Applied

Geomechanics
(CIVL4401)
Prof Barry Lehane
The course equips students with the skills required for the
application of geomechanics principles to the solution of
commonly encountered problems in geotechnical
engineering.

Dept Civil, Environmental

&Mining Engineering
Univ. of Western Australia
2023
Semester 1
 Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Basic Soil Mechanics.................................................................................................................. 10
What is soil? .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Measures of composition ................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.2 Basic description of soil ................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Coarse grained soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.4 Fine grained soils ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Shearing Resistance of Soil ................................................................................................... 13

Stiffness of soil ...................................................................................................................... 16
Parameters controlling the soil strength................................................................................ 18
Critical state concept ............................................................................................................. 19
Laboratory Testing...................................................................................................................... 23
Laboratory test types ............................................................................................................. 23
Soil Sampling ........................................................................................................................ 24
Direct Shear testing in the Shear box .................................................................................... 27
Triaxial Testing ..................................................................................................................... 28
Elastic soil stiffness under triaxial conditions ...................................................................... 33
1-D Compression ................................................................................................................... 38
Direct Shear Interface Testing ............................................................................................... 41
Embedded Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................ 42
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 42
Basic Theory.......................................................................................................................... 45
Wedge Solutions.................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.1 Coulomb soln. for active Rankine condition .................................................................................................................... 47
4.3.2 Culmann line construction for Active wedge ................................................................................................................... 48

Caquot & Kerisel curves (Ka & Kp, horizontal components); horizontal soil surface........... 49
Steady seepage in soil with homogeneous ‘k’ ....................................................................... 50
Cantilever Walls .................................................................................................................... 51
Single Propped Walls (Free Earth Mechanism) .................................................................... 53
Bearing Capacity ........................................................................................................................ 54
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 54
Bearing capacity formulation ................................................................................................ 55
Undrained bearing capacity of foundations ........................................................................... 59
Bearing capacity theory ......................................................................................................... 62
5.4.1 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Sliding block method-approach 2 .................................................... 63
5.4.2 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Stress regions method- approach 3 .................................................. 65
5.4.3 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Exact solution .................................................................................. 67

Page 1
5.4.4 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Limit equilibrium – Approach 4 ...................................................... 68
5.4.5 Drained bearing capacity of a surface strip: Stress regions method, γ=0, cʹ=0 – Approach 3 ( ........................................ 71
5.4.6 Drained bearing capacity of a surface strip: Stress regions method γ=0, c’=0 and φ’=20o – Approach 3......................... 72
5.4.7 Exact solution for drained bearing capacity in weightless soil ......................................................................................... 73
5.4.8 Drained bearing capacity solution for material with weight ............................................................................................. 74

Slope Stability............................................................................................................................. 76
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 76
Slope stability assessment ..................................................................................................... 78
Slope failure with circular slip............................................................................................... 79
6.3.1 Rotational Failure............................................................................................................................................................. 79
6.3.2 Method of slices ............................................................................................................................................................... 80
6.3.3 Methods of analysis (based on ways to derive σ’ni).......................................................................................................... 81
6.3.4 Hand Calculation: Short term stability of cuttings in clay ................................................................................................ 82

Infinite Slope Analysis .......................................................................................................... 83

6.4.1 Dry slope (in soil with no c′) ............................................................................................................................................ 83
6.4.2 Slope with c' but with u=0................................................................................................................................................ 84
6.4.3 Slope with water pressure ................................................................................................................................................ 85
6.4.4 Seepage on to infinite slope ............................................................................................................................................. 88

Non-circular slips (multiple planes) ...................................................................................... 90

Soil Reinforcement and Soil Nailing ..................................................................................... 91
6.6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................... 91
6.6.2 Soil nails intercept failure plane ....................................................................................................................................... 95
6.6.3 Reinforcement contribution to rotational stability ............................................................................................................ 96
6.6.4 Non-circular slip with reinforcement ............................................................................................................................... 97

Slope stabilisation.................................................................................................................. 98
Soft Clay and Ground Improvement........................................................................................... 99
1D consolidation.................................................................................................................. 100
Finite Difference Solution to 1-D consolidation equation ................................................... 102
Pre-loading/surcharging ...................................................................................................... 104
Vertical Drains (to speed up consolidation) ........................................................................ 107
Ground improvement........................................................................................................... 110
Settlement of Shallow Foundations .......................................................................................... 114
Settlement prediction formulae ........................................................................................... 114
Site Investigation ...................................................................................................................... 120
Desk study ........................................................................................................................... 120
Test Pit (Trial Pit) Investigation .......................................................................................... 121
Borehole Investigation......................................................................................................... 124
In-situ Testing...................................................................................................................... 131

Page 2
 Introduction

Introductory lecture: CIVL4401 What is Geotechnical Engineering ?

• What is Geotechnics ?

• Minimising risk

• Facilities which depend on proper geotechnical engineering

• Consequences of ignoring geotechnical conditions

Scope of geotechnical engineering Scope of geotechnical engineering

Ground investigation, design, construction and maintenance
for:

• Building, industrial and offshore foundations

• Slopes
• Fills and embankments
• Retaining structures
• Tunnels and underground space facilities
• Roads, airport pavements, industrial pavements
• Environmental: waste containment systems & site remediation

Geotechnical professionals Role of Geotechnical Engineer

• Devise/design solution
• Reduce risks associated with construction in the ground
• Minimize the effects of our construction on nature

Uncertainty, Idealisation => Approximation (± 25% is good)

=> We need to manage risk

Degree of risk (R) = Likelihood (L) x Effect (E)

Page 3
 CRITICAL ROLE OF GROUND
INVESTIGATION
Potential cost of failure can be reduced significantly by obtaining increased
information from ground investigations

Facilities which depend on proper

geotechnical engineering
Cost of
Failure

Expenditure on Ground Investigation

Reducing risk (but risk is always present)

Foundations for low-rise residential

Bridges (abutments, piers, approach structures)
properties

Problems are relatively rare at

sites with Class A and Class S
sites (AS2870) i.e. most of Perth.

Geotechnical input at these sites

for low rise residential properties
is usually minimal

Basements (Raffles) Basements (Capital Square)

Page 4
Large storage tanks
Ports and harbours

High rise structures

Tunnels and stations

Tunnel arriving at William Street

station box (Feb 2006)

Pavement design Cut-and-cover tunnels

Page 5
 Gravity platforms

Consequences of ignoring
geotechnical conditions

Gullfaks C
Troll East
W=1.5 million tonnes
Total height 450m
Total height =380m

Failure of Transcona grain elevator, 1914

Earthquake damage to roads, Japan

Bridge collapse due to foundation failure from earthquake, Japan

Page 6
Earthquake induced liquefaction of sand beneath apartment blocks Failed Sheetpile Wall Near Bridge

Collapse of highway due to retaining wall failure – Singapore, 2004

Pile breaking due to lateral ground movements

Natural Slope Failure in Tropical Environment

Coastal Instability, UK

Page 7
 Failure of Dam via Erosion of Abutment After Heavy Rain
Offshore jack-up collapse

Tailings storage failures Acid mine drainage

pH=2 !

Containment bund failure Liquor containment failure

The Leaning Tower of Shanghai (July, 2003) Another Shanghai Building

Page 8
 Reinforced soil failure
Bearing capacity failure

Sinkholes (karst, abandoned mines..) St Georges Terrace

Taiwan 2009

A sound knowledge of
Geomechanics can help !

Page 9
 Basic Soil Mechanics
What is soil?

2.1.1 Measures of composition

Void ratio (e) = Vv/Vs
Porosity (n) = Vv/V = e/(1+e)
Specific volume (v) = V/Vs = 1+e
Water content (w) = Mw/Ms
Degree of saturation (Sr) = Vw/Vv = wGs/e
Air content (A) = Va/V = n(1- Sr)
Relative density (Dr) = (emax-e)/(emax-emin)

2.1.2 Basic description of soil

Soil particles are decomposed and weathered rock fragments of various sizes:

Clay fraction < 0.002mm; Silt fraction [0.002mm and 0.063mm]

Sand fraction [0.075mm and 2mm] Gravel fraction [2mm and 60mm]

Fines content <0.075mm Coarse fraction > 0.075mm

Gravel: more than 50% of the coarse fraction >2mm

Sand: more than 50% of coarse fraction between 0.075mm and 2mm
Silt/Clay: more than 50% smaller than 0.075mm

Page 10
Example of PSDs

Chemical weathering (e.g. acid rain) leads to the formation of clay minerals. For example, for
weathering of igneous rock: Quartz (SiO2) will not change, orthoclase and plagioclase feldspars
convert to kaolinite and smectite respectively and black minerals (micas) convert to illite. The
clay minerals form in plate-like groups, where each group comprises various sheet
combinations of SiO4 tetrahedra and Al2(OH)6 octahedra; these are tied together by H+, K+ or
H2O. The plates are surrounded by a layer of adsorbed water. In natural soils, clay minerals
occur in groups which link together larger sized particles. They represent at most ≈40% of the
soil particles present but serve to give the soil a sticky/cohesive/plastic characteristic and
reduce its permeability greatly. The clay fraction (i.e. particles <0.002mm) may also comprise
‘ground-down’ rock and there is therefore a need to distinguish between clay content (CC) and
clay fraction (CF).

Soil is generally described using the following format:

Consistency-Colour-Structure-secondary soil type -Soil type + additional data

e.g. Stiff grey fissured silty CLAY with occasional shells

Medium dense-light brown sandy GRAVEL

Consistency: Sands and gravels (loose, medium dense, dense)

Clays (soft, firm, stiff, hard)
Silts (soft/loose, stiff/dense)
Structure in clays: laminated, fissured, cemented

2.1.3 Coarse grained soils

The mechanical characteristics (i.e. stiffness and strength) of sands and gravels are governed by
void ratio/relative density, mineralogy, structure, angularity, uniformity, cementation, age and
overconsolidation ratio. After sieve analyses, the soil grading is represented on a particle size

Page 11
distribution (PSD) chart. For a sand or gravel, this distribution is usually summarised by the
material’s D50 and UC= D60/D10. Typical further indices used are:

• Dry unit weight = γwGs/(1+e)

• Saturated unit weight = γw [Gs +e]/(1+e); Gs ≈2.65
• Dr = relative density, Dr = (emax – e)/(emax – emin)
• F(e) = void ratio function such as F(e)=(2.17 – e)2/(1+e)

Typical maximum and minimum void ratios

emax emin
UC (=D60/D10) Rounded Angular Rounded Angular
_____________________________________________________________________
1 (very uniform) 0.80 1.30 0.50 0.80
2 0.60 1.20 0.40 0.65
5 0.50 0.90 0.30 0.50
10 (well graded) 0.40 0.70 0.25 0.40

For coarse grained soils with a fines content <20%, the permeability (k) may be estimated from
Hazen’s formula: k= 0.01 (D10)2 m/s, where D10 is the maximum size in mm of the smallest 10%
fraction of the material. Because of the loss of fines when retrieving conventional bulk samples,
D10 for use in Hazen’s expression is often taken as the minimum D10 value obtained in PSD’s on
a range of samples.

2.1.4 Fine grained soils

The clay and silt fraction (determined from a sedimentation or hydrometer analysis) often used
to summarise the particle size distribution of a silt or clay. However, grading alone is often
insufficient to describe the basic nature of a clay or silt. This led to the development of
Atterberg limits (LL and PL); only material passing a 0.425mm sieve is used to measure the
LL and PL. The undrained shear strengths of the soil at the LL and PL are ≈2 kPa and ≈200
kPa respectively. Indices used for classification purposes include:
• PI = LL-PL
• LI = (w –PL)/PI
• Activity = PI/CF =f (mineralogy)
X-ray diffraction and chemical analyses, in addition to electron microscopy, are now also
frequently used to assist in classification.

The relatively low permeability of clays (& to a lesser extent silts) distinguishes them from
more free-draining coarse grained soils because of the tendency for excess pore pressure
development under typical loading rates. Clays generally respond in an ‘undrained’ manner
(i.e. no excess pore pressure dissipation) under immediate application of loads from a
foundation. Apart from this characteristic, the mechanical behaviour of clays and silts is
essentially dependent on the same factors as those of coarse grained soils.

Page 12
 Shearing Resistance of Soil

Analogy: block on level surface

Ft = Rsinα
Fn = Rcosα

Ft = Fntanα

max value of α = ϕ’
i.e. sliding of block when Ft = Fntanϕ’ (1)
Coefficient of friction

Interparticle force = N’
Fn = ΣN’ + uA

Water pressure
𝐅𝐅 ∑ 𝐍𝐍′
∴ 𝛔𝛔𝐧𝐧 = 𝐀𝐀𝐧𝐧 = 𝐀𝐀 + 𝐮𝐮
𝛔𝛔𝐧𝐧 = 𝛔𝛔𝐧𝐧 ′ + 𝐮𝐮
Normal effective

Water/air have no resistance to shear

From (1) Ftmax = ΣN' tanϕ'

Divide by A τf = σ'n tanϕ'

Angle of friction of soil

If soil particles have a degree of cementation/bonding of strength = c' (sometimes termed effective
cohesion)

General Eqn. τf = c'+ σ'n tanϕ'

Page 13
Implications of the Mohr-Coulomb equation

τf = c' + σ'n tan φ'

1. Soil failure occurs in shear

2. Shear strength depends largely on the effective stress

σ' = σ – u

• Increase in u => reduction in strength

• Increase in σ => increase in strength

3. As it is the normal effective stress that controls τf on a given plane, the

value of τf within a soil mass varies with direction

4. c' is generally zero or very close to zero for a soil - but is in excess of
1000 kPa for many rocks. It represents the component of strength that
is independent of effective stress level and arises due to
cementation/bonding at the inter-granular contacts

5. The value of φ' varies with mineralogy, density, angularity etc.

For a soil rich in active clay minerals, φ' ~ 20o

For a dense angular gravel φ' is in excess of 50o

Page 14
EXAMPLE 2.1: Determine the lateral force, Fh, that would cause sliding of the
following frame in a clay with material properties: γs = 20 kN/m3, c'=0 and
φ'=35o

Fh 3m
2m

Failure surface
10m
If the force is applied rapidly, the clay will not have time to change volume and to drain.
Shear induced excess pore pressures = ∆u will be generated on the failure surface and the
shear strength of this surface, τf

= c' + σ'n tan φ' = (σn – u) tanφ'

where σn = 20×3 = 60 kPa

u = uo + ∆u = 2×10 + ∆u

The value of ∆u is difficult to determine accurately and it is usual to conduct an undrained

shear test (with the same mode of shearing) at the same level of initial vertical effective stress
to determine τf = su i.e. the “undrained shear strength”.

