obtained by the thin wall sampler (90oF1.5) is significantly better than that by thick wall sampler (90oF10). The magnitudes of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf of the above four geometrically different samplers for the upper and lower clay layers of Takuhoku site are plotted together in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. The average magnitudes of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf in Figs. 9 and 10 are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. These figures and tables show that the standard sampler, 6oF1.5, gives the best sample quality and that the thicker sampler with 90o edge angle (90oF10) gives the lowest sample quality. Increasing the area ratio from 8.2% to 60.4% or increasing the wall thickness from 1.5 to 10 mm causes no significant sample disturbance for the small edge angle but profound disturbance for the large 90o edge angle. The mean values of p'r/ 'vo and GBE/Gf for 90oF1.5 are 71% and 55%, respectively, larger than 90oF10 in the upper clay layer and are 58% and 50%, respectively, in the lower clay layer. It is found from the field samplings that the sharp edge angle of a sampling tube is the most important key factor to obtain good quality. Very large differences in sample quality are seen between 6oF10 and 90oF10, compared with those of thin wall samplers, 6oF1.5 and 90oF1.5 (Figs. 5 and 6). The wall thickness, and thus area ratio, has long been considered to have significant influence on tube sampling disturbance since Hvorslev (1949) pointed out its importance. He realized that the penetration resistance of a sampler, the possibility of entrance of excess soil, and danger of disturbance of the sample all increase with increasing area ratio. He also suggested that the area ratio of sampler should be reduced to not exceed 10 to 15% for open drive samplers, but it is possible that the allowable limit is higher for samplers with a stationary piston, even though small area ratio generally causes slighter disturbance. The Sub-Committee on Soil Sampling of International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (1981) reported that an area ratio of less than 13% is generally recommendable, and up to 15% is acceptable, depending on soil conditions. The largest permissible area ratios of 11, 10, and 13% are required in Japan, United Kingdom, and United States, respectively, for their sampling standards. Matsumoto et al. (1968 and 1969) reported test results from the comparative study at the Kinkai site, using three samplers with area ratios of 2.7, 5.4, and 13.7%. Dimensions and other features of the three samplers were identical to the JPN standard sampler. It was found that the undrained

36

shear strengths (qu/2) and strain at failure (f) did not change due to the wall thicknesses of the sampling tube. In this study, in addition to the Japanese standard sampler (6oF1.5), two 10 mm thick wall samplers were used: 6oF10 and 90oF10. The area ratios of the thick wall samplers are as much as 60.4%. Even though the area ratio increases more than sevenfold from 8.2% to 60.4% and far larger than the studies of Matsumoto et al., the sample quality is not significantly affected. On the other hand, if the cutting edge is not sharp, then the area ratio must be as small as possible. That is, the area ratio is dependent on the edge angle selected. Effect of Piston In this study, the effect of piston on sample quality was investigated, using the sampler (6oF1.5(O)), which has the same geometrical features as the standard Japanese sampler. It is believed that the largest advantage of the piston sampler is considered to have high recovery ratio, because the piston can create a vacuum high enough to prevent the captured sample from falling when the sampler is withdrawn from the bottom of the borehole. The recovery ratio for each sampler, including 6oF1.5(O), is shown in Table 4. No remarkable difference can be seen in the recovery ratio for 6oF1.5 and 6oF1.5(O) in the upper clay layer. On the other hand, in the lower clay layer, the recovery ratio of 6oF1.5(O) was as low as 79%. The high ratio in the upper clay layer may derive from disadvantages of the open drive sampler as pointed out by Hvorslev (1949) and Osterberg and Murthy (1979): i.e., due to poor cleaning of the borehole prior to sampling, or soil shavings on the borehole wall, the sampling tube may collect soil along the wall of the borehole in the process of lowering the sampler or soil cuttings deposited at the bottom of the borehole. It is inferred that even within the upper layer, the recovery ratio of 6oF1.5(O) would be lower than the observed value shown in Table 4, if the targeted sample was properly captured. This debris can be seen by the low p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf values as shown in Fig. 11, compared with the rest of samples from the same sampler. The test results of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf for the 6oF1.5(O) are compared with those of o 6 F1.5 in Figs. 11 and 12 for the upper and lower clay layers, respectively. It is believed that the stationary piston is a key for collecting a high quality sample. However, a great difference in p'r/'vo values between the stationary piston (6oF1.5) and the open drive sampler (6oF1.5(O)) are not seen in both clay layers, except for the upper part of the samples, where some reduction in p'r/'vo is observed. On the other hand, the GBE/Gf values of the stationary piston samplers are slightly higher than those of the open drive samplers. The average values of p'r/'vo and GBE/Gf for the two samplers for the upper and lower clay layers are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Tanaka et al. (1996) also investigated the effects of piston on sample quality at the Kinkai site. They showed that no difference can be seen between the samples with and without piston from the unconfined compression and the laboratory vane shear tests. Table 2. Upper clay layer of Takuhoku Samplers Area Ratio (%) (p'r/'vo)average (GBE/Gf)average 6oF1.5 8.2 0.152 0.462 6oF10 60.4 0.159 0.419 90oF1.5 8.2 0.132 0.282 90oF10 60.4 0.038 0.128 6oF1.5(O) 8.2 0.150 0.417

