SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS USING THE NGI DIRECT ... SIZE EFFECTS USING THE NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR...
146
SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS USING THE NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS by Michael D. Carroll PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Thomas F. Zimmie NSF Grant No. PFR-78l8743 Il£PROOUCEO BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION -SERVICE .. u.s.
-
Upload
duongnguyet -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS USING THE NGI DIRECT ... SIZE EFFECTS USING THE NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR...
SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS USING THENGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS
by
Michael D. CarrollPRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Thomas F. Zimmie
NSF Grant No. PFR-78l8743
Il£PROOUCEO BYNATIONAL TECHNICALINFORMATION -SERVICE
.. u.s. ~&tNRJ~~r~. ~~ C~~l'fRCE
50272 -101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION Ill,--REPORT NO.
PAGE NSF/RA-7904854. Title and Subtitle
Sample Size Effects Using the NGI Direct Simple ShearApparatus, Interim Report
1-------------- --------------------~------7. Author(s)
M. D. Carroll, T. F. Zimmie9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteDepartment of Civil EngineeringTroy, NY 12181
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Engineering and Applied Science (EAS)National Science Foundation1800 G Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20550
15. Supplementary Notes
3. Recipient's Accession No.
PB80 2 1660 95. Report Date
i 19796.
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G) PFR781874313. Type of Report & Period Covered
Interim~------':"':-~-------.-------1
14.
I-----------~-----------
-16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)--------- ---_. - -- ----------------f
To improve the use and the interpretation of results of the Norwegian GeotechnicalInstitute (NGI) direct simple shear device modified for cyclic loading, tests wereconducted using undisturbed soil samples of Gulf of Alaska and Gulf of Mexico clays.The effects of variations in sample size are quantified. The parameters which variedwere sample cross section and sample height. Two cross-sectional sizes and threeheights were compared. Equipment used in the investigation, testing procedures, andsoil characteristics are discussed. Test data reported include lateral strain measurements from which horizontal normal stresses and subsequently the initial lateral stressratio values were calculated. These calculations and results are discussed as affectedby sample size, with special attention to the initial lateral stress ratio. Step-bystep instructions on the use of the NGI direct simple shear device in both static andcyclic functions are explained. The use of the NGI sample trimming apparatus andmethods for calibrating the NGI reinforced membranes using calibration cylinders aredeta il ed.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
ClaysShear testsSoil testsEarthquake resistant structuresb. Identifiers/Open·Ended Terms
Gulf of AlaskaGulf of Mexico
c. COSATI Field/Group
Cyclic loadsStress ratioStatic testsMeasuring instruments
Earthquake Hazards Mitigation
1--------------1---------
Av::ail~hility Statement
NTIS
.- -'-~~~~ ~39.18)
19. Security Class (This Report)
20. Security Class (This Page)
See Instructions on Reverse
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)(Formerly NTIS-35)Department of Commerce
INTERIM REPORT
SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS USING THE
NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS
To: William Hakala. Program ManagerNational Science Foundation
From: Thomas F. Zimmie. Associate ProfessorCivil Engineering DepartmentRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy. New York
The report attached is a progress report on NSF Grant No.PFR-78l8743 titled "Simple Shear Behavior of Fine Grained SoilsSubjected to Earthquake and Other Repeated Loading". under thedirection of Thomas F. Zimmie.
The report was done by Michael D. Carroll under the supervision of Professor Thomas F. Zimmie. Mr. Carroll also used thereport as his Master Thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute.
SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS USING THE
NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS
by
Michael D. Carroll
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation
Directorate for Engineering and Applied Science,
Division of Problem-Focused Research (PFR),
Earthquake Hazards Mitigation Program
Grant No. PFR-78l8743
Interim Report
Principal Investigator
Thomas F. Zimmie
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, New York
May 1979
, I
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .
FOREWORD
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION.
v
vii
viii
1
A. Background. ...•................ . 1B. Stress Conditions 3
2. EQUIPMENT . 11
A. Shear Apparatus 11B. Trimming Apparatus . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .. 19C. Reinforced Rubber Membranes . . . . • . . . . . . . .. 19D. Data Acquisition . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .. 22E. Equipment Calibration . . • . . . 23
Proving Ring Load Cells . . . . . • . . . . . . . .. 23Load Cell . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .. 24LVDT • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 24Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• 24False Deformation . 24
3. TESTING SPECIFICS .... 27
A. Soil .
Gulf of Alaska Clay . . . . .Gulf of Mexico Clay . . . . .Sample Preparation .. ...
27
272828
B. Test Procedures ..
4. TEST RESULTS AND fu\lALYSIS
32
34
A. Introduction. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34B. Static Test Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39C. Sample Cross Section Size Comparison for Cyclic Tests • 48D. Sample Height Comparisons for Cyclic Tests 57
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . 78
A. Discussion. . . . . 78B. Summary..... . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .. 81
iii
6. LITERATURE CITED . . . .
APPENDIX A - ADDITIONAL DATA
A. Static Test ComparisonsB. Comparison of Sample Cross-Sectional Size for Cyclic
Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •C. Comparison of Sample Heights for Cyclic Tests . . . .
APPENDIX B - SAMPLE PREPARATION -- Step by Step Procedures
APPENDIX C - INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THE NORWEGIANGEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE DIRECT SIMPLE SHEARDEVICE -- A Step by Step Approach . . . • .
PAGE
84
87
88
95102
121
126
APPENDIX D - CALIBRATION OF STRAIN GAUGE EQUIPPED MEMBRANES FORTHE NORWEGIAN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE DIRECTSIMPLE SHEAR DEVICE -- A User's Approach. . . 132
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This investigation was in response to previous research completed
by Dr. Thomas F. Zimmie and Mr. Carsten H.L. Floess (24). As the
author of this report, I would like to express my appreciation to Dr.
Zimmie, my adviser on this project, for his comments and directioning
which was, indeed, invaluable. I would also like to thank Mr. Floess
who afforded me large amounts of his time and knowledge. His assistance
truly made this investigation possible. Further, Figures I through 8
and Table I were directly adapted from a report on the above mentioned
investigation (24). Likewise, the structuring of this report as a whole
was based on the same.
I would also like to thank Mrs. Betty Alix for assisting in proof
ing and for typing this report.
Appreciation is also expressed to the United States Geological
Survey for providing the undisturbed offshore marine samples with appro
priate geotechnical data used in this study.
I do not wish to forget all the researchers and authors whose previous
works assisted me in mine.
Most sincerely, I would like to thank my wife, Kathy, who stuck with
me all the way and whose typing of the enclosed graphs and the drafts
of the narrative was indispensible.
v
Funds for this project were provided by a grant from the National
Science Foundation, Grant No. PFR76-l4220 (formerly ENV76-l4220),
sponsored by the Earthquake Engineering Program for the Directorate for
Applied Science and Research Applications (ASRA) (formerly RANN).
The principal investigator of this project was Thomas F. Zimmie,
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering.
Dr. S.C. Liu was the initial Program Manager for the research project
whereas Dr. W. Hakala was the Program Manager for the latter portion
of the project.
Please note that although the project is sponsored by the National
Science Foundation, 'any opinions, findings, conclusions and/or recommenda
tions expressed by this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the view of NSF.
vi
FOREWORD
Realizing the importance of the undrained cyclic shear strength
of soils, particularly marine clays, this report sets out to analyze
and hopefully improve the use and the interpretation of results of the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute direct simple shear device modified
for cyclic loading. Specifically, the text quantifies the effects of
variations in sample size. Part 1 of this text summarizes the need
for this information and covers stress conditions necessary for the
interpretation of results.
Equipment used in this investigation is discussed in Part 2, while
testing procedures and soil characteristics are discussed in Part 3.
Part 4 discusses and analyzes the test results with respect to variation
in sample size and soils. Part 5 completes the body of this text by
drawing conclusions from the results and summarizing.
Appendix A is a collection of additional data not analyzed in the
body of the report.
Details of testing procedures are presented in Appendix B through
D,so further investigation can utilize experiences obtained during this
research. Sample preparation is discussed. in Appendix B, instructions
for cyclic and static shearing procedures with the Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute direct simple shear device are given in Appendix C, and
Appendix D covers the calibration of strain gauged equipped reinforced
membranes used to measure lateral strains.
vii
ABSTRACT
The contents of this report include a comparison of direct
simple shear test results for variations in sample size and for two
different soils. Soils tested were undisturbed samples of Gulf of
Alaska and Gulf of Mexico clays. Testing was performed on the Nor-
wegian Geotechnical Institute Direct Simple Shear Device and included
both static and cyclic loading applications. The emphasis was on
cyclic loading results.
The parameters varied were sample cross section and sample height.
Two cross-sectional sizes and three heights are compared.
Test data included lateral strain measurements from which horizontal
normal stresses and subsequently K values were calculated. These calo
culations and results are discussed as affected by sample size,with
special attention to K values.o
The main conclusions -from this investigation were: K isa.ffectedo
by changes in height; the smaller cross-sactional sample size produces
higher static and cyclic shear strain resistance, but a much greater
degree of scatter; and sample height had little obvious and consistent
effects on cyclic shear results.
Appended are detailed step by step instructions on the use of the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute direct simple shear device in both
static and cyclic functions; the use of the Norwegian Geotechnical Insti-
tute sample trimming apparatus; and methods for calibrating the Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute calibrated reinforced membranes using calibration
cylinders.
viii
PART I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
In recent years, the importance of soil strength characteristics
under cyclic loading has become recognized and accepted. Increasingly,
designers have sought to incorporate these characteristics in their
analyses. A recent notable example is the controversy concerning the
possible shutdown of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in southern
New York* (1) .
Actually, cyclic loadings are quite common, effecting all geographical
areas. These loads can take the form of wind and wave action, traffic
activity, blasting, pile driving, machinery vibrations, and of course,
earthquakes.
The failure of soil resulting from cyclic loading is a common des-
tructive mechanism. Earthquake damage to every conceivable structure,
including pipelines, buildings, and dams, have at times been attributed
to soil failures. For many structures, such as pipelines, the effects of
dynamic soil strains cause more failures than any other single force ,(22).
Besides the relative frequent occurrence of soil failure when exposed to
cyclic loading,the results of such failures can also be catastrophic as
well. Failure of earth gravity structures, such as dams, embankments and
retaining walls, have resulted in losses of both life and property far
*The Indian Point Power Plant reactors are situated within 1 km of a majorbranch of the Ramapo fault system, a branch previously thought inactive.More people (21 million) live within 80 km of this nuclear power plant thanany other in the U.S.
1
2
exceeding acceptable limits.
With petroleum interest in offshore areas heightening, knowledge
of soil strength characteristics is essential. Oil drilling platform
structures are particularly susceptible to soil failure from cyclic
loadings, both because of the physical characteristics of the platforms,
and because of the sensitive soil often found beneath the platform
(2,7,14,18,24).
Often failures occur because of rapid increases in stress from
seismic accelerations by loss of soil strength and increased pore pres
sures. An extreme form of this type of failure, where the soil essen
tially loses all of its strength, is called "liquefaction" (20). Much
of the research designed to study this mode of soil strength deteriora
tion has been limited to cohesion1ess soils. There has been much less
accomplished in the way of studying clays and other fine grained soils
for these conditions (24).
Increasingly, direct simple shear devices are being utilized to
study fine grained soil characteristics, particularly under cyclic load
ing conditions. This report concentrates on the more effective use of
the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) direct simple shear device.
The NGI device is an accepted and appropriately sophisticated apparatus
for the measurement of cyclic strength characteristics of fine grained
cohesive soils.
Recently, an investigation was completed by Zimmie and F10ess (24)
using the NGI direct simple shear apparatus and associated sample trimming
3
e~uipment, on Gulf of Alaska and Concord Blue Clay-so One problem
encountered was the inability to obtain exact or consistent sample
heights. In all, nine Gulf of Alaska samples were tested with heights
ranging from 1.40 cm to 1.91 cm and a mean, variance and standard devia
tion of 1.69 cm, 0.0142 cm and 0.1193 cm, respectively. Twenty-one
Concord Blue samples were tested with heights ranging from 1.42 to 2.05 cm,
and a mean, variance, and standard deviation of 1.73 cm, 0.0371 cm,
and 0.1927 cm, respectively. The recommended height was 1.5 cm (8). The
purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of variations.
Specifically, this research was directed to the study of soil
sample size and the refinement of sample preparation and cyclic test-
ing procedures. An analysis of the former is contained within the body of
this report while the latter two are appended. To a lesser degree, strength
characteristics of undisturbed clay samples of the Gulf of Alaska and the
Gulf of Mexico were studied and compared.
The NGI direct simple shear device, modified for cyclic loading capa
bilities, has been used by a number of researchers for cyclic loading
studies (24). Overall it is an excellent device, although it does have
some limitations (23). This device, with modifications, allows for repe
titive loadings in alternate directions in an attempt to more closely
simulate in situ cyclic loading conditions, such as for earthquakes.
B. Stress Conditions
The NGr direct simple shear device subjects a cylindrical sample
of soil to a shearing displacement of the top of the sample relative to
4
the bottom. Normal compressive stresses can be applied parallel to the
sample vertical axis, and a reinforced rubber membrane restrains the
lateral expansion of the soil. Such a pattern of loading involves dis
tributions of stress that are not symmetrical about the axis of the
cylinder (13,16). The lack of complementary shear stresses on the ver
tical sides of the sampl~coupledwith the relatively small sample size,
complicates stress and strain assumptions, since in a small sample no
element will be far from the boundary conditions (24).
Figure 1 shows the stress conditions imposed on a soil element in
the field, and on the boundaries of the NGI direct simple shear sample
(24). The lack of complementary vertical shear stresses are illustrated.
Although not ideal, it has been concluded (~3,16,2l) that the distribu
tion of stresses on the NGI sample is better than in conventional direct
shear devices. Lucks et al (13) found, for NGI direct simple shear
samples, that approximately 70 percent of the sample (the center 70 per
cent) exhibits fairly uniform stress condition~while stress concentra
tions at the edges were quite local. Roscoe (17), in his analysis of
a Cambridge simple shear sample, found that though the magnitude of shear
stress is zero at the outer edges, the shear stress increases rapidly with
distance from the outside boundaries and is quite uniform in the middle
third of the upper and lower boundaries of the sample for small strains.
For larger strains these assumptions were felt to be reasonable.
Considering the above, this study of sample size was initiated to
investigate the effects of nonuniform stress distributions on experimental
5
aa v
v
t L t---Ka
~\ 1<K a
~l/ }<o v o vKao v
t L Jav a
(a) v
av·a
v
~t L......
K a'
>\ 1<KoOv __ / 7<o v K a
o v
4
t --=L ta',-
v(b) a
v
FIGURE 1. (a) APPLIED STRESS CONDITIONS ON AN IN-SITUSOIL ELEMENT
(b) APPLIED STRESS CONDITIONS ON A NGI DIRECT SIMPLESHEAR SOIL SAMPLE
6
results that assume a uniform stress.
Consolidated constant volume (CCV) static and cyclic tests were
performed. Samples were tested after application of stress histories
resulting in normally consolidated specimens.
Three stresses were measured during testing. The vertical normal
stress and the horizontal shearing stress were directly monitored.
Horizontal normal stresses were computed from lateral strains measured
by strain gauge equipped reinforced membranes. Changes in normal verti
cal stress, necessary to maintain a constant volume during testing, were
equated to the changes in excess hydrostatic pore pressures which would
have occurred in undrained testings.
Since the reinforced rubber membranes maintain the sample at essenti
ally a constant c.ross-sectional area, constant volume tests were conducted
by adjusting the normal vertical load to keep the sample height constant.
The following assumptions were necessary for the interpretation of
test results (24):
Undrained conditions were simulated in the NGI direct simple
shear device by maintaining a constant sample volume.