For this case:

τf = su

and Fh (per metre width) = area × su = 10 su

If the force is applied slowly, the shear induced pore pressure (∆u) = 0 and

τf = (60-20) tan 35o = 28 kPa

Fh (per metre width) = area × τf = 10 × 28 = 280 kN per metre width

EXAMPLE 2.2: Lecture to demonstrate how shear strength controls the

stability of a slope comprising dry sand.

Page 15
 Stiffness of soil
The stiffness of soil is typically more than 1000 times less than that of concrete. Soil stiffness
controls the movement of structures founded on soil and must be estimated for serviceability
limit state (SLS) design.

Application of isotropic stress to a soil

K′=bulk modulus of the soil – and at low stress levels is a measure of the ability of the soil
particles to re-adjust their configuration on application of an all round stress = p. Volume
changes due to particle crushing become important at higher stress levels (≈10 MPa for
siliceous sand)

K′ is controlled by effective stress:

∆ p′ = K′ ∆εvol where ∆εvol = ∆V/V (1)

where ∆p' = ∆p - ∆u

For the voids:

∆u = Kv ∆Vv/Vv

where Kv is the bulk modulus of the void material and Vv is the volume of voids

Under free draining conditions /slow application of p:

∆u =0 and ∆εvol = ∆p/K'

If soil particles are incompressible and no drainage takes place, the reduction in volume of
the soil skeleton = reduction in volume of pore space

∆Vv = ∆V

∆Vv = n V ∆u/Kv where n = porosity (Vv/V) (2)

∆Vv= ∆V = (∆p- ∆u) V/K' from Eqn 1

=> ∆u = [ ∆p/ (1 + n K'/Kv) ] found by equating Eqns 1 and 2

For saturated material, Kv = Kwater >> K' => ∆u = ∆p => ∆p'=0 and Δεvol=0

Pore pressure parameter B = ∆u/∆p = 1/ (1 +n K'/Kv) = 1 for saturated material

Page 16
Application of shear stress to a soil
G =shear modulus of the soil – and is the same for drained and undrained loading (as water
has no shearing resistance)
τ

τ=Gγ
γ

Shear loading induces shear and volumetric strains

For fully drained conditions:

• If the particle packing is dense, shearing causes an increase in volume (i.e. a dilatant
response)
• If the particle packing is loose, shearing causes a reduction in volume (i.e. a
contractant response)

For constant volume conditions (≡ undrained):

• Dense particle packing leads to negative excess pore pressures (∆u <0)
• Loose particle packing leads to positive excess pore pressures (∆u >0)

Page 17
 Parameters controlling the soil strength

Typical response shown by sand in direct shear

Peak friction angle (φ'p) and constant volume friction angle (φ'cv)

D: dense, M: medium dense,

Critical state φ'cv

Critical state (or ultimate) friction angle (φ'cv) does not depend on density or stress level.

Page 18
 Critical state concept

Effective stress strength

• Peak friction angle is not unique; it depends on density & stress level.
• Critical state friction angle is a function only of the soil mineralogy and angularity.
• The mobilised friction angles can vary for different elements of soil beneath a foundation.
• The minimum (i.e. safest) angle is the critical state friction angle.

Page 19
Drained Loading

Undrained Loading

Page 20
Drained vs Undrained Loading

Constant volume shearing

• The initial stress state and density control the tendency to soil to contract or dilate
under shear. At constant volume, soil will not be free to dilate/contract under shear
and hence negative excess pore pressures (Δu) are induced if the soil wants to dilate
whereas Δu is positive if the soil wants to contract.

• For a fixed total stress:

if Δu is –ve, effective stresses increase (and hence strength increases)
if Δu is +ve, effective stresses reduce (and hence strength reduces)

• Consequently, ‘dilatant’ materials are stronger when sheared at constant volume and
‘contractant’ soils are weaker.

• If the loading rate is very fast (relative to the permeability of the soil), the material
undergoes constant volume shearing; this is referred to as ‘undrained loading’.

• Clays respond initially in a constant volume manner when, for example, a building or
embankment load is applied directly to a foundation. Excess pore pressures
subsequently ‘drain’ and volume changes take place. Sands, however, have a
permeability typically 100,000 times that of clay and therefore, in these situations, they
respond in a ‘drained manner’ with Δu=0.

Page 21
 • Sands respond in a constant volume (or undrained) mode when loading rates are
high e.g. under earthquake or wave loading.

Undrained shear strength, su

• su is defined as the maximum shear stress that the soil can sustain when sheared at
constant volume:

τf = c' + σ'n tan φ' = su

where σ'n = initial effective stress minus Δu

• su is measured in a constant volume element test (e.g. triaxial or direct shear test) or
is assessed from an in-situ test (e.g. CPT) using theory developed for that test
assuming undrained conditions and that the material can be characterised by a single
strength parameter = su

• Common applications of the use of su include the assessment of the short-term stability of
foundations and slopes in clay.

• All calculations of this nature are approximate and their validity needs to be
assessed in the context of effective stress.

Final Comment
• Strength depends on effective stress, intergranular friction and bonding.

• Stress level and density dependence of strength requires consideration of critical state
principles.

• Insights obtained through a comparison of critical state soil vs actual soil behaviour.

Page 22
 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory test types
Classification tests
• Particle size distribution (sieve analysis for course fraction, hydrometer analysis
for fine fraction)
• Specific gravity of soil particles (Gs)
• Atterberg limits: Plastic limit and Liquid Limit (conducted on fine fraction)
• Shrinkage limit
• Void ratio limits
• Mineralogy (X-ray diffraction for silts and clays, CaC03 tests)

Strength measurement
• Shear box test
• Triaxial test
• Simple shear test
• Ring shear tests (for residual strength only)

Stiffness and compressibility measurement

• Triaxial test (3D)
• Oedometer (1D)
• Rowe cell (1D)

Measurement of hydraulic properties

• Falling head & constant head tests in triaxial (k only)
• Oedometer & Rowe cell (k & cv)

Note that (unless ground freezing is employed), it is impossible to get an undisturbed

sample of cohesionless soil. For everything other than classification tests, this soil needs to
be reconstituted in the laboratory to a relative density representative of that in the field (which
is inferred from in-situ tests such as the CPT and SPT).

The degree of disturbance imposed on clay samples recovered from the field depends on the
sampling procedure. Block sampling is the best (but most expensive) technique whereas the
quality of tube samples decreases with the area ratio (AR = Aint/Aext) of the sampling tube.

Page 23
 Soil Sampling

Retrieving samples for testing

Page 24
 Retrieving ‘Intact’ samples for testing Driven tube samples (U100)

Block samples

Hand carved sample Sherbrooke block

Waxed and sealed
Test pit from depth

Standard Penetration Test

Conducting a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (SPT) SPT hammer
SPT (unchanged since 1902 !)
63.5 kg mass

Count number of blows

to drive sampler from
760 mm
penetration of 150 to
450 mm

Corrections are normally applied to

the SPT blow count to account for
differences in:
• energy imparted during the test
• the stress level at the test depth

SPT split spoon (Fixed) Piston Sampling

Highly disturbed sample

(suitable for classification tests)
Mechanical or hydraulic piston

Page 25
 Rotary Coring Thin Walled Sampling Tubes
Focus on: - Diameter D ≥ 75 m, AR < 10%
- Area Ratio (AR) - Diameter/thickness ratio, D/t ≥ 45
- Inside Clearance Ratio - Inside Clearance Ratio, ICR ≈ 0
(ICR) - Sharp cutting angle, ≈ 5°
- Cutting angle
drawn to scale

Modified
thin-walled
(Shelby) tube

Triple core barrel

Sample X-rays

- Soil Macrofabric, Sample disturbance, Intrusions/anomalies

Clay
Silt

Clay
Silt

Sample from upper horizons of X-ray image of varved

[75 mm tube samples] Perth Formation deposit

=> Loss in sample effective stress and hence strength

Summary

• Sampling process causes significant disturbance

to tube samples – and usually a large reduction in
p′
• Better quality tube samples for high D/t ratio
• Sand lenses causes reduction in p′

=> Re-consolidate all to samples to the field p′ so

that a representative measure of strength is
obtained

Page 26
 Direct Shear testing in the Shear box
Dial gauge to measure change in height
N
Soil Sample

Rate of loading → to ensure fully drained conditions

0
∴ σ′n = σn − u = N�A

τ = F/A

Typically 3 tests on identical

samples to determine c’, ϕ’

For sands, it is usual to plot strength at peak and at ultimate conditions to determine φ'p
and φ'cv. Note that c'=0 for sands reconstituted in shear box and φ'p reduces as σʹn
increases.

Page 27
 Triaxial Testing

Basis of design: Axial stress (applied by water cell pressure + load cell) and radial stress
(applied by cell pressure) are principal stresses.

Variations on triaxial set-up

Page 28
 Submersible load cell Volume Gauge

Basic Device
Types of Triaxial tests

Unconsolidated UU Stage 1
Water

Undrained under
pressure Unconsolidated
Consolidated CU =σ3
(p′0=p′i)
or
Consolidated Drained CD
Consolidated
(p′0=σ′3)

Backpressure (ub) to improve Sr Apply ub => need to apply σ3+u to maintain net σ3 on sample

Basic Device Effective stress Paths

Deviator load, Fd

Stage 2
Undrained shearing • Define q = σ1-σ3, p=(σ1+2σ3)/3 p′=p-u
Water
under u≠0 M=f(φ′)
pressure q
=σ3 σ′1=Fd/A +σ3-u
σ′3=σ3-u 2su

p′
Drained shearing

u=0
σ′1=Fd/A +σ3
σ′3=σ3

Page 29
Triaxial sample
Triaxial sample (noting effective stresses control soil
strength)
• Radial stresses are principal stresses (no shear stress • Radial effective stresses are principal stresses (no shear
possible on membrane) stress possible on membrane)
• Complimentary shear stresses=0 implies vertical stress is • Complimentary shear stresses=0 implies vertical stress is
also a principal stress also a principal stress
σ1 σ′1
τ τ
σ3 σn σ′3 σ′n
σ3 σ1 σ′3 σ′1

Mohr Circle
represents state of stress at all planes passing through a point
Consolidated Drained (CD) test

σ1 σ 1= σ′1
σ3 =σ′3

τxy σ′y
τ σ′y, τxy σ3 u=0
τ
σ′x tan φ’
σ′n τyx

σ′n, τ τyx=τxy
σ′x, τyx

σ'n
c′
σ'3f σ'1 σ'1 σ'1f

Consolidated Undrained (CU) test

“Perfect sampling”
σ1 σ 1-u= σ′1
σ 3-u=σ′3

τ
σ3 u≠0
tan φ’ Constant
Volume

σh0=0 σv0=0 p=0

su σ’h0=K0σ’v0
∆V/V=0 => ∆p’=0 (if isotropic)
σh0=σ’h0 +u0 σv0=σ’v0 +u0
σ'n p’=(σ’v0+2σ’h0)/3
p’=(σ’v0+2σ’h0)/3
c′
σ'3f σ′3i =σ′1i σ'1 σ'1f p=p’+u0
u=-p’

Page 30
“Perfect sampling”
UU and CU triaxial tests
σ3
• UU tests implicitly assume that the sample in the
triaxial cell has the same mean effective stress that it had
Apply all round when in the ground. Subsequent undrained shearing is
equal σ3 therefore thought to give an undrained strength
representative of the in-situ strength
σh0=σ3 σv0=σ3 p=σ3
∆u=B∆σ3 =∆σ3 for B=1
• CU tests consolidate the sample to the estimated stress
σh0=0 σv0=0 p=0 level that it had when in the ground. The subsequent
∆V/V=0 => ∆p’=0 (if isotropic) ∆p=∆u => ∆p’=0 undrained shearing gives a representative strength
p’=(σ’v0+2σ’h0)/3 p’=(σ’v0+2σ’h0)/3

u=-p’ u=-p’+∆u

=> For Perfect Sampling: no change in p′

Axial strain measurement Typical ‘stress-strain’ data

Why local measurement?

