Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5]
INTRODUCTION
The rapid development of computing power and of numerical modelling software over the past 40 years has made
sophisticated analysis of geotechnical problems accessible to
most engineering practices. Typically, computer packages
now offer a wide range of constitutive models, which the
design engineer needs to choose among, and then obtain
parameters for. For structures designed to be far from failure, for example supporting urban excavations, strains in the
ground are small. A sound knowledge of stiffness parameters
at small strain is essential, if realistic predictions of the
ground movements that may affect adjacent buildings or
underlying infrastructure are to be made.
This paper discusses the geotechnical background to the
measurement of stiffness parameters, briefly reviewing the
lessons learnt from field observation and back-analysis of
foundation and deep excavation behaviour. It describes the
historical development of elastic theory, and the constitutive
frameworks within which it can be applied to soil and weak
rock behaviour. It reviews what is now known about the
complex stiffness behaviour of soil and weak rocks in the
context of what is, arguably, the simplest of constitutive
models. A numerical experiment, to assess the importance of
different parameters for the displacement of a particular structure, a singly propped retaining wall, is described. It is shown
that for this particular problem most parameters significantly
affect predicted displacements. Methods of determining the
required stiffness parameters are then explored, and the usefulness of seismic field testing, dynamic laboratory testing and
advanced triaxial testing is examined. Finally, strategies for
integrating the data are discussed, and conclusions are drawn.
GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND
James Bell (1989) has described the 19th century as the
Age of Design by Disaster. According to him, surprisingly
few engineers working in this period carried out analyses of
their design concepts before beginning construction. Given
the significant construction problems faced by civil engineers
at the beginning of the 20th century, early soil mechanics
understandably focused on preventing failure.
But by the late 1970s the emphasis had changed. For
many practising engineers soil mechanics was becoming a
mature science, because most failure mechanisms were
understood, and with good practice could be identified and
avoided with some certainty. The start of global urbanisation
changed all that, as the pressure to redevelop inner city
infrastructure produced more and more challenges, many of
which now related to ground movements and their effects on
adjacent structures and buried infrastructure. At the same
time the need to build nuclear and other key facilities
increased, requiring analysis for the effects of large, albeit
sometimes infrequent, seismic events. The rise of numerical
modelling in the 1960s, and the huge increase in computing
power since then, has given us increasingly sophisticated
analytical tools for use in practice (e.g. Zienkiewicz et al.,
1968; Simpson, 1981; Britto & Gunn, 1987; Potts, 2003).
The determination of the parameters needed for such analyses has, perhaps understandably, lagged behind the
development of numerical modelling.
Burland (1989) gives a good account of how the interaction of field observations and numerical modelling of the
deformations associated with foundations and excavations in
the London area led, in the UK, to the development of more
appropriate stiffness models for the ground. Back-analysis of
construction in London showed that field stiffnesses were
much greater than those obtained from routine laboratory
tests, for example in the oedometer or triaxial apparatus
(Cole & Burland, 1972; St John, 1975; Clayton et al., 1991),
5
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 152.78.201.162
On: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:36:53
CLAYTON
Historical development
The recognition of linear load/deformation behaviour is
widely attributed to Hooke (1676), who wrote at the end of
his A description of helioscopes that
To fill the vacancy of the ensuing page, I have here added
a decimate of the centesme of the Inventions I intend to
publish, though possibly not in the same order, but as I can
get opportunity and leasure; most of which, I hope, will be
as useful to Mankind, as they are yet unknown and new.
The third of these Inventions was on
The true Theory of Elasticity or Springiness, and a
particular Explication thereof in several Subjects in which
it is to be found: And the way of computing the velocity of
Bodies moved by them. ceiiinosssttuu.
In his treatise De Potentia Restitutiva, or of Spring, Hooke
(1678) explained his anagram as Ut tensio sic vis, which is
roughly translated as extension is proportional to force. As
we would see it today, this is a description of linearity.
Hooke also recognised elastic behaviour, that is, the behaviour of a material that returns to its original shape after
loading is removed. In the same work he states that
. . . it is very evident that the Rule or Law of Nature in
every springing body is, that the force or power thereof to
restore it self to its natural position is always proportionate
to the Distance or space it is removed therefrom.