Measured changes in vertical normal stress were equal to
pore pressures which would have been generated in an undrain
ed test.
All measured normal stresses were effective stresses.
Stresses acting on an infinitesimal element at the center
of the sample were uniform and complementary.
Vertical shearing stresses were equal to the horizontal
shearing stresses.
7
Figure 2 illustrates the measured stresses acting on the NGI
direct simple shear sample and the assumed stresses acting on an
infinitesimal element at the center of the sample (24).
As explained in an earlier report by Zimmie and Floess (24),
by utilizing the three measured stresses, a Mohr's circle of stress
can be drawn for the soil element at any stage during the test as shown
in Figure 3. The variables indicated in the figure can be determined
from the geometry of the Mohr's circle along with the known values of
the vertical effective normal stresses cr , the horizontal effectivev
normal stress crh , and the horizontal shear stress Th, as follows:
cr + crh cr l + cr 3vp = =
2 2
(cr - 22 1/2- cr ) cr
l - cr( v h 3
q = + Th ) =4 2
where p and q define the uppermost point of the Mohr's circle or the
effective stress point. The major and minor effective principal stress-
where ¢m is the mobilized friction angle of the soil,
8
crv
L h 1 H::-
T I----7
, ,,, ,H I a I -, ,'-- crh
--lI, I
, I, I,
(a)
crv
1
1
II
II
I,I
II
II
II
II
/
,-----::;:=======---1'-
r-----,:----=====:::;-~---_...,I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
crv
(b)
-FIGURE 2. (a) NEASURED BOUNDARY STRESSES ACTING ON THENGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR SAMPLE
(b) ASSUMED STRESS CONDITIONS ACTING ON AN ELEMENT
FROM THE CENTER OF THE SAMPLE
9
+ q2
~h[_--::::_---].. (0 :"'crh')v .
-1tana =
p
e = 45 - eq p
.<P'e = 45 + 2!. - e
f 2 p
(j = p + q'·1 .
Cf =p-q3
FIGURE 3. MOHR'S CIRCLE OF STRESS FOR A SOIL ELEMENT AT THECENTER OF THE NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR SAMPLE
10
where 8 is the angle between the horizontal plane and the plane onp
which the major principal stress acts,
8 = 45 - 8q P
where 8 is the angle between the horizontal plane and the plane onq
which the maximum shear stress acts,...
where 8f is the angle between the horizontal plane and the plane
of maximum obliquity, and
Note that the above equations are valid for no cohesion, i.e., c = o.
All tests performed during this study were analyzed on the basis
of the assumptions and equations presented here. Actual test results
are presented in Part 4.
PART 2
EQUIPMENT
The Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) direct simple shear
apparatus, model number 4, modified for cyclic loading capabilities,
was used for this investigation. The device was developed byNGI and
manufactured by Geonor. Detailed discussions of this apparatus and
associated equipment are available (8,24). This report will attempt
to summarize the above, deviating where appropriate for the portrayal
of this investigation. Moreover, fully detailed laboratory procedures
are appended.
The basic principle of this device is to apply a shearing force
to a cylindrical soil sample, confined in the radial direction by a
wire reinforced rubber membrane, so as to cause a shearing displacement
of the top of the sample relative to the bottom. The reinforcement of
the membrane allows for a constant cross-sectional area during consoli
dation and shearing. As shearing occurs the upper and lower ends of
the sample are maintained parallel to each other.
Consolidation is performed by applying a vertical normal stress to
the sample while allowing drainage. During shearing,a constant volume
is maintained by varying the vertical normal stress, thus simulating un
drained shear conditions.
A. Shear Apparatus
The NGI direct simple shear device consists of the sample assembly,
the vertical loading unit, and the horizontal loading unit. Figure 4
11
12
shows the sample assembly, Figure 5 presents the shearing apparatus with
out cyclic loading modifications, and Figure 6 shows it with cyclic load
ing capabilities.
The sample assembly consists of the pedestal, upper cap, lower cap,
wire reinforced rubber membrane, and a-rings. At this point sample height
and cross section are defined since they were the sample size variables
studied in this investigation. The height and diameter are shown in
Figure 4, where the cross section is the circular area. The sample assembly
unit is available in either the standard 50 cm2 sample cross section or
17.81 cm2 cross section (1.875 inch diameter). These two sample sizes
constituted the variation of cross-sectional area. The sample heights for
this study were varied from 10 to 25 millimeters (a height of 15 millimeters
is recommended).
The upper and lower caps have recesses for porous stones, and were
equipped with drainage tubes which were connected to an external water source.
The a-rings provided a water tight seal between the wire reinforced rubber
membrane and the caps.
The vertical loading unit consists of the base, the tower, the 10:1
lever arm, the proving ring load gauge, the piston, the sliding shear
box, the vertical dial gauge, and the adjusting mechanism. A counter
weight balances the weight of the lever arm, the proving ring load gauge,
the piston, the sliding shear box, and the top cap.
The horizontal loading unit for static strain controlled testing
includes the electric motor and gear box, the proving ring load gauge,
13
54
6
]a
7
87
6
l----H-4__9
1- Pedestal 6. Drainage Tube
2. Lower Cap 7. Porous Stone
J. Sample 8. Reinforced RubberMembrane
a. Sample Heightb. Sample Diameter 9. Plastic Cylinder
4. O-Ring
5. Upper Cap
FIGURE 4. THE NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR DEVICESAMPLE ASSEMBLY
14
(Adapted from Ref. 8)
FIGURE 5. THE: NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR DEVICE
1. Counter Weight
2. Sliding Shear Box
3. Tower
4. Lugs
5. Hanger
6. Base-
7. Lever Arm
8. Proving Ring Load Gauge
9. Piston
10. Vertical Dial Gauge
1I. Connection Fork
12. Locking Clamp
13. Proving Ring Load Gauge
14. Electric-Motor and Gear Box
15. Adjusting Mechanism
FIGURE 5. (CONTINUED)
15
(])•••1
\
P
\
16
\.
o,
I\.
-
•
6HANGER
AND
WEIGHTS c:::=::liJIT:r::==~1"
III
CONTROL BOX
t==::J':.ITLI--_-1"2 cr:c~t Side
If Active Side
L
Pit I I
HYDRAULIC PISTON
FIGURE 6. NGI DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR DEVICE WITH MODIFICATIONSFOR CYCLIC LOADING CAPABILITIES
17
the horizontal piston, the locking clamp, the connection fork, the slid
ing shear box, and the horizontal dial gauge. A constant rate of shear
strain is applied to the sample by the gear box and electric motor.
The gear box has a stepless speed adjustment with a range of 10 minutes
per mm to 300 minutes per rom of travel. For this investigation 75
minutes per rom was used during static testing.
With cyclic loading modifications, stress controlled tests with a
square wave loading were performed. The cyclic loading mechanism is
illustrated in Fig. 6. The hydraulic piston travels up and down at
controlled frequencies. Weight hangers were attached by wires to the
connection fork. The hanger which would come into and out of contact
with the piston will be referred to as the active side hanger. When
the piston was in the down position, the active side hanger and weights
hung free; when the piston was up, it supported this weight. Providing
that exactly twice as much weight (including the weight of the hanger)
hung from the active side as from the dormant side, equal shear forces
were alternately transmitted in opposite directions to the sample. Thus,
the mechanism induced a stress controlled square wave loading on the
sample.
Zimmie and Floess (24) observed that shear strains were generally
larger on the active side as opposed to the dormant side. This is
attributed to the impact loading of the active weight as it is relieved
of support by the piston. This is an inherent problem with this load
ing system, and a compensational reduction of weight was administered
to produce approximately symmetric shear strains. A weight reduction
18
equivalent to 0.005 kg/cm2 shearing stress was found appropriate and
used for stresses in the range (0.07 kg/cm2 to 0.08 kg/cm2) applied to
samples of this investigation. As some data obtained from Zimmie and
Floess' research is in this report)the reduction is the same as used
by them.
The control unit for cyclic loadings consists of a counter and
a timer. Half period frequencies from 1 to 99 seconds were possible.
For this investigation the period was maintained at 10 seconds. The
timer controlled a 4-way solenoid operated air valve that actuated the
piston motion.
The connection between the top cap of the sample assembly and the
lower part of the sliding shear box was made by two adjustable lugs.
The lugs were brought into contact with the cap by means of two allen
head screws. The sample was sheared by moving the top cap while hold
ing the bottom cap and the pedestal stationary.
The fine adjustments in the vertical load) needed to maintain
constant volume conditions) were made by the adjusting mechanism. After
consolidation, the lever arm was pinned to the adjusting mechanism, pro
viding the desired consolidation stress. Once pinned into position, the
vertical load was changed by controlled movements of the lever arm up-
wards and downwards. This was accomplished by rotating a worm gear connect
ed to the adjusting knob.
19
B. Trimming Apparatus
The trimming apparatus was designed for use with the soft
sensitive clays that are common in Scandinavia. The basic design
principles are that the sample should be completely and rigidly
supported at all times, with a minimum of handling.
The trimming apparatus consists of a base, and a set of three
yokes. The base has two vertical columns on which the yokes slide.
The yokes are positionable at any point on the columns.
The first yoke used in the trimming procedure guides a stain-
less steel cutting cylinder. It contains provisions for attaching the
lower sample assembly cap to the bottom of the sample. The second yoke
acts as a guide for attaching the upper cap to the sample. The final
yoke acts as the guide for the reinforced rubber membrane expander.
When vacuum is applied to the expander, the diameter of the reinforced
rubber membrane inserted within the yoke is increased. The membrane is
then mounted on the sample with a minimum of disturbance.
Proper use of the trimming apparatus ensures that the sample stands
vertical, and the ends will be horizontal and parallel. A photograph
of the trimming apparatus is shown in Figure 7.*
C. Reinforced Rubber Membranes
The calibrated reinforced rubber membranes used for the measurement
of lateral stress were manufactured by Geonor ._ These membranes, shown
in Figure 7, operate on a strain gauge principle; the change in resis
*A more detailed discussion of sample preparation is appended.
20
FIGURE 7. NGI TRIMMING APPARATUS AND REINFORCED RIJBBERMEMBRANES
21
tance of the wire windings is measured. The entire height of the wire
reinforcement windings is 3 em; the middle centimeter acts as the strain
gauge. These membranes are calibrated by applying known hydrostatic
stresses and by measuring the resulting change in resistance. The resis-
tance changes are measured by a strain gauge indicator calibrated directly
in micro-inches per inch. Calibration of the 50 cm2 sample membranes
were completed by Geonor, while the smaller diameter sample membranes
were calibrated at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute explicitly for this
investigation. *The active strain monitoring wire and the remaining membrane rein-
forcement had the same physical properties. They consisted of constantan
6 2wire with a diameter of .15 mro, a Young's Modulus E of 1.55 x 10 kg/em,
2and a tensile strength of 5,800 kg/em. The wires were wound at 20 turns
per centimeter of height. The rubber material was natural latex. The
membranes were manufactured in two sizes, the standard 50 cm2 size and
the 1.875 in. (4.76 em) diameter size. The recommended maximum lateral
stress for these membranes is 1.4 kg/cm2 .
The membranes provided adequate lateral strength to maintain a con-
stant cross-sectional area during consolidation and shear. The wire
reinforcement was very slightly deformed as the lateral stress increased,
producing only minor error (8). In addition, the membranes also allowed
for vertical strains in the sample during consolidation and shearing.
*A more detailed discussion of membrane calibration is appended.
22
The resistance of the standard size reinforced rubber membranes
to shear has been determined to be small (11).
Difficulties can be encountered in the use of these calibrated
membranes. During this investigation, water came into contact with the
active wire of one membrane resulting in a partial short circuit. Con
sequently, decreasing resistance and erroneous microstrain readings were
obtained. It is essential that the rubber material (butyl latex or
neoprene) used for these membranes form a watertight seal around the
active wire. Additionally, two other tests were performed without the
ability to monitor lateral strains, since total malfunction of the strain
gauge capabilities of these membranes occurred.
Because temperature variations can result in resistance changes that
can be mistaken for changes in lateral stress, a matching "dummy" membrane
and the active membrane were connected in a bridge arrangement to compen
sate for temperature changes. The active and dummy membranes were placed
as close to each other as possible (within one foot). Under these condi
tions, microstrain readings were not affected by small temperature changes.
D. Data Acquisition
To facilitate data acquisition, some modifications were made to
the direct simple shear apparatus as supplied by Geonor.
The vertical load proving ring was replaced by a Schaevitz FTD-lU-200
load cell. This load cell had a capacity of 200 lb (90.5 kg) in tension
or compression. The linearity and resolution were better than .2% and
.1%, respectively.
-.
23
A Hewlett Packard 7DCDT-050 Linear Variable Differential Trans
former (LVDT) was used for measurement of horizontal displacements.
The range of this LVDT was + .050 in. (1.27 mm). This range provided
excellent resolution at small strains. The LVDT was connected in
series with the original dial gauge by a special aluminum mounting
block. Horizontal displacements could therefore, be measured by either
the LVDT or by the dial gauge. Typically, the LVDT and the dial gauge
were used together, providing a convenient crosscheck at all times.
Both the LVDT and the load cell had integral signal conditioning
for DC operation; both were powered by separate constant DC voltage power
supplies. The voltage outputs of the LVDT and the load cell, plus the
square wave loading pattern were recorded on a Gould Brush 2400 four
channel recorder. Microstrain readings from the calibrated reinforced
rubber membranes were measured by a BLH l20C strain gauge indicator.
The data for each individual test was put into computer files. The
data was processed and reduced at RPI's Interactive Computer Graphics
Center. Appropriate plots were then produced and were used in developing
the data graphs in this report.
E. Equipment Calibration
Proving Ring Load Cells
Proving ring load cells with ranges of 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 kg
were supplied and calibrated by Geonor. All were linear throughout their
ranges.
24
Load Cell
The Schaevitz load cell used for measurement of vertical load was
calibrated directly on the direct simple shear apparatus. While support
ing the bottom of the sliding shear box, loads were applied to the load
cell through the lever arm, and the corresponding voltages measured.
The voltage output was linear throughout its range.
L~T
The Hewlett Packard LVDT used for measurement of horizontal dis
placements was also calibrated on the direct simple shear apparatus.
Voltage outputs were recorded for displacements measured by the dial gauge.
The voltage output was linear for + 3.0 mm displacement.
Friction
Friction in the vertical load unit and the horizontal load unit
originated primarily in the ball bearing bushings. This friction was
measured by the 50 kg proving ring load cell and by theSchaevitz load
cell. It was found to be negligible.
False Deformation
Vertical deformations of the soil sample were measured between two
reference points, the top half of the sliding shear box and the base.
Because the parts of the direct simple shear apparatus between these two
points deformed under the action of a vertical stress, it was important
to distinguish this deformation from the deformation of the sample itself,
25
especially since constant volume tests were performed.
These false deformations were measured by inserting a steel dummy
sample between the sample caps. Vertical loads were incrementally
applied until consolidation loads were reached, and then unloaded
while vertical deflections were measured and recorded.
It was assumed most of the vertical deformation was due to the
seating and compression of the porous stones. Hence, the same porous
stones were maintained in their same relative positions for each test.
Average deformation curves for loading and unloading were obtained
2for the consolidation history used for each sample size (50 cm and
17.81 cm2 cross-sectional sample sizes). An example is shown in Figure 8
for 50 cm2 diameter samples normally consolidated to .510 kg/cm2 •
During constant volume testing, the equipment deformation curve
was entered as the appropriate change in vertical normal stress was
reached, and the normal load was then further compensated to adjust
the sample height for the expected equipment deformations. Thus,sample
volume remained constant.