37

Table 3. Lower clay layer of Takuhoku Samplers Area Ratio (%) (p'r/'vo)average (GBE/Gf)average 6oF1.5 8.2 0.241 0.507 6oF10 60.4 0.212 0.395 90oF1.5 8.2 0.190 0.360 90oF10 60.4 0.080 0.182 6oF1.5(O) 8.2 0.240 0.418

Table 4. Samplers used and their recovery ratios Sampler used 90 F10 6oF10 6oF1.5 90oF1.5 6oF1.5(O) 90oF10 6oF10 6oF1.5 90oF1.5 6oF1.5(O)
o

Depth (m) 11.00~11.80 12.00~12.80 13.00~13.80 14.00~14.80 15.00~15.80 20.00~20.80 21.00~21.80 22.00~22.80 23.00~23.80 24.00~24.80

Recovery ratio (%) 98.7 99.4 99.4 100 120 100 95 97.5 98.7 78.7

Correlation between pr and GBE It is anticipated from the test results of this study that GBE increases with increase of p'r. Fig. 13 shows the p'r and GBE data measured for the sample retrieved at the Takuhoku site. It can be seen that GBE is strongly related to p'r, although some scatter exists in this relation. In order to examine the effects caused by a damage of soil structure, the relation measured for samples retrieved by 6oF1.5 and 90oF10 is plotted using different symbols to distinguish them from other samplers. It should be kept in mind that 6oF1.5 and 90oF10 samplers provided the best and the worst sample quality, respectively. If the scatter in the relation between p'r and GBE is created by destruction of soil structure, then the relation obtained from 6oF1.5 should be located in the upper part and that from 90oF10 should be located in the lower part of the band of the p'r and GBE relation in Fig. 13. It can be apparently recognized that points obtained from 6oF1.5 are upper 90oF10, though the difference is small.
38