12
Stiffness continues to rise
10
E
08
Reference modulus, E0
(1 )
06
04
02
0
00001
001
01
Axial strain: %
Fig. 1. Normalised stiffness data for cast iron (Royal Commission on Application of Iron to Railway Structures, 1849; Cox,
1856)
21 9 21 u
E9
K9
31 29
Eu
Ku
31 2 u
Undrained
Eu
Drained
Parameter set 1
Undrained Youngs
modulus, Eu
Effective Youngs
modulus, E9
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Undrained Poissons
ratio, u
Effective Poissons
ratio, 9
Parameter set 2
Shear
modulus, G
Shear
modulus, G
Undrained bulk
modulus, Ku
Drained bulk
modulus, K9
CLAYTON
(5)
Eh
Ev
and
Gh
Eh
21 hh
(6)
(7)
and
E9v
1 9hh 29vh 2 > 0
E9h
(8)
(10)
Stiffness, G
Foundations
Tunnels
Gibson (1974)
uhh 1
Euh
2Euv
(11)
00001
Gibson (1974).
Thus the parameter set can be reduced, as noted by
Atkinson (1975), to Euv , Euh and Gv .
0001
001
01
10
Shear strain, s: %
destructuring
changes in loading rate.
(12)
Gv0: MPa
4000
3000
2000
: kPa
1600
1000 800
400
200
100
0
0
Gv0/(/patm)05: MPa
5000
Gv0 Cp(1 e)3(/patm)05 (MPa)
100
Cp 600
0
05
10
15
Void ratio, e
20
Cp 300
0
25
2
Void ratio
CLAYTON
strain, and stiffness degradation data, are required for predictions of ground movements.
Figure 6(a) shows, as an example, the degradation of
normalised vertical Youngs modulus with increasing strain,
for triaxial compression data taken from Heymann (1998).
The test results given in the figure show a remarkable
consistency, which is increased once the higher values, for
tests involving reversed and repeated loadings, are excluded.
Given that E0 for these materials varied from approximately
24 MPa for the Bothkennar clay to 240 MPa for the London
Clay, and to 4800 MPa for the intact chalk, it is notable that
there is so little scatter around E0:01 /E0:001 0.8, and E0:1 /
E0:001 0.4. Jardines linearity index (L E0:1 /E0:01 ; Jardine
et al., 1984) is approximately 0.5.
If identical specimens are tested, or the same specimen is
tested several times without significant destructuring, then
undrained triaxial tests will produce the same very-smallstrain Youngs modulus, E0 , regardless of the approach path,
and whether tested in triaxial compression or extension.
Loading path direction does, however, have some effect at
slightly higher strains. Fig. 6(b) shows, as might be expected, that when soil is loaded towards the nearest failure
10
10
Loading towards isotropic stress
08
06
800
700
600
Locked sand (measured)
Locked sand (predicted Cp 1200)
Eocene sandy clay (measured)
Eocene sandy clay (predicted Cp 300)
500
400
300
200
02
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mean effective stress, p: kPa
700
600
Loading in triaxial
compression
400
200
Compression
s
Extension
0
0
01
800
0
0001
100
001
Axial strain: %
(a)
900
04
0
0001
Multiple loadings
Loading in
triaxial extension
001
01
Local axial strain: %
(b)
800
Anisotropy
Anisotropy can be recognised at a number of scales. At
the very small (laboratory) scale, anisotropic effects have
been variously described as inherent and induced. Inherent anisotropy results from grain characteristics (principally
form; Abbireddy et al., 2009; Clayton et al., 2009a) and
the depositional process. Casagrande & Carillo (1944) described this type of anisotropy as a physical characteristic
inherent in the material and entirely independent of the
applied stresses and strains. Fig. 7 shows a computed
tomography (CT) scan of pluviated platy sand-sized material. The orientation of the particles normal to the direction of
gravity is clear, and suggests that stiffness will be higher in
the horizontal than in the vertical direction.
Induced anisotropy is caused by stress or strain changes
following deposition, particularly those resulting from the
post-depositional application (as is normal) of different effective stresses in the horizontal and vertical directions (for
examples in relation to the London Clay, the reader is
referred to Burland et al., 1979). Changes in principal stress
directions can cause disruption of strong force chains within
granular materials (Thornton & Zhang, 2010), and changes
in memory as a result of particle rotation.
As a result of the in situ stress regime, most materials are
likely to exhibit anisotropic stiffness. Youngs modulus measured in a laboratory specimen is controlled primarily by the
effective stress in the direction of loading (Hardin & Bland-
(a)
(b)
11
12
CLAYTON
Hydrate veins
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. Sub-vertical orientation of methane hydrate veins in very soft deep ocean
sediment: (a) CT scan of methane hydrate veins in a very soft deep ocean
sediment core; (b) lower hemisphere projections from three core sections,
showing preferred orientations of hydrate veins
qc: MPa
4
6
10
20
qc
21
22
Depth: m
u
Slimes
23
Sands
24
25
0
200
400
600
u: kPa
800
1000
Fig. 10. CPT profiles of pore pressure and cone resistance from
gold tailing (Obuasi, Ghana) showing interlayered slimes (fines)
and sands (data courtesy of Professor E. Rust, University of
Pretoria)
13
10
Depth: m
Depth: m
10
20
20
30
30
Ev
Gv
Eh
Gh
Triaxial tests
Fig. 11. Profiles of small-strain effective Youngs moduli and shear moduli for the London Clay at
Heathrow Terminal 5 (modified from Gasparre et al., 2007)
600
400
.
a 08%/h
.
a 02%/h
.
a 005%/h
200
2
3
Shear strain, s: %
CLAYTON
14
Soil models
Analyses were run with two sets of variables:
(a) Uniform stiffness, or stiffness increasing with depth.
