See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266145290

Comparison of standards for conducting CIU tests and analysis of test results

Conference Paper · January 2011

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1278.0801

CITATIONS READS

0 4,386

3 authors, including:

Ivana Lukic Kristić Davor Barać

University of Mostar 4 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
16 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Prediction of the nonlinear load - settlement relationship for shallow foundations on granular soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ivana Lukic Kristić on 28 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of standards for conducting CIU tests and analysis of test results

IVANA LUKIĆ, B.S.C.E.

Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Mostar, 88000 Mostar, Matice hrvatske bb
e-mail: ivana.lukic@gfmo.ba; phone: ++387 36 355 024
DAVOR BARAĆ, B.S.C.E.
Department of Planning, Studies and Environmental Protection, Institut IGH, d.d.
Janka Rakuše 1, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: davor.barac@igh.hr; phone: ++385 1 6125 492
VEDRAN SKOPAL, B.S.C.E.
Department for Hydrotechnics, Institut IGH, d.d.
Janka Rakuše 1 p.p. 283, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: vedran.skopal@igh.hr; phone: ++385 1 6125 343

ABSTRACT
The conduct of triaxial tests and use of test results undoubtedly facilitate rationalization during
construction of geotechnical structures and civil engineering structures in general. One of the
standards most commonly used in Croatia is the standard BS 1377:1990, Part 8, paragraph 7. In
addition to this standard, some other standards and recommendations are also applied (ASTM D 4767
– 04; ISO/TS 17892-9:2004; ISSMGE ETC5-F1.97; Simons, N., Menzies, B.(2000)). Standards
currently in use are compared, and their applicability in real-life design situations is analyzed. A note
is also made of test specification steps, given the specifics of materials falling within the hard soil to
soft rock range.

Keywords: CIU test, Triaxial test, Saturation, Consolidation, Compression, Failure

SAŽETAK

Provođenje troosnih pokusa i upotreba rezultata ispitivanja nedvojbeno znatno doprinose

racionalizaciji tijekom izgradnje geotehničkih i općenito građevinskih konstrukcija. Jedan od najčešće
korištenih standarda u Hrvatskoj je standard BS 1377:1990, Dio 8, točka 7. Osim ovog standarda,
primjenjivi su još neki standardi i preporuke(ASTM D 4767 – 04; ISO/TS 17892-9:2004; ISSMGE
ETC5-F1.97;Simons, N., Menzies, B.(2000)). Napravljena je i usporedba dostupnih standarda te je
obrađena njihova primjenjivost u realnim situacijama. Također je dan i osvrt na zadavanje pokusa uz
specifičnosti materijala koji spada u raspon tvrdih tla odnosno mekih stijena.

Ključne riječi: CIU pokus, troosni pokus, zasičenost, slijeganje, zbijanje, slom
1 INTRODUCTION

The CIU (isotropically consolidated and undrained) test determines the undrained strength of a
specimen subjected to known initial effective stresses while monitoring the pore pressure level during
shear. Parameters of effective shear strength at failure (c ' and φ') are determined from a set of tests.
The test is performed in three stages (1) saturation, (2) consolidation, and (3) compression or shear.
The first two stages saturate the specimen and bring it to the initial state of effective stress, while the
third stage compresses (shears) the consolidated specimen while measuring axial deformation, axial
pressure and pore pressure, followed by analysis and interpretation of results.
Several standards for conducting CIU tests are currently in use. Considering the time difference in
preparation and coming into effect between the individual standards, the standards may vary on some
points (specimen saturation, rate of shear etc.), which brings into question the comparability and
applicability of test results obtained by different standards.
This paper compares the standards in use and analyzes their applicability in real-life design
situations. A note is also made of test specification steps, given the specifics of materials falling within
the range of hard soil of soft rock.

2 BECKGROUND AND ASSSUMPTIONS

The test is performed in three stages (1) saturation, (2) consolidation, and (3) compression or shear.
Each of the individual test stages has specific assumptions and limitations under which the test is
developed. The aim of the saturation stage is to ensure that all voids are filled with water. This is
generally achieved by increasing the pore pressure in the specimen to a level high enough for the water
to absorb into solution all the air initially in the voids.
A scrutiny of all of the four standards reveals that the pore pressure can be increased using two
methods:
• by applying the back pressure to the specimen, while increasing the cell pressure to maintain a
small positive effective stress; and
• by increasing the cell pressure only.
The degree of saturation is estimated by determining the value of the pore pressure coefficient B-the
criterion B ≥ 0.95 represents a reasonable degree of saturation.
The aim of the consolidation stage it to bring the specimen to the state of effective stress required
for carrying out the compression test. Data obtained from the consolidation stage are used for
estimating a suitable rate of strain to be applied during compression, for determining when
consolidation is completed, and for calculating the dimensions of the specimen at the beginning of the
compression stage.
One of the primary objectives of the standards is providing the parameters to be used as a basis for
defining the rate of shear, which must be large enough for practical reasons of the test process and
small enough to ensure a uniform distribution of pore pressures.