Evaluation of Sample Quality by UCT and FCT

Test Result from UCT Fig. 14 shows typical test results of UCT on samples from various types of samplers. Vertical axis (/2/py) is the unconfined compressive stress normalized by the yield consolidation pressure at the depth of the specimen. The normalizations are done to take into account slightly different depths of samples for the comparative studies. Horizontal axis is the axial strain, a(%). From both upper and lower layers in the figure it can be seen that the stress-strain curves of the samples retrieved by 6oF1.5, 6oF10, and 6oF1.5(O) tube samplers are very similar and their peak shear strengths are the largest compared with the other two tubes, 90oF1.5 and 90oF10. 90oF10 samples show unusual stress-strain patterns, implying severe disturbance by geometric designs of blunt edge angle and thick wall thickness (90o and 10 mm). Their stress-strain curves move to the right hand side and harden up to a final axial strain of 15% without showing any peak strength and the curves are completely different from other tube samples. 90oF1.5 samples show stress-strain curves which are similar to those of other 6o samplers, but their peak strengths are somewhat smaller than those from 6oF1.5, 6oF10, and 6oF1.5(O) samplers. UCT results for all samples are shown in Fig. 15, where Figs. 15 (a), (b), and (c) show the effect of different geometric designs of tube samplers on qu/2, E50 (secant moduli at 50% strength), and f (the axial strain at the peak stress), respectively. These test results show the same features from the previous studies: if a sample is disturbed, its stress-strain curve exhibits small peak strength, small E50, and large f (Lefebvre and Poulin, 1979; Oka et al., 1996). It is interesting to note that E50 is much more sensitive to disturbance than the peak strength. The test results show that sample quality is reduced when a large edge angle tube sampler is used. Difference in the sample quality resulting from the edge angle is more significant if the wall thickness of a tube sampler becomes larger (see 6oF10 and 90oF10). 6oF10 tube, whose area ratio is increased to 60.4%, being higher than that of standard sampler (8.2%), does not affect the sample quality for the small edge angle, but the difference in sample quality is significant for the large edge angle (see 90oF1.5 and 90oF10). It can be concluded from these results that once the edge angle of a tube sampler is kept sharply small, a large area ratio can be permitted up to 60% without affecting sample quality; on the other hand, once the angle becomes large the area ratio must be as small as possible. Thus the area ratio is strongly dependent on the edge angle. Unexpectedly, no signs of disturbance by collecting samples with the open drive sampler. The stress-strain curves of both fixed piston standard and open drive tube samples show no clear differences in sample quality. These results are consistent with the measurements of suction and shear wave velocity in the previous study performed by Horng et al. (2010). Test Results from FCT Similarly, the same trends as those of UCT can be seen from the test results of FCT as shown in Fig. 16. However, the difference in quality between samples of 6oF1.5 and 90oF10 is less profound than that of UCT. Comparing with UCT (Fig. 15(a)), strengths from FCT are larger than those from UCT. It should be noted from Hansbo (1957), who used FCT to study shear strengths of soil collected by different samplers, that the cone factor (k) also depends on the degree of disturbance from different samplers. However, k in this study was assumed to be constant and dependent only on the angle of the cone tip (Wood, 1990). As a result, the difference in sample quality among samples of different samplers in FCT measurement is less significant than that in the UCT test.

39

Figure 5. Effect of edge angle (upper layer)

Figure 6. Effect of edge angle (lower layer)

40

Figure 7. Effect of area ratio (upper layer)

Figure 8. Effect of area ratio (lower layer)

41

Figure 9. Combined effects of edge angle and area ratio (upper layer)

Figure 10. Combined effects of edge angle and area ratio (lower layer) Relating to the Residual Effective Stress Horng et al. (2010) measured residual effective stresses (pr) for the samples used in this paper. Relations between pr and UCT parameters, qu/2, E50, and f are plotted in Figs. 17(a), 17(b), and 17(c), respectively. Relation between pr and strengths of FCT is also plotted in Fig. 18. The important points from the figures are as follows: (1) Both Figs. 17(a) and 18 show that strength is strongly related to pr. But qu/2 of UCT indicates better correlation than that of FCT. This means that the strength from UCT is more significantly governed by pr. (2) E50 also correlates with pr, but it exhibits much more scatter than those between pr and qu/2. Horng et al. (2010) tried to correlate pr with maximum shear modulus of bender element (GBE). In addition, even though the past maximum stress was
42

considered in the relation of pr and GBE, scatters still existed in the same manner as the relations between E50 and pr. (3) f is not influenced by pr unless pr/py become smaller than 0.1. pr/py=0.1 can be considered the lowest boundary that f does not change by sample quality. (4) Figs. 17 and 18 indicate that strength and E50 values have strong relations with pr, i.e., the reductions of strength and E50 may be partially explained by the decrease of pr. However, strains at the peak strength of UCT are constant with pr, except for those of 90oF10 whose values were assumed at large axial strains.

Figure 11. Effect of piston (upper layer)

Figure 12. Effect of piston (lower layer)

43

Figure 13. Correlations between p'r and GBE.

