UNDRAINED STRENGTH INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG

CIUC, UU, AND UC TESTS

By Yit-Jin Chen, j Associate Member, ASCE, and

Fred H. Knlhawy, 2 Fellow, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Consolidated-isotropically undrained, triaxial compression (CIUC),

unconsolidated-undrained, triaxial compression (UU), and unconfined compres-
sion (UC) test results were used to develop interrelationships for the undrained
shear strengths (Su) obtained from these test types. Stress path evaluations were
used to provide a general framework for interpretation of these interrelationships.
The results show that the normalized undrained strengths [s,(UU or UC)/s,(CIUC)]
are dependent on the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) or undrained strength ratio
(s,/6~o). Softer clays have lower normalized undrained strength, while harder clays,
including fissured clays, result in higher normalized undrained strength. Suggested
correlations for these normalized undrained strengths or undrained strength ratios,
as well as the linear regression data and confidence intervals corresponding to one
standard deviation, are presented in this paper and show a consistent data popu-
lation. Direct comparison of s, from UU and UC tests shows that the UU results
are closer to the CIUC results than the UC results, which is consistent with general
supposition.

INTRODUCTION

The undrained shear strength (s,) is an i m p o r t a n t p a r a m e t e r for describing

the consistency of cohesive soils. It is a m e a s u r e d response of soil during
undrained loading with an assumption of zero volume change, but it is not
a fundamental soil property. In measuring s,, m o r e than a dozen l a b o r a t o r y
and field tests are used in practice.
It is known that s. is affected by the m o d e of testing, b o u n d a r y conditions,
rate of loading, confining stress level, initial stress state, and other variables
[e.g., L a d d et al. (1977), W r o t h (1984), and Kulhawy and M a y n e (1990)].
Therefore, it is expected that different test types (such as C I U C , U U , U C ,
etc.) should produce different test results for s,. Because of these variations,
a standard "test of r e f e r e n c e " is truly necessary, which can be simply and
conveniently c o m p a r e d with the results of other tests and which is generally
viable from a commercial testing standpoint.
The consolidated-isotropically, triaxial compression test for u n d r a i n e d
loading ( C I U C ) satisfies the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d criteria and has been recom-
mended commonly as the standard reference [e.g., W r o t h (1984)]. This test
also is considered to be the m i n i m u m quality l a b o r a t o r y test for evaluating
s,, because it is logical to use for high-quality field samples, reestablishes a
state of stress in the soil that is a p p r o x i m a t e l y consistent with the o v e r b u r d e n
stress, minimizes the sampling disturbance effects, and includes a recon-
solidation phase.
Although the geotechnical community generally should consider the C I U C

tSr. Engr., Sinotech Engrg. Consultants, Inc., 171 Nanking East Road, Section
5, Taipei, Taiwan.
2prof., School of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Cornell Univ., Hollister Hall, Ithaca,
NY 14853-3501.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on December 17,
1991. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnicai Engineering, Vol. 119, No.
11, November, 1993. 9 ISSN 0733-9410/93/0011-1732/$1.00 + $.15 per page.
Paper No. 3174.
1732

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 test as the basic or minimum standard for design, inevitable situations pre-
sent themselves in which only the results from unconsolidated-undrained
(UU) triaxial tests or unconfined compression (UC) tests are available. This
situation is especially true when evaluating older case histories that have
only limited test data. It is well-known that there can be considerable error
in both the U U and U C tests because of sampling disturbance and omission
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of reconsolidation during testing [e.g., Ladd and Lambe (1963), N o o r a n y

and Seed (1965), Ladd et al. (1977), and Tavenas and Leroueil (1987)].
Nevertheless, when these test results have to be used by default, it is useful
to have a reference frame to correlate them to "equivalent C I U C results."
In this paper, data are reviewed to assess the interrelationships for s,
among CIUC, U U , and U C tests. The resulting correlations are evaluated
statistically and provide a useful procedure to determine s, in a more mean-
ingful manner.

STRESS PATH EVALUATION

A first-order approximation of the interrelationships among C I U C , U U ,

and UC tests can be made by a simple stress path evaluation, using the
basic procedure described by Lambe and Whitman (1969). This procedure
requires Skempton's A parameter (Skempton 1954), (rs/(rp,, (rp,/(rvo, O C R ,
Ko, and $, in which #, = effective stress for actual sampling, #p~ =
effective stress for perfect sampling, dr~o = effective overburden stress,
O C R = overconsolidation ratio, Ko = at-rest coefficient of horizontal soil
stress (#ho), and $ = effective stress friction angle from a triaxial compres-
sion test. Ideally, these parameters should be determined for the actual soil
conditions in situ. However, for general evaluations of the type described
herein, the following observations should suffice:

1. Skempton's A parameter: The effective stress path is dominated by

the value of the A parameter. However, it is sufficient to estimate the
effective stress path if the initial A (Ai) and A at failure (Af) are given.
According to Ladd (1964), Ai is close to 1/3 at very small axial strain for
any stress history and is equal to 1/3 for elastic behavior. A s is related to
O C R and can be estimated conveniently from the figure given by Mayne
and Stewart (1988).
2. (rslCrp, and ~rpsl(rvo: Because of a change in the soil structure resulting
from sampling and testing, the preshear effective stresses in situ are different
from those in the laboratory. Before sampling, a soil element in situ is at

