Subject (CSE570): Soil Behaviour and

Geotechnical Engineering
by
Professor Jianhua YIN (ZS909), CEE, PolyU
Lecture 1: Laboratory Tests and Real Stress-Strain
Behaviour of Soils

Lecture 2: Simple and Commonly Used Constitutive

Models

Lecture 3: 1-D Elastic Visco-Plastic Model and

Consolidation Settlement Calculation

Abstracts:

This part of the subject (CSE570) consists of three lectures. Lecture

1 will cover conventional and advanced lab test apparatuses, typical
test data, interpretation, the stress-strain-strength behavior in 1D,
2D and 3D stress states. Lecture 2 will present simple and
commonly used constitutive models. The framework of elastic
plastic models is explained. After this, commonly used Mohr-
Coulomb elastic-plastic model and critical state models are
presented. The advantages and limitations of these models are
explained. Lecture 3 presents a 1-D Elastic Visco-Plastic (EVP)
model and a simplified Hypothesis B method for consolidation
settlement calculation of clayey soils. The main equations and
validation of this new method are presented first. The final part
includes worked examples of calculation of consolidation settlement
of a single or two layered soils.

1
 References:
Essential References:
[1] Mitchell, James K., “Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour”, Second Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1993).
[2] David M Potts and Lidija Zdravkovic, “Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering – theory”, Thomas Telford Publishing Ltd, U.K.
(ISBN: 0 7277 2753 2), (1999).
[3] Papers by JH YIN (see relevant lectures)
[4] Lecture notes of Prof JH Yin and Dr. ZY Yin

Other References:
[1] Geo-Slope (2004), Program manuals and software: SLOPE/W and
SIGMA/W.
[2] Plaxis 2D
[3] David Muir Wood, “Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics”,
Cambridge University Press, (1990).
[4] Britto, A.M. and Gunn, M.J., “Critical State Soil Mechanics via Finite
Elements”, ELLIS HORWOOD LTD., (1990).
[5] Chen, W.F. and Mizuno, E., “Nonlinear Analysis in Soil Mechanics”, Elsevier
(1990).

Lecture 1: Laboratory Tests and Real Soil

Behavior of Soils
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Oedometer Test and 1D Behavior of Soils
1.3 Direct Shear Tests and 2D Behavior of Soils
1.4 Triaxial Tests and 2D Behavior of Soils
1.5 True Triaxial Tests and 3D Behavior of Soils
1.6 Hollow Cylinder Triaxial Tests and 3D Behavior
of Soils
1.7 Concluding Remarks

2
 1.1 Introduction
• Soil behavior is neither linear nor elastic
• Soil failure will occur
• Real behavior – from 1-D compression tests,
triaxial tests, to other advanced tests

1.2 Oedometer Tests and 1D Behaviour of Soils

• One degree of freedom (one independent variable)
• Oedometer – simulating one-dimensional (1D)
compressions (or 1D straining), example, a large area of
reclamation on a horizontally uniform soil under uniform
pressure
• Differences from 1D stressing
• Oedometer test: element test or a small physical model?
Element test: uniform strain and stress
A small physical model: initial-boundary value problem – non-
uniform strain and stress
Oedometer test: both ok; an element test when ue=0
 z  0; x y 0  z  0; x y   z 
 z'  0; x'   y'  0  z'  0; x'   y'  0
z  z'
Only 1 strain  z Only 1 stress  z'

3
 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Reclamation of Hung Hom Bay completed in 1994

Oedometer test (1D straining or laterally confined consolidation test)

Pre-loading fill

Sand fill
Water Table

Marine Deposits

Bedrock or soil

Confined or 1-D Straining Consolidation

(or Oedometer) Condition:
• Soil layers are horizontal and uniform
• Loading is uniform (extensive UDL)
• Deformation & water flow are in vertical only

4
 Impermeable at time=0+
Uniform surcharge q=10 kPa Water table

 Ai  z A sat
 i'  z A ' , ( '   sat   w )
zA
us ue  'f   i' u ei   i'  q  z A  '  q

Impermeable bedrock
Static porewater pressure: Initial excess porewater pressure:
us  z A w uei  q  10kPa

Consolidation analogy: Valve Valve

Valve opened Opened
q  10kPa q  10kPa - final
closed
q  10kPa

us  z A w
us  z A w
uei  q
us  z A w ue  ue (t ) 
 10kPa us  z A w
ue  0

 Ai  z A sat  A  z A sat  q  A  z A sat  q  A  z A sat  q

  z A
'
i
'
 '   i'  z A ' ' A u ' A u
  A  (us u e )   A  (us u e )
 z A  q  ue
'
 z A '  q