Esec at εa=0.5%)

Local strain now

usually measured
using an LVDTs
mounted on
pedestals glued
to the membrane

Esec vs εa Some corrections

• Sample shape change

• Membrane
• Drains

Page 31
Triaxial testing – lecture to describe:

• Different test types: CD, CU and UU

• Changes in effective stress in samples during the sampling process

• Use of back pressure to improve saturation

• Mohr circles of stress and how they change during triaxial testing for each test type
• Other additions to the standard triaxial apparatus

Area correction for triaxial test

Applied deviator stress

=App. deviator load/A
ΔL
Initial X-sect. area = A Li
Final X-sect area = Ai
Li εvol = ΔV/V0
ε1 = ΔL/Li
ε3 = ΔR/Ri

Ri +ΔR

Ri

εvol = [Ai L – A (L- ΔL)]/(Ai L)

εvol = 1 – (A/Ai)(1- ε1) or A/A0 = (1- εvol) / (1-ε1)

For undrained test (εvol=0), A/A0 = 1/(1-ε1)

Page 32
 Elastic soil stiffness under triaxial conditions
Δσ1 = σ1 = σ3
σ1 = σ3 σ3

σ3 σ3

Isotropic loading Shearing stage

Drained test (Shearing stage), Δu=0, ΔV≠ 0

Δε1 = (1/E') [ Δσ'1 – ν Δσ'3 - ν Δσ'3 ]

Cell pressure is held constant => Δσ3 = 0

As Δu=0, Δσ'3 = Δσ3 and Δσ'1 = Δσ1

Δσ1 = E' Δε1

Undrained test (Shearing stage), Δu ≠ 0, ΔV=0

Volumetric strain = εvol = Δε1 + 2Δε3

For εvol= 0, ν = -Δε3/Δε1 = 0.5

Δε1 = (1/Eu) [ Δσ'1 – ν Δσ'3 - ν Δσ'3 ]

= (1/Eu) [Δσ'1 – Δσ'3]

= (1/Eu) [Δσ1 – Δσ3]

As Δσ3=0

Δσ1 = Eu Δε1

Page 33
Poisson ratio measurement (Drained test)
Δε1 = 1/E' (Δσ'1 – 2ν Δ σ'3) = 1/E' (Δσ1 – 2ν Δ σ3) as Δu=0

Δε3 = 1/E' (Δσ3 – ν Δ σ3 - ν Δ σ1)

As Δσ3 = 0, Δε1 = Δσ'1 /E' and Δε3= -ν Δσ1/E' = -ν Δε1

Volumetric strain = εvol = Δε1 + 2Δε3 = Δε1 (1- 2 ν)

 ν = [1 – Δεvol/Δε1]/2

Relationship between E and G and between E' and Eu

A triaxial compression test involves an increase in mean total stress (p) and shear
stress (τmax = Δσ1/2). The shear strain (Δγ) induced in the sample = Δε1 – Δε3 = Δε1
(1+ν).

In a drained test, Δε1 = Δσ'1/E'= Δσ1/E'

G = Shear modulus = Shear stress/shear strain = [Δσ1/2]/ [(1+ν) Δσ1/E']

 G = E'/[2(1+ν)]

In an undrained test, Δε1=Δσ1/Eu τmax = Δσ1/2 => G= Eu/[2(1+νu)] where νu=0.5

 G= Eu/3

As water has no shear stiffness, the G is the same for drained and undrained tests

 E'/Eu = 2(1+ν)/3 ~ 0.8 for typical ν values (~0.2)

Bulk modulus under triaxial conditions

Volumetric strain = εvol = Δε1 + 2Δε3

= (1/E') [ Δσ'1 – ν Δσ'3 - ν Δσ'3 +2Δσ'3 – 2ν Δσ'3 - 2ν Δσ'1]

= (1/E') [ (Δσ'1 + 2 Δσ'3) (1- 2ν)] = (1/E') [ 3 Δp' (1- 2ν)] K'

= Δp'/εvol = E'/ [3 (1-2ν)]

Note: Ku = ∞

Page 34
EXAMPLE 3.1: CD test on 38mm diameter sample (L=76mm)
Determine (i) φ' for material if c'=0
(ii) Poissons ratio at εa=0.13%
(iii) E and G at εa=0.13%

Sample initially consolidated to 50 kPa.

Initial area of sample = Ao

= π × 0.0382/4 = 1.134 × 10-3 m2

Initial volume of sample = V0

= 1.134 x 10-3 × 0.076
= 8.618 × 10-5 m3 = 8.618 × 104 mm3

At end of consolidation stage σ'1 = σ'3 = 50 kPa

Shearing stage (with Δσ3=0)

σ'1 = σ'3 + (σ'1 - σ'3) = σ'3 + (σ1 - σ3) = σ'3 + (Δσ1 - Δσ3)

=[50 + Δσ1]

Drained → σ'1 = σ1 & σ'3 = σ3 σʹ3 = 50 kPa

Deviator load ΔL ε1= ΔV εvol = ΔV/V0 A/A0 σ1 –σ3

F1 (N) (mm) ΔL/L0 (mm3) (kPa)
10 0.1 0.0013 67 0.00078 1.0 8.8
40 0.5 0.0066 340 0.00394 1.003 35.2
70 1.2 0.0157 475 0.00551 1.016 60.7
90 2.4 0.0316 540 0.00626 1.026 77.3
92 5.0 0.0658 570 0.00661 1.063 76.3

The value of (σ1 - σ3) is normally referred to as the deviator stress. The increase in deviator stress is
Δσ1 - Δσ3. As the cell pressure in a standard triaxial test does not change, Δσ3=0. Therefore an increase
in deviator stress = Δσ1 is F1/A (A is the current area of the sample and A0 is the initial area prior to
testing)

Page 35
(i) Max. deviator stress (σ1 – σ3) = 77.3 kPa

→ σʹ1F = 50 + 77.3 = 127.3 kPa

σʹ3F = 50 kPa (unchanged during shearing)

Radius of Mohr circle = r

= (127.3 – 50)/2 = 38.65

Coordinates of centre (OC)

= 0.5(127.3 + 50) = 88.65

σ1F ′ 1−sin ∅
∴ sin ∅′ = r�OC = 38.65�88.65 → ∅′ = 25.8o σ3F ′
=
1+sin ∅

𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
(ii) = 1 − 2ν
ε1

At εa = 0.13%, εv = 0.078%, εa = ε1
0.078
∴ = 1 − 2ν → ν = 0.2
0.13

(iii) Eʹ = Δσʹ1/Δε1

At Δε1 = 0.13% → Δσ1’ = deviator stress = 8.8 kPa

∴ E’ = 8.8/(0.13 x 10-2) = 6769 kPa (at Δε1 = 0.13%)

E’ = 2G(1 + v)

∴ G = 6769/[2(1+0.2)] = 2820 kPa (at εa = 0.13%)

Page 36
EXAMPLE 3.2: Undrained test on clay gave shear strength (su) =100 kPa. If c'=0
and φ'=25o, find the pore pressure at failure in the sample. The cell pressure used
in the test=50 kPa

Cell pressure = σ3 = 50 kPa

(σ1 −σ3 )
Undrained strength = = 100kPa → σ1 = 250kPa
2

′
𝜎𝜎1𝐹𝐹 1+sin ∅′
′ = (at failure) Kp
𝜎𝜎3𝐹𝐹 1−sin ∅′

σ′1F 1+sin 25o

= → σ'1F = 2.46 σ'3F (1)
σ′3F 1−sin 25o

σ'1F - σ'3F = σ1F - σ3F = 200 kPa (2)

∴ From (1) and (2), σ'1F = 337 kPa, σ'3F = 137 kPa

Pore pressure = σ1F - σ'1F = σ3F - σ'3F = -87 kPa

(i.e. pore pressure reduction during shearing)

Page 37
 1-D Compression

1-D compression in oedometer

• Sample moves downwards only

(restrained from moving
horizontally)

• Excess pore pressure drain to top and

bottom of sample (porous stones)

• The effective stress in the sample

after excess pore pressures dissipate
= applied total stress

1-D compression in Rowe cell

• Same as oedometer but allows pore

pressures at base of sample to be
measured.
• Excess pore pressure drain to top and
of sample only (porous stones)

Lecture to summarise:
• Typical variation of settlement with time during application of a stress increment
• Derivation of cv and cα
• Typical variation of vertical strain with σ'v
• Derivation of Cs, Cc and σ'vy
• Particular features and advantages of the apparatus

Page 38
 Oedometer (or Rowe Cell) 1D Parameters
Standard Oedometer
• 1D stiffness/compressibility
• Preconsolidation pressure (yield stress), σ’vy
1D conditions
• Coefficient of consolidation, cv (and by inference k) Apply stress increment ∆
Allow pore pressures to
dissipate
Applications
Wait for ∆σ’v= ∆σv
• 1D Settlement prediction
Monitor compression
• Settlement rate
Compression usually
expressed as a void ratio
change

Apparatus
Automated oedometers

Compression during each increment “ e-log p” plot

1.2

1.1
Determine time for 50%
consolidation, t50 1

Time factor
Sample compression

0.9
Void ratio (e)

T=0.2=cvt50/H2 0.8

0.7

Creep component 0.6

=secondary 0.5

compression 0.4
1 10 100 1000 10000
Cα= ∆e/∆log(time) Vertical effective stress, σ'v (kPa)
Casagrande’s method

Page 39
 Compressibility (mv)
1.2 2.5

1.1
cs 2
1

0.9
Void ratio (e)

1.5
0.8

e
Cc
0.7 1
mv=(de/dσ'v)/(1+e)
0.6
0.5
0.5
σ'vy ~100 kPa
0.4
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Vertical effective stress, σ'v (kPa)
σ'v (kPa)

Rowe cell
Rowe cell (1D compression)

Features
Upper LID
•Vertical stress applie
hydraulically
•D up to 150mm
•Backpressure can be
applied to ensure Sr=
•1-way drainage Sample housing
(upwards)
•Pore pressures (at
base) measured durin
consolidation process

Constant rate of Deformation (CRD) test

Sample is compressed at
a constant velocity (rather
than using the load
increment approach of
the oedometer and Rowe
cell)

Solutions available that

can provide cv & k value
even if the rate of load
application is not fully
drained

Page 40
 Direct Shear Interface Testing

Shear box interface test

Roughness and normalised roughness

Coefficient of friction = fn. (roughness and sand size)

Interface friction angle

δ ≠ f (φ′) ⇒Needs to be
measured
For sands and gravels

δ= f (roughness, interface type, sand size, stress level etc.)

δcv=δres

For Clays
δ= is less sensitive to properties of interface

and is similar to φ′res

Page 41
Embedded Retaining Walls
Introduction

Cantilever sheet pile wall, Perth Jetty sheet pile “propped cantilever”

H H

Sheet piles for Esplanade station

Cofferdam construction

Diaphragm wall construction Cage installation in D-wall, William St.

Page 42
 Diaphragm wall, Raffles Westralia square

Circular excavation with D-wall Contiguous wall, West Perth

Typical prop arrangement Propping for wide excavations

Page 43
 Propping at Launch box, The Esplanade Anchored walls

Steps for wall design

• Site stratigraphy and soil stiffness/strength parameters

• Groundwater regime
• Examine potential failure mechanism using factored Wall Stability assessment
soil strength parameters (including mechanisms other
than fixed/free earth)
• Assess most suitable wall type(s) Use factored soil strength parameters to determine
required wall embedment:
for two possible mechanisms

Single propped wall (Free earth)

Cantilever Wall (Fixed earth)
Wall displacement
O
O Anchor
Ho Active Ho Active
Passive
Passive

do d
d O

Passive Pressure distribution

Base Active
For two (competent) props – wall collapse is not possible

Page 44
Applying factors of safety (or partial factors)
An ultimate limit state (ULS) analysis is performed to determine the wall length necessary to
ensure a fixed earth or free earth mechanism will not take place. Designers first apply a factor
of safety to the soil’s shear strength. For effective stress analyses, a partial factor (φg) of
typically 0.8 is applied to the tangent of the soil’s friction angle (tan φʹ) and the calculation is
performed using a friction angle φʹm where φʹm=tan-1(φg tanφʹ). For total stress analysis (which
is only relevant to short term behaviour in clays), the calculation is performed using a factored
undrained shear strength, sum = φgsu, where φg in this case is typically about 0.66. Students are
not required to apply partial factors in calculations in CIVL4401.

Basic Theory
Lectures cover the following topics:

• Revision Mohr Circles of stress

• Expression for Rankine Ka and Kp (c'=0 and c'>0)

• Orientation of failure planes within the soil

• Culmann line construction

• Equivalence between Rankine & Coulomb approach for δ=0 and β=0

• Rankine solution for β >0 (not covered in this unit)

• Determination of forces on walls

• Derivation of required length of embedded cantilever retaining walls

• Derivation of required length of proppoed embedded retaining walls

• Undrained and drained calculations

• Treatment of seepage

All of these topics are described in detail in most soil mechanics textbooks.

Page 45
NOTES
1. Earth pressure distribution
The maximum lateral total stress, σhp = σ'hp + u = Kp σ'v + 2c' (Kp)0.5 + u
The minimum lateral total stress, σha = σ'ha + u = Ka σ'v - 2c' (Ka)0.5 + u
where Ka= 1/Kp= [1-sinφ']/[1+sinφ'] if wall friction is zero

The pore pressure (u) is often much larger than σ'ha

2. Total stress analysis (i.e. relevant for short term conditions in clay only)
where τf = su = c' +σ'n tan φ’, set su ≡ c' and φ'≡0

σha = σ'ha + u = Ka σ'v – 2c' (Ka)0.5 + u = 1 × (σv –u) – 2su ×1 + u = σv - 2su

σhp = σ'hp + u = Kp σ'v + 2c' (Kp)0.5 + u = 1 × (σv –u) + 2su ×1 + u = σv + 2su

i.e. expressions combine effective stresses and water pressures (and unlike effective
stress analyses do not require separate evaluation of effective stresses and pore
pressures)

3. Water pressures do, however, need to be considered for undrained conditions in clays
where σv < 2su.

(σha)min = 0 as tensile stresses cannot be sustained => clay cracks to depth, zc

where σv = γ zc and zc = 2su/γ. These cracks can fill with water and therefore the
associated water pressure forces need to be considered.

4. If wall friction is present (which it usually is) or if the soil surface is not horizontal (β≠0)
or if the wall face is not vertical (θ≠0), the Rankine expressions for Ka and Kp are not
valid (as σʹha and σʹhp are not a principal stresses). The curves of Caquot & Kerisel curves
(shown overleaf) are usually employed and give the horizontal component of the active
and passive coefficients (for β=θ =0 ). The angle of interface friction (δ) has a strong
influence on Ka and (especially) Kp. For design purposes with a steel wall, δ=2/3 ϕʹp on
the active side and δ=ϕʹp/2 on the passive side. For a concrete wall, δ is usually taken
equal to φ'cv.

5. The soil wedges corresponding to active and passive Rankine conditions are inclined at
45 –ϕʹ/2 and 45+ϕʹ/2 to the vertical. However, for non-Rankine conditions, failure
surfaces follow a logarithmic spiral.