(b) A range of constitutive models:
Case 1 Linear elastic soil, with Eu 100 MPa.
Case 2 Case 1, but with MohrCoulomb plastic yield
at su 100 kPa.
Case 3 Linear elastic soil, with stiffness increasing
with depth.
Case 4 As in Case 3, but with stiffness decreasing
with strain. A base case was used to explore
the effects of some variables (e.g. very-smallstrain stiffness, and rate of stiffness degradation) on the displacements predicted by this
model.
Case 5 As in Case 4 base case, but with various
degrees of transverse isotropy (Euh . Euv , etc.).
Analysis Case 3 was based on the short-term parameters
deduced by Hooper (1973) from movement around the Hyde
Park Cavalry Barracks excavation.
As the predictions were for the undrained (short-term)
case, only one parameter (Eu ; recall that u 0.5, and G
and K are dependent on Eu ) was required for the isotropic
Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4. In Case 3 Eu varied with depth, as
shown by the dashed line in Fig. 14.
In Case 4 stiffness increased with depth but reduced with
increasing strain. The base case adopted a reference stiffness, Eu0 , arbitrarily taken as four times the values backanalysed from Hyde Park Cavalry Barracks (hpcb) (Hooper,
1973). Stiffness degradation was modelled by assuming
constant values of tangent stiffness above, below and between fixed octahedral strain limits shown in Table 2.
Figure 14 shows the variations of stiffness with depth at
different strain levels, and Fig. 15 compares the stepped
input tangent stiffness values with the secant Youngs modulus degradation curve computed from them, for soil at
10 m depth.
The transversely isotropic cases explored in Case 5
required three independent parameters (Euv , Euh and Gv ). The
ratio Euv =Euh was varied from analysis to analysis, and Gv
was obtained from
500
0
Hyde Park Cavalry Barracks
Uniform stiffness
5
BA
8m
Props at 1 m depth
Depth: m
15 m
10
85 m
15
20
CL
A
02% 006%
006% 002%
2
0
4
2.5
1.5
0.7
0.35
0.15
0.05
10
12
14
Case 2
Case 1
10
Base of wall
20
Case 4
Cases 1 and 2
Case 3
30
E0 4. Eu hpcb
1
2
3
4
200
Resulting secant
Youngs modulus
100
0
00001
0001
001
01
10
Strain: %
Fig. 15. Secant moduli resulting from input tangent moduli, for
base case at 10 m below ground level
Gv
Euh Euv
2Euh Euv
(13)
Lekhnitskii (1981)
As noted by both Simpson (1992) and Atkinson (2000),
the mobilised strength at any strain level is equal to the area
under the tangent stiffnessstrain curve, up to that strain
level. Therefore, even though the soil is modelled as elastic,
there are restrictions on the values of stiffness that can be
used as input. For example, increasing the rate of stiffness
degradation with strain will reduce the available strength at
a given strain level, and in an undrained retaining wall or
spread foundation, analysis may prevent stability within
reasonable deformation limits. For the base case described
above, the mobilised undrained shear strength at 1% strain is
of the order of 60 kPa at 10 m depth, which is a relatively
low value for the London Clay (Marsland, 1972; Hight,
1986).
Impact of model and parametric variations on predicted
displacements
In order to simplify the discussion, the following key
outputs are compared below for different soil models and
parametric values:
horizontal wall displacements
vertical displacements at original ground level
vertical displacements at excavation level
bending moments and prop loads.