140
120
100
en
"'".... 80~.g;j
3Q
0 60N00.,;
40
20
26
o 1.5 5.5 9.5 13.5 17.5 21.5 25.5
NORMAL LOAD (kg)
FIGURE 8. EXAMPLE OF EQUIPMENT DEFORMATION CURVESFOR THE 50 cm2 SAMPIE SIZE WITH CONSOLIDATION TO .510 kg/cm2 •
PART 3
TESTING SPECIFICS
A. SOIL
The soils tested in this investigation were stored in an environ
mentally controlled room. The room was maintained at 3° C and 97 to 99
percent humidity to simulate in situ conditions and preserve the sample
undisturbed. The two clays used were core samples from the Gulf of
Alaska and Gulf of Mexico.
Because of the sensitivity of marine clays, special care was taken
to control sample disturbance. As discussed by Berre, et al (3), core
sample size is an important parameter in obtaining consistent testing
results. A 95 mm core sample was recommended. The core sample size
for both soils used in this investigation was four inches, approximately
equivalent. Although studying variations in consolidation test results,
the data of Berre, et al (3) also suggested the smaller the specimen
size in testing the greater the variation of results. This aspect will
be considered later as it applies to the results of this study.
Gulf of Alaska Clay
The clay samples used in this study were obtained from the Copper
River prodelta area in the Gulf of Alaska (5,9,24), and provided by
the United States Geological Survey. Development of pore pressures lead
ing to liquefaction has, been a major cause of instability of these
submarine slopes. Complicated by the intense seismic activity in this
27
28
area and the common occurrence of storms with large waves (6), the
determination of the behavior of these submarine soils under cyclic
loading became important.
Table 1 portrays the geotechnical data for this soil.
Gulf of Mexico Clay
The core sample of Gulf of Mexico Clay was taken at a location
approximately 175 miles southeast of Houston, Texas and approximately
225 miles due east of Corpus Christi, Texas by the U.S. Geological
Survey, Corpus Christi office. The ocean depth at this point was approx
imately 1000 feet. The top five feet of the core sample, minus the
top seven inches of surface crust, was received from the U.S.G.S. The
first specimen used for this investigation was approximately seven inches
down from the top of the sample core received or about 14 inches below
the ocean floor. The last specimen tested from this core was an addi
tional 20 inches deeper.
Table 2 includes the geotechnical data for this soil.
Soil Preparation*
Specimens were sliced from the sample cores stored in the environ
mental room described previously, and moved to a second environmentally
controlled room. This second room was maintained at 20 0 C and approxi-
mately 92 percent humidity. While sample drying was still prevented in
this room, the temperature was more conducive for personnel during the
trimming operations.
*Sample preparations are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B.
GULF OF AIASKA SAMPLES
SITE: COPPER RIVER PRODELTA
TYPE: 4" DIAMETER UNDISTURBED CORES
29
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
WATER CONTENT
LIQUID LIMIT
PIASTIC LIMIT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
* ¢
SENSITIVITY (FALL CONE)
CONSOLIDATION HISTORY
%SAND
%SILT
% CIAY
* SEDIMENTATION RATE
* Data obtained from Hampton, et al (9).
57 - 6.5 %
48%
2.5 %
2.84
240
4.0
UNDERCONSOLIDATED
1
J4
6.5
10-1.5 m/l000 years
TABLE 1. GEOTECHNICAL DATA FOR THE GULF OF AIASKA CIAY
GULF OF MEXICO SAMPLES
SITE: 225 MILES EAST OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
TYPE: 4" DIAMETER UNDISTURBED CORES
30
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
WATER CONTENT
LIQUID LIMIT
PIASTIC LIMIT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SENSITIVITY (FALL CONE)
CONSOLIDATION HISTORY
%SAND
%SILT
%ClAY
100 - 120 %
105 %
30 %
2.71
2.50
NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED
2
28
70
TABLE 2. GEOTECHNICAL DATA FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO ClAY
31
The trimming apparatus, as supplied by Geonor, was designed for
undisturbed preparation of samples to be used in the NGI direct simple
shear device. The procedures prescribed by Geonor (8) for trimming were
followed in general. However, some improvements to these procedures
for the soils tested were employed.* The average trimming time was approxi
mately 75 minutes.
From the leftover trimmings, four water content samples were taken,
and undrained shear strength was measured by using the Swedish fall cone
method. The shear strengths were too low for the use of either pocket
penetrometers or torvane devices. Although sensitivity values were supplied
by the U.S.G.S. with the core samples, further tests during this investiga
tion confirmed the U.S.G.S. values.
Initial vertical sample heights, although difficult to obtain with a
great deal of precision, were previously selected and purposely produced.
Geonor recommends an initial height of 15 mm for both the standard 50 cm2
sample size and the smaller 1.875 in. diameter size. To determine the
sensitivity of cyclic test results to variations from this recommended
height, three sample heights were selected for study; one at the recommend
ed height, one 10 mm, and one 25 mm. Trimming limitations prevented the
production of samples shorter than approximately 10 mm, thus 10 mm was
used as the lower height limit. The actual heights obtained were not
always 10 rom, 15 mm, or 25 mm, but varied due to accuracy limitations in
the trimming process. Nevertheless, the actual heights were close to the
desired values. Static tests were performed with a height at or near
the recommended height (15 rom).
*Sample preparations are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B.
32
B. Test Procedures
After sample trimming was completed, the sample was carefully
moved from the environmentally controlled room to the NGI direct simple
shear apparatus for consolidation and shearing. The sample was now
sealed in its membrane, thus sample drying was not a problem. Drainage
hoses leading to water supplies were connected to the upper and lower
caps of the sample. A sea water solution (obtained from a local aquarium
supply store) was used as the water supply. The water was circulated
through the caps and the enclosed porous stones to flush out any air
which may have been trapped during the trimming process.
The sample was next clamped to the direct simple shear device. The
sliding shear box was brought into contact with the top of the sample,
and the normal load lever arm was leveled. A small weight (10 grams) was
placed at the end of the lever arm to ensure contact between the sample
and the shear box. The initial vertical dial reading was recorded. The
calibrated membrane was connected to a strain gauge indicato~ and after
one hour (to allow for temperature stabilization and equipment warm up)
an initial reading on the strain gauge indicator was taken. Consolida
tion was begun.
Consolidation loads were applied in increments similar to the standard
laboratory consolidation test. The time between each load increment was
approximately twice the time for 100 percent primary consolidation. The
33
final consolidation load was applied for a minimum of 24 hours. The
sample was then ready for shearing.
All shear tests were run as constant volume tests. Changes in
vertical stress in the sample necessary to maintain a constant height
was equated to the change in excess pore pressures which would have
occurred in an undrained test (16).
Static tests were performed at a sufficiently slow rate to minimize
strain rate effects. Typically, static tests were performed in seven
hours. Stress controlled cyclic tests were performed at a frequency
of 0.1 Hz with a square wave loading application. This frequency was
selected primarily to simulate storm wave loading applications. Fluctua
tions in pore pressure per cycle were not measured but were monitored
by observing changes in height and lateral strains. Tha change in pore
pressure per cycle was not excessive. Permanent pore pressure build up
was measured as the change in vertical normal stress necessary to main
tain a constant height. Because cyclic loading causes slight fluctuations
in the c vertica1 height dial readings, the mean height was used for measurements.
Lateral strains, changes in vertical normal stress, horizontal shear
stress, and cycles (or time, as applicable) were monitored. The vertical
stress was adjusted to maintain a constant sample height, including
corrections for false deformations as discussed previously.
PART 4
TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
Testing was designed to study the effects of sample size on the
results obtained for cyclic loading of clays using the NGI direct
simple shear device. A schedule was followed such that three categories
were tested. The categories allowed for the comparison of two different
clays, two sample cross-sectional sizes, and three variations in sample
height. Specifically, the first category tested was three standard size
2(50 em ) Gulf of Alaska clay samples, the second tested was three standard
2size Gulf of Mexico clay samples, and last four small size (17.81 em
cross-sectional) Gulf of Mexico samples were tested. Each category was
composed of three separate cyclic tests for the selected initial sample
heights of 10 mm, 15 mm, and 25 rom.
Static tests were performed for each category, at the recommended
height (15 mm), prior to cyclic testing. Although the static test data
for the three categories were analyzed and compared, the major purpose of
the static tests were to establish a static strength as a base to deter-
mine the cyclic stresses to be used. All cyclic tests were run at 50
percent of the tested static shear strength for each category. Fifty
percent was chosen after analyzing data on the Gulf of Alaska clay from
a previous investigation. At this level the Gulf of Alaska clay reached
test terminating strains (about 20 percent) after approximately 150
cycles (24).
34
35
A total of 13 tests are included in the succeeding presenta-
tion and are cataloged in Table 3. Of these, three are static tests
-- one Gulf of Alaska standard sample size, and two Gulf of Mexico
one standard sample size, and one 17.81 cm2 cross-sectional sample;
and ten are cyclic -- three Gulf of Alaska standard sample size at
the selected various heights, and seven Gulf of Mexico - three standard
sample size and four small sample size, similarly at the selected various
heights. The following discussion of the results will progress in the
order: 1) static test, comparing sample cross-sectional size and soils;
2) cyclic test, comparing sample cross-sectional size; and 3) cyclic
test, comparing the various heights. Additional data from these tests,
not included in the body of this text, is appended.
After consolidation, K values were calculated for all samples usinga
lateral strain measurements. This was accomplished for each consolida-
tion loading interval and the K from the last interval used for theo
purposes of this investigation. Values obtained are contained in Table 1.
The equations used were:
(M: )k60a
hm= 1 - e:a
and,
K60a
ha 60av
where: M. is the change inm micros train reading for the loading interval,
k is the calibration factor for the membrane strain gauge, s is thea
vertical strain of the specimen, 60a is the change in normal vertical stress,v
and 60Gh is the calculated change in normal horizontal stress.
1413
1211
109
87
65
43
21
-
BUIL
DIN
GIN
CONS
OLID
ATI
ON
Tes
tA
2N
o.H
.S
Cf
Tho
Cf
H fem
w1
uS
tvo
vmOC
Rv
i<:e
kg/e
m2
22
2%
kg/e
mkg
/em
kg/e
m%
0em
em
GOA0
2S50
58.0
1.65
1.64
.039
-.5
100
.0.5
101
.01.
489
.7.4
92
MEX
01S
5011
1.3
3.03
1.46
.053
-.5
100
.0.5
101
.01.
2017
.6.4
46
MEx
06s
17.8
123.
73.
371.
71.0
55.
2.73
..510
0.0
..51
01
.01.
4316
.3.4
90
GO
A06
c.5
064
.81.
841.
64.0
24-
•.510
0.0
•.51
01
.01.
4014
.8.4
90
GOA1
1C.5
064
.91.
8'+
2.1
0.0
273•
.50
•.510
0.0
•.510
1.0
1.82
13.2
.490
GOA1
2C.50
64.8
1.84
1.02
.0]4
-..5
100
.0..5
101
.00.
861.
5.1
.490
MEX
02C
.5011
7.9
3.21
1.72
.0.5
.5-
.510
0.0
..510
1.0
1.41
18.0
.446
MEX
03C
.5012
9.7
3..53
2.00
.038
-..5
100
.0..
510
1.0
1.62
19.0
.439
MEx
o4c
5012
6.8
3.44
1.09
.047
-..5
100
.0..5
101
.00.
8.5
21..5
.4.5
3
MEX
0.5C
17.8
124.
53.
391.
70.0
.53
'2.
42•.5
100
.0..5
101
.01.
4216
.8. .5
54
.048
.
MEX
07C
17.8
122.
13.
3?1.
84-
..510
0.0
..510
1.0
1..5
018
.4..5
92
MEX
08C
17.8
126.
73.
4.5
1.09
.02.
5-
•.510
0.0
..51
01
.00.
8918
.6.4
87
MEX
09C
17.8
132.
9).
62
2.40
~026
-...
510
0.0
•.51
01
.01.
8921
.1.6
08
'l'ABL
E3.
SUMf
VIAR
YOF
TEST
S-
GULF
OFAl
ASKA
AND
GULF
OFM
EXIC
OCl
AY
SW 0
'
1516
1718
1920
2122
2324
2526
27
,;
CYCL
ICLO
ADIN
GST
ATI
CLO
ADIN
GAF
TER
TEST
Tes
tT
T/S
"Y nu
S"Y
fu f
RATE
we
2e
uN
n2
fu
2e
REM
ARKS
No.
kg/e
m%
%kg
/em
Hz
kg/e
m%
kg/e
m2
min
/mm
%
GOA0
2S-
.134
16.9
.270
755
1.5
1.46
Dat
afr
om-
--
--
l7.im
miA
+W
l'"'o"
''''24
)
MEX
01S
--
-.
--
-.1
6322
.0.1
6675
95.3
2·5
9
MEx
o6s
--
--
--
.188
17.9
.177
7596
.52
.63
GOA
06.0
7050
105
17.9
.414
.15
4.4
1.5
5D
ata
from
--
--
1'7.;
mm
;{.
>-I-
Jill,"
,0"''
''(2
4)
GOA1
1C.0
7050
170
10.7
.405
.1-
--
-5
3.5
1.52
Mem
bran
eS
trai
ngu
age
mal
-fu
ne.
late
ral
stra
ins
est
GOA1
2C.0
7050
902
3.5
.396
.1-
--
-5
2.9
1.5
0
MEX
02C
.080
5060
09
.1-.3
42.1
--
--
93.2
2.5
4M
embr
ane
stra
ingu
age
mal
-1f
'1ll'
1f"'
1"t
""yo
"1
"'+"Y
'<:l;
YlC
>AR
t.
MEX
03C
.080
5069
012
.0.1
48.1
--
--
93
·52
.54
MEx
04c
.080
5085
036
.2.1
98.1
--
--
93.8
"2
.55
*M
embr
ane
stra
ingu
age
mal
-M
EX05
C.0
8050
750
3.2
.304
.1-
--
98.9
2.69
-fu
ne.l
ate
ral
stra
inR
est
MEX
07C
.080
5013
408
.2.3
04.1
--
--
93.9
2.5
5
MEx
08c
.080
5065
02
9.8
.354
.1-
--
-,1
01.9
2.77
MEX
09C
1.08
050
1050
..6
.3.3
04.1
--
--
:101
.52
.76
"
*T
est
term
inat
edpr
emat
urel
y.TA
BLE
3.(C
ON
TIN
UED
)W '-
J
COLUMN
1.
EXPLANATION
Test Number
38
2.
3.
4.
Sample Cross-Sectional Area:
Water Content of Trimmings
Void Ratio of Trimmings
250cm 2 standard size17.8cm =small size
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Sample Height
Undrained Shear Strength (Swedish Fall Cone)
Sensitivity (Swedish Fall Cone)
Vertical Consolidation Stress
Static Shear Stress (Horizontal Applied)
Maximum Consolidation Stress
Overconsolidation Ratio
Sample Height Following Consolidation
Vertical Strain
K - Calculated From Consolidation Strainso
Cyclic Shear Stress (Horizontal Applied)
Cyclic Shear Stress as a Percent of Static Strength
Number of Cycles Tested
Shear Strain at N Cycles
Pore Pressure at N Cycles
Frequency of Loading
Static Undrained Shear Strength (Peak of Stress-Strain Curve)
Shear Strain at Peak of Stress-Strain Curve
Pore Pressure at Peak of Stress-Strain Curve
Strain Rate
Water Content of Sample (After Test)
Void Ratio of Sample (After Test)
TABLE 3. (CONTINUED)
39
A relationship between K and size is apparent in Table 3.o
The calculated K values for the Gulf of Mexico samples tended too
be directly proportional to sample height. 2Additionally, the 17.81 cm
cross-sectional samples tended to have higher K values than the largero
250 cm samples. Other investigations of stress conditions occurring
in simple shear test samples indicated neither horizontal normal stress-
es nor vertical normal stresses acting on the samples were distributed
uniformly (10,21). The nonuniformity was found to depend on sample
size (height and diameter), the amount of vertical displacement, and the
percent of membrane wire reinforcement (21). This nonuniformity of stress
could cause disproportionate lateral strains in different size (height
or diameter) samples. Another possibility could be small eccentricities
in vertical loading caused by less than absolutely vertical samples result-
ing in greater moment effects on the smaller diameter and taller samples.