Page 46
 Wedge Solutions
4.3.1 Coulomb soln. for active Rankine condition
Rankine → zero wall friction (δ = 0); also assume horz. ground surface (β=0)
Take u = 0 and c’ = 0; τf = σ'tanϕ'

As the triangular wedge slides down along the failure surface, the resultant reaction (R) on the
failure surface must be inclined at an angle of ϕʹ to the normal (for a coefficient of friction =
tanϕʹ)

The force W, R and FA must be in equilibrium

tan(θ + ϕʹ) = W/FA; W= 0.5 γ H2 tan ϴ

0.5γH 2 tan θ
∴ FA =
tan(θ + ∅′)

dFA
= 0 → (FA )max when θ = 45 − ∅′�2
dθ

subst. for θ,

0.5γH2 tan�45−∅�2�
= 2 γH 2 tan2 �45 − ∅′�2� = 2 γH 2 K a
1 1
→ FA =
tan�45+∅�2�
(as predicted by Rankine theory)

Page 47
4.3.2 Culmann line construction for Active wedge

(See manual for Lab1)

• Various trial wedges/failure surfaces are examined; these represent movement of the soil
along the inclined failure surface and downwards along the surface of the wall.
• Each wedge is in equilibrium under the action of the weight of the wedge (W), the reaction
on the wall (Pa) and the reaction on the failure/slip surface; the diagram on the RHS below
shows the forces corresponding to the four wedges shown on the diagram on the LHS.
• Note that the reactions Pa & R act at angles of δ & ϕʹ respectively below the normal to the
surface (compare with analogy of the reaction provided to a block on a table at the point of
sliding)
• The maximum value of Pa obtained from all trial wedges is the active force and the wedge
associated with this Pa value is the active wedge. It can be shown that, as also predicted by
Rankine’s theory, this occurs when the wedge is at an angle to the vertical =45o-ϕʹ/2
• The lateral force on the wall at active conditions is Pa cosδ

1 2 3 4

Pa

Maximum Pa
3
W
2
Pa
δ
Trial failure surfaces 1

φ'
R

For passive conditions, the wedge of soil moves up and to the right and, for this case,
the reaction at the wall surface and the reaction at the base of the trial failure surface act
at respective angles of δ & ϕʹ above the normal to these surfaces. (Note the direction of
the reaction is opposite to the direction of movement e.g. see Section 2.2).

Page 48
 Caquot & Kerisel curves (Ka & Kp, horizontal
components); horizontal soil surface
(Note log scale on Y-axis)

Ka

Kp

Page 49
 Steady seepage in soil with homogeneous ‘k’

Drop in pressure head = H over path length

= H+a+a

Total path length = H+2a and at base of

wall, remaining distance =a
H
Remaining excess head at base of wall =
a/(H+2a) × H

u at base of wall = γwa +γwHa/(H+2a)

Path length = 8 + 5 +5 = 18m

Water pressure at base of wall = Static head

(relative to datum) + fraction of pressure
differential remaining at wall base:
8m
5γw + [5/(8+5+5)] γw =72 kPa

If soil unit weight, γb =19 kN/m3

5m
σ'v on excavation side at base of wall
= 6 × 19 -72 =42 kPa

Factor of safety against piping = σv/u

= (6 ×19)/72 ≈ 1.6

Note : Under non-homogeneous conditions, hydraulic gradients within excavation are often
higher than for homogeneous case. Non-homogeneous cases require numerical seepage
analyses or construction of a flow-net (often scaled for different lateral and vertical
permeabilities)

Some designers assume (conservatively) unequal pore pressures at the base of the wall with
hydrostatic pore pressures on both sides. For above example, this leads to a pore pressure at
the base of the wall of 130 kPa on the LHS and 50 kPa on the RHS.

Page 50
 Cantilever Walls
EXAMPLE 4.1: Cantilever wall retaining 4m of dry sand with c′=0, φ'=30o.
Conservatively assume no wall friction(δ=0)

ACTIVE

4m

PASSIVE
d

ACTIVE
PASSIVE

Assume rotation of wall about ‘o’

Hand solution technique: assume forces below o are represented by a single force acting
at ‘o’ and allow a distance ‘x’=d/5 for this force to develop.

Pressure at ‘a’ = Ka σ'v - 2c'√Ka = Ka γ (4+d)

Pressure at ‘b’ = Kp σ'v + 2c'√Kp = Kp γ d
Active force above ‘o’ = ½ Ka γ (4+d)2 acting (4+d)/3 above ‘o’
Passive force above ‘o’ = ½ Kp γ d2 acting d/3 above ‘o’

Taking moments about ‘o’

½ Ka γ (4+d)3/3 = ½ Kp γ d3/3

Example: If φ'=30o and δ=0, Ka=1/3 and Kp=3, For this case, d=3.7m

Require penetration of d+x = 1.2d=4.44m

Page 51
EXAMPLE 4.2: 6m excavation is performed next to embedded wall. Stratigraphy
comprises 4m of sand (φ'=30o) over clay (su=30 kPa, φ'=27o, γ= 20 kN/m3,c’=0).
Check short term stability for a 12m long wall. Note short term = a few weeks in
typical clay. Assume no wall friction (δ=0)

• Embedment below excavation level =(12-6)=6m=1.2d =>d=5m (location ‘o’)

• For cantilever, require passive moments about ‘o’ to exceed active moments about ‘o’
• Short-term=> perform total stress analysis in clay (i.e. use su to characterise strength and
ignore its φʹ value)

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0 0

Sand
(effective 2 2
Sand
c 4 b 4
a
f
6 6

8 Clay 8
(total Clay
10 10

d o e
o
12 12

su of clay = 30 kPa; Assume γclay= 20kN/m3

Sand as in previous example with γ= 20 kN/m3, c’=0, φʹp=30o, Ka=0.33 and Kp=3.0 (with
δ=0)

Effective active pressure at ‘a’ = Ka σʹv = 0.33 × (20-10) × 4 =13.3 kPa

Water pressure at ‘b’ = 4 × 10 =40 kPa
Total active pressure from sand at 4m depth = 53.33
Active force from sand = ½ × 53.33 ×4 =106.7 kN acting at 8.33m above ‘o’

Total pressure at ‘c’ = γH-2su = 80 – 2×30 = 20 kPa

Total pressure at ‘d’ = 11×20 – 2×30 = 160 kPa
Total pressure at ‘e’ = γH + 2 su = 5 ×20+2×30 = 160 kPa
Total pressure at ‘f’ = 2 su = 60 kPa

Moments about ‘o’ (ACTIVE side)=

106.7 ×8.33 +20×7×3.5 + ½ × (160-20) ×7 ×7/3 =2522 kNm
Moments about ‘o’ (PASSIVE side)=
60×5×2.5 + ½ × (160-60) ×5 ×5/3 =1166 kNm <2522 kNm
=>wall is not stable in the short-term – require extra embedment

Page 52
 Single Propped Walls (Free Earth Mechanism)

Prop

ACTIVE
PASSIVE

deflected
Free earth mechanism: failure by rotation about prop

EXAMPLE 4.3 6m excavation but prop at 1m depth, assume steady seepage, γb=20 kN/m3
• As there is steady seepage, we need to first estimate the required penetration below
excavation level (say=‘d1’) to obtain water pressures (although designers often assume
hydrostatic pressures).
• Perform the calculations to determine the required penetration for the initial d1 estimate and
repeat calcs until initial estimate is close to calculate requirement.
• For each iteration, determine resultant forces (Fi) for σ'h and u distributions and take
moments about prop position to determine ‘d1’.
• From horizontal equilibrium, the prop force is the difference between the active force and
water forces (on LHS below) and the passive force and water forces (on RHS beloe)

Effective soil stress (kPa)

Water pressure (kPa)
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0

Soil A with Ka=0.33 2

2

b
Uniform k
4
4
a a

Soil B: Ka=0.5 6
6
but same k as Soil A
Soil B with Kp=2
8
d1 8
d1

10
10

c d
e f

12
12

Assuming d1~ 5m
Estimate d1=5m (may need to refine)
σ'ha = 0.33(4×20 – 6.25 × 4)
u at d1=5m = (6×10×5)/(5+5+6)+5×10 =68.8 kPa
σ'hb = 0.5(4×20-6.25 ×4) ue=uf=68.8 kPa
σ'hc = 0.5[20(6+d1)-6.25(6+d1)] Gradient on active side =68.8/11= 6.25 kN/m3
σ'hd = 2{20d1 -13.75d1} Gradient on passive side = 68.8/5 =13.75 kN/m3

Page 53
Bearing Capacity
Introduction
The leaning tower of Pisa (1100s)
Failures of shallow foundations

Residence, 2004
Transcona grain elevator, 1914

Expts to measure bearing capacity

Pad foundations

Strip foundations
Pad foundations

Page 54
 Bearing capacity formulation

For surface, vertically loaded strip footing:

qf = Nc c + Nq σ'v + Nγ (γB/2)

where Nc, Nq and Nγ are f (φ'); see chart

Corrections for shape (s), foundation depth (d) and inclination (i) are applied to
each of the three terms:

qf = sc dc ic Nc c + sq dq iq Nq σ'v + sγ dγ iγ Nγ (γB/2)

Page 55
qf = sc dc ic Nc c + sq dq iq Nq σ’v + sγ dγ iγ Nγ (γB/2)
Bearing capacity factors

Nc, Nq and Nγ derived from chart overleaf

Shape correction factors

sc ≈ 1 + 0.2(B/L) sq ≈ 1+(B/L)tanφʹ sγ ≈ 1- 0.2(B/L)

For circular footings, sc =1.2, sq=1+tanφʹ, sγ =0.6

Depth correction factors

dc ≈ 1+ 0.4 D/B for D/B≤1 dc ≈ 1+ 0.4 tan-1[D/B] for D/B >1

dq ≈ 1 +2tanφʹ(1-sinφʹ)2 D/B for D/B ≤1

dq ≈ 1+2 tanφʹ (1-sinφʹ)2 tan-1[D/B] for D/B >1

dγ =1 for all D/B

(Simplified Meyerhof) inclination factors

ic = iq = (1 – α/90o)2 iγ = ( 1 – α/φ’)2 where α = tan-1 (H/V)

Unit weight (γ) and σ’v

Use γ’ if water table is at a level higher than a distance B below formation level

Foundation width
Use effective foundation width, B’(also called, Beq) when there is an applied
moment (M) on foundation.
Eccentricity (e) of applied load = M/V and B’ = [B- 2e]

Other corrections factors

Tomlinson (2001) provides formulae for correction factors for footing inclination
(bc, bq and bγ) and ground surface inclination (gc, gq and gγ).

Page 56
Page 57
EXAMPLE 5.1 Determine the allowable column load on a 3m square pad footing on
sand with cʹ=0, φʹ=35o and unit weight, γ=20 kN/m3

1m
Loose sand, φ’=35o, cʹ=0, Nq ≈33 Nγ ≈47 (from formulae)

3m

qf = Nc c′ dc sc + Nq σ’v dq sq + Nγ (γ′B/2) dγ sγ

σʹv = 20 × 1 = 20 kPa (vertical effective stress outside footing area)

dq ≈1 as D/B is low (=1/3) dγ = 1

(Note practitioners usually assume dc=dq=dγ=1 for shallow footings)

sq = 1+ tanφʹ (B/L) = 1 +tan 35o =1.7

sγ = 1 – 0.2 (B/L) =0.8

γʹ = γ - γw = (20-10) = 10 kN/m3
(water table at footing ‘formation level’, 1m below ground level)

qf = 33 × 20 × 1.7 + 47 × [(10 × 3)/2] × 0.8

= 1122 + 564 = 1686 kPa

Allowable bearing stress (with global FOS=3) = [(1686/3] = 560 kPa

Allowable column load (with global FOS= 3) = 560 x 32 = 5040 kN ~ 5MN

Notes:
(i) Bearing capacity factors increase very rapidly as φʹ increases and therefore calculations
are very sensitive to the estimate of φʹ . The standard ULS design approach is to apply
a geotechnical strength reduction factor (φg) to the materials shear strength to derive a
safe ultimate capacity (qsafe); a typical φg value adopted is ~0.8.
(ii) Therefore for the example above, calculations for the safe bearing capacity (qsafe) would
be performed for φ'm = tan-1 (0.8 × tan 35o) = 29o. For this angle of friction, Nq=16 and
Nγ=19 => qsafe = 16 × 20 × 1.7 + 19 × [(10 × 3)/2] × 0.8 = 772 kPa. Use of this pressure
does not mean that the foundation satisfies SLS conditions.
(iii) Bearing capacity of foundations on sand is rarely an issue and the design of these
foundations is usually governed by considerations of settlement (i.e. SLS design).
Typical bearing pressures used for SLS design of footings on sand are 150 kPa for loose
sand and 300 kPa for dense sand.

Page 58
 Undrained bearing capacity of foundations
When a load is applied to a foundation on clay, the immediate short term foundation capacity is
usually critical (as capacity increases with time due to pore pressure dissipation) and therefore
bearing calculations for clay most often require determination of the undrained bearing capacity
(where the clay strength is defined by its undrained strength, su)

To perform the calculations for undrained capacity using the standard bearing capacity formula,
assign cʹ ≡ su and φ' ≡0. This is because for τf = su to be equivalent to c' +σ'n tanφʹ , we need to
adopt φʹ≡0 and c′≡su. It is important to note that this does not mean that φʹ =0.

For φ'≡0, Nq = 1, Nγ=0, Nc = 2+π , sq=dq =1 (see Eqns on previous pages)

=> The bearing capacity equation for vertical loading then simplifies to:
qf = (2+π) sc dc ic su + σ'v

Note that if su increases linearly with depth below the footing (which is common), use the su
value at a depth of B/4.