15
Cases 1 and 2
Heave: mm
Base of excavation
300
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d )
15
Horizontal displacement: mm
10
Excavation
5
Case 3
0
Case 4
5
60
40
20
Distance behind wall: m
20
Fig. 17. Heave of soil at original ground level (BB in Fig. 12)
for four different soil models
Case 1
Depth: m
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
10
CLAYTON
16
500
E0 2 E0
in Case 4
400
300
200
100
E0 reduced to Case
4 at 0006% strain
0
00001
0001
001
01
10
Strain (%)
(a)
20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Excavation
Heave: mm
1
2
3
4
Back of wall
10
180
E0 reduced to Case
4 at 0006% strain
4
Linear range
extended to 002%
Base case
Case 4
0
2
4
60
40
20
0
Distance in front of wall: m
(b)
20
E0 2 E 0
in Case 4
300
E0 4 Eu hpcb
200
100
0
00001
Reduced rates
of stiffness
degradation
Base case
Case 4
0001
001
01
Strain: %
10
30
Heave: mm
20
Reduced rates of
stiffness degradation
(see Fig. 20)
10
80
60
40
20
Distance in front of wall: m
20
12
10
08
06
uvh 049
04
Gh
02
E uh
2(1uhh)
uhh 1 E uh /2E uv
Gv
E uhE uv
2E uh E uv
0
1
15
20
Modular ratio: Eh /Ev
17
25
CLAYTON
18
Field geophysics
Up until the 1980s it seems to have been widely assumed
that stiffnesses measured in dynamic (laboratory and field
seismic) tests might be about one order of magnitude higher
than those needed for analysis of ground movements, and
were therefore only of practical significance for dynamic
problems, such as the effects of machinery vibration, or
earthquake loading on construction (Ballard & MacLean,
1975; ASCE, 1976). During the late 1970s and the 1980s,
and partly as a result of the realisation by geotechnical
researchers that statically measured small-strain stiffness was
much higher than previously thought, it became apparent
that field seismic testing might be used to determine stiffness values for more routine, static, geotechnical design.
Abbiss (1979) used first arrival times in a seismic refraction survey, coupled with an interpretation based on Dobrins
(1960) equation for seismic velocity increasing linearly with
depth, to determine the Youngs modulus values of the
fractured Chalk Mundford, and found encouraging agreement
with stiffness values obtained from both down-hole
(865 mm) plate tests, and values back-figured from observed
ground movements beneath an 18.6 m diameter tank loading
test. He later reported (Abbiss, 1981) stiffness values derived
from continuous surface wave and seismic refraction shear
Compression wave
(a)
Shear wave
(b)
Shear wave
(c)
19
Geophones
Gv
(a)
Three-component geophones
Gv
Seismic CPT
(b)
Down-hole hammer
G v, G h
Three-component geophones
(c)
CLAYTON
1200
Back-analysed
field data
CSW
data
B
A
02 m
800
26 m
/26
612 m
20
Depth
02 m
26 m
612 m
B
A
A
400
001
Vertical strain: %
01
100
200
300
21
Gv0: MPa
200
Depth: m
Depth: m
10
10
20
Down-hole profiling
15
Dilatometer
Weak rock pressuremeter
Self-boring pressuremeter
Site locations
30
20
Fig. 26. Comparison of CSW and down-hole stiffness measurements for a noisy weak-rock site with complex surface geometry
(from Hope et al., 1998)
Fig. 27. Vertical shear moduli (Gv ) against depth, from four
cross-hole seismic surveys in the London Clay around London
100
200
300
400
500
600
10
20
30
Back-analysis of case records
Cross-hole geophysics
Fig. 28. Youngs moduli against depth for the London Clay,
from cross-hole geophysics (assuming isotropy and v
0.5; see
shaded area in Fig. 27), back-analysis of case records, and
routine laboratory testing at Grand Buildings, Trafalgar Square
(modified from Clayton et al., 1991)
CLAYTON
22
0
100
400
500
0
Gravel
Down-hole Gv
Cross-hole Gv
Cross-hole Gh
2000
10
20
20
30
30
Depth: m
10
40
40
50
50
60
Limestone band
Mudstone
Down-hole
measurements
Siltstone/limestone
Fissile mudstone
Cross-hole
measurements
23
(a)
Transmitters
Transmitted signals
100 kHz
75 kHz
First
breaks
100 kHz
Amplitude
Receivers
50 kHz 25 kHz
75 kHz
50 kHz
25 kHz
Gv0
Gv0, Gh0
(b)
01
02
03
04
05
Time: ms
CLAYTON
(a) For this case, perhaps as a result of noise and/or nearfield effects (Clayton et al., 2004, and see below), the
scatter in estimated shear wave velocities is considerably higher at low input frequencies than at high input
frequencies.
(b) For the small data sample shown (a larger number of
participants might be expected to give a greater range),
the variation in shear modulus (Gv ) calculated from
first-break travel times is 5.4% at 10 kHz, rising to
15.4% at 2.5 kHz.
(c) The data show that it is easier to pick consistent peakto-peak travel times than first break travel times. There
is considerable consistency in the shear wave velocities
estimated using the peak-to-peak method.
(d ) However, the results obtained from using peak-to-peak
travel times are not consistent with those from firstbreak determinations until the received period is
approximately the same as the transmitted period.
