New Design Procedure for Stability of Soft Clay1

Ladd, C.C., and Foott, R., 1974, New Design Procedure for Stability of Soft Clay, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceeding of ASCE, Vol. 100. No. GT7, July 1974, pp. 763-786.
1

The limit equilibrium method is usually used for stability analysis that assume = 0 and c = su. At that time, the design presumed that the su is a function of water content so that the determination for shear strength of soil can be obtained from performing any shear test at insitu water content. For design and stability analysis, the su values would vary with difference test type and conditions. Using those values, the design often result an highly over-conservative or unsafe as presented in Table 3 in the paper. Combination of the design or analysis using field and laboratory test is also not sufficient to give an adequate design. The method described in the paper, NSP (Normalized Soil Parameter) and SHANSEP (Stress History and Normalized Sol Engineering Properties) method, basically proposes a model to compensate those inaccuracy for design. The former method is then developed to more reliable technique and suffers for practical design. Principle of SHANSEP Method The method involves the concepts of NSP and stress history of clay. In the normalization behavior, the sample was reconsolidated to its virgin compressive line (VCL) under the insitu stress (Figure 1) and gives a known OCR values. The stress history is represented as OCR that evaluating from 'vm and 'vo that obtained from good lithology data. It should be noted that the method is highly dependent on the how well the knowledge and stress history and 'vm are obtained. The basic step of SHANSEP method can be derived as follows: 1. Evaluating stress history (OCR) of the clay deposit by evaluating the 'vm and 'vo. 2. Selecting the proper test type to evaluate the NSP, and whether NSP can be applied or not. Note: the NSP is obtained by means before test, the sample is reconsolidated (anisotropic consolidation) back to VCL and then the stress is reduced to give a known OCR. The confining pressure of 1.5~2'vm is satisfied. 3. Applying the NSP values to the soil profiles. MIT procedure notes that to obtain su/vc vs. OCR, the minimum value of vc is applied for giving normalized behavior. Obtaining a reliable su value from laboratory test needs a good knowledge of the potential factors influences e.g. sample disturbance effect,

strength and soil isotropy, and strain rate during test. Brief Discussion on SHANSEP Method The SHANSEP method is noteworthy technique to evaluate the su and factor of safety of foundation that consider NSP and stress system. This method could present more and more data for different effective overburden stress and OCR. So, it is most practical to check the parameter of a new soil. However, the method would not work well if the well-stress history data can not be obtained and the random clay deposits were found. According to data presented in the paper, Fig. 7 to 9, choose of the laboratory tests type is need a good understanding of isotropic of strength. Comparison the SHANSEP with field vane (FV) test result, the most common test type for soft clay, for sensitive marine clay, su from the SHANSEP method (derived from direct shear test) is in good agreement with FV (Figure 7) but giving a lower than FV for organic clay (Figure 9). The same as organic clay, the su from SHANSEP (derived from plane strain test) show lower values estimation compare to FV. So, for stability analysis, it indicated that the su from FV is overestimate and a correction factor of 0.50.05 is satisfied to apply. Overall of the stability analysis, as presented in Table 3, stability analysis by using the SHANSEP method give a factor of safety more reliable (1.01~1.5) compared to others (FV: 0.88~2.06). So far, the paper remains dubious senses regarding the procedure of consolidating specimens. 1. Refer e vs. log curve (Fig. 6, in the paper), reconsolidation procedure would not overcome the disturbance problem as stated in lecture note that consolidation erases the disturbance effect. The samples will be always below the insitu curve. 2. Reconsolidation, possible, will ruin other important aspect e.g. degradation of strain peak, pre-failure stress.