TABLE 1. Example Parameters to Estimate Normalized Undrained Strengths

OCR b
Clay stres~ OCR 6"p,/~r~oa 6",/6"p, before s.(UU or UC)/
history Test type in eitu average range shearing A? A[ d s.(CIUC)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9)
NC UU or UC 1 =0.6 0.11-0.43 4-15 0.33 0.0-0.2 35-70%
NC CIUC 1 ~1 0.33 0.8-1.2 35-70%
MOC UU or UC 7 ~1.3 0.01-0.34 15-500 0.33 -0.2-0.0 55-95%
MOC CIUC 7 ~7 0.33 0.0-0.2 55-95%
a6"pfl6",oin MOC was taken as average of NC and HOC.
bOverconsolidationratio = in situ overconsolidationratio/(6-p,/6-~o)(dr,/6-p~).
CSkemptonA parameter, initial (Ladd 1964).
aSkemptonA parameter, failure (Mayneand Stewart 1988).

1733

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 O,J o) In-Silu OCR=I
Kf l i n e - ~
I qo=lower su (UU or UC) . ~ " ~ ( ~ = 2(~=26.6"
6.6"
b" qb =upper su (UU or UC)
qr
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

qc:su(CZUC ) ~,,,.,r,, ,
O"
r qb
OJ
03
qo
03
/ / / \)
./ / I t . 1 ~.._.
~S (lower) (~' (upper} (~ho (~ps (TVO
Effective Normal Stress, ~ : ( ~ + ~ 3 ) / 2

od b) Tn-Situ OCR =7 Kf l i n e - ~ . ~

C qo = lower Su(UU or UC)

5=26.6*
' qc qb = upper Su(UU or UC) .,A~//"
b qb qc =su(clUc) .,f/ /
" ~ / //
CT 0J .// /t
jr ,,/ /
(n qe ~ /" ./
03 S /" /" iI
,,._ / ,/

~) .,. / I
J:: / / I 5"ps
0r) -/ "/ ~V"~0 ( = IIo'h ~--
O'$(lower} O's(upper} o

Effeclive Normal Stress, P:(Ol +~3)/2

FIG. 1. Stress Paths for Different Test Types on Normally Consolidated and Mod-
erately Overconsolidated Clays

its effective overburden ((Yvo) and horizontal (#ha) stresses. After sampling,
the in situ stress is reduced to #ps for ideal, perfect sampling and #s for
actual sampling, which includes disturbance. D a t a from Ladd and L a m b e
(1963) indicated that (~s/Om = 0.11-0.43 for Kawasaki clay (NC), 0.29-
0.43 for Lagunillas clay (NC), and 0.01-0.34 for Boston blue clay (MOC).
Ladd and L a m b e (1963) also indicated that (YJ6rvo = 0.35-0.80 for typical
ranges of NC clay and up to 2.0 for a specific case of H O C clay. [Note: NC
= normally consolidated ( O C R = 1.0-1.3), L O C = lightly overconsoli-
1734
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.
 c)
E)
0.8
, o'
= f undrained strength " / / / . / . / . / J
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

::::) 0.4:
u
o Note: rib : 30*
2:) 0.2 Linear Kf line
Ai, Af, <Ys/~ given in Table I
U) 0 I I I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 I0
Overconsolidotion Rotio, OCR
FIG. 2. Estimated Effect of OCR on Normalized Undrained Strength from Stress
Path Evaluation

dated (OCR = 1.3-3), M a c = moderately overconsolidated (OCR = 3 -

10), and HOC = heavily overconsolidated (OCR > 10).]
3. Ko: The at-rest coefficient of horizontal soil stress is the (rho/(rvo ratio,
which is highly dependent on the soil geologic history. Mayne and Kulhawy
(1982) showed that Ko during primary unloading (unloading from virgin
loading) can be estimated from the following:
Ko = (1 - sin d~)OCR sin& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Using the information in items 1-3, illustrative effective stress paths were
developed for two representative clays. The first is a normally consoli-
dated clay, and the second is a moderately overconsolidated clay with
OCR = 7.
For simplicity and to demonstrate fundamental concepts, each clay was
assumed to have a linear failure (Ks) envelope with a slope (60 = 26.6 ~
(~ = 30~ Ratios of (rs/(rw and (rp,/(rvo were adopted from the results
of Ladd and Lambe (1963). A summary of the parameters used to estimate
s,(UU or UC)/s,(CIUC) for these two clays is presented in Table 1.
Fig. 1 shows the estimated effective stress paths for the aforementioned
data, including the CIUC, lowest ~rsl(rw, and highest ~Lldrw. The resulting
shear strengths (qa, qb, and qc) correspond to the intersection points (a, b,
and c) of the effective stress paths and the KI line. For these results, the
normalized undrained strengths (s,[UU or UC]/s,[CIUC]) are approxi-
mately equal to 35-70% and 55-95% for NC and M a c clays, respectively.
Fig. 2 further illustrates the estimated trend between the normalized un-
drained strengths and OCR based on the results from Fig. 1 and comparable
assumptions. These two simple cases suggest that s,(UU or UC)/s,(CIUC)
is relatively low for NC clay, but it increases with increasing OCR. Actual
test behavior is described in the following.