These data suggest that previous estimates of the accuracy
of bender element determinations of velocity and stiffness
have been optimistic. They also suggest that, while carrying
out commercial bender element tests, there is merit in
(a) systematically using a range of input frequencies for
every test
(b) having more than one person interpret the traces, in the
same environment (e.g. in a spreadsheet)
(c) estimating shear-wave velocity and therefore stiffness
on the basis of both first-break and peak-to-peak travel
times.
The important issue of noise is further explored in the
data shown in Fig. 34. Five noisy bender element traces
taken on the same specimen are divided into those with a
(relatively) good signal-to-noise ratio (above) and those with
a poor signal-to-noise ratio (below). The ratio (S/N)a shown
in the figure is not the conventional value (signal power
divided by noise power), but is the ratio of peak-to-peak
noise prior to the first break, divided by the maximum peakto-peak amplitude in the received wave train. This value is
more easily estimated in the laboratory during testing. The
estimated position of the first breaks is shown by the arrows.
The arrival of the seismic wave is detected significantly later
when there is more noise. A survey of about 200 traces from
0001
Amplitude: V
First
breaks
0
0001
Time
0001
First
breaks?
Amplitude: V
24
(S/N)a 33, 40
0001
Time
320
Four independent peak-to-peak picks
400
Resonant column tests
(Iwasaki & Tatsuoka, 1977)
First break - 1
First break - 2
First break - 3
First break - 4
280
300
260
240
220
200
0
4
6
8
Source frequency: kHz
10
12
200 kPa
Circles: saturated
Triangles: dry
200
100
50
First breaks
Peak-to-peak
25
06
07
08
09
25
Brief description
Effect
Suggested standard
26
CLAYTON
Pressure
vessel
LVDT
Counter
weight
Accelerometer
Magnet
Coil
Coil
Top cap
Cross
arm
Specimen
Pedestal
Cell base
(a)
(b)
01
001
125
130
135
Drive frequency: Hz
140
145
(d )
(e)
(f)
(g)
27
01
0
Depth: m
Output amplitude: V
10
10
100
200
Initial loading pressuremeter shear modulus
Cross-hole shear modulus
Resonant column data, uncorrected
Resonant column data, corrected for apparatus compliance
Fig. 38. Comparison of resonant column very-small-strain stiffness measurements with those from pressuremeter and crosshole seismic testing; gypsiferous mudrocks with saline pore
water, Nakheel Tower, Dubai
28
CLAYTON
(a)
(b)
29
(c)
(d)
(e)
(g)
(f)
Fig. 39. Examples of triaxial instrumentation: (a) external pore pressure transducer; (b) pore pressure transducer mid-plane probe;
(c) flushable mid-plane pore pressure probe; (d) internal load cell; (e) LVDT local strain measurement; (f) Hall effect local strain
measurement; (g) side-mounted bender element
CLAYTON
30
Stainless steel
insert
No top cap
drainage or
stone
t (1 3)/2
Triaxial
compression
Bender element
(one of a pair)
1
Flush-mounted
high air entry
flushable porous
stone
s (1 3)/2
4, 5
3
Triaxial
extension
Radial strain
caliper
6
(a)
Mimic recent
history?
Rest period to
reduce creep
Apply
deviatoric
stress
Establish
ve pwp
Isotropic
consolidation
Deviatoric stress
Shear to
failure
Time
1 month ?
(b)
been saturated in the ground, before sampling. While backpressure saturation (which through the application of a very
low effective stress allows the specimen to swell) is adopted
in routine triaxial testing in the UK and elsewhere, it has
been found that when using advanced triaxial apparatus the
application of large steps of cell pressure, aimed at reaching
the in situ mean effective stress as rapidly as possible before
measuring a B value, works well. This is shown schematically in Fig. 41 (stage 01). Because of sampling disturbance effects, the mean effective stress at the end of this
stage would not be expected to equal the mean effective
stress in the ground. Estimates of K0 based on these data
(Skempton & Sowa, 1963) should be treated with caution.
Stages 12 and 23 (Fig. 41) aim to bring the specimen
back to its in situ effective stress regime, albeit with a high
(generally . 300 kPa) back-pressure, to ensure effective pore
pressure measurement. The most economic technique is to
apply a single increment of consolidation (or swelling) under
isotropic conditions (stage 12), and follow this with a
deviatoric stress ramp (or series of small steps) (stage 23),
during which the excess mid-plane pore pressure should be
monitored. If the excess pore pressure (the difference between the measured mid-plane and base pore pressures)
exceeds a specified proportion of the major principal stress
(say 5%), then loading (or unloading if going into triaxial
extension, as shown in Fig. 41(a)) should be slowed, to
ensure that the actual effective stress path does not deviate
excessively from its planned route.