3 COMPARISON OF THE PROCEDURE

3.1 Saturation
Saturating a specimen is an extremely sensitive procedure, since the application of backpressure
during saturation may damage the internal structure of the specimen. For this reason, all of the norms
stipulate maximum allowable differential pressures and a gradual saturation process.
Analyzing the specimen saturation procedures described in the individual standards, it was
concluded that all of the standards generally suggest the method of saturating the specimen by
increasing the pore pressure in the specimen to a level high enough for water to absorb into solution all
the air initially in voids. This can be achieved using two methods - by increasing the cell pressure, or
increasing the cell and back pressures, depending on whether the specimen is sensitive to swelling or
not. Specifically, if the specimen is sensitive to swelling, it is not appropriate to saturate the specimen
by using the backpressure, but only by applying the cell pressure.
Table 1 shows the saturation procedures stipulated in the standards.

BS 1377: Part 8: 1990

Saturation procedure
Saturation by increments of cell pressure and back pressure, increment size max 50
kPa, differential pressure 5 – 20 kPa.
Saturation at constant water content (increasing the cell pressure only) - 50 or 100
kPa.
Note / Explanation
In both cases, after applying the pressure, it is necessary to monitor the
stabilization of pore pressure, after which the pore pressure parameter B is
calculated.
ASTM D 4767 – 04
Saturation procedure
Saturation using increments of back pressure - increment size 35-140 kPa,
differential pressure max. 35 kPa.
Note / Explanation
This process is preceded by the process of saturation of the drainage system, where
we can distinguish:
• applying vacuum to the specimen and dry drainage system and then allowing
deaired water to flow through the system and specimen;
• saturating the drainage system by boiling porous disks in water and allowing
the water to flow through the system prior to mounting the specimen.
ISO/TS 17892-9:2004 and ISSMGE ETC5-F1.97
Saturation procedure
Saturation using backpressures incrementally.
Note / Explanation
Effective stresses acting on the specimen must not exceed specified effective
consolidation stresses.
Simons, N., Menzies, B. (2000)
Note / Explanation
• Saturate the specimen at a slow rate;
• The specimen is also to be fully saturated at failure.
Table 1.

All of the standards specify that the satisfactory degree of saturation is achieved when the pore
pressure parameter B ≥ 0.95, except in following situations:
• A value B<0,95 is acceptable if a 50% increase in backpressure can be shown to produce no
increase in the value of B
 • Achieving B ≥ 0.95 may not be possible in some stiff fissured clays, so a value B ≥ 0.90 that
remains unchanged after three consecutive increments of cell and back pressures is considered
acceptable.
If it can be documented for a procedure to give satisfactory results, then measuring the pore
pressure parameter B is not required.

3.2 Consolidation
The effective state of stress is defined by the actual geological state in situ, construction patterns
followed, processes in operation, etc. The consolidation procedure is generally the same in all of the
standards and is carried out by increasing the effective stress in the specimen to the desired value by
increasing the cell pressure and dissipating the excess pore pressure to an appropriate backpressure.
However, the standards vary in interpreting when consolidation is complete and when shear begins.
According to BS 1377: Part 8: 1990, consolidation can be considered complete when dissipation has
reached at least 95% of the initial excess pressure. According to ASTM D 4767-04, it is necessary to
allow consolidation to continue for at least one log cycle of time or one overnight period after reaching
100% primary consolidation, while according to ISO/TS 17892-9:2004 and ISSMGE ETC5-F1.97,
consolidation is to be completed before beginning of shear.
An additional requirement in BS 1377: Part 8: 1990 applies to the level of backpressure, which
should not be less than the level of pore pressure in the final step of the saturation stage, or 300 kPa,
whichever is greater.
During the dissipation of pore pressure, it is necessary to measure changes in volume of the
specimen in order to plot a graph of volume change versus square-root time from which to read data
for estimating a suitable rate of strain to be applied during compression.