10

5
 Effective stresses principle and equation:

Normal stress:
Shear stress: no change

Effective stresses control both deformation and shear resistance

(or shear strength) since effective stresses reflect soil particle
interaction. Why? q  10kPa Valve closed

Normal stress is increased by 10 kPa. Any

vertical deformation? No!
us  z A w
uei  q Any shear resistance increased? No!
 10kPa

11

Terzaghi (1883-1963): Father of Soil Mechanics

12

6
 Peck in Taiwan 1998
13

14

7
 Oedometers in Soil
Mechanics Laboratory

15

F
v   
A

Ho H1

Method: Water content measured at end of test=w1

Void ratio measured at end of test=e1=w1Gs (assume Sr=100%)
Soil specimen thickness change H=H1-H0<0 V  0; H  0; But ,   0;   0 v z

Void ratio at start of test=e0=e1-e or e1=e0+e since compression as possitive ""

e e e    
 V
Vv Vv
Vv1  Vv 0 Vs 0 V V HA H v  
V
is volume strain;
 1 0  s 1 Vv s     v      z
V

 
0 V0
1  e0 1  e0 1  Vs 0 Vv  Vs 0 V0 V0 H0 A H0 H
z   is vertical strain;
e H e 1  e0 H H H0
  ,  ,  e  (1  e0 )  (1  e1  e)  z  v
1  e0 H 0 H H0 H0 H0
H H H H H
 e  (1  e1 )  e  (1  )e  (1  e1 )  e  (1  e1 )
H0 H0 H0 H0 H 0  H

16

8
 Compressibility characteristics: non-linear and elastic-plastic
 e  V  H
 v     z ; e  e0  e  e0   v (1  e0 )
1  e0 V0 H0
e, V , H  0 Over-consolidated range
Normally consolidated range
(virgin compression
range)

Loading i
i
Slope  (1  e0 )mv

i+1 i+1
Slope Ce

Un-loading
Re-loading

17

Behavior under 1-dimensional compression

NCL

1 independent
variable in 1-D
straining test

Compression of a clay in 1-D

straining test

18

9
 1. The coefficient of volume compressibility (mv)

 v  v ,i 1   v ,i
mv   ;   v  mv  ' (important for settlement)
 '  i'1   i'
 e eo  e e e e e e e
  v   ;  o i ;  v ,i 1  o i 1 ;  v ,i 1   v ,i  i i 1
1  e0 1  e0 1  e0 1  e0 1  e0
 v 1  ei  ei 1  if i  0
1  e0  e1 
 mv       
 1  e0   i'1   i' 
'
1  e0   1'   0' 
H i H i 1
  v 
H0
 v 1  H i  H i 1  if i  0
1  H 0  H1 
 mv       
 ' H 0   i'1   i'  H 0   1'   0' 

The mv varies with the vertical stress (not constant) !

19

2. The compression index (Cc) in normally consolidated range

and expansion (Ce) (or unloading/reloading, swelling Cs)
The compression index (Cc) in normally consolidated range:
ei  ei 1  Cc (log  i'1  log  i' )  Cc log( i'1 /  i' )
ei  ei 1 if i  0
e0  e1
C c  
log( i'1 /  i' ) log( 1' /  0' )

The expansion index (Ce) in un/re-loading or over-consolidated range:

ei  ei 1  Ce (log  i'1  log  i' )  Ce log( i'1 /  i' )
ei  ei 1 if i 1
e1  e2 Both Cc and Ce
C e  
log( i'1 /  i' ) log( 2' /  1' ) are constant !
3. Relation between Cc and mv
Cc  '
 ei  ei 1  Cc log( i'1 /  i' )  e0  e  Cc log( ' /  0' )  e  
ln10  '
 v 1  e Cc 1 0.434Cc 1
mv    
 1  e0 
' '
ln101  e0   ' 1  e0  '

20

10
 VCL: Virgin Consolidation Line
NCL: Normal Consolidation Line
 v'
e  e0  Cc log( )
 vo'
 v'   z' ; vo'  1kPa

Cs=Ce=Cr  v'
e  ei  C s log( )
 vi'

Idealized 1-D compression behavior

21

How to calculate settlements?