DATA BASE
A literature search was conducted to develop two data bases for undrained
shear strength from CIUC and UU tests and from CIUC and UC tests. The
1735

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 2. Database for CIUC and UU Tests

Index Propertiesa
Overcon- s.(UU)/
solidation! s. (CIUC) ~.(CIUC)/
Soil description (%)
wt (%)
wp I (%)w (k~/ma) G, I St DeP~9ih ratio (kN/m 2) s.(CIUC) ~,,o Source
Site
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Boston Vledium blue clay and Lambe (1963)

Lagunillas High plasticity clay and Lambe (1963)

Kawasaki High plasticity clay and Lambe (1963)

Beaumont High plasticity clay with i ahar and O'Neill

fissures and slickensides (1983)
Montgomery Light grey sandy clay with ahar and O'Neill
desiccation (1983)
co Hamilton Firm to stiff grey silty clay nael and Klym (1978)
o3

Lackland Expansive black to grey hnson and Stroman

clay (1984)
Fissured expansive clay
shale
Rio de Janeiro, Soft grey clay tmalho-Ortigao et al.

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

Guanabara Bay (1983)

South Padre Islanc Medium to stiff clay :ht and Drash (1985)

St. Alban Soft to medium silty clay r et al. (1982)

Boston Lean and moderately sen- (1972)

sitive blue clay
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Laboratory result Overconsofidated kaolin- 45 35 9.0 125.5 1.09 1.28 D u n c a n a n d Seed (1966)
ite 45 35 9.0 101.0 0.74 1.03
Hackensack Valley Varved clay 44 9 35 .9-15 1.8 61.6 0.98 0.60 Saxena et al. (1978)
Santa Barbara Firm Pleistocene clay 63 28 45 !0-60 1.6 85.0 0.75 0.36 Quiros a n d Y o u n g
Channel Hard silty clay 55 27 30 ~0-140 1.2 225.0 0.64 0.26 (1988)
Lakeland Cohesive slimes 32 22 32 18.8 0-33 1.1 100.0 0.45 0.41 L a d d (1991)
San Francisco Bay Soft grey clay (New Bay 88 43 92 14.0 6-10 1.4 27.0 0.77 0.43 Clough and D e n b y
Mud Mud) 90 45 95 14.7 i 0-15 1.3 35.0 0.77 0.44 (1980)
San Francisco Sandy clay 83 45 92 14.5 6-9 1.4 38.0 0.71 0.55 Clough a n d D e n b y
Soft grey clay 70 40 72 15.0 9-12 1.2 43.0 0.75 0.49 (1980)
Boston Marine iUitic blue clay 41 20 4.0 0.68 0.91 Kinner a n d Ladd (1973)
41 20 2.0 0.65 0.55
41 20 1.0 0.61 0.31
Anacostia Dark organic silty clay 67 32 60 15.7 4-6 2.1 34.2 0.53 0.46 M a y n e a n d Frost (1986)
83 57 80 13.6 6-9 2.1 59.7 0.38 0.32
Tuckerton Dark grey silty clay 42 22 42 16.0 8.0 130.0 1.08 2.03 Koutsoltas a n d Fischer
57 37 55 17.0 5.2 86.0 0.86 1.17 (1976)
Dark grey plastic clay 78 28 58 8-23 7.0 116.0 0.85 1.16
Ottawa Leda c l a y - - m o d e r a t e l y 46 14 72 26.0 6-9 3.1 97.5 1.18 1.08 Coates a n d McRostie
r preconsolidated clay 33 8 68 80.0 9-12 2.2 117.5 0.93 1.02 (1963)
..,4 with high plasticity and 34 9 51 114.0 2--15 2.0 125.0 0.62 0.95 Eden and Crawford
sensitivity 27 5 36 128.0 5-18 2.0 105.0 0.73 0.70 (1957)
38 28 52 84.0 8-21 1.6 115.0 0.65 0.68
Madingley 3rey fissured Gault clay 67 23 31 18.4 3-4 D.O 103.0 0.93 2.33 Windle and Wroth
with heavily overcon- 68 26 30 18.6 4-6 8.0 132.0 0.99 2.27 (1977a)
solidated clay 74 29 29 18.8 6-7 4-.0 140.0 0.99 2.00 Coop and W r o t h (1989)
Windle a n d W r o t h

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

(1977b)
Southeastern Very stiff clay with high 67 30 30 15.2 6.5 b 175,7 1.03 0.87 Endley et al. (1979)
Texas c plasticity 64 23 23 18.3 5.8 b 170.0 0.71 0.75
61 12 26 21.3 2.9 b 161.0 0.83 0.64
Empire c ~ine grey clay ~3 26 45 36.6 1.2 b 86.1 0.53 0.27 Cox et al. (1979)
Chicagoc H a r d silty clay 29 16 13 19.6 10.0 LOb 285.0 1.22 2.35 Holtz and B a k e r (1972)
awl = liquid limit; wp = plastic limit; w = in situ, natural water content; 3't = total unit weight; Gs = specific gravity of solids; and ~ = sensitivity.
hOverconsolidation ratio is inferred from the unit weight and Atterberg limits.
r ratio is estimated.
 TABLE 3. Normalized Undrained Strength Groupings
s.(UU)~.(cluc) s.(UC)~.(cluc)
Data set na Range Average n a Range Average
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
All 61 0.43-1.22 0.79 32 0.40-1.21 0.73
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NC 16 0.45-0.75 0.61 9 0.40-0.67 0.51

LOC 21 0.43-1.02 0.76 12 0.41-1.00 0.71
MOC 18 0.68-1.20 0.91 7 0.70-1.21 0.88
HOC 6 0.87-1.22 1.01 4 0.85-1.20 1.01
"n = number of data points.