EXAMPLE 5.2: Determine the column load that would cause collapse of the foundation
shown. Assume γsoil =18 kN/m3.

su (kPa)
20 40 60

2m 1

2.5m
3

4
Design su = 35 kPa

Undrained conditions more critical

σ'v = 2× 18-0 = 36 kPa
sc = 1+0.2 (B/L) =1.2 ic=1 (no inclination)
D/B=2/2.5=0.8, dc = 1+0.4×0.8= 1.32
qf = 5.14 × 35 × 1.2 × 1.32 ×1 + 36= 284 +32= 317 kPa
Column load to cause failure (with no backfill above footing) = 317 × 2.52 = 1980 kN

Page 59
EXAMPLE 5.3: Assess the stability of the gravity retaining wall shown. Ignore the lateral
passive resistance and take the unit weight of the soil and concrete = 18 kN/m3 and 24 kN/m3
respectively.
0.5m

Sand with
φ'=40o
W1
6m
W2
Fh

0.5m W3
O
Sand with φ'=40o 3m Ka × 18× 6

Step 1: Determine resultant vertical force and line of action on base

For ϕʹ=40o, take (conservatively) Ka =(1-sin40)/(1+sin 40) = 0.22

Fha = 0.5 × 6 × (0.22 × 6×18) = 71 kN

W1 =24 × 6 × 0.5= 72 kN W2= 18 × 5.5×3=297 kN W3=0.5×24×3=36 kN

W= 72+297+36= 405 kN Resultant, R = (W2 + Fh2)0.5 = 411 kN

R inclined at α = tan-1 (Fh/W) to vertical = 10o

Taking moments about O:

W1 × 0.25 + W2 × 2 + W3 × 2 – Fh × 2 = 541.4 kNm

= R d , where d is the perp. distance of R from O

=>d =541.4/411 = 1.31m and R intersects base at d/cos α =1.34 from O

Equivalent foundation width = 2 ×1.34m = 2.68m2/m

=>bearing pressure = W/2.68=151 kPa

Page 60
Note: The equivalent width of the foundation can also be determined by equating the applied
moment (541.4) with the moment of the resultant vertical load (W=405 kN)

i.e. distance of resultant vertical load form O = 541.4/405 =1.34m

Equivalent foundation width = 2 × 1.34 = 2.68m, q=405/2.68=151 kPa

Step 2: Determine bearing capacity

qf = Nq σ’v dq sq iq + Nγ (γ'B/2) dγ sγ iγ (noting c' = 0)

For φ'=40o, Nq = 80 Nγ =105

dq ~ 1 and dγ=1 (as D/B on passive side is small)

sq = 1 +(B/L) tanφ’ = 1 (as L is large)

sγ = 1- 0.2 (B/L) = 1 (as L is large)

σ'v = 18×0.5= 9 kPa

γ' = (18-10) = 8 kN/m3

B = Beq = 2.68m

iq = (1- α/90)2 = (1-10/90)2 = 0.79

iγ = (1- α/φ')2 = (1-10/40)2=0.57

=> qf = 80 × 9 × 1 ×1 ×0.79 + 105 × (8 × 2.68/2)× 1×1×0.57

qf = 465 + 641 = 1210 kPa

>> 151 kPa => wall is stable

Note: Designers often ignore the Nq component as the material in front of the wall could be
removed at a future date.

Page 61
 Bearing capacity theory
A detailed study of all four approaches employed in bearing capacity theory is outside the scope
of this course, but relevant sections are included here for completeness. Students of CIVL4401
should understand the application of the sliding block and stress region approaches
(Approaches 2 & 3) to the case of a surface strip footing loaded under undrained conditions.
Student should also be apply the sliding block and limit equilibrium approaches (Approaches
2 and 4) to other (simple) undrained examples.

Idealisations

• Soil is rigid- perfectly plastic and isotropic (i.e. strength is the same in all directions)
• For undrained bearing capacity, τf = su and for drained bearing capacity τf= c' + σ'n tan φ';
both strengths are assumed constant throughout the failure zone
• Rigorous theories assume that the soil beneath the foundation is weightless. For undrained
bearing capacity this is not important. However this assumption is too conservative for
drained bearing capacity and semi-empirical methods are used to account for self weight.

Theoretical approaches

1. Rigorous application of the theories of plasticity e.g. the method of stress characteristics.

2. Sliding blocks giving kinematically admissible mechanisms. (UB)

The material is divided up into a number of rigid blocks separated by failure such at, at
failure, the blocks can slide past one another to form a mechanism. By considering the work
done during failure, the load causing failure can be obtained. This method is simple to use
and the visualisation of a mechanism of failure is attractive to Engineers. For materials
obeying the classical flow laws of plasticity, the method gives an upper bound to the correct
failure load. Hence the results of such analyses must be treated with caution.

3. Stress regions with statically admissible stress distributions. (LB)

The material is divided up into a number of regions of uniform stress. By working from one
region to the next from a region of known stress, and ensuring the regions are always in
equilibrium with each other and the applied stresses and are at or below failure, the pressure
causing failure can be obtained. This method can be difficult to use as it requires some
expertise in stress analysis. It offers valuable insights into the magnitudes and directions of
the stresses at failure. Moreover, for ideal plastic materials, the method gives a lower bound
to the correct failure load i.e. it is conservative.

4. Limit equilibrium

One or more ‘slip planes’ are constructed. The static equilibrium of the mechanism is then
considered. This is very similar to the ‘sliding block’ method but frequently the restriction
of a kinematically admissible mechanism is ignored. Although there is no formal proof that
limit equilibrium methods lead to correct solutions, they are firmly established in practice,
particularly for slope stability analysis. Experience has shown that the methods give
solutions which agree well with observations of collapse.

Page 62
5.4.1 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Sliding block
method-approach 2
(Upperbound solution technique)

The figure shows a strip load of width B with a surcharge pressure, po, alongside it acting on a
material having an undrained strength, su.

A simple two block mechanism of failure is postulated. It can be seen that the mechanism is
kinematically admissible . The blocks are labelled C and D, and the surrounding material is
labelled O.

The figure also shows a displacement diagram for the two blocks. If the applied load, Q, is
given a unit vertical displacement, δ, then block C will move parallel to the interface OC
through a distance δ/sinα represented by the line OC i.e. the movement of C relative to O.

Similarly block D moves a distance δ/sinα relative to O along OD. Also D moves vertically a
distance 2δ relative to C along line CD.

The work done along a slip line is equal to the total resistance (=length × su) times the relative
displacement (s). Hence the total work done in overcoming the resistance along all slip lines is
equal to Σ s × su × length.

It is convenient to tabulate the various quantities as shown and the total internal work done
adds up to:

[2B δ su / sinα ] [ cos α + 1/cosα]

The work done by Q is equal to Qδ and the work done on the surcharge is po B δ. Therefore the
total external work done adds up to:

Qδ–pBδ

Equating the internal and external work and solving for Q gives:

Q/B = q = [2su/sinα] [ cos α + 1/cosα] + po

It can be shown that a minimum value of q is obtained when α=54.7o, q is then given by:
q = 5.66 su + po

The figure shows a series of sliding block mechanisms with a steadily increasing number of
blocks. The value of α leading to a minimum q is also along with the associated relative
displacement diagrams. It can be seen that as the number of blocks increases, the optimum
value of q decreases and for six blocks the value is:

Q = 5.18 su + po

Page 63
po

Page 64
5.4.2 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Stress regions
method- approach 3
(Lowerbound solution technique)

The figure shows a uniform pressure, q, acting on the surface of a soil with an undrained
strength, su. A surcharge pressure, po, acts alongside q. The material is divided into two regions
separated by a simple stress discontinuity. In carrying out the analysis, we must first ensure
that the state of stress in each region is in equilibrium with the applied stresses and with the
other region, and secondly that the shear stresses in each region do not exceed su and are
preferably equal to su.

We start with the known state of stress, po, acting vertically on region I which is plotted as a
direct stress on the Mohr diagram. Region I is assumed to be at failure with the horizontal stress
σHI greater than po. Hence a Mohr’s circle representing the state of stress in region I can be
constructed, as shown, having a radius equal to su.

Moving now to region II, it must be in equilibrium with region I across the stress discontinuity
i.e. the horizontal stress in region II, σH2, must equal σH1 and there are no shear stresses on the
vertical plane. Hence the Mohr’s circle for region II passes through σH1. Assuming region II to
be at failure with the vertical stress greater than the horizontal stress (σV2 > σH2), we can
construct a second Mohr circle with a radius su to represent the state of stress in region II. For
equilibrium, q = σV2, and from simple geometry, we see that:

q = 4 su + po

The figure shows a series of stress regions with steadily increasing number of stress
discontinuities. In each case the orientations of the stress discontinuities have been optimised
to ensure that each region is at failure. The associated Mohr circles are also shown. Note that,
in general, the stress discontinuities transmit shear as well as direct stress from one region to
the next – which is why the Mohr circles intersect.

It can be seen that as the number of regions increases the optimum value of q increases and for
six regions the value is:

Q = 5.09 su + po

Page 65
Page 66
5.4.3 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Exact solution
The expression for the undrained bearing capacity, qf, for a surface strip load can be written in
the general form:

qf = Nc su + po

Where Nc is termed the undrained beraing capacity factor. The following graph plots the
estimated Nc value versus the number of blocks or regions considered above. It is evident that
the upper and lower bound methods converge rapidly and the exact solution for Nc must lie
between 5.18 and 5.09.

5.6 Upperbound

Prandtl solution = 2+π

5.2
Nc

4.8

Lowerbound
4.4

4
0 2 4 6 8
Number of 'blocks' or 'regions'

The exact solution for a surface strip load was obtained by Prandtl using the method of stress
characteristics. The field lines of maximum shear stress obtained by Prandtl are shown below
and the exact solution is:

qf = (2 + π) su + po i.e. Nc = 5.14

Page 67
5.4.4 Undrained bearing capacity of a surface strip load: Limit
equilibrium – Approach 4

Exercise: Prove the expression above

Page 68
EXAMPLE 5.4: A 2m wide surface strip footing is founded on a 0.5m thick layer of clay with
an undrained strength of 30 kPa, which is underlain by intact rock. Use (i) the sliding block
approach to estimate the (upperbound) undrained collapse load for the footing and (ii) the limit
equilibrium method assuming a circular slip surface to obtain an (upperbound) estimate of the
undrained collapse load (Q) of the footing. Assume that the slip surfaces pass through point A
and that the circle centre is on a line above the other edge of the footing. Comment on the
influence of the rock on the footing’s bearing capacity.

Line of circle centres

Q

1m 1m
A

0.5m Clay

Rock

(i) Sliding Block Approach

Assume 3 blocks sliding as shown. Geomtery=>α=tan-1 (0.5/1)=26.6o

suLd
Q Length d=Rel. Internal
Interface (m) disp/δ work
OC 1.12 2.23 74.9
CD 1.12 2.23 74.9
OD 2.00 3.99 239.3
DE 1.12 2.23 74.9
OE 1.12 2.23 74.8

Internal
work 538.9

External work = Qδ = Internal work

=>Q 539 kN/m run

Vert stress (q) 270 kPa/m run
Note this is an upperbound solution and further arrangements of blocks need to be examined

Page 69
(ii) Limit Equilibrium Method

Examine the resistance for circular slip surfaces extending from the left hand edge of the
footing and passing through a range of points at locations shown by the red arrow below.
Determine minimum resistance for various values of ‘h’ where h= 2/tanθ, circular radius, R=
(h2+22)0.5; depth below surface of circle = z (no calculation required when z>0.5 as circles
passing through rock will have very high resistance).

Moment of resistance along failure surface= su Larc R, where Larc=2Rθ (shown in green)
Disturbing moment = Q × 1
Iterate (using excel) and find minimum value of Q
This is obtained when h=3.76m, θ =28o, R=4.25m –giving Q= 532 kN
Bearing pressure = 532/2=266 kPa

This is a similar answer to that found using the sliding block mechanism. Both methods
provide upper bound solutions and are likely to over-estimate the capacity (i.e. are non-
conservative).

Note if rock was not present, the correct solution would be qf= 5.14 × 30=154 kPa (strip
footing on surface of undrained clay); this stress is significantly lower than 266 kPa,
illustrating the positive impact of the rock which forces the failure surface to one shallower
than the critical surface in a uniform ‘clay-only’deposit.

Page 70
 5.4.5 Drained bearing capacity of a surface strip: Stress regions method,
γ=0, cʹ=0 – Approach 3 (
Lowerbound approach; note symbol p′0 is used in place of σ′v in this section

For information purposes only – not examinable

=σ'v0

qf = Nq p’0 where Nq > [(1+sinφ’)/(1-sin φ’)]2

Repeat the same exercise for a weightless soil with c’ ≠ 0 and show

qf = c’ cot φ’ {(1+sinφ’)/(1-sin φ’)]2 – 1 } + [(1+sinφ’)/(1-sin φ’)]2 p’0

= Nc c’ + Nq p’0

where Nc = (Nq-1) cot φ’

Page 71
5.4.6 Drained bearing capacity of a surface strip: Stress regions method
γ=0, c’=0 and φ’=20o – Approach 3
Lowerbound approach; note symbol p′0 is used in place of σ′v in this section

For information purposes only – not examinable

Page 72
5.4.7 Exact solution for drained bearing capacity in weightless soil
Lowerbound approach; note symbol p′0 is used in place of σ′v in this section

For information purposes only – not examinable

The exact solution was obtained by Prandtl using the method of stress characteristics. The
field lines of maximum stress obliquity are shown below and the exact solution is:

qf = Nq p’o + Nc c’ where Nq = [(1+sin φ’)/(1-sin φ’)] exp ( π tan φ’) and Nc = Nq-1

Page 73
5.4.8 Drained bearing capacity solution for material with weight
Lowerbound approach; note symbol p′0 is used in place of σ′v in this section

For information purposes only – not examinable

Hanson (1970) has shown that for a material with weight, but with no surcharge present and
with c’=0 that:

qf = Nγ γʹ (B/2)

where Nγ = 1.5 (Nq-1) tan φʹ where Nq is given by the Prandtl expression

Superposition of solutions has been shown by Davis & Booker (1971) to lead to errors, on the
safe side, of less than 25%. Therefore the following expression is used currently in practice:

qf = Nq σ'v0 + Nc c' + Nγ γ' (B/2)

where
Nq = [(1+sin φ’)/(1-sin φ’)] exp ( π tan φ’)
Nγ = 1.5 (Nq-1) tan φ’
Nc = Nq-1

Need also to consider:

• Influence of depth
• Influence of shape
• Influence of inclination
• Influence of eccentricity
• Strength anisotropy
• Strength non-uniformity
• Factors of safety

Page 74
Page 75
Slope Stability
Introduction
Natural Slope Failure in Tropical Environment

Slope stability
(+ Intro to soil nails & soil reinforcement)

300m

Yorkshire, UK
Large scale slip

106 tons of
glacial till

Thredbo landslide (1997), NSW

Hong Kong Slopes

Leaking water from a pipeline

18 lives lost

Page 76
Slope failure induced by under-cutting at base During construction in road cuttings

‘Minor’ slips near roads Circular nature of many slip surfaces

However, a reasonable proportion of critical slip surfaces cannot be

approximated as circular

Page 77
 Slope stability assessment
Lecture discusses:
• Natural Slopes
• Man-made slopes
• Cuts and fills
• Failure mechanisms

Shear strength
Fs = Factor of safety =
Imposed shear stress

Evaluate Fs for each typical surface. Need to ensure all possibilities are examined.