Compression: for each layer Hj (thickness), if mv and ’ are constant
with depth z, then (loading):
scj   v H j  mv  ' H j

Compression: for normally consolidated clay, using Cc (loading):

Cc '
scj   v H j  log 2' H j
1  e0 1
 2'   1'   '

Heave/Swelling: for normally consolidated clay, using Ce (un-loading):

C '
scj   v H j  e log 2' H j
1  e0 1

Total compression S of multiple n-layers with Hj:

j n j n j n j n
Ccj  2' j
S   scj    vj H j   mvj  'j H j or S   log Hj
j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1 1  e0 j  1' j

22

11
 Pre-consolidation pressure – how to determine it?
from laboratory oedometer test (by Dr. Arthur Casagrande)
 vi'   v' 0  'p   vp'   c'   vc'
Initial effective stress   vi'   v' 0
 vp'
OCR 
 v' 0
1/2
Select a point
1/2
with maximum
curvature D

23

Vertical strain vs. log(time) for ratio C4 (100% HKMD and 0% sand), (a) loading,
(b) unloading, and (c) reloading (Yin 1999)
L o g (t im e ) (m in ) (C 4 )
0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
0
1 0 kPa
2
4
25kP a
6
8 5 0 kPa
V ertical S train (% )

10

12
1 0 0 kPa
14

16

18 2 0 0 kPa

20

22
4 0 0 kPa
24
Creep: compression under a constant effective stress
26

L o g (t im e ) (m in ) (C 4 )

Yin, J.-H. (1999). Properties and behaviour of Hong Kong marine deposits with different clay
contents. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.36, No.6, pp.1085-1095

24

12
 L o g (t im e ) (m in ) (C 4 )

0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

22
V ertic al S train (% )

5 0 kPa
2 2 .5

23 1 0 0 kPa

2 3 .5
2 0 0 kPa
Unloading
24

2 4 .5

L o g (t im e ) (m in ) (C 4 )

0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

21
7 5 kPa
1 0 0 kPa Reloading
23
2 0 0 kPa
V ertic al S train (% )

4 0 0 kPa
25

Creep: compression under a constant

27
effective stress
29
8 0 0 kPa

31

25

Vertical strain vs. log(stress) with loading, unloading and reloading for mixing ratio
C4 (Yin 1999)
V e rt ic a l S t re s s (k P a ) (C 4 )

10 100 1000
0

5
C c  = 0 .1 8 2 , R 2= 0 .9 9 9
 '
e e
 v   v 0  Cc log( );  v   v 0  0
v
10  '
vo 1 e 0 Creep: compression under a
 '
'
e  e0  Cc log( ); e0  e  Cc log( 'v ) constant effective stress
V ertic al S train (% )

 '
vo  vo
15
Cc ' C
 v   v0  log( 'v )  Cc  c
1 e 0  vo 1 e 0
C re e p 3 2 d a y s
20

C r = 0 .0 2 6 6 , R 2= 0 .8 4 1
25

Cr
Unloading and reloading
C r 
1 e 0
30 C re e p 1 8 d a y s

35

26

13
 1-D compression under isotropic stressing  z'   x'   y'

M e a n e ffe c ti v e s tr e s s p ' m ( k P a )
10 p 'm o 100 1000 10000
0
 - li n e
C T e s t: 1 d a y
5 C c  c
1 e 0 U n / r e lo a d in g
L o a d in g
(%)

10
p m'  ( z'   x'   y' ) / 3
vm

15
V olume strain

pm'
20  vm   vm 0  Cc log( '
)
pmo
25
Cr
30  
Cr - li1 n
 ee0
pm'
35  vm   vmi  Cr log( )
pmi'
40
Yin, J.-H. and Zhu, J.-G. (1999). Measured and predicted time-dependent stress-strain behavior
of Hong Kong marine deposits. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.36, No.4, pp.760-766

27

Tim e (m in)
0 .1 10 1000 100000
8
Volume strain (%)

10

12 Creep

14

16 “Primary” consolidation
18
End-of-“Primary”
Creep before and after EOP
(EOP) consolidation
60
u (kPa)

40

20
ue  0
0
0 .1 10 1000 100000
Tim e (m in)

28

14
 Old equation :
t
e  eEOP  Ce log
t EOP
t
t  0; log  ; e  ; right ?
t EOP
New equation by Yin and Graham :
to  t
e  e0  Ce log
to
t  0; e  e0 ; definite; right!