400

Z~ NC
LOC ~ /data
/ A l l 9
9 MOC
300 9 HOC

/
NC
Jr

200
/
O
_=
/ 9

A/
HOC
100

MOC

JlIr LOC

0 100 200 300 400

Su(UU), kNlm 2

FIG. 3. Comparison of Undrained Shear Strength from ClUC and UU Tests

first included data collected from 25 sites (with 22 different clays) that
reported both s , ( C I U C ) and su(UU) tests; the second included 12 sites (12
different clays) with both su(CIUC) and s , ( U C ) tests. Although it would
be ideal to have comparable quality data sets, difficulties exist for nearly
any case study evaluation because most reference sources do not include
the detailed testing procedures, equipment, and other details that are basic
for evaluating the quality of data. However, these data are likely to be
representative, because the sites are distributed globally and include a va-
riety of soil types, ranging from soft to hard clays with stress histories from
normally consolidated to heavily overconsolidated.
Table 2 presents the data base for the C I U C and U U test results. In some
1738
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.
 TABLE 4. Comparison of CIUC and UU Data Plotted in Fig. 3
Standard
Data set • a n r2 deviation CP
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
All 1.077 54 0.773 27.9 0.69
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NC 1.698 13 0.937 13.1 0.66

LOC 1.273 21 0.919 12.9 0.67
MOC 1.041 16 0.775 21.9 0.66
HOC 0.877 4 0.928 21.7 0.58
as,(CIUC) = •
brZ = coefficient of determination, C1 = confidence interval corresponding to one
standard deviation.

3.0

$,(CIUC) / ~** = 0.243 + 0.821 s=(UU) / ~,, OO O

O

(n=81, r~=0.925, S.D.=0.140)

2.8
22 clays
NC
O) LOC Y = 0.383 + 0.821 X **
.."
2.0 9 MOC
9 HOC 9
n~'~..... -'"
(3 1.5
(3

"_ Y = 0.103 + 0.821 X

1.0

0.51

0 ~
0 0,5 1.0 1,5 2,0 2.8 3.0

s.(uu) / ~,,
FIG. 4. Comparison of Undrained Strength Ratios from CIUC and UU Tests

references, the stress histories were not reported. Therefore, in these cases,
the effective preconsolidation stress (6-p) was estimated as follows (Stas
and Kulhawy 1984):
dr
----'s = 10 (1"11-1"62LI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
P,,
in whichp~ = atmospheric stress in the desired stress units and LI = liquidity
index. Then the overconsolidation ratio ( O C R ) was computed as #p/6"vo.
The values of O C R , s , ( C I U C ) , s , ( U U ) , and s , ( U C ) in the data bases

1739

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 G') ,.e = ~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

O~

"~ o ~._o~-
i~ 9 ~ "~ ~.~.

0
~ 1 ~'

,,,,,J

o o

o~

,= ,~ ~, *~ ~.~
~,.~ .~ ~ "~,.~ ~,.~ ~ .~ ~

~=. 'S L.~,..= e - = ~ =

,.~ ~ ~ , ~.~,~,.~ c~ ,~::: ~.,~...~
..= -~ .= = = -~ .= ~ ' > ~ =- .-,=. ,. = ~ ~=

'- ~ - ~, ~ =

1740

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

South Padre Medium-stiff clay 57 26 29 8.2 1.2 95.5 0.40 0.58 !Focht a n d
Island 55 27 25 14.6 1.2 136.0 0,48 0.46 Drash (1985)
57 29 24 19.0 6.4 161.0 0.70 0,52 I
Kars Cemented Leda clay 51 23 45 .84 2.5-6 7.0 62.0 0.85 1.47 IRaymond (1972)
56 38 65 ,65 6-12 2.5 48.0 0.83 0.72
Ottawa Leda c l a y - - m o d e r - 46 14 72 26.0 6-9 3,1 97.5 0.82 1.08 Coates and
ately preconsoli- 33 8 68 80.0 9-12 2.2 117.5 0.70 1.02 McRostie
dated clay of high 34 9 51 114.0 12-15 2,0 125.0 0.76 0.95 '(1963)
plasticity and sensi- 27 5 36 128.0 15-18 2.0 105.0 0.78 0.70 ]Eden and Craw-
tivity 38 28 52 84.0 18-21 1.6 115.0 0.77 0.68 ford (1957)
Southeastern Very stiff clay with 67 30 30 15.2 6.5 c 175.7 0.83 O.87 Endley et al.
Texas b high plasticity 64 23 23 18.3 5.8 c 170.0 0.94 0.75 (1979)
61 12 26 21.3 2.9 ~ 161.0 0.55 0,64
Empire b Fine grey clay 83 26 46 36.6 1.2 ~ 86.1 0.45 0.27 Cox et al. (1979)
Chicagob Hard silty clay 31 14 13 19.3 3.7 17.0 ~ 195.0 0.92 2.50 Holtz and B a k e r
29 16 13 19.6 9.0 20,0 c 270,0 1.06 2.22 I (1972)
23 14 10 19.6 11.6 39.0 c 300.0 1.20 2.00
I
~w/ = liquid limit; wp = plastic limit; w = in situ, natural water content; ~, = total unit weight; G~ = specific ~ravity of solids; and S, = sensitivity.
bOverconsolidation ratio is estimated.
COverconsolidation ratio is inferred from unit weight and A t t e r b e r g limits.