The necessity of modelling recent history (stage 34) has
100
400
10
20
Depth: m
31
30
40
50
60
70
Cross-hole Gv0
Down-hole Gv0
Continuous surface
wave test
Down-hole shear
wave survey
Cross-hole shear
wave survey
810 m
Gv0
2040 m
Gv0
.100 m
Gv0 , Gh0 ?
Gv0 , Gh0
Gv , Gh y
Gv0
Euv , Euh y
Euv , Euh y
Gv0 , Gh0
Gv , Gh
Advanced triaxial
testing
32
CLAYTON
cross-hole seismic testing. Very-small-strain stiffness resonant column (Gv0 ) results give a lower stiffness profile, even
though the specimens were returned to their estimated in situ
effective stresses presumably because of sample disturbance. Undrained triaxial stiffnesses, derived assuming isotropy (i.e. Gv Euv =3) from Hall effect local strain
measurements at 0.01% axial strain, are considerably below
the stiffnesses from resonant column testing, as might be
expected at the higher strain levels.
Estimation of the degree of stiffness anisotropy requires
good specification and successful use of a horizontally
polarised source during cross-hole seismic testing, or of
horizontally polarised bender element tests. The results of
bender element testing and horizontally polarised cross-hole
shear wave seismic testing are not shown in Fig. 42, because
at this site they were judged to be unreliable, and thus the
degree of stiffness anisotropy (if any) was not known. It is
suggested that the chances of recognising undrained and
shear stiffness anisotropy may be improved in future by the
use of horizontally cut specimens in the resonant column
and triaxial apparatuses.
Determination of the changes of stiffness parameters with
strain remains challenging. Changes in stiffness (Euv or Gv )
can be measured under static conditions in advanced triaxial
testing, or under dynamic conditions in the cyclic triaxial
test, and in the resonant column apparatus. However, as a
result of cycling and strain rates, the different methods can
be expected to give different results, with estimates based on
resonant column testing being unconservative. Determination
of stiffness degradation with increasing strain should take
place (at least) in both compression and extension, since
degradation rates will differ.
Very few determinations of the full set of drained (longterm) anisotropic stiffness parameters have been reported for
undisturbed natural soils, to date. Given the testing timescales, and the fact that data from several different test types
need to be combined, this is likely to be feasible only for
major projects.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-linear elasticity has proved to be an effective and
convenient basis on which, for many types of ground, to
determine geotechnical displacements. However, most soils
and weak rocks can be expected to display stiffness anisotropy, requiring the determination of at least three parameters
for the computation of displacements under short-term (undrained) conditions, and five in the long term, under drained
conditions.
Despite the fact that a linear range of stressstrain behaviour does not exist, for practical purposes it is convenient to
determine stiffness parameters at very small strains (say
,0.001%) and use these as a reference. Very-small-strain
stiffness can be used to establish the stiffness profile, which
has a profound influence on displacement patterns around
new and existing infrastructure. And for those projects where
strains will remain low, the operational stiffness will not be
greatly different from the very-small-strain value.
To assess the sensitivity of predicted displacements and
bending moments to different stiffness parameters, a propped
cantilever wall has been modelled using linear and nonlinear elasticity, and it has been shown that, for this particular problem, stiffness at very small strain, the change of
stiffness parameters with increasing strain, and the degree of
stiffness anisotropy had significant effects on computed
displacements and wall bending moments.
Methods of determining very-small-strain stiffness, in the
field using seismic geophysical methods, and in the laboratory using bender elements, the resonant column test and the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully recognises the important contributions made by colleagues, friends and geotechnical companies. Individuals contributing to the work, with data,
discussion, criticism and support included Jim Bennell, Tony
Butcher, Manolis Fleris, Chris Haberfield, Gerhard Heymann,
David Hight, Qaiser Iqbal, Marcus Matthews, Rory Mortimore, Louise Otter, Justin Phillips, John Powell, Pat Power,
Jeffrey Priest, Mike Rattley, Emily Rees, Chris Russell, Eben
Rust, Hardev Sidhu, Ken Stokoe, Jerry Sutton, Roger
Thompson and Xu Ming.
Data, facilities, expertise and comment have been provided by AWE plc, Buro Happold, Coffey, Fugro GeoConsulting Ltd, Golder Associates and SGC Ltd.
Finally, this paper was reviewed and criticised by Gerhard
Heymann, Marcus Matthews, Jeffrey Priest, Xu Ming and
Antonis Zervos. Their comments were invaluable: any remaining errors are the authors.