The circle that gives the minimum Fs is called the critical slip circle and the actual factor of
safety is this minimum Fs value.

If Fs > 1 → Stable slope

If Fs < 1 → Unstable slope

Steps in Slope stability assessment

• Assess all possible slip mechanisms

• The slip surface that gives the lowest factor safety is called the critical slip surface
• If the factor of safety (Fs) of the critical slip surface is less then 1 => FAILURE

Many slip surfaces can be approximated as being circular. Computer programs have been
used since the 1950s to assess the Fs value for slip circles and to search for the critical slip
circle. The theory behind the circular slip circles is described below and analyses need to be
performed using programs.

Slip surfaces can also be planar (e.g. see infinite slope analysis described below) or involve
multiple planar surfaces (e.g. see example of embankment founded on shallow soft material).
Such ‘non-circular’ surfaces also need to be examined to ensure that the minimum Fs value of
all potential slip mechanisms is determined.

Page 78
 Slope failure with circular slip
6.3.1 Rotational Failure

Rotation about circle centre

Moment due to self-weight = WX (1)

Restoring moment = τf LAB R

Factored restoring moment = τf LAB R/Fs (2)

Equate (1) and (2)

Fs = τf LAB R/[WX]

For undrained analysis, τf = su → Fs = τf LAB R/[WX]

Page 79
6.3.2 Method of slices

F2

F1

Taking moments about centre of circle ‘O’

For small l values, moments from F1 and F2 = 0

Width of base of slice = l
For slice i, Ti r = Wi r sin α
F1 is resultant of E1 & X1
F2 is resultant of E2 and X2
T= Shear force on base of slice
N= Normal force at base of slice

For all slices, ∑ Ti = ∑Wi sin α (1)

For small l values, moments from F1 and F2 = 0

For slice i, Tir = Wi r sinα

For all slices, ΣTi = ΣWi sinα

Allowable shear force at base of slice of slice i:

sui li/ Fs Undrained analysis

(ci' + σ'ni tan φ'i)l/ Fs Drained analysis

Where the subscript i refers to the parameters in slice i

Equating (1) and (2) for find Fs:

su LAC
If su is constant Fs = (Taylors Chart)
ΣWi sin α i

c' LAC + tan φ ' Σσ ' ni li

If c' and φ' are constant Fs =
ΣWi sin α i

Page 80
6.3.3 Methods of analysis (based on ways to derive σ’ni)

1. Fellenius

• Assume F1 and F2 are equal and collinear

W cos α
• Resolve normal to base: σn’ = l − u

2. Bishop
ΔX

• Vertical force equilibrium

N’cosα + ucosα + Tsinα = W + (X2 – X1)

(W+∆X)−ul cos α−c′ l sin α⁄F

∴ σ′n = tan ∅′ ∙tan α
cos α�1+ �
F

Bishop simplified: Assumes ΔX = 0 Usually very similar F

Bishop: iterates with various values f ΔX

3. Morgenstern and Price

• More general X = λ f(x) E

Distance along slope

Page 81
6.3.4 Hand Calculation: Short term stability of cuttings in clay

For this case, clay will initially respond in an undrained manner. Taylor derived the following
chart for a cutting in a clay with a uniform undrained strength, su.

Ns = su/[γH Fs]

Lecture to discuss: use of the geotechnical centrifuge – and show, by way of example, how it
may be used to predict slope failure.

Page 82
 Infinite Slope Analysis

Slopes comprised of purely frictional homogeneous soils can be analysed using the landslide
model or infinite slope method.

6.4.1 Dry slope (in soil with no c′)

Consider an element of soil with with a unit width parallel to the surface.

Force parallel to the slope = Wsinβ

Force perpendicular to the slope = Wcosβ
Strength along ab = Ntanϕ = Wcosβtanϕ

restraining forces W cos β tan ∅

Factor of safety, Fs = =
sliding forces W sin β

tan ∅
Fs =
tan β

This equation shows that the stability of a granular slope is independent of the height of the
slope and is controlled by the friction angle of the soil. The same relationship is found for a
slope that is fully submerged and the water in the soil is stationary.

(This same analysis was performed earlier in the course assuming a unit width in the horizontal
direction)

Page 83
6.4.2 Slope with c' but with u=0
This example takes a slice of unit width in the horizontal direction.

W = γz

A = 1/cosβ

N = Wcosβ N/A = σn’ = Wcos2β

τf = c’ + Wcos2β tanϕ’

T = Wsinβ T/A = τ = Wsinβcosβ

Fs = τf/τ = [c' + Wcos2β tanϕ']/[Wsinβcosβ]

Fs = c'/[γz sinβcosβ] + tanϕ'/tanβ

Page 84
6.4.3 Slope with water pressure

Consider a unit soil element beneath an infinite slope, where water pressure is allowed to vary
with depth, but is a constant along any possible slip surface. We will deal with stresses which
also represent forces since we are looking at a unit block.

a
b

weight of element W = γzcosβ

shear stress on base of element τ = Wsinβ

normal stress on base of element σ = σ' + u = Wcosβ

shear strength σ′ tan ∅

Factor of safety, Fs = =
shear stress τ
(W cos β−u) tan ∅
=
W sin β

tan ∅ u
= �1 − W cos β�
tan β

tan ∅ u
= �1 − γzcos2β�
tan β

If water pressure is measured by the height of water in a standpipe, then u = hγw

Fs = (tanϕ/tanβ) [1 – hγw/(γz cos2β)]

Page 85
EXAMPLE 6.1: Find critical translation slip plane and corresponding Fs

• Long slope with slope angle (β) = 20o

• 6m of soil (with γ = 20 kN/m3, c’ = 0, ϕ’ = 27o)
Overlying rock (with c’ = 200 kPa, ϕ’ = 40o, γ = 23 kN/m3)
• Phreatic surface 3m below surface – steady seepage down slope

Find the location and Fs of the critical slip plane.

Potential slip
planes

h1 = depth of slip plane

below rock surface
z = height of the phreatic surface
above potential slip plane

Slip on plane 1 Fs = tan27o/tan20o = 1.4

Slip on plane 2 Let z be the depth of plane 2 below the phreatic surface

Area of plane = 1/cos20o

Weight of soil block = W = γ(3 + z)

= 20(3 + z)

Normal stress on plane:

= Wcos20o/(1/cos20o)
= 20(3 + z) cos220o

Shear stress on plane:

= Wsin20o/(1/cos20o)
= [20(3 + z)] sin20ocos20o

Pore pressure (for steady seepage parallel to slope)- to be

explained in lecture
= γwz cos220o
= 10z cos220o

Page 86
Shear strength of plane,
τf = c' + σ'n tanϕ'
= 0 + {[20(3 + z) – 10z] cos220o} tan27o

Shear strength (60 + 10z)cos 2 20o tan27o

F𝑠𝑠 = =
Imposed shear stress (60 + 20z) sin 20o cos 20o

60+10z tan 27o

= �60+20z� tan 20o

FS is a minimum when z = a maximum = 3m

= 1.05

Slip on plane 3 (On inspection – this is clearly extremely unlikely)

Let h1 be the depth of plane 3 below the rock surface

Normal stress on plane:

= (120 + 23h1) cos220o

Pore pressure ≈ 10(3 + h1) cos220o

Shear stress on plane

= (120 + 23h1) sin20ocos20o (A)

Shear strength on plane

= c’ + σn’tanϕ’
= 200 + (90 + 13h1) cos220o tan40o (B)

Fs = A/B >> 1.05

∴ Critical slip plane lies just above rock level with FOS = 1.05.

Page 87
6.4.4 Seepage on to infinite slope

z – h = h tanβ tanα h = z/(1 + tanβtanα)

tan ∅′ hγw
Fs = �1 − � substituting for ‘h’
tan β γzcos2 β

=1/cos2β
tan ∅′ γw 1+tan2 β
→ Fs = �1 − �1+tan β tan α��
tan β γ

EXAMPLE 6.2:
A long slope of silty sand with ϕ’ = 33o, γ = 18.5 kN/m3 is standing at an angle 4H : 1V.

Case 1: Slope dry

tan ∅′ tan 33o
Fs = tan β
= (1⁄4)
= 2.60

Case 2: Fully saturated, flow parallel to slope (i.e. α = β)

tan ∅′ 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 9.8
Fs = �1 − � = 2.6 �1 − 18.5� = 1.22
tan β 𝛾𝛾

Page 88
Case 3: Fully saturated, flow emerging on slope at α = 0o

tan ∅′ γw 1+tan2 β
Fs = �1 − �1+tan β tan α��
tan β γ

9.8 1+0.252
= 2.6 �1 − 18.5 ∙ � = 1.14
1

Case 4: Fully saturated, flow upward at 2H : 1V

tanα = -0.5

9.8 1+0.252
Fs = 2.6 �1 − 18.5 ∙ 1+0.25(−0.5)� = 0.93

Page 89
 Non-circular slips (multiple planes)
It is shown how active & passive wedges may be combined with single planes to perform
non-circular slip surface analyses – involving horizontal equilibrium.

EXAMPLE 6.3: Non-circular slip surface (combining active wedge, horizontal sliding
surface and passive wedge) – with illustration of how factors of safety are applied (note
factors of safety are not examined as part of CIVL4401)

Active
Wedge

Passive
Wedge

Sliding

Use mobilised strengths i.e factored ϕ' and su values

1
φg= 0.83 → ϕ'm = tan-1(φg tan35o) =30o Ka = 3, Kp = 3 Upper soil (drained)
-1 o o o
sum = 200×0.83=166 kPa, ϕ'pm = tan (φg tan20 )= 16.9 , ϕ'resm = 8.3 Lower soil
(drained or undrained)

1
FA1 = × (K a × 20 × 8) × 8 = 327 kN
2
1
FA2 = 2 × (160K a + 180K a ) × 2 = 113 kN FA = 440 kN
1
Fp = × 20K p × 2 = 60 kN
2
1
Fw1 = Fw2 = 2 × 20 × 2 = 20 kN Fs = FA – Fp

FA= FA1 + FA2

1. In short-term (undrained)
Fs = 166 x 16 = 2656 kN FA = 440 kN << Fs + Fp => Stable

2. In medium-term (drained)
mean σʹv on plane = 4 x 20 + 2 x (20 – 10) = 100 kPa
Fs = 100 × tan 16.9o × 16 = 486 kN FA < Fs + Fp => Stable

3. In long-term (drained + after significant movement)

Fs = 100 × tan 8.3o × 16 = 233 kN FA > Fs + Fp =>slope failure

Page 90
 Soil Reinforcement and Soil Nailing

6.6.1 Introduction

Soil Nailing in Perth

Soil Reinforcement and Soil

Nailing

Used together with Shotcrete and drainage

Soil Nails Soil nail stabilised slope

Intercept active
failure plane

Tension provided
by the nails is
sufficient to
overcome active
forces

Construction sequence Soil nails intercept failure plane

Component of W and Q along plane forcing slip is resisted by

(i) shear strength of soil along plane
(ii) component of T along plane
(iii) component of T normal to the plane adding to normal stress hence to
shear strength on plane

Page 91
 Installing soil nails Soil nail detail

Failure modes of slopes with soil nails

Reinforcement contribution to rotational stability
No reinforcement
Y

With reinforcement

Reinforcement contribution to lateral stability Geosynthetic reinforcement

Active wedge

T
S

Conservatively ignoring lateral soil stresses below embankment

FA < T + S to have sufficient lateral stability
S = soil shear strength (varies with σ’v)

Page 92
 Reinforcement types Reinforcement types

Construction sequence

Page 93
Soil nails failure modes

Page 94
6.6.2 Soil nails intercept failure plane

Friction between nail and soil

outside of failure surface is
used to generate the tension in
the nail

𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜⁄𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛉𝛉 + (𝐖𝐖 + 𝐐𝐐) 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝛉𝛉 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭 ∅ + ∑𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐢=𝟏𝟏[𝐓𝐓𝐢𝐢 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜(𝛉𝛉 + 𝛂𝛂) + 𝐓𝐓𝐢𝐢 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬(𝛉𝛉 + 𝛂𝛂) 𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭𝐭 ∅]
𝐅𝐅. 𝐒𝐒. =
(𝐖𝐖 + 𝐐𝐐) 𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬𝐬 𝛉𝛉

Page 95
6.6.3 Reinforcement contribution to rotational stability
It is shown how soil reinforcement contributes to slope stability and how for a circular slip
surface the following equation:

Fs = τf LAB R/[WX]

is replaced by:

Fs = [τf LAB R+TY]/[WX]

where T is the tension in the reinforcement and Y is the distance of the resultant of T from
the centre of the assumed slip circle.

Reinforcement contribution to rotational stability

No reinforcement
Y

With reinforcement

Page 96
6.6.4 Non-circular slip with reinforcement
EXAMPLE 6.4: Simplified analysis (assuming active wedge and failure along horizontal
plane at centre of soft clay layer; passive wedge is conservatively ignored)

Reinforcement contribution to lateral stability

Active wedge

T
S

Conservatively ignoring lateral soil stresses below embankment

FA < T + S to have sufficient lateral stability
S = soil shear strength (varies with σ’v)

Determine the maximum value of H for given σ'v at centre of clay layer.