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 1.5 I i . . . . . . i I !

su(UU)/Su(CIUC) - 0.911 § 0.499 log [su(UU)/ovo]

(n=81, rt=0.771, S.D.=0.094) 9 9 ..... 9
A 22 clays ..QII"~
O
_= 1.o ..e.~. ..... =4 ..... 9
Y - 1.005 * 0.499 Iog X ~ ~ 1 1 - ..... 9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 Nc
........ \ ~ LOC
Y = 0.817 + 0.499 log X 9 MOC
9 HOC
I I ' 018 ' ' i , I t I i
~ 0.2 0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0
s.(uu) / ~ , ,

FIG. 5. Normalized Undrained Strength versus Undrained Strength Ratio from

CIUC and UU Tests

were taken from either a single point or an average over a certain depth.
A maximum of five points per site was taken to minimize the influence on
the results by a specific site. In general, if the results were sparse with depth,
a single point in that depth was used. However, if the values were tightly
distributed with depth, an average s, over the depth was used, and O C R
was computed at mid-depth. Some references reported only the Su/Ervo ratios
[e.g., D'Appolonia (1972) and Kinner and Ladd (1973)], without giving
values of ~vo. For these cases, only the s,/Ervo relationships could be eval-
uated, and therefore there are different numbers of data points for the s,
and s,/~r~ o correlations in this paper.

COMPARISONS OF s. FROM CIUC A N D UU TESTS

For convenience, the soils in Table 2 were grouped into four classifica-
tions: NC, LOC, MOC, and HOC. The ranges and average normalized
undrained strengths within these groups were calculated and are shown in
Table 3. As can be seen, the normalized undrained strength increases with
increasing OCR, as was predicted by stress path analysis.
In Fig. 3, s,(CIUC) is plotted versus s,(UU). Table 4 includes the regres-
sion data, as well as the confidence interval (CI), corresponding to one
standard deviation, for these data. These regression data were based on the
least squares method, while the CI was calculated from the general formula
for a t confidence interval and t distribution (Neter and Wasserman 1974).
As can be seen, the slope flattens with increasing OCR.
The undrained strength ratio (s,/~rvo) is often adopted in engineering
analysis for convenience. Fig. 4 shows these ratios and the resulting regres-
sion information. Visual inspection shows that the regression line does not
pass through the origin. The CI value is 0.69 for upper and lower bounds
(denoted by dashed lines in Fig. 4) with one standard deviation.
As shown in Fig. 2, the normalized undrained strength can be correlated
to OCR from the stress path approach. Also, the undrained strength ratio
(s,/Ervo) is a function of the O C R (Ladd et al. 1977; Wroth and Houlsby
1742

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 400

A NC
LOC
All data
9 MOC /
300 9 HOC // 9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

/
/
///
(..) 200 /
/
_= NC

9 /
/
100
HOC

MOC
y-
00 100 200 300 400

Su(UC ), kN/m 2

FIG. 6. Comparison of Undrained Shear Strength from CIUC and UC Tests

TABLE 6. Comparison of CIUC and UC Data Plotted in Fig. 6

Standard
Data set • a n r 2 deviation CI b
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
All 1.067 32 0.739 33.6 0.67
NC 1.989 9 0.757 14.3 0.64
LOC 1.413 12 0,862 14.9 0.66
MOC 1.178 7 0.931 16.2 0.63
HOC 0.904 4 0.947 25,4 0.58
asu(CIUC ) = Xucs,(UC).
brZ = coefficient of determination, CI = confidence interval corresponding to one
standard deviation.