Nonetheless, all calculated K values for the Gulf of Mexico sampleso
were quite close, ranging from 0.44 to 0.60, with a mean of 0.50. Only
two Gulf of Alaska samples possessed the correct recorded data to faci-
litate the calculation of K , therefore, the average K value obtainedo 0
byZinnnie and Floess (24) in tests on the same soil were used in this
study.
B. Static Test Comparisons
The stress strain curves for the three static tests are shown in
Figure 9. The shear stress was normalized by dividing by the consolida-
tion stress r:Jvo These curves are consistent with existing literature
.5.
ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
--
ME
x06
s-
17
.8cm
2cro
ssse
cti
on
aI
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
b>
.4'-
--.
l-'~
-(/
)
~~
(/) ~
--
-..
----
.3-
-,-
---
-(/
)
I--
c:r::
,-
<t::
........
...f:@ (/
).2
r=l
IX1
N H H ~.1
0 z
0.
,I
06
12
18
24
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
FIG
UR
E9
.S
TR
ES
S-S
TR
AIN
CU
RV
ES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
ST
AT
ICTE
STS
PE
RFO
RM
ED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SM
ALL
DIA
ME
TE
RS
AM
PLE
S
.p
o
;;J
41
(12,15,24). The smaller Gulf of Mexico sample required more stress per
strain or, in other words, was stronger than the larger Gulf of Mexico
sample.
Figure 10 is a plot of normalized pore pressure against percent of
shear strain. This plot did not act in exactly the opposite manner from
the stress-strain curve, as might be expected from effective stress
principles. The pore pressure was higher in the small size Gulf of Mexico
sample than in the large, although the small sample had a higher shear
strength in Figure 9. Differences between the two sample sizes were small
in both figures (Figures 9 and 10). The pore pressure differences between
the Gulf of Alaska clay and Gulf of Mexico clay were predictable from
effective stress theory after having observed Figure 9.
The normalized shear modulus versus shear strain curves are presented
in Figure 11. The difference between the three are relatively small
but the small size Gulf of Mexico sample was slightly higher than the
other two, and the Gulf of Alaska sample was slightly lower. Shen et al
(21), indicated shear modulus results from the NGI device tend to be
lower than the soils real modulus.
The stress paths for a T - cr plot for the three tests are shown
in Figure 12. The failure line, Kf
, for 20 percent* strain and 3 percent
strain were nearly identical for the small Gulf of Mexico sample and
the standard Gulf of Alaska sample. From the slope of this line an angle
of internal friction, ~, for the two samples was calculated to be 30°
*The Kf line at 20 percent strain was calculated and shown because shearing forces started to drop off near this strain and the test was shortlyterminated. The three percent strain was thought to be a more practicalstrain value for working failure.
ob> ~ ~ U)
U) ~ ~ l=l
~ ~ ~ o Z
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 o
MEX
01S
-50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
MEx
o6S
-17
.8cm
2cr
oss
secti
on
GO
A02
S-
50cm
2cr
oss
secti
on
-----
--=--
----
---
~~---------------
,..-
..-,..
.-/~
~
o6
12
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
1824
FIG
UR
E1
0.
POR
EP
RE
SS
UR
E-
ST
RA
INC
UR
VE
SC
OM
PA
RE
DFO
RS
TA
TIC
TE
ST
SP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
MP
LES
.j::
N
10
00•.
ME
X01
S-
50
cru2
cro
ssse
cti
on
ME
xo6
s-
17.8
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
GO
A02
S-
50
cru2
cro
ssse
cti
on
2418
--.-
--
--=
:...
.::-
--
-~-----c
12
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%6
I1
I,
,I
,O
·lJ,
o
1.
10
.
a\:
? a1
00
.
rg S § :a: IJ:i
<t:
E@ t:J)
~ (X1
N H H i o :z;
F'IG
UR
E1
1.
NO
RM
ALI
ZE
DS
HE
AR
MO
DU
LUS
DA
TAC
OM
PA
RE
DFO
RS
TA
TIC
TE
ST
SP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
MP
LES
.p
w
Kfl
(20%
str7K
fZ(Z
O%
Str
ain
)
r-..
.'ZO
l/"
5f1(
3%S
trai
n)
rd Q)
·rl
rl Pi
Pi
.16
<t:
rl cd
.12~
MEX
01S
-50
cmZ
cro
ssse
ctio
n.p
%~--
-=1=1 a
MEx
o6s
-17
.Scm
2cr
oss
sect
ion
t'I ·rl
-\
GOAO
ZS-
50cm
2cr
oss
sect
ion
f.-l 0 ::G y
.osl
1///
'\.'.\
Kf1
-fa
ilu
reli
ne
for
GOAO
ZSan
dM
Ex06
sC\.l~
Kf2
-fa
ilu
reli
ne
for
MEX
01S
()'-
.. b{)
~ ({)
({) ~
.04
({)
~ <t: ~ ({)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.S
O
NORM
ALST
RESS
kg/c
mZ
FIG
URE
12
."S
TRES
SPA
THS"
COM
PARE
DFO
RST
ATI
CTE
STS
PERF
ORM
EDON
GULF
OFAL
ASKA
CLAY
AND
GULF
OFM
EXIC
OCL
AYFO
RBO
THST
ANDA
RDAN
DSM
ALL
DIAM
ETER
SAM
PLES
.j>
.j>-
45
for 20 percent strain and 20° for 3 percent strain. The standard size
Gulf of Mexico sample was calculated to have a 26° friction angle for
20 percent strain and 17° for 3 percent strain.
The p - q stress plots in Figure 13, for the two Gulf of Mexico
samples are quite similar, and the plot for the Gulf of Alaska sample
is lower. Connecting the p - q points associated with 20 percent and
3 percent strain resulted in Kf lines for the respective strains. Cal-
culating ~ angles for these lines resulted in considerably higher values
than obtained from the results shown in Figure 12 where it was assumed
that the horizontal plane is the theoretical plane of failure. The ~
values obtained from the p - q plots were all quite close, the average
being 40° for 20 percent strain and 30° for three percent strain. These
results are consistent with values obtained by Zimmie and Floess (24).
The ratios of horizontal normal stress to vertical normal stress are
exhibited in Figure 14. The ratio, beginning at the initial lateral stress
ratio, K , increases throughout the test. The plots increased in ano
opposite manner to the stress-strain plots and similar to the pore pressure-
strain plots. While the ratio remained below 0.6 for the standard size
Gulf of Mexico sample and below 1.0 for the other Gulf of Mexico sample,
it increased rapidly and exceeded 1.0 for the Gulf of Alaska sample. The
values for normal horizontal stress were obtained from lateral strain
measurements.
The ratio 03/01* also starting at Ko ' decreased throughout the tests
*Values for 01 and 03 are based on the assumptions and equations presentedin section B, "Stress Conditions", Part 1 of this report, and by Zimmieand Floess (24).
MEX
01S
-5
0cm
2cro
sssecti
on
--
--
ME
xo6s
-1
7.8
cm2
cro
ss
secti
on
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
sssecti
on
.60
6-
J%S
train
Po
int
X-
20%
Str
ain
Po
int
vS
train
)
.45
.)0
Kf(2~
Str
ain
)
.15
oo.2
5
.20
.15
.10
.05
q
p
FIG
UR
E1
3•
p-
qST
RE
SSPL
OT
SCO
MPA
RED
FOR
ST
AT
IC'JE
STS
PER
FOR
MED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
lASK
AC
lAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
MEX
ICO
ClA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SMA
LLD
IAM
E'IE
RSA
MPL
ES
.j::-
0\
';1
ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
--
--
MEx
06s
-17
.8cm
2cro
ssse
cti
on
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
b:>
.......... b..c:
1.0
..---
----
---_
.....--
--
--.....~
---
-- 2418
12
6
ot
II
IJ
II
II
o
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
FIG
UR
E1
4.
THE
RA
TIO
OF
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LN
OR
MA
LS
TRE
SS
TOV
ER
TIC
AL
NO
RM
AL
STR
ES
SV
S.
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
ST
AT
ICT
ES
TS
PE
R
FOR
MED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SM
ALL
DIA
ME
TE
RS
AM
PLE
S.p
-..
.J
48
but the three plots are very similar, as shown in Figure 15.
It appears that if the initial K values (discussed in sectiona
A of Part 4) for the Gulf of Mexico samples were equal, as would be
expected, little difference would have existed between their plots
in the p - q, 0h/ov' and ° 3/°1 graphs. This would indicate the static
results for the two sample sizes are compatible.
C. Sample Cross Section Size Comparison for Cyclic Tests
Cyclic tests were carried out ata frequency of 0.1 Hz, using
50 percent of the static shear strength for the cyclic shearing stress.
The plots shown in this section utilize an average of the test results
from various sample heights tested for each of the sample size groups.
Cyclic shear strain versus the number of loading cycles is plotted
on Figure 16.* Shear strains given are one-half the peak-to-peak shear
strain. The Gulf of Mexico samples were far more resistant to cyclic
loading than the Gulf of Alaska samples. This appears reasonable, con-
sidering the lower static shear strength of the Gulf of Alaska soil,
plus its higher sensitivity. A difference between the two Gulf of Mexico
sample sizes was observed. The smaller cross-sectional sample size
yielded less per cycle than the larger. This was consistent in the
seven Gulf of Mexico samples tested (three standard size samples and four
smaller size samples) shown in later graphs. A possibility that could
account for part of this apparent strength difference is differences in
resistance to shear of the two reinforced membrane sizes. The smaller
membrane may offer more resistance than the lar~er membranes.
*After the first few cycles, shear strains were about 1/2%. Therefore,it falsely appears that Fig. 16,22,23,24 do not pass through zero percentstrain.
~ ~
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2
-
ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
ME
xo6
s-
17.8
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
--
----------
-
°II
II
IL
,I
I
°6
12
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
1824
.:1
FIG
UR
E1
5.
THE
RA
TIO
(),j
O'1
VS
.S
HE
AR
ST
RA
INC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RS
TA
TIC
TE
ST
SP
ER
FOR
ME
Do
ffG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
MP
LES
+:
1.0
FIG
UR
E1
6.
AV
ER
AG
ES
HE
AR
ST
RA
INV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
TES
TSP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
M
PIE
S
lJ1 o
51
Pore pressure versus number of cycles, illustrated in Figure 17, is
consistent with the above in respect to the comparison of Gulf of
Alaska soil to Gulf of Mexico soil. However, the Gulf of Mexico stand-
ard cross-sectional sample size would have been expected to exhibit
greater pore pressures per cycle, relative to the smaller size sample,
accounting for its more rapid loss of ·strength.
The shear modulus (Figure 18) for both Gulf of Mexico sample
sizes are nearly identical. The Gulf of Alaska soil exhibited a higher
initial shear modulus which decreased more rapidly with the number of
cycles than did the Gulf of Mexico clay.
The p - q diagrams in Figure 19 have the same basic shapes. The
smaller size Gulf of Mexico sample fell below the others and barely
crossed the three percent strain Kf line from the static test. This is
contrary to results obtained by Zimmie and Floess (24), who found the
three percent cyclic shear strains to fall near or on the three percent
static Kf line.
The ratio of 0h/ov (Figure 20) is similar for the two standard
samples but the shape of the curve is almost the mirror image of the
small sample which reached 1.0 by test termination. Until failure became
imminent, all three curves maintained nearly K conditions. Near failure,a
the ratio of 0h/Ov increased for the small sample,while the ratio de-
creased for the two standard size samples.
The plot of the ratio °3/°1 is contained in Figure 21. The small
sample exhibited a ratio higher than the two standard size samples.
The three curves are similar in shape with the ratio staying relatively
1.0
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-5
0cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
--
--
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
1600
1200
"....
.""'
"
80
0
,...
,.,..
.-,...~
40
0
,..//_
/I</'~
./
oo.8 .6 .2.4
~ (/)
(/) 8'1 P; ! I=l t§ tj ~ o z
ob> 'a-
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E17
.A
VE
RA
GE
POR
EP
RE
SS
UR
EV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
CY
CLI
CTE
STS
PE
RFO
RM
ED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DAN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
M
PLE
S
V1
N
)
1000
A'la
ska
nC
lay
-50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
--
--
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
~\\
.......
-....
......
..-
,1,10
r:;:l
IXl
N H H ~ o z
o :>~
100
CJ
-r--
---.
.-[/
) § A ~ p:j ~ [/)
1000
010
0010
010
II
0.1
1f
I
1.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
IES
FIG
UR
E18
.A
VE
RA
GE
SH
EA
RM
OD
ULU
SV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
'TE
STS
PER
FOR
MED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YAN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AND
SM
ALL
DIA
ME
'TE
RS
AM
P
IES
V1
W
.25
.20
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Kf(
J%
Str
ain
)
q
.15
.10
.05 o
o
...-.-
-,<
d
.15
./
//
,;'/
.,.., .30 p
.45
6.-
Jf>S
tra
inP
oin
t
.60
';!
FIG
UR
E1
9.
AV
ER
AG
ES
TRE
SS
PLO
TC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
'rES
TSPE
RFO
RM
EDO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
E'IE
RS
AM
PLE
S
~
1.0 .8 .6
------
---------
J
J/
,//
,/
---_
.....
b:>~
b.£1
.4
""\
.2 o
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
1.
1010
010
0010
000
:./
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E20
.TH
EA
VE
RA
GE
RA
TIO
OF
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LN
OR
MA
LS
TRE
SS
TOV
ER
TIC
AL
NO
RM
AL
STR
ES
SV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
TES
TSPE
RFO
RM
EDO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
MP
LES
VI
VI
1.0
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-5
0cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
--
--
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
~
\
----
.
....--
---.
......
----
--.
....-...
...."
",
.8 .6 .2
b~
M o.4 o
1.1
010
010
0010
000
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
FIG
UR
E21
•TH
EA
VE
RA
GE
RA
TIO
()3/<
J1V
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
TES
TSP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLDIA~
ME
TER
SA
MP
LES
Ln
0'\
57
level until failure approaches.
As in the static test, if the initial K for the Gulf of Mexicoa
samples were equal, the p - q, crh/crv
' and cr 3/crl
plots would probably
have been more identical for a large portion of the test. The differ-
ence in direction at failure of the crh/av
ratio plots for the two
sample sizes is. unexplained.
D. Sample Height Comparisons for Cyclic Tests
The following is a presentation of the results of individual tests
as a function of sample height. As explained earlier, three sample
heights (approximately 10 mm, 15 mm, and 25 rom) were compared. Since
trimming imprecisions restricted the ability to obtain samples at exactly
precise heights, the actual heights varied somewhat. Actual sample
heights are noted on each gr~ph.
All remaining graphs are plotted in the following sequence - the
Gulf of Alaska standard size samples are plotted on the first graph of
each group, the standard size Gulf of Mexico samples are plotted on the
second graph, and the small Gulf of Mexico sample size is plotted on the
last graph of each group.
Figures 22 through 24 compare the percent of shear strain to number
of cycles. Where differences were apparent, as in Figure 22 and 24,
the shortest sample tended to fail more rapidly. As sample height was
varied the results of the tests on standard size samples shown in Figures
22 and 23 were quite consistent, but the plots of the small size samples
2(17.8 cm cross section), in Figure 24, were much more scattered. Similar
results for consolidation test samples were observed by Berre et al (3).