Triaxial Recompression Test (CKoUC)

Stress-Strain Relation and Stress Path As already indicated, strengths from the UCT and FCT are strongly influenced by the current effective confining stress, pr, because these tests are carried out under unconfined conditions. Therefore, when the in situ effective confining pressure is applied to the specimen, the strength should be recovered. In triaxial test, this idea is called the Recompression method and was introduced by Berre and Bjerrum (1973). Lacasse et al. (1985) confirmed that the triaxial technique is able to correct for a large portion of sampling disturbance. Of course, there is also criticism that the recompression technique overestimates the strength caused by decreasing the void ratio due to the recompression. This possibility may become significant when the sample is heavily disturbed. Comparisons of typical stress-strain curves for specimens collected by different types of tube samplers are shown in Fig. 19. It can be seen that the stress-strain curves and stress paths of all samples from the tube samplers, 90oF1.5, 6oF10, and 6oF1.5(O) do not differ remarkably from those collected by the standard Japanese sampler. On the other hand, the stress-strain curves of the samples collected by the thick wall and large edge angle, 90oF10, are totally different from those of other tube samplers. The noteworthy unusual patterns of 90oF10 samples compared with those of other tubes are observed as follows: 1) 90oF10 samples show behaviors of strain hardening up to axial strain of 10%, which are similar to their UCT counterparts, whereas other tube samples show the behaviors of strain softening after well-defined peak shear stresses at small strains; 2) 90oF10 samples show lower shear stresses at strains where the other samples reach the peak stress, but higher shear stresses at large axial strains (>5%) than those of other samples. Tanaka (2000) also compared test results from the recompression triaxial test for Bothkennar clay retrieved by JPN standard and ELE 100 samplers and he made the same conclusions: i.e., the behavior of the ELE 100 samples is the same as that of 90oF10 in the present study, while the JPN sample shows the same tendency of 6oF1.5, 90oF1.5, 6oF10, and 6oF1.5(O) samples. Similar hardening behavior can also be observed from test results by Lunne et al. (2006) for Scandinavian clays retrieved by NGI 54 mm.

44

(a) Upper layer

(b) Lower layer Figure 14. Typical test results of UCT.

45

(a) Unconfined compression strength

(b) Secant moduli

(c) Strain at failure Figure 15. Summary of test results of UCT

46

Figure 16. Summary of test results of FCT The stress paths are also plotted in Fig. 19, using diagram [(a+r)/2, (a-r)/2], where a and r represent the axial and radial effective stresses, respectively. Similar to the stress-strain curves above, the stress paths of 6oF1.5, 90oF1.5, 6oF10, and 6oF1.5(O) show no profound difference in sample quality. On the other hand, the stress paths of the low quality samples, i.e., 90oF10, rise up without any peaks until the end of test and excess pore water pressure does not significantly build up. These patterns of the stress path are somewhat different from those of the poor quality samples of Bothkennar retrieved by ELE 100 sampler or of Norwegian marine clays retrieved by NGI 54 mm as reported by Tanaka (2000) and Lunne et al. (2006), respectively. Reasons for this difference may be attributed to soil characteristics of the sampling site or the features of samplers. At present, it cannot be identified which factor is dominant. Volume Change due to Recompression Lunne et al. (1997) used the parameter e/e0 to quantify sample disturbance as shown in Fig. 20, where e is the change of void ratio during the reconsolidation back to the in situ effective stress and e0 is the in situ void ratio. Fig. 20 shows relation between e/e0 and pr from the recompression test, indicating the existence of strong correlation between them, i.e., e/e0 decreases with the increasing pr. Tanaka and Tanaka (2006) also studied relations between pr and e/e0, and found that correlation of the two parameters cannot be recognized for eight different sites. It should be noted that e/e0 was measured by the oedometer test in their study, whereas e/e0 in this study was measured by the triaxial recompression technique. It may be anticipated that in the case of the oedometer test, there is a gap between the specimen and the oedometer ring so that the measurement of e is not as accurate as the triaxial test. Another possible reason is that the soil properties are different. In this study, the ground is underconsolidated, exactly normally consolidated, but Tanaka and Tanakas data contains various OCRs. Fig. 20 shows that most of the samples retrieved by the Japanese standard sampler are classified as Very good to excellent, whereas the samples from 90oF1.5, 6oF10, and 6oF1.5(O) are Very good to excellent and Good to fair. e/e0 ratios for 90oF10 are remarkably so large that the samples are classified as Poor according to Lunne et al. (1997).