1985). Therefore, the n o r m a l i z e d u n d r a i n e d strength could be c o r r e l a t e d

with either s,/(rvo or O C R . F o r simplicity, s,/(rvo was used herein.
Fig. 5 shows the correlation b e t w e e n the normalized u n d r a i n e d strength
(s,[UU]/s,[CIUC]) and the u n d r a i n e d strength ratio (s,[UU]/(r~o) with 0.69
confidence interval for one standard deviation. A semi-log plot was used
because it resulted in a higher coefficient of d e t e r m i n a t i o n (r 2) than either
arithmetic or log-log plots. The m a x i m u m n o r m a l i z e d u n d r a i n e d strength
observed was 1.22 at a high u n d r a i n e d strength ratio.
The trend of this correlation is consistent with the stress path prediction
1743

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 3.0

su(CIUC) / ~ve 9 0.237 + 0.853 su(UC) I ~,o

(n-32, r2=0.942, $.D.=0.129) 9 •
2.6 12 clays
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 LOC Y = 0.366 + 0.853 X •. ,"

A
(3
2.0
L 9
9
MOC
HOC
~
,, . ,'~
,,."" 9

_= 1.5 f ~lb*~/o'
Y = 0.108 + 0.853 X

1,0

0.6

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

s.(UC) / ~ .
FIG. 7. Comparison of Undrained Strength Ratios from CIUC and UC Tests

1.5 I I . . . . . . I I

su(UC)/Iu(CIUC ) = 0.893 + 0.613 log [su(UC)/~vo]

(n=32, r2=0.792, S.D.=0.101) 9 ...m
12 clays ..........
1.0 <) ........ . ....
-- Y ,, 0.994 * 0.513 log X . . . ~ " ~ ' " " i ' "

~ ~ 1 o'7~176176176176176176176176
6 1 7 6.....I~~176176176
" . ~ ........ " \ ~) LOC
Y = 0.792 + 0.513 log X 9 MOC
9 HOC
0 1 I I I i i I I i l I
0.1 0.2 0.3 05 1.0 2.0 3.0
s.(uc) / ~ .
FIG. 8. Normalized Undrained Strength versus Undrained Strength Ratio from
ClUC and UC Tests

1744

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 400 . . . . , . . . . , . . . . , . . . .

LI NC
<) LOC
9 MOC / 9
,, HOC ~ /
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

300
(only 1 point) ////~/~

NC ////
..~ 200

~MOC "~AII data

100

~' 9 LOC

00 . . . . I
100
. . . . I
200
. . . . |
300
. . . .

400
s.(UC), kN/m=
FIG. 9. Comparison of Undrained Shear Strength from UU and UC Tests

TABLE 7. Com )arison of UU and UC Data Plotted in Fig. 9

Standard
Data set Xuc a n r2 deviation C1 b
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
All 1.lll 19 0.845 32.3 0.67
NC 1.310 7 0.867 35.1 0.63
LOC 1.097 6 0.397 23.6 0.61
MOC 0.987 5 0.586 31.2 0.60
HOC 1.065 1 c c c
%(wu) = xucsu(UC).
br2 = coefficient of determination, CI = confidence interval corresponding to one
standard deviation.
cData too few to compute.

in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 5, the normalized u n d r a i n e d strength increases

as the undrained strength ratio increases. A t low u n d r a i n e d strength ratios,
the differences between the C I U C and U U strengths are quite significant.
Considering the d a t a base for these comparisons, the softer, unstructured
clays generally have lower n o r m a l i z e d u n d r a i n e d strength, while the harder,
more structured, clays result in higher n o r m a l i z e d u n d r a i n e d strength. The
data population gives a r a t h e r tight fit, and it even includes fissured clays,
such as the B e a u m o n t , L a c k l a n d , and Madingley clays. T h e normalized
1745
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.
 3.0 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . ! . . . . I . . . .

Su(UU) I ~ 9 0.072 + 0.982 s,(UC) I o~ ,,

. S

(n-19, r2=0.983, S.D.-0.245) ... []

2.5 7 clays ,,'" /
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Z~ NC ."" / ,
0 LOC Y = 0.317 + 0.962 X ,'" / .,.*
2.0 * MOC ~ ..""/..../

A
1.5

Ca

..."y.....'"
1.0 sss~ , e~SS

0.6

~ o,'~176

0 0 . . . . 0.5
. . . . . .1.0. . . . . 1.5
. . . . . 2.0
. . . . . 2.5
. . . . 3.0

6.(UC) / O,o

FIG. 10. Comparison of Undrained Strength Ratios from UU and UC Tests

1.5 i I . . . . . . f i

s.(UU) / su(ClUC) =

0.864 + 0.569 log X

~" (n-61,r2-0.586, S.O.=0.128) 9v 9 ~ 9
1.0 \ " 9 1 499 ~"

D 0.5 ~7
. v $, .. - v \ s.(uc) / s . ( c l u c ) -
~ 0.832+ 0.631 log X
9 su(UU)/ s.(CIUC) (n-32, r~-0.593,
su(UC) / s,(CIUC) S.D.-0.141)
~ I 0.2
' 0.3
' 'o:6 . . . . 1.0
' ' 2.0
' ' 3.0
s,(CIUC) / ~vo
FIG. 11. Normalized Undrained Strength from UU or UC Teats versus ClUC Un-
drained Strength Ratio

1746

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 undrained strength for these fissured clays ranges from 0.93 to 1.20 and falls
in the higher range of the correlation.