29

C r  line

C c  line

Strain rate effects: Do constant-rate-of strain tests (after Yin and Graham 1989).
The larger the strain rate, the higher the stress for the same strain value (the
higher the pre-consolidation pressure)
Stress relaxation: Keep the strain constant, the effective stress decreases with time
Stress rate effects: Do constant-rate-of stress tests. The larger the stress, the higher
the stress for the same strain value.

30

15
 1.3 Direct Shear Tests and 2D Behavior of Soils
• Two degrees of freedom (two independent variables)
• Direct shear tests: to get shear strength parameters only
• Simulate two-dimensional (2D) failures and behavior
• Limitations of direct shear tests?
(i) No control of drainage: drained or undrained?
(ii) No measurement of pore water pressure so that the effective stress may not be
known.
(iii) Ok for sandy soils since drained condition is kept.
(iv) Data are used for obtaining strength parameters only.
(v) Deformation parameters (Young’s modulus) cannot obtained.
(vi) “Quick” shear or “slow” shear on clayey soils is questionable.
(vii) Many soil lab test reports present friction angle and cohesion from “quick” shear
or “slow” shear tests. Be careful to use these strength parameters (effective or total
stress parameters?)

31

Shear strength
(1) Shear failure
(2) Shear strength tests

Shear sliding

When sliding N

T
Angle=? W

32

16
 (1) Shear failure
• It is found that, if at a point on any plane within a soil
mass, the shear stress becomes equal to the shear
strength of the soil, then failure will occur at that point.
• Coulomb first proposed a liner function between shear
strength f and the normal total stress n:
 f  c   n tan 
c is the cohesion (line intercept) and
 is the angle of shear resistance (slope angle of the line)
The c and  are also called total stress strength parameters.
The above equation is not GOOD, as Shear Resistance
(friction) is provided by soil particles only. We shall use
effective stresses.

33

(2) Shear strength tests N

n 
The direct shear test A
T

l is the horizontal A
displacement
h is the vertical Soil Specimen
displacement

'  u
Direct shear box test: the most simple test for measuring shear
strength of soils
Problems: (i) pore pressure cannot be measured, (ii) the shear strain
cannot be determined, (iii) stresses are not uniform.
Applications: Measuring strength parameters only, NOT deformation
parameters (e.g. no Young’s modulus E and shear modulus G)

34

17
35

Four direct shear boxes in Soil Mechanics Laboratory

36

18
37

c’ is a line intercept,
may not be the true
cohesion.
True cohesion is due to
cementation
 n'
False cohesion is (a) due
to line fitting produced
 f  c '   n' tan  ' intercept and (b) suction
How to know?

 n'

What is the relationship of the failure criterion

in terms of principal stresses?

38

19
 1.4 Triaxial Tests and 2D Behavior of Soils
 1   3c   1
( 1  F / A)
Conventional 
triaxial apparatus

 3   3c 

Total stress path :

 3   3c  constant
 1   3c   1 ( 1  F / A)

39

 1  F / A
l is the vertical
displacement

 1i   3

Soil Specimen  3  pcell

'  u

40

20
 Triaxial test: the most important and popular test for
measuring shear strength and stress-strain curves of soils

Advantages: (i) pore pressure can be measured, (ii) the

strains can be determined, (iii) stresses are uniform.

Applications: Measuring strength parameters and

deformation parameters (e.g. Young’s modulus E and
shear modulus G)

41

Pore pressure is
measured electronic
transducer.

42

21
 Pore pressure is
measured electronic
transducer.

43

Two conventional triaxial apparatus in Soil Mechanics Laboratory

44

22
 A stress-path triaxial
apparatus in Soil
Mechanics Laboratory

45

Triaxial test: the most important and popular test for

measuring shear strength of soils
 1  F / A
l is the vertical
displacement  1i   3
 1   3   1
 1   3   1

Soil Specimen  3  p (cell water pressure)

46

23
 Triaxial test results – how to define failure ?
 3  150kPa
 1i   3
 1   3   1
 3  100kPa
 1   3   1

 1'   1  u
 3  50kPa
 3'   3  u
u is zero for drained test,
 1'   3'   3  50kPa

( 1  u )  ( 3  u )  3  100kPa
 3  150kPa

 1   3  q

q is called deviator stress or the principal stress difference.