12
00
80
04
00
orL
-.-
-r-
-r-
-,-
.,-
...,
-..
.,-
-r-
II
II
•I
II
GL
10..
I;I
--
-G
OA
06C
-1
6.5
mm
he
igh
t--
GO
AliC
-2
1.0
mm
he
igh
t
IG
OA
12C
-1
0.9
mm
he
igh
t
8-1
I'
~
61IiI
f:j pg E-!
rJ)
p:j
4~ ~ rJ
)
2
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E2
2.
SH
EA
RS
'l'R
AIN
VS
.N
UM
BER
OF
CY
ClE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
R'rE
ST
SO
N5
0cm
2C
RO
SSS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
SA
MP
lES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
V1
00
\R R ~ (J)
p:; ~ (J)
10 8 6 4 2 o
, I I I
--
--
ME
X02
C-
17
.2mm
heig
ht
--
-M
EX
03C~
20
.0mm
heig
ht
----
--M
Ex0
4c
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
40
08
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
S
12
00
16
00
FIG
UR
E23
.S
HE
AR
ST
RA
INV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RTE
STS
ON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
¥S
AM
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
\Jl
\0
, ,10
.,I
MEX
09C
-2
4.0
rnm
hei
gh
tI
--
MEX
05C
-1
7.0
mmh
eig
ht
I..
.M
EX07
C-
18
.4mm
hei
gh
t,
--
-M
EX08
C-
10
.9mm
hei
gh
t8.
1I
. .,
• •,
*I
1=16
I/
. .~
I. .
E-t
I(f
)
/.
~I
.4
I.
~.
/. .
(f)
/
----,/
•
""2..
.1,/
~
-------
..-
..
01
,I
I,
,,
,J
o40
080
012
0016
00
NUM
BER
OFCY
ClES
FIG
URE
24.
SHEA
RST
RAIN
VS.
NUIV
lBER
OFCY
ClES
COM
PARE
DFO
RTE
STS
ON1
7.8
cm2
CROS
SSE
CTIO
NA
LAR
EAGU
LFOF
MEX
ICO
CLAY
SAM
PLES
OFVA
RYIN
GH
EIG
HTS
(j\ o
61
As expected larger diameter soil samples yield more consistent results
and are preferred in practice.
Pore pressures in Figures 25 to 27 behaved as one might expect,
with larger build ups of pore pressure for the tests that failed more
rapidly. The scatter in Figure 26 is greater than that for the tightly
grouped strain versus cycles plots of Figure 23.
The shear modulus plots of Figures 28, 29, and 30 were well grouped
with the exception of the short sample of Figure 30. The 10.9 rom height,
217.8 cm cross section Gulf of Mexico sample also exhibited the greatest
rate of strain and largest pore pressures for its sample size group.
Figures 31 through 33 represent the p - q stress path plots for
these tests. The p - q plots coincide quite closely in Figure 31 despite
height variations. Figure 32, if K was adjusted, would become morea
closely grouped. In Figure 33 the plots are all of similar shape, and
converge at failure. If this figure was adjusted for K the plots woulda
still remain closely grouped. The three percent shear strain points
from cyclic tests are indicated by the apex of the triangles. No consis-
tency with the static failure lines (Kf = 3 percent) is evidenced in any
of the three graphs. In Figure 33 three of the four paths never cross
the three percent static failure line. Even shifts in the paths due to
adjustments in K would not change this situation significantly.a
Presented next, in Figures 34, 35 and 36, are the ratios of 0h/ov
for the ten tests. If, as in Figure 34, all plots started with equal
K values, the grouping of these curves would be very tight, again, witha
the exception of test MEX08C (shortest height-small diameter Gulf of
1.0
--
-G
OA
06C
-1
6.5
mmh
eig
ht
0.8
I/
--
GO
AllC
-2
1.0
mmh
eig
ht
b>G
OA
12C
-1
0.9
mmh
.eig
ht
'?r ~.6
(/)
(/)
~ P;
~.4
0 P;
!==l
!Xl
\=::j
H $ P:l 0 z
0J
04
00
80
01
20
01
60
0
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
F'IG
UR
E25
.PO
RE
PR
ES
SU
RE
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
'JE
STS
ON
50
cm2
CR
OS
SS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
SA
M
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
0'
N
1.0
--
MEX
02C
-17
02
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
OJC
-2
0.0
mmh
eig
ht
0I
MEx
04c
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
\:?
.8'?
f ~.6
[f)
[f) ~ 8'1
.40 P-
ti=
\r:i
lN
J,
~
-tj ~
.20 z
0I
040
080
012
0016
00
NUM
BER
OF
CYCL
ES
FIG
URE
26
.PO
REPR
ESSU
REVS
oNU
MBE
ROF
CYCL
ESCO
MPA
RED
FOR
TEST
SON
50cm
2CR
OSS
SECT
ION
AL
AREA
GULF
OF
MEX
ICO
CLAY
SAM
PL
ESOF
VARY
ING
HEI
GH
TS
0'
LV
","
'"
"". . •
••••
--
MEX
0.5C
-1
7.0
romh
eig
ht
ME
X07
C-
18
.4nu
nh
eig
ht
ME
X08
c-
10
.9rom
heig
ht
ME
X09
C-
24
.0nu
nh
eig
ht
".,
,-
....'
....,
/---
,.
1.0
0.8
b> ~ ~.6
rJ)
rJ) ~ ~
.4~ A ~ H
.2H ~ 0 :z
;
oo
40
08
00
12
00
1600
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YCLE
S
FIG
UR
E27
.PO
RE
PRES
SHR
EV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YCLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
R'JE
STS
ON1
7.8
emC
RO
SSS
EC
TIO
NA
LAR
EAG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
SAM
PLES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
0\~
:;J
10
00
GO
A06
c-
16
.5mm
~eight
GO
Al1
C-
21
.0mm
heig
ht
GO
A12
C-
10
.9mm
heig
ht
ob:
>
'0- (J) ~ § ~ p:; ~ q r:il ~ ~ o z
10
0
10 1
------~
10
00
01
00
01
00
10
a:I
0.1
1I
I
1.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
S
FIG
UR
E2
8.
SH
EA
RM
OD
ULU
SV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
IES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
'TE
STS
PER
FOR
MED
ON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YS
AM
PIE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
0\
Ln
10
1000
o t1
00
U) § § ;8 p:;
<G ~ If)
I-l rg
1H H ~ :z
i
0.1
--
--
--
MEX
02C
-1
7.2
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
03C
-2
0.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEx
04c
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
1.
1010
010
0010
000
"B'IG
URE
29
.
NUM
BER
OFCY
CIES
SHEA
RM
ODUL
USV
S.NU
MBE
ROF
CYCI
ESCO
MPA
RED
FOR
'IEST
SPE
RFOR
MED
ON50
cm2
CROS
SSE
CTIO
NA
LAR
EAGU
LFOF
MEX
ICO
CLAY
SAM
PIES
OFVA
RYIN
GH
EIG
HTS
0\
0\
1000
--
--
MEX
05C
-1
7.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
07C
-1
8.4
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
08C
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
09C
-2
4.0
mmh
eig
ht
~...
~,
~"""
"\
\:
\ \
---
------
--
--
110
r='l
III N H ~ :% & o :z;o
b:>
100
~ § § :8 p::
<J:; fi1 (/)
1000
010
0010
010
0.11
•,
•I
1.
NUM
BER
OFCY
CLES
FIG
URE
30SH
EAR
MOD
ULUS
VS.
NUM
BER
OFCY
CLES
COM
PARE
DFO
R'IE
STS
PERF
ORM
EDON
17
.8cm
2CR
OSS
SECT
ION
AL
AREA
GU
LFOF
~~XICO
ClA
YSA
MPL
ESOF
VA
RYIN
GH
EIG
HTS
0'
'-.I
q
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05 o
fC3
'l6S
train
)
n-
y~
Str
ain
Po
int
GO
A06
c-
16
.5m
mh
eig
ht
--
--
GO
Al1
C-
21
.0m
mh
eig
ht
GO
A12
C-
10
.9mm
heig
ht
o.1
5.3
0
p
.45
.60
FIG
UR
E3
tST
RE
SSPL
OT
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
CY
CL
IC'.r
EST
SON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SEC
TIO
NA
LA
REA
GU
LFO
FA
LASK
AC
LAY
SAM
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
H'l'S
(j1
00
Cd.
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05 o
Kf
(Jfo
Str
ain
)
D-
'J/oS
trai
nP
oin
t
--
--
MEX
02C
-1
7.2
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
03C
-2
0.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
04c
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
1-~1-·
IJ
JI
IJ
o.1
5.3
0.4
5.6
0
- p
FIG
URE
32
.ST
RESS
PLO
TCO
MPA
RED
FOR
CYCL
ICTE
STS
ON50
cm2
CROS
SSE
CTIO
NA
LAR
EAGU
LFOF
MEX
ICO
CLAY
SAM
PLES
OF
VARY
ING
HEI
GH
TS
{j\
1..0
.25
.20
--
--
MEX
05C
-1
7.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
07C
-1
8.4
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
08C
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
09C
-2
L f-.0
mmh
eig
ht
:{f(
J%S
train
)
~-
J%S
train
Po
int
Z//
/.-
,/.
~./..:
)~~
....
.~:..:;,...
Kf
(2CY
/oS
trai
!1)
o
.15
.10
.05
q
o.1
5.3
0.4
5.6
0
:P
FIG
UR
E33
.ST
RE
SSPL
OT
COM
PARE
DFO
RC
YC
LIC
TE
STS
ON1
7.8
cm2
CR
OSS
SEC
TIO
NA
LA
REA
GU
LFO
FM
EXIC
OC
IAY
SAM
PLES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HEI
GH
TS
-....J a
b?~
tf
1.0 .8 .6 .4
w,
.2 o
GO
A06
c-
16
.5mm
heig
ht
--
--
GO
A11
C-
21
.0mm
heig
ht
-----
GO
A12
C-
10
.9mm
heig
ht
----",...,.-~
~~'''' ~
1.1
01
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
10
00
10
00
0
F'IG
UR
E34
•TH
ER
A'fI
OO
FH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
NO
RM
AL
STR
ES
STO
VE
RT
ICA
LN
OR
MA
LS
TRE
SS
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TE
ST
SO
N5
0cm
2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LF'
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
SA
MP
LES
OF
VA
RY
IN
GH
EIG
HT
S
--.J
I-'
'0>
..........
.~
1.0 .8 .6 •1
+
.2
--
--
ME
X02
C-
17
.2m
mh
eig
ht
ME
XO
JC-
20
.0m
mh
eig
ht
ME
X04
c-
10
09
mm
he
igh
t
------
-----'"
----
----
----
-- -
......"
....", .....
, , \
oIii
Ii
1.1
01
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
ClE
S
10
00
10
00
0
,~
I
FIG
UR
E35
.TH
ER
AT
IOO
FH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
NO
RM
AL
S'l'R
ES
STO
VE
RT
ICA
LN
OR
MA
LS
rrRE
SS
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSO
N5
0cm
2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YS
AM
PLE
SO
FV
AR
Y
ING
HE
IGH
TS
~ N
1.0-1 .8 .6
I / /I
,/
,/
,/'
,/
---..-
-..-_--
:--:-.'/
'..
~."
",.
,..
"•
IIJ"
"
l......
....._
_,
..........
".,r-r-:.~.
41
"..
41"
/'
._-----
---
• .
b> ~.4
\:)
.2
--
ME
X05
c-
17
.0mm
heig
ht
ME
X07
C-
18
.4rnm
heig
ht
ME
X08
C-
10
.9mm
heig
ht
ME
X09
C-
24
.0mm
heig
ht
oI
r-,
T
1.
10
10
01
00
01
00
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
FIG
UR
E36
.TH
ER
AT
IOO
F'H
OR
IZO
NT
AL
NO
RM
AL
STR
ES
STO
VE
RT
ICA
LN
OR
MA
LS
TRE
SS
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
'IES
TS
ON
17
.8cm
2C
RO
SSS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
SA
MP
LES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
1GH
TS
---.J
W
74
Mexico sample).
The ratios 03/01' in Figures 37 to 39, are grouped quite closely.
Adjusting K values would produce somewhat more consistent plots ino
Figures 38 and 39.
1.0 .8
GO
A06
c-
16
.5m
IDh
eig
ht
--
GO
Al1
C-
21
.0mm
heig
ht
GO
A12
C-
10
.2mm
heig
ht
.6b..
-J----
---..
b("\
~~
.4.-
.2 o,
II
II
1.
10
10
0
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
S
10
00
10
00
0
FIG
UR
E3
7.
THE
RA
TIO
O-J/G
iV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RTE
STS
ON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YS
AM
-
PIE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
'-.l
U1
b-rl
........
......
b0'1
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 o
MEX
02C
-1
7.2
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
OJC
-2
0.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEX~+C
-1
0.9
mmh
Eig
ht
--_..
.---
--,.
.-....
......
--.~----.
1.
1010
010
0010
000
FIG
UH
E38
.
NUM
BER
OFCY
CIES
THE
RATI
O0-J/0
1V
S.NU
MBE
ROF
CYCL
ESCO
MPA
RED
FOR
'JEST
S
ON50
cm2
CROS
SSE
CTIO
NA
LAR
EAGU
LFO
FM
EXIC
OCL
AYSA
M-
PIE
SOF
VARY
ING
HEI
GH
TS---
.&0
'
1.0 .8
MEX
05C
-1
7.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
07C
-1
8.4
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
08c
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
09C
-2
4.0
mmh
eig
ht
.6It
- -~
.....
kIiJJ
W••
__
=:-
'10
_..
..~'.
----
.......,~
.~
-,
.-
,:
\ \ \
,It
b~
..........
...bC
"l
.2 oI
II
I,
1.
1010
010
0010
000
NUM
BER
OFCY
CLES
F'IG
URE
39
.TH
ERA
TIO
()3/<
J 1V
S.NU
MBE
ROF
CYCL
ESCO
MPA
RED
FOR
TEST
S
ON1
7.8
cm2
CROS
SSE
CTIO
NA
LAR
EAGU
LFOF
MEX
ICO
CLAY
SAM
PLES
OF'
VAHY
ING
HEI
GH
TS-.j
-.j
PART 5
DISCUSSION Ai"l"D CONCLUSIONS
A. Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to study sample size
effects on cyclic and static shear tests performed on clays, using the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute direct simple shear device. To a
lesser degree undrained strength characteristics of Gulf of Alaska
and Gulf of l1exico clays were investigated and compared. To accom-
plish these goals the Gulf of Mexico samples tested were of two diam-
eters and three different heights. The middle height was at or near the
15 mm recommended by Geonor (8). Gulf of Alaska samples were restricted
to one diameter but varied in height. Static tests for the Gulf of
Alaska soil and for both diameters of the Gulf of Mexico samples were
conducted using the recommended height. All tests were run as consoli-
dated constant volume tests to simulate undrained conditions. ~ll were
consolidated to the same vertical normal stress. Lateral strains were
measured, and horizontal normal stresses calculated. All cyclic tests
were performed with cyclic stresses equal to SO percent of the static
strengths obtained. K values THere calculated by using lateral strainso
measured during consolidation of the samples.
During the static tests, normal vertical stress, horizontal shear
stress, horizontal shear strains, and lateral strains were monitored and
recorded. During cyclic tests the same was true, h01;<7ever) the horizontal
78
79
shear stress was constant, since the tests were constant stress tests.
Using these known and measured values, and with the assumptions and
equations presented in Part 1 of this text, calculations were performed
to obtain the data presented in Part 4.