COMPARISONS OF s. FROM CIUC AND UC TESTS

It is also useful to examine the relationships between UC and CIUC tests,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

so similar studies were conducted. The data base for the CIUC and UC test
results is presented in Table 5. Although less data were available for the
UC tests, they were sufficient to establish general trends. The ranges and
average normalized undrained strength for each stress history group are
given in Table 3. As noted for the UU data, the normalized undrained
strength increases with increasing OCR.
In Fig. 6, s,(CIUC) is plotted versus su(UC). The regression data and
the CI values for these lines are given in Table 6. As can be seen, the slope
flattens with increasing OCR. Fig. 7 shows the undrained strength ratios
and the resulting regression data with 0.67 confidence interval for one stan-
dard deviation. As noted for the CIUC and UU tests, the regression line
yields an intercept.
Fig. 8 shows the correlation between the normalized undrained strength
and the undrained strength ratio, using semi-log coordinates again with 0.67
confidence interval for one standard deviation. As can be seen, the trend
is consistent with the stress path prediction and the CIUC-UU results. The
maximum normalized undrained strength observed was 1.21 at a high un-
drained strength ratio. The CIUC-UC data exhibit similar patterns as the
CIUC-UU data described previously.

COMPARISONS OF s. FROM UU AND UC TESTS

The sites in Tables 2 and 5 that included both UU and UC tests were
limited, and therefore comparisons between these results are likely to be
less significant than previous relationships. Fig. 9 presents the available data
for s,(UU) versus su(UC), and the regression and CI information are given
in Table 7. The trends generally are similar to those given in Figs. 3 and 6.
Fig. 10 shows the undrained strength ratios and the resulting regression
information, which includes a 0.67 confidence interval for one standard
deviation. Compared with Figs. 4 and 7, the r 2 is smaller and the standard
deviation is larger; however, the general pattern is comparable.
A direct comparison of the normalized s,(UU) and s,(UC) data versus
the su(CIUC)/(Yvo data are given in Fig. 11. This figure confirms observations
noted previously and shows that the UU results give a closer relationship
to the CIUC results than the UC results. This observation has been general
supposition for many years, and now the data support the supposition, even
though the differences are small.

SUMMARY AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Two data bases were developed to analyze the interrelationships of the
undrained shear strength (Su) among CIUC, UU, and UC tests. These data
include a wide variation of clay properties and global distribution, and they
show good correlations that are consistent with stress path evaluations.
The results show that the normalized undrained strength (su[UU or UC]/
s,[CIUC]) is dependent on and increases with the overconsolidation ratio
(OCR) or undrained strength ratio (s,/(rvo). This result can be predicted
qualitatively by stress path evaluation.
1747

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 The available data give good relationships for both the U U and UC tests,
and the UU relationships are somewhat better. The confidence intervals for
these suggested correlations are 0.69 and 0.67 for the U U and UC tests,
respectively, for one standard deviation.
Direct comparison of the normalized s,(UU) and s,(UC) versus s, (CIUC)/
#vo shows that the U U results give a closer relationship to the C I U C results
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

than the UC results. This observation is consistent with general supposition.

For both the U U and UC tests, softer clays generally show lower nor-
malized undrained strength, while harder clays result in higher normalized
undrained strength. Fissured clays fall in the high range of the correlations
for normalized undrained strengths.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers wish to express their appreciation to H. E. Stewart at Cornell
University and P. W. Mayne at Georgia Institute of Technology for their
many helpful suggestions. J. W. Pease, K. K. Phoon, S. Vidic, and N. J.
Cho at Cornell University provided many useful comments, as did the ASCE
reviewers. A. Avcisoy drafted Figs. 1 and 2.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Bjerrum, L., and Wu, T. H. (1960). "Fundamental shear strength properties of the
Lilla Edet clay." Geotechnique, 10(3), 101-109.
Clough, G. W., and Denby, G: M. (1980). "Self-boring pressuremeter study of San
Francisco Bay mud." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 106(1), 45-63.
Coates, D. F., and McRostie, G. C. (1963). "Some deficiencies in testing Leda clay."
Laboratory Shear Testing of Soil (STP 361), ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 459-470.
Coop, M. R., and Wroth, C. P. (1989). "Field studies of an instrumented model
pile in clay." Geotechnique, 39(4), 679-696.
Cox, W. R., Kraft, L. M., and Verner, E. A. (1979). "Axial load tests on 14-inch
pipe piles in clay." Proc. llth Offshore Tech. Conf., Vol. 2, Houston, 1147-1158.
D'Appolonia, D. J. (1972). Discussion of "Bearing capacity of anisotropic cohesive
soil." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 98(1), 126-132.
Duncan, J. M., and Seed, H. B. (1966). "Anisotropy and stress reorientation in
clay." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 92(5), 21-50.
Eden, W., and Crawford, C. B. (1957). "Geotechnical properties of Leda clay in
the Ottawa area." Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Vol.
1, London, 22-27.
Endley, S. N., Ulrich, E. J., and Gray, J. B. (1979). "A study of axial pile load
tests." Syrup. on Deep Foundations, F. M. Fuller, ed., ASCE, 101-121.
Fenske, C. W. (1956). "Deep Vane Tests in Gulf of Mexico." In-place shear testing
of foundation soil by the vane method (STP 193), ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 16-
25.
Focht, J. A., III, and Drash, C. J., Jr. (1985). "Behavior of drilled piers in layered
soils on Texas barrier islands." Drilled piers and caissons H, C. N. Baker, Jr., ed.,
ASCE, New York, N.Y., 76-98.
Holtz, R. D., and Baker, C. N., Jr. (1972). "Some load transfer data on caissons
in hard Chicago clay." Proc. Specialty Conf. on Performance of Earth and Earth-
Supported Structures, Vol. 1, ASCE, 1223-1242.
Ismael, N. F., and Klym, T. W. (1978). "Behavior of rigid piers in layered cohesive
soils." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 104(8), 1061-1074.
Johnson, L. D., and Stroman, W. R. (1984). "Vertical behavior of two 16-year old
drilled shafts in expansive soil." Analysis and design of pile foundations, J. R.
Meyer, ed., ASCE, New York, 154-173.
Kinner, E. B., and Ladd, C. C. (1973). "Undrained bearing capacity of footing on
clay." Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Vol. 1, Moscow,
209-215.
1748