47

Failure plane

'

1 1 1
 f  ( 1'   3' ) sin 2 ;  'f  ( 1'   3' )  ( 1'   3' ) cos 2
2 2 2
 is the angle between major principal plane and the failure plane
'
 2  90o   ' ;   45o 
2

48

24
 Consider vertical and horizontal force equilibrium Failure plane
of the triangular area of the specimen:
2 tan 
sin 2  2 sin con 
1  tan 2 
1  tan 2 
cos 2 
1  tan 2 
h

  2

 1' d   'f (d / cos  ) cos    f (d / cos  ) sin   0 (vertical  Fv  0)

 '
  3 (d tan  )   f (d / cos  ) sin    f (d / cos  ) cos   0
'
(horizontal  Fh  0)
 1d   f d   f d tan   0
' '
 f   f tan    1
' '
 'f   f tan    1' (1)
 ' ;  ;  '
  3 (d tan  )   f d tan    f d  0  f tan    f   3 tan   f   f / tan    3
' ' ' '
(2)
(1)  (2) :  f tan    f / tan      '
1
'
3

 1'   3' 2 tan   '   3'  '   3'

 f  ( 1'   3' ) /(tan   1 / tan  )   1 sin 2  1 sin(  2 ) (3)
2 1  tan  2
2 2

49

Consider vertical and horizontal force equilibrium Failure plane

of the triangular area of the specimen:
2 tan 
sin 2  2 sin con 
1  tan 2 
1  tan 2
cos 2 
1  tan 2 
h
 1'   3'
From (3) :  f  sin(  2 )
2
d
 1'   3'
2

  2
 1'   3'
2
 1'   3'  1'   3'
 'f   cos(  2 )
From (1) and (3) : 2 2
tan 2   '   3'  '   3' ( 1'   3' ) 2 tan 2 
 'f   1'   f tan    1'  ( 1'   3' )  1  [ 1  ]
1  tan 
2
2 2 2 1  tan 2 
 '   3'  1'   3' 2 tan 2   '   3'  1'   3' 1  tan 2   2 tan 2 
 1  (1  ) 1  ( )
2 2 1  tan 
2
2 2 1  tan 2 
 '   3'  1'   3' 1  tan 2   1'   3'  1'   3'  '   3'  1'   3'
 1  ( )  cos 2  1  cos(  2 )
2 2 1  tan 2  2 2 2 2
The above is proof of Mohr circle :  f  c   f tan 
' ' '

50

25
 1
2
   3' )
( 1'

c ' cot  '

1
2
   3' )
( 1'

c ' cot  '  12 ( 1'   3' )

From Fig.4.2:
1( '  ')  
sin   ' 2 1 3

c cot  2 ( 1' 
' ' 1   3' )
( 1'   3' )  ( 1'   3' ) sin  '  2c ' cos ' or
' '
 1'   3' tan 2 (45o  )  2c ' tan(45o  )
2 2
This is Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion !

51

( 1'   3' )  ( 1'   3' ) sin  '  2c ' cos '

 cos 2  '  sin 2   1
 1 (1  sin
'
 ) 
'
3 (1  sin
'
 )  2c cos
' ' '

 cos(90o   ' )   sin  '

(1  sin  ) '
cos '
 1'   3'  2c ' sin(90o   ' )  cos '
(1  sin  )
'
(1  sin  ' )
(1  sin  ' )(1  sin  ' ) cos '
 1'   3'  2c '
(1  sin  ' ) 2 (1  sin  ' )
cos 2  ' cos '
 1'   3'  2c '
(1  sin  ' ) 2 (1  sin  ' )
sin 2 (90o   ' ) ' sin(90   )
o '
 1'   3'  2 c
[1  cos(90o   ' )]2 1  cos(90o   ' )
 sin 
 tan 
2 1  cos
' '
 1'   3' tan 2 (45o  )  2c ' tan(45o  )
2 2
This is Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion !

52

26
 ( 1'   3' )  ( 1'   3' ) sin  '  2c ' cos '
 1' (1  sin  ' )   3' (1  sin  ' )  2c ' cos '
(1  sin  ' ) cos '
 1'   3'  2c '
(1  sin  ' ) (1  sin  ' )
(1  sin  ' ) ' 1  sin 
2 '
 1'   3'  2c
(1  sin  ' ) (1  sin  ' )
(1  sin  ' ) ' (1  sin  )(1  sin  )
' '
 1'   3'  2c
(1  sin  ' ) (1  sin  ' ) 2
(1  sin  ' ) ' 1  sin 
'
 1'   3'  2c
(1  sin  ' ) 1  sin  '

This is Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion – another form !