One effect of sample size noticed was the direct relation of the
calculated K values to sample heights for the Gulf of Mexico samples*.a
The mean values were 0.446 for the large diameter sample and 0.554 for
the small diameter sample. For the large diameter samples the value
ranged from 0.439 to 0.453 for the shortest and tallest samples, respec-
tively. For the small diameter sample the range was 0.487 to 0.608 for
the shortest and tallest samples, respectively. The variances and
2standard deviations were: large diameter samples -- s = 0.0001 s~ - x ' x
2for the small diameter samples -- s = 0.0032, and s = 0.056. The Kx x a
values are fairly well grouped considering the variabilities normally
0.01;
Ko
associated with .soil investigations and seem reasonable for the soil test-
ed. The use of lateral strain measurement may offer a viable method of
obtaining K for future studies, but adjustments will be necessary too
compensate for differences due to height variations.
Static tests comparing sample cross-sectional variations showed the
smaller diameter sample was slightly more resistant to shear than the 50
2cm sample. However, only one test was run for each size, and normal
experLuental variations could easily account for the difference.
*K values for the Gulf of Alaska soil were not calculated during thisin~estigation because of lack of recorded data. Instead, the averagevalue obtained by Zimmie and Floess (24) was used.
80
Differences in cross-sectional sample size for cyclic tests were
more defined, at least for resistance to shear strain per cycle. Con
current with static test results, the smaller sample was more durable.
However, the disparity in strength was considerably greater with the
small sample, averaging almost twice as many cycles for strains of three
percent or greater. This is a significant difference and perhaps partly
attributable to greater support from sample membranes. Ladd and Edgers
(11) found the resistance of the membranes to shear increased with in
creasing shear strain and with decreasing normal loads. The normal
load required was much less for the small diauleter samples to maintain
a vertical normal stress equal to the larger cross section samples. The
resistance of standard sample size membranes were measured to be less
than .01 kg/cm2 for stresses up to .3 kg/cm2 . Small membranes were not
tested by Ladd and Edgers (11).
Additionally, the smaller samples evidenced much more scatter of
results than did the larger samples, although sample heights were varied
equally. This is consistent with data obtained on consolidation tests
by Berre et al (3).
Intuitively, one might expect that shear strain resistance would be
inversely proportional to sample height and pore pressure build up would
be directly proportional to sample height, since the greater the distance
to the drainage surfaces the greater the pore pressures are likely to
be (3,4). Additionally, a larger moment could be developed as sample
height increases, resulting from the greater distances between shearing
surfaces. However, the data indicates randoril variation in test results
due to differences in sample height.
81
Common to the three categories (static test, cyclic test ~vith sample
cross section varied, and cyclic test with sample height varied) discussed,
was the effect of the calculated K value. Where this value was used ino
calculations to obtain data plots, it was noticed that if the K value hada
been equal for all samples, the plots would have compared much more con-
sistently. Obtaining K as was done in this investigation could be ofa
value, but the effects of sample height must be considered.
The Gulf of Alaska clay was somewhat weaker than the Gulf of Mexico
clay under static loading conditions (approximately 20 percent) but was
far less resistant to shear strains during cyclic loadings. After only
2one-sixth the number of loading cycles of the 50 em Gulf of Mexico
samples, the Gulf of Alaska samples evidenced equal or even higher strains.
Pore pressures built up at a much faster rate in the Gulf of Alaska samples,
indicating a reduction in effective stress. Comparisons have been made of
a direct relationship of soil sensitivity values and behavior under cyclic
loading (19). This relation is apparent for the two soils tested as the
sensitivity value for the Gulf of Alaska soil was 4.0,nearly twice the
2.5 value for the Gulf of Nexico clay.
B. Summary
The fL~dings of this investigation suggest some effects of sample
size on results obtained from the use of the Nonvegian Geotechnical Insti-
tute direct simple shear device. The following list sUTh~rizes these
findings:
82
K values calculated using measured lateral strains were directlya
proportional to sample height and inversely proportional to sample
diameter. The calculated values for the large diameter samples
ranged from 0.439 to 0.453, with a mean value of 0.446 and a
variance and standard deviation of 0.0001 and 0.01, respectively.
The small diameter samples yielded values varying from 0.487 to
0.608 with a mean of 0.554 and a variance and standard deviation
of 0.0032 and 0.056, respectively.
During static testing the smaller diameter sample showed 10 to
15 percent more resistance to shear strain than the larger sample.
In cyclic loading the smaller sample was significantly more
resistant to shear strain per cycle than the larger sample.
(Approximately twice as resistant).
The smaller sample showed less repeatability of results with great-
er scatter of test results.
No evidence was obtained to suggest that variations in sample
height will effect cyclic shear resistance.
Adjusting K values would produce more consistent plots of p - qo
stress paths, and Gh!Gv
and G3!0
1ratios for samples of the same
soil.
In brief, K is effected by changes in height; the smaller crosso
sectional sample size produces higher static and cyclic shear strain
resistance, but a much greater degree of scatter; and sample height had
little obvious and consistent effects on cyclic shear results.
83
The comparison of the behavior of the Gulf of Alaska clay with that
of the Gulf of Mexico clay illustrated a relation of soil sensitivity to
cyclic strength. Consistent with other investigations (19), the soil
with the higher sensitivity value showed much less resistance to cyclic
shearing stresses. In addition, although the static shear strength of
the Gulf of Alaska sample was less than 20 percent below the static shear
strength of the 50 cm2 Gulf of Mexico sample, it was almost six times
less resistant to shear strains under cyclic conditions.
84
PART 6
LITERATURE CITED
1. Aggarwal,Y.P., and Sykes, L.R. (1978), llEarthquake, Faults, andNuclear Power Plants in Southern New York and Northern NewJersey", Science Magazine, Vol. 200, pp. 425-429.
2. Andersen, K.G. (1976), "Behavior of Clay Subjected to UndrainedCyclic Loadingll , Proc. International Cant. on the Behaviorof Offshore Structures, Norwegian Institute of Technology,Trondheim, Vol. 1, pp. 392-403.
3. Berre, T., Schjetne, D., and Sollie, S. (1969), llSampling Disturbanceof Soft Marine Clays", Proc. Seventh International Conf. on SoilMechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, pp. 417-420.
4. Berre, T., Iversen, K. (1972), "Oedometer Tests with DifferentSpecimen Heights on a Clay Exhibiting Large Secondary Compression",Geotechnique, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 53-70.
5. Carlson, P.R. (1976), "Submarine Faults and Slides that DisruptSurficial Sedimentary Units, Northern Gulf of Alaska", U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Open File Report 76-294, Menlo Park, California.
6. Danielson, E.F., Burt, "oJ.V., and Rattray, M., Jr. (1957), "Intensityand Frequency of Severe Storms in the Gulf of Alaskall , Transactions,American Geophysical Union, Vol. 38, No.1, pp. 44-49.
7. Fischer, J.A., Koutsoftas, D.C., and Lu, T.D. (1976), !!The Behaviorof Marine Soils Under Cyclic Loadingl/, Proc., International Cant.on the Behavior of Offshore Structure~, Norwegian Institute ofTechnology, Trondheim, Vol. 2, pp. 407-417.
8. Geonor (1968), "Description and Instruction for Use of Direct- SimpleShear Apparatus Model h-12", Geonor A/S, Oslo.
9. Hampton, M.A., Bouma, A.H., Carlson, P.R., Molina, B.F., andClukey, E.C. (1978), "Quantitative Study of Slope Instability inthe Gulf of Alaska", Proc., 10th Offshore Technology Conf.,Houston, pp. 2307-2318.
10. Hvorslev, N.J.,and Daufman, R.I. (1952), !!Torsion Shear Apparatusand Testing Procedures!!, USAE Waterways Experiment Station,Bulletin No. 38, May.
85
11. Ladd, C.C., and Edgers, L. (1972), "Consolidated Undrained DirectSimple Shear Tests on Saturated Clays", Soils PublicationNo. 284, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
12. Lee, K.L., and Focht, J.A. (1976), "Strength of Clay Subjectedto Cyclic Loading", Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 1, No.3, pp.165-185.
13. Lucks, A.S., Christian, J.T., Brandow, G.E., and Hoeg, D.(1972), "Stress Conditions in NGI Simple Shear Test", J. SoilMech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SMl, pp. 155-160.
14. Hitche11, R.J., Tsui, K.K., and Sangrey, D.A. (1973), "Failureof Submarine Slopes Under Wave Action", Proc., 13th InternationalCont. on Coastal Eng., Vol. 1.
15. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (1975), "Research Project, Repeated Loading on Clay: Summary and Interpretation of Test Results",NGI Report: 74037-9, Oct. 1975, Oslo.
16. Prevost, J.R., and Roeg, K. (1976); "Reanalysis of Simple ShearSoil Testing", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 418429.
17. Roscoe, K.H. (1953), "An Apparatus for the Application of SL1upleShear to Soil Samples", Proc., 3rd ICSl'1FE, Zurich, Vol. 1,pp. 186-191.
18. Rowe, R.W. (1975), "Displacement and Failure Modes of Model OffshoreGravity Platforms Founded on Clay", Offshore Europe 1975,Aberdeen, Scotland, Conf. Paper OE-75 218.1.
19. Sangrey, D.A., Castro, G., Poulos, S.J., and France, J.W. (1978),"Cyclic Loadings of Sands, Silts and Clays'!, Proc., EarthquakeEngineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE Specialty Conf., Pasadena,pp. 836-851.
20. Seed, R.B. (1976), "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on LevelGround During Earthquakes '!, Liquefaction Problems in GeotechnicalEngineerin~, ASCE, National Convention, Philadelphia, pp. 1-104.
21. Shen, C.rz., Herrmann, L.R., and Sadigh, K. (1978), "lmalysis ofCyclic Simple Shear Test Data", Proe., Earthquake Engineering andSoil Dynamics, ASCE Specialty Conf., Pasadena, pp. 864-874.
86
22. Wang. L.R., and O'Rourke, M.J., flAn Overview of Buried LifelineEarthquake Engineering", Seismic Vulnerability, Behavior andDesign of Underground Piping Systems (S\~DUPS Project), TechnicalReport No. lA, January, 1978, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,Department of Civil Engineering.
23. Woods, R.D. (1978), "Heasurement of Dynamic Soil Properties",Proc., Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE SpecialtyConf., Pasadena, PP. 91-178.
24. Zimrnie, ToF. and Floess, C.H.L. (1979), "Simple Shear Behavior ofFine Grained Soils Subjected to Earthquake and Other RepeatedLoading", National Science Foundation Directorate for AppliedScience and Research Applications (AS~~), Final Report, Marcb,1979,Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Civil Engineering.
APPENDIX A
ADDITIONAL DATA
The succeeding pages are a collection of graphs based on the data
collected in the course of this investigation. Although pertinent and
useful, their analysis would not have served the purpose of this report,
so they are avpended here.
After having read the body of this text this additional data may
further ones knowledge of the soil behavior, or might answer questions
the author neglected in his analysis.
The followinB collection is presented but not discussed further.
Reference to the text, primarily Part 1 where stress conditions are
reviewed, should provide any necessary explanations.
This data, as in the text, is broken up into three categories:
A. Static Test Comparisons
B. Comparison of Sample Cross-Sectional Size for
Cyclic Tests
C. Comparison of Sample Heights for Cyclic Tests
87
A. Static Test Comparis~
88
..........~
-~-
---
-~------..
------
=--=
:.---
----
----
----
Ul
Ul
~ E-~
6U
l•1.0
ob
> '>.8
b H C3 H 1:-1~ S'2
.L~
~-
--
ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
~--
--
MEx
06s
-1
7.8
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
I.2
1G
OA
02S
-50
cmZ
cro
ssse
cti
on
oI
II
IJ
I»
I
o6
1218
2l+
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
FIG
UR
E4·
0.N
OR
MA
LIZ
ED
VE
RT
ICA
LS
TRE
SS
VS
.S
HE
AR
ST
RA
INC
OM
PA
RE
DFO
RS
TAT
IC'lE
ST
SP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
MB~XICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SM
ALL
DIA
ME
TE
RS
AM
PLE
S
co '!)
1.0
ob
>'--
-- \::)e
C:.8
ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
ME
x06
s-
17
.8cm
2cro
ssse
cti
on
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
(.::)
[xl
N H ~!.2
-,\ tB o ~U)
U) ~ f.--l
U)
H E:S 5 N ~ o ~~r:
:
.6 ,1+
--.
-..J
-----
---
---....
.-"'--
--
oo
~_.
--,-----,-----
II
r.-----,
61
21
82
4
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
FIG
UH
E4
1.
NO
RM
ALI
ZE
DH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
(LA
TE
RA
L)
STR
ES
SV
S.
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
CO
MP
AliE
DFO
RS
TA
TIC
TES
TSP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AND
GU
LB'
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLDIA!{]~TEH
SA
MP
LES
'0 o
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
s.s
secti
on
ME
x06
s-
17
.8cm
2cro
ssse
cti
on
5°1 40
~JO
[3 r:ti
C')
i:LI
r=1 i=:
20
•.\Sl~
----
---
---=
=---------
--- ---
-......
.'
1°1
LI
f~
f-
18
----.-
-I
1 2I
1°
I6
°S
HE
AR
ST
RA
IN%
Ii'IG
UR
Eq
2.
MOBIJ~IZED
AN
GLE
OF'
INT
ER
NA
LF
RIC
TIO
NV
S.
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
CO
M
FA
RE
DFO
RS
'I'A
TIC
TE
ST
SPB~RFORMED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FJV
U:CX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SJVI
ALL
DIA
JVlE
TER
SAJV
IPLE
S
<.0 I-'
MEX
01S
-50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
M}'i
;X06
S-
17
.8cr
n2cro
ssse
cti
on
GO
A02
S-
50cr
n2cro
ssse
cti
on -----
,50
j. f,40
_\"_
--_
_"'
JO.l 1~-.
-~.-._--
=-.--
----
-ri1 ~ (,
)[X
lr=:<
20Cr
t(]
)
----
','
10 oI
,I
II
II
,I
o6
1218
21+
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
FIG
UH
E4
3.
THE
AN
GLE
BE
TWE
EN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EA
ND
THE
PLA
NE
ON
1JJI
{ICH
THE
lVJA
XIM
UM
OB
LIQ
UIT
YV
S.
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
CO
MP
AR
ED
FOR
ST
AT
ICT
ES
TS
PE
RFO
HM
ED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FtlJ
EX
ICO
CLA
YF'
OH
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
MP
LES
1.0
tv
CDP-
.2
040
---
--------
----
------
---
-- ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
--
--
ME
X06
s-
17
.8cm
2cro
ssse
cti
on
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
---
-- --
5°
,,/'
/
I I I10
-11 f I
~30
f!@ o r:il
q
°L;---
....1-----,'..
..1----..
.'----.-
,----.-
,----,'
---.1
---1
1
°,6
1218
24
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
FIG
UR
E44
.TH
EA
NG
IEB
ETW
EE
NTH
EH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
PLA
NE
AN
DTH
EP
LAN
EO
NW
HIC
HTH
EM
AX
IMU
MP
RIN
CIP
AL
STR
ES
SA
CTS
VS
.S
HE
AR
ST
RA
INC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RS
TA
TIC
TE
ST
SP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
MP
IES
\.0
W
ME
X01
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
ME
X06
s-
17
.8cm
2cro
ssse
cti
on
GO
A02
S-
50
cm2
cro
ssse
cti
on
--..
.....
- 24
-
18----
--------
-----
----
12
..........