3.3 Compression
During the compression stage, the cell pressure is maintained constant while the specimen is sheared
at a constant rate of axial deformation until failure occurs (or some other previously specified
condition is satisfied).
The rate of strain during compression is important in the CIU test because it is necessary to allow
equalization of the pore pressure throughout the specimen in order to be able to measure a
representative pore pressure at ends of the specimen.
Table 2 shows expressions for calculation of the rate of shear specified in individual standards.

BS 1377: Part 8: 1990

Compression rate
ε × LC
f
dr =
t
f

Note / Explanation
LC – length of the consolidated specimen (in mm);
Єf – significant strain interval;
tf – significant testing time (in min);
tf – depends on dimensions of the specimen,
drainage conditions, consolidation results.
 ASTM D 4767 – 04
Compression rate
εf
`ε =
10t
50

Note / Explanation
t50 – time for 50% consolidation (in min);
εf – estimated strain at failure.

ISO/TS 17892-9:2004 and ISSMGE ETC5-F1.97

Compression rate
( Hi − ∆Hc ) × ε1 f
vmax =
F ×t
50

Note / Explanation
This term is basically the same as the expression in BS 1377: Part 8: 1990, except
that it uses the measure of time for 50% consolidation, while the BS 1377 specifies
using the time t required for completing 100% primary consolidation.
Simons, N., Menzies, B. (2000)
Note / Explanation
In the case of an undrained test with measurement of pore pressure, the loading rate
must be low enough to ensure that the measured pore pressure is representative of
the entire specimen, but no methods or recommendations are specified as to how to
achieve the required condition.
Table 2.

4 ANALYSIS OF CIU TEST RESULTS

4.1 Specifics of the CIU test in hard soils and soft rocks
In principle, none of the standards specifies how to perform an analysis of test results or how one can
determine the required calculation parameters. This is left to designers to do by themselves with regard
to actual problems under consideration, particularly considering the sensitivity of the CIU test to
initially specified parameters and specifics of the materials such as hard soils and these are e.g. highly
overconsolidated clays or silts.
Figure 1 shows stratification of soil in the cutting; a layer of humus and silty clay are near the top,
while the layers downward change from highly weathered marls (about the middle) toward distinctly
weathered and crumbled limestones (bottom). Intermediate strata show a transition to highly
weathered rock (HW, RQD ≈ 0%) and hard clay. It is these very materials, with uniaxial compressive
strengths ranging from 0.25 to 1 MPa, that are particularly interesting.
The specifics of the CIU tests in such materials is not so much in the results as in designer's
understanding of their behavior and in specifying the test to achieve the conditions actually prevailing
in the material in situ, or conditions expected under additional construction loads.
4.2 On the test specification
Prior to analysis of CIU test results, several remarks are due on the specification of the CIU test and
role of the designer in this process. To ensure the proper procedure, the designer for his/her part must
perform the following:
• Identify the purpose and type of construction for which to carry out the test and accordingly
request the appropriate type of specimen (undisturbed or disturbed, or appropriately pretreated
specimen).
• Define values of initial effective cell pressures (s3') that correspond to in situ effective horizontal
stresses (sH') in soil. The reason for this is to preempt sizing of geotechnical structures with
incorrectly evaluated parameters and potential disastrous consequences that may result.
• As the behavior of soil depends on the stress path, the designer should specify such a mode of the
test as to ensure that the test will simulate as accurately as possible the geological states, project
situations and situations in using the structure.

Figure 1. A view of stratification in a cutting; from humus to weathered rock.

4.3 Relative vertical strain at failure

Results of each CIU test are presented depending on the failure criterion. Regardless of the failure
criteria, it is necessary to give consideration to the measure of relative vertical strain at failure.
Thus, for example, according to recommendations from the book Manual of Soil Laboratory
Testing (K.H. Head., Pentech Press Ltd., Graham Lodge, Graham Road, London NW4 3DG, 1986.),
any relative vertical strain greater than 20% makes the accuracy of stress measurements seriously
questionable.
 Values of relative vertical strain should be closely monitored in a CIU test because it is a good
indicator for selection of the failure criteria according to which the strength parameters will be read.