53

1
2
   3' )  12 [( 1  u )  ( 3  u )]
( 1'
 12 ( 1   3 )
1
2
   3' )  12 [( 1  u )  ( 3  u )]
( 1'
 12 ( 1   3 )  u

1
   3' )  a '  12 ( 1'   3' ) tan  '
'
2( 1
This is Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion – another
( 1'   3' )  ( 1'   3' ) tan  '  2a '
form !
( 1'   3' )  ( 1'   3' ) sin  '  2c ' cos '

2a '  2c ' cos '  a '  c ' cos '

tan  '  sin  '   '  tan 1 (sin  ' )
or c '  a ' / cos ' ;  '  sin 1 (tan  ' )

54

27
 q  ( 1'   3' ) ( 1'   3' )  ( 1   3 )
p '  13 ( 1  2 3 )  u
 p u

 p '  13 ( 1'  2 3' )

a This is Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion – another form !
q  a  p ' tan  ; ( 1'   3' )  a  13 ( 1'  2 3' ) tan 
q   1'   3' , t   1'   3'  q  t  2 1' ,  1'  (t  q ) / 2, t  q  2 3' ,  3'  (t  q ) / 2
tq 3t  q
q  a  13 ( 1'  2 3' ) tan   a  13 (  t  q) tan   a  13 ( ) tan 
2 2
6q  6a  (3t  q) tan   6q  q tan   6a  3t tan 
q(6  tan  )  6a  3t tan  (below obtained ) : Compare (4) to (5) :
6 a 3 tan  3 tan  3M
( 1'   3' )   ( 1'   3' ) (4) sin  '  
6  tan  6  tan  6  tan  6  M
( 1'   3' )  2c ' cos  '  ( 1'   3' ) sin  ' (5) 2c ' cos  ' 
6a
 c' 
3a 1
6  tan  6  tan  cos  '
3 tan  6 sin  ' 6 sin  '
 sin  '  tan    M    tan 1 ( )
6  tan  3  sin  '
3  sin  '
6a 6 cos  '
 2c ' cos  '  a  c ' cos  ' (6  tan  ) / 3 
6  tan  3  sin  '

55

Example 1.1
The results shown in the following first table were obtained at failure in a series of triaxial
tests on specimens of a saturated clay initially 38mm in diameter by 76 mm long. Determine
the values of the shear strength parameters with respect to (a) total stress and (b) effective
stress. Discuss why UU tests show zero friction angle in terms of total stress.

Solution:
The principal stress difference at failure in each test is obtained by dividing the axial load
by the cross-sectional area of the specimen at failure (second table). The corrected cross-
sectional area is calculated:
1 v
A  A0
1 a
The is no volume change during an undrained test on a saturated clay. The initial values
are:
l 0  76 mm , A0  1135 mm 2 ; V0  86  10 3 mm 3

The total stress parameters, representing the unconsolidated and undrained (UU) strength
of the clay, are:
cu  85 kN / m ,  u
2

The effective stress parameters, representing the consolidated and drained (CD) strength
of the clay, are:
c '  0,  '  27 o

56

28
 Area correction Ao
The corrected area A is: A Lo
Vo  V Lo Ao  LA L
v   
Vo Lo Ao
Lo
A  Ao(1   v )
L
L L  L  L Lo  ( L o  L) ( L  L)
  o o  1 o 1 a
Lo Lo Lo Lo
1  v Vo  V V
 A  Ao v  
1 a Vo Vo

v is the volume strain; L o  L L

a  
a is axial strain; Lo Lo
Compression strains and stresses are positive in Soil
Mechanics.
57

3
Unconsolidated
Undrained (UU )

Consolidat ed
Drained (CD )

Effective stress
 ue  0

58

29
 From 3 UU tests : From 3 CD tests :
c u  85kPa, u  0
c '  0,  '  27o
why u  0 ?
Answer: The three soil specimens must come from the same depth of the ground
at which, the initial effective stress was the same. Undrained consolidation does
not change the initial effective stress. In fact, cu increases with the initial
effective stress:
c u  (0.2 ~ 0.4) v'

59

Example 1.2
Based on the data in Table 1, use the method of q-p’ plot to determine the values of the shear
strength parameters with respect to (a) total stress and (b) effective stress.