Assume su = 0.25 σ'v in normally consolidated clay (OCR=1)

Soil resistance force, S = 0.25 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣 × 2H σ'v = mean vert. effective stress between X & Y

σ'v is the vertical effective stress in the clay layer prior to placement of embankment

Reinforcement id required to provide a force T = FA – S

In many cases, it is found that the full height ‘H’ of the embankment requires excessive
reinforcement. In these instances, embankments are often constructed in stages (or lifts). The
soil consolidates and gains strength under the stresses imposed by stages. The Engineer needs
to decide if the gain in soil strength due to consolidation is sufficient to ensure that there will
not be a slope failure when the next lift is to be applied.

Page 97
 Slope stabilisation

Lecture to describe the following:

1. Drainage

• surface water (trench drains)

• sub-surface water (bored drains)

2. Erosion control

• slope surface (vegetation, concrete, …)

• slope toe (drain)
• internal erosion (geotextiles)

3. Modification of slope profile

• fill at toe of slope

• excavate at head of slope

4. Restraining structures

• walls, piles etc

• nails/anchors

5. Miscellaneous

• grouting, freezing etc.

• compacting, stone columns

Page 98
 Soft Clay and Ground Improvement
Lectures to cover:

• Prediction of excess pore pressure and effective stress distributions

• Settlement variations with time
• Acceleration of consolidation using vertical drains
• Stability of multi-stage embankments
• Applications of geosynthetics
• Surcharging
• Stone columns/piles/lime stabilisation

Page 99
 1D consolidation

∂u ∂2 u 𝑘𝑘
= cv ∙ 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 = u = f (z, t)
∂t ∂z2 𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤

Note u in this equation is the excess pore pressure (Δu)

Equation derived by equating:-

𝜕𝜕ℎ
(1) Volume change due to flow of water (which obeys Darcy’s law: 𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧 = −𝑘𝑘 ∙ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 )

(2) Volume change due to change in effective stress in soil (Δεz = mvΔσ'z= -mvΔu)

1-D compression (in oedometer)

• Apply Δσz at t=0, excess pore pressure (Δu) = Δσz

• Effective stress in the sample at this stage is unchanged Δσ′z = Δσz - Δu =0
• Δu reduces to zero at the drainage boundaries (top and bottom) -as the drainage path
is infinitely small at these locations
• Δu = f (z, t) is referred to as the excess pore pressure isochrone
• Δu reduces with time (Δu at t=t3 is less than u at t=t2 etc); t3 > t2 > t1 > t = 0
• Full consolidation under application of Δσz is achiveved when Δu=0. At this stage the
effective stress in the sample has increased by Δσ′z = Δσz - Δu = Δσz

Page 100
Average Degree of Vertical Consolidation (Uv)
Rather than use the finite difference solution (see Section 7.2), an approximate estimate of the
degree of consolidation can be obtained from charts which allow the average degree of
vertical consolidation (Uv) to be read off. Uv depends on the initial excess pore pressure
isochrone (which is constant for case of an oedometer test where Δσz is constant).

Initial Excess Pore Pressure Isochrones

Lecture to provide examples of how Uv may be calculated and used for different situations.

Page 101
 Finite Difference Solution to 1-D consolidation
equation
Finite difference soln. to consolidation equation; Note u in this equation is the excess pore
pressure

∂u ∂2 u
1-D Eqn. = cv ∙
∂t ∂z2

Divide into (m + 1) equally spaced nodes (Δz)

u(i, j) = excess pore pressure at node i at time j

If soln. is required at time tF, apply eqn. from initial condition

in ‘n’ equal time increments (Δt) such that tF = nΔt

∂u u(i, j + 1) − u(i, j)
=
∂t ∆t

∂u u(i + 1, j) − u(i, j)
=
∂z ∆z

∂2 u u(i + 1, j) − u(i, j) u(i, j) − u(i − 1, j)

= −
∂z 2 ∆z 2 ∆𝑧𝑧 2
1
= [u(i − 1, j) − 2u(i, j) + u(i + 1, j)]
∆z 2
Apply to diff. eqn. β

c ∆t
→ u(i, j + 1) = u(i, j) + (∆z)
v
2
[u(i − 1, j) + u(i + 1, j) − 2u(i, j)]

1 1
Require β > for convergence, and preferably β <
2 5

∂u
Note: At impermeable boundary, = 0.
∂z

→ u(i – 1, j) = u(i + 1, j) and

u(i, j+1) = u(i, j) + β[2u(i – 1,j) – 2u(i, j)]

Page 102
EXAMPLE 7.1: Find excess pore pressure after 6 months if cv = 10 m2/year
If cv = 10 m2/year

cv ∆t 10∆t
β= = = 2.5∆t
∆z2 22
1
make Δt = = 1 month
12

→ β = 0.2083 < 0.50 OK

1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months

i j=0 j=1 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=5 j=6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 90 65 50.4 41.0 34.5 27.8 26.2
2 60 60 55.7 50.8 46.4 42.6 39.5
3 30 34.2 37.5 39.4 40.2 40.4 40.2
4 20 24.2 28.3 32.1 35.1 37.3 38.6

e.g.:
u(1,1) = u(1,0) + 0.2083[u(0,0) + u(2,0) – 2u(1,0)]
= 90 + 0.2083[0 + 60 – 2 x 90] = 65 kPa

u(2,1) = 60 + 0.2083[90 + 30 – 2 x 60] = 60 kPa

u(3,1) = 30 + 0.2083[60 + 20 – 2 x 30] = 34.2 kPa

u(4,1) = u(4,0) + 0.2083[2u(3,0) – 2u(4,0)]

= 20 + 0.2083[2 x 30 – 2 x 20] = 24.2 kPa

u(1,2) = u(1,1) + 0.2083[u(0,1) + u(2,1) – 2u(1,1)]

= 65 + 0.2083[0 + 60 – 2 x 65] = 50.4 kPa

Page 103
 Pre-loading/surcharging

• Apply load and allow consolidation

• Consolidation causes increase in σ′v

Reduction in excess pore pressure=increase on effective stress (Δσ′v = -Δu)

• If σ'v is increased above σ'vy →soil will adopt the new σ'vy

• Remove load. The σ′v values in the soil reduce back to their original values
very quickly (as the coefficient of consolidation for unloading is high)

• Settlement due to subsequent applied load will be (much) lower if σ′vy has been
increased by pre-loading.

An increase in σ′vy also leads to an increase in undrained strength as:

su/σ'v =0.25 OCR0.8 (for typical clays)

su = 0.25 σ'v (σ'vy/σ'v)0.8 ; su = 0.25 σ'v0.2 σ'vy0.8

=> su varies approximately with σ'vy

Page 104
EXAMPLE 7.2
A surcharge of 80 kPa is applied at the surface of a 6m thick clay layer for 0.6 years. The
surcharge is then removed and a 2m high embankment with γs = 18 kN/m3 is constructed.
Determine the consolidation settlement of the embankment and compare this settlement with
what may be expected when no surcharge is employed.
The clay layer, which is underlain by impermeable rock, has the following initial properties.
The water table level is at the top surface of the clay.
γs = 16 kN/m3, OCR = 1, cv = 5 m2/year, Cc = 0.4, Cs = 0.05, eo = 1.7
FD soln, select β = cvΔt/Δz2 = 5×0.2/22 = 0.25 for Δt=0.2yr Δz=2m.

Node t=0 t = 0.2yrs t = 0.4yrs t = 0.6yrs Excess u

dissipated, ud

0 80→0 0 0 0 80

1 80 60 50 44 80-44=36

2 80 80 75 70 (80-70)=10

3 80 80 80 77.5 (80-77.5)=2.5

Prior to surcharge After removal of surcharge Embankment constr.

Node σ'vi σ'vy σ'vi σ'vy σ'vi σ'vf

(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)

γ'z = σ'vi (as Returns to initial =σ'vi+ud σ'vi+2×18

OCR=1) value (quickly)

0 0 0 0 80 ≈1 36

1 12 12 12 48 12 48

2 24 24 24 34 24 60

3 36 36 36 38.5 36 72

Page 105
Vertical strains (εz) due to embankment after surcharging for t = 0.6yrs

Node εz Hi (mm) Si (mm)

0 [Cs/(1+eo)] log(36/1) = 0.0288 1000 29

1 [Cs/(1+eo)] log(48/12) = 0.013 2000 25

2 [Cs/(1+eo)] log(34/24) + [Cc/(1+eo)] log(60/34) = 0.0039 2000 8

3 [Cs/(1+eo)] log(38.5/36) + [Cc/(1+eo)] log(72/38.5) = 1000 41

0.0039

Total 103 mm

Vertical strains (εz) due to embankment with no surcharging

Node εz Hi (mm) Si (mm)

0 [Cc/(1+eo)] log(36/1) = 0.23 1000 230

1 [Cc/(1+eo)] log(38/12) = 0.074 2000 148

2 [Cc/(1+eo)] log(60/24) = 0.059 2000 118

3 [Cc/(1+eo)] log(72/36) = 0.044 1000 44

Total 540mm

Page 106
 Vertical Drains (to speed up consolidation)
Designers use an approach based on ‘average degrees of consolifdation’:

(1 – U) = (1 – Uv)(1 – Ur)
where:
• U is the average degree of consolidation
• Uv is the average degree of consolidation due to vertical drainage
• Ur is the average degree of consolidation due to radial drainage

Solutions for:

𝑡𝑡
𝑈𝑈𝑣𝑣 = 𝑓𝑓(𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 ) 𝑇𝑇𝑣𝑣 = 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣
𝑑𝑑 2

𝑡𝑡
𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟 = 𝑓𝑓(𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟 ) 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟 = 𝑐𝑐ℎ
4𝑅𝑅 2
where:
• Tv is the time factor due to vertical drainage only
• Tr is the time factor due to radial drainage only
• Uv determined from vertical consolidation (shown previously)
• Ur determined from Barron’s solution
• (Ur – Tr plot for given value of n)

R
n=
rd
where:
• R is the radius of the soil block
• rd is the radius of the vertical drain

Tr depends on the spacing of the drains, and hence R

Smaller values of R lead to low values of Tr and hence higher Ur

Wick Drains (also called Band Drains) Wick drain

Page 107
Differential Equation

Page 108
EXAMPLE 7.3: Design vertical drainage scheme (using 100mm x 4mm band drains) to allow
95% consolidation within a 10m thick clay layer with cv = 2 m2/year and ch = 4 m2/year.

Cross-section
of band drain

Perimeter = 208 mm = 2π(rd) equivalent

→ rd = 33mm

n = R�rd

cv t 2×1
For t = 1 year Tv = H2
= 52
= 0.08 → Uv = 0.32 (from chart)

c t 4×1 918 30.3

TR = 4Rh 2 = 4×0.0332×n2 = n2
;n =
�TR

Require U = 0.95, ∴ (1 − 0.95) = (1 − 𝑈𝑈𝑣𝑣 )(1 − 𝑈𝑈𝑟𝑟 )

0.05�
(1 − 0.35) = 1 − Ur → Ur = 0.93

If n = 10, Tr (from chart) = 0.5 n = 30.3⁄�Tr → n = 42.8

If n = 20, Tr (from chart) = 0.72 n = 30.3⁄�Tr → n = 35.7
If n = 50, Tr (from chart) = 1.1 n = 30.3⁄�Tr → n = 28.9

n = 30 → R = 30 × 0.033 = 0.99m
0.99
→ s = 0.56 = 1.75m
for square grid

Page 109
 Ground improvement

Ground Improvement -why? What can be done ?

Ground ‘as is’ not adequate for the proposed project: • Remove the inadequate soil, and replace with ‘better’ soil -occasionally the
– too soft / weak to support a particular structure best option (e.g. shallow peat layers)
– too compressible • Transfer foundation loads down through the inadequate layer to stronger
• too much settlement (differential settlement) leading to damage layer underneath, using piles or similar
and/or too much long-term settlement (on-going damage) • Improve the soil – if the soil is:
– too loose (sandy/silty soil) – too loose (sand) – densify it (dynamic compaction, vibroflotation)
• if unsaturated, susceptible to densification under dynamic loading – too permeable – inject something into the soil pores to reduce the
(settlement) permeability
• if saturated, susceptible to liquefaction under dynamic loading – too compressible – preload the site, to reduce the settlement that will be
(complete loss of strength) experienced by the structure
• too much settlement under static loading – too soft:
– too permeable • mix something with the soil to make it stronger (cement, lime)
• too much water loss under dam if dam founded on the site • reinforce the soil – add structural elements to strengthen it (stone
• too much movement of pollutants (from polluted area, from waste columns, micropiles)
disposal area) • Shallow soil deposits can be improved by surface compaction (to increase
• too much flow through fractured rock (e.g at base of dam) density).