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 Koutsoftas, D., and Fischer, J. A. (1976). "In-situ undrained shear strength of two
marine clays." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 102(9), 989-1005.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W. (1990). "Manual on estimating soil properties
for foundation design." Report EL-6800, Electric Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto,
Calif.
Ladd, C. C. (1964). "Stress-strain behavior of saturated clay and basic strength
principles." Research Report R64-17, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Cambridge,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mass.
Ladd, C. C. (1991). "Stability evaluation during staged construction." J. Geoteeh.
Engrg., ASCE, 117(4), 540-615.
Ladd, C. C., Foote, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H. G. (1977).
"Stress-deformation and strength characteristics." Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Vol. 2, Tokyo, 421-494.
Ladd, C. C., and Lambe, T. W. (1963). "The strength of "undisturbed" clay de-
termined from undrained tests." Laboratory shear testing of soils (STP 361), ASTM,
Philadelphia, Pa., 342-371.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil mechanics. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, N.Y., 391-405.
Mahar, L. J., and O'Neill, M. W. (1983). "Geotechnical characterization of desic-
cated clay." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 109(1), 56-71.
Mayne, P. W., and Frost, D. D. (1986). "Geotechnical report, White House Com-
munications Agency, Anacostia, Washington, DC." Report W6-5523, Law Engi-
neering, Mc Lean, Va.
Mayne, P. W., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). "Ko-OCR relationships in soils." J.
Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 108(6), 851-872.
Mayne, P. W., and Stewart, H. E. (1988). "Pore pressure behavior of Ko-consolidated
clays." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 114(11), 1340-1346.
Neter, J., and Wasserman, W. (1974). Applied linear statistical models. Richard D.
Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Ill.
Noorany, I., and Seed, H. B. (1965). "In-situ strength characteristics of soft clay."
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 91(2), 49-80.
Quiros, G. W., and Young, A. G. (1988). "Comparison of field vane, CPT and
laboratory strength data at Santa Barbara Channel site." Vane shear strength testing
in soils: field and laboratory studies (STP 1014), ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 306-
317.
Ramalho-Ortigao, J. A., Werneck, M. L., and Lacerda, W. A. (1983). "Embank-
ment failure on clay near Rio de Janeiro." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 109(11),
1460-1479.
Raymond, G. P. (1972). "The Kars (Ontario) embankment foundation." Proc. Spe-
cialty Conf. on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Vol. 1,
ASCE, 319-340.
Roy, M., Tremblay, M., Tavenas, F., and La Rochelle, P. (1982). "Development
of a quasi-static piezocone apparatus." Can. Geotech. J., 19(2), 180-188.
Saxena, S. K., Hedberg, J., and Ladd, C. C. (1978). "Geotechnical properties of
Hackensack Valley varved clays of New Jersey." Geotech. Test. J., 1(3), 148-161.
Simons, N. E. (1960). "Comprehensive investigations of the shear strength of an
undisturbed Drammen clay." Proc. Res. Conf. on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils,
ASCE, 727-745.
Skempton, A. W. (1954). "The pore-pressure coefficients A and B." Geotechnique,
4(4), 143-147.
Stas, C. V., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1984). "Critical evaluation of design methods for
foundations under axial uplift and compression loading." Report EL-3771, Electric
Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif.
Tavenas, F., and Leroueil, S. (1987). "State-of-the-art on laboratory and in-situ
stress-strain-time behavior of soft clays." Proc. Int. Symp. on Geotech. Engrg. of
Soft Soils, Mexico City, 1-46.
Windle, D., and Wroth, C. P. (1977a). "In situ measurement of the properties of
stiff clays." Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Vol. 1,
Tokyo, 347-352.
1749

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.

 Windle, D., and Wroth, C. P. (1977b). "The use of a self-boring pressuremeter to
determine the undrained properties of clays." Ground Eng., 10(6), 37-46.
Wroth, C. P. (1984). "Interpretation of in-situ soil tests." Geotechnique, 34(4), 449-
489.
Wroth, C. P., and Houlsby, G. T. (1985). "Soil mechanics-property characterization
and analysis procedures." Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.,
Vol. 1, San Francisco, 1-55.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 10/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Wu, T. H. (1960). "Geotechnical properties of glacial lake clays." Trans., ASCE,

125,994-1021.
Wu, T. H., Douglas, A. G., and Goughnour, R. D. (1962). "Friction and cohesive
of saturated clays." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 88(3), 1-32.

1750

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1993.119:1732-1750.