Solution:
See tables and figure below
Cell pressure 3 Axial deformation Volume change
(kPa) Axial load (N) (mm) (ml=cm^2)
UU test 200 222 9.83 0.00
UU test 400 215 10.06 0.00
UU test 600 226 10.28 0.00
CD test 200 403 10.81 6.60
CD test 400 848 12.26 8.20
CD test 600 1265 14.17 9.50

q=1-3 p=(1+23)/3
3 (kPa) 1=l/lo v=v/Vo A (mm^2) (kPa)  (kPa) (kPa)
UU test 200 0.1293 0.0000 1302.6 170.4 370.4 256.8
UU test 400 0.1324 0.0000 1307.1 164.5 564.5 454.8
UU test 600 0.1353 0.0000 1311.5 172.3 772.3 657.4
CD test 200 0.1422 0.0766 1220.9 330.1 530.1 310.0
CD test 400 0.1613 0.0951 1223.6 693.0 1093.0 631.0
CD test 600 0.1864 0.1102 1240.4 1019.8 1619.8 939.9

60

30
 1200

1000
y = 1.0952x - 5.7259
R² = 0.9996
800

3 tan  3M
sin  ' 
q (kPa)

600 
6  tan  6  M
400
y = 0.0049x + 166.86 3a 1
R² = 0.0564 c' 
200
6  tan  cos  '
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
p (kPa)

1200

1000
y = 1.0874x
R² = 0.9996
800
q (kPa)

600

400

200 y = 0x + 169.08

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
p (kPa)

UU tests UU tests (u=0) CD tests CD tests (c'=0)

a= 166.86 169.08 kPa -5.7259 kPa 0 kPa
tan()= 0.0049 0 1.0952 1.087
sin(')= 0.0024 0 0.46 0.46
= 0.14 0.00 degree 27.60 degree 27.41 degree
c= 83.36 84.54 kPa -2.73 kPa 0.00 kPa

61

1.5 True Triaxial Tests and 3D Behavior of Soils

Truly Triaxial System (TTS): control of 3 independent parameters
Test Types:
(i) Change to any principle stress – varying b-value
(ii) Plane strain tests
Problems:
Interference at the corners
(a) non-uniform stresses
(b) small compression
1

3
2 62

62

31
 Development of failure criteria and
constitutive models
Extension to/study
in a general stress
space: advanced
lab facilities are
needed.

Useful to engineers:
Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion gives
more conservative
strength – on the safe
side !
Failure surfaces in plane63

63

Type 1: 6 sliding rigid plate

Rigid sliding plates Cubical soil specimen inside

(a) A schematic view of a rigid boundary true triaxial loading frame

with six sliding rigid plates (Hambly 1969, Pearce 1972, Arrey and
Wood 1988) 64

64

32
 Cambridge type TTS - six sliding rigid plates
Photo courtesy of Professor Muir-Wood

65

65

A special chamber filled with de-aired water Piston to apply vertical force with LVDT
(or oil) to apply confining pressure outside to measure vertical displacement

New sliding
Sliding design
Load cell inside – one vertical
and two horizontal loading
Flexible tubing
for water
drainage/back
Piston to apply
horizontal force
with LVDT
plates and
water pressure outside to
measure
horizontal
setup
displacement
(both left and
Sliding design right sides)

A brick shaped
soil specimen
in sealed
rubber
membrane

Sliding design
No Interference
Flexible tubing
at the corners
for water
drainage/back
water pressure using sliding
Sliding design plates
66

66

33
 New sliding
loading
plates and
setup

No Interference at the
corners using sliding plates 67

67

Yin’s Sliding
Plates Inside

68

68

34
 Yin’s Sliding
Chamber is Plates Inside
filled with
water and
closed

69

69

70

70

35
 The whole system
71

71

HK CDG (Completely Decomposed Granite)

72

72

36
 Effect of the magnitude of the intermediate principal
stress on sand

 2   3  0 triaxial compression
b 
 1  3  1 triaxial extension

 '  47.8o

73

1.6 Concluding Remarks

• Real soil behavior is complicated
• No models can capture/reproduce all soil behavior
features
• Simple models are developed and used. But they shall
at least reproduce the soil behavior that is dominant in
the problem under investigation,
for example:
(a) for soil instability (slope failure), the soil failure
shall be reproduced
(b) for settlement analysis, proper stiffness shall be
reproduced.

74

37