47

(a) Unconfined compression strength

(b) Secant moduli

(c) Strain at failure Figure 17. Relations between pr and UCT parameters

48

Figure 18. Relations between pr and strengths of FCT.

(a) Upper layer

(b) Lower layer Figure 19. Typical results of recompression CKoUC triaxial.
49

As already mentioned, the most noticeable concern for the recompression test is the overestimation of the strength due to decrease in the void ratio brought by reconsolidation to the in situ stresses. Especially, if a sample is heavily disturbed and large e is observed, there is possibility that the strength from the recompression might be larger than the in situ strength. The normalized strengths (su/py) for all recompression test results in this study are plotted with e/e0 in Fig. 21, where two strengths from the case of 90oF10 samples are defined: strengths at the strain where the other samples show the peak strength (about 2 to 3 %) by the symbol (o); strengths at axial strain of 15 % by (). It can be seen that su/py does not increase with increasing e/e0, but su/py is nearly constant. Considering Figs. 20 and 21, it may be concluded that the recompression technique can restore the soil behavior if the samples are at least Good to fair or better in terms of sample quality by Lunnes criteria. In other words, the recompression technique is applicable when e/e0 is less than 0.07 or when pr /py is greater than 0.10. Therefore, there is no possibility to overestimate the strength for poor quality samples by the recompression test, as long as the strength is not taken at a large strain.

Figure 20. Relations between pr and volume change e/e0.

0.6 0.5 0.4

su/p'y

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 90oF10 (at large strains) 90 F10 (at small strains) Other samplers
o

Figure 21. Relations between e/eo and su/py of CKoUC triaxial

50

e/e0

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Conclusions
This paper investigated the main geometrical features of samplers affecting sample quality. Sample quality was evaluated using two nondestructive methods: residual effective stress and maximum shear modulus, and destructive methods: unconfined compression test (UCT), fall cone test (FCT), and CKoUC triaxial test. The results of this study showed that sample quality is dependent on the geometry designs of the sampling tube, these are, edge angle and area ratio. Comparative results of sample quality among different samplers were obtained from samples of the same location inside the samplers. Important points found from nondestructive methods are summarized as follows: 1) Small edge angle was very important for a sampling tube to minimize sample disturbance. 2) The wall thickness, and thus, area ratio cannot be the sole and independent geometrical factor affecting sample quality. A strong dependency on the edge angle was observed. If edge angle was kept small enough, larger area ratio can be tolerated. In contrast, if edge angle was increased, the area ratio must be specified and kept as small as possible for a well designed and successful sampler. 3) The effect of a piston played less significant role in disturbance for field sampling. Comparative results of samples obtained from stationary pistons and open drive samplers showed slight differences in sample quality. 4) Residual effective stress (p'r) and maximum shear modulus (GBE) were not independent parameters but are closely related. From mechanical tests: 5) The results in this study by UCT and FCT are very consistent with the nondestructive tests. 6) Recompression technique in triaxial test, where the specimen is consolidated at the in situ effective stresses, is used to overcome sample disturbance. However, if soil structures of a soil sample are strongly destroyed such the case of 90 oF10 samples in this study, the technique cannot restore the undisturbed soil behavior. The sample quality must be ranked at least in the category Good to fair or better from the criteria of Lunne et al. (1997) or pr/py is greater than 0.10 so as to duplicate the in situ soil behavior. References [1] A.A. Andresen, and P. Kolstad, The NGI 54 mm sampler for undisturbed sampling of clays and representative sampling of coarser materials, Proceedings of the International Symposium of Soil Sampling, Singapore, pp. 13-21, 1979. [2] M.J. Hvorslev, Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, U.S. Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, 1949. [3] JGS, Standard of Japanese Geotechnical Society for Soil Sampling-Standards and Explanations (English Version), Japanese Geotechnical Society, Tokyo, 1998. [4] T. Kawaguchi, T. Mitachi, and S. Shibuya, Evaluation of shear wave travel time in laboratory bender element test, Proc. Of 15th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 155-158, 2001. [5] C.C. Ladd, and R.W. Lambe, The strength of undisturbed clay determined from undrained tests, ASTM-NRC Symposium on Shear Testing Soils, Ottawa, STP 361, pp. 342-371, 1963. [6] M.M. Landon, D.J. Degroot, and T.C. Sheahan, Nondestructive sample quality assessment of a soft clay using shear wave velocity, J. of Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng., Vol. 133 ( 4), pp. 424-432, 2007.
51