4.4 Failure criteria

Before the test begins, it is necessary to specify the failure criterion according to which the test results
will be defined. The failure criterion should be selected according to the type of soil and in situ
conditions in the originally sampled soil.
Some of the following failure criteria are commonly used:
• Visible failure, or appearance of a visually detectable failure plane on the specimen.
• Leveling (or reaching the maximum) of the curve in the graph of deviatoric stress (s1' - s3')
versus relative vertical strain.
• Reaching a predetermined value of strain (Anderson, W.F.: The use of multi-stage triaxial tests to
find the undrained strength parameters of stony boulder clay, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., TN 89,
1974.).
• Reaching the maximum value of the s1'-to-s3' effective stress ratio. This criterion is particularly
reliable for CIU tests. As the test progresses, it is desirable to draw a graph of the relationship
between (s1'/s3') and relative vertical strain. In addition, this ratio is indicative of the state of
overconsolidation in the material, because this ratio reaches its maximum in overconsolidated
soils sooner than in a normally consolidated soil. For this reason, this failure criterion is
particularly interesting for hard soils.
• For CIU tests on specimens of soil that is not subject to dilatation, it is also possible to use the
change in pore pressure as the relevant failure criterion; excess pore pressure reaches its highest
value approximately at the same time as the (s1'/s3') ratio reaches its maximum.

4.5 Presentation of results

Triaxial test results are presented in some of the selected stress planes, or using some of the selected
strength criteria.
The most commonly used plane or criterion is the Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion, which
describes failure of a material with the contact of the circle of principal effective stresses (s1', s3') and
line of shear strength τ f = c + σ ntgφ in the graph showing the relationship between normal ( σ n ) and
shear ( τ f ) stresses. The gradient of shear strength line gives the internal friction angle „ ϕ “, while the
intercept on y-axis (or τ f ) represents the cohesion „c“.

Other existing strength criteria and strength path diagrams should be used when deemed
appropriate. Some of those other criteria are, for example, the so-called MIT strength criterion
(Lambe, T.W. & Whitman, R.V.: Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York, 1979.), or the so-called
Cambridge strength criterion (Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N. & Wroth, C.P.: On the yielding of soils,
Geotechnique 8:1:22, 1958.)

5 CONCLUSION

Conducting triaxial tests and using test results undoubtedly facilitate the rationalization during
construction of geotechnical structures and civil engineering structures in general. Namely, behavior
of soil in different situations during construction and use of a structure can be considerably more
realistically described using triaxial tests in relation to data obtained by other laboratory tests.
Particular consideration should be given, among other things, to usability of triaxial test results.
Namely, it is important to distinguish between the concepts of correctness, accuracy and usability of
test results. The correctness of test results depends on the correctness and accuracy in carrying out
triaxial tests themselves. The comparison of standards established that there is no significant
 difference between particular standards and recommendations. Conditions and procedure for
performing triaxial tests (possibilities and limitations) are clearly defined by any of the described
standards and, adhering to them, it is possible to speak about accuracy of conducted tests with a
satisfactory confidence.
However, an entirely different category is the usability of test results and that should be particularly
taken into account. In addition to accuracy and correctness, usability is to a large extent dependable on
the test specification, specific for a particular purpose. Namely, if a test has been specified incorrectly
at the very beginning ("missed the point"), then even a perfect accuracy in performing the test will not
provide results usable for the particular case, no matter how accurate they are by themselves.

REFERENCES

[1] Anderson, W.F. (1974); The use of multi-stage triaxial tests to find the undrained strength
parameters of stony boulder clay, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., TN 89
[2] ASTM D 4767 – 04 (2004); Standard test method for Consolidated Triaxial Compression test for
cohesive soils, ASTM International, United States
[3] BS 1377: Part 8: 1990 (1990); Shear strength tests (effective stress), British Standards Institution
[4] Head, K.H. (1986); Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, Pentech Press Ltd., Graham Lodge,
Graham Road, London NW4 3DG
[5] ISO/TS 17892-9:2004 (2004); Consolidated triaxial compression tests on water-saturated soil,
ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
[6] ISSMGE (1998); Recommendations of the ISSMGE For Geotechnical Laboratory Testing,
english/deutsch/française, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin.
[7] Lambe, T.W. & Whitman, R.V. (1979); Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York
[8] Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N. & Wroth, C.P. (1958): On the yielding of soils, Geotechnique
8:1:22
[9] Simons, N., Menzies, B. (2000); A short course in foundation engineering, 2nd edition, Thomas
Telford Ltd, London

View publication stats