NOTATION
Cp a material constant
E Youngs modulus
E9 Youngs modulus in terms of effective stress
REFERENCES
Abbireddy, C. O. R. (2008). Particle form and its impact on
packing and shear behaviour of particulate materials. PhD
thesis, University of Southampton
Abbireddy, C. O. R., Clayton, C. R. I. & Huvenne, V. A. I. (2009).
A method of estimating the form of fine particulates. Geotechnique 59, No. 6, 503511, doi: 10.1680/geot.2008.P.009.
Abbiss, C. P. (1979). A comparison of the stiffness of the Chalk at
Mundford from a seismic survey and a large scale tank test.
Geotechnique 29, No. 4, 461468, doi: 10.1680/geot.1979.29.
4.461.
Abbiss, C. P. (1981). Shear wave measurements of the elasticity of
the ground. Geotechnique 31, No. 1, 91104, doi: 10.1680/
geot.1981.31.1.91.
Ackerley, S. K., Hellings, J. E. & Jardine, R. J. (1987). Discussion
on A new device for measuring local axial strains on triaxial
specimens by Clayton and Khatrush (1986). Geotechnique 37,
No. 3, 413417, doi: 10.1680/geot.1987.37.3.413.
Anderson, D. G. & Stokoe, K. H. II (1978). Shear modulus: a time
dependent soil property. In Dynamic geotechnical testing, ASTM
STP 654, pp. 6690. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASCE (1976). Subsurface investigation for design and construction
of foundations of buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 56, 61
pp. New York: ASCE.
ASTM (2003). Standard test methods for the determination of the
modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic
triaxial apparatus, ASTM D3999-91. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
ASTM (2004). Standard test method for consolidated undrained
triaxial compression test for cohesive soils, ASTM D4767. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2007). Standard test methods for modulus and damping of
soils by resonant-column method, ASTM D4015-07. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Atkinson, J. H. (1975). Anisotropic elastic deformations in laboratory tests on undisturbed London Clay. Geotechnique 25, No. 2,
357374, doi: 10.1680/geot.1975.25.2.357.
Atkinson, J. H. (2000). Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design.
The 40th Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique 50, No. 5, 487508,
doi: 10.1680/geot.2000.50.5.487.
Atkinson, J. H. & Evans, J. S. (1985). Discussion on The measurement of soil stiffness in the triaxial apparatus by Jardine et al.
(1984). Geotechnique 35, No. 3, 378380, doi: 10.1680/
geot.1985.35.3.378.
Atkinson, J. H. & Sallfors, G. (1991). Experimental determination
of stressstraintime characteristics in laboratory and in situ
tests. General report to Session 1. Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engng, Florence 3, 915956.
Atkinson, J. H., Richardson, D. & Stallebrass, S. E. (1990). Effect
of recent stress history on the stiffness of overconsolidated soil.
Geotechnique 40, No. 4, 531540, doi: 10.1680/geot.1990.40.
4.531.
33
34
CLAYTON
35
36
CLAYTON
anisotropy in clays with bender elements in the triaxial apparatus. Geotech. Test. J. 21, No. 1, 310.
Kavvadas, M. & Anagnostopoulos, A. G. (1998). A framework for
the mechanical behaviour of structured soils. Proc. 2nd Int.
Symp. on Geotechnics of Hard Soils Soft Rocks, Napoli 2,
603614.
Kee, R. (1970). The behaviour and design of foundations in Chalk.
MPhil thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Construction,
Hatfield Polytechnic.
Kuwano, J., Katagiri, M., Kita, K., Nakano, M. & Kuwano, R.
(2001). A review of Japanese standards for laboratory shear
tests. In Advanced laboratory stressstrain testing of geomaterials (eds F. Tatsuoka, S. Shibuya and R. Kuwano), pp. 53
64. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
La Rochelle, P., Sarrailh, J., Tavenas, F., Roy, M. & Leroueil, S.
(1981). Causes of sampling disturbance and design of a new
sampler for sensitive soils. Can. Geotech. J. 18, No. 1, 5266.
Lai, C. G. & Rix, G. J. (1998). Simultaneous inversion of Rayleigh
phase velocity and attenuation for near-surface site characterization, Report No. GIT-CEE/GEO-98-2. School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Landon, M. M., DeGroot, D. J. & Sheahan, T. C. (2007). Nondestructive sample quality assessment of a soft clay using shear
wave velocity. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenv. Engng 133, No. 4,
424432.
Lefebvre, G. & Poulin, C. (1979). A new method of sampling in
sensitive clay. Can. Geotech. J. 16, No. 1, 226233.
Lekhnitskii, S. G. (1981). Theory of elasticity of an anisotropic
body. Moscow: Mir Publishers.
Leong, E. C., Yeo, S. H. & Rahardjo, H. (2005). Measuring shear
wave velocity using bender elements. Geotech. Test. J. 28, No.