[7] G. Lefebvre, and C. Poulin, A new method of sampling in sensitive clays, Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 16 (1), pp. 226-233, 1979. [8] T. Lunne, T. Berre, and S. Standvik, Sample Disturbance Effects in Soft Low Plastic Norwegian Clay, Proc. Of the Int. Symp. On Recent Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics, pp. 81-102, 1997. [9] K. Matsumoto, H. Horie, and M. Yamamura, Study on boring and sampling of saturated alluvial clays (3rd report), Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.96-113, (in Japanese), 1968. [10] K. Matsumoto, H. Horie, and M. Yamamura, Study on boring and sampling of saturated alluvial clays (4th report), Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.3-19 (in Japanese), 1969. [11] J.O. Osterberg, and W.P. Murthy, State of the art of undisturbed sampling of cohesive soils, Proc. Of Int. Symp. Of Soil Sampling, State of the Art on Current Practice of Soil Sampling, Singapore, pp. 43-50, 1979. [12] S. Shibuya, S.C. Hwang, and T. Mitachi, Elastic shear modulus of soft clays from shear wave velocity measurement, Geotechnique, Vol. 47 (3), pp. 593-601, 1997. [13] H. Tanaka, P. Sharma, T. Tsuchida, and M. Tanaka, Comparative study on sample quality using several types of samplers, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36 (2), pp. 5768, 1996. [14] H. Tanaka, Sample quality of cohesive soils: Lessons from three sites, Ariake, Bothkennar and Drammen, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 40 (4), pp. 57-74, 2000. [15] G. Viggiani, and J.H. Atkinson, Interpretation of Bender Element Tests, Geotechnique, Vol. 45 (1), pp. 149-154, 1995. [16] T. Berre, and L. Bjerrum, Shear strength of normally consolidated clays, Proc. 8th ICSMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 39-49, 1973. [17] V. Horng, H. Tanaka, and T. Obara, Effects of sampling tube geometry on soft clayey sample quality evaluated by nondestructive methods, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 50 (1), pp. 93-107, 2010. [18] S. Lacasse, T. Berre, and G. Lefebvre, Block sampling of sensitive clays, Proc. 9th ICSMFE, Vol. 2, pp. 887-892, 1985. [19] T. Lunne, T. Berre, and S. Strandvik, Sample disturbance effects in soft low plastic Norwegian clay, Proc. Intl Symp. on Recent Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics, pp. 81-102, 1997. [20] T. Lunne, T. Berre, K.H. Andersen, S. Strandvik, and M. Sjursen, Effects of sample disturbance and consolidation procedures on measured shear strengths of soft marine Norwegian clays, Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 43 (7), pp. 726-750, 2006. [21] T. Mitachi, Y. Kudoh, and M. Tsushima, Estimation of in-situ undrained strength of soft soil deposits by use of unconfined compression test with suction measurement, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 41 (5), pp. 61-71, 2001. [22] F. Oka, A. Yashima, T. Hashimoto, and M. Amemiya, Application of Laval type large diameter sampler to soft clay in Japan, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36 (3), pp. 99-111, 1996. [23] H. Tanaka, P. Sharma, T. Tsuchida, and M. Tanaka, Comparative study on sample quality using several types of samplers, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36 (2), pp. 5768, 1996. [24] H. Tanaka, Sample quality of cohesive soils: Lessons from three sites, Ariake, Bothkennar and Drammen, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 40 (4), pp. 57-74, 2000. [25] H. Tanaka, and M. Tanaka, Main factors governing residual effective stress for cohesive soils sampled by tube sampling, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 46 (2), pp. 209-220, 2006.
52

[26] D.M. Wood, Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics, Cambridge University Press, USA, 1990.

53