..."---
""'-
-----
6
.......-
oo4050
(/)
30
C:il ~ c...'J
f:Cl
r=42
0o
jO
J
10
SH
EA
RS
TR
AIN
%
FIG
UR
E45
.TH
EA
NG
IEB
ETW
EE
NTH
EH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
PLA
NE
AN
DTH
EP
LAN
EO
NW
HIC
HTH
EM
AX
IMU
MS
HE
AR
STR
ES
SA
CTS
VS
.'S
HE
AR
ST
RA
INC
OM
P
AR
ED
FOR
ST
AT
ICT
ES
TS
PE
RFO
RM
ED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SM
ALL
DIA
lV
IETE
RS
AM
PLE
SI.
D +:-
B. Comparison of Sam~le Cross-Sectional Size for Cyclic Tests
95
-----
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
--
--
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
--
-M
exic
an
Cla
y-
17
.8cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
.......,~
"'\
.\
\\
.8 .4.6 .21.0
(f)
(f) f:@ E-!
(f)
H c3 H [-l
p:;
~
o
~ b>
(::j I:'il
N H H ~ o :z;
1.10
100
1000
1000
0
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E4
6.
AV
ER
AG
E\iE
RT
ICA
LS
TRE
SS
VS
.N
UM
BER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
TES
TSPE
RFO
RM
EDO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SM
ALL
DIA
ME
TE
RS
AM
PLE
S
'-0
0\
.:1
.--~
ob:
>'-
-. b.£:
(/)
(/)
~ E--l
(/)
H f:i B N ttl o ::c: i=1 ~ H H ~ o z
1.0 .8 .6 •L
j,
.2 a
--------~~---.
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
---...,
-..""
"'" \"
1.
10
10
010
0010
000
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
FIG
UR
E47
.A
VE
RA
GE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LS
TRE
SS
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
CY
CLI
CTE
STS
PE
RFO
RM
ED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SM
ALL
DIA
ME
TE
RS
Ar1
PLE
S
'!)
--.J
/./
.---//
~/
---
----4050
[J)
30
~ ~ ~2
0 10A
laska
nC
lay
-50
cm2
cro
ss
se
ctb
n--
--
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
o
1.10
100
1000
1000
0
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E4
8•
AV
ER
AG
EM
OB
ILIZ
ED
AN
GLE
OF
INT
ER
NA
LF
RIC
TIO
NV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
'TE
STS
PE
RFO
RM
ED
ON
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YA
ND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DA
ND
SM
ALL
DIA
ME
TE
RS
AM
PLE
S
1.0
ex>
50 40
(/)30
~ f=l2
0CD
Cr-J 10 o
--
-~-
/----
--- -
--.......
........
........
"", ,
,A
laska
nC
lay
-5
0cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
L10
100
1000
1000
0
,;J
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
FIG
UR
E49
.TH
EA
VE
RA
GE
AN
GLE
BETW
EEN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EA
ND
THE
PLA
NE
OF
MA
XIM
UM
OB
LIQ
UIT
YV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
CY
CLI
C'IE
ST
SPE
RFO
RM
EDO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
AN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
E'IE
RS
AM
P
LES
~ ~
50 40
(J)
30
~ ~P
I2
0(]
)
10 o
---
.-.-
.....
J/
//
./'
-'" ----
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
1.10
100
1000
1000
0
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
IES
FIG
UR
E50
.TH
EAV
ERAG
EA
NG
IEBE
TWEE
NTH
EH
OR
IZO
NTA
LP
lAN
EA
ND
THE
MA
JOR
PR
INC
IPA
LP
lAN
EV
S.
NuM
BE
RO
FC
YC
IES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
CY
CLI
CTE
STS
PER
FOR
MED
ONG
ULF
OF
AlA
SK
AC
lAY
AND
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YFO
RB
OTH
STA
ND
AR
DAN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
M
PIE
SI-
'o o
50 40
Ala
ska
nC
lay
-5
0cm
2cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
50
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
Me
xic
an
Cla
y-
17.8
cm2
cro
ss
se
cti
on
tJ)
30~ 0 ~
f---
20--
......~
........
"-----
ai
(j)
"'"....
......
-I\
"'"10
"'\'\
\0
J\
1.10
100
1000
1000
0
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
S
FIG
UR
E51
.TH
EA
VE
RA
GE
AN
GIE
BE
TWE
EN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EA
ND
THE
PLA
NE
ON
WH
ICH
THE
·MA
XIM
UM
SH
EA
RS
TRE
SS
AC
TSV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RC
YC
LIC
TES
TSP
ER
FOR
ME
DO
NG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AAN
DG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
FOR
BO
THS
TAN
DA
RD
AN
DS
MA
LLD
IAM
ET
ER
SA
MP
IES
....... o .......
C. Comparison of Sample Heights for Cyclic Tests
102
FIG
UR
Fj
52
.V
ER
TIC
AL
STR
ES
SV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
R'T
ES
TSO
N50
cm2
CR
OS
SS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
SA
M
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
I-'
o w
--
ME
X02
C-
17
.2mm
heig
ht
ME
XO
JC-
20
.0rum
h~ight
ME
x04
c-
10
.9rum
heig
ht
--=:.
:::..:::.:
:---
-.;........
~"""'\
\
1.0
..
0b> ..........
..8
b>
(J)
(J) ~
.6(J
)
H C5 H E-i
P:i
.4~ ~ r:i
lN H H i
.2
0 z
o
1.
10
10
01
00
01
00
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
FIG
UR
E5
3.
VE
RT
ICA
LS
TRE
SS
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
'rES
TS
ON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YS
AM
P
LES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
I-'
o +:--
1.0
0
b:>
.81"',.
.....~
b:>
(f)
(f)
....-
~---
E-i
.6(f
)
H c3 H E-i
.4i
"'\
\\P::
<"
r;, \
. .H r:
il ~M
EX05
c-
17
.0mm
heig
ht
H--
~.2
MEX
07C
-1
8.4
mmh
eig
ht
...
0-
--
MEX
08C
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
zM
EX09
C-
24
.0rom
hei
gh
t
0
1.
1010
010
0010
000
NUM
BER
OFCY
CLES
FIG
URE
54.
VER
TICA
LST
RESS
VS.
NUM
BER
OFCY
CLES
COM
PARE
DFO
RTE
STS
ON1
7.8
cm2
CROS
SSE
CTIO
NA
LAR
EAGU
LFOF
MEX
ICO
CLAY
SAM
PLES
OFVA
RYIN
GH
EIG
HTS
t-'
o Ul
1.0
...G
OA
06C
-1
6.5
rumh
eig
ht
0
I--
GO
A11
C-
21
.0m
mh
eig
ht
b~
GO
A12
C-
10
.9m
mh
eig
ht
..........
... .£1.8
\:)
U)
rJ) ~ 8 rJ)
.6H ?\ z 0
r--
..0
;::
N ~."
'1"
"0 ::c: I-
l!X
lN
~H H
.2
~ 0 z
0
1.1
01
00
10
00
10
00
0
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
FIG
UR
E55
.H
OR
IZO
NT
AL
STR
ES
SV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RTE
STS
ON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YS
AM
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
Sf-
' o 0\
1.0
ob
>
~8
'0•
--
--
MEX
02C
-1
7.2
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
03C
-2
0.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEx0
4b-
10
.9mm
hei
gh
t
----
-~~
----
--.....
.......,
---
~
o.2.4
(J)
(J) &! ~
.6H ~ es ~ o ::r:: c:
:l/X
l
~ H ~ o z
1.10
100
1000
1000
0
NUM
BER
OFCY
CLES
FIG
URE
56.
HORI
ZONT
ALST
RESS
VS.
NUM
BER
OF
CYCL
ESCO
MPA
RED
FOR
TEST
SON
50cm
2CR
OSS
SECT
ION
AL
AREA
GULF
OFM
EXIC
OCL
AYSA
MPL
ESOF
VARY
ING
HEI
GH
TS
f-'
o -...,J
ob
?'-.
....
~ l:J)
l:J)
Z'@ E-i
l:J)
H ES ~ N ~ o ::r:: i=1 r:il ~ H ~ o :z;
1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 o
--
--
MEX
05C
-1
7.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
07C
-1
8.4
rnmh
eig
ht
MEX
08C
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
09C
-2
4.0
u@
hei
gh
t
....
,,
~•
#....
,•
•.-
.-
-_....
----
---~
.....
----
---..
...~~
".--
""'.
--....
---
, \
1.10
100
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
1000
1000
0
FIG
UR
E5
7.
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LS
TRE
SS
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MP
AR
ED
FOR
TE
ST
SO
N17
13cm
2C
RO
SS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
ClA
YS
AM
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
SI-
'o ex:
>
(/)
I'il
~ c.'J f3 '&
.1=1
50
40 JO 20
10 o
--
-G
OA
06c
-1
6.5
rumh
eig
ht
--
--
GO
A11
C-
21
.0mm
hei
gh
tG
OA
12C
-1
0.2
mmh
eig
ht
1.1
01
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
10
00
10
00
0
FIG
UR
E58
.M
OB
ILIZ
ED
AN
GLE
OF
INT
ER
NA
LF
RIC
TIO
NV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSO
N5
0cm
2C
RO
SSS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
SA
MP
LES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
'IS
I-'
o '-0
.,.,,/
J JJ I
II
/
--
--
ME
X02
C-
17
.2mm
heig
ht
ME
X03
C-
20
.0rom
heig
ht
ME
x04c
-1
0.9
romh
eig
ht
,. ---.,
....--
---
3040 10
2050
(j) ~ ~ f=1 \Sl
..1=1
o1.
10
10
01
00
01
00
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
S
FIG
UR
E59
.M
OB
ILIZ
ED
AN
GIE
OF)
INT
ER
NA
LF
RIC
TIO
NV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
IES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSO
N5
0cm
2C
RO
SSS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
SA
MP
IES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
I-'
I-'
o
--M
EX
05
C-
17
.0mm
heig
ht
••
ME
X07
C-
18
.4mm
heig
ht
--
-M
EX
08c
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
--
ME
X09
C-
24
.0mm
heig
ht
40
50
(f)
30
If:i
I ~I
0/
~-
1/
-2
0-
~//
\S\..~
-...
..-
-=-
::--
-
10 o
1.
10
10
01
00
01
00
00
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E6
0.
MO
BIL
IZE
DA
NG
LEO
FIN
'rER
NA
LF
RIC
TIO
NV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSO
N1
7.8
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YS
AM
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
SI-
'I-
'I-
'
U) ~ f§ Cr
-fCJ
>
50
40 30 20
10
_
o
I>
..==
---I t I
-1 J
/
GO
A06
c-
16
.5m
mh
eig
ht
GO
A11
C-
21
.0m
mh
eig
ht
GO
A12
C-
10
.2m
mh
eig
ht
1.1
01
00
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
IES
10
00
10
00
0
';}
FIG
UR
E61
.TH
EA
NG
lEBE
TWEE
NTH
EH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
PlA
NE
AND
THE
PlA
NE
OF
MA
XIM
UM
OB
LIQ
UIT
YV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
IES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSO
N50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YS
AM
P
IES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
..... ..... N
I/
//
./
",
;'
--
........
........
........
.~
--~
'---
.../
50 40
(f)
30
~ o ~
ct-i
CD
20 10
--
--
MEX
02C
-1
7.2
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
03C
-2
0.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEx
04c
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
oI·Iii
i
1.10
100
1000
1000
0
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E6
2.
THE
AN
GLE
BETW
EEN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TAL
PLA
NE
AN
DTH
EPL
AN
EO
FM
AXIM
UM2B
LIQ
UIT
YV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
COM
PARE
DFO
R'JE
STS
.ON
50em
CR
OSS
SEC
TIO
NA
LA
REA
GU
LFO
FM
EXIC
OCL
AY
SAM
PL
ES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
.f-l f-l
Lv
';!
. . • • " . .
~ '.....
",
--
--
ME
X05
C-
17
.0m
mh
eig
ht
ME
X07
C-
18
.4m
mh
eig
ht
ME
X08
C-
10
.9Iil
lflh
eig
ht
ME
X09
C-
24
.0m
mh
eig
ht
......
.....,
,
~ ~~
........
. "
'> -....
---,
40
50 30 20
10
ct-J
(])
U)
Ii1 [! t.)
l'i1 ~
o
1.
10
10
01
00
01
00
00
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
LES
FIG
UR
E6
3.
THE
AN
GIE
BETW
EEN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EA
ND
THE
PLA
NE
OF
MA
XIM
UM
OB
LlQ
UIT
YV
S.
NU
MBE
RO
FC
YC
IES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSON
17
.8em
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YS
AM
P
LES
OF
VA
RY
ING
,H
EIG
HT
SI-
'I-
'.j:
:--
','
50 40
&.i30
~ t'J f=1PI
20
CD
10 o
GO
A06
c-
16
.5m
mh
eig
ht
--
GO
A11
C-
21
.0mm
heig
ht
GO
A12
C-
10
.2mm
heig
ht
1.1
01
00
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S1
00
01
00
00
',/
FIG
UR
E6
4.
THE
AN
GLE
BE
TWE
EN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EA
ND
THE
MA
JOR
PRINCIPA~
PLA
NE
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
'rES
TS
ON
50
emC
RO
SSS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ALA
SK
AC
LAY
SA
M
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
f-l
f-l
lJ1
50 40
--
--
ME
X02
C-
17
.2m
mh
eig
ht
ME
XO
JC-
20
.0m
mh
eig
ht
MEXOL~C
-1
0.9
mm
he
igh
t
/~
-----/
({)
r:il~ c..
'J f§
~(J
)
30 20
10 o
1.
----
:::---
..,.,.
....--
10
--
10
0
---.
.. 10
00
10
00
0
.:i
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
ClE
S
FIG
UR
E6
5.
THE
AN
GLE
BE
TWE
EN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EA
ND
THE
MA
JOR
PR
INC
IPA
LP
LAN
EV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
ClE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RTE
STS
ON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YS
AM
P
LES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
p P 0'1
. .
----
ME
X05
C-
17
.0mm
heig
ht
ME
X07
C-
18
.4mm
heig
ht
ME
X08
c-
10
.9mm
hei
gh
tM
EX
09C
-2
4.0
mmh
eig
ht
/ II
I/
,/
"","
,.,
,.'"
"","
,."
".,.
,I'
::..::.-:~~
50
40
(f)
30
IX1 f5:1 0 ~
20
(]>P
l
10
10
0n
o1
00
01
00
10
Ij
oJ
Ij
1.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
ClE
S
FIG
UR
E6
6.
THE
AN
GLE
BETW
EEN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EAN
DTH
EM
AJO
RP
RIN
CIP
AL
PLA
NE
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSO
N1
7.8
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YS
AM
PlE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
f-'
f-'
'-J
:.)
50 40
GO
A06
c-
16
.5m
mh
eig
ht
----
GO
AllC
-2
1.0
mm
he
igh
tG
OA
12C
-1
0.2
mm
he
igh
t
(J)
30
------
f:il fX1
-"~\
CJ ~
20
a'
\\C
D
10
J\
,0
1.1
01
00
10
00
10
00
0
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CIE
S
FIG
UR
E67
.TH
E:A
NG
IEB
ETW
EE
NTH
EH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
PLA
NE
AN
DTH
EP
LAN
EO
NW
HIC
HTH
E:M
AX
IMU
MS
HE
AR
STR
ES
SA
CT
S'
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
LES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
TES
TSO
N50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FA
LAS
KA
CLA
YS
AM
PIE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
d
f-'
f-'
ex>
50
MEX
02C
-1
7.2
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
OJC
-2
0.0
mmh
eig
ht
MEX
01+C
-1
0.9
mmh
eig
ht
40 10
oJ
CD
.. ---
......-
~---
--........
....",....
.-=-
------
-I
JOf
..-...-;;;;:;---
..................--
..i'l
20
""
o1
.10
100
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
S
1000
1000
0
FIG
UR
E6
8.
THE
AN
GLE
BE
TWE
EN
THE
HO
RIZ
ON
TA
LP
LAN
EA
ND
THE
PLA
NE
ON
WH
ICH
THE
fIlA
XIM
UM
SH
EA
RS
TRE
SS
AC
TSV
S.
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
CLE
SC
OM
PAR
EDFO
RT
ES
TS
ON
50
cm2
CR
OSS
SE
CT
ION
AL
AR
EA
GU
LFO
FM
EX
ICO
CLA
YS
AM
PLE
SO
FV
AR
YIN
GH
EIG
HT
S
I-'
I-'
\0
50
40
...
ME
X05
C-
17
.0m
mh
eig
ht
ME
X07
C-
18
.4m
mh
eig
ht
ME
XO
Bc
-1
0.9
mm
he
igh
tM
EX
09C
-2
4.0
mm
he
igh
t
10
.30
• . ~
"""
......
o
U) ~ CJ f:3 (])C
Ji2
0
.1.
10
10
0'\
\10
0010
000
NU
MB
ER
OF
CY
ClE
S
FIG
UR
E69
.TH
EA
NG
lEBE
TWEE
NTH
EH
OR
IZO
NT
AL
PLA
NE
AN
DTH
EP
lJ\N
EO
NW
HIC
HTH
EM
AX
IMU
MS
HE
AR
STR
ES
SA
CTS
VS
.N
UM
BE
RO
FC
YC
lES
CO
MPA
RED
FOR
'JE
STS
ON
17
.8cm
2C
RO
SSS
EC
TIO
NA
LA
RE
AG
ULF
OF
ME
XIC
OC
LAY
SA
MP
lES
OF
VA
RY
ING
HE
IGH
TS
f-'
N o
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE PREPARATION -- STEP BY STEP PROCEDURES
The study of soil requires the ability to analyze specimens in
conditions simulating as closely as possible those encountered under
real conditions. Maintaining soil samples undisturbed through storage,
sample preparation, and eventual testing is of utmost importance. The
marine soft clays studied during this research required extreme care so
as not to disturb their structures.
During the course of finalizing and then further refining the sample
preparation procedures to be discussed, it became acutely obvious that
sample preparation is not only a science but an art.
These instructions are written with the user in mind. It is assumed
he has access to the Geonor Manual, "Description and Instruction for Use
of the Direct Simple-Shear Apparatus - Model h-12" or is at least aware
of all the soil trimming equipment. A great deal of the procedures list
ed here are based directly on the above mentioned Geonor Manual and should
be so noted.
Before the soil can be touched, all trimming equipment and other
apparatus must be readied so as not to subject the soil to prolonged tim~s
for drying. These preparations include the oiling, with silicon oil,
of all NGI sample trimming equipment to include the columns of the base
but not to include the membrane expander unit. Also two small spatulas,
a very thin metal cutting plate, and a wire saw should be oiled. Four
121
122
water content dishes should be cleaned, dried and weighed. The membrane
should be mounted in the membrane expander. After applying a vacuum,
ensure that the interior o~ the membrane is smooth. The inside of the
membrane should then be oiled. Filter paper should be cut to barely cover
the porous stone*. The bottom sample cap (called filter holder by
Geonor) should be mounted in the mounting ring. The ring is used to
ensure that the lower sample cap and the top of the cutting cylinder ~re
flush. Be certain that the cap remains concentric while tightening the
ring screws. A saturated filter stone with filter paper should now be
installed in the lower cap. The trimming base should be positioned where
it will be used for trimming, the pedestal placed on the base and the upper
cap on the pedestal. A circular glass plate is now positioned on top of
the upper cap.
At this point the sample may be obtained.
The soils were stored in an environmentally controlled room, sealed
in the core tube in which they were obtained. Approximately four centi~
meters of soil is jacked slowly out of the top of the tube. A wire saw
is then used to cut through the cross section of the extended soil. After
passing once or twice through the soil, the saw.is passed through again,
followed directly behind with the oiled, thin metal plate. Toe specimen
will now be resting on the metal plate and is immediately transported to
the environmental room for the trimming.
*Any filter paper protruding past the sample cap will bind the trimmingapparatus.
123
Once in the trimming roo~ the glass plate on the pedestal is
placed on the upper side of the sample. The sample is gently flipped,
the glass is now on the down side (in other words, the sample is
turned upside-down, opposite to in situ conditions). The glass with
sample is replaced on the pedestal. The thin metal cutting plate is
gently and carefully slid off the sample top.
The cutting yoke is now positioned on the base's columns, cutting
edge down. The yoke is pressed down gently, pausing to allow for trim
ming of excess soil from the sides with the oiled spatulas. Some of
the soil trimmings are used for water content measurements. This process
is continued until the cutting edge comes in contact with the glass at
the bottom.
The top surface is now trimmed using a wire saw. The top should be
smooth and even with the cutting yoke's top surface. If a sufficiently
thick slice is removed it can be salvaged for fall cone shear strength
testing.
The mounting ring with bottom cap and porous stone are now placed
on the top of the sample, ensuring correct seating, with drainage holes
facing forward. The mounting ring is then clamped to the cutting yoke.
Once again, care must be taken to tighten the screws so the mounting
ring remains concentric.
The cutting yoke with sample is now gently removed from the base,
the glass plate sealing the bottom. The top sample cap is removed from
the pedestal. The expander yoke with membrane is mounted, vacuum applied,
and lowered to the bottom of the base. Note that the yoke should be
124
mounted with the longer part of the bushings upward.
Mount the cutting yoke on the columns with the cutting edge upward
and the drainage holes of the sampling cap facing forward. The upper
sample cap is lowered down gently until the lower filter cap rests
firmly on the pedestal.
The lower sample cap is then released from the mounting ring. The
cutting yoke is pushed downward until approximately 15 mID of soil is
exposed. A slice is made with the wire saw, through the soil, even with
the cutting yoke's edge. A second pass of the saw is made while carefully
lifting the glass plate, with soil adhered, until the soil is freed. This
slice of soil is of sufficient height for fall cone testing. A water
content is also taken. This procedure usually leaves the sample with
a jagged top surface so the cutting yoke should be pressed down about 1 mID.
The remaining soil is trimmed from the top with the wire saw until a
smooth even surface is obtained.
The porous stone and filter paper are placed in the top sample cap.
It is clamped to the upper yoke which is then mounted and locked on the
columns of the base. The cap is lowered by the center rod and seated
on the sample with the drainage holes facing forward. It is clamped into
place by the lever vise of the upper yoke.
The cutting yoke is raised above the upper sample cap's top. The
sample is now laterally unsupported.
The vacuum is applied to the membrane expander and the expander yoke
is raised to position the membrane. The membrane reinforcement should be
125
centered on the sample. The vacuum is then released. The membrane is
slid onto the upper and lower sample caps.
The three yokes are removed and the upper yoke replaced to keep
the sample stable. The initial sample height is now measured.
The O-rings are positioned on the non-reinforced portions of the
membranes so as to complete a tight seal between membrane and sample
caps.
The sample is now ready for transport to the NGI direct simple
shear device.
After cleaning, all equipment should be oiled with silicon oil.
APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THE NORliEGIAN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE
DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR DEVICE - A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH
The following is a list, in chronological order, of recommended
steps for the accomplishment of static and cyclic shearing tests as
performed on the Rensse~aer Polytechic Institute modified Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute direct simple shear device. These steps are as
they were executed during the tests of this investigation. The list is
based on the Geonor instruction manual (8) and the recommendations of
Mr. Carsten Floess, who completed the data acquisition modifications.
It will be assumed readers of these instructions are familiar with
the device and have access to the Geonor instruction manual (8). Refer
ence to the body of this report, specifically Part 2 - "Equipment", will
assist the reader with unfamiliar terms.
Steps for Static and Cyclic Direct Simple
Shear Test on the NGI Device
1. Set timer in recorder 1 minute intervals for static
- 100 second intervals for cyclic.
(See ltOperating Manual 2400 Series", pg. 3.4)
2. Place pins in sliding shear box. Pins must move freely up and
dOTNU while the lever arm is level. This can best be accomplished
by moving the sliding box via the hand crank on the static
shearing motor (the proving ring must be in and the loading clamp
must be open).
126
127
c 3. Hook up dormant side hanger (right side).
s 4. Take the slack out of the horizontal shear assembly.
Hand crank the shearing motor until the dial in the proving
ring moves continually and smoothly. Then back it off
slightly and zero gauge.
5. Lock the locking clamp.
6. Raise the lever arm as high as it goes. This requires
turning the hand crank on top of the "vertical assembly
all the way counterclockwise.
7. Ensure the water level is appropriate in the water supply
containers.
8. Open the top sample cap confining lugsaIl the way.
9. Cut sample. (See Appendix B, this text).
10. Sample is brought out and the base is attached to the
NGI shear device.
11. With upper yoke still in place (stabilizing sample assembly)
attach drainage hoses.
12. Raise one side of water supply well above sample top and
lower the other. Allow one-half hour for the water to
leach all air bubbles out. Level water containers at a
height slightly above the sample top.
13. Take upper yoke off.
14. Slide sample into testing position.
c - for cyclic tests only s - for static tests only
c 17.
18.
19.
20.
15. Clamp bottom of sample assembly in place. Note, a small
aluminum foil gasket is placed on one side of the bottom
clamp for the larger sample size assembly to eliminate
excess sliding.
16. Position the lever arm. It should be brought down so the
shearing box is in contact with the upper sample cap while
the lever arm is approximately 3 or 4 degrees above hori
zontal.
Hook up left side hanger.
Put a 5 or 10 gram weight on the lever arm's hanger.
Record vertical dial reading.
Hook up calibrated membranes (dummy and active) to strain
gauge indicator.
21. After one-half hour take initial microstrain readings.
22. Place first consolidation load interval on.
23. Repeat as required taking microstrain and vertical dial
128
readings at the end of each interval.
24. After the last interval is placed, allow 24 hours until next
step.
25. Turn power supplies and recorder on. Allow one-half hour warm
up time.
26. Take vertical dial and microstrain readings.
27. Turn sensitivity and filter knobs on recorder, for each amplifier
in use, to the right.
c - for cyclic tests only s - for static tests only
28. Zero recorder dial needles with top knobs.
Note: volts to off position.
c 29. Turn #1 amplifier to .1 x 100 and position needle 3.2 cm
to the left.
30. Set #3 amplifier to .025 x 1 and zero suppression.
(See "Operating Manual 2400 Series").
31. Place pin in normal load hanger, being careful not to
disturb sample.
32. Start taking weights off lever arm hanger adjusting
the vertical position of the lever arm with the
adjusting mechanism to maintain the recorder needle at
zero (you must turn knob clockwise).
33. Take pins out of sliding shear box.
34. Clamp upper sample cap with lugs.
s 35. Unlock shear locking clamp.
s 36. Set i12 amplifier to .025 x 1 and zero suppression.
c 37. Set il2 amplifier to .025 x 1 and zero chart needles
with the LVDT adjusting nuts. (Note: zero suppression
mode must be off.) This step requires patience.
38. Zero all dials (vertical deformation, horizontal shear
displacement, and horizontal shear force) and recheck
all needle zeros.
39. Run paper down.
s 40. Set chart speed to 5 + 100 (.05 mm! sec) .
129
c - for cyclic tests only s - for static tests only
130
s 41. Set voltage selectors to .5 volts on #2 and #3 amplifier.
s 42. Turn shear generator to on.
s 43. Put left-right switch on generator to left.
s 44. Turn generator top lever arm counterclockwise.
s 45. Select generator speed. (This investigation used 5.5 on the
dial which is 75 min/rom.)
s 46. After five minutes check for slack. If proving ring dial has
not moved yet, crank the generator by hand up to, but not past,
5 on the proving ring dial.
Return the generator motor back to automatic mode.
s 47. Take readings every five minutes recording shear force dial,
shear displacement dial, and microstrain readings.
c 48. Set chart speed to 25 ~ 100 (.25 mm/sec).
c 49. Set voltage selector to 1 volt on the #2 and #3 amplifier.
c 50. Put weights on cyclic shearing hangers. Must have been previously
calculated to deliver desired stresses.
c 51. Set pump timer to half the desired period time.
c 52. Push counter button to zero counter.
c 53. Turn air supply to piston pump on.
c 54. Plug in pump solenoid to AC supply.
c 55. Turn pump to on position.
c 56. When the piston is in the up position unlock shearing locking
clamp.
c 57. Record microstrain readings at the first cycle and then every
five cycles thereon.
c - for cyclic tests only s - for static tests only
c 63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
131
58. Maintain vertical dial at correct reading by referring
to false deformation charts and monitoring vertical load
changes. This is done by adjusting the Adjusting Mechanism.
59. Change voltage selectors up,vard as necessary.
s 60. When failure is reached the shear force levels off and
begins to drop. Displacements should be between 300 and
350 on the horizontal displacement dial. Do not exceed
450.
s 61. Shut generator motor off, then hand crank until sample is
vertical.
c 62. Termination of testing at full scale needle deflections
while in the 10 v range (.1 x 100) is usually acceptable.
Shut air off, turn pump switch to off, and remove weights.
Run paper down and shut equipment off.
Open the lugs, releasing the upper sample cap.
Raise the lever arm all the way.
Unclamp sample bottom, and disconnect strain gauge wires.
Remove the sample assembly.
Dismember the sample assembly and remove the sample from
the membrane.
70. Take a water content of the sample.
c 71. Unplug the solenoid.
72. Clean up - You are done.
c - for cyclic tests only s - for static tests only
APPENDIX D
CALIBRATION OF STRAIN GAUGE EQUIPPED MEMBRANES
FOR THE NORWEGIfu~ GEOTEHCNICAL INSTITUTE
DIRECT SIMPLE SHEAR DEVICE - A User's Approach
The calibration of the strain gauge equipped membranes supplied
by Geonor were accomplished on calibration cylinders, also supplied
by Geonor. The procedure which is about to be presented assumes a cer
tain degree of familiarity with the membranes and the cylinder. This
Appendix is based primarily on a letter from Geonor to Dr. Thomas Zimmie
and on experience obtained during the course of this project.
Procedure
The membrane, which is to be calibrated, is mounted on the expander
yoke, part of the trimming apparatus, and expanded by a vacuum. The
interior should be smooth as if it were to be used on a sample. The
membrane is slid over the calibration cylinder. The midheight of the
membrane reinforcement must be positioned at the midheight of the
cylinder. This will ensure the active part of the windings have the
lateral stress applied to them. The windings should be straight and .
horizontal.
The membrane is placed where it is to be calibrated. The strain
gauge leads of the membrane are attached to the microstrain indicator
device through a bridge which includes a dummy membrane for temperature
132
133
compensation. The micros train indicator should be turned on and
allowed to warm up for one-half hour during which the membranes will
adjust to the temperature.
A known pressure must be applied to the interior of the calibration
cylinder to expand its membrane and cause lateral stress to be transmitted
to the strain gauge membrane being calibrated. The source of this pressure
can be either water or air, air being recommended. This step was accom
plished by connecting a hose to the top of the calibration cylinder from
the backpressure air supply of an Anteus Consolidometer located at the
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute soils laboratory. The air supply to
the consolidometer must be turned on, then the main air pressure chamber
is opened until about 45 psi is registered on its dial. The back pressure
chamber may now be opened and pressure is applied to the calibration
cylinder and membrane under test. The back pressure dial is read directly
in psi.
The pressure is increased in small intervals and micros train readings
recorded. After a sufficiently high pressure (15 to 20 psi) the pressure
is decreased in the same intervals and the microstrains are again recorded.
A number of tests should be run on each-membrane to be calibrated,
and the average values plotted on a microstrain reading versus pressure
graph. The slope of this curve in the form of microstrain per kg is
the calibration factor for the tested membrane.
Although several runs should be made for each membrane and the average
used, experience has shown the readings obtained are very closely repeated.