5, 488498.
Lings, M. L. (2001). Drained and undrained anisotropic elastic
stiffness parameters. Geotechnique 51, No. 6, 555565, doi:
10.1680/geot.2001.51.6.555.
Lings, M. L., Pennington, D. S. & Nash, D. F. T. (2000). Anisotropic stiffness parameters and their measurement in a stiff
natural clay. Geotechnique 50, No. 2, 109125, doi: 10.1680/
geot.2000.50.2.109.
Lings, M. L. & Greening, P. D. (2001). A novel bender/extender
element for soil testing. Geotechnique 51, No. 8, 713717, doi:
10.1680/geot.2001.51.8.713.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Jamiolkowski, M., Pallara, O., Cavallaro, A. &
Pedroni, S. (1997). Shear modulus and damping of soils.
Geotechnique 47, No. 3, 603617, doi: 10.1680/geot.1997.47.
3.603.
Lord, J. A., Clayton, C. R. I. & Mortimore, R. N. (2002). Engineering in chalk, CIRIA Report C574. London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
Love, A. E. H. (1892). A treatise on the mathematical theory of
elasticity, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mair, R. J. (1993). Developments in geotechnical engineering research: applications to tunnels and deep excavations. Unwin
Memorial Lecture 1992. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Civ. Engng 3,
No. 1, 2741.
Marsland, A. (1972). Clays subjected to in situ plate tests. Ground
Engng 5, No. 6, 2431.
Marsland, A. (1986). The choice of test methods in site investigation. In Site investigation practice: assessing BS5930 (ed. A. B.
Hawkins), Engineering Geology Special Publication No. 2, pp.
289298. London: Geological Society.
Marsland, A. & Eason, B. J. (1973). Measurement of displacements
in the ground below loaded plate in deep bore holes. Proceedings of the symposium on field instrumentation, London, Vol. 1,
pp. 304317.
Matthews, M. C. & Clayton, C. R. I. (2004). Large diameter plate
tests on weathered in situ chalk. Q. J. Engng Geol. Hydrogeol.
37, No. 1, 6172.
Matthews, M. C., Hope, V. S. & Clayton, C. R. I. (1996). The use
of surface waves in the determination of ground stiffness
profiles. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng 119, No. 2,
8495.
Matthews, M. C., Clayton, C. R. I. & Own, Y. (2000). The use of
field geophysical techniques to determine geotechnical stiffness
parameters. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng 143, No. 1,
3142.
37
VOTE OF THANKS
Emeritus Professor R. BUTTERFIELD, University of
Southampton.
Good evening. I am very pleased to have been asked to
propose a vote of thanks to Professor Chris Clayton for his
lecture on Stiffness at small strain: research and practice
for many reasons not least of which is that I have known
him and admired his great breadth of interests for many
years.
Above all I found his lecture refreshing, focused, clear
and highly relevant even if its embedded message was that
we still have some way to go before we can claim to be able
to predict the service state displacements of soil structures
in general. This is in part because, in addition to their basic
anisotropy and non-linearity, soil materials usually undergo
non-recoverable, inelastic plastic displacements that often
increase over time: they creep.
Professor Clayton has, I think, provided a very significant
contribution totally in the spirit of answering Rankines
(1858) question: In practical science what are we to do?
Historically, Roscoe in his 1970 Rankine Lecture mentioned being similarly motivated. Apparently, in 1951 Sir
John Baker asked him to provide foundations for a steelframed building that would collapse simultaneously with the
frame, and also their predicted displacements at working
load. (Baker initiated plastic-hinge design methods for steel
structures.) Roscoe was embarrassed to find that he couldnt
do so adequately using current soil mechanics knowledge,
and proclaimed: The soil mechanician should not be interested only in failure; he should be concerned with being
able to predict the movements of a foundation when subject
to given working loads. (Apparently soil mechanics was a
very masculine activity as recently as 1970!) His endeavours
led, of course, to the development of critical state soil
mechanics.
Then again, Gibson, in his 1974 Rankine Lecture, presented analytical solutions for elastic half-spaces in which
the shear modulus increased linearly with depth, and he
would certainly be gratified to find that this is now a wellsupported and useful model.
I must add here that I find it extremely worrying that
neither Roscoes nor Gibsons work would have been supported under the latest government guidelines, under which,
even in universities, demonstrable short-term economic benefit is to be the key determinant for research funding.
I am sure we all agree that Professor Clayton has
succeeded admirably in demonstrating how the moduli required in a range of non-linear elastic soil models can be
determined from a variety of both in situ and laboratory
tests, their strengths and their weaknesses and, in particular,
the practical circumstances in which they are most relevant.
Please join me in expressing your appreciation of his
quite excellent lecture.