Methods for Soil Improvement Improvement of Sand Sites

• Vibroflotation
Ground Ground Ground – in situ densification
Reinforcement Improvement Treatment
– soil surface level reduces (indicating overall densification
• Piles • Deep Dynamic achieved)
• Soil Cement
• Soil Nails Compaction
• Stone/lime columns
• Lime Admixtures • Vibro-replacement
• Drainage/Surcharge • Flyash
• Jet Grouting • Electrokinetics • Dewatering
– same process as vibroflotation, but additional material
• Ground Anchors • Compaction grouting introduced
• Heating/Freezing
• Geosynthetics • Blasting
• Biotechnical – crushed rock – “stone columns”
• Surface Compaction
– clean sand – where the in situ sand is not clean enough (too
silty)
• Dynamic compaction
– repeatedly drop large weight on the surface

The ‘Vibroflot’ (the vibrating probe)

From Hayward Baker – Keller Brochure (download from web site)

Page 110
 Vibroflotation Procedures
Vibroflotation

In Stage 3, operator monitors

• Vibroflotation is a technique for power consumption – indicates
in situ densification of thick resistance (i.e. good indicator of
layers of loose granular soil densification achieved)
deposits. It was developed in
Germany in the 1930s
• Has been used extensively in
Perth (Kwinana industrial area,
for example)
Stage1: The jet at the bottom of the Vibroflot is turned on and lowered into the ground. Vibration
sometimes required to penetrate hard layers.
Stage2: The water jet creates a quick condition in the soil. It allows the vibrating unit to sink into the
ground
Stage 3: Granular material is poured from the top of the hole. The water from the lower jet is transferred
to the jet at the top of the vibrating unit. This water carries the granular material down the hole
Stage 4: The vibrating unit is gradually raised in about 0.3-m lifts and held vibrating for about 30 seconds
at each lift. This process compacts the soil to the desired unit weight.
From Das, 1998

Stone Columns – Settlement Reduction in

Vibro-Replacement (‘Stone Columns’)
Soft Clay

Ac/A: ratio of total area occupied by

stone columns
φ′c: friction angle of the stone

Quality Control – CPT ‘before’ & ‘after’ Stone Columns as Slope Reinforcement

Soft clay

• Shearing resistance increased:

– shear resistance in stone column greater than in soft clay
– drained loading of stone columns – strength due to overburden pressure
– stone columns speed up consolidation of clay - see sand/wick drains (later)
BEWARE: In some cases, CPT qc result after • clay now stronger at any particular time
• keep track of volume of replacement densification can be lower than beforehand. • Can put under toe only (to prevent failure) or under whole embankment (to reduce
material (stone, imported sand) May have to wait months to see full
improvement (pore pressures, ‘set up’). settlement, and speed up settlement)
• if no imported material, careful
measurement of surface level before & after

Page 111
 Dynamic Compaction

• Dynamic compaction was first used

in Germany in the mid-1930’s.
• The depth of influence D, in meters,
of soil undergoing compaction is
conservatively given by:
D ≈ ½ (Wh)1/2
W = mass of falling weight in metric
tons
h = drop height in meters
• 10 t, 10 m: D = 5 m
• 20 t, 20 m: D = 10 m Hong Kong Airport
After 1st pass, level ground surface, and repeat
May require 2-3 passes to achieve full effect

Dynamic Compaction Lime / Cement Columns

Deep Soil Mixing Grouting

Grouting involves injecting some cementing agent into the soil

– to reduce permeability, grout is injected into the pore space

• must be able to get grout to flow into the soil
• may not be able to inject particulate (cement) grouts (too much
resistance to flow)
• may have to use chemical grouts (non-particulate) – some of the
best ones are toxic!
– in fractured or jointed rock, grout injected into the fractures / joints to
seal them
• a very important stage of dam construction (see later)
– to increase strength or stiffness (e.g. grouting into soil or fractured rock
surrounding a tunnel or mine shaft)
– ‘compensation grouting’ – to jack up a footing undergoing settlement
• used in the construction of the Perth rail tunnel

Page 112
Wick Drains (also called Band Drains) Wick drain

Page 113
 Settlement of Shallow Foundations
Settlement prediction formulae

1. Crude estimate
qB�1−v2 �
s= E
∙ Is Is = f�L�B , flexibility etc. �

E = Average value of E over depth of influence (ZI)

Is = π⁄4 for rigid pad footing ZI (m) = [B(m)]0.75

2. Standard (elastic) approach

∆σz −v�∆σx +∆σy �

s = ∑ εz dz εz =
E

Simplification for long term settlement:

Assume v = 0.0
Derive Δσz from Fadum’s chart.

Approximate empirical correlations for E have been derived by comparing the settlement
predicted using these equations with measured settlement data. These correlations are only
applicable to foundations with an adequate factor of safety against collapse.

Using SPT N data: E' (kPa) = 2000 N (in sand)

E' (kPa) = 1000 N (in clay

For clays, using su assessed from triaxial and/or in-situ tests:

E' = 300 su

For sand, using CPT end resistance, qc:

E' = 2 qc

Using oedometer data: E' = 1/mv

Page 114
EXAMPLE 8.1: Simple estimate of the settlement of a 3m square pad footing under a
bearing pressure of 100 kPa

SPT N

Footing
level S.I. indicated the soil was Clay
Footing founded at 0.5m depth
Design N= 10 +3 z(m), where z is the depth below
footing level

Depth of influence
Design zI = [B(m)]0.75
line

Depth of influence = 30.75 = 2.28 m

E' (kPa) ==1000 N = 1000× (10+3×2.28/2) = 13400 kPa

Settlement = (π/4) q B (1-ν2)/E' where ν=0.2

Settlement (mm) =1000×(π/4) ×100 ×3 ×(1-0.22)/13400

= 6mm

Page 115
Influence Factors for Vertical Displacement under Flexible Area Carrying
Uniform Pressure

Is
Shape of area Centre Corner Average
Square 1.12 0.56 0.95
Rectangle L/B = 2 1.52 0.76 1.30
Rectangle L/B = 5 2.10 1.05 1.83
Circle 1.00 0.64 0.85

Stresses in an elastic medium (Boussinesq equations)

3qz 3
vertical stress, σz = � � 5
∙ dydx
x y 2πR

𝜎𝜎𝑥𝑥 + 𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦 + 𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧 (1 + 𝑣𝑣)𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞

mean stress, =� � 3
∙ dydx
3 x y 3πR

Page 116
Fadum Chart
For determining vertical stresses beneath the corner of a flexible footing

Page 117
EXAMPLE 8.2: A 2m × 2m pad footing is founded at a depth of 0.5m on a 4.5m thick
deposit of Perth sand (with a constant CPT qc of 12.5 MPa) overlying relatively rigid
calcarenite. Estimate the settlement at the centre and mid-side of the footing, assuming it to
be flexible and compare the predictions with the settlement for a rigid footing on an elastic
medium. Assume E'=2qc for the sand and that Poissons ratio is zero.

1200 kN

1m
1m
2m

Rigid layer

For the flexible case, subdivide the Perth sand into 3 sub-layers as shown and use Fadum’s
chart (shown overleaf) to calculate stresses at the centre of each of these sub-layers.

Page 118
Page 119
Site Investigation
Desk study
• Site visit

Observe: - site contours (craters, slopes etc)

- natural drainage (ditches, springs etc)
- presence of services (manholes etc)
- log details in cuttings etc
- vegetation (reeds etc)
- adjoining land/property

Require photos

• Ascertain previous and present use

- consult neighbours, local authority

• Obtain available soils data

- local authorities/contractors
- adjoining property owners
- local knowledge
- geological memoirs
- foundations used in area
- problems with subsidence, water, methane etc

• Obtain plans for utilities

• Assess if chemical problem is likely

• Conduct small scale test pit investigation

Page 120
 Test Pit (Trial Pit) Investigation
• Shallow investigation but detailed inspection allowed.

• Shoring required at depths > 1.2m.

• Examine, describe + obtain bag samples of the material excavated.

• Note when water was first encountered.

• Inspection: - First de-water + shore excavation

- Assess strength of clays + degree of compactness of sands + gravels.

- Produce log of each face + note in particular the presence of sand lenses
within clay strata + soft clay pockets/lenses in sandy strata.

- Take bag samples (>5kg) and/or jar samples (<1kg) of all soil strata (1
sample per 1m depth minimum)

- Take jar sample of water in pit.

- May also obtain push U38 samples in clay for strength testing in
laboratory.

- In-situ tests possible include pocket penetrometer or vane test in clays

and mac probe in sands in clays.

- May also install standpipe before backfilling.

• Label all samples (for bag samples – use 2 sealable polythene bags) and send to
laboratory for dtailed description and testing.

• Road contracts: typically 1 trial pit every 50m (depth dictated by particular contract)

• Building: often use trial pitting prior to borehold investigation. Hand dug pits used to
examine existing foundations.

Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
 Borehole Investigation
Sampling & Lab Testing of Clays and Silts
Site Characterisation Methods
• Drilling & Sampling
•
•
Soil Borings
Rock Coring
φ’
• In Situ Tests
• Standard Penetration (SPT)
• Cone Penetration (CPT + CPTu)
• Flat Plate Dilatometer (DMT)
• Pressuremeter (PMT)
• Vane Shear (VST)
High-Quality Sampling
• Geophysical Methods OCR
• Mechanical Waves (P-, S-, R-waves)
• Electromagnetic (radar, resistivity, dielectric)

Cable percussion drilling

Cable percussion drilling Sampling Options

Shell
Shelby
sampler

SPT
sampler
U100 Thin wall
sampler piston
sampler

Page 124
Standard Legends

Typical log from

Cable Percussive Rig

U=‘Undisturbed’ sample
D=Disturbed sample (<0.2kg)
B=Bulk sample (>1 kg)

Rotary Coring Rotary Coring

Diamond/Tungsten Carbide
impreganated bit cuts ‘annulus’
allowing the core to enter the core
barrel
Drilling fluid passes through holes in
the drill bit to wash the ‘rock
powder’ back to the surface while
keeping the drill bit cool

Core boxes Rock Indices

Page 125
Cable percussion drilling

Page 126
 Rotary Coring

Diamond/Tungsten Carbide
impreganated bit cuts ‘annulus’
allowing the core to enter the core
barrel
Drilling fluid passes through holes in
the drill bit to wash the ‘rock
powder’ back to the surface while
keeping the drill bit cool

Page 127
 Typical log from
Cable Percussive Rig

U=‘Undisturbed’ sample
D=Disturbed sample (<0.2kg)
B=Bulk sample (>1 kg)

Cable-Percu

Rotary corin

Cr = core recovery
r=RQD=Rock qualit

Page 128
.
Page 129
Page 130
In-situ Testing

In Situ Testing Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

SPT hammer

63.5 kg mass

Count number of blows

to drive sampler from
760 mm
penetration of 150 to
450 mm

Corrections are normally applied to

the SPT blow count to account for
differences in:
• energy imparted during the test
• the stress level at the test depth

SPT (unchanged since 1902 !) SPT split spoon

Measured N-value (blows/foot)

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

35.7 mm diameter = 1000 mm2 area

pushed in at 20 mm/s

Page 131
 CPT setup Cones: Pore Pressure and Resistivity Measurement
Pore pressure transducer on
face of cone

Resistivity module

CPT Results Piezocone Test (CPTU)

5
Depth (m)

10

15

20

25

30

CPT/CPTU Interpretation - Soil Type

Revised soil classification chart
𝑛
𝑞𝑞t − 𝜎𝜎v0 𝑝ref
𝑄tn =
𝑝ref 𝜎𝜎′v0
𝑓𝑓s
𝐹r =
𝑞𝑞t − 𝜎𝜎v0

𝑛 = 𝑓𝑓𝑛. 𝑄tn , 𝐹r

Robertson (1990); Robertson (2009)

Page 132
 Soil Stiffness Seismic Cone Penetration Test
τ
Gmax Measure travel time, and hence shear wave velocity Vs
τmax
Oscilloscope
Typical shear behaviour Trigger
0.5τmax
Static Load Shear wave induces
G50
very low strain
Sledge hammer

γ => Go = ρ Vs2

3000
Retaining Shear 1m
Geophones
Typical strain ranges 2000
walls
waves
Eu/s Foundations
u
1000

"1-point" "2-point"
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
cone cone
Axial strain (%)

Beam and Hammer Shear Wave Source Pressuremeter Test

Basic principle “Self-boring”

pressuremeter for soil

Stiffness
Strength
cv
Horizontal stress?

Plate Load Test Plate Load Test (PLT)

Plate typically
0.3 to 0.5 m diameter

Typical foundation

PLT requires careful (often

numerical) interpretation.

Page 133
 Dilatometer Test (DMT) Dilatometer

Flexible stainless steel membrane:

expand with gas - measure pressure for movement = 1 mm

Vane Shear Test: Direct Measure of su of clays Borehole Permeability Tests

Half-turn slip
coupling
(allows rod
friction to be
measured
before
engaging vane)

Torque wrench
large vane for soft clays; small vane for stiff clays;

Pump Testing
Pumping from Observation wells
production well

Original water table S1 S2

Groundwater surface
while pumping

r1
r2

Page 134
 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
SPT hammer

63.5 kg mass

Count number of blows

to drive sampler from
760 mm
penetration of 150 to
450 mm

Corrections are normally applied to

the SPT blow count to account for
differences in:
• energy imparted during the test
• the stress level at the test depth

Standard Penetration test (SPT)

Advantages
• Many existing correlations
• Most contractors are capable of SPT testing
• Obtain sample (when using the spoon) of material that is
tested
• Relatively cheap
• Robust
• Suitable for most soils
Disadvantages
• Ground at base of borehole is disturbed by drilling process
• Prone to errors by drillers (e.g. water head, depth
measurement errors)
• Device imposes very complex strain paths to the soil and no
theory at present is capable of predicting what are the most
influential factors affecting the N value

Page 135
 Piezocone Penetration test (CPTU)
Advantages
• Many existing correlations
• Measurements allow soil classification but calibration boreholes preferred
• qc values etc. are computer logged and not drilling or driller dependent
• Capable of picking up the presence of thin sand/clay lenses.
• Measurements may be related theoretically (at least qualitatively) with
soil parameters such as OCR and Dr
• Allows in-situ determinations of the (reloading) horizontal coefficient of
consolidation
• Relatively cheap and very quick
Disadvantages
• Need to provide reaction for insertion of cone (typically ~5t)
• Not ideally suited to stoney ground
• De-saturation of the pore pressure sensor in dilatant clays
• Upkeep of instruments (+ their calibration): time consuming/expensive

CPTs combined with laboratory testing

In-situ tests such as the CPT provide continuous profiles and are relatively
cheap.

When CPTs are possible, borehole sampling is conducted to:

• (i) Collect samples for classification tests to verify the nature of the various
soil types encountered using the CPT
• (ii) Develop site specific calibration factors in clays and silts that relate soil
sample strength with in-situ qt values.
• (iii) Assess the permeability and coefficient of consolidation of the in-situ
clays/silts so that the CPT data may be interpreted with confidence.
• (iv) Determine effective stress strengths and non-linear stiffness properties
of clays/silts and of reconstituted coarse grained soils.

This combination of lab testing with CPTs is very desirable and often the most
cost-effective type of investigation